At points in the Dialogues Philo appears to favor the Stratonian theory that matter is endued with an inherent principle of self-organization—the hypothesis that order is endogenous to matter, and need not be imposed by any external organizing principle such as thought, design, cosmological pollination or insemination. Moreover, on two occasions Philo seems to say that it is “plausible” or even “probable” that the self-organization of matter proceeds by absolute necessity, such that if we could “penetrate into the intimate nature of bodies”, we would be able to see that it “was absolutely impossible, they could ever admit of any other disposition.” (DNR 6.12, 9.10) I first consider Philo’s purposes in advancing the Stratonian hypothesis, and in framing this theory in the language of absolute necessity. I show that Philo’s reasoning here is ad hominem, and proceeds upon a number of methodological assumptions that Philo himself does not share. I also consider Hume’s own purposes in having Philo feint in this way, and suggest that Hume intends to deliver a message about the pointlessness of hankering after ultimate explanations in natural theology and philosophy.

This chapter examines the foundations of Sarah Wambaugh’s political thought and attempts to reconstruct her world view. Wambaugh’s avid support for the League of Nations was premised on her understanding of it as a new scientific way of conducting international politics. Key to her faith in political science, and later forming a key part of her prescriptions for the plebiscite, was her belief in the importance of neutrality, a concept of international law then in flux. Alongside neutrality, the concept of public opinion was also in flux, with debates as to its relationship to democracy and expertise. The chapter points to the way in which public opinion and perceptions were also integral to her later normative prescriptions for the plebiscite, and ends with an examination of Wambaugh’s own public relations campaign for American entry to into the League of Nations.

The contradiction at the heart of the 1935 Saar plebiscite – its public perception as a tool of international peace, and its political reality as a Nazi triumph – would lead to the plebiscite playing a particularly ignoble role in the diplomacy leading to the 1938 Munich Pact, where the Saar plebiscite was a precedent literally written into the agreement dismembering Czechoslovakia. Consequently the reputation of the plebiscite soon collapsed, and during the Second World War it was not seriously entertained by the allies planning the post-war world. Although women as a whole were largely marginalised in these official peace planning organisations, Sarah Wambaugh’s connection to the now-discredited plebiscite served to marginalise her even further. At the same time, both Wambaugh and the post-war planners began to appreciate that the plebiscite’s component parts could be used to perform other tasks, including monitoring domestic elections and administering territory.

The introduction outlines the arguments of the book and places it in context of existing studies of the plebiscite and Sarah Wambaugh. The latter has only recently become a subject of inquiry, with only a handful of articles examining her career. Examining Wambaugh illuminates overlooked aspects of contemporary history and the new field of women’s international thought. The plebiscite, meanwhile, is normally studied from political science or legal perspectives. Although historical studies of individual plebiscites exist, the technique as a whole has not been studied historically. The history of the plebiscite complements studies of self-determination, with both having been constrained and ‘domesticated’ over time.

Written into the Versailles Treaty fifteen years earlier, the Saar plebiscite of 1935 asked the inhabitants of this important German industrial region whether they wished to return to Germany, join France, or remain under the existing League of Nations administration. As technical advisor and deputy member of the plebiscite commission, Sarah Wambaugh would play the leading role in organising the vote and in shaping public perceptions of its efficacy. As a pathbreaking woman playing a masterful role in a sensitive political question, Wambaugh would become an international news story in her own right. Although the plebiscite was widely seen as a successful example of the peaceful settlement of disputes, its electoral outcome was an overwhelming triumph for Nazi Germany. The chapter concludes with a comparison of Wambaugh’s positive appraisal of the Saar plebiscite to British journalist Elizabeth Wiskemann’s dissenting view, which came to diametrically opposite conclusions.

The conclusion summarises the interconnected histories of the plebiscite and its foremost scholar and places them in historical perspective. Both were shaped by Woodrow Wilson’s attempt to reorder the world. Over one hundred years on from that attempt, with major political changes having taken place, and liberal internationalism of the kind advocated by Wilson and followers seemingly having lost its appeal to the United States, the history of Sarah Wambaugh and the plebiscite seems relevant once more.