THE CABINET OF PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON IS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THE POLICY TO BE ADOPTED BY THIS COUNTRY CONCERNING THE GERMAN U-BOAT AS IT AFFECTS AMERICAN NEUTRALITY IN WORLD WAR I

I. THE DECISION CONFRONTING YOU

You have just received this memorandum from the President:

My Dear Mr. Secretary,

News has just been transmitted to this office that the FALABA, a British passenger liner allegedly suspected by the Germans of carrying war munitions in her hold, was torpedoed and sunk yesterday in the Irish Sea by a German submarine. Over one hundred people aboard perished, including an American citizen named Leon Thrasher. So far as we are able to determine at this point, Thrasher was the only American passenger aboard the ship, though inquiries to this end are still underway.

No matter. As you are doubtless aware, the Imperial German Government, on 4 February instant, issued an ultimatum declaring that a war zone had been established by that Government around the British Isles and that all vessels, belligerent and neutral alike, sailing in such zone (as the FALABA assuredly was) are subject to attack and destruction without warning by the Imperial Government's submarines as a measure of German defense against the Allied blockade now enforced by the British navy against the Continent.

Circumstances as I viewed them demanded an immediate response to this ultimatum. I accordingly ordered the Department of State to advise the Imperial German Government that this nation would hold Germany to a "strict accountability" for the loss of any American life or property resulting from attack by a German U-boat. Thrasher's death has thus brought our future course of action as relates to the European war into vitally significant question.

I hereby summon you, as well as your Cabinet colleagues, to meet with me tomorrow in special emergency session in order to secure your determination as to the full scope and implications of our stated "strict accountability" policy, a matter on which I am aware that a number of you have expressed considerable concern. The enclosed materials will, I trust, assist you in deciding:

Be assured that your assistance in this matter is most vital to me and that your decision, to be arrived at by majority vote at tomorrow's emergency Cabinet session, I shall construe and put into effect as this country's policy.

W. W.

II. BACKGROUND AND PERSPECTIVE

The outbreak of the First World War was one of the most important events in American history. Since the earliest years of the Republic a cautious foreign policy had been considered vital to national survival. But the war with Spain, although not begun for that purpose, resulted in an American overseas expansion which set the stage for U.S. foreign involvement in the new century. Ever since it had emerged as a world power in 1898, America had kept a close watch on the European powder keg; indeed, a continental war had for some time been predicted and feared. Nevertheless the manner and timing of the upheaval in August, 1914, came as a shock, and initial reactions were varied and often contradictory. But though all contemporary observers sensed the importance of the war to this nation, few grasped its significance completely. Fewer still were prepared to advocate any course of action except the maintenance of our traditional neutrality, a policy first initiated by President George Washington's Proclamation of Neutrality in 1793, declaring that this country would stand aloof from the Napoleonic Wars then raging in Europe, the better to grow and prosper while developing the uniqueness of its democratic Institutions. President Thomas Jefferson warned his countrymen against "entangling alliances" abroad and imposed an embargo in 1807 on the shipment of American goods to the warring Continent, a policy followed in modified form by his successor in the White House, James Madison. Though these endeavors proved ultimately unsuccessful in preventing American hostilities with Great Britain in 1812, the basic foundation of the new republic's foreign policy, which was to endure until the end of the nineteenth century, had been firmly established. Even the famous Monroe Doctrine, best known for its admonition to the European powers to stay out of America's hemispheric affairs, contained a reaffirmation of U.S. denial of intent to involve itself in Old World diplomacy.

The Wilson Administration's initial statements of policy on the outbreak of hostilities in August, 1914, gave full endorsement to the traditional policy of American neutrality, thus reflecting in the process an attitude that seemed to prevail generally throughout a nation which was far from convinced that its vital interests were at stake in the conflict. The President expressed his complete faith that the U.S. should play "a part of impartial mediation" in bringing about an end to the hostilities. He urged all Americans to be "neutral in fact as well as in name" in order to achieve this crucial objective designed to greatly enhance America's influence and prestige abroad. However, such a policy soon ran head on into the reality of modern warfare.

For one thing, while Wilson remained consistent in his professed intent to be neutral in fact, he also demanded those long-standing goals of American diplomacy--neutral rights to trade abroad and to the free use of the high seas. As in the Napoleonic Wars over a century before, Britain viewed its very survival in the present conflict as dependent upon keeping the sea lanes open. Seeking to maintain their complete command of the ocean, the British determined that the Allies alone, chiefly Britain and France, should receive munitions and other essential war materials from the United States. They therefore established a tight blockade of the Continent and narrowly limited the types of goods that American and other neutral ships could carry to neutral ports, from which, the British feared, they could then be sent on to Germany. The British also diverted any suspect shipping to their own ports, confiscated many cargoes, interfered with American mail in order to intercept vital military and economic information, and even forbade British subjects to do any business with American firms "blacklisted" for violating British rules of wartime trade. All such actions were contrary to the traditional principles of freedom of the seas and neutral rights which Americans had steadfastly defended—and even fought for--since the days of Washington and Jefferson. But His Majesty's Government was engaged in the prosecution of total war; the naval blockade of the Continent was aimed as much against the civilian population under the control of Germany and its Central Powers partners as against their armed forces, a concept heretofore unknown to the law of nations. In fact, the Declaration of London, drawn up by representatives of the maritime powers in 1909 and strictly forbidding the placing of food and other necessary raw materials for civilian use on the list of prohibited wartime contraband, was formally rejected by the British Parliament.

President Wilson protested against these and other British practices that infringed upon traditional neutral rights, particularly the use of the American flag by British vessels seeking to disguise their identity from the enemy. On the other hand there were no international rules against selling war materials to the Allies, and the President felt that if he refused to permit such sales he would at least indirectly be aiding the Central Powers, which were basically self-sufficient in the manufacture of their own war machine. Nor were there any rules to prevent American bankers from making loans to finance Allied purchases of such war munitions. Secretary of State William Jennings Brvan insisted that such loans violated "the true spirit of neutrality," but he was overruled in the face of the Allies' obvious desperate need for funds and Wilson's determination to preserve the stability of the domestic economy in unsettling wartime conditions. Enormous loans, arranged by private American financiers, without which Britain and France could not have continued to buy the food and munitions they had to have from American industry, were soon on their way across the Atlantic. In fact, such wartime trade with the Allies went far toward relieving a serious economic recession on the American homefront in 1914. Under this form of neutrality the United States was able to enjoy all the profits of war without having to make the corresponding sacrifices of actual participation.

The Germans, who were unable to transport supplies through the British blockade, vehemently objected to neutral America's sale of war materials to the Allies. Additionally, the German seas war fleet of surface ships was effectively bottled up in port by the blockade. In retaliation, the Imperial German Government sent out the world's newest "ultimate weapon"—the submarine—to destroy Allied shipping. And it was the German use of these so-called U-boats which ultimately subjected Wilson's stated policy of neutrality to its sternest test.

For the first six months of the war the U-boats limited their attacks to Allied warships. But on February 4, 1915, under the ever-tightening grip of the British naval blockade, Germany declared that a war zone had been established around the entire British Isles and that even neutral vessels suspected of carrying war munitions found in that zone were in grave danger of being destroyed. The dilemma for President Wilson was great. International law of the high seas contained no provision for the submarine. Under that law a cargo vessel suspected of transporting war materials was subject to visit, search, seizure, and even destruction. In the event of the latter extremity, the ship was entitled to a warning and sufficient time to transfer its passengers to safety aboard the attacking vessel. But due to its small size and the very essence of its effectiveness—underwater secrecy—the U-boat could not comply with these conditions and rules of warfare.

Within a week President Wilson replied to the German pronouncement of the extended submarine campaign. He declared that the United States would not tolerate attack upon its shipping and would hold Germany to "a strict accountability" for the "illegal" loss of American lives and/or property suffered at the hands of the U-boats.

III. ROLES

A. Name Roles:

B. Position Roles: Members of President Wilson's Cabinet

IV. SOURCES

1. WILSON'S OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF AMERICAN NEUTRALITY

"What influence the European war may exert upon the United States is entirely within our own choice. The effect of the war upon the United States will depend upon what American citizens say and do. Divisions amongst us would be fatal to our peace of mind and might seriously stand in the way of the proper performance of our duty as the one great nation at peace, the one people holding itself ready to play a part of impartial mediation and speak the counsels of peace and accommodation, not as a partisan, but as a friend. The United States must be neutral in fact as well as in name during these days that are to try men's souls. We must be impartial in thought as well as in action, must put a curb upon our sentiments as well as upon every transaction that might be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle before another. We must not sit in judgment upon others and keep ourselves free to do what is honest and disinterested and truly serviceable for the peace of the world."

2. THE OFFICIAL U.S. STATEMENT OF GERMANY'S "STRICT ACCOUNTABILITY"

"If the Imperial German Government should act upon its ultimatum and destroy on the high seas an American vessel or the lives of American citizens, the Government of the United States could not but view the act as a flagrant violation of neutral rights, if not deliberately hostile to the United States.

If such a deplorable situation should arise the Government of the United States would be constrained to hold the Imperial German Government to a strict accountability for such an unwarranted act of their naval authorities and to take any steps it might deem necessary to safeguard American lives and property and to secure to American citizens the full enjoyment of their rights on the high seas.

The Government of the United States, in view of these considerations, expresses the confident hope and expectation that the Imperial German Government can and will give assurances that American citizens and their vessels will not be molested by the naval forces of Germany other than by visit and search though the vessels may be traversing the sea area delineated in the declaration of the German Admiralty."

3. THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT'S REPLY

"It is known to the American Government how Germany's adversaries, by completely paralyzing peaceable traffic between Germany and the neutral countries, have aimed from the very beginning, and with increasing lack of consideration, at the destruction, not so much of the armed forces, as the life of the German nation, repudiating in so doing all the rules of international law and disregarding all the rights of neutrals . . . .

While our enemies . . . have proclaimed war without mercy until our utter destruction, we are conducting war in self-defense for our national existence. We have been obliged to adopt submarine warfare to meet the declared intentions of our enemies and the method of warfare adopted by them in contravention of international law. . . .

The Imperial German Government believes that . . . adequate facilities for travel across the Atlantic Ocean can be afforded American citizens. There would therefore appear to be no compelling necessity for American citizens to travel to Europe in time of war on ships carrying an enemy flag. In particular, the Imperial Government is unable to admit that American citizens can protect an enemy ship through the mere fact of their presence on board. Germany merely followed England's example when it declared part of the high seas an area of war. Consequently accidents suffered by neutrals on enemy ships in this area of war cannot well be judged differently from accidents to which neturals are at all times exposed at the seat of war on land when they betake themselves into dangerous localities in spite of previous warning."

4. STATEMENT BY A CABINET MEMBER

"Either one of two courses seems to be open:

To warn Americans generally to keep out of the Common war zone, if on board merchant vessel, which is not of American nationality. The adoption of this course amounts to an admission of the legality of establishing a war zone, such as Germany has done, or at least to an admission that the illegality is open to question.

To hold Germany to a strict accountability for every American life lost by submarine attack on the high seas. The adoption of this course would be more nearly in accord with our position denying the legality of the war zone and holding Germany responsible for indiscriminate attack within that area of the high seas."

5. LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF A NEW YORK NEWSPAPER

"From the very beginning of the European conflagration this country's stated objective has been to remain neutral. Such a policy, it seems certain, has the full support of the great majority of our people. The continuing financial and munitions trade with the Allies has raised some question as to the ultimate integrity of our stated neutral purpose. That the vital needs of our domestic economy make this trade of the utmost value to us is, I think, quite sufficient answer to such suspicions. Still we can—and should—reinforce our determination for neutrality by officially warning our citizens that this Government cannot guarantee their safety if they choose to enter a war zone on ships of nations at war with one another. So-called "neutrals" will be judged in fact by the company they keep."

6. COMMUNIQUE FROM PRESIDENT WILSON TO THE AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO GREAT BRITAIN

"An American taking passage on a belligerent merchant vessel is entitled to rely on an enemy's war vessel conforming to the established rules of visit find search and of protection of non-combatants. We take it for granted that Germany has had no idea of changing the rules of international law with regard to the safety of non-combatants and of the citizens of neutral countries at sea, however radical the present change in practical conditions of warfare. My idea, as you will see, is to put the whole proposition on very high grounds, not on the loss of this one man's life, but on the interests of mankind. . . ; on the manifest impropriety of a single nation's essaying to alter the understandings of nations; and as all arising out of her mistake in employing an instrument against her enemy's commerce which it is impossible to employ in that use in accordance with any rules that the world is likely to be willing to accept."

7. EDITORIAL, WASHINGTON NEWSPAPER

"The news of the sinking of the British ship FALABA flashes across America like an electric shock--great commotion in the American press: great perturbation at Washington. The necessity of making good the warning that we should hold the Germans to 'strict accountability' for the destruction of American lives and property is at hand and must be seized firmly and instantly.

"We should settle for no less than the most vigorous action. We are dealing with a tragedy, and there is no pleasant way of handling it.

"American public opinion will never stand for a colorless or timid presentation of a case, in which an American has been killed by an atrocious act of lawlessness."

8. STATEMENT OF A CABINET MEMBER

"I feel that this is the most delicate question we have had to meet--not only because it involves the loss of a human life, but because we are dealing with a nation whose people have been made sensitive by the course we have pursued in the matter of the export of arms—a course not entirely consistent with neutrality. We must be aware that a large element of our population, influenced by sympathy with the German side, has criticized us violently. . . .

Whatever we do in this Thrasher case will be viewed with suspicion and we must, therefore, be the more careful to take a position which will be not only defensible but, if possible, so obviously defensible as to appeal to the judgment of the entire country and not merely to the most vocal or the most momentarily persuasive segment of its population."

9. STATEMENT BY A CABINET MEMBER

"It seems to me that the doctrine of contributory negligence has some bearing or this case--that is, the American who takes passage on a British vessel knowing that this method of warfare will be employed, stands in a different position from that occupied by one who suffers without any fault of his own. We can hardly insist that the presence of an American on a belligerent ship shall operate to prevent attack. Can an American, by embarking on a ship of the allies at such a time and under such conditions impose upon his Government an obligation to secure indemnity for his life in case he suffers with others on the ship.

You do not make allowance for the fact that we were notified of the fact of the intended use of the submarine, or for the fact that the deceased knowingly took the risk of traveling on an enemy ship. . . . Our people will, I believe, be slow to admit the right of a citizen to involve his country in war when by exercising ordinary care he could have avoided danger."

10. FROM A BERLIN NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL

"Lansing thunders his insistence upon enforcing this thing called 'strict accountability.' He is simply spinning empty logic based upon the traditions of a world that has utterly vanished--a world that knew nothing of aeroplanes, or the transmission of information by radio, or leviathan merchant ships, or submarines. He tries to strait-jacket a war bursting with new devices into the legalisms of a by-gore age. He admits that the conditions of war have radically changed, but tries to pretend that the rules have not."

11. STATEMENT BY A CABINET MEMBER

"If we condemn the submarine as inhuman we will be embarrassed by the fact that we have not protested against Great Britain's defense of the right to prevent foods from reaching non-combatant enemies. I fear that denunciation of one and silence as to the other will be construed as partiality. Yet we profess to be neutral. Neither the one practice or the other, it seems to me, to be less barbarous, unless, of course, we make allowances for the fact that democracy is at war with autocracy—a cynical distinction indeed when all humanity suffers.

The fact that we have not contested Great Britain's assertion of the right of total blockade has still further aggravated Germany, and we cannot overlook the fact that the sale of arms and a