John C. "Chuck" Chalberg's commentary "The Wilsonian Dilemna" (July 30) outlines President Woodrow Wilson's struggle to enter World War I, and the equal tension, after the Armistice, to never again go to war. He mentions the international Kellogg-Briand treaty, engineered by Minnesotan Frank Kellogg, and signed in Paris in 1928 to outlaw war. He points out that this treaty, and the excoriation of arms manufacturers, were applauded while ignoring the "looming threat of Nazi Germany." Left out was that the massive push leading to the forbidding of war began with the concern that most small businesses, like most individuals, were irreparably harmed by the "war to end all wars." Also AWOL was that Congress attempted serious legislation to eliminate profit from arms sales, when it was learned that World War I weapons manufacturers profited immensely, some as much as 800 percent. Meanwhile, as arms merchant lobbyists worked diligently to defeat those efforts, scores of arms dealers, in the U.S. and allied countries, maintained lucrative markets, selling arms to Nazi Germany in the early 1930s.

As someone drafted to serve as a medic during the Vietnam War, I have long argued that if war is perceived necessary, the arms suppliers should be asked to show the same sacrifice expected of us. Make what's needed and pay the workers, but absolutely no profits to CEO types or shareholders. Certainly no profit selling to the "enemy", something still kept secret, but not slowing down any time soon.

Larry Johnson, Golden Valley

• • •

I applaud Chalberg's effort to put our politics in historical perspective. Still, while Wilson certainly embodied a host of familiar tensions in American political culture — especially where issues of race complicate professed commitments to equality — it is misleading to portray him as representative of the city-on-a-hill/army-on-the-march dichotomy of democracy promotion. From the moment war broke out in Europe, Wilson spent enormous energy on mediating the conflict. His injunction that Americans remain neutral was not a way of avoiding a role in the conflict, but of preserving his nation's credibility as an honest broker. When the course of events revealed that Germany was the largest impediment to a lasting peace and that the United States risked being dragged by some catastrophe into a war for vengeance rather than stability, Wilson intervened militarily. But he had been intervening all along.

The difference between Wilson and his successors — Trump included — is that Wilson made no artificial distinctions between America's role as example to and partner with other nations. His perennially misquoted war address expressed this sensibility perfectly. Wilson never pledged "to make the world safe for democracy." What he said — in perhaps the most anguished call to battle by any American president, including Lincoln — was that "the world must be made safe for democracy" if Americans wanted it to continue thriving at home, and that the U.S. must act as "but one of the champions of mankind" in securing such safety.

Trygve Throntveit, Minneapolis

• • •

Chalberg wonders if President Donald Trump may turn out to be another Woodrow Wilson. Let's review Wilson's activities:

• Vicious racist? Fired all the blacks working in the federal government upon assuming office; resegregated federal agencies where he couldn't simply fire all the blacks.

• Arrogant misogynist? Harassed, assaulted and jailed women suffragettes who had the temerity to picket in front of the White House for their voting rights; force-fed those who went on hunger strikes in protest.

• Wall Street tool? Delayed entry to World War I until the bankers started complaining about their bond losses if Germany were to win.

• Free-speech denier? Prosecuted and jailed anyone who dared speak, write or even appear to think against entering the war; was that "making the world safe for democracy," or what?

Fine examples to lead by, but so far, compared with Wilson, Trump's a piker. However, he tweets a good game and appears to be hitting his stride. With latent strength in all four areas, he definitely has potential.

I'd keep an eye on him.

William Beyer, St. Louis Park
FOXCONN SUBSIDY

Wisconsin gives new meaning to the Minnesota Miracle

I got a kick out of the July 30 commentary regarding Wisconsin ponying up $3 billion for 3,000 jobs (or a million bucks a pop) to Taiwanese manufacturing giant Foxconn. In contrast, the writers explained how we Minnesotans, through actually and willingly investing more in the state — and particularly in education (go figure) — made the Minnesota Miracle happen. Since that time, Minnesota has clocked a higher average income than our eastern neighbors every year.

It's not surprising then that on my commute, west on Interstate 94 from just this side of the river, I am fenced in by the red and white of Wisconsin plates. Thousands of our neighbors pour over the border every morning and leave every night, enriched by the quality jobs created in our great state. (Drug dealers and killers are among them, no doubt; although I'm sure some of them are nice.)

Similarly, Minnesota also has a higher minimum wage for wait staff, and a family member who manages a restaurant in Hudson, Wis., says it's impossible to attract and keep good waiters and waitresses. Why work for half the base pay when the whole base pay is a hop, skip and a jump away?

If Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker knew a good investment when he saw one, he would never have offered up that kind of money for that many jobs to an overseas company, and instead invested that $3 billion right here in Minnesota. Imagine the jobs we could have created!

The Minnesota Miracle: Proudly creating great jobs for our Wisconsin neighbors since, well, way back in the '80s, at least.

Luke Soiseth, Lake St. Croix Beach
POLICE PRACTICES

The facts tell the story; all else is of little relevance

Lori Sturdevant invokes the names of Justine Ruszczyk Damond, Philando Castile and Jamar Clark in discussing whether police in Minneapolis use excessive force ("Do Minneapolis, St. Paul differ in policing style?" July 30). The cases are quite different. Clark was found to have grabbed an officer's gun and the officers involved were not charged with a crime. Castile had a gun and did not obey an officer's command to stop reaching for what the officer believed was the gun. The officer involved was not convicted of a crime. To lump these three cases together and believe they show a pattern of excessive violence does not make any sense.

Sturdevant also says that, since 2000, there were 29 police-involved shootings in Minneapolis and 24 in St. Paul. These numbers are irrelevant. Almost all police shootings are done because someone's life is in danger. So, the numbers we should be concerned about are how many police shootings resulted in a police officer being convicted of a crime.

For an accurate picture of policing, I would recommend Minneapolis police union President Bob Kroll's counterpoint (" 'Systemic problem' with police? Stick to the facts").

James Brandt, New Brighton