FOR FURTHER READING

IØilliam Dudley, ed.., The Enuironment (History of Issues).

Farrirington Hills, MI: Greenhaven, 2006.

Stephen R.Fox, The American Conseruation Mouement: John Muirand His Legaqt. Madison: University of 'W'isconsin

Press,

1985.

Samuel P. Hays, Consentation and the GoEel of Eficienqt: The

Progresiue Conseruation Mouement, 1890-1920. New York:Atheneum, 1969.

Char Miller, Gffird Pinchot and the Mdking of Modern Enuiron-mentalism. !üashington, DC: Island Press/Shearwater Books,

200 1.

Robert W. Righter, Tbe Banle ouer Hetch Hetchy: Arnerica's MoaControuersial Dam and the Birth of Modern Enuironmettølism.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Viervpoint 121.The Federal Gouernment Should Regulaæ Trusts:

Rooseueh's New Nationalisrn (1 9 I 0)Theodore Roosevelt (1 858-19 19)

INTRoDUCTI oN Theodore Rooseueh serted as presidnt ofthe United States þr seuen-and-ø-half years þlloøingtbe assa¡sination of William McKinley in 1901. Und¿r

the slogan of giuingAmnicans tlte'îquare deal," he

instituted seuerøl Progressiue reþrms, including federalreguhtion of the railroad., þod, and drug industries,

fednal "tust busting" kwsuits against krge and mo'

nopolistic corpordüonß, and expansion ofthe national

parhs system. Rooseueh remained. actiue in politics afier

leauing ffice in 1909. Disappointed in the relatiueþ

conseruatiae Policies of hìs handpicÞed successor as

president, William Howard Taf, Rooseueh became a

leading ad.uocate for greater fedzral gouernment inter'

uention in tlte economic and soci¿l dzuelnpment of the

United States.

In a famous speech to Ciail lYar ueterdns at Osawa-

tomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910, Rooset'eb spelled

out his political philosophy, which he called the "Neu

Nationalism." Rooseueh called for the establishment ofgouemment commissions to control (rather than breaÞ

up) the large corporations and business trusts (monop-

olies) that uere pliling a growing role in American

life. The speech, excerpted here, became the springboard

for Rooseuelt's political comebacþ, wbich uhimateþ

split the Republican Party. Tafi and Rooseueh both ran

for president in l9t2 (Rooseueh as candidate oftheProgressiue or "Bull Moose" Party), onþ to fnish be-

hind the Demoratic candid¿te, Woodrow tYilson.

'Vhat does Rooseuelt argue to be the proper function of

gouernment? What parts of the speech do \ou belieue

would be considered most objectionable to conserua-

tiaes? Which elements dffir most /ìom the uiews ofWoodrow Wilson as expressed in the opposing

Progressìve Erø Reforms and Issues

uiewpoint? How would you conciseþ dtf.ne the NewNationalism?

In every wise struggle for human betterment one ofthe main objects, and often the only object, has been to

achieve in large measure equaliry of opportunity. In the

struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism

to civilization, and through it people press forwardfrom one stage of enlightenment to the next. One ofthe chief factors in progress is the destruction of special

privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberry

has always been, and must always be, to take fromsome one man or class of men the right to enjoypower, or wealth, or position, or immunity, which has

not been earned by service to his or their fellows. Thatis what you fought for in the Civil \Øar, and that is

what we strive for now, . . .

Practical equality of opportunity for all citizens,

when we achieve it, will have two great results. First,every man will have a fair chance to make of himself all

that in him lies; to reach the highest point to which his

capacities, unassisted by special privilege of his own and

unhampered by the special privilege of others, can caÍry

him, and to get for himself and his family substantiallywhat he has earned. Second, equality of opportunitymeans thât the commonwealth will get from every citizen

the highest service of which he is capable. No man who

carries the burden of the special privileges of anothercan give to the commonwealth that service to which itis fairly entitled.

THE SQUARE DEAL

I stand for the square deal. But when I say that I am forthe square deal, I mean not merely that I stand for fairplay under the present rules of the game, but that Istand for having those rules change so as to work for a

more substantial equaliry of opportuniry and of reward

for equally good service....

Now, this means that our government, National and

State, must be f¡eed from the sinister influence or controlof special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cot-

ton and slavery threatened our polidcal integriry before

the Civil \Øar, so now the great special business interests

too often control and corrupt the men and methods ofgovernment for their own profìt. 'W'e must drive the spe-

cial interests out of politics. That is one of our tasks to-day. Every special interest is entitled to justice-full,fair, and complete-and, now, mind you, if there were

any âttempt by mob-violence to plgnder and workharm to the special interest, whatever it may be, that Imost dislike, and the wealthy man, whomsoever he may

be, for whom I have the greatest contempt, I would

Excerpred fronr Theodore Roosevelr's campaign spcech at Osawaromie, Kansas,

August 31, 19l0

VOL.2: FROM RECONSTRUCTION TO THE PRESENT 6t

Part 2: The Progressíoe Erø (1895-1920)

fight for him, and you would if you were worrh your sak.He should have justice. For every special interesr is enti-tled to justice, but not one is endtled to a vote in Con-gress, to a voice on the bench, or to represenrarion inany public office. The Constitution guâranrees protecrionto property, and we must make that promise good. But itdoes not give the right of suffrage to any corporârion.

The r¡ue friend of property, the true conservarive, ishe who insists that property shall be rhe servanr and notthe master of the commonwealth; who insists that thecreature of man's making shall be the servant and notthe maste¡ of the man who made it. The citizens of theUnited States must effectively control the mighry com-mercial forces which they have themselves called intobeing. There can be no effective control of corporationswhile their political acdviry remains. To put an end to irwill be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.

'S7'e must have complete and effective publicity ofcorporate affairs, so thet the people may know beyondperadventure whether the corporations obey the lawand whether their management entitles them ro the con-fidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be

passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly orindirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary

that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporareexpenditures for political purposes, and especially suchexpenditures by public service corporarions, have suppliedone ofthe principal sources ofcorruption in our politicalaffairs.

GOVERNMENT SUPERVISIONOF TRUSTS

It has become entirely clear that we musr have govern-ment supervision of tle capitalization, not only of public-service corporations, including, perticularly, railways,but of all corporations doing an interstare business. I donot wish to see the nation forced into the ownership ofthe railways if it can possibly be avoided, and the onlyalternative is thoroughgoing and effective regulation,which shall be based on a full knowledge of all thefacts, including a physical valuation of properry. Thisphysical valuation is not needed, or, at least, is very rarelyneeded, for fixing rates; but it is needed as the basis ofhonest capitalization.

The ffirt at prohibiting all cornbinationhas substantialb fdi led.

\Øe have come to recognize that franchises shouldnever be granted except for a limited time, and neverwittrout proper provision for compensation to the public.

It is my personal belief that the same kind and degree ofcontrol and supervision which should be exercised overpublic-service corporations should be extended also tocombinations which control necessaries of life, such as

meat, oil, and coal, or which deal in them on an impor-tant scale. I have no doubt that the ordinary man who has

control of them is much like ou¡selves. I have no doubt hewould like to do well, but I want to have enough super-vision to help him realize that desire to do well.

I believe that the officers, and, especially, the direc-tors, of corporations should be held personally responsi-ble when any corporation breaks the law.

Combinations in industry are the result of an imper-ative economic law which cannor be repealed by politicallegislation. The effort at prohibiting all combination has

substantially failed. The way out lies, not in attempting toprevent such combinations, but in completely controllingthem in the interest of the public welfare. For rhat pur-pose the Federal Bureau of Corporations is an agencyof fi¡st importance. Its powers, ancl, rherefore, irs effi-cienry, as well as that of the Interstare Commerce Com-mission, should be largely increased. \Øe have a right toexpect from the Bureau of Corporations and from theInterstate Commerce Commission a very high grade ofpublic service. \Øe should be as sure of the proper con-duct of the interstate railways and the proper. manage-ment of interstate business as we are now sure of theconduct and management of the national banks, andwe should have as effective supervision in one case as intheother....

NATIONAL REGULATIONOF \øEALTH

Nothing is more true rhan rhat excess of every kind is fol-lowed by reaction; a fact which should be pondered by re-former and reactionary alike. rVe are face to face with newconceptions of the relations of property to hum¿n wel-fare, chiefly because certain advocates of the rights ofproperty as against the rights of men have been pushingtheir claims too far. The man who wrongly holds thatevery human right is secondary to his profit must nowgive way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightlymaintains that every man holds his property subject tothe general right of the communiry to regulate its use

to whatever degree tle public welfare may require it.But I think rve may go sdll further. The right to r€g-

ulate the use of wealth in the public interest is universallyadmitted. Let us admit also the right to regulate the rermsand conditions of labor, which is the chief element ofwealth, directly in the interest of the common good.The fundamental thing to do for every man is to givehim a chance to reach a place in which he will makethe greatest possible contribution to the public welfare.

62 OPPOSING VIE\øPOINTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

Understand what I say there. Give him a chance, not push

him up if he will not be pushed. Help any man who

stumbles; if he lies down, it is a poor job to try to carry

him; but if he is a worthy man, try your best to see

that he gets a chance to show the worth that is in him'No man can be a good citizen unless he has a wage

more than sufficient to cover the bare cost of living,and hours of labor short enough so that after his day's

work is done he will have time and energy to bear his

share in the management of the communiry, to help incarrying the general load. 'W'e keep countless men frombeing good citizens by the conditions of life with whichwe surround them. 'We need comprehensive workmen's

compensation acts, both State and netional laws to regu-

late child labor and work for women, and, especially we

need in ou¡ common schools not merely education inbook-learning, but also practical training for daily lifeand work. \Øe need to enforce better sanitary conditions

for our workers and to extend the use of safety appliances

for our workers in industry and commerce, both withinand between the States. Also, friends, in the interest ofthe working man himself we need to set our faces likeflint against mob-violence just as against corPorate

greed; against violence and injustice and lawlessness bywage-workers just as much as against lawless cunningand greed and selfish arrogance of employers. . ' .

NATIONAL EFFICIENCY

National efficiency has many factors. It is a necessary

result of the principle of conservation widely applied. Inthe end it will determine our failure or success as a nation'

National efficiency has to do, not only with naturalresources and with men, but it is equally concerned

with institutions. The State must be made efficient forthe work which concerns only the people of the State;

and the nation for that which concerns all the people.

There must remain no neutral ground to serve as a refuge

for lawbreakers, and especially for lawbreakers of great

wealth, who can hire the vulpine legal cunning which

will teach them how to avoid both jurisdictions' It is a

misfortune when the nâtional legislature fails to do itsduty in providing a national remedy, so that the only

national activity is the purely negative activity of the judi-

ciary in forbidding the State to exercise power in the

Pfemrses.

I do not ask for overcentralization; but I do ask that

we work in a spirit of broad and far-reaching nationalism

when we work for what concerns our people as a whole'

\Øe are all Americans. Our common interests are as broad

as the continent. I speak to you here in Kansas exactly as

I would speak in New York or Georgia, for the most vital

problems are those which affect us all alike. The National

Government belongs to the whole American people, and

Progressìoe Era Reforms ønd Issues

where the whole American people are interested, that

interest can be guarded effectively only by the NationalGovernment. The betterment which we seek must be

accomplished, I believe, mainly through the NationalGovernment.

The American people are right in demanding that

New Nationalism, wichout which we cannot hope todeal with new problems. The New Nationalism puts

the national need before sectional or personal advantage.

It is impatient of the utter confusion that results fromlocal legislatures attempting to treat national issues as

local issues. It is still more impatient of the impotence

which springs from overdivision of governmental powers,

the impotence which makes it possible for local selfishness

or for legal cunning, hired by wealthy special interests, to

bring national activities to a deadlock. This New Nation-alism regards the executive power as the steward of the

public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall

be interested primarily in human welfare rather than inproperty, just as it demands that the representetive

body shall represent all the people rather than any one

class or secdon of the people.

I believe in shaping the ends of government to Pro-tect property as well as human welfare. Normally, and

in the long run, the ends are the same; but whenever

the alternative must be faced, I am for men and not for

property, as you were in the Civil \Øar. I am far fromunderestimating the importance of dividends; but Irank dividends below human cha¡acter. Again, I do not

have any sympathy with the reformer who says he does

not care for dividends. Of course, economic welfare is

necessary, for a man must pull his own weight and be

able to support his family. I know well that the reformers

must not bring upon the people economic ruin, or the

reforms themselves will go down in the ruin. But we

must be ready to face temporary disaster, whether or

not brought on by those who will war against us to the

knife. Those who oppose all reform will do well to remember

that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life

brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few

and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid

and selfish materialism.

View¡.roini 12[lThe Federal Gouernrnent Should Oppose Trusts:

Wikon's New Freedom (1913)

\floodrow Vilson (1 856-1924)

INTRoDUCTI oN Woodrow Vilson was elected president ofthe United States in I9l2 and serued two terms. The

former acadzmic, college presidznt' and New Jersqt

goaernor beneftedfron a split in tbe Republican Party

betlreen tupportert of incambent presid¿nt Williarn

Howard Tafi and former presidznt Theodore Rooseueh,

VOL.2: FROM RECONSTRUCTION TO THE PRESENT 63

Pørt 2: Tbe Progressiue Era (1895-1920)

In his campaign speeches, IVilson, a Democtat, dffir-entiated himselffom his opponents fu emphasizing hisopposition to business trusts and monopolies. He argued

that the natiorøl gouernment should taþe action to

Preuent large business conceru fom squelthing feemarÞet competition and amassing too much politicølønd economic pouer. Wi/son\ proposak became þnou,n

as the "New Freedom" in contrast to Rooseueh's "New

Nationa lism, " w hic h emp hasized go uernmmt regu la-tions, not dismantling of krge corporu¿tions and trusts.

Wikon's speeches utere collected and edited into book

fo* by William B. Hale and published in i gii underthe title The New Freedom. The þllowing uieupointconsists of excerpts fiom that uolume.

How does lYibon d.ffirentiate between big businesses

and trusts? rilhat are the main areas of dhagreement

betueen Vilson and Theodore Rooseueh, author of the

opposing uiewpoint? Are these dffirences fundamental,in your aieu?

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men'sviews confided to me privately. Some of the biggestmen in the United States, in the field of commerce andmanufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of some-thing. They know that there is a power somewhere soorganized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so com-plete, so pervasive, that they had better nor speak abovetheir breath when they speak in condemnarion of it.

They know that America is not a place of which itcan he said, as it used to be, that a man may choose hisown calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enablehim to pursue it; because to-day, if he enters certainfields, there are organizations which will use meansagainst him that will prevent his building up a businesswhich they do not wanr ro have built up; organizationsthat will see ro ir that the ground is cut from underhim and the markets shut against him. For if he beginsto sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, themonopoly will refuse ro sell to those dealers, and thosedealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares.

NO LONGERA IÁNDOF OPPORTUNITY

And this is the country which has lifted to the admirationof the world its ideals of absolutely free opportuniry,where no man is supposed to be under any limitationexcept the limitations of his character and of his mind;where there is supposed to be no distinction of class, nodistinction of blood, no distinction of social starus, butwhere men win or lose on their merits,

I lay it very close to my o\¡/n conscience as a publicman whether we can any longer stand at our doors and

Excerpted from \ùØoodrow Vilson, Tb¿ Nru Frccdom (Nw york: Doubleday, page,and Co., 1!13).

welcome all newcome¡s upon those terms. American in-dusry is not free, as once it was free; American enterpriseis not free; the man with only a limle capital is finding itharder to get inro the field, more and more impossible tocompete with the big fellow. rVhy? Because the laws ofthis country do not prevenr the strong from crushingthe weak. That is rhe reason, and because the stronghave crushed the weak rhe strong dominate the industryand the economic life of this country. No man candeny that the lines of endeavor have more and more nar-rowed and stiffened; no man who knows anyrhing abourthe development of industry in this counrry can havefailed to observe that rhe larger kinds of credit are moreand more difficult to obtain, unless you obtain themupon the terms of uniting your effors with rhose who al-ready control the industries of the counrry; and nobodycan fail to observe that any man who tries to set himselfup in competition with any p¡ocess of ma¡rufacture whichhas been taken under the conrrol of large combinations ofcapital will presendy find himself either squeezed our orobliged to sell and allow himself to be absorbed. . . .

ARE TRUSTS INEVITABLE?

Gentlemen say, they have been saying for a long time,and, cherefore, I assume that they believe, that trusts areinevitable. They don't say rhar big business is inevitable.They don't say merely that the elaboration of businessupon a great co-opefarive scâle is characterisric of ourtime and has come about by the natural operarion ofmodern civilization. \)Øe would admit that. But they saythat the parricular kind of combinations rhar are nowcontrolling our economic development came into exis-tence naturally and were inevitable; and that, therefore,we have to accept them as unavoidable and administerour development through them. They take the analogyof the railways. The railways were clearly inevitable ifwe were to have transportation, but railways after theyare once built stay put. You can't transfer a railroad atconvenience; and you can'r shut up one part of it andwork another part. It is in the nature of what economisrs,those tedious persons, call natural monopolies; simply be-cause the whole circumstances of their use are so stiff thatyou can't alter them. Such are the analogies which thesegentlemen choose when they discuss the modern trust.

I admit the populariry of the theory rhat the trustshave come about through the natural development ofbusiness conditions in the United States, and that it is amistake to try to oppose rhe processes by which theyhave been built up, because those processes belong toche very nature of business in our time, and that thereforethe only thing we can do, and the only thing we ought toattempt to do, is ro accept them as inevitable arrange-ments and make the best out of it that we can byregulation.

64 OPPOSING VIE\øPOINTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

I answer, nevertheless, that this attitude rests uPon a

confusion of thought. Big business is no doubt to a large

extent necessary and natural. The development of busi-ness upon a great scale, upon a great scale ofcooperation,is inevitable, and, let me add, is probably desirable. Butthat is a very different mâtter from the development oftrusts, because the tnrsts have not grown' They have

been artificially created; they have been put together,

not by natural processes, but by the will, the deliberate

planning will, of men who were more powerful than

their neighbors in the business world, and who wished

to make their power secure against comPetition.

The trusts do not belong to the period of infantindustries. They are not the products of the time, thatold laborious time, when the great continent we live on

was undeveloped, the young nation struggling to find it-self and get upon its feet amidst older and more experi-

enced competitors. They belong to a very recent and

very sophisticated age, wÀen men knew what they wanted

and knew how to get it by the favor of the government.

Did you ever look into the way a trust was made? It isvery natural, in one sense, in the same sense in whichhuman greed is natural. If I haven't efficiency enough

to beat my rivals, then the thing I am inclined to do is

to get together with my rivals and say: "Don't let's cut

each other's throats; let's combine and determine prices

for ourselves; determine the output, and thereby deter-

mine the prices: and dominate and control the market."

That is very natural. That has been done ever since free-

booting was established. That has been done ever since

power was used to establish control. . ' .

I taþe m! stand. . . on the proPlsitionthat priuate monopoþ is indefensible

and intolerable.

A trust is formed in this way: a few gentlemen "pro-

mote" it-that is to say, they get it up, being given enor-

mous fees for their kindness, which fees are loaded on to

the undertaking in the form of secu¡ities of one kind or

another. The argument of the promoters is, not that

every one who comes into the combination caî cãÍry

on his business more efficiently than he did befo¡e; the

argument is: we will assign to you as your share in the

pool twice, three times, four times, o¡ five times what

you could have sold your business fo¡ to an individualcompetitor who would have to run it on an economic

and competitive basis. -SØe

can afford to buy it at such

a figure because we are shutting out competition. \Øe

can afford to make the stock of the combination half a

dozen times what it naturally would be and pay dividends

Progressiae Era Reforms and Issues

on it, because there will be nobody to dispute the prices

we shall fix.

Talk of that as sound business? Talk of that as inev-

itable? It is based upon nothing excePt power. It is not

based upon efficienry. It is no wonder that the big trusts

ate not prospering in proportion to such competitors as

they still have in such parts of their business as comPeti-

tors have access to; they are prospering freely only in those

fields to which competition has no âccess....

UNFAIR COMPETITION

I take my stand absolutely, where every progressive ought

to take his stand, on the proposition that Private monopoly

is indefensible and intolerable. A¡d there I will fight my

battle. And I know how to fight it. Everybody who has

even read the newspapers knows the means by which

these men built up their power and created these monop-

olies. Any decendy equipped lawyer can suggest to you

stâtutes by which the whole business can be stopped.tVhat these gentlemen do not want is this: they do not

want to be compelled to meet all comers on equal terms.

I am perfecdy willing that they should beat any competitor

by fair meens; but I know the foul meâns they have

adopted, and I know that they can be stopped by law. Ifthey think that coming into the market upon the basis

of mere efficienry, upon the mere basis of knowing how

to manufacture goods better than anybody else and to

sell them cheaper than anybody else, they can carry the

immense amount of water that they have put into their

enterprises in order to buy up rivals, then they are perfecdy

welcome to try it. But the¡e must be no squeezing out ofthe beginner, no crippling his credit; no discrimination

against retailers who buy from a rival; no threats against

concerns who sell supplies to a rival; no holding back ofraw material from him; no secret arrangements against

him. All the fair competition you choose, but no unfair

competition of any kind. And then when unfai¡ comPeti-

cion is eliminated, let us see these gendemen cârry their

tanks of water on thei¡ backs. All that I ask and all Ishall fight for is that they shall come into the field against

merit and brains everywhere. If they can beat other

American brains, then they have got the best brains. . . '

MONOPOLIES AND ROOSEVELT

The doctrine that monopoiy is inevitable and that the

only course open to the people of the Uni¡ed States is

to submit to ancl regulate it found a champion during

the campaign of tgtZ in the new [Progressive] parly' or

branch of the Republican parry, founded under the lead-

ership of Mr. [Theodore] Roosevelt. . . .

You know that Mr. Roosevelt long ago classified

trusts for r,rs as good and bad, and he said that he was

afraid only of the bad ones. Now he does not desire

VOL.2: FROM RECONSTRUCTION TO THE PRESENT 65

Part 2: Tlte Progressìue Era (1895-1920)

that there should be any more bad ones, but proposes thatthey should all be made good by discipline, directly ap-plied by a commission of executive appointment. AII heexplicitly complains of is lack of publicity and lack of fair-ness; not the exercise ofpower, for throughout thac plank[of the new party platform] the power of the great corpo-rations is accepted as the inevitable consequence of themodern organization of industry. All that it is proposedto do is to take them unde¡ control and regulation. Thenational administration having for sixteen years been vir-tually under the regulation of the trusrs, ir would be

merely a family matter were the parts reversed and werethe other members of the family to exercise the regula-tion. And the trusts, apparently, which might, in such cir-cumstances, comfortably continue to administer ourafilairs under the mollifying influences of the federal gov-ernment, would then, if you please, be the instrumental-ities by which all the humanistic, benevolent program ofthe rest of that interesting platform would be carried our!

The thi¡d fRoosevelt's] party says that the presentsystem of our industry and trade has come to stay.Mind you, these artificially built up things, these thingsthat can't maintain themselves in the market withoutmonopoly, have come to stây, and the only thing thatthe government can do, the only thing that the thirdpaffy proposes should be done, is to set up a commissionto regulate them. It accepts them. It says: "'Sü'e will notundertake, it were futile to undertake, to prevent monop-oly, but we will go into an ârrângement by which wewill make these monopolies kind to you. \Øe will guar-antee that they shall be pitiful. We will guaranree thâtthey shall pay the right wages. \Øe will guaranree rharthey shall do everything kind and public-spirited,which they have never heretofore shown the least inclina-tion to do."

Don't you realize that that is a blind alley? You can'rfind your way to liberry that way. You can't find your wayto social reform through the forces that have made socialreform necessary,...

!7'hen you have thought the whole thing out, there-fore, you will find that the program of the new partylegalizes monopolies and systematically subordinatesworkingmen to them and to plans made by the govern-ment both with regard to employment and with regardto wages. Take the thing as a whole, and it lools strangelylike economic mastery over the very lives and fortunes ofthose who do the daily work of the nation; and all thisunder the overwhelming power and sovereignty of thenational government. 'S(/'hat most of us are fighting foris to break up this very parrnership berween big businessand the governmenr. We ca-ll upon all intelligent men robear witness that if this plan were consummated, the greatemployers and capitalists of the counrry would be under a

more overpo\¡/ering temptation than ever to take control

of the government and keep it subservient to their

Pu¡Pose. . . .

MONOPOLIES CANNOT CHANGE

I do not trust arìy promises of a change of temper on thepart of monopoly. Monopoly never was conceived in thetemper of tolerance. Monopoly never was conceived withthe purpose of general development. It was conceivedwith the purpose of special advantage. Has monopolybeen very benevolent to its employees? Have the trustshad a soft heart fo¡ the working people of America?Have you found trusts that cared whether women weresapped of their vitality o¡ not? Have you found trustswho are very scrupulous about using children in their ten-der years? Have you found trusts that were keen to protectthe lungs and the health and the freedom of their employ-ees? Have you found trusts that thought as much of theirmen as they did of their machinery? Then who is going toconvert these men into the chief instruments of justicebenevolence?.. .

The reason that America was set up was that she

might be different from all the nations of the worldin this: that the strong could not put the weak to thewall, that the strong could not prevent the weak fromentering the race. America stands for opportunity.America stands for a free field and no favor. Americastands for a government responsive to the interests ofall. And until America recovers those ideals in practice,she will not have the right to hold her head high againamidst the nations as she used to hold it.

FOR FURTHER READING

James Chace, I9l2: Wikon, Rooseaeh, Tafi y'r Debs-The Electionthat Changed the CountrT. New Yo¡k: Simon & Schuster,2004.

John Milton Cooper, The Vatior and the Priest: Woodrow Vibonand Theodore Rooset,eh. Cambidge, MA: Belknap Press, 1983.

John A. Gable, The Bull Moose Yeørs: Theodore Rooseteh and theProgressiue Pørty. Port lVashington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1978.

Edwin Cha¡les Rozwenc, Rooseuelt, \X/ilson and the Trusts. Boston.D.C. Heath, 1953.

\ØORLD \ØAR I AND THELEAGUE, OF NATIONS

Vicrvpoint l3AAmerica Should Enter World War I (1917)

'ìl'oodrow \lilson (1 856-19 17)

INTRODUCTION tilhen the countries of Europe plungedinto war in 1914, 'Voodrow Vihon asþed. all Amni-cans to "act and speah in the nwe spirit of neutrality."\Yilson managed to maintain U.S. neutality þr the

next thirly months, and mad¿ the slogan "He hept u

66 OPPOSING VIE'\TPOINTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY