The American Sedition Act of 1918

Posted: January 4th, 2023

The American Sedition Act of 1918

Name:

Course:

Date:

The American Sedition Act Of 1918

The United States unanimously passed the Sedition Act on May 16, 1918 as an extension of the 1917 Espionage Act.[1] The Sedition Act encompassed a broader range of transgressions than the Espionage Act, particularly speech and the communication of views that cast the war effort or the government in a negative light or obstructed the trade of government bonds. The Act came into effect following rising concern over disloyalty during a period of War.[2]  Among the raft of changes that were included in the Sedition Act include provisions that made it an offense: 1) to express false statements that interfere with the United States’ war efforts; 2) to purposely employ disrespectful, disloyal, offensive, or scurrilous language concerning the American form of regime, the American flag, the American Constitution, or the American naval or military militaries; 3) to encourage the abridged production of essential war materials; 4) to teach, advocate, suggest, or defend perpetration of such acts.[3][4] Infringements were punishable by imprisonment, fine penalties, or a combination of both. Essentially, the law aimed at restricting political dissent that was being expressed by pacifists, anarchists, socialists, and a section of labor leaders. The decree was repealed in 1921.

Consequently, it is important to analyze the background of the Sedition Act, including the factors that contributed to its enactment. It is possible to trace the roots of the Sedition Act in America’s direct involvement in the First World War. Wartime conditions fostered an opportunity for women’s suffrage, immigration restrictions, and prohibition.[5] Contrariwise, African-American Civil Rights groups endured crushing disappointment. Given that members of the African-American community participated in the War, they did not get an opportunity to utilize their heroic service record to obtain increased gratitude and consideration for civil rights.[6] However, while serving in France, they experienced social equality and several of them migrated north and found work in wartime industries. However, while these developments were occurring, there was also growing dissent, with people questioning the role of the country in the War.     

In a small communal of Tenmile, Douglas County, Oregon, a twenty-six year-old postmaster and storekeeper called George W. France dared to demand an answer regarding why the United States threw itself into World War I, a pertinent question that many people thought about but did not dare question.[7] With that, he became the first Oregonian to be indicted for disloyalty during a period of war. The government charged him with infringing the recently decreed Espionage Act after doling out to several young men a pamphlet with the title War – What For?[8]On August 29,1917, George faced conviction at Portland’s federal courthouse and received a sentence of thirteen months to be spent at McNeill Island Federal Penitentiary, Washington.

Consequently, following that development, approximately one hundred Oregonians were apprehended and confined for showing dissent during the political and patriotic enthusiasm that characterized American entry into the confrontation on April 6, 1917.[9] In an unprecedented move, President Woodrow Wilson led Congress in passing the preliminary Espionage prohibiting sabotage and spying. Barely a year later, the Sedition act to deal with dissent regarding wartime industries and the government came into effect. At around the same time, the government mounted an intensified, one-of-a-kind national campaign aimed at enlisting residents in hyper-vigilant observing of neighbors, colleagues, and acquaintances to crush any dissent or resistance. Consequently, according to , around two-thirds of the reports made of subversion in Oregon were instigated by neighbors, local officials, casual observers, and colleagues.

As a consequence, the Sedition Act affected many Americans in diverse ways. It is not an understatement to note that the First World War presented the pivotal event that ultimately shaped the 20^th century.[10]

Although the Sedition Act was intended to unite the country into one voice for the purpose of exerting war effort, it inadvertently became an instrument for individuals with a obscured bitterness to accomplish their retribution.[11] After the 1919 First Scare and subsequent enforcement of the Sedition Act that diluted the freedom of assembly and expression, the Supreme Court introduced a “clear and present danger” experiment, which made the rights contingent on situations, as opposed to absolute.[12] As if taking signal from the government, private citizens started taking matters into their own hands if they determined which particular groups were disturbing the unity of action and spirit to support the unequivocally and its prosecution of radicals and pacifists fostered feverish distrust of anyone who opposed the cause. The government possessed the responsibility of protecting the nation from German sabotage, bit unleashed passions difficult to contain in the process.

It remains questionable whether the Sedition Act achieved its objective. Various critics have contended that the high number of arrests pointed to a skewed justice system that sought to squash dissent at all costs regardless of merit.[13] For example, Oregon had over-aggressive district attorneys eager to prosecute each alleged seditious offenses, as well as two district judges who tended to interpret sedition sketchily and instructed their juries. A prominent reason for the many arrests was the absence of federal agents in Oregon to pursue probable cases, while another might be the prioritization of resources allocated to Washington because of its sizable number of radicals, including their extensive interruption of wartime industries. Most of the prosecutions were questionable. For example, the trial and eventual conviction of the Lumber Workers Union secretary, Green Wobbly, uncovered the reality that the justice system had compromised many seditious trials.[14] Later, Stephen M. Kohn, a historian, revealed an admission by the Justice Department that the prosecution had not tabled any evidence in the case to warrant conviction.

Consequently, the issue of sedition decrees was splitting the country right down the middle, with one divide arguing for the need of a law that would preserve patriotism, while the other maintained that they were engaging in a needless war and so they did not need laws compelling them to lose their freedom of expression. In reality, the issue had commenced even prior to enactment of the Sedition Act. For example, in February 1918, agents from the American Army Intelligence Services stormed the headquarters of Pastor Russell Foundation in Brooklyn and carted away publications, which they then handed over to the district attorney to establish whether they continued seditious content.[15] After news of the raid had been spread throughout the nation by the Associated Press, it was directed that the head of the foundation should go to Washington with the publication called “The Finished Mystery” to enable federal agencies to scrutinize it. However, it was established that the publication did not contain any seditious material; rather, it had world views. Consequently, the publications’ sales soared, but not before the issue had set the ground for painstaking debate regarding the efficacy of the Sedition Act and the level to which its acceptance would disrupt people’s lives.

Consequently, people opposed to the sedition decree held that it would be the instrument for vengeance among the citizens. As outlined by Donaldson (2012, 1), in a particular scenario, the victim might have underestimated his enemy or perceived them as an occasional opponent or adversary, or simply as a rival. A resentment or hostility might have sprung from a small quarrel, possibly a clash at the workplace, or a dispute where the target won. The animosity might have emanated from something ostensibly innocuous; maybe a passing remark, or personal lifestyle or habits. In addition, the resentment might have occurred because of a passing conversation, perhaps a political discourse.[16] By 1916-17, most conversations regarding the U.S.’ involvement in the First World War in Europe had escalated, often becoming divisive. Long-time coworkers, neighbors, and even family members sporadically grew fervent in their position as war hysteria escalated, each vociferously exercising their constitutional freedom of free expression to the mounting anger of the other.[17] Subsequently, the victim might have been profoundly involved in the discourse, freely articulating their opinion and exercising the rights conferred to them by the Constitution. Regardless of the circumstance, the individual might have not been aware that the personal enemy was about to hit using the power bestowed by the nation, often with devastating repercussions.

The aspect that converted the United States’ entry into the First World War and the subsequent enactment of the sedition decree so fervent was the astute belief held by a significant percentage of the nation that no national importance was necessarily threatened to warrant the country’s entry into the war. When war erupted in Europe, it was President Wilson who publicly urged the American populace to remain neutral toward the conflicting parties in their deeds and thoughts.[18] In his speech on January 22, 1917, Woodrow called for “peace without victory” in the European continent.[19] He even believed that the U.S. could act as a mediator or reap economic benefits from the battle. The American nation obliged when Wilson asked them to do so.

The reinforcement of the attitude of neutrality was so strong to the extent that one of the most popular phrases, which was even made into a song, was “I did not raise my boy to be a soldier.”[20] In 1917, there approximately 25 percent of the total population was either a first- or second-generation German-American or a German immigrant who still had sentiments, if not a sense of loyalty, for their relatives still residing there and their ancestral land. The socialists, with whom almost all European migrants were familiar, were of the view that the heavy loans that the eastern bankers were making to France and England converted it into a war for the rich man,[21] a war meant to safeguard industrial profit, and was leading the country into the combat. Such allegations were so sensitive at the time in public discussions that Wilson had to remind Americans during his 1916 campaigns that they had to endeavor to remain out of the conflict. Here, the implication was that he would continue with the same stance once he was reelected.

However, when the nation officially became involved in the conflict on April 6, 1917, the views had started becoming intolerable. Most members in Congress, who were backed with vocal pro-war supporters, viewed such discourse as treason.[22] The leaders decided that if the country was to be united in the face of the protracted war, then it had to be united using any means possible. Thus, the Wilson administration and supporters viewed a decree such as the Sedition Act as the most practical and effective way of maintaining unity, while simultaneously stifling dissent. People opposed to the war argued that the enactment of the law not only challenged the conception of constitutionally protected expression but for some, as opined by James K. Vardaman, the Senator of Mississippi, “a convenient engine of oppression.”[23] In other words, the decree was viewed as unconstitutional and designed to suppress the freedom of expression.

Subsequently, most historical investigation of this period has dwelt on sweeping national issues such as the decree’s curtailment of the constitutional right of expression and assembly, and the federal government’s use of propaganda techniques, and the detainment of 1,592 individuals as federal political prisoners. Yet, within the matters lies a more sinister, and arguably more risky, repercussion of the law that has received minimal notice; their individual application by private citizens with ulterior motives.[24] As mentioned in the earlier section, the greater commonality of the cases based on the sedition decree involved stigmatization as people who threatened the security of the nation. The federal investigation agencies placed them in such situations mostly because they were not disloyal, but because they had adversaries who applied the Sedition Act to drive some particular private agenda. Besides, the cases involving women were even much more complicated. During the period, the custom, as reflected in judicial documents found by historians, was to condense the name of married women only as “Mrs.” Alongside the last name of their husbands, implying their given names were omitted.[25] Therefore, some women might be identified solely by association with their spouses in such narratives.

In addition, the utilization of federal authority by persons with an individual motive was an inadvertent consequence of the administration’s manipulation of civic opinion against hyphenated citizens and the professed need to rapidly crush dissent as the country entered the wear (Donaldson 2012, 6). Instead of fostering unity, the Sedition Act led to suspicion, disharmony, division, and mistrust. The decree did not emanate from spontaneous reaction, as outlined earlier, but from a continuous state of an American public apprehensive of the tensions of conflict and potential enemy dissidents residing in their midst. Reasonably, the war hysteria that swept the republic was a culmination of those in government, at all levels, and those outside with interests of consolidating public views in favor of the country’s entry into the war. Immediately Congress declared war, then the administration adopted the worst-case picture, perceiving individuals of German ethnicity , native-born and immigrants alike, as potential adversary agents and issuing a warning to the “patriotic” Americans who they perceived to be acting against them. Yet, it is clear that the national government was not the original endorser of the measures. Before passage of the federal statute, many states had already enacted more stringent forms of anti-disloyalty decrees. For instance, Montana had passed far-reaching statutes that later provided the basis for the Sedition Act.[26] Put together, these state and federal laws were a part of a concerted nationwide campaign to crush dissent.

Apart from the ambiguous language used in the Sedition Act, Wilson’s administration delegation execution authority to local and state governments in a lightly structured form, akin to what it had done for its Selective Service.[27] When running the Selective Service Act (SSA), the federal administration had required the local draft boards to undertake registration, review, and make decisions regarding which of the community’s eligible men would be inducted into the army. Identically, despite the Bureau of Investigations receiving essential resources, authority, manpower, and equipment to enforce the sedition decree, allegations of disloyalty were instigated by private citizens.[28] As mentioned earlier, the national government had exhorted and encouraged ordinary citizens to watch over their friends, acquaintances, strangers, and neighbors, and report immediately any activity that appeared suspicious or any utterances that they thought were disloyal.

Accordingly, the actual implementation of the decree, and the potential for rampant abuse, became a typical movement integrating all the levels of society. Correspondingly, opportunistic persons received their authority from federal leaders willing to accept abuses of constitutional freedoms as a needed expedient to eradicate what they viewed as a serious internal threat to themselves and the nation.[29]  Therefore, the Act became a vehicle with which to legally throw the nation into a state of panic, to stifle criticism, to suppress discourse of great issues touching on the war, and to coerce public opinion. Based on this view, the Sedition Act was effective because, indeed, it threw the country into panic and stifled free expression, albeit at a high cost. Most citizens were misled to believe that such a repressive decree was necessary for their own survival and that of their country. Subsequently, they were quick to oblige. They willingly augmented the measures proposed by the repressive decree and actively assisted authorities in their prosecution. Consequently, the bureau tasked with investigating cases of disloyalty was overwhelmed with tens of thousands of intelligence of alleged disloyalty and sedition, often reaching 3,000 reports daily.[30] From the founding of the nation, Americans have been convinced to believe that any violation of their rights through constitutional amendments is a necessary measure undertaken to safeguard them and their ancestral land from attack by adversaries and assumed internal foes. During WWI, the perceived internal enemies included anarchists, radicals, clandestine German agents, and Socialists. However, the notion is often unrealistic because of the conception that America thinks of itself as distinct and special, based on its love of justice and democracy, yet the instances where Americans own liberties are taken away from them.    

In conclusion, the Sedition Act (1918) was an utterly unnecessary decree that was enacted to coerce public opinion, throw the country into disarray, stifle free speech, and manipulate American’s thoughts by people who intended to circumvent the law for private reasons. When the Wilson administration enacted the law, it was intended to stamp out disloyalty and dissent when the country was going to war. However, most of the people felt that the war was unnecessary and some even made their opinions public, and were punished for it. For a country that perceives itself to be at the forefront of promoting democracy and liberties of the people, the enactment of the law proved that Americans are willing to permit the administration to take away their privileges as outlined by the Constitution on unfounded claims.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Rutherford, Joseph F. “The Finished Mystery.” Not Seditious.” The Daily Notes, Mar. 14, 1918: 4.

The New York Times. “When Peace without Victory was a Failure.” Nov. 11, 1917: 66.

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954) . “Arrest of George Francis Train.” Mar. 21, 1868: 7.

WWI Document Archive. The U.S. Sedition Act. 2009. https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_U.S._Sedition_Act.

Secondary Sources

Donaldson, Daniel G. “The Espionage and Sedition Acts of World War I: Using Wartime Loyalty Laws for Revenge and Profit.” In Law and Society: Recent Scholarship, by Melvin I. Urofsky, 1-191. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012.

Ghani, Hana. “I Didn’t Raise My Boy To Be a Soldier’ The Impact of War in Eugene O’Neill’s The Sniper.” English Language and Literature Studies 2, vol. 2, 2012: 45-63.

Helquist, Michael. “Resistance, Dissent, and Punishment in WWI Oregon.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 118, no. 2, 2017: 255-259.

Kazin, Michael. “The Americans Who Opposed The Great War: Who They Were, What they Believed.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 118, No. 2, 2017: 252-255.

“The Meaningof the First World War for the United States” The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 – 1954) .” In International Encyclopedia of the First World War, by Jennifer D. Keene, 85-87. New York: Wiley, n.d.

---

[1] President Woodrow Wilson directed Congress to enact the Espionage Act to proscribe spying and sabotage

[2] Donaldson, Daniel G. “The Espionage and Sedition Acts of World War I: Using Wartime Loyalty Laws for Revenge and Profit.” In Law and Society: Recent Scholarship, by Melvin I. Urofsky, 1-191. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC, 2012.

[3] Urofsky, 55

[4] WWI Document Archive, 1

[5] “The Meaning of the First World War for the United States” The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW: 1842 – 1954).” In International Encyclopedia of the First World War, by Jennifer D. Keene, 85-87, (New York: Wiley, n.d.), 85.

[6] Ibid

[7] Helquist, 256

[8] The news of the arrest of George Train appeared on page 7 of the Sydney Morning Herald on March 21, 1868 (Arrest of George Francis Train 1868, 7).

[9] Keene, 85

[10] Kazin, 253

[11] Helquist, Ibid

[12] Keene, 86

[13] Helquist, 257

[14] Ibid

[15] Rutherford, 4

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid

[18] Donaldson, 2

[19] When Peace without Victory was a Failure, Donaldson, 66

[20] Ghani, 45

[21] Donaldson, 3

[22] Donaldson, 4

[23] Ibid

[24] Helquist, 258

[25] Donaldson, 5

[26] Keene, 86

[27] Donaldson, 6

[28] Helquist, 258

[29] Donaldson, 83

[30] Ibid