Monday April 16, 2012
Today was my last and final day to lead group discussion. I was not really leading discussion because there was three other people besides myself in the group, but I still got my turn to ask questions and engage the other students. Today we were also finishing up discussing World War One, focusing mainly on the Red Scare and events that came from it.
The first question we addressed today was "What is your opinion on why Freedoms seem to get taken away from citizens during times of trouble such as the Half-War with France and the Sedition Act of 1918 during World War I?" I believe that the government is more likely to take certain freedoms away during times of war in order to protect the people. During the times mentioned above, many people were willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for security. Normally the first Freedom to be "cracked down" on it the Freedom of Speech. I think this is because during times of trouble the government wants to create a unified front against the enemies. It looks bad it the government of a country says one thing, but the people say something different. Another reason why this might be so is because the government is more focused on the war that is going on than the basic rights of the people. The government could put a limit or restriction on the rights for a certain time just so they can focus their attentions elsewhere without having to worry about citizens doing things that they should not.
We also discussed the court case Schenck v. United States. This in this case the people being tried were handing out pamphlets about the draft and encouraging people to sign a petition to stop the draft. These people were trying to make others aware of their rights in regards to the draft; they were not really doing anything dangerous. However, the people were charged with creating a "clear and present danger" to the government of the United States. I, personally, feel that this was bogus beyond belief! If anything these people could have been charged with obstructing justice or something like that. The people were just making others aware of their rights, not even encouraging them to dodge the draft. As the textbook states, "The pamphlet expressly called upon readers to support the repeal of the draft through lawful political means" (page 193). These people were not creating a dangerous circumstance at all! It is more difficult to convict people under the bad tenancy clause than the clear and present danger clause.
We went on to discus judicial theories. The class was given a choice as to which theory they believed was more interesting: Holmes' or Hand's. Holmes served in the Civil War and was a great deal more experienced than Hand, so his theory reflects it. Holmes believed that the government should curtail some liberties during war for the overall good. He also believed that the Constitution is a living thing. Hand, on the other hand (haha!), was quite young and believed that people should fight for their rights. His lack of experience and youth show in his theory. If I had to choose one theory, I think i would choose Holmes' theory. I would much rather have a few basic liberties gone during a time of war in exchange for protection. This being said, if the government does not give my liberties back after the time of war is over, I would switch to Hand's theory and fight for my right (to party! hahahaha).
The last thing we discussed was President Woodrow Wilson. The discussion question was, "What reasons did Attorney General Gregory give to President Wilson as to why he should release or reduce the prison sentence of over two hundred people who were in jail for Espionage or Sedition Act convictions? Why do you think President Wilson rejected these opinions? Why did later Presidents (such as Harding, Coolidge, and Roosevelt) grant amnesty to these people?" First, Gregory told the President that the majority of the two hundred people were wrongly accused and injustices were done. These people were in jail because everyone was afraid during the Red Scare and should be released. I think President Wilson rejected Gregory's opinions because he did not want to admit that he was wrong. Plus, Wilson seemed to be very paranoid during this time and he might have wanted to keep the people in jail as to not create more trouble. Last, later presidents released these people because the time of danger had passed. At this point some people had already spent years in jail before the government went "Ooops, we made a mistake, you can leave jail now, sorry about that." During the later years of World War One the First Amendment got A LOT of press! There were court cases popping up all over the nation that tried the rights of the First Amendment and the government had a lot of things to deal with.
The other topic that was covered in class today was Annotated Bibliographies. Since this class is a history course, the bibliography should be done in Chicago or Turabian style. After citing each of the three books that we used in class (and for our blogs), we have to write one good paragraph for each book. This paragraph should summarize the main argument, point of the book, and the topics covered. It should also state if the book was a good source, what its goals were, its readability, if the information was reliable, and if there was any bias. The last part of the paragraph should be a reflection on how the book fits into the class or research on the topics covered. I have never done an annotated bibliography, so I will probably have someone look over my work before I hand it in. Its funny because just like with the Abstracts, in high school my teachers said that you only do annotated bibliographies and abstracts for scientific research and book reports. I have been out of high school for several years now, but I still enjoy finding out that what my teachers said were wrong! I think that is one of the main reasons a person should go to college - to find out that some of their knowledge is full of misinformation and to expand their horizons.
No comments:
Post a Comment