CIVIC LITERACY ESSAY - WWI
- Rosie Jayde Uyola
- 21 hours ago
- 10 min read
This Civic Literacy Essay Question is based on the accompanying documents. The question is designed to test your ability to work with historical documents. Some of these documents have been edited for the purpose of this question. As you analyze the documents, take into account the source of each document and any point of view that may be presented in the document. Keep in mind that the language and images used in a document may reflect the historical context of the time in which it was created.
Historical Context: Individual Rights During World War I
Throughout United States history, many constitutional and civic issues have been debated by Americans. These debates have resulted in efforts by individuals, groups, and governments to address these issues. These efforts have achieved varying degrees of success. One of these constitutional and civic issues is the restriction of individual rights during World War I.
Task: Read and analyze the documents. Using information from the documents and your
knowledge of United States history, answer the questions that follow each document in
Part A. Your answers to the questions will help you write the Part B essay in which you will
be asked to
• Describe the historical circumstances surrounding this constitutional or civic issue • Explain efforts by individuals, groups, and/or governments to address this constitutional or civic issue • Discuss the extent to which the efforts were successful |
In developing your answers to Part III, be sure to keep these general definitions in mind:
(a) describe means “to illustrate something in words or tell about it”
(b) explain means “to make plain or understandable; to give reasons for or causes
of; to show the logical development or relationships of”
(c) discuss means “to make observations about something using facts, reasoning,
and argument; to present in some detail”
Civic Literacy Essay
Part A
Short-Answer Questions (31–36)
Directions: Analyze the documents and answer the short-answer questions that follow each document in the space provided.
Document 1a
Before the declaration of war in 1917, the idea of sending U.S. troops to fight the Germans and save the British was not popular with the American people. However, once Congress declared war, there was considerable pressure to stifle [quiet] dissent about the war. Elihu Root, one of President Wilson’s advisers, said in early 1917, “We must have no criticism now.” Police surveillance increased, and Americans were encouraged to report their neighbors’ “disloyal” acts. Congress enacted the Espionage Act of 1917, which made acts of insubordination and disloyalty punishable by prison terms of up to twenty years. It was the first time since the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) early in the nation’s history that criticism of government had been criminalized. Sponsors said that tolerating disloyal public statements might undermine efforts to draft and recruit young people into military service. More than 2,000 people were prosecuted under the act. One of them was Charles Schenck, general secretary of Philadelphia’s Socialist Party. In 1917 the party directed Schenck to prepare a leaflet that would be distributed to young men conscripted in the recently enacted military draft. |
Source: Tony Mauro, Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court, CQ Press, 2006
Document 1b
Opposition to America’s wars was not new. Antiwar movements had emerged during the War of 1812, the war against Mexico (1846–48), and the 1898 war against Spain. But World War I saw the development of a much more consequential opposition, numbering in the millions, drawing on many sectors of society, and powerful enough to inspire a massive government crackdown that included thousands of arrests, the suppression of newspapers and organizations, and a tightly coordinated public information campaign that branded dissenters as enemy agents and dangerous subversives. World War I proved pivotal for German Americans, many of whom mobilized to promote American neutrality during the years 1914–1916 only to become targets of suspicion and hatred when the US entered the war in 1917. It was pivotal too for the Socialist Party, the Industrial Workers of the World, and other radical organizations that opposed American involvement. After 1917, radicals supplied much of the energy for the antiwar movement, and radical organizations paid dearly for their dissent. The government campaign to suppress antiwar opposition turned into a generalized red scare that continued into the 1920s. The American left was never the same. |
Source: Pacific Northwest Labor and Civil Rights Projects, University of Washington, 2009
Based on these documents, what is one historical circumstance that led to the restriction of individual rights during World War I?
Document 2a
Congress passed, and Wilson signed, in June of 1917, the Espionage Act. From its title one would suppose it was an act against spying. However, it had a clause that provided penalties up to twenty years in prison for “Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the U.S. ...” Unless one had a theory about the nature of governments, it was not clear how the Espionage Act would be used. It even had a clause that said “nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or restrict ... any discussion, comment, or criticism of the acts or policies of the Government.” ... But its double-talk concealed a singleness of purpose. The Espionage Act was used to imprison Americans who spoke or wrote against the war. |
Source: Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, 1492–Present, Harper Perennial, 2001
Document 2b
MUST LIBERTY’S LIGHT GO OUT?
Source: Winsor McCay, New York American, May 3, 1917 (adapted)
Based on these documents, what was one effort to address the issue of individual rights during World War I?
Document 3
. . .More than all, the citizen and his representative in Congress in time of war must maintain his right of free speech. More than in times of peace it is necessary that the channels for free public discussion of governmental policies shall be open and unclogged. I believe, Mr. President, that I am now touching upon the most important question in this country today—and that is the right of the citizens of this country and their representatives in Congress to discuss in an orderly way frankly and publicly and without fear, from the platform and through the press, every important phase of this war; its causes, the manner in which it should be conducted, and the terms upon which peace should be made. The belief which is becoming widespread in this land that this most fundamental right is being denied to the citizens of this country is a fact the tremendous significance of which, those in authority have not yet begun to appreciate. I am contending, Mr. President, for the great fundamental right of the sovereign people of this country to make their voice heard and have that voice heeded upon the great questions arising out of this war, including not only how the war shall be prosecuted [conducted] but the conditions upon which it may be terminated with a due regard for the rights and the honor of this nation and the interests of humanity. . . . |
Source: Senator Robert M. La Follette Sr., “Free Speech in Wartime,” October 6, 1917,
Congressional Record, 65th Congress
According to Senator Robert La Follette, what is one reason freedom of speech is important during wartime?
Document 4
The first legal challenge to the new law came early in January 1919, when three separate Espionage Act cases were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court had never before reviewed a free speech challenge to a federal statute. One of the cases, Schenck v. United States, began two years earlier when Charles Schenck, a prominent socialist, was arrested and tried for printing and distributing a leaflet that urged his fellow Americans to resist the draft. “A conscript [draftee] is little better than a convict,” it read. “He is deprived of his liberty and of his right to think and act as a free man.” In all three Espionage Act cases, the justices voted unanimously to uphold the convictions. But it was in the Schenck opinion that associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. created a new legal standard that served as the basis for all three decisions. Holmes, one of the Court’s more liberal members, conceded that the language used by the defendants would be acceptable in times of peace. But he stressed that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent [strict] protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. The question in every case,” Holmes concluded, “is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive [real] evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” |
Source: Haynes, Chaltain, and Glisson, A Documentary History Of First Amendment
Rights in America, Oxford University Press, 2006
Based on this document, how did the decision in Schenck v. United States impact individual rights during wartime?
Document 5
Eugene Debs was arrested for giving an antiwar speech and later convicted of violating the Espionage Act. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1919. In 1921, President Warren G. Harding made the decision to release Debs from prison.
Unquestionably, however, President Harding’s pardon of Eugene Debs and other political prisoners was one of his most important and underappreciated legacies. Specifically, his act was a singular contribution to the development of the pardon practice under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution. These commutations [pardons] served as a check on potential abuse by both coequal branches of government. Harding’s strategic use of the presidential pardon helped undo the damage done by a war-frenzied Congress in enacting the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which had been compounded by the failure of the Supreme Court to defend the First Amendment of the Constitution. It was an impressive demonstration of constitutional authority by a president. Seen in this context, Harding’s call for a “return to normalcy” hardly seems as trite [insignificant] as it is often portrayed in historical texts. His ending the abuses of the Sedition Act and the American Protective League did more than simply effect a nonviolent transition back to prewar conditions. The action also clearly showed that President Warren Harding understood the critical need for the executive to use constitutional power to counterbalance pernicious [harmful] legislation or unwise court rulings that might threaten core freedoms under the U.S. Constitution. |
Source: Ken Gormley, The Presidents and the Constitution, A Living History,
New York University Press, 2016 (adapted)
According to Ken Gormley, how did President Harding’s pardon of Eugene Debs impact individual rights after World War I?
Document 6
. . .During World War II, President Roosevelt ordered the internment of more than 110,000 individuals of Japanese descent, two-thirds of whom were American citizens. Men, women, and children were locked away in detention camps for the better part of three years, for no reason other than their race. Faced with the threat of Soviet espionage, sabotage, and subversion during the Cold War, the government instituted loyalty programs, legislative investigations, blacklists, and criminal prosecutions to ferret out [find] and punish those suspected of “disloyalty.” It was an era scarred by the actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. During the Vietnam War, the Johnson and Nixon administrations initiated surreptitious [secret] programs of surveillance and infiltration in order to disrupt and neutralize those who opposed the war, prosecuted dissenters for burning their draft cards and expressing contempt for the American flag, and attempted to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers. . . . |
Source: Geoffrey R. Stone, War and Liberty, An American Dilemma: 1790 to the present,
W. W. Norton & Company, 2007
According to Geoffrey Stone, what is one way individual rights during wartime continued to be an issue after World War I?
Exit Ticket
What do these primary sources tell us about the restriction of individual rights during World War I? |
DAY 2
Part B
Civic Literacy Essay Question (37)
Directions: Write a well-organized essay that includes an introduction, several paragraphs, and a conclusion. Use evidence from at least four documents in the body of the essay. Support your response with relevant facts, examples, and details. Include additional outside information.
Historical Context: Individual Rights During World War I
Throughout United States history, many constitutional and civic issues have been debated by Americans. These debates have resulted in efforts by individuals, groups, and governments to address these issues. These efforts have achieved varying degrees of success. One of these constitutional and civic issues is the restriction of individual rights during World War I.
Task: Using information from the documents and your knowledge of United States history, write an essay in which you
• Describe the historical circumstances surrounding this constitutional or civic issue • Explain efforts by individuals, groups, and/or governments to address this constitutional or civic issue • Discuss the extent to which the efforts were successful |
Guidelines:
In your essay, be sure to
• Develop all aspects of the task
• Explain at least two efforts to address the issue
• Incorporate information from at least four documents
• Incorporate relevant outside information
• Support the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details
• Use a logical and clear plan of organization, including an introduction and a conclusion
that are beyond a restatement of the theme
Civic Literacy Essay: Historical Context, Efforts, Impact
Task: Describe the historical context, explain two efforts to address the issue, and discuss the impact on U.S. society.
Paragraph 1: Historical Context
The civic issue in this essay is ___________________________________. It became important in the ___________ (decade or era) when ____________________________. The historical context shows why people started to care about this issue, especially because _______________________________.
Paragraph 2: First Effort to Address the Issue
One effort to solve this issue was ___________________________. This effort was led by __________________________ in _________ (year). It was designed to ____________________________, and it (succeeded / failed / partly helped) because ______________________________.
Paragraph 3: Second Effort to Address the Issue
Another effort was ___________________________, which began in __________. This action tried to ____________________________, and it was (effective / ineffective) because _______________________. These actions show how civic groups or the government tried to solve the problem.
Paragraph 4: Impact on the U.S.
These efforts changed U.S. society by __________________________. The issue had a long-term impact on ___________________________. Today, we still see results of these efforts in _____________________________________.
Paragraph 5: Conclusion (Synthesis)
The ___________________________ (historical context = what was happening at the time) helps us understand why ___________________________ (this issue) mattered. The efforts and their impact show how civic action and government policy can shape American society over time.