Arthur S. Link (1920–1998)

Arthur Link's history presents a somewhat satisfying explanation for America's entry into WWI using a "traditional" methodology. By studying the foreign policy of the Wilson administration within the context of its domestic policy, Arthur Link explains why official America was so hesitant to embark on a war in Europe. The Progressive movement, which Link demonstrates often moved ahead of the president, stood for social reform at home but was divided between Theodore Roosevelt's Republican Progressives and Wilson's Democratic wing. Electing a Democratic Progressive candidate in 1912 and 1916, the American populace expected domestic reform and in the latter case abstention from Europe's conflicts.

Link concentrates on periodical literature to glean the texture of popular sentiment. For official policy, he makes extensive use of source materials but does not refer extensively to the opinions of other historians. The former tends to neglect the intellectual and cultural context of popular sentiment, the later has the weakness of glossing over interpretive controversies. Concentrating on Woodrow Wilson and his circle of advisors presents a limited view of American entry into the war, but these are the most significant figures in the long run. Despite recent criticism, the history of high politics is still the stuff of American foreign policy and diplomacy. A traditional approach to the history of America's response to the Mexican Revolution and entry into WWI still has much to offer.… (altro)

1575 Wilson: The Road to the White House, by Arthur S. Link (read 21 June 1980) This is an excellent work, and this volume covers up to the election to the Presidency in 1912. About my only complaint is the author's ignoring of Wilson's private life, and an excessive dependence on newspapers. This makes for not too much analytic work--it is reeking of newspaper and magazine research. But the study of Wilson's career--the election as Jew Jersey governor in 1910 and the fascinating story of 1912 make delightful reading. The 1912 Convention was a very near thing--how would the world have changed if Champ Clark had gotten the nomination? I cannot help but think much, much'd've been different, down to the present day.… (altro)

1576 Wilson: The New Freedom, by Arthur S. Link (read 28 June 1980) (Bancroft Prize in 1957) The Link work on Wilson is not an ideal work. It relies awfully heavily on strictly contemporary sources, and is lacking in analysis and synthesis. Yet it does tell much I did not know, or had forgotten. It is hard to say anything good about Wilson's Mexican policy. The account of the passage of the Underwood Tariff bill is good, as is the account of the fight for the Federal Reserve Act and the Clayton Act. I never realized that much of the early New Deal legislation, e.g., the Securities Act of 1933 and FDIC, was based on ideas that failed in Wilson's time. All in all, though Link professes to think Wilson great, he sure shows a lot of things
Wilson did wrong.… (altro)

1577 Wilson: The Struggle for Neutrality 1914-1915, by Arthur S. Link (read 4 July 1980) (Bancroft Prize in 1961) I cannot help but marvel over how reading a book puts one into another world. I found the third volume of Link's biography of Woodrow Wilson really intriguing. In light of all the reading I have done on World War One, I really have not done that much on the war as it affected the U.S. and this book and the volumes on Wilson are very logical ones for me to read to remedy that. This third volume only takes one up to the fall of 1915. Most of the book recounts the problems with German submarines, but there are chapters on Mexico, and an eye-opening chapter on Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Our procedure in Haiti under Wilson makes some of Russia's domination of satellites appear almost subtle. The study of the Lusitania and the other incidents is really intriguing. I was amazed how easy it was to shock that unbrutalized age. I suppose I am not much of an international lawyer, but it is hard for me to be shocked by German sinking of British vessels, regardless of who is on them. I suppose the concept of total war was relatively new in 1915, and this accounts for the U.S. reaction at the time. This is a very good account, even though it relies so much on contemporary (1915) stuff.… (altro)