On September 3rd 1939, the day that Britain and France declared war on Germany, President Roosevelt broadcast an address to the people of the United States on the subject of neutrality. He followed this up on September 21st by a speech to Congress appealing for the lifting of the Arms Embargo contained in the Neutrality Statutes.
American neutrality is the subject of a special
Broadcast to the American People, September 3rd
It seems clear, even at the outbreak of this Great War, that the influence of America should be consistent in seeking for humanity a final peace which will eliminate as far as possible the continued use of force.
Passionately though we may desire detachment we are forced to realize that every word coming through the air, every ship at sea, every battle fought affects the American future.
Let no man or women thoughtlessly or falsely talk of American sending it’s armies to European fields.
A proclamation of American neutrality is being prepared at this moment (issued September 5th). This would have been done even if there had been no statute, because such proclamation is in accordance with international! And American policy, I trust that our neutrality can be made true neutrality.
I cannot prophesy the immediate economic effect of this new war on our nation, but I do say that no American has the moral right to profiteer at the expense of his fellow citizens or of the man, women
And children living and dying in the midst of war in Europe.
Most of us in the United States believe in spiritual values. Most of us ,regardless of what church we belong to , believe in the spirit of the New Testament that great teaching which opposes itself to the use of armed force, of marching armies, of falling bombs.
The overwhelming masses of our people seek peace, peace at home, and the kind of peace in other lands which will not jeopardize peace at home.
This nation will remain a neutral nation, but cannot ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.
Even a neutral has the right to take account of the facts even a neutral cannot be asked to close his mind or his conscience.
I have said, not once but many times, that I have seen war, that I hate war. I say again that so long as it remains within my power to prevent it, there will be no blackout of peace in the United States.
ADDRESS TO CONGRESS, SEPTEMBER 21st
I have asked the Congress to reassemble in extraordinary session in order that it may consider and act on the amendment of certain legislation which in my fast judgement so alters the historic foreign policy of the United States that it impairs the peaceful relationship of the United States with foreign nations.
At the outset I proceed on the assumption that every member of the Senate and the House of Representatives and every member of the executive branch, personally and officially are equally and without reservation in favour of such measures as will protect the neutrality, the safety and the integrity of our country, and at the same time keep us out of war.
The executive branch of the Government did its utmost, within our traditional policy of non involvement, to aid in averting the present appalling war.
Having thus striven, and failed this Government must lose no time or effort to keep our nation from being drawn in; in my candid judgement we shall succeed in these efforts.
We are proud of the historical efforts of the United States and of all the Americas during all these years, because we have thrown every ounce of our influence for peace into the scale of peace.
There has been sufficient realism in the United States to see how close to our own shores came the dangerous paths which were being followed on other continents.
Last January I told the Congress that a war which threatened to envelop the world in flames had been averted but it had become increasingly clear that peace is not assured.
As late as the end of July I spoke to members of the Congress about the definite possibility of war, I should have called it the probability of war.
And last January also I spoke to this Congress of the need for further warning of new threats of conquest, military and economic, a challenge to religion, to democracy, and to international good faith.
And I said we know what might happen to us of the United States if the philosophers of force were to encompass the other continents and invade our own.
We, no more than other nations, can afford to be surrounded by the enemies of our faith and our humanity.
Last January I also said, we have learned that when we deliberately try to legislate neutrality, our neutrality laws may operate unevenly and unfairly, may actually give aid to an aggressor and deny it to the victim.
The instinct of self preservation should warn us that we ought not to let that happen any more.
EMBARGO PROVISIONS DANGEROUS TO NEUTRALITY
The so called Neutrality Act of 1939 was continued in force by the joint resolution of May 1st 1937, despite grave doubts expressed as to its wisdom by many senators and representatives and by officials charged with the conduct of our foreign relations, including myself.
I regret that the Congress passes the Act. I regret equally that I signed that Act.
On July 14th of this year I asked the Congress in the cause of peace and in the interests of real American neutrality and security to take action to change that Act.
I now ask again that such action be taken in respect to that part of the Act which is wholly inconsistent with ancient precepts of the laws of nations the embargo provisions.
I ask it because they are, in my opinion, most vitally dangerous to American neutrality. American security, and above all, American peace.
These embargo provisions as they exist today prevent the sale to a belligerent by an American factory of any completed implements of war.
But they allow the sale of many types of uncompleted implements of war, as well as all kinds of general materials and supplies.
They furthermore allow such products of industry and agriculture to be taken in American flagged ships to belligerent nations.
There in itself under the present law, lies definite danger to our neutrality and our peace.
From a purely material point of view what is the advantage to us of sending all manner of articles across the ocean for final processing there, when we could give employment to thousands by doing it here.
I seek a great consistency a greater consistency through the repeal of the embargo provisions and a return to international law.
I seek re-enactment of the historical and traditional American policy.
It has been erroneously said that a return to that policy might bring us nearer war.
I gave to you my deep and unalterable conviction, based on years of experience as a worker in the field of international peace that by the repeal of the embargo the United States will more probably remain at peace then if the law remains as it stands today.
I say this because, with the repeal of the embargo, this Government clearly and definitely will insist that American citizens and American ships keep away from the immediate perils of the actual zones of conflict….
These perilous days demand co-operation of Congress without a trace of partisanship.
Our acts must be guided by one single hard headed thought keeping America out of this war.
