The World War I And The Red Scare

America’s involvement in World War I not only impacted the war front but also the people left on the home front. When America entered World War I in 1917 the government enforced many measures on its citizens, many of which violated constitutional rights. The biggest measure inflicted on the American population was censorship. The formation of the Committee on Public Information (CPI) and the passing of the Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment stole American’s freedom of speech, created an anti-German sentiment, and led to deportation during the post-war Red Scare.

Initially, U.S. politicians and citizens had differing opinions of whether or not they should take action in the war. Although many in society and congress disapproved war, Wilson eventually managed to get the approval and set forth the first drafting law, the Selective Service Act. Indeed, there were still many anti-war protests reoccurring and therefore, the government set up the nation 's first propaganda agency, the Committee on

In the late 1910’s Congress passed the Espionage and Sedition Acts of 1917 and 1918 (ESA). Historian Howard Zinn sees the ESA as a malicious attempt by the U.S. government to “imprison Americans who spoke or wrote out against the war.” Zinn’s argument dismisses the idea that the ESA was a necessary step to ensure the integrity of a nation at war, as he believes that America’s entrance into WWI was motivated by a selfish desire for monetary gain and economic expansion. Zinn asserts that the U.S. government allowed American investors to “tie American finance closely to the interest of a British victory.” While Zinn’s ideas are well-argued and supported, they tell only one side of a complicated story. James West Davidson, however, tells another. He argues that at the time of the ESA’s passing, the United States had been pushed by German action into the first global conflict in its history. He describes the German U-boat attacks that were devastating the Atlantic, and the reports of “cracking morale” that were trickling in from the front lines, and asserts that the ESA was passed by a desperate government in order to combat protestors who attempted to sway public opinion against the war. Davidson never explicitly describes the ESA as good or bad, but he provides some valuable context that Zinn ignores. The ESA was not, as Zinn alleges, a heartless assault on the American coordinated “with all the power of the federal government and the money of big business behind it,” nor was it a shining example of individual freedoms. It was a complicated document with complicated implications, and consideration of only Zinn’s or Davidson’s writings eliminates the intricacies that were inherent in the ESA, and the circumstances that lead to its

Modernism began around the late 1800s or early 1900s, with artists and writers in Europe producing many extraordinary and influential works. This period spans many events, including both World Wars and the Great Depression. World War I appeared to be a major event that helped to start Modernism; this was because of the destruction and ruin that came from it and events that followed. This poem is consistent with the values of Modernism because of alienation, time, and self- consciousness; however, it continues to resonate with readers today because isolation, change, and insecurities are things that humans may face.

After the Espionage Act, came the Sedition Act in 1918. The Sedition Act did not allow language “tending to incite, provoke, and encourage resistance to the United States in said war”. This Act infringed further on people’s First Amendment rights. Individuals’ abilities to express themselves were curtailed. One of the people that went against this Act was Joseph Abrams. Abrams was a Russian immigrant who did not agree with the Americans invading Russia. Because of this,

The first world war was one of the most brutal and remorseless events in history; ‘the global conflict that defined a century’. Over nine million soldiers and a large amount of innocent civilians lost their lives. Empires crumbled, revolution engulfed Russia and America rose to become a dominant world power. Huge armies deployed new weapons of devastating effect from rifles and pistols to torpedoes and flame throwers. These weapons were used not only in the trenches but by tanks too. This was an advantage to those who were able to access such machinery as they could easily launch bullets and missiles at nearby enemy bases. The downfall of the tank was the fact it was unable to cross the trenches. Tanks were not the only pieces of equipment that could access this machinery but U boats and planes too. The British carried ‘bolt action rifles’ in which fired 15 rounds per minute at a minimum range of 1,400 metres away. This allowed the British to take out foes at a far greater range. By using machinery in which rules out the need for getting up close to the enemy was a great advantage during world war one. Soldiers ran from trench to trench attacking with all that they had. This resulted in a massacre as the soldiers running toward the trenches were shot down. Machinery such as machine guns and heavy artillery were the weapons used in the trenches. In modern day society, machine guns are the main weapons used by soldiers. This wasn’t the case around the 1914s. They took four

Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this

It was the time of world war 1, in August 1918, there was a group of immigrants who were Russian, they was arrested in New York City and they were charged because they were disrespectful to the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to use abusive language to the government of the United States. Or to the prosecution of the war. Their offense hand out pamphlets that complained the U.S. military's recent deployment of troops to Russia and that, in one case, supported a factories producing military goods. A few months later, the group which included a young rebel named Jacob Abrams was strained, sentenced, and was sent to prison for 15 to 20 years. Their beliefs were hardly unique. Unluckily, during the war to make the world safe for equality the federal government legislated some of the most severe boundaries on civil liberties at home in the country's history in 1919 and 1920, the attorney general reported 877 beliefs under the 1918 Sedition Act and other similar federal laws. In March 1919, while Abrams and his countrymen were appealing their case, the Supreme Court heard two other First Amendment cases dealing with the beliefs of antiwar socialists Scheck v. United States and Debs v. United States.

Government censorship continued with the passing of the Espionage Act in 1917 and the Sedition Amendment in 1918. The Espionage Act and Sedition Amendment condemned any antiwar activity or desecrating of the government, Constitution, flag, or military. The American public were almost at a point where they could not have an opinion, unless in support of the war and government. Even Wilson stated, "Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way." These acts of censorship gave birth to a suspicious nation.

Schenck was one of the activists to be jailed for violating the Espionage Act. Charles T. Schenck was a member of the socialist party and was responsible for disturbing pamphlets called leaflets, which urged meant to resists the draft. According to (Brannen, Schenck vs. United States (1919)), Schenck argued that his charges violated his first and thirteenth amendment

It also mentioned that the war itself was motivated by capitalist greed, and urged draftees to petition for repeal of the draft. Since this event Schenck was charged because of the recently enacted Espionage Act. This act made any utterance that was considered disloyal toward the U.S. government, the Constitution, or the military completely illegal. Schenck responded that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Many citizens argued that the goal of the United States was not to make the world safe for democracy but to protect the investments of the wealthy. President Woodrow Wilson had little patience for such dissent. Shortly after the United States entered the war, Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These acts gave postal officials the authority to ban newspapers for anti-war speech, and made speech that was degrading towards the U.S. a federal offense. The government prosecuted over 2,100 people under these acts. The administration’s intent was made clear in 1917 when Attorney General Thomas Watt Gregory, referring to war dissenters, stated: “May God have mercy on them, for they need expect none from an outraged people and an avenging government.” These acts were mercilessly abused by the government officials. While not as blatantly abusive as the Japanese Internment Act was, it still gave the government far too much power in determining the difference between harmful speech and a simple opinion. The government showed considerable regret just a few years after these acts were established. Between 1919 and 1923, the government released from prison every individual who had been convicted of sedition during the war. Over the next half-century, the Supreme Court overruled every one of its World War I decisions, holding in effect that

Following World War I, America turned inward and began to focus on itself. Yet, coming home from war Americans were also fearful of communism due to the recent Bolshevik Revolution where Lenin and the Bolshevik party gained control of Russia and made it communist. This scare led to drastic changes within our nation’s borders as America fought to keep communist influence out of its borders. This was such an impactful event that even the Attorney General of the time, A. Mitchell Palmer, set up a section in the Justice Department to handle issues relating to radicals, this sect of the Justice Department would be very active as, “More than ten thousand people were arrested—some for membership in Communist or left-wing groups, others on no greater pretext than that they looked or sounded foreign—and then jailed and interrogated with little regard for their right to due process” (Lehman, Phelps 260). This severe response to the scare of Communism demonstrates an inward focusing of America. Similarly, in the post-World War I time period America would demonstrate its interest in nativism which it would demonstrate through multiple acts being passed on immigration primarily, the Immigration Act of 1924. During this period of nativism, “Through the whole movement, from 1921 on, for more drastic curbs on the new immigration ran an increasingly assertive racial nativism” (Higham 313). That is America had

Before World War I, the United States was in a period of isolationism, and a determination to stay out of European wars and affairs, while trying to maintain its status as one of the world’s biggest superpowers, militarily and economically (“United States Before”). America was just exiting the Gilded Age, which was an important time of growth and prosperity. Despite this, the American economy was in a small recession when entering the war, which was reversed by a 44 month period of growth caused by production for the war (NBER). This 44 month period helped the economy expand, and furthered the strength of the country. It also furthered the confidence of American businesses and the government which contributed to the attitude that caused overconfidence and helped to spread the Great Depression.

The Court, in affirming the judgment of lower courts, deferred to Congress but also redefined the standard to protect future free speech since the times implied more stringent restrictions on speech could follow. Had the Court struck down the ruling, Congress would not have the necessary power to limit speech, and future dangerous speech would go unabated since doing so would create the rule that Congress cannot limit free speech. Rather than create this rule, the Court created a new standard by which to measure the ability of Congress to curb free speech on a case-by-case basis. This new standard, which more broadly protects free speech, has evolved over time, as evident in Abrams, Brandenburg, and Holder. The ability to evolve over time and to apply to different cases in lower courts highlights Holmes’ idea that rights were established by society and balanced by the needs of the society, according to blah blah, and thus reflects an inherent legitimacy. Again, having this standard and the ability to choose to use it or not allows the Court to reflect the necessities of society, thereby aligning more closely to