From the moment this war began, there was, for this state, only one policy possible, neutrality.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
War is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with other means.
To my mind, what we ought to have maintained from the beginning was the strictest neutrality. If we had done this, I do not believe we would have been on the verge of war at the present time.
American policy seems to be wed to a perpetual state of war. Why? History shows that the world will always be in flux or turmoil, with different peoples competing for visibility and power. The U.S. cannot fix the fate of every nation.
A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.
Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes... can no longer be of concern to great powers alone.
Neutrality is a negative word. It does not express what America ought to feel. We are not trying to keep out of trouble; we are trying to preserve the foundations on which peace may be rebuilt.
War may be made by one party, but it requires two to make peace.
In particular, the efforts to reestablish peace after the World War have been directed toward the formation of states and the regulation of their frontiers according to a consciously national program.
All war represents a failure of diplomacy.
The State thrives on war - unless, of course, it is defeated and crushed - expands on it, glories in it.
No opposing quotes found.