Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
War on the homefront ww1
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: War on the homefront ww1
Vigilantism in World War I America was a perversion of the law that in the eyes of the perpetrator was a just action no matter how gruesome or violent. The obligation of vigilance during the war time was seen as patriotic duty but somewhere along the way the thought of it became distorted. Christopher Capozzola writes in his article The Only Badge Needed is Your Patriotic Fervor: Vigilance, Coercion and the Law in World War I America about vigilance taking three forms: Defending the home front and in particular in Connecticut, labor disputes and social and moral disputes. During this article one sees that vigilantism was not a clear cut defiance of the American law or system it was a theory that put the power in the hands of the people but did not separate it from those that created it and those that could act upon it.
The first section Mr. Capozzola discusses in his article is the idea of defending the home front during the war. His argument is that the people of the United States found it their duty to step in and take control when the citizens felt that the government was not doing their job. In a quote from Woodrow Wilson the reader is able to see what the government was trying to fix. "No man who loves America, no man who really cares for her fame and honor and character
can justify mob action while the courts of justice are open and the governments of the States and the Nations are ready and able to do their duty. The point here in the article is that it was just not the American people that would look bad from this vigilantly justice but, the society and nation as a whole was being scrutinized.
He continues this argument by examining America's past, one that is very much violent. He states that, "
violence i...
... middle of paper ...
... up his article by stating that, " They were obedient citizens trapped in a paradox of their own making, dedicated to a nation of laws that asked them to ignore law
"
During this article one sees that vigilantism was not a clear cut defiance of the American law or system it was a theory that put the power in the hands of the people but did not separate it from those that created it and those that could act upon it. Vigilantism in World War I America was a perversion of the law that in the eyes of the perpetrator was a just action no matter how gruesome or violent. The obligation of vigilance during the war time was seen as patriotic duty but somewhere along the way the thought of it became distorted. Vigilantly justice was as Mr. Capozzola rights was a result of unclear political guidance over the notion of who could right the law and who could act out upon it.
In An American Soldier in World War I, David Snead examines account of George Browne, a civil engineer who fought as part of the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) during World War I. Snead shares Browne’s account of the war through the letters he wrote to his fiancé Martha Ingersoll Johnson. Through Browne’s letters and research conducted of the AEF, Snead gives a concise, informative, and harrowing narrative of life as a soldier serving in the camps and front lines of the Great War. Snead attempts to give the reader an understanding of Browne’s service by focusing on his division, the 42nd Division, their training and preparation, combat on the front lines, and the effects of war on George and Martha’s relationship. As Snead describes, “Brownie’s letters offer a view of the experiences of an American soldier. He described the difficulties of training, transit to and from France, the dangers and excitement of combat, and the war’s impact on relationships.” (Browne 2006, 2) Furthermore, he describes that despite the war’s effect on their relationship, “their
Reynolds, Larry. “Patriot and Criminals, Criminal and Patriots.” South Central Review. Vol 9, No. 1.
¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone.
The “Red Scare” was consuming many American’s lives following World War 1. After the war ended, anarchist bombings began, and a general fear of socialists, anarchists, communists, and immigrants swept the nation. There had always been resentment to immigrants in America, and these attacks just intensified these feelings. Americans were concerned that, because the Russian Revolution occurred, that it would happen in America next. The government began sweeping immigrants up and deporting them. Many innocent people were arrested because of their views against democracy. Although Sacco and Vanzetti were on trial for murder, their beliefs of how society should be run was the main focus in the trial.
Believers of the Old and New Testaments claim that violence is a sin and can only lead to more brutality and death; poet Tony Barnstone firmly agrees. In his poem “Parable in Praise of Violence” Barnstone lambastes the American obsession with violence-- that it is often triggered by inevitable events which could be handled in different manners. The speaker in “Parable in Praise of Violence” reflects on all parts of his “sinful” culture and comes to the realization that people often use violence as a way to deal with emotions of grief and anger caused by events and concepts they cannot explain.
whites down by their capacity to suffer, and ‘non-violence weakens the oppressor’s morale and exposes his defenses. And at the same time it works on his conscience’. He was against violence and said it ‘destroys everybody’, and repeated that violence would not help the people. situation, instead it would instigate white violence. So when the 3,300 black men, women and children were peacefully demonstrating for civil rights, they were attacked by the police with tear gas, fire.
There are several significant, as well as less significant, themes that are put forth by the author. Some themes that are not as meticulously elaborated on, but still contribute to the book, include the idea that war can corrupt the government and it’s actions, police brutality was part of the norm of the 1960s, and the word “power” had more than one meaning during the civil rights era. All these themes are important to take into consideration upon reading this book; however th...
Liberty is one of if not the most highly desired things in this world today and in the past. In many countries people beg and fight for liberty but other places people have it given to them. Throughout history there have been examples of countries resulting to violence and warfare in order to attain the liberties they seek. The United States, in the Revolutionary War, fought for their liberties and their freedom, and the French during the French Revolution fought for theirs as well. Eugene Delacroix painted a well known picture depicting this event called “Liberty Leading the People” showing Lady Liberty leading the French through a battle while raising the French flag in one hand and holding a rifle in the other, uniting her people through war. Over 100 years later, George Orwell wrote a commentary piece during WWII stating how no country should stand aside and be pacifists during war. In order to beat enemies a country cannot just lay down instead they must take action to defeat them, push for peace aggressively, and come together as a country with undivided morals. Both Orwell and Delacroix demonstrated how in order to attain freedom a country cannot be pacifists but must take aggressive action and come together as one to achieve their desired liberties.
During 1776, the United States was at war to gain its own independence from the hands of the tyrant King George III and his kingdom. As the fightt continued, the spirits of the U.S. soldiers began to die out as the nightmares of winter crawled across the land. Thomas Paine, a journalist, hoped to encourage the soldiers back into the fight through one of his sixteen pamphlets, “The American Crisis (No.1)”. In order to rebuild the hopes of the downhearted soldiers, Thomas Paine establishes himself as a reliable figure, enrages them with the crimes of the British crown, and, most importantly evokes a sense of culpability.
In his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” often times dubbed, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) argues against abiding to one’s State, in protest to the unjust laws within its government. Among many things, Thoreau was an American author, poet, and philosopher. He was a firm believer in the idea of civil disobedience, the act of refusing to obey certain laws of a government that are felt to be unjust. He opposed the laws regarding slavery, and did not support the Mexican-American war, believing it to be a tactic by the Southerners to spread slavery to the Southwest. To show his lack of support for the American government, he refused to pay his taxes. After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest. From these three men, we can learn the significance of detaching ourselves from the social norm; and instead, fight for our values in a non-violent way, in order to make a change in our government’s corrupt and unjust laws.
Specifically, the first sentence of the second paragraph captures the American sense of liberty and equality at the time:
Allen Moore’s sordid depiction of twentieth century life presents a complex world, where the distinction between a virtuous hero and a villainous wrongdoer is often blurred. In stark contrast to the traditionally popularized portrayal of superheroes, whose unquestionably altruistic motives ultimately produce unrealistically idealized results; the realistically flawed characters of Watchmen exist in a multi-faceted world characterized by moral ambiguity. America’s imperialistic ambitions have long been justified as an expression of American idealism. Much like the portrayal of superheroes in popular culture, America’s intervention in foreign affairs was portrayed as the result of a clearly defined problem, where American intervention was necessary and consensual. The Watchmen exist in an American reality that does not depend on them as the archetypal hero as demonstrated by the fact that their presence is not necessary to the survival of the world.
Today we live in a much different world than that of our founders. The rise of the United States into world dominance, the shift of population into the cities, and the increase of drug use and violence have produced great change in our society. Americans once feared the loss of the free state would come from foreign invasion or political corruption, but now the greatest threat is the violence we see on the evening news. The increase in violence and murder has sparked the greatest debate over gun ownership in our nation's history. The second amendment has been reinterpreted by those who feel the mere presents of guns have led to increased violence. I believe that the threat vi...
...elling example of how citizens took the privilege of owning weapons for their own security in the home and nation, and used it for venomous reasons. A concept that was effective in the eleventh century lost its value as citizens began to ignore their responsibilities as gun owning United States citizens. The Federalist foresaw that citizens were going to expunge their right, yet it was still ratified in the Constitution. The discernment of a plan to execute seven individuals conveys how citizens have ignored both the meaning of their rights and their responsibilities. A few individual’s decision to configure the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, consequentially led to a stringent of regulations placed on gun owners. “Violence is an evil thing, but when the guns are all in the hands of me without respect for human rights, then men are really in trouble”- Louis L’Amour.
There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment