Monthly Plan
Show
Yearly Plan
Log in through your institution Purchase a PDFPurchase this article for $19.00 USD. How does it work?
journal article Interchange: World War IChris Capozzola, Andrew Huebner, Julia Irwin, Jennifer D. Keene, Ross Kennedy, Michael Neiberg, Stephen R. Ortiz, Chad Williams and Jay Winter The Journal of American History Vol. 102, No. 2 (September 2015) , pp. 463-499 (37 pages) Published By: Oxford University Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/44286820 Read and download Log in through your school or library Alternate access options For independent researchers Subscribe to JPASS Unlimited reading + 10 downloads Purchase article $19.00 - Download now and later Journal Information In 1964 the Mississippi Valley Historical Review, published by the Organization of American Historians, became The Journal of American History. The change in title reflected not only an awareness of a growing national membership in the Association, but recognized a decided shift in contributor emphasis from regional to nationally-oriented history. The Journal of American History remains the leading scholarly publication and journal of record in the field of American history and is well known as the major resource for the study, investigation, and teaching of our country's heritage. Published quarterly in March, June, September and December, the Journal continues its distinguished career by publishing prize-winning and widely reprinted articles on American history. Each volume contains interpretive essays on all aspects of American history, plus reviews of books, films, movies, television programs, museum exhibits and resource guides, as well as microform, oral history, archive and manuscript collections, bibliographies of scholarship contained in recent scholarly periodicals and dissertations. Publisher Information Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. OUP is the world's largest university press with the widest global presence. It currently publishes more than 6,000 new publications a year, has offices in around fifty countries, and employs more than 5,500 people worldwide. It has become familiar to millions through a diverse publishing program that includes scholarly works in all academic disciplines, bibles, music, school and college textbooks, business books, dictionaries and reference books, and academic journals. Rights & Usage This item is part of a JSTOR Collection. If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website. If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked. The U.S. entry into World War I was met with an outpouring of patriotism and support for the war effort—sentiments George Creel and the Committee on Public Information’s media campaign reinforced over the next two years. Not all Americans, however, favored their country’s involvement. There was opposition to both the war and the government’s policy of conscription. Many believed the war financially benefited arms and munitions manufacturers at the disproportionate cost of ethnic and racial minorities and those of low socioeconomic status. Many recognized the war effort would not “make the world safe for democracy” even among all Americans. In a reversal of pre-war attitudes, objection to the war was considered dangerous to the nation. The controversy of criticizing the war, combined with the fear of socialism, led to the first Red Scare in the United States. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917 to silence those that continued speaking out and promoting “disloyal” behavior. It made it illegal for any person to deliberately “cause or attempt to cause disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States” or to intentionally “obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States.” Thousands of people were arrested and charged for alleged disloyal or seditious speech. Amid the patriotism, heightened by wartime hysteria, those accused were met with little sympathy from American society. In 1918, Congress built upon the Espionage Act by passing the Sedition Act, which banned the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” about the United States government, flag or military that caused others to view the American government or its institutions negatively. It also allowed the postmaster general to prevent delivering mail that had similar language or beliefs. Both the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act were upheld in the Supreme Court, notably in Debs v. United States and Schenck v. United States, the latter stating that “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.” Only after World War I ended did government officials and the American public come to believe that those who opposed the war had been treated unfairly and in violation to their constitutional rights. Those sent to prison, like socialist leader Eugene Debs, were released and pardoned. The Supreme Court also amended its wartime decisions, reversing controversial cases where they did not protect American citizens’ constitutional rights. How did the U.S. government attempt to silence opposition to American involvement in ww1?The Sedition and Espionage Acts Were Designed to Quash Dissent During WWI. As the United States entered World War I, President Wilson and Congress sought to silence vocal and written opposition to U.S. involvement in the war.
What actions did the U.S. government take to suppress antiCongress passed the Espionage Act that essentially criminalized anti-war protests. The Sedition Act later strengthened the wartime repression in 1918. [59] Together these pieces of legislation legalized the violent crushing of any organization or individuals that opposed the U.S. war effort.
What measures did the U.S. government take to prepare Americans for war?The government took a number of steps to ensure that Americans supported the war effort. Congress passed several laws, including the Trading with the Enemy Act, the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, and the Alien Act, all intended to criminalize dissent against the war.
What statement about African Americans who served in World War I is true?Which statement about African Americans who served in World War I is true? They served mostly in noncombat roles. A newspaper editor who wrote a column stating it was immoral for the United States to be involved in a war could be convicted of violating which of the following?
|
How did the government try to silence opposition to american involvement in world war i? (5 points)
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 decemle Inc.
