While studying the aftermath of the First World War, I keep seeing US non-membership in the League of Nations explained simply as “isolationism.” That seems incomplete when President Woodrow Wilson had strongly promoted the organization.
Was the Senate debate mainly about avoiding foreign commitments, or about who had the constitutional authority to commit the United States to action? I am particularly confused by the Article X controversy and whether its collective-security language was understood to override Congress's role in decisions about war.
I also want to distinguish senators who rejected membership outright from those who would accept it with reservations. How did those positions, together with Wilson's response to the proposed reservations, affect Senate treaty ratification?
A short explanation separating the constitutional objections, party politics, and disagreement over the treaty's wording would help more than treating all opposition as one position.
