Anna Lowy
Mr. Fox
U.S. History 4th Period
22 January 2016
President Wilson’s Suppression of Civil Rights
It is easy to forget about war on the home front, where millions of lives can change in an instant. When the United States decided to enter the First World War, many Americans were shocked that they too would become part of the war effort. Naturally, they formed their own opinions about the war and its justification, opinions that the Woodrow Wilson administration later sought to control. In analyzing the use of manipulative propaganda, rigorous policies, and controlling legislation, it becomes clear that Wilson suppressed his citizens’ civil rights during World War I.
One example of President Wilson's restriction of civil rights was his
…show more content…
One of the more famous cases was the Schenck case. Charles Schenck was convicted of printing and passing out anti-draft enrollment leaflets; this encouraged people not to enlist. Schenck felt his freedom of press was violated and took his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reinforced the conviction of him breaking the Espionage Act. The man in charge of this decision was Oliver Wendell Holmes. He believed that the actions of Schenck put the country in as much trouble, as a man who yelled fire in a full theatre. As he states here in his ruling speech:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no... Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to
…show more content…
President Wilson took many other actions to prohibit civil rights, which he felt could threaten his war campaign. The Masses case was a situation that led to prosecution by the Espionage Act. The Masses was a magazine company that printed anti-war cartoons, such as a dead body measuring for a war uniform, urging people to not be involved. This caused the entire magazine to be prohibited from production. The posters shared the idea that it was a rich man’s war and that the American workers were fighting for them. Their opinions were denied to the public because of the Espionage Act, which took away the rights of both businesses and people during the First World
In order to enlist more soldiers into the army the Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted into law. The law made it illegal for any individual to interfere in the enlistment process. It law was meet with major protests across majority of the US cities. Throughout the 20th century the law was enforced during all foreign wars, and this led to the draft resistance to Vietnam War. During World War I many opponents who contravened the Espionage Act were imprisoned. The growth of the Anarchist movement was suppressed with the prosecution of two of their members; Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti in 1920 (Zinn 1995, p. 367).
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 war so the military started selecting citizen randomly to draft. Schenck fought against this draft saying this in a way it was like slavery.
Schenek v. United States was a trial in 1919 that reaffirmed the conviction of a man for circulating antidraft leaflets among members of the armed forces. This trial upheld the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which by many deemed unconstitutional. The Espionage Act of 1917 was a United States federal law, which made it a crime for a person to convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. The Sedition Act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime. These two laws denied the freedom of speech that our sacred Bill of Rights was supposed to uphold. The antidraft flyers that Schenek passed out claimed to be freedom of speech so the government could not stop the circulation of Schenek’s pamphlets. However, by passing out antidraft laws, Schenek had “the intent to interfere with the operation of success of the armed forces of the United States.” By doing this, he broke the law. He was sentenced to six months in prison for breaking an unconstitutional law. The government was trying to reduce the freedom of speech during a time of war so that the nation would be united as one. The opposition of some feared Woodrow Wilson and his cabinet so they took action by reducing some freedoms and imprisoning many people unconstitutionally.
There is an obvious need to ensure that all soldiers act according to military orders rather than their own personal political motivations. At times, the military’s need to protect military order supersedes a soldier’s right to political speech. There is a delicate balance between protecting military interests and a soldier’s right to freedom of speech. Interests of the military, including protecting national security, promoting order and discipline within the military, and safeguarding military secrets must be balanced with a soldier’s right to tell his or her story and the public’s right to know the truth about the war on terror.
Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech.
In his book, “Woodrow Wilson Revolution, War, and Peace” by Arthur Link, Link walks step by step through President Woodrow Wilson’s career beginning from the time he was born and focuses on his role during and after World War I. Through his entire book, Link acts as an apologist for the actions of Wilson as well as argues against the opinions of other historians. Link speaks about Wilson almost as if he idolizes him; as if despite what other historians and public opinion might say that he can do no wrong.
Ernest Freeman’s book Democracy’s Prisoner Eugene V. Debs, The Great War, and The Right to Dissent explains that role that Eugene V. Debs plays in the socialist Party and the say he had in WW1. In this book the main focus was on how Eugene V. Debs and his party spoke out against the government once the Espionage Act was in place.
While thousands of American men fought in the war, not all American’s believed that the war was justified. In his address to the nation, President James Polk stated that the United States would fulfill it’s destiny by bringing peace to the less fortunate. In contrast to this, many in America felt that the war was unjust, realizing that the disputed territory never belonged to the United States. Among those opposing President Polk’s declaration of war was Congressman Abraham Lincoln, who refuted the President’s claims by analyzing his speech. Thomas Parker delivered a speech entitled “Sermon on War” in which he criticized the war for the same reasons as Abraham...
The American Civil War remains one of the most heated and highly debated pieces of history in not only the United States, but also the entire modern world. It remains so not only in its origins, but in the goals of each side, and the effects it had on American culture. The effects, as I will demonstrate much later, were not limited exclusively to the United States, and extended to many foreign ideals and practices as well. This demonstrates the importance of this war politically and socially to modern history.
In the late 1900’s the clear and present danger clause was added to the constitution which added small print to the first amendment. The clause was added to stop people from opposing the draft and United States war efforts when entering world war one. The clause states that if speech or writing poses a clear and present danger to others than it is not permitted under the first amendment. Under the same principal, you can’t scream “fire” in a crowded theater without consequences.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., delivered a judgment that established guidelines for evaluating the limits of free speech. In Schenck’s case, Court had to decide whether the First Amendment protected his words, even though it might have had the power to cause opposition to the draft. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The Court concluded that because Schenck's speech was intended to create opposition to the draft, he was not protected by the First Amendment.
government enacted the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 which led to the suppression of anti-war documents and sentiments, as well as the prosecution of over two-thousand individuals.#
United States that the First Amendment did not protect the publishing and distributing of nonconforming pamphlets during wartime, but Holmes dissented, elaborating more on his standard. Under the Sedition Act, lower courts convicted Abrams for publishing pamphlets criticizing the war (Abrams v. United States 1). While the Court affirmed the conviction, citing Holmes’ clear and present danger test, Holmes cautioned in his dissent that the test should not be so widely applied. He argued that Congress could legitimately limit speech, especially during times of war, but the government could not “forbid all effort to change the mind of the country” (Abrams 9). This means every piece of political criticism does not create a clear and present danger. He
As one of the presidents during the Progressive Era, Theodore Roosevelt led the United States of America through a series of dramatic changes that interrupted the lives and ideologies that Americans during the time were more than familiarized with. Industrialization, women’s suffrage, the sexual revolution, imperialism, and “muckraking” journalism were just a few of the controversial, yet significant characteristics of this era. However, perhaps one of the largest and most vital influences during this time period came from the outside. Immigration was an issue that Roosevelt himself addressed rather perceptibly in his paper entitled “True Americanism,” which first appeared in a magazine called The Forum in April, 1894. However, it is not the idea of immigration that vexed Roosevelt; rather it was his concern and fear of the possibility that the increase in immigration of foreign people and cultures would culminate the concept of American patriotism, or “Americanism” as a whole. This paper will analyze the different elements of Roosevelt’s “True Americanism” by exploring the historical context of the document, highlighting Americanism as Roosevelt explicates it, observing the rhetoric used throughout the document, and discerning Roosevelt’s intended audience.
Freedom of speech in United states are usually protected by the constitution, the only things that are not protected are cases of obscenity, defamation, war words and any form of incitement to start of riots. The other exceptions to the protection of the bill of rights on freedom of speech are harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets and any classified materials belonging to a business establishment or a company (Lieberman, 1999, p. 35). The protections and limitations to freedom of speech also extend to hate speech that is spread through commercial speech. Prior restrain is the point where the government issues a restrain to a speech before it is made. However, the government should be in a position to explain to the Supreme Court the need to restrict such speech. Defamation describes any words used by another party to spread false-hood with an intention of harming their reputation in public. Seduction is a protection act that protects citizens from abusive language that can be used in speeches to cause harm to the public. The Supreme Court needs to have a definite explanation on the need to have restrictions.