Name ______Date ______Period _____
Primary Documents: America’s Role in WWI
Directions: Read the primary documents and answer the questions.
Majority Opinion in Schenck v. United States – Oliver Wendell Holmes (1919)
1) Summarize the three counts in the indictment (in this context an indictment is criminal charges).
2) Explain what Schenck wrote in the pamphlet about the 13th Amendment and conscription (a military draft). Do you think that it makes sense?
3) Why does Schenck’s pamphlet argue that all Americans must resist the draft?
4) Why do you think the Court says that the “most stringentprotection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”?
5) Do you think Schenck’s pamphlet presented what the Supreme Court called a “clear and present danger”?
America and WWI – Calvin Coolidge (1919)
62) What does Coolidge say that the U.S. flag represents?
7) What does Coolidge say that the American military sailed under?
8) What do you suppose Coolidge means by “militant liberty”?
9) What benefits does Coolidge say will be the result of the American victory in WWI?
The American Soldier – Warren G. Harding (1919)
10) What three characteristics does Harding say all WWI soldiers shared?
11) To soldiers from what two previous wars does Harding compare WWI veterans?
Democrats in WWI – A. Mitchell Palmer (1919)
12) What things does Palmer say were “welded into an irresistible force”? What does he mean?
13) Palmer says that the American effort and victory in WWI will have been wasted if some things do not happen. What are those things? Which was the most important?
14) How does this speech by Palmer and the speeches you already read by Harding and Coolidge reflect a sense of American exceptionalism? (If you are unclear on American exceptionalism, here is a little background: In the 1830s a French author named Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States. He published a two volume treatise on American government called Democracy in America. Part one was published in 1835 and part two was published in 1840. Within the work he asserted that a sense of American exceptionalism (that is that the U.S. is different from other countries and peoples) developed from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation" in the modern world, and developing a uniquely American ideology based on liberty, equality of opportunity, individualism, populism and laissez-fair. Exceptionalism does not assert American superiority, just uniqueness, but many conservatives have used the idea of exceptionalism to promote American superiority. They argue that the U.S. represents and international “city on a hill”. In a sense, they use the idea of exceptionalism to justify nationalism. On the contrary, most liberals reject that belief and argue that not only is the U.S. not exceptional, but that every nation and people group believes itself to be exceptional.
Majority Opinion in Schenck v. United States – Oliver Wendell Holmes (1919)
Schenck v. United States upheld the defendants' convictions under the Federal Espionage Act.The defendants were charged under the Act with distributing leaflets aimed at inciting draftresistance during World War I; their defense was that anti-draft speech was protected underthe First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected this argument,holding that whether speech is protected depends on the context in which it occurs. Becausethe defendants' anti draft rhetoric created a "clear and present danger" to the success of thewar effort, it was not protected. Below are excerpts from the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court.
This is an indictment in three counts. The first charges a conspiracy toviolate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917...by causing and attempting tocause insubordination, &c., in the military and naval forces of the UnitedStates, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the UnitedStates, when the United States was at war with the German Empire, to-wit,that the defendant willfully conspired to have printed and circulated to menwho had been called and accepted for military service under the Act of May18, 1917... a document set forth and alleged to be calculated to cause suchinsubordination and obstruction. The count alleges overt acts in pursuance ofthe conspiracy, ending in the distribution of the document set forth. Thesecond count alleges a conspiracy to commit an offense against the UnitedStates, to-wit, to use the mails for the transmission of matter declared to benon-mailable by title 12, 2, of the Act of June 15, 1917 ... to-wit, the abovementioneddocument, with an averment of the same overt acts. The thirdcount charges an unlawful use of the mails for the transmission of the samematter and otherwise as above. The defendants were found guilty on all thecounts. They set up the First Amendment to the Constitution forbiddingCongress to make any law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,
and bringing the case here on that ground have argued some other points alsoof which we must dispose.
The document in question upon its first printed side recited the firstsection of the Thirteenth Amendment, said that the idea embodied in it wasviolated by the conscription act and that a conscript is little better than aconvict. In impassioned language it intimated that conscription was despotismin its worst form and a monstrous wrong against humanity in the interest ofWall Street's chosen few. It said, 'Do not submit to intimidation,' but in format least confined itself to peaceful measures such as a petition for the repeal ofthe act. The other and later printed side of the sheet was headed 'Assert YourRights.' It stated reasons for alleging that any one violated the Constitutionwhen he refused to recognize 'your right to assert your opposition to the draft,'and went on, 'If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping todeny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens andresidents of the United States to retain.' It described the arguments on theother side as coming from cunning politicians and a mercenary capitalist press,and even silent consent to the conscription law as helping to support aninfamous conspiracy. It denied the power to send our citizens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other lands, and added that words could notexpress the condemnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves , &c., &c.,winding up, 'You must do your share to maintain, support and uphold the
rights of the people of this country.' Of course the document would not havebeen sent unless it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not seewhat effect it could be expected to have upon persons subject to the draftexcept to influence them to obstruct the carrying of it out. The defendants donot deny that the jury might find against them on this point.
But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of this circular, it isprotected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Two of the strongestexpressions are said to be quoted respectively from well-known public men. Itwell may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have beenthe main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462.We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in sayingall that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutionalrights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in whichit is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205. The most stringentprotection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in atheatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunctionagainst uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck'sStove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 . The question in every case is whetherthe words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as tocreate a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantiveevils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity anddegree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time ofpeace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be enduredso long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by anyconstitutional right. It seems to be admitted that if an actual obstruction of therecruiting service were proved, liability for words that produced that effectmight be enforced. The statute of 1917 in section 4 (Comp. St. 1918,10212d) punishes conspiracies to obstruct as well as actual obstruction. If theact, (speaking, or circulating a paper,) its tendency and the intent with whichit is done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that success alonewarrants making the act a crime. Goldman v. United States, 245 U.S. 474 , 477. Indeed that case might be said to dispose of the present contention if theprecedent covers all media concludendi. But as the right to free speech was notreferred to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words…
America and WWI – Calvin Coolidge (1919)
Calvin Coolidge rose to fame as the governor of Massachusetts, and later served as presidentof the United States. In 1919, in the aftermath of the war, Governor Coolidge spoke thefollowing words about the Americans who fought for their country in World War I.
Works which endure come from the soul of the people. The mighty intheir pride walk alone to destruction. The humble walk hand in handwith providence to immortality. Their works survive.When the people of the colonies were defending their liberties against themight of kings, they chose their banner from the design set in the firmamentthrough all eternity. The flags of great empires of that day have gone, but thestars and stripes remain. It pictures a vision of a people whose eyes are turnedto the rising dawn. It represents of the hope of a father for his posterity. It wasnever flaunted for the glory of royalty, but to be born under it is to be thechild of a king, and to establish a home under it is to be the founder of a royalhouse. Alone of all flags, it expresses the sovereignty of the people whichendures when all else passes away. Speaking with their voice, it has the sanctityof revelations. He who lives under it and disloyal to it is a traitor to the humanrace everywhere. What could be saved if the flag of the American nation wereto perish?
America has many glories. The last one that she would wish to surrender isthe glory of the men who have served her in war. While such devotion lives,the nation is secure. Whatever dangers may threaten from within or without,she can view them calmly. Turning to her veterans, she can say: “These are ourdefenders. They are invincible. In them is our safety.”
After more than five years of the bitterest war in human experience, the lastgreat stronghold of force surrendering to the demands of America and herallies agreed to cast aside the sword and live under the law. America decidedthat the path of the Mayflower should not be closed. She decided to sail the seas. She decided to sail not under an Edict of Potsdam, cramped in narrowlands, seeking safety in unarmed merchant men painted in fantastic hues as thebadge of an infinite servitude; but she decided to sail under the ancientDeclaration of Independence, choosing her own course, maintaining security by the guns of her ships of the LINE, flying at the mast the stars and stripesforever, the emblem of a militant liberty.
With peace has come prosperity. Burdens have been great, but the strengthto bear them has been greater. The condition of those who toil is higher,better, more secure than in all the ages past. Out of the darkness of a greatconflict has appeared the vision of a nearer, clearer than ever before, the life on earth and less under the deadening restraint of course more and more underthe vitalizing influence of reason. Moral power has been triumphing overphysical power. Education will tend to bring reason and experience of the pastinto the solution of the problems of the future. We must look to service andnot selfishness, for service is the foundation of our progress. The greatestlesson that we have to learn is to seek ever the public welfare, to build up, tomaintain our American heritage.
The American Soldier – Warren G. Harding (1919)
Warren G. Harding ran successfully for the United States Senate in 1914. Although heintroduced no major bills in his six-year term, he became known for favoring high tariffs andopposing the League of Nations and federal regulation of industry. In the following speech,Harding honors the American soldiers who fought in World War I. Harding delivered thespeech at the war’s end (1919), while campaigning for the 1920 presidential election.
My countrymen, though not in any partisan sense, I must speak of theservices of the men and women who rallied to the colors of the Republicin the World War. America realizes and appreciates the services rendered, thesacrifices made, and the sufferings endured. There shall be no distinctionsbetween those who knew the perils and glories of the battlefront or the dangersof the sea, and those who were compelled to serve behind the lines, or thosewho constituted the great reserve of a grand army which awaited the call incamps at home. All were brave. All were self-sacrificing. All were sharers ofthose ideals which sent our boys twice armed to war.
Worthy sons and daughters these. Fit successors to those who christenedour banners in the immortal beginning. Worthy sons of those who saved theUnion and nationality when civil war wiped out the ambiguity from theConstitution. Ready sons of those who drew the sword for humanity’s sakethe first time in the world in 1898. The four million defenders on land and seawere worthy of the best traditions of a people never warlike in peace and neverpacifist in war. They commanded our pride. They have our gratitude, whichmust have genuine expression. It’s not only a duty—it’s a privilege to see thatthe sacrifices made shall be requited, and that those still suffering fromcasualties and disabilities shall be abundantly aided and restored to the highestcapabilities of citizenship and its enjoyments.
Much has been said of late about world ideals. But I prefer to think of theideal for America. I like to think there’s something more than the patriotismand practical wisdom of our founding fathers. It’s good to believe that maybedestiny held this New World republic to be the supreme example ofrepresentative democracy and orderly liberty by which humanity is inspired to higher achievement. It is idle to think we have attained perfection, but there isthe satisfying knowledge that we hold orderly processes for making ourgovernment reflect the heart and mind of the Republic.
Ours is not only a fortunate people, but a very commonsensical people,with vision high, but their feet on the earth, with belief in themselves and faithin God. Whether enemies threaten from without or menaces arise fromwithin, there is some indefinable voice saying: “Have confidence in theRepublic. America will go on.” Here is the sample of liberty no storms mayshake. Here are the altars of freedom no factions shall destroy. It was Americanin conception, American in its building. It shall be American in thefulfillment. Factional once, we are all American now. And we mean to be allAmericans to all the world.
Democrats in WWI – A. Mitchell Palmer (1919)
Alexander Mitchell Palmer served as United States Attorney General(chief law enforcement officer in the country and attorney for the nation) from 1919 to 1921,under President Woodrow Wilson. Palmer is most famous for leading the “Palmer Raids” on immigrant neighborhoods in 1919 and 1920 in an effort to find and arrest suspected anarchists, communists and other “un-Americans” living in the U.S. In the following speech, delivered after World War I, Palmer honors the contributions of Americans in the war and defends the actions ofDemocratic leaders during the war.
I do not put our victory in the World War in the proud list of Democraticachievements. Though fought under the great leadership of the greatestDemocrat since Jefferson, and although without the support of his party inevery crisis it could not have been brought to its successful and triumphantconclusion, it was the people’s war in a peculiar sense. The patriotic supportgiven to the government during the war by men of every political faith, provesthat passionate love of country and intense devotion to our institutions are apart of the creed of every political party in the nation.
But I do insist that we shall hear no more of the old slander that theDemocratic Party cannot be trusted to lead in a great war. We may give toindividual Americans the full measure of praise which a grateful republic willalways shower upon the men who sprang to its defense with unprecedentedvalor and unhesitating devotion to its Christian cause. But the impartialhistorian must and will write it down as an incontrovertible fact that the partyin power rose with unstinted enthusiasm to the needs of the hour, while itsleadership translated the will and spirit of the American people into decisiveand courageous action, without which ignominious failure would have beenour portion in the Armageddon of the nation.