DOCSLIB.ORG

A Paranoid State: the American Public, Military Surveillance and the Espionage Act of 1917

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Paranoid State: the American Public, Military Surveillance and the Espionage Act of 1917 A Paranoid State: The American Public, Military Surveillance and the Espionage Act of 1917 By: ©2012 Lon J. Strauss Submitted to the graduate degree program in History and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ____________________ Theodore Wilson (Chairperson) ____________________ Roger Spiller ____________________ Jonathan Earle ____________________ Sheyda Jahanbani ____________________ Brent Steele Date Defended: April 9, 2012 The Dissertation Committee for Lon J. Strauss Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: A Paranoid State: The American Public, Military Surveillance and the Espionage Act of 1917 _____________________________ Chairperson Dr. Theodore Wilson Date Approved: April 9, 2012 ii Abstract “A Paranoid State” examines the influence of middle to upper class anxieties through military intelligence officers’ investigations of the American public in the First World War. Products of their past, Military Intelligence Department officers built upon a history of espionage activities in the Philippines and in episodes of strikebreaking at the turn of the century. On a massive scale for the first time in U.S. history, agents of military intelligence conducted a campaign of surveillance upon American citizens. These military officers were influenced by a larger movement in American society during the First World War, as evidenced by Congress’ passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts and thriving vigilante organizations such as the American Protective League. While historians argue that the Wilson administration took advantage of the war-induced anxieties to eliminate major socialist and radical groups, such as the Wobblies, the argument offered here is that without the political paranoia that was pervasive among American elites and the middle-class those extreme actions may not have been successful. iii Acknowledgements Here marks the end of the beginning. As an afterthought as an undergraduate at Indiana University, I added history for a triple major in my junior year. I had no idea at that time, or even upon graduation in 1999, that I would head to graduate school for history, especially since I authoritatively exclaimed that “I would never go to graduate school.” However, in 2002, I did just that at California State University, Northridge. My intention was to study the Second World War. In the three years since my undergraduate education ended, I had voraciously read veterans’ memoirs. I was fascinated with Paul Boesch’s Road to Huertgen: Forest in Hell and intended to study that tragic battle. I was extremely interested in the human experience in war. I am grateful for Steve Bourque’s suggestion that I focus on the First World War instead. I am even more grateful that he introduced me to Pete Kindsvatter, who I have pestered every year at the annual conference of the Society for Military History since 2003. I am very appreciative of Pete’s advice and the influence he has had on me as an historian for almost a decade now. This project was made possible through a number of research fellowships and awards, including the U.S. Army Center of Military History Dissertation Fellowship, the Sherman and Irene Dreiseszun Scholarship for International Studies (The Harry S. Truman Good Neighbor Foundation), and the Rebecca Robinson Graduate Research Award (Department of History at the University of Kansas). In addition, I presented portions of my dissertation at the annual conferences of the Organization of American Historians, the Society for Military History, and Peace, War, and Global Change Seminar at the Hall Center for the Humanities (Lawrence, Kansas). I gained a great deal of iv support and insight from those presentations. To that end, I would like to especially thank the following people for their comments, support, and advice: Nancy Gentile Ford, Jennifer Keene, Michael Neiberg, David Silbey, Steve Trout, and Hal Wert. I especially owe a debt to Mark Stout for not only referring me to the official and unpublished “History of Military Intelligence Division,” but providing me with copies of the bulk of it. I would be remiss if I did not express my immense gratitude to Tim Nenninger at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA II) in College Park, Maryland. Tim was kind enough to lend me books, offer advice, and take me into the stacks on several occasions. He also witnessed the demise of my first dissertation topic, famously (in my mind) announcing, “It’s been a long time since someone’s dissertation has fallen apart in front of me like this.” I would also like to thank Mitch Yokelson, also at NARA II, who so graciously assisted me with my Master’s thesis research and provided advice on my several trips to College Park throughout the years. Brian Linn and his lovely wife Diane were kind enough to lunch with me daily for a month while we conducted research at NARA II one summer. And my longtime best friend, Jeff Abbate, allowed me to crash at his apartment in Virginia. I have formed many friendships over this long journey. Tai Edwards and Kim Schutte have been good friends, officemates, and, without a second thought, willingly offered significant criticisms and advice on this work, which is immensely better thanks to them. Near the end, Kim took time out of her overburdened schedule to read every word I had written. Her comments helped me refine some still-rough patches. Special thanks to Jeremy Byers (for the time he was around), Andrew Hargreaves, Martin v Hubley, Dave Livingstone, Karl Rubis, Debra Sheffer, John Schneiderwind, and Josh Wolf for their friendship and support. I am especially grateful for the guidance and counsel of my adviser, Ted Wilson, who has done so much for my development as a scholar. Without Dr. Wilson, I may not have had the courage to pursue my first topic, which led to the topic I ultimately researched and wrote about. I would also like to thank Roger Spiller and Jonathan Earle who have been major influences upon how I approach and think about history. Special thanks also go to Jennifer Weber, Don Worster, and Nathan Wood who helped me become a better writer, and introduced me to great works and ideas. I will always be eternally grateful to Sheyda Jahanbani and Brent Steele for joining my committee at the last minute. Last—but certainly not least—I am indebted to my family for their love and care. I could not have done this without the support of my parents, Dan and Peggy Strauss, especially over this final year. I also owe a great deal to my grandparents, Irene and Robert Marnfield, who were a major influence in my life and have constantly been in my thoughts throughout this process. My father-in-law Steve Oberg has been a source of encouragement and assistance, understanding the process all too well from firsthand experience. I can honestly say that this would not have been possible if not for my wife, Hannah Oberg. As my Editor-in-Chief, she read every word and heard every idea worth mentioning, and many that were not. This culmination of my graduate work is as much hers as it is mine. I am also grateful to both our children, Soren and Aaliyah, who joined us in the middle of this difficult process. They have been extremely patient with Daddy working in the office and an immense source of encouragement. Their smiling faces vi often infused me with much-needed motivation. Now I can expend that energy playing outside with them and not just bouncing the youngest to sleep. vii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: Lacking Intelligence 17 Chapter Two: Appreciating Intelligence 45 Chapter Three: Faith and Fear 74 Chapter Four: A Matter of Conscience 115 Chapter Five: Crashing the Party 172 Chapter Six: The Threat from Within 231 Conclusion 286 Bibliography 297 viii Introduction On the rainy evening of April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress to request a declaration of war against Imperial Germany. A little over a month later, the president signed the Selective Service Act into law. The president explained that he was confident that the entire nation desired to do whatever was required to win the war, but in the new war of the 20th Century, not all could go fight the Germans. Conscription offered a way to manage the people’s contributions by retaining skilled workers in factories and weeding out the physically and mentally unfit from those who would don a military uniform. Not all Americans were willing to have the federal government manage them in this war. Whether pacifists (religious or otherwise), socialists, advocates for women’s rights or the civil rights of African- Americans, some Americans did not agree with fighting a war against Germany Fearing their power to persuade others and to wreck the mobilization machinery, Congress passed the Espionage Act in June 1917. Legislators were especially concerned about protecting the healthy fighting spirit of the nation’s young men. They specifically decreed it to be unlawful to “cause disloyalty” or to “obstruct the draft.”1 Disloyalty, though, was often in the eye of the beholder. When socialists espoused a philosophy of international equality—that workers had no reason to kill each other—many in Congress, the Wilson administration, and military authorities claimed they were being disloyal. When a fringe religion such as the International Bible Students Association claimed conscientious objection and preached against war, military 1 Robert H. Ferrell, Woodrow Wilson and World War I 1917-1921 (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 1. 1 authorities declared them to be disloyal. In order to stop groups deemed disloyal from influencing draft-age men, military intelligence officers investigated them, kept them under watch, broke into their offices, seized their documents and literature—sometimes with warrants, sometimes not, sometime openly or often covertly in the dead of night.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • American Bolsheviki: the Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918
    Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 4 2019 American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918 Jonathan Dunning Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/steeplechase Part of the European History Commons, Other History Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Dunning, Jonathan (2019) "American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918," Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://digitalcommons.murraystate.edu/steeplechase/vol3/iss2/4 This Feature is brought to you for free and open access by the The Office of Research and Creative Activity at Murray State's Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Steeplechase: An ORCA Student Journal by an authorized editor of Murray State's Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. American Bolsheviki: The Beginnings of the First Red Scare, 1917 to 1918 Abstract A consensus has developed among historians that widespread panic consumed the American public and government as many came to fear a Bolshevik coup of the United States government and the undermining of the American way of life beginning in early 1919. Known as the First Red Scare, this period became one of the most well-known episodes of American fear of Communism in US history. With this focus on the events of 1919 to 1920, however, historians of the First Red Scare have often ignored the initial American reaction to the October Revolution in late 1917 and throughout 1918.
    [Show full text]
  • And Type the TITLE of YOUR WORK in All Caps
    THAT LIBERTY SHALL NOT PERISH: AMERICAN PROPAGANDA AND THE POLITICS OF FEAR, 1914-1919 by ZACHARY CHARLES SMITH (Under the Direction of John H. Morrow, Jr.) ABSTRACT This dissertation attempts to provide an understanding of the widespread anxiety, vigilantism, suppression of dissent, and violation of civil liberties that took place in the United States from 1917 to 1919 and argues that it can be found in some Americans‟ understanding of and reaction to racially-charged propaganda. As the United States inched toward war with Germany in 1915 and after declaring war in April 1917, many propagandists began referencing the allegedly inherent characteristics of Germans as evidence of German American disloyalty and the existence of a vast “Pan-German” plot to undercut or even destroy American democracy. The imagined conspiracy grew to encompass most of the fears that had plagued the Anglo Saxon middle-class since the 1870s – immigrant radicalism, race suicide, the capability of “racially inferior” immigrants to assimilate and self-govern, and the continued deference of African Americans. To many anxious Americans, Germany and German Americans became a very real entity to which these long-held fears could be transferred. American propaganda produced during the First World War, though, was not a cynical ploy to fool the American people into supporting intervention on the side of the Allies. Leading Americans – politicians, editors, and social elites – were convinced that a global German conspiracy threatened the security of the United States and hoped to enlist the American people in staving off the existential threat they believed racially degenerate Germany allegedly posed.
    [Show full text]
  • Trials Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts During World War I
    Where was the First Amendment? Trials Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts During WWI by Kathryn Horrocks HST 499 June 2, 2005 First Reader: Dr. Jensen Second Reader: Dr. Lowe Before the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918, the United States government sought to curb anti-war efforts with prosecutions under remaining Civil War conspiracy statutes. However, these statutes were not effective on persons acting or speaking out against the war alone because by definition a conspiracy requires more than one person. 1 To close these loopholes and successfully control public discussions and actions that may have harmed the war effort, Congress passed the Espionage Act in June of 1917 2. This Act censored speech, behavior and publication of information that intended to undermine the US war effort, or aid her enemies.3 However, this element of intent allowed some anti-war speech to go unpunished. Occasional acquittals under the Espionage Act, and violence against political dissidents prompted congress to pass the Sedition Act almost a year later. The Sedition Act was very similar to the Espionage Act, except for the inclusion of a section which forbid the utterance or publication of “disloyal, scurrilous or abusive language” regarding the US, her flag, her military or her government. 4 This closed the loophole created by the element of intent, and its effect was to “ban dissent of any kind.”5 These Acts and their effects came into direct conflict with the First Amendment of the Constitution which clearly prevents congress from “abridging 1 Shirley J Burton, “The Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918: Sectional Interpretations in the United States District Courts of Illinois,” Illinois Historical Journal 87(1) (1994), 41.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 20 Ap® Focus & Annotated Chapter Outline Ap® Focus
    CHAPTER 20 AP® FOCUS & ANNOTATED CHAPTER OUTLINE AP® FOCUS Period 7: 1890–1945 AP U.S. History Key Concepts 7.2 A revolution in technology created a new mass culture and spread “modern” values amid increasing cultural conflicts. • Wartime tensions and xenophobia led to legislation restricting immigration. • World Wars I and II contributed to increased migration, both internally and to the United States. 7.3 Global conflicts led to debates over the United States’ increasingly dominant role in the world. • American expansionism led to overseas involvement and acquisitions in the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific. • World War I increased debates over the proper role of the United States in the world. ANNOTATED CHAPTER OUTLINE The following annotated chapter outline will help you review the major topics covered in this chapter. I. From Expansion to Imperialism A. Foundations of Empire 1. Historians used to describe turn-of-the-twentieth-century U.S. imperialism as something new. Now they emphasize continuities between foreign policy in this era and the nation’s earlier, relentless expansion across the continent. 2. Policymakers beginning in the 1890s went on a determined quest for global markets. Industrialization and a modern navy provided tools for the United States to flex its muscle, and the economic crisis of the 1890s provided a spur. 3. Confronting high unemployment and mass protests, policymakers feared that American workers would embrace socialism or communism. The alternative, they believed, was overseas markets that would create jobs and prosperity at home. 4. Intellectual trends also favored imperialism. As early as 1885, Congregationalist minister Josiah Strong urged Protestants to proselytize overseas.
    [Show full text]
  • Espionage Act of 1917
    Communication Law Review An Analysis of Congressional Arguments Limiting Free Speech Laura Long, University of Oklahoma The Alien and Sedition Acts, Espionage and Sedition Acts, and USA PATRIOT Act are all war-time acts passed by Congress which are viewed as blatant civil rights violations. This study identifies recurring arguments presented during congressional debates of these acts. Analysis of the arguments suggests that Terror Management Theory may explain why civil rights were given up in the name of security. Further, the citizen and non-citizen distinction in addition to political ramifications are discussed. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 are considered by many as gross violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights. John Miller, in his book, Crisis in Freedom, described the Alien and Sedition Acts as a failure from every point of view. Miller explained the Federalists’ “disregard of the basic freedoms of Americans [completed] their ruin and cost them the confidence and respect of the people.”1 John Adams described the acts as “an ineffectual attempt to extinguish the fire of defamation, but it operated like oil upon the flames.”2 Other scholars have claimed that the acts were not simply unwise policy, but they were unconstitutional measures.3 In an article titled “Order vs. Liberty,” Larry Gragg argued that they were blatantly against the First Amendment protections outlined only seven years earlier.4 Despite popular opinion that the acts were unconstitutional and violated basic civil liberties, arguments used to pass the acts have resurfaced throughout United States history. Those arguments seek to instill fear in American citizens that foreigners will ultimately be the demise to the United States unless quick and decisive action is taken.
    [Show full text]
  • The War to End All Wars. COMMEMORATIVE
    FALL 2014 BEFORE THE NEW AGE and the New Frontier and the New Deal, before Roy Rogers and John Wayne and Tom Mix, before Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse and Felix the Cat, before the TVA and TV and radio and the Radio Flyer, before The Grapes of Wrath and Gone with the Wind and The Jazz Singer, before the CIA and the FBI and the WPA, before airlines and airmail and air conditioning, before LBJ and JFK and FDR, before the Space Shuttle and Sputnik and the Hindenburg and the Spirit of St. Louis, before the Greed Decade and the Me Decade and the Summer of Love and the Great Depression and Prohibition, before Yuppies and Hippies and Okies and Flappers, before Saigon and Inchon and Nuremberg and Pearl Harbor and Weimar, before Ho and Mao and Chiang, before MP3s and CDs and LPs, before Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall and Jackie Robinson, before the pill and Pampers and penicillin, before GI surgery and GI Joe and the GI Bill, before AFDC and HUD and Welfare and Medicare and Social Security, before Super Glue and titanium and Lucite, before the Sears Tower and the Twin Towers and the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, before the In Crowd and the A Train and the Lost Generation, before the Blue Angels and Rhythm & Blues and Rhapsody in Blue, before Tupperware and the refrigerator and the automatic transmission and the aerosol can and the Band-Aid and nylon and the ballpoint pen and sliced bread, before the Iraq War and the Gulf War and the Cold War and the Vietnam War and the Korean War and the Second World War, there was the First World War, World War I, The Great War, The War to End All Wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H
    Statement of Geoffrey R. Stone Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law The University of Chicago Hearing on the Espionage Act and the Legal and Constitutional Issues Raised by WikiLeaks Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives December 16, 2010 The proposed SHIELD Act1 would amend the Espionage Act of 19172 to make it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to disseminate, in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States, “any classified information . concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or . concerning the identity of a classified source or informant” working with the intelligence community of the United States. Although the Act might be constitutional as applied to a government employee who “leaks” such classified material, it is plainly unconstitutional as applied to other individuals who might publish or otherwise disseminate such information. With respect to such other individuals, the Act violates the First Amendment unless, at the very least, it is expressly limited to situations in which the individual knows that the dissemination of the classified material poses a clear and present danger of grave harm to the nation. The clear and present danger standard, in varying forms, has been a central element of our First Amendment jurisprudence ever since Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes first enunciated it in his 1919 opinion in Schenk v. United States.3 In the 90 years since Schenck, the precise meaning of “clear and present danger” has shifted,4 but the principle that animates the standard was stated eloquently by Justice Louis D.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years
    The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years David M. Rabbant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Free Speech Before the Courts 522 A. Supreme Court Cases 524 I. Avoiding First Amendment Issues 525 Resisting Incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment 525 Excluding Publications from the Mails 526 Neglecting First Amendment Issues 529 Limiting the Meaning of Speech 531 2. Addressing First Amendment Issues 533 Justice Holmes and the Bad Tendency of Speech 533 Review of Statutes Penalizing Speech 536 The First Amendment as the Embodiment of English Common Law 539 3. Hints of Protection 540 4. Summary 542 B. Decisions Based on State Law 543 1. The Bad Tendency Doctrine 543 Speech by Radicals 543 Obscenity and Public Morals 548 2. Libel 550 3. Political Speech 551 4. Labor Injunctions 553 5. Speech in Public Places 555 C. The Judicial Tradition 557 t Counsel, American Association of University Professors. 514 Prewar Free Speech II. Legal Scholarship 559 A. The Social Interest in Free Speech 563 B. The Distinction Between Public and Private Speech 564 1. Schofield's Formulation of the Distinction 564 2. Other Scholarly Support for the Distinction 566 C. The Expanding Conception of Free Speech 568 D. The Rejection of Blackstone 570 E. The Limits of Protected Speech 572 1. The Direct Incitement Test 572 2. Pound's Balancing Test 575 3. Schroeder's Test of Actual Injury 576 4. The Benefits of LibertarianStandards 578 F. The Heritage of Prewar Scholarship 579 III. The Role of the Prewar Tradition in the Early Develop- ment of Modern First Amendment Doctrine 579 A.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study in American Jewish Leadership
    Cohen: Jacob H Schiff page i Jacob H. Schiff Cohen: Jacob H Schiff page ii blank DES: frontis is eps from PDF file and at 74% to fit print area. Cohen: Jacob H Schiff page iii Jacob H. Schiff A Study in American Jewish Leadership Naomi W. Cohen Published with the support of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America and the American Jewish Committee Brandeis University Press Published by University Press of New England Hanover and London Cohen: Jacob H Schiff page iv Brandeis University Press Published by University Press of New England, Hanover, NH 03755 © 1999 by Brandeis University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 54321 UNIVERSITY PRESS OF NEW ENGLAND publishes books under its own imprint and is the publisher for Brandeis University Press, Dartmouth College, Middlebury College Press, University of New Hampshire, Tufts University, and Wesleyan University Press. library of congress cataloging-in-publication data Cohen, Naomi Wiener Jacob H. Schiff : a study in American Jewish leadership / by Naomi W. Cohen. p. cm. — (Brandeis series in American Jewish history, culture, and life) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0-87451-948-9 (cl. : alk. paper) 1. Schiff, Jacob H. (Jacob Henry), 1847-1920. 2. Jews—United States Biography. 3. Jewish capitalists and financiers—United States—Biography. 4. Philanthropists—United States Biography. 5. Jews—United States—Politics and government. 6. United States Biography. I. Title. II. Series. e184.37.s37c64 1999 332'.092—dc21 [B] 99–30392 frontispiece Image of Jacob Henry Schiff. American Jewish Historical Society, Waltham, Massachusetts, and New York, New York.
    [Show full text]
  • World War I - on the Homefront
    World War I - On the Homefront Teacher’s Guide Written By: Melissa McMeen Produced and Distributed by: www.MediaRichLearning.com AMERICA IN THE 20TH CENTURY: WORLD WAR I—ON THE HOMEFRONT TEACHER’S GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS Materials in Unit .................................................... 3 Introduction to the Series .................................................... 3 Introduction to the Program .................................................... 3 Standards .................................................... 4 Instructional Notes .................................................... 5 Suggested Instructional Procedures .................................................... 6 Student Objectives .................................................... 6 Follow-Up Activities .................................................... 6 Internet Resources .................................................... 7 Answer Key .................................................... 8 Script of Video Narration .................................................... 12 Blackline Masters Index .................................................... 20 Pre-Test .................................................... 21 Video Quiz .................................................... 22 Post-Test .................................................... 23 Discussion Questions .................................................... 27 Vocabulary Terms .................................................... 28 Woman’s Portrait .................................................... 29
    [Show full text]
  • PILOT the Evolution, Exercise, and Extent of Free Speech in US History
    PILOT TEACHING CIVICS through HISTORY The Evolution, Exercise, and Extent of Free Speech in US History (Middle School) by John McNamara and Ron Nash OVERVIEW This unit is one of the Gilder Lehrman Institute’s Teaching Civics through History resources, designed to align to the Common Core State Standards. The lessons can also be modified to conform to the C3 Framework. These units were developed to provide students with foundational knowledge of the historical roots of current civic and social issues facing their communities and the nation while building their literacy, research, and critical thinking skills. By connecting the past with current events, the program will 1) enable students to understand that history is made of up individual actions, 2) empower students to develop their civic voices and encourage them to take civic action, and 3) help students recognize their ability to influence history in their own communities and nationwide. In this unit, over the course of one to two weeks, students will learn and practice literacy skills that will help them develop knowledgeable and well-reasoned points of view on the history of freedom of speech in the United States. They will examine and assess primary and secondary sources, demonstrate what they have learned through their analysis and assessment of the primary sources by writing a response to essential questions posed in the unit, engage in an analysis of current news articles written from different perspectives using materials presented by the AllSides.com website, and then develop a civic engagement project that integrates their knowledge of freedom of speech in the past and today.
    [Show full text]
  • Rights and Responsibilities in Wartime AUTHOR: NICHOLAS E
    HOW WWI CHANGED AMERICA Rights and Responsibilities in Wartime AUTHOR: NICHOLAS E. CODDINGTON, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CONTEXT Although the United States is a nation with defined rights protected by a constitution, sometimes those rights are challenged by the circumstances at hand. This is especially true during wartime and times of crisis. As Americans remained divided in their support for World War I, President Woodrow Wilson’s administration and U.S. Congress pushed pro- war propaganda and enacted laws meant to deter anti-war protesting. When war protests did arise, those who challenged U.S. involvement in the war faced heavy consequences, including jail time for their actions. Many questioned the pro-war campaign and its possible infringement on Americans’ First Amendment freedoms, including the right to protest and freedom of speech. Using World War I as a backdrop and the First Amendment as the test, students will examine the Sedition Act of 1918 and come to realize that Congress passed laws that violated the Constitution and that the Supreme Court upheld those laws. Additionally, students will be challenged to consider the role President Wilson had in promoting an anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States and how that rhetoric emboldened Congress to pass laws that violated the civil rights of all Americans. The lesson will wrap up challenging students to consider the responsibilities of citizens when they believe the president and Congress promote legislation that infringes on First Amendment rights. PRIMARY SOURCES Eugene Debs
    [Show full text]