The Progressive Era/ Anti-War Voices

Progressive Era-A widespread period of social activism and political reform

The Progressive Era recitation is comprised of three timelines: world history, 14th Amendment, and 1st Amendment, that work together to create a conceptual understanding of this era. In fact, this historic timeline starts with World War I in 1914 because the Progressive Era was kickstarted by antiwar voices who opposed America's involvement. Due to where the legal power lay at the time and the exclusion of protection for those who voiced dissent, the antiwar party was the major target at the homefront amongst Americans. After WWII ends in 1918, America is left with speech/action doctrine, the Espionage Act, and the Sedition Act (anyone who said anything bad about the government could be thrown in jail; no longer valid after 1964). The Espionage Act developed when Woodrow Wilson (President who ironically ran on a peace platform and then entered WWI) got his buddies in Congress to pass this act that focused on punishing government employees and was used to wrongfully put those who spoke out about being anti-war in jail. In 1919 the Quartet Cases were comprised of antiwar voices. For example, Schenck, Debs. Frohwerk, were all against the war and wanted to extract America from WWI and were all communists or socialists. In these cases, the court rules that under incitement, speech intended to cause violence or lawless action is not protected by the First Amendment so all of these people stayed in jail under this new speech/action doctrine. Under the Quartet Cases, Holmes' famous dissent leads to the first major theory-the marketplace of ideas (allowing beliefs to freely be expressed and compete with each other on a transparent battlefield); the worst thing that can happen is when the government interferes with the peoples' ideas. 

**Dissents from cases lost are often used because what once was a minority opinion could one day be the majority's view. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the dissent was used in Brown v. Board of Ed. to prove the court got it wrong the first time and used its written language to back the majority.**

The Roaring 20's 

Although the court was still stuck on separate but equal, the people weren't...well some of the people. In my opinion, musicians can be credited for integrating society long before the court with

jazz influencing the culture at the time. The prohibition subsequently corralled people to a speakeasy to illegally enjoy their alcoholic beverage while listening to America's triumphant music and integrating with the musicians. This is where Americans start to let go of the death grip they've had to bite their tongue for so long (especially women) as we mosey into the roaring 20s. Along with the creation of the radio which revolutionized communication by creating instantaneous news, the 19th Amendment (suffrage) was passed, giving women the right to vote. 1921 there's a shift in court where Congress rewrites immigration laws to be more strict, exclusive, and tight (until 1965); it's always one step forward and one giant leap back, isn't it? 

To go along with the metaphor of America being the mother of Democracy, let's picture 1925 as the year she gave birth to the modern court system. The Judiciary Act granted certiorari, granting the court the power to decide what cases they want to take. Gitlow v. N.Y. creates incorporation and changes the way the first amendment works; now any agent or entity of government at any level cannot violate your first amendment rights without being susceptible to a lawsuit. Then, Pierce v. Society of Sisters uses Substantive Due Process to help people. The final addition to the legal section of the timeline was Near (a man who ran a weekly newspaper and was an anti-Semitic writer) v Minnesota (got a court to issue an injunction to stop Near). In this case, prior restraint is deemed to be almost always unconstitutional with the three expectations: (1) are obscene, (2) threaten national security, and (3) threaten to incite violence. Under this, the press is now protected up and down the chain and the court established the bedrock rule that the government stopping you from speaking or writing before you have done it, is the worst thing they can do. 

The timeline of anti-war voices in America dates back to when the country was founded. Whenever there was a war, internal dissent spawned among those who objected to all wars on the condition that military dissension was wrong in all of the four categories where Americans place so much value: morality, religion, politics, and economy. The Revolutionary War had theological opposition from the Quaker population who didn't believe in violence, thus refusing to participate in the war at all. The War of 1812, America's debut war as the first war we'd declare, jump-started the trend of anti-war protests, movements, and voices. The main rejection of the war was rooted in the Federalist Party for economic and political reasons. As you'd expect antiwar voices only grew stronger as the movements to end all war (domestic and abroad) grew stronger. 

The Vietnam War created a major division in America-those who were pro-war or anti-war. The anti-war party believed the United States had no business being in that war and if they were going to be in, the way the U.S. military behaved and methods used to 'gain control'-were believed to be inhumane, tortuous, and dehumanizing. When America pulled out of the war (which in my opinion was the most cowardly, disrespectful, and weak way they could've) upon their return home from the war, Vietnam veterans were welcomed with disgust by the anti-war party. The American media played a major role in cultivating dissent and sparking political unrest in what was supposed to be a United country (it's literally in our title guys...the UNITED States of America) by showing it in American homes in a vivid and powerful way. The Civil War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf War/Iraq War were all stepping stones to a pacifist pool where anything anti-war was drowned. By drowned I mean mainstream media's mirrored development and its desire to cover entertainment and news; so to end something like say, a war (that's changing every day and requires constant coverage which means more content, viewers, and money for the media outlets), just isn't economically smart for mainstream media outlets alone--the country, well that's a story I'll save for another time.