Argumentative Essay: The Sedition Act Of 1918
Sedition Act of 1918
Steven Gilbreath
HIST 2020
Darryl Austin
March 31, 2014
On April 6, 1917 the U.S. declared war on Germany. According to the University of Houston’s Digital History site, Woodrow Wilson stated, “there were ‘millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live amongst us,’... ‘If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with a firm hand of repression’”. Within three weeks Congress began debating the issue of espionage during wartime. President Woodrow Wilson’s administration drafted an act on espionage and presented it to Congress. During their debates congress completely removed the “press censorship” provision, and amended the “nonmailabilty” and “disaffection” provisions. After nine weeks …show more content…
of debates and amendments to the act, Congress enacted the act against espionage, known as the Espionage Act on June 15, 1917. Even though the majority of Congress supported the act, there were some Congressmen opposed it. Representative Simeon Fess warned that “’in time of war we are very apt to do things’ we should not do.”
There were many arrests and trials based on this act. Despite Congress 's intention of not limited free speech, many judges’ rulings did indeed restrict the freedom of speech. One such instance is the case of Robert Goldstein. Goldstein produced and exhibited a motion picture about the American Revolution. In his film, The Spirit of '76, he depicted events from the American Revolution such as; Paul Revere 's ride, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Washington at Valley Forge, and the Wyoming Valley Massacre. The scenes of the Wyoming Valley Massacre showed British soldiers bayoneting women and children. The government claimed that this scene was an attempt to cause insubordination by negative portrayal of America’s ally in the war against Germany. The judge sentenced Goldstein to ten years in prison.
While most judges took a liberal interpretation of the act, there were judges who took it in context of what congress tried to accomplish. One of the most important decisions in which a federal judge held fast against a broad construction of the Espionage Act was Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten. The Masses, a monthly “revolutionary” journal, featured a remarkable collection of artists, authors, playwrights, philosophers, and poets. In the summer of 1917, Postmaster General Albert Burleson ordered the August edition excluded from the mails. The postmaster argued that four cartoons and four pieces of text violated the espionage act in that they caused or attempted “to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces” and obstructed “the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States.” Judge Hand opined that in the time of war Congress might have the power to “forbid the mails to any matter which tends to discourage the successful prosecution of the war.” He went on say that the act did not cover the material published in the Masses.
Even though most judges had a broad interpretation of the act and the number of prosecutions climbed daily, the Department of Justice sought to amend the espionage act and close what it considered loopholes.
In the spring of 1918 Attorney General Gregory asked Congress to amend the act. Attorney General Gregory sought to prohibit people from interfering with the government 's efforts to borrow funds for the war and to clarify that the act prohibited attempts to obstruct recruiting and enlistment, as well as actual obstruction of such activities. The general attorney used a then recent lynching of a German American accused of disloyalty to garner support. Gregory claimed that the public felt the laws were not strict enough to those disloyal to the war effort and took the law into their own hands. In May of 1918 Congress amended section three of the Espionage Act. It is this amendment that became known as the Sedition Act of 1918. Congress drafted the federal sedition act based on Montana’s sedition act. The federal act differentiated from the Montana act by only three words. The amendment forbade any person, “when the United States is in …show more content…
war.” to willfully utter, print, write, or publish and disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States,
or to use any language intended to bring the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely or disrepute,
or to willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or to willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of anything or things necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war, or to willfully advocate, teach, defend or suggest the doing of any of the acts enumerated in this section, or by word or act to support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States.
Ex-Congressman Tom Stout said, “We are done with the days of a divided allegiance in this broad land of liberty. With our sacred honor and our liberties at stake, there can be but only two classes of American citizens, patriots and traitors! Chose you the banner beneath which you will stand in this hour of trial.” While this was the sentiment of most in Congress, the potential reach of the act bothered some congressmen. Senator Charles Thomas wondered if a soldier, who had sent him a letter concerned because his family had not yet received his pay, would be covered by this act. Others wondered if proposals of peace would would be considered sedition as they might encourage the enemy. There were other congressmen who questioned the constitutionality of the act. Theodore Roosevelt weighed in on the subject. He proclaimed that if Congress enacted the Sedition Act, he would personally “give the government the opportunity to test its constitutionality.”
In 1919, the Supreme Court case Schneck v. United States gave the court its first major decision interpreting the first amendment. The United States charged the defendants with conspiring to interfere or obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service. The defendants passed out pamphlets to men who had been called and accepted to military service. The pamphlet argued the constitutionality of the draft and urged its readers not to “submit to intimidation.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the unanimous opinion which upheld the conviction. When asked if the pamphlet was protected by the first amendment Justice Holmes answered:
We admit that in many places and in ordinary time the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a min falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used 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 prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right...
Holmes explained in later opinions that even though the “principles of free speech is always the same,” the government 's power to restrict speech is greater in time of war “because war opens dangers that do not exist at other times.”
Works Cited
Digital History. “The Espionage Act of 1917.” University of Houston. Accessed January 31, 2014. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904
Stone, Geoffrey R. Stone. Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004.
U.S. Constitution. amend. 1. Freedom of Speech clause.
Work, Clemmons P. Darkest Before Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.
Secondary Sources
Duffy, Michael. “Primary Document - U.S. Espionage Act, 15 June 1917.” firstworldwar.com. August 22, 2009. Accessed January 31, 2014. http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/ espionageact.htm.
Duffy, Michael.
“Primary Document – U.S. Espionage Act, 7 May 1918.” firstworldwar.com. August 22, 2009. Accessed February 11, 2014. www.firstworldwar.com/source/ espionageact1918.htm.
Hunter, W. C. “Alien Rights in the United States in Wartime.” Michigan Law Review 17 no. 1 (November 1918). Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1277038.
Kohn, Stephen M. American Political Prisoners: Prosecutions Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994.
Lobb, Albert J. “Civil Authority Versus Military.” The Virginia Law Register 4 no. 12 (April 1919). Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1106338.
Wallace, M. G. “Constitutionality of Sedation Laws.” Virginia Law Review, 6 no. 6 (March 1920). Accessed February 7, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1064269.
Wood, Thomas E. “Nashville Now and Then: You Watch Your Mouth,” Nashville Post, August 5, 2007. Accessed February, 6 2014. https://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/8/5/
nashville_now_and_then_you_watch_your_mouth.
An Act To Amend Section Three, Title One, of the Act Entitled "An Act to Punish Acts of Interference with the Foreign Relations, the Neutrality, and the Foreign Commerce of the United States, to Punish Espionage, and Better to Enforce the Criminal Laws of the United States, and for Other Purposes," Approved June Fifteenth, Nineteen Hundred and Seventeen, and for Other Purposes. Public Law 150, US Statutes at Large 40 (1918): 553-554. Accessed March 31, 2014. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/040_statutes_at _large.pdf
--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. “The Espionage Act of 1917, University of Houston-Digital History, accessed February 11, 2014, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904.
[ 2 ]. Geoffrey R. Stone, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (New York, 2004), 148.
[ 3 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 173.
[ 4 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 165.
[ 5 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 184.
[ 6 ]. Clemmons P. Work, Darkest Before the Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West (New Mexico, 2005), 3.
[ 7 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 186.
[ 8 ]. Work, Darkest Before the Dawn, 2.
[ 9 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 189.
[ 10 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 193
[ 11 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 193
Steven Gilbreath
HIST 2020
Darryl Austin
March 31, 2014
On April 6, 1917 the U.S. declared war on Germany. According to the University of Houston’s Digital History site, Woodrow Wilson stated, “there were ‘millions of men and women of German birth and native sympathy who live amongst us,’... ‘If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with a firm hand of repression’”. Within three weeks Congress began debating the issue of espionage during wartime. President Woodrow Wilson’s administration drafted an act on espionage and presented it to Congress. During their debates congress completely removed the “press censorship” provision, and amended the “nonmailabilty” and “disaffection” provisions. After nine weeks …show more content…
of debates and amendments to the act, Congress enacted the act against espionage, known as the Espionage Act on June 15, 1917. Even though the majority of Congress supported the act, there were some Congressmen opposed it. Representative Simeon Fess warned that “’in time of war we are very apt to do things’ we should not do.”
There were many arrests and trials based on this act. Despite Congress 's intention of not limited free speech, many judges’ rulings did indeed restrict the freedom of speech. One such instance is the case of Robert Goldstein. Goldstein produced and exhibited a motion picture about the American Revolution. In his film, The Spirit of '76, he depicted events from the American Revolution such as; Paul Revere 's ride, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Washington at Valley Forge, and the Wyoming Valley Massacre. The scenes of the Wyoming Valley Massacre showed British soldiers bayoneting women and children. The government claimed that this scene was an attempt to cause insubordination by negative portrayal of America’s ally in the war against Germany. The judge sentenced Goldstein to ten years in prison.
While most judges took a liberal interpretation of the act, there were judges who took it in context of what congress tried to accomplish. One of the most important decisions in which a federal judge held fast against a broad construction of the Espionage Act was Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten. The Masses, a monthly “revolutionary” journal, featured a remarkable collection of artists, authors, playwrights, philosophers, and poets. In the summer of 1917, Postmaster General Albert Burleson ordered the August edition excluded from the mails. The postmaster argued that four cartoons and four pieces of text violated the espionage act in that they caused or attempted “to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces” and obstructed “the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States.” Judge Hand opined that in the time of war Congress might have the power to “forbid the mails to any matter which tends to discourage the successful prosecution of the war.” He went on say that the act did not cover the material published in the Masses.
Even though most judges had a broad interpretation of the act and the number of prosecutions climbed daily, the Department of Justice sought to amend the espionage act and close what it considered loopholes.
In the spring of 1918 Attorney General Gregory asked Congress to amend the act. Attorney General Gregory sought to prohibit people from interfering with the government 's efforts to borrow funds for the war and to clarify that the act prohibited attempts to obstruct recruiting and enlistment, as well as actual obstruction of such activities. The general attorney used a then recent lynching of a German American accused of disloyalty to garner support. Gregory claimed that the public felt the laws were not strict enough to those disloyal to the war effort and took the law into their own hands. In May of 1918 Congress amended section three of the Espionage Act. It is this amendment that became known as the Sedition Act of 1918. Congress drafted the federal sedition act based on Montana’s sedition act. The federal act differentiated from the Montana act by only three words. The amendment forbade any person, “when the United States is in …show more content…
war.” to willfully utter, print, write, or publish and disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States,
or to use any language intended to bring the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely or disrepute,
or to willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or to willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of anything or things necessary or essential to the prosecution of the war, or to willfully advocate, teach, defend or suggest the doing of any of the acts enumerated in this section, or by word or act to support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States.
Ex-Congressman Tom Stout said, “We are done with the days of a divided allegiance in this broad land of liberty. With our sacred honor and our liberties at stake, there can be but only two classes of American citizens, patriots and traitors! Chose you the banner beneath which you will stand in this hour of trial.” While this was the sentiment of most in Congress, the potential reach of the act bothered some congressmen. Senator Charles Thomas wondered if a soldier, who had sent him a letter concerned because his family had not yet received his pay, would be covered by this act. Others wondered if proposals of peace would would be considered sedition as they might encourage the enemy. There were other congressmen who questioned the constitutionality of the act. Theodore Roosevelt weighed in on the subject. He proclaimed that if Congress enacted the Sedition Act, he would personally “give the government the opportunity to test its constitutionality.”
In 1919, the Supreme Court case Schneck v. United States gave the court its first major decision interpreting the first amendment. The United States charged the defendants with conspiring to interfere or obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service. The defendants passed out pamphlets to men who had been called and accepted to military service. The pamphlet argued the constitutionality of the draft and urged its readers not to “submit to intimidation.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the unanimous opinion which upheld the conviction. When asked if the pamphlet was protected by the first amendment Justice Holmes answered:
We admit that in many places and in ordinary time the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a min falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic... The question in every case is whether the words used 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 prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right...
Holmes explained in later opinions that even though the “principles of free speech is always the same,” the government 's power to restrict speech is greater in time of war “because war opens dangers that do not exist at other times.”
Works Cited
Digital History. “The Espionage Act of 1917.” University of Houston. Accessed January 31, 2014. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904
Stone, Geoffrey R. Stone. Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2004.
U.S. Constitution. amend. 1. Freedom of Speech clause.
Work, Clemmons P. Darkest Before Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.
Secondary Sources
Duffy, Michael. “Primary Document - U.S. Espionage Act, 15 June 1917.” firstworldwar.com. August 22, 2009. Accessed January 31, 2014. http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/ espionageact.htm.
Duffy, Michael.
“Primary Document – U.S. Espionage Act, 7 May 1918.” firstworldwar.com. August 22, 2009. Accessed February 11, 2014. www.firstworldwar.com/source/ espionageact1918.htm.
Hunter, W. C. “Alien Rights in the United States in Wartime.” Michigan Law Review 17 no. 1 (November 1918). Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1277038.
Kohn, Stephen M. American Political Prisoners: Prosecutions Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1994.
Lobb, Albert J. “Civil Authority Versus Military.” The Virginia Law Register 4 no. 12 (April 1919). Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1106338.
Wallace, M. G. “Constitutionality of Sedation Laws.” Virginia Law Review, 6 no. 6 (March 1920). Accessed February 7, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1064269.
Wood, Thomas E. “Nashville Now and Then: You Watch Your Mouth,” Nashville Post, August 5, 2007. Accessed February, 6 2014. https://www.nashvillepost.com/news/2007/8/5/
nashville_now_and_then_you_watch_your_mouth.
An Act To Amend Section Three, Title One, of the Act Entitled "An Act to Punish Acts of Interference with the Foreign Relations, the Neutrality, and the Foreign Commerce of the United States, to Punish Espionage, and Better to Enforce the Criminal Laws of the United States, and for Other Purposes," Approved June Fifteenth, Nineteen Hundred and Seventeen, and for Other Purposes. Public Law 150, US Statutes at Large 40 (1918): 553-554. Accessed March 31, 2014. http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/040_statutes_at _large.pdf
--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. “The Espionage Act of 1917, University of Houston-Digital History, accessed February 11, 2014, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904.
[ 2 ]. Geoffrey R. Stone, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (New York, 2004), 148.
[ 3 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 173.
[ 4 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 165.
[ 5 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 184.
[ 6 ]. Clemmons P. Work, Darkest Before the Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West (New Mexico, 2005), 3.
[ 7 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 186.
[ 8 ]. Work, Darkest Before the Dawn, 2.
[ 9 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 189.
[ 10 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 193
[ 11 ]. Stone, Perilous Times, 193