Download House Brief - WordPress.com

JHUMUNC
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs
(1917)
!
!
!
!
JHUMUNC 2016
!
!
1!
JHUMUNC
!
Committee Overview
Topic A: United States Preparedness for World War I
Topic B: The Red Scare – Response to the Russian Revolution
The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs (1917)
The US House Committee on Foreign Affairs deals with legislation that affects the
international community. The committee works with institutions such as the State Department,
United Nations, and the Peace Corps to implement foreign policy. As a historical committee, the
US House Committee on Foreign Affairs (1917) will debate political issues that existed in the
past. While the outcomes of the committee do not have to correspond with history’s actual
course of events, previous social, political, and economic conditions will have to be taken into
account in debate. As a US congressional committee, the committee will seek to pass US
legislation, as opposed to UN resolutions. The committee is made up of state representatives
from the U.S.’s two major political parties.
!
!
2!
JHUMUNC
!
Topic A: United States Preparedness for World War I
Introduction
“True patriotism carries with it not hostility to other nations but a quickened sense of
responsible good-will towards other nations, a good-will of acts and not merely of words.
I stand for a nationalism of duty, to oneself and to others; and, therefore, for a
nationalism which is a means to internationalism.” –Theodore Roosevelti
Imagine you are in the year 1917, just months before the United States entry into World
War I. Only in those days, the conflict was not yet known as the “first” World War; it was then
called the Great War or, as many Americans knew it, the European War.ii In early 20th century
America, it was hard to believe the country would eventually be involved in two global wars, let
alone one. But starting in 1914, much of the Western world, and even Japan, became embroiled
in an international struggle. When a Serbian militant assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand,
the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, the course of history changed forever. The respective
allies of Serbia and Austria-Hungary declared war on one another within days of the
assassination, and World War I began.
For the United States, years passed before congress took action. Uncertainty loomed over
the nation, and Americans sat by in anticipation. Abroad, the war could be characterized as a
stalemate for some time. Due to horrific trench warfare on the Western front, neither side made
significant gains after the war’s initial skirmishes. However, the Germans showed active signs of
aggression against the United States through their usage of unrestricted submarine warfare.
While the United States was technically neutral, it was clear that the American alliance rested
with the Allies. The instances of German encroachment on the U.S. made the war seem
imminent, and popular opinion spurred in favor of developing a stronger American military. The
public also supported the war out of patriotic ideology. The pro-war sentiments even went
!
!
3!
JHUMUNC
!
beyond popular opinion; they took hold within the government in what became known as the
Preparedness Movement.
The Preparedness Movement, spearheaded by famous political leaders like Theodore
Roosevelt, was the U.S. effort to prepare for the First World War by increasing the size of the
military and generating support from the citizenry. iii Through a series of measures, the
government opened up civilian military training camps to prepare the country for the possibility
of war. The government also reformed the previous U.S. military systems to bring the military
into the modern era. As we know historically, the United States ultimately entered WWI, and
these measures were put to use. However, the Preparedness Movement created a sharp divide in
the country and within the government. As with many modern policy issues, Preparedness
brought about a deep partisan split. Congressional Republicans fought in favor of Preparedness,
while congressional Democrats and President Woodrow Wilson fought against it. Special
interests developed for the purpose of promoting Preparedness. Different social demographics
debated over the issue as well. In fact, the Preparedness Movement is now also known as the
Preparedness Controversy, due to its contestation.iv While it is critical for a country to stand
united in the face of war, the United States was torn in two following the events of 1914.
Preparedness for the Great War is now your issue at hand. World War I will always live
in history; but you have the chance to decide whether or not the U.S. will take part. Will you
open more military training camps? Or will you seek to shut them down? Should there be
universal military conscription? If so, how will that system be enforced? What are the pros and
cons of entering the war? Can the United States solve the conflict diplomatically? Can American
truly be neutral? And how do we deal with the public opinion? Will you create bipartisanship in
!
!
4!
JHUMUNC
!
congress? Or will your party rise supreme? Now is your chance to decide. The war and
American lives are at stake.
Historical Background
The Outbreak of the Great War
European foreign policy decisions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries set the stage for
the onset of World War I. In the wake growing imperialism, militarism, and nationalism amongst
the European powers, several diplomatic relationships evolved to separate Europe into two main
camps. The Triple Entente, which would one day transform into the Allied Powers, developed
out of three agreements between the French, British, and Russian governments beginning in the
1890s.v Similarly, a secret agreement formed between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy at
the same time.vi This association was known as the Triple Alliance, who would later become the
base of the Central Powers, with the exception of Italy.vii These two groups existed to act in the
diplomatic interest of their respective members, and to maintain the European balance of power.
However, the Triple Entente and Triple Alliance were quickly pitted against each other.
Meanwhile, the Balkan region was experiencing extreme political turmoil. The area was
very tumultuous, and often referred to as the “powder keg” of Europe. Beginning in 1912, the
Balkans and the Ottoman Empire engaged in two short, but bloody, wars.viii After the Second
Balkan War, peace did not persist for long. In June of 1914, Gavrilo Princip shot and killed the
Archduke Franz-Ferdinand in Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the time,
the nation was merely an Austro-Hungarian province. Princip’s assault, therefore, was politically
motivated for the sake of nationalism. However, the incident had a domino effect on the
European powers, and one thing quickly led to another.
!
!
5!
JHUMUNC
!
Austria-Hungary needed to exert its dominance, but Russia loomed as Serbia’s ally.ix The
Empire needed support in case the Russians were to militarily intervene on Serbia’s behalf;
therefore, Austria-Hungary called in the aid of Kaiser Wilhelm, the leader of Germany. Russia
began to generally mobilize in response to a Serbian plea for help. And on July 28th, AustriaHungary declared war on Serbia. On August 1st, Germany declared war on Russia. And on
August 3rd, Germany invaded Belgium in what was known as the Schlieffen Plan, and declared
war on Russia’s ally, France. When Germany invaded Belgium, it broke Belgium’s neutrality
agreement. This brought Great Britain into the conflict, and the British consequently declared
war on Germany on August 4th. And with that, the major European powers prepared for battle.
The war was unlike any war the world had seen before. New technology and weapons led
to unprecedented death tolls. Heavy artillery, such as tanks and machine guns, caused massive
casualties and exceptional violence.x The use of poisonous gas had especially gruesome effects.xi
The fighting style took the form of the trench warfare on the Western Front. Soldiers were held
up in deep trenches, separated by an area of ground known as “No Man’s Land.”xii The horrific
events that occurred in the trenches were especially haunting. On the Eastern Front, the Germans
defeated the Russians at the Battle of Tannenberg in the early days of the war.xiii However, the
Allies put a temporary end to the German success on the Western Front in September of 1914. At
the Battle of Marne, the Allies resisted the German onslaught, and the Schlieffen Plan came to an
end.xiv However, this resulted in a stalemate, which defined the nature of the war on the Western
Front for the following three years.xv As a result, the Allies turned away from the effort in
Europe, and the war continued to rage in campaigns against the Ottomans in the Middle East and
Northern Africa.xvi
!
!
6!
JHUMUNC
!
While the Russians struggled on the Eastern Front, and the Allies buried deep into the
trenches in France, the war’s hostility went on to rage at sea. Britain’s superior Royal Navy took
on the relentless German U-boat submarines. It was this side of the war that ultimately made an
impact on the United States. Specifically, the German strategy of unrestricted submarine warfare
posed the greatest threat to U.S. and its interests. The Germans adopted unrestricted submarine
warfare on February 4th, 1915 as they declared the sea of the British Isles a warzone, and stated
that any merchant ship would be attacked without warning.xvii This included ships from neutral
countries.xviii The United States had to evade to the German offensive.
U.S. Foreign Policy & the Rise of Preparedness
Prior to the outbreak of the Great War, U.S. foreign policy focused on the American
domination of the Western Hemisphere. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the U.S. turned to
Latin America to reap economic gain, while the Europeans and Japanese imperialized Africa and
the South Pacific. Ever since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the United States has felt that it
should control the Americas without European interference. The U.S. gained Puerto Rico as a
colony after its victory in the Spanish-American War in 1898.xix And when Theodore Roosevelt
became president in 1901, he carried out America’s foreign policy mission through the
enactment of his “Big Stick” policy.xx This policy allowed America to police the trade in Latin
American countries with especially unstable governments.xxi After Roosevelt’s time in office,
President William Taft sought to improve the stability of Latin American nations through the
usage of “Dollar Diplomacy.”xxii The National Endowment for the Humanities explains that
dollar diplomacy, “called for the U.S. government to promote stability primarily in Latin
America and the Caribbean in order to yield investment opportunities for American companies,
with the hope that the development would also result in prosperity for the affected nations.”xxiii
!
!
7!
JHUMUNC
!
While Woodrow Wilson was interested in the promotion of American business, he focused little
on foreign policy at the start of his presidency.
After the start of the Great War, America’s actions continued to pertain to Latin
American issues. However, Americans turned their eyes and ears towards Europe. Wilson
declared formal neutrality at the outbreak of the war.xxiv Further, Wilson urged American citizens
to, “act and speak in the true spirit of impartiality and fairness.” This was an important call for
Wilson to make, since many Americans still felt loyalty to the European nations they hailed
from.xxv Wilson wanted not only political and military neutrality, but also societal and cultural
neutrality. xxvi But at the war’s outbreak, most U.S. citizens heavily favored the stance of
neutrality.xxvii He sought to ensure that America’s actions, both at home and abroad, remained
away from conflict.
Wilson’s goals for a “truly” neutral United States were shortly outlived. A group of
prominent Americans worked to change the president’s mind.xxviii In 1915 and 1916, Theodore
Roosevelt wrote two books, American and the World War and Fear God and Take Your Own
Part, calling for Preparedness in order to safeguard the U.S. from foreign threats.xxix Roosevelt
did not urge the president to go to war, or break neutrality for that matter. Rather, he called for
preventative protection measures. As Roosevelt explained metaphorically in his first book,
“Preparedness against war does not always avert war or disaster in war any more than the
existence of a fire department, that is, of preparedness against fire, always averts fire. But it is
the only insurance against war and the only insurance against overwhelming disgrace and
disaster in war.” xxx Roosevelt’s point was clear, and he began to build a constituency of
followers.
!
!
8!
JHUMUNC
!
Along with Roosevelt, high-ranking military officials, such as General Leonard Wood
became proponents of Preparedness.xxxi General Wood was the first commander of the Rough
Riders under Roosevelt.xxxii He backed the Plattsburg Idea, which called for the development of a
civilian military training camp in Plattsburg, NY. Similar camps began to open in areas near San
Francisco and Chicago, and in Washington State. Wood believed that universal military training
for civilians would help prepare Americans for the chance of war.xxxiii Both Wood and Roosevelt
also backed universal military conscription. xxxiv Other prominent officials who promoted
Preparedness included Elihu Root, former senator, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State.xxxv
While the Preparedness Movement started as a small group of politically important individuals, it
quickly made an impact on the opinions of the people.
The Great War presented a new challenge for the United States. For many years, the
Americans focused on the Western Hemisphere. While the U.S. fought the Spanish in the
Spanish-American War, American foreign policy turned away from the Europeans during the
19th century. However, the increasingly powerful Germany and fellow Central Powers posed a
threat. The Europeans may have been at war, but Americans were unsure whether or not they
could afford to be looped into the conflict. Wilson demanded neutrality, and his position was
clear. But how long could neutrality be maintained? And if neutrality broke, could the U.S.
compete on the world stage?
Contemporary Conditions
“It would be an irony of fate if my administration had to deal chiefly with foreign affairs.” –
Woodrow Wilson, The Eve of his 1913 Inauguration.xxxvi
Submarine Warfare and the Lusitania
Since Germany’s proclamation of “unrestricted submarine-warfare” around the British
Isles, the world awaited for the naval struggle to come to a head. In particular, the United States
!
!
9!
JHUMUNC
!
has now experienced the impact of the German policy. Throughout the war, despite the U.S.
claim to unarmed neutrality, the U.S. has continued to maintain a trade relationship with the
British. This has put the U.S. in an extremely dangerous position, and it has recently suffered the
consequences. A month after the German announcement of the U-boat policy, a private
American ship, the William P. Frye, went missing at the hands of the Germans.xxxvii However,
this particular instance would only be the least of the United States’ problems at sea.
In May of 1915, a British-owned ship known as the Lusitania set sail from New York to
Liverpool. Prior to the ship’s voyage, the British Admiralty warned the Lusitania to avoid the
warzone due to a series of U-boat attacks on merchant ships around the southern coast of
Ireland.xxxviii The warning was ignored, and ship proceeded on its course. On May 7th, off the
coast of Ireland, a German U-boat torpedoed the Lusitania, killing some 1,100 people.
Significantly, 120 of those passengers lost were Americans.xxxix Naturally, the United States and
Woodrow Wilson were infuriated. However, the incident did not result in the American
declaration of war. Rather, the Germans apologized, and pledged to put an end to the practice of
unrestricted submarine warfare.xl
While the Germans have made this pledge, they have not upheld their promise. In
November of 1915, the Germans attacked an Italian ship without warning. The attack killed 25
Americans, and 250 people total.xli In response to this violence, the public has turned against the
Germans. And while America has still managed to maintain neutrality, the Germans’ promise to
discontinue U-boat attacks seems meaningless. The previous trade levels between the United
States and the British might not be maintained under these conditions. Anyone who enters the
zone of the British Isles via merchant ship still continues do so at his or her own risk. The status
of America’s position in the war may now rest on any given U-boat attack. Danger of the
!
!
10!
JHUMUNC
!
German threat must be assessed and dealt with for the sake of American lives and America’s
ability to trade.
Grassroots Preparedness
On the home front, Preparedness continues to move on local levels. Beginning in 1915,
Preparedness dug its roots into college campuses. Institutes of higher education throughout the
country have begun implementing their own Preparedness measures. General Wood recruited a
battery of 500 men from Yale in October of 1915.xlii Dartmouth opened a course in military
science, sanctioned by the War Department.xliii Bowdoin College began a compulsory military
drill and training course.xliv Pennsylvania State University has a battalion, and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Agricultural College have compulsory drill
training.xlv Also in Massachusetts, Harvard established a voluntary battalion.xlvi
Preparedness parades have also grown in cities throughout the country. These parades
have been used to promote Preparedness awareness, and encourage the U.S. to gear up for war.
In the spring of 1916, Preparedness parades were held in Boston, Dallas, Chicago, and New
Orleans.xlvii Tens of thousands of citizens participated in each parade. The high turnout shows the
rising support of the public for the war effort. However, one parade did erupt in violence. On
July 22nd of 1916, a suitcase bomb exploded during the San Francisco Preparedness Day
parade.xlviii The attack killed 10 people, and wounded some 40 more.xlix The two suspects are
currently facing trial.
Currently, many San Franciscans hold isolationist and anti-war sentiments. The leaders of
labor organizations in particular are known for their anti-war positions.l William Jennings Bryan
criticized San Francisco’s Preparedness Parade. He claimed that the organizers were factory
owners acting purely in their own self-interest, in order make money off manufacturing for the
!
!
11!
JHUMUNC
!
war.li It is true that many argue that Preparedness is an elitist movement, with a profit-seeking
agenda. But an attack on innocent Americans cannot be tolerated, no matter the culprit. However,
there is an indication that while many support Preparedness, resentment, anger, and opposition to
the movement are still strong. The nation remains heavily divided in an uncertain time.
Pancho Villa
The U.S. has encountered one other foreign threat unrelated to the Great War. On the
southern border, Mexican militant action has resulted in the deaths of many Americans. Guerilla
leader Pancho Villa, in his revolutionary escapades against the Mexican government, has
consequently attacked American territory, and executed American citizens.lii In January 1916,
Villa was responsible for the murders of 17 U.S. citizens at Chihuahua.liii Shortly after this series
of executions, Villa led an attack on Columbus, New Mexico.liv The affront resulted in the deaths
of 17 more Americans.lv In response, President Wilson sent an expedition of troops to the area.
However, Villa escaped in time, and has yet to be caught.lvi While this may seem to be an
isolated incident led by a renegade militant, there could be implications on the U.S.—Mexican
relationship. Worrying about a threat from the southern border could divert U.S. attention from
the Great War. Further, this instance reinforced that the military has to be ready for an
emergency situation. Villa reminded the U.S. that an enemy could strike unexpectedly.lvii
Past U.S. Action
While the United States remains officially neutral to the Great War, President Wilson has
acknowledged the necessity of some military reform. Wilson was willing to compromise in 1916,
and congress drafted the first bill to instigate meaningful military change. On June 3rd of that
!
!
12!
JHUMUNC
!
year, Wilson signed the National Defense Act. The act ensured that the National Guard would
serve as the primary reserve force of the U.S. Army.lviii Further, the act ensured that National
Guards officers meet certain qualifications, especially in the field of military education.lix The
National Guard units would also be held to the same standards as the Army units. lx The
guardsmen would receive federal salaries, and their annual training would be increased.lxi The
law also created an Officers’ and Enlisted Reserve Corps, and a Reserve Officers’ Training
Corps for high schools and colleges.lxii These measures established a more efficient reserve
system.
The National Defense Act was a direct response to the Pancho Villa attack. However, the
act shows that Preparedness has made its influence on the federal government. While the
National Defense Act was not as far reaching as it could be, Wilson worked to achieve another
compromise in military progress. The same month, congress passed the Naval Appropriations
Act.lxiii The act called for the addition of ships to the navy.lxiv With an expansion in military
vessels, the navy could rise to comparable levels of the British Royal Navy.lxv This act will
hopefully allow the U.S. Navy to progress quickly, and someday compete on the world stage.
Efforts like this help in the name of Preparedness. However, they are also long-term reform
measures that will ideally help the U.S. decades from now. It is important that any future bills of
this nature specify whether the efforts are for short-term, emergency purposes, or long-term
progress.
Bloc Positions
*Note on the Party System: While Republicans and Democrats were the two major American
political parties during World War I, it is important to understand that the parties’ beliefs,
agendas, and supporting groups do not necessarily equate to those of today’s modern
!
!
13!
JHUMUNC
!
Republicans and Democrats. Historical political patterns in the U.S. are known as Party Systems.
Between the years 1896 and 1932, the U.S. was in its Fourth Party System. An integral part of
the Fourth Party System was also its Progressive political movement. Again, Progressivism of
this time period should not be confused with the today’s notion of someone who is politically or
socially “progressive.” It is critical to our debate that the delegates do not confuse historical
political trends with contemporary ones.lxvi
Republicans (Primarily Northeast)
The Republican Party dominated politics during the Fourth Party System. lxvii The
exception to the rule was President Woodrow Wilson, as a Democrat who won both the 1912 and
1916 elections. While our time period encompasses Wilson’s presidency, note that the 1908
electoral map more generally describes the partisan politics of the Fourth Party System. In the
1912 election, the Republicans split their ticket. Had they not, incumbent President Taft would
have likely won reelection.lxviii However, Theodore Roosevelt ran on a third party ticket as a
Progressive. This ultimately cost the Republicans party the election, and Wilson took the victory
by a plurality.lxix By the 1916 election, Theodore Roosevelt’s third party scheme had ended.
However, Roosevelt remained a somewhat controversial figure amongst fellow politicians.lxx
Some Republicans continued to blame him for the loss of the Republican seat in the White
House in the 1912 election.lxxi But for the most part, Republicans rejoined as a united front after
the election.
Traditionally, Republicans inhabited the Northeast and Northwest regions of the United
States. The Republicans dominated these areas during the Civil War, and continued to do so
throughout the Reconstruction Era. While the policies and issues changed over time, many
characteristics of Republicans remained constant from their founding. People from the Northeast
!
!
14!
JHUMUNC
!
had Anglophile tendencies, due to their strong economic emphasis on trade. This was even true
of Northeasterners in the days following the American Revolution. And because the Industrial
Revolution originated in northern cities, trade there was booming by the outbreak of the Great
War. Republicans in the North tended to be lawyers, bankers, academics, and prominent
industrials. Their work often entailed international business, and many of them adopted a belief
in Atlanticism, “the foreign policy of military cooperation between European powers and the
United States.” lxxii Republicans, therefore, were among the largest proponents of the
Preparedness Movement. They felt that the fate of international trade rested with the security of
the seas, and the security of their trading partners. If the U.S. entered the war and aided the Allies
in their victory, trade and security could be restored.
Democrats (Primarily Southern)
While the Republicans mostly made up the northern regions of the U.S., the Democrats
largely inhabited the South. The Democratic presence in the region developed throughout history,
similarly to their northern counterparts. The remnants of the Civil War and the Reconstruction
era left the South in a severely inferior position. This is true politically, as the Democrats had far
less power than Republicans during the Fourth Party System. However, this was also true
financially. The South did not undergo the Industrial Revolution to nearly the same extent as the
North, and therefore, its economic system was still mostly agrarian.
From a political point of view, Democrats feared the Preparedness movement for its
potential election implications. The Democrats were enjoying a presidency for the first time
since 1897 under Woodrow Wilson. The leaders of the Preparedness campaign though, such as
Roosevelt, Wood, and Root, were all potential Republican candidates for the upcoming election
in 1916. Success of Preparedness and its popularity could mean future electoral success for the
Republicans, and the Democrats sought to prevent that. Wilson, and fellow Democrats, had to
!
!
15!
JHUMUNC
!
seek the approval of many groups that opposed Preparedness, and opposition came from several
directions.
At the time, many Americans held isolationist beliefs when it came to foreign policy.lxxiii
Democrats focused more on local militaristic efforts, such as maintaining state militias, rather
than building up the federal military. The farmer constituency of the Democratic Party also
tended to be isolationist. Ethnic groups and working class citizens tended to be of Irish and
German backgrounds. Irish and German Americans in particular held animosity towards the
British, and opposed any plan that would bring the U.S. closer into the alliance with Britain.
Pacifists and church groups also naturally tended to oppose measures that furthered war efforts.
Working class citizens and labor leaders also opposed war involvement.lxxiv Women rallied
against the Preparedness Movement as well, although it should be noted that women did not yet
have the right to vote, nor did they hold any political offices on the national level.lxxv However,
congressional Democrats, and Woodrow Wilson, had to appeal these primary constituencies.
Progressivism
While in our debate there will not be any congressmen (delegates) directly representing
the “Progressive Party,” it is important to understand the key components of Progressivism, since
it was a driving force behind the politics of the Fourth Party System. Progressivism was a reform
movement that emerged at the end of the 19th century in response to many of America’s social
and economic ills.lxxvi With the rapid industrialization of the century, America needed to confront
rising social problems.lxxvii Notably, Progressivism was a bipartisan ideology. Politicians from
both sides of the aisle were involved in making progressive efforts. Progressives sought reform
in a wide range of areas, and charged the government with taking a greater role in intervening on
behalf of the public. Some of the top progressive issues included: women’s suffrage, health
initiatives, prohibition, prison reform, labor laws, and social welfare. lxxviii Progressivism
!
!
16!
JHUMUNC
!
flourished primarily in industrial cities. Middle class, college educated, and often female,
individuals spearheaded the efforts.lxxix
Progressivism was a domestic movement; ultimately, it had few foreign policy
implications. However, it shaped the political mood during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Politicians from both sides became more reform-minded than ever before, as the country settled
into its rapidly changing society. Progressivism created a feeling of social and political activism
amongst the populous. The Preparedness Movement, it could be argued, called for progressive
reform of the military on behalf of the public welfare. On the other hand, sentiments for peace
and neutrality could also be seen as progressive efforts. Ultimately, both Theodore Roosevelt and
Woodrow Wilson championed progressive policies during their presidencies. It is important to
keep these ideas in mind when considering the characteristics of the Fourth Party System of
American politics.
Wilson’s Place
In his 1916 campaign, the President ran on peace. Wilson’s campaign proudly boasted his
achievement of neutrality, with slogans simply reading, “He Kept Us Out of War.”lxxx However,
while Wilson maintained his neutral views, he was willing to compromise over some military
preparation measures after his re-election. However, Wilson is likely more willing to make
concessions on certain issues than his Democratic constituents and colleagues in congress.
Wilson’s anti-war and anti-Preparedness position received massive support from fellow
Democrats. However, he knew he might have to eventually call for more compromise.lxxxi
Wilson was reasonable, and realized that the fate of America’s place in the war could be changed
at any moment depending on Germany’s acts of aggression.lxxxii That is why Wilson chose to
sign the National Defense Act and the Naval Appropriations Act. Wilson never intended to focus
!
!
17!
JHUMUNC
!
his presidency on foreign policy, and he does not intend to lead America into war, as of right
now. However, circumstances may change, and Wilson sees that it may be time to prepare.
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
1. The Preparedness Movement calls for the opening of civilian training camps throughout the
country. General Leonard Wood outlined this concept in The Plattsburg Idea. Will the bill
open more military training camps as part of Preparedness or shut down existing ones? Is
there room for compromise on this issue? How will this decision affect the size and
effectiveness of the reserve military?
2. What sort of system for military conscription will your bill entail? Or will the bill end
conscription altogether? The existing laws for conscription date back to the American Civil
War; the laws were largely ineffective due the authorities’ inability to enforce them. How
will this bill combat those problems? Can voluntary enlistment work as a reliable recruiting
method if the U.S. entered the war?
3. The war has directly impacted the United States in several instances; for example, the
sinking of the Lusitania in 1915. Does your bill contain strategies and/or preventative
measures to protect the U.S. from this kind of disruption? Will Preparedness solve these
problems? How can the U.S. maintain security against the threats abroad without declaring
war itself?
4. Preparedness is a movement based on a military strategy. However, the United States can
take a diplomatic approach to maintain its neutrality. What diplomatic measures can be
taken to prevent U.S. entry into the European war? Can diplomacy resolve the issue of
German aggression?
!
!
18!
JHUMUNC
!
5. Critics argue that supporters of Preparedness have a hidden agenda: to reap financial gain
from its manufacturing implications. Regardless of anyone’s particular bias, what kind of
effects would Preparedness measures have on the U.S. economy? And how might these
actions affect the public?
6. War is extremely costly. The U.S. entry into war would mean the loss of American lives. What
can be gained entering this war? And what will be lost? What are the pros and cons to
engaging in the Great War? What are the pros and cons of Preparedness?
7. The United States has trade relationships with many of the nations at war. This is
particularly true with Britain. If America intends to stay truly neutral, can it maintain its
economic partnerships? How is the war affecting trade? To what extent does U.S. trade with
the Allies further alienate the Central Powers?
8. There are many interest groups with a vested interest in Preparedness. The National Security
League and the American Defense Society lobby congress for Preparedness efforts and
sponsor Preparedness parades. What role could interest groups play in furthering
congressional action? How can they influence the public opinion? On the other hand, what
role do the pacifist interest groups play?
9. Does your bill reach across the aisle and call for bipartisan compromise? It is important that
bills make concessions to find balance, and gain support. How can the bill accomplish goals
that rise above partisan politics, and focus on what is best for the United States?
10. Preparedness aside, the United States military capabilities are not up to modern world
standards. The war is featuring new technology and weaponry, while the U.S. capabilities
are considerably outdated. What can your bill accomplish to modernize and reform the
military system regardless of specified Preparedness measures? Can U.S. soldiers fight any
!
!
19!
JHUMUNC
!
modern war without training camps? Can military expansion work for emergency purposes
and for long-term progress?
Conclusion
As the first few days of 1917 unfold, the United States of America faces a major conflict.
Much of the world is engulfed in a horrific war, and the U.S. has felt its impact. American blood
is on German hands; and Germany’s promise to cease unrestricted submarine warfare has not
been kept. The German aggression has now sparked a debate at home over whether or not the
day will come when America must formally intervene. Some Americans see the war as
inevitable, and believe that Preparedness is the only defense against complete disaster. Other
Americans are ideologically at odds with the war. They call for isolationism and upholding
Wilson’s neutrality. To these Americans, Preparedness is not a genuine fight for patriotism;
instead, it is purely an elitist agenda. So far two acts have passed in the name of Preparedness:
one reforms the National Guard; the other expands the Navy. Democratic President Woodrow
Wilson compromised with congressional Republicans to pass these bills. However, the U.S. has
not declared war yet, and now you can decide the future of Preparedness. Is it time to push
forward with the Preparedness efforts in case the war hits? Or is it time to dismantle this past
work and find a non-militaristic way to confront the German threat? Will America even have a
choice? Or will it be too late?
!
!
20!
JHUMUNC
!
Topic B: The Red Scare – Response to the Russian Revolution
Introduction
In the late 19th century, advancements in industry and technology swept across the
Western world. In American and European cities, factories opened, urbanization accelerated, and
business boomed. Many prospered from the outpouring of these capitalistic endeavors, namely
the countries’ overall wealth and power. But with all the rapid change and advancement came a
host of social problems. The laboring classes of the Industrial Revolution faced abject working
conditions and poverty. In response, intellectuals cried out “class warfare” as laborers formed
unions, and governments slowly instituted regulations to ensure the protection of workers against
exploitation. However, in certain regions, society could not smoothly adapt to these transforming
societal conditions. In Russia, complete social unrest erupted when the imperial government
could not adequately address the needs of its people in this time of vast change.
While Russia had attempted to reform and Westernize during the 19th century, it was still
decades behind the rest of Europe in terms of modernization. Serfdom existed in Russia until
1861, while the rest of Europe had ended the practice many years prior. The inability of the
Russians to eradicate problems such as serfdom revealed the relative backwardness of their
society. Therefore, when the Industrial Revolution swept through America and most of Europe
with a great deal of success, it seemed only obvious that would be difficult for the Russians to
experience the same results. The answer the Russians would ultimately give to the problems of
the Industrial Revolution would be the institution of a communist regime, and an end to the
incompetent monarchy.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 erupted after more than a decade of strikes and even
another smaller Russian revolution. The political, social, and economic climate of Russia had
!
!
21!
JHUMUNC
!
been calling for revolution at the time of its outbreak. However, the Revolution was violent and
radical, and ultimately resulted in the death of Czar Nicholas II and his family. Communism,
once only an ideology on paper, took hold in a government for the first time in history. While
America was quite familiar with Socialism, as socialist parties and labor unions began to emerge
in the late 19th century, it was not prepared to see the development of an actual communist
regime. Communism, Americans felt, threatened the entire way of life in the United States. The
people and government began to respond to this new threat in what would become known as the
Red Scare.
The year 1917 was only the beginning of the Red Scare. After all, the Russian Revolution
did not complete its full cycle until 1918. However, fear struck early, and Americans sought to
take preventive measures against domestic threats of communism. Abroad, America was fighting
Germany. But at home, America fought communism. This committee will seek to find the best
way possible to conquer America’s fears. How can America wipe out the threat of communism
without threatening constitutional rights? What position should the United States take towards
Russia with a new communist regime in place? Can America have a communist ally? What does
this mean for the war? What are communism’s most dangerous implications? What about public
opinion? Now is your time to protect America’s homeland from dangerous foreign influence.
Historical Background
History of the Development of Communism
Plato, writing around 380 BC, described communism as a state where people shared all
their property, wives, and children: "The private and individual is altogether banished from life
and things which are by nature private, such as eyes and ears and hands, have become common,
and in some way see and hear and act in common, and all men express praise and feel joy and
!
!
22!
JHUMUNC
!
sorrow on the same occasions." In the American canon of political thinking, communism has
varied meanings and connotations.lxxxiii
The forefather of communism is often thought of as Karl Marx, along with Friedrich
Engels, who wrote the Communist Manifesto as well as other similar works. Both writers saw the
apparent problems arising in the industrial capitalist systems of the mid-19th century. They saw
that a class hierarchy had merely replaced the feudal hierarchy that preceded it, with the
capitalist bourgeois class oppressing and exploiting the proletariat working class. It is important
to note, however, that works like the Communist Manifesto presented an analytical approach to
the class struggle and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather
than a prediction of communism's potential future forms.lxxxiv
Marx articulated a methodological approach to the study of human societies and their
development, called historical materialism. It is a theory of history according to which the
material conditions of a society's mode of production, its processes and relations of production,
which produce and reproduce the means for human existence, fundamentally determine its
organization and development. lxxxv And central to Marx’s argument are the ideas of the
alienation of the worker in the capitalist mode of production and the surplus value of labor.
Whereas, the artisanal laborer is involved with his product from production to sale, the
capitalistic wage laborer is only involved in a limited part of the production process and often
feels alienated from the final product.lxxxvi Say a chair is the final product. The division of labor
that arises under capitalism leads a worker to only be involved in the production of the legs of
the chair, while other laborers produce the other parts. Another laborer will ultimately assemble
the chair, removing the originally laborers from their final product. Additionally, Marx holds that
!
!
23!
JHUMUNC
!
the surplus value is equal to the new value created by workers in excess of their own labor cost,
which is seized by the capitalist as profit when products are sold.lxxxvii
In his introduction to the Communist Manifesto, Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm argues
that the tendency of capitalist development to generate a revolutionary proletariat did not
necessarily follow from Marx’s analysis of capitalism. It was only a hope and not a deterministic
conclusion.lxxxviii He claims that inevitably there will be a post-capitalist society, but what form it
takes is dependent upon the political actions through which such a change comes about.lxxxix
The fact that Marx’s claims are purely critical and not deterministic is important in
understanding the multiplicity of communist movements that occurred throughout the late 19th
and 20th century. Many involved in the movement saw the generation of a revolutionary
proletariat as a necessary precursor to a communist society. The main subject for debate was
what type of social organization would succeed capitalism. For instance, future forms of
communism would advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat by vanguard, which would violently
oust and expropriate the bourgeois class.
Background on Russia
Prior to the October Revolution of 1917, the frenzied Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia. He
had absolute, unfettered power over his people. Nicholas II had delusions of his own power
among his people and his own power abroad. His expansionist desires led him to go to war with
Japan unsuccessfully in 1904 (now called the Russo-Japanese War). He also harbored an
oppressed and distraught peasant class that posed a major threat to his regime. One of his close
ministers, Pyotr Stolypin, only worsened matters when he hoped to strengthen the throne and
failed to redress crucial land issues that were crippling the country.xc These land issues were at
the heart of Russia’s problems and paved the way for revolution.
!
!
24!
JHUMUNC
!
Nicholas II also oversaw catastrophic famines during his reign that stemmed from poor
management of trade policies, the wealthy gaining at the expense of the poor, and disastrous land
reform policies. These plights all gave revolutionary parties in Russia new life and fostered a
democratic struggle against autocracy. Another one of the problems that Russia faced was
domestic protectionism, which caused Russia to fall behind other countries in terms of
industrialization and development. This led the poor to live in extremely harsh conditions, while
industrialists plundered at their expense. The need to industrialize led to the creation of a bustling
urban working class that experienced a great deal of unrest because of its living and working
conditions.
The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) resulted in a Japanese victory mainly because
Nicholas II underestimated the Japanese and Russian logistics were inefficient and antiquated.
The Russians were moving troops by train across the country in order to get them to Manchuria.
Japan was virtually isolated from the rest of the world until the Meiji Restoration when they used
French and German expertise to modernize their land army and had the British train their navy.
This tactical superiority paid huge dividends for the Japanese against the disorganized and
outmoded Russians.xci
This national disgrace as well as the ills of industrialization paved the way for Bloody
Sunday in 1905, which some historians, such as Lionel Kochan, say was a precursor to the
October Revolution of 1917. In new urban settings, factory employers used their absolute
authority over workers in abusive and arbitrary manners. Their abuse of power, made evident by
the long working hours, low wages, and lack of safety precautions, led to strikes and protests in
Russia. The strikes and protests valorized the Russian working class and liberals. Nicholas II lost
control of the people, and a general strike began across all sectors of the Russian economy. In St.
!
!
25!
JHUMUNC
!
Petersburg in 1905, soldiers of the Imperial Guard opened fire on unarmed demonstrators led by
Russian Orthodox priest Georgy Gapon when they marched towards the Winter Palace of Tsar
Nicolas II in order to present their petition to the government.
This massacre resulted in the Revolution of 1905, which was a period of major political
and social unrest that included workers strikes, peasant unrest, and military mutinies. On
December 3rd, there was an armed revolution in Moscow and over a thousand people were killed
as the Army crushed the rebels. In response to the revolt, Nicholas II unleashed a reign of terror
through the country, which included the imprisonment of children. Gradually, order resumed and
the radical parties were driven underground. The leaders were killed, sent to Siberia, or fled in
exile.xcii The revolution, however, did lead to comprehensive, but ill-fated, constitutional reform,
which included the creation of a Russian parliament known as the Duma.
Nicholas II survived this first revolution, for several reasons. First, he retained the loyalty
of enough of the army to put down rebellion through brute force; this was helped by an early end
to the war with Japan, which took a great deal of pressure off of the troops. Second, the various
protesting groups did not act in concert and were uncoordinated and often disorganized. The
final reason was Stolypin, the mastermind of repressing the protestors and breaking the
revolutionary parties. For this, he was awarded the title of Prime Minister and would be
Nicholas’s main weapon against the Duma, the liberal reformers, and the radicals.xciii
Stolypin had deliberately made the constitutional reforms ambiguous to give the Czar as much
latitude as possible. The Tsar appointed the Prime Minister and the government. He could
dissolve the Duma and rule by emergency decree when the Duma was not in session, a loophole
used to bypass parliament when it opposed the government’s bills. The Duma was elected by an
indirect system of voting weighted in favor of the court’s traditional allies, the nobility, and the
!
!
26!
JHUMUNC
!
peasantry. Although it was a legislative parliament, it could not pass its own laws without the
endorsement of the Tsar and the State Council, dominated by the aristocracy.xciv
Still, the Czar had lost the adoration and respect of the people generally who saw him as
an enemy to be hated rather than a patriarch to be revered. This would sully for the remainder of
his rule and burst out in March of 1917 when he was forced to abdicate. The obdurate Tsar
Nicholas II learned nothing from the threats to his regime from the Revolution of 1905, which
Lenin called the “dress rehearsal” for the Bolshevik coup of November, 1917 and subsequent
civil war. xcv
History of communist movement in Russia/ Russian Revolution’s Events Unfold
Throughout Russia, the impact of modernization gave rise to a new generation of younger
and more literate peasants who sought to overturn the patriarchal village world. Literacy grew
from 21% in 1897 to 40% on the eve of World War I. Poverty, overpopulation, and the cost of
leasing land, forced millions of peasants to come into the towns or mines. In the last half of the
19th century, urban population grew from 7 million to 28 million.xcvi
Starting in 1911, the number of strikes began to grow, as workers wanted a piece of
Russia’s growing industrial prosperity. In 1912, there was a massacre of demonstrating miners in
Siberia, which led to the culmination of a general strike in Saint Petersburg on the eve of war in
July. From 1912 to 1914, three million workers were involved in 9,000 industrial strikes. The
newly assertive Bolsheviks organized these strikes. The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Ilyich
Ulyanova, also known as Lenin, had recently emerged from the underground. Lenin, who had
brooded in exile in Zurich, was increasingly convinced that the opportunity for revolution in
Russia was dimming.xcvii
!
!
27!
JHUMUNC
!
Then came June 28th 1914 in Sarajevo. The war was a disaster for the Russians, who
suffered defeat after defeat. The Russians were only successfully on the Austro Hungarian front,
where they defeated the Austro-Hungarian’s disorganized multi-cultural armies. Massive famine
ensued throughout the country largely because of the government’s decision to print millions of
worthless bank notes to finance the war, which caused prodigious inflation.
As was the case in 1905, the spark for revolution was a strike in Saint Petersburg on
March 7th. By March 10th, every enterprise in the city was shut down because of strikes. The
tipping point and the end of the Tsar’s rule came when the soldiers joined the strikers rather than
suppressing them. The Tsar, finally realizing the magnitude of the problem, took the Imperial
train back to the city on March 14th. However, he was stopped by rebel troops and forced to
abdicate on March 15th, nominating his brother, Grand Duke Alexandrovich, to succeed him as
his son was incapable of doing so because of his hemophilia. The Grand Duke saw the writing on
the wall and refused, ending Romanov rule. Around this time, Nicholas and his family were
placed under house arrest, where his former guardians, now his captors, contemptuously called
him Citizen Romanov.xcviii
Immediately after the overthrow of the Tsar, a center left government was put in place led
by liberal lawyer Alexander Kerensky. After Lenin was transported back to Russia from
Switzerland by the Germans in hopes that he would take over the Russian government and take
them out of the war, it was only a matter of time before Lenin’s Bolsheviks overturned
Kerensky’s center left government. Lenin was a revolutionary genius who came from a working
class and military background, so he soon had military men and workers alike on his side.
Kerensky was able to flee to the United States once Lenin took control; however, the former Tsar
Nicholas II was not as fortunate. He and his family met their end in a basement in the Urals.
!
!
28!
JHUMUNC
!
Civil war would eventually erupt among the Bolshevik Reds and the Whites, who were
composed of many anti-Bolshevik factions. This White-led coalition included capitalists,
monarchists, and proponents of other forms of socialism. The war continued for several years,
during which the red Bolsheviks defeated both the Whites and all rival socialists. There was
visible movement in cities throughout the state and in rural areas, where peasants took over and
redistributed land.
Development of Communism within the United States
The first American socialists were German Marxist immigrants who arrived following
the 1848 revolutions. Joseph Weydemeyer, a German colleague of Karl Marx who sought refuge
in New York in 1851, established the first Marxist journal in the U.S., called Die
Revolution.xcix A larger wave of German immigrants came in the 1870s and 1880s. In 1877, the
Socialist Labor Party of North America (SLP) was formed. However, many socialists abandoned
political action altogether and moved to trade unionism with growing industrialization. Two
former socialists, Adolph Strasser and Samuel Gompers, formed the American Federation of
Labor (AFL) in 1886, which would come to hold a great deal of prominence and power in the
United States.c
The anarchist-communist division predominated the radical wing of American politics for
much time in the late 19th century. Anarchists split from the Socialist Labor Party to form the
Revolutionary Socialist Party in 1881. A convention of immigrant anarchists in Chicago formed
the International Working People's Association (Black International), while a group of
Americans from San Francisco formed the International Workingmen's Association (Red
International). Following a violent demonstration at Haymarket in Chicago in 1886, public
opinion turned against anarchism. While very little violence could be attributed to anarchists, the
!
!
29!
JHUMUNC
!
attempted murder of a financier by an anarchist in 1892 and the 1901 assassination of the
American president, William McKinley, by a professed anarchist led to the ending of political
asylum for anarchists in 1903.
Daniel De Leon, the leader of the SLP in 1890, took the group in a Marxist direction.
Eugene Debs, who had been an organizer for the American Railway Union, formed the rival
Social Democratic Party in 1898. In 1905, a convention of socialists and anarchists disenchanted
with the bureaucracy and craft unionism of the AFL, founded the rival Industrial Workers of the
World (IWW). Debs and other prominent labor union leaders led the IWW. Members of the SLP,
led by Morris Hillquit, opposed the De Leon's domineering personal rule and his anti-AFL trade
union policy. They joined with the Social Democrats to form the Socialist Party of America
(SPA).ci
Leaders of the IWW disagreed on whether electoral politics could be employed to
liberate the working class. Debs left the IWW in 1906, and De Leon was expelled in 1908,
forming a rival Chicago IWW that was closely linked to the SLP. The Minneapolis IWW's
ideology evolved into anarcho-syndicalism, or revolutionary industrial unionism, and avoided
electoral political activity altogether. It was successful organizing unskilled migratory workers in
the lumber, agriculture, and construction trades in the Western states and immigrant textile
workers in the Eastern states and occasionally accepted violence as part of industrial action.
The SPA was divided between reformers who believed that socialism could be achieved through
gradual reform of capitalism and revolutionaries who thought that socialism could only develop
after capitalism was overthrown, but the party carved out a center path between the two. The first
Socialist congressman, Victor Berger, had been elected in 1910. By the beginning of 1912, there
were 1,039 Socialist officeholders.cii When World War I came, there was a significant amount of
!
!
30!
JHUMUNC
!
concern about the German threat to the United States and many socialists were targeted under the
auspices of the law. This would culminate with the passage of the Espionage Act in June 1917
that was passed by Congress. Among those charged with offenses under the act were Victor
Berger and Eugene V. Debs.ciii The act’s goal was to punish acts of interference with the foreign
relations and the foreign commerce of the United States. This obtrusive act would set the
backdrop against which the paranoid and frenzied events that typified the Red Scare would
unfold.
Contemporary Conditions
The turbulent events that have occurred over the past year have led to widespread panic
and unrest in Europe, rippling outward on a global scale. Not only are powerful nations
entangled in a full-scale war, the threat of communism strikes fear as Russia takes center stage in
demonstrating the capability of a government guided by socialism. Although by the end of 1917
the Bolshevik regime had successfully gained total power, the current state of Russia is a far cry
from the “Peace, Land, and Bread” ideal once promised by Lenin before the usurpation of
imperial thronexxii. As it shakily stands, the Bolshevik regime faces many problems regarding
Russia’s social and economic problems as the socialist republic attempts to undo years of
opposition and corruption from imperial rule. A nation divided between Bolshevik supporters
known as the “Red Army” and the loosely allied forces known as the “White Army” has led to
the outbreak of a violent civil war that began days after the Bolsheviks seized control. This
models the instability surrounding the establishment and heightens the tensions between the
socialist body of thought vs. the rest of the world.
Within the past year, the entire world has witnessed the collapse of one of the longestlasting imperial empires in history as a radically different form of government swiftly took its
!
!
31!
JHUMUNC
!
place. Although the idea of socialist government is not new, Russia has become the first nation to
be converted to a socialist republic based on Marx’s principles. Horrific accounts of this year’s
turbulent events have circulated across the globe, notably to the United States whose widespread
fear sparked panic against anything related to communism. This mentality has even extended to
pinning the blame on communists for the outbreak of strikes, race riots and overall violence.
Russia’s social unrest and dissatisfaction can undoubtedly be traced to the oppression of
the industrial class, unfortunately leading to the violent movements and mutinies that have
ravaged the nation. Numerous strikes have occurred since the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II,
sparked by the scarcity of food and land as well as an economy ruined by war spending. The
Bolshevik party may have appealed to the massive industrial class, but faced with pressure due to
the war as well as internal problems such as land and food scarcity, the inability to appease all
groups has led to unrest.
Finally, the belief in nationalistic supremacy has grown globally over the past years
leading up to the outbreak of war, brought on by each nation’s collective and unwavering faith in
its cultural, economic, and militarist pride. However, the establishment of a socialist regime
stands in stark contrast to this hyper-nationalism enveloping the relevant world powers. Whereas
nationalism praises a patriotic sense of national spirit prevailing individual thoughts.xxiii
communism commands a stateless society in which the community is valued over the individual.
Combined with the turbulence following the new governing body, this discrepancy further
isolates Russia’s newly formed socialist republic from the rest of the world powers, placing
Russia at center stage. If not already brought on by the war, the anti-foreigner sentiment
drastically increased with the rise and subsequent fear of communism.xxiv From the viewpoint of
the United States, not only is Europe viewed as a breeding ground for radical ideas such as
!
!
32!
JHUMUNC
!
communism and socialism, immigrants are to be blamed for the riots. The xenophobic tensions
already brought on by the start of the war are only heightened by the fear of communists
infiltrating the country.
Past Action
The United States is no stranger to revolt, and in a time of modernization at the turn of
the century, has faced previous sources of tension stemming from socio-economic disparities.
The Committee on Public Information (CPI) was developed as an agency to influence public
opinion concerning the United State’s participation in the war. Established on April 13, 1917, the
CPI has used various mediums to arouse enthusiasm for the war effort, to generate support
against foreign attempts at cutting the US’s war aims, and to promote overall patriotism. George
Creel, a former journalist and current chair of the committee, outwardly rejects the word
“propaganda,” claiming that the agency’s work is, “not propaganda as the Germans defined it,
but propaganda in the true sense of the word, meaning the propagation of faith.”xxvi The work
done to spin an upbeat picture of the war image heightened the sense of nationalism and
passionate fervor for the United States as well as adding to the mistrust of foreigners.
The Chicago Haymarket Affair was a defining moment in aggravating America’s fear of
foreign anarchist and socialist elements combining with the distrust of powerful labor unions.
Over 1,500 protesting laborers gathered at the Haymarket Square in Chicago on May 4, 1887 to
protest the killing of several workers by the police the previous day as well as striking for an
eight-hour workday.xxviii The peaceful rally deterred from a peaceful gathering when a bomb was
!
!
33!
JHUMUNC
!
thrown at the police, leading to gunfire and the injury of dozens as well as the deaths of several
people.
This affair immediately set off a wave of xenophobia sweeping the country; sensational
yet controversial trials of accused conspirators captured the attention of the public as they
witnessed the death sentence of three accused conspirators. Clampdowns on unions quickly
ensued as the public rallied to donate money to assist the police. Not only were raids taken on
potential anarchists who were to be blamed for riots, hundreds of foreign-born radicals and
labor-leaders were rounded up. An overarching consensus of an effort to suppress anarchist
agitation blossomed, adding to the general suspicion and mistrust of the labor community
(comprised mostly of Germans and Bohemian immigrants). The affair was seen worldwide, as
other nations modeled Chicago example to crush local union movements.
Since the beginning of the war, the United States government has felt pressure to
recognize unions from large employers and corporations rather than face an uprising. The
American Federation of Labor, established in 1886 was given considerable governmental
protection and cooperation in an effort to increase American production and rationing. The
United States sought to suppress strikes and even take preventative measures against unions to
ensure strategic placing during the war.xxvii Anti-union violence has been a widely used method
in the US by agencies in order to suppress strikes quickly and effectively. Robert Hunter, the
author of his 1914 book entitled Violence and Labor Movement, stated that workers had every
reason to discourage violence due to the reality of employers benefitting from support of the
public, media, courts, pulpit, police, and all the powers of the State.xxvi However, this didn’t stop
agencies from resorting to violence in order to break up strikes and stamp out protests. The
!
!
34!
JHUMUNC
!
Corporations Auxiliary Company was formed in 1903 and quickly became one of the largest
union busters in the United States, referring to violence as a major tactic to suppress strikes.xxix
Bloc Positions
Northern Republicans
The Northern Republicans dominated politics during the turn of the 20th century with the
exception of Woodrow Wilson who was elected as the democratic candidate in 1912 and 1916.
Historically, northern Republicans have occupied northern regions of east and west America and
have tended to be mainly a part of the white-collar working class. Because many Republicans
dealt with business overseas and international trade, the dependence of foreign economies was
important to their platform. Cooperation with European powers was a welcome idea in order to
focus more on international economy and maintain good relations with foreign business.
Republicans, who were more concerned with maintaining their business and upholding
Atlanticism, held a more positive view of the relations with world powers. In general,
Republicans were more supportive of the Bolshevik regime than other political groups, citing the
socialist party in Russia as providing a service and example to various progressives and
reformers in America.xxx The Republicans above all were concerned with the maintenance of
trade, and peaceful regimes meant peaceful trade. Although Republicans wanted to maintain
neutrality with the rest of the world powers, socialism was to be defended as it provided a way to
keep peace.
Southern Democrats
The election of Woodrow Wilson was pinnacle in spurring the progressive movement in
America, as democratic legislation was finally able to pass. Historically, democrats gained
support from industrialists and favored socio-economic government programs designed for the
!
!
35!
JHUMUNC
!
working class rather than monopolies and big business.xxxi Throughout Wilson’s presidency,
Congress was able to pass numerous policies such as income tax, tariff reduction, and even an
act to limit the railroad workday to eight hours. Because of the democratic sympathy for the
working class, democrats tended to view the unrest in Russia as a threat to representative
government. Some believed that discarding the method of representative government led to the
misdeeds of denounced extremists and increase of enemies to an orderly free government.
Although the Democratic Party sought to maintain neutrality and peace with world powers, most
of the focus of their platform centered on internal improvement, proven by the many economic
and social reforms passed during Wilson’s presidency.xxxii
Conservative/Progressive Forces
Due to the years of successfully passing governmental legislation, most progressives had
faith in government regulation leading up to the start of the war. The numerous domestic reforms
passed under the Wilson administration led to progressive belief in the positive momentum of the
country at the turn of the 20th century. However, the start of the war shifted the focus of the
nation as a whole, regardless of the desire to maintain neutrality, as the view turned from internal
issues to viewing the war from a global perspective. The retreat from progressive ideals changed
from women’s suffrage and elimination of governmental corruption to the focus on ideas
regarding the war, namely anti-communism and racially motivated violence.xxxiii However,
progressives and radicals in America were thought to be reminders of the socialist ideas in
Europe, and the widespread panic of communism led to many outbreaks and protests throughout
the country. Socialist/Workers Parties
Although socialist parties and labor unions lacked formal power in congress, they made
up a large proportion of the general public. As the United States entered an economic recession
!
!
36!
JHUMUNC
!
in 1914, the start of the Great War proved a way to provide American capital to the expanding
foreign markets. This meant more employment but also conscription and the curtailing of
democratic freedom. Many unionists opposed the war on the grounds that government regulation
of working conditions hindered the power and influence of industrialists. Not only did wartime
bring fixed wages and hours, most working conditions became governmentally regulated.
Unionists such as Anna Louise Strong sought to unite church, socialists, liberal organizations,
unions, and the Central Labor Council in protest against the US entry into war. However,
because unions were highly factionalized, it was nearly impossible to cooperate and unite against
employers let alone the national government. The socialist party also gained support from many
groups including trade unions, progressives, populist farmers, and immigrants yet failed to gain
superior power against other parties. The general opposition to the war had detrimental effects on
the socialist parties as well as unions leading to the decrease in membership. Arguments over the
response to the October Revolution also weakened their overall power. During the time of high
tensions in Russia, the series of mass riots and fear of communism was most evident among the
working class. Paranoid with and discriminant against immigrants fueled the protest and violence
that swept America and led to turbulence inside the nation amidst a global war. xxxiv
Questions a Resolution Must Answer
1. The Bill of Rights allows entitlements such as the freedom of speech and the freedom to
assemble. How then will the resolution deal with preventing and controlling strikes without
infringing on constitutional rights?
2. The United States may engage in a war that uses up a large portion of government funding.
From which sources and to what programs will money be spent on in order to implement
strike prevention?
!
!
37!
JHUMUNC
!
3. Violence has been used in the past in order to break up strikes quickly and efficiently, yet
leading to casualties and higher tensions. Is violence still seen as a method to curb strikes
and prevent future protests from occurring?
4. The United States has seen the rise of “strike-buster agencies” that were used to discourage
strikes and help dissolve them. Who will be responsible for implementing new programs?
5. Europe was seen as a breeding ground for communism and naturally, the sense of mistrust
against Europeans carried overseas. How will the resolution address the discrimination
against immigrants and the general working class as a whole?
6. The public has already formed strong opinions against socialism and its spread in Europe.
How then will the resolution take into account public sentiment towards foreigners and
socialism?
7. How will the different socio-economic classes be affected by legislation specifically targeted
towards preventing strikes, an issue mostly revolving around the labor/industrial class?
America has already gotten a taste of the violence and unrest that unsatisfied unions and
workers can bring.
8. The establishment of a socialist regime in Russia sparked a widespread fear of socialism in
America. How will the resolution allow the US government to search for and eliminate
threats of communism without a basis of discrimination and the obstruction of privacy?
9. The Constitution permits the freedom of expression but fails to address its implications
during the war. What constitutes a crime against the United States when dealing with
freedom of speech, especially during wartime?
!
!
38!
JHUMUNC
!
10. The engagement of war puts many issues into perspective, and issues that arise during war
may not be necessary or helpful during time of peace. What are some implications of the
resolution post-war? Will the amendments be necessary once peace has been established?
Conclusion
A true communist regime, as Karl Marx once predicted, would not be complete until it
engulfed the world on an international level. Communism in one country alone was by no means
the ideal for Marx and other communist intellectuals. A pinnacle, far-reaching, goal of the
communist regime, therefore, was to spread. However, certain countries in 1917, namely the
United States of America, viewed communist ideology as the highest possible threat to
government stability societal order. While the Bolsheviks managed to upturn the entire way of
life of Imperial Russia, as the world had then known it, communism would by no means infiltrate
America under the government’s watch.
However, in the newly industrialized Western world, there were legitimate calls for social
change. Labor unions developed and gained more power. Workers and socialist parties sprang up
in most major cities. Notable strikes and protests quickly escalated to violence. In response, the
government has often been hostile, especially in its discrimination towards suspicious
immigrants. By 1917, America was deeply embroiled in a Red Scare. In a time of such change
and public tension, how can compromise be reached to put out of the flames of fear?
Constitutional right are at stake. However, does public safety take the precedent? It is time to
pass meaningful legislation that can combat threats, while protecting the civil liberties of many.
!
!
39!
JHUMUNC
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i
Theodore Roosevelt, Fear God and Take Your Own Part. (New York, NY: George H. Dornan Company, 1916), 21.
The History Channel, “Were they always called World War I and World War II?” History.com, Ask History, last
modified March 6, 2013, accessed July, 2015, http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/were-they-always-calledworld-war-i-and-world-war-ii.
iii
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Preparedness Movement,” accessed June, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/event/Preparedness-Movement.!!
iv
US Legal, “Preparedness Movement & Legal Definition,” Uslegal.com, accessed July, 2015,
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/preparedness-movement/
v
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Triple Entente,” accessed July, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Triple-Entente.
vi
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Triple Alliance,” accessed July, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/event/Triple-Alliance-Europe-1882-1915.
vii
Ibid.
viii
Ishann Tharoor, “The Balkan Wars: 100 Years Later, a History of Violence,” TIME Magazine, October 8, 2012,
accessed July, 2015, http://world.time.com/2012/10/08/the-balkan-wars-100-years-later-a-history-of-violence/.
ix
The History Channel, “Outbreak of World War I,” History.com, 2009, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/outbreak-of-world-war-i.
x
PBS, “Stalemate,” Pbs.org, accessed July, 2015, http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/chapters/ch1_stalemate.html.
xi
Ibid.
xii
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Trench Warfare,” Britannica.org, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/topic/trench-warfare.
xiii
The National WWI Museum and Memorial, “Interactive WWI Time,’” Theworldwar.org, accessed July, 2015,
https://theworldwar.org/explore/interactive-wwi-timeline.!
xiv
Ibid.
xv
The History Channel, “World War I History,” History.com, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/world-war-i-history.
xvi
Ibid.
xvii
The History Channel, “Germany Resumes Unrestricted Submarine Warfare,” History.com, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germany-resumes-unrestricted-submarine-warfare.
xviii
Ibid.
ii
!
!
40!
JHUMUNC
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xix
American also obtained the Philippines after the war.
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Big Stick Policy,” Britannica.com, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/event/Big-Stick-policy.
xxi
Ibid.
xxii
Edsitement, “Woodrow Wilson and Foreign Policy,” Edsitement.neh.gov, July 16, 2010, accessed, July, 2015,
http://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculum-unit/woodrow-wilson-and-foreign-policy.
xxiii
Ibid.
xxiv
Ibid.
xxv
“Higher Neutrality,” The New York Times, August 19, 1914.
xxvi
Ibid.
xxvii
!The$History$Channel,!“U.S.!Proclaims!Neutrality!in!World!War!I,”!History.com,!accessed!July,!2015,!
http://www.history.com/thisLdayLinLhistory/uLsLproclaimsLneutralityLinLworldLwarLi.!
xxviii
Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Preparedness Movement,” Britannica.com, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/event/Preparedness-Movement.
xxix
Ibid.
xxx
Theodore Roosevelt, America and the World War. (New York, NY: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 4.!
xxxi
!Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Preparedness Movement,” Britannica.com, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/event/Preparedness-Movement.!
xxxii
Penelope D. Clute, “The Plattsburg Idea.” The New York Archives, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005.
xxxiii
Ibid.
xxxiv
!Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Preparedness Movement,” Britannica.com, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.britannica.com/event/Preparedness-Movement.!
xxxv
The Nobel Foundation, “Elihu Root – Biographical,” Nobelprize.org, accessed July, 2015,
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1912/root-bio.html.
xxxvi
H.W. Brands, “Woodrow Wilson and the Irony of Fate, Oxford Journals, Oxfordjournals.org, 2005, accessed,
July, 2015, http://dh.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/4/503.extract#cited-by.
xxxvii
!The!History!Channel,!“U.S.!Proclaims!Neutrality!in!World!War!I,”!History.com,!accessed!July,!2015,!
http://www.history.com/thisLdayLinLhistory/uLsLproclaimsLneutralityLinLworldLwarLi.!
xxxviii
!Ibid.!
xxxix
!Ibid.!
xl
!Ibid.!
xli
!Ibid.!
xlii
!The$Harvard$Crimson,!“Preparedness!Movement!Spreading!in!Colleges,”!Thecrimson.com,!December!4,!1915,!
accessed!August,!2015,!http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1915/12/4/preparednessLmovementLspreadingLinL
collegesLpthe/.!
xliii
!Ibid.!
xliv
!Ibid.!
xlv
!Ibid.!
xlvi
!Ibid.!
xlvii
!“Line!Up!for!Preparedness,”!The$Insurance$Field,!Vol.!33,!June!2,!1916,!12.!
xlviii
!The$History$Channel,!“Preparedness!Day!Bombing!in!San!Francisco,”!History.com,!accessed!August,!2015,!
http://www.history.com/thisLdayLinLhistory/preparednessLdayLbombingLinLsanLfrancisco.!
xlix
!Ibid.!
l
!Ibid.!
li
!Ibid.!
lii
!Encyclopedia$Britannica$Online,!“Pancho!Villa,”!Britannica.com,!accessed!August,!2015,!
http://www.britannica.com/biography/PanchoLVillaLMexicanLrevolutionary.!
liii
!Ibid.!
liv
!Ibid.!
lv
!Ibid.!
lvi
!Ibid.!
xx
!
!
41!
JHUMUNC
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lvii
!Encyclopedia$Britannica$Online,!“U.S.!President!Woodrow!Wilson!Signs!National!Defense!Act,”!History.com,!
accessed,!August,!2015,!http://www.history.com/thisLdayLinLhistory/uLsLpresidentLwoodrowLwilsonLsignsL
nationalLdefenseLact.!
lviii
!Ibid.!
lix
!Ibid.!
lx
!Ibid.!
lxi
!Ibid.!
lxii
!US!Legal,!“National!Defense!Act!of!1916!Law!&!Legal!Definition,”!Uslegal.com,!accessed!August,!2015,!
http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/nationalLdefenseLactLofL1916%20/.!
lxiii
!Encyclopedia$Britannica$Online,!“Naval!Appropriations!Act,”!Britannica.com,!accessed,!August,!2015,!
http://www.britannica.com/topic/NavalLAppropriationsLAct.!
lxiv
!Ibid.!
lxv
!Ibid.!
lxvi
Mark D. Brewer, L. Sandy Maisel, Parties and Elections in America: the Electoral Process. (Plymouth, UK:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2012), 37-41.
lxvii
Ibid.
lxviii
The Miller Center, The University of Virginia, “Woodrow Wilson: Campaigns and Elections,” Millercenter.org,
accessed August, 2015, http://millercenter.org/president/biography/wilson-campaigns-and-elections.
lxix
Ibid.
lxx
!Ibid.!
lxxi
Ibid.
lxxii
“Atlanticism,” Merriam-Webster.com, accessed August, 2015, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/atlanticism.
lxxiii
!The$History$Channel,!“The!Preparedness!Day!Bombing,”!History.com,!accessed!August,!2015,!
http://www.history.com/thisLdayLinLhistory/theLpreparednessLdayLbombing.!!
lxxiv
!Zachary!Crockett,!“The!Worst!Act!of!Terrorism!in!San!Francisco!History,”!Priceeconomics.com,!October!27,!2014,!
accessed!August,!2015,!http://priceonomics.com/theLworstLactLofLterrorismLinLsanLfrancisco/.!
lxxv
!“A!Great!Peace!Meeting,”!Coast$Seamen’s$Journal,!July!26,!1916.!
lxxvi
!PBS,!“Teddy!Roosevelt!and!Progressivism,”!Pbs.org,!accessed!August,!2015,!http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slaveryLbyL
anotherLname/themes/progressivism/.!
lxxvii
!The!Eleanor!Roosevelt!Papers!Project,!“The!Progressive!Era!(1890L1920),”!Gwu.edu,!accessed!August,!2015,!
http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressiveLera.cfm.!
lxxviii
!PBS,!“Teddy!Roosevelt!and!Progressivism,”!Pbs.org,!accessed!August,!2015,!http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slaveryL
byLanotherLname/themes/progressivism/.!
lxxix
!The!Eleanor!Roosevelt!Papers!Project,!“The!Progressive!Era!(1890L1920),”!Gwu.edu,!accessed!August,!2015,!
http://www.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressiveLera.cfm.!
lxxx
The Miller Center, The University of Virginia, “Woodrow Wilson: Campaigns and Elections,” Millercenter.org,
accessed August, 2015, http://millercenter.org/president/biography/wilson-campaigns-and-elections.
lxxxi
!George!C.!Herring!Jr.,!“James!Hay!and!the!Preparedness!Controversy,”!The$Journal$of$Southern$History,!Vol.!30,!
No.!4,!1964,!383.!
lxxxii
The Miller Center, The University of Virginia, “Woodrow Wilson: Campaigns and Elections,” Millercenter.org,
accessed August, 2015, http://millercenter.org/president/biography/wilson-campaigns-and-elections.
lxxxiii
!Richard!Pipes,!“Communism:!A!History”!(2001),!pp.!3–5.!
lxxxiv
!Marx,!Das!Capital,!Chapter!8!
lxxxv
!Seligman,!Edwin!R.!A.!(1901).!"The!Economic!Interpretation!of!History".!Political!Science!Quarterly!16!(4):!612–
640.!!
lxxxvi
!K.!Marx,!A!Contribution!to!the!Critique!of!Political!Economy,!Progress!Publishers,!Moscow,!1977,!with!some!
notes!by!R.!Rojas.!
lxxxvii
!Grundrisse:!Foundations!of!the!Critique!of!Political!Economy,!by!Karl!Marx!&!Martin!Nicolaus,!Penguin!Classics,!
1993,!!pg!265.!
lxxxviii
!Hobsbawm,!25.!
lxxxix
!Hobsbawm,!27.!
!
!
42!
JHUMUNC
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
xc
!!Pioneering!Land!Reform!by!Boris!Nemtsov!in!The!Moscow!Times.!
!George!F.!Kennan,!“Communism!in!Russian!History,”!https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russiaLfsu/1990L
12L01/communismLrussianLhistory.!
xcii
!Christopher!H.!Lee,!Farewell$to$the$Future,!pg.!70.!
xciii
!Ibid,!72.!
xciv
!Ibid,!74.!
xcv
!Ibid,!44.!
xcvi
!Ibid,!79.!
xcvii
!Ibid,!84.!
xcviii
!Ibid,!88.!
xcix
!Draper,!Theodore.!The$Roots$of$American$Communism.!New!York:!Viking!Press,!1957,!pp.!11L12.!
c
!Ibid,!13.!
ci
Ibid,!14L16.!
cii
Ibid,!41L42.!
xxii
!“Lenin!2.”!Tony$Cliff:$N.p.!n.d.!Web!13!Oct.!2015!
xxiii
!"Nationalism!as!a!Cause!of!World!War!I."!World$War$I.!N.p.,!22!June!2012.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.!
xxiv
"War!Communism."!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
xxv
!"Hunter:!Violence!and!the!Labor!Movement."!Hunter:$Violence$and$the$Labor$Movement.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!
2015.
xci
xxvi
!"Propaganda!Critic:!World!War!One!Committee!on!Public!Information."!Propaganda$Critic:$World$War$One$
Committee$on$Public$Information.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
xxvii
!"AFL!and!WWI!L!Boundless!Open!Textbook."!Boundless.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
xxviii
xxix
!"The!Haymarket!Square!Riot."!History.com.!A&E!Television!Networks,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.!
!"Labor."!New$Articles$RSS.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
"Republican!Party!Platforms:!Republican!Party!Platform!of!1916."!Republican$Party$Platforms:$Republican$Party$
Platform$of$1916.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.!
xxx
xxxi
"Democratic!Party."!Democratic$Party.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
xxxii
"Firstworldwar.com."!First$World$War.com.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
"Chapter!5!The!Late!Progressive!Era!and!World!War,!1912–1920."!The$Late$Progressive$Era$and$World$War,$
1912–1920.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
xxxiii
xxxiv
ciii
"Socialists!and!the!First!World!War."!Socialists$and$the$First$World$War.!N.p.,!n.d.!Web.!13!Oct.!2015.
!Venzon,!Anne!Cipriano;!Paul!L.!Miles!(1999).!The$United$States$in$the$First$World$War.$Taylor$&$Francis.!pg.!536.!!
!
!
43!