Patriotism is a necessary ingredient in war. Without patriotism the public is unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices. Dissenters are at best a distraction and at worst a source of danger to the war effort. In authoritarian societies dissent is customarily stifled. In the United States, the right of free speech not only is protected by the Constitution but is one of the qualities that make the United States distinctive. How much dissent can be tolerated in time of war? Instructors will find this topic a fruitful one. A lecture might begin with the First Amendment. Consider the practice of self-censorship, despite the First Amendment, in anticipation of negative public reaction. Consider such symbolic matters as changing the names sauerkraut and dachshund. Go to more serious matters like the suppression of German-language instruction and the passage of the espionage and sedition laws. Emphasize that the issue is not unique to the period of the First World War. Refer back to the case of Clement Vallandigham and forward to the flag-salute case of 1943, West Virginia v. Barnette. A brief mention might be made of Senator Joseph McCarthy, but he will be a subject for fuller discussion later. Attempt in the lecture to convey simultaneously that espionage and subversion are very real threats and that repression and the destruction of civil liberties are likewise very real threats. Now turn the matter over to students for discussion as suggested in the next section. For the lecture consult David M. Kennedy's excellent study Over Here: The First World War and American Society (1980) and titles in the bibliography at the end of Chapter 22 of the text. See also Charles Chatfield, For Peace and Justice: Pacifism in America, 1914-1941 (1971), and Zechariah Chaffee, Jr., Free Speech in the United States (1941).

The Red Scare is significantly different. There was no war, and political ambition may have been as much a factor as patriotism in stimulating it. What was the scope of the Red Scare? Why did it happen? Why did it end? The major source will be Robert K. Murray, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 (1955).

It's easy to think of President Lincoln as "Abe" but almost impossible to think of President Wilson as "Woody." Wilson's character, his background, his sense of righteousness, his inflexibility have all been subjects of concern to historians and biographers. A lecture exploring the Wilsonian nature will be a very useful addition to students' understanding of the period. Several aspects of his career deserve emphasis. Especially worth exploring are his personality, his academic background, the New Freedom, his advocacy of national self-determination contrasted with his efforts to end the presidency of Victoriano Huerta, and his concern for peace and the apparent contradiction of the invasion of Russia. Using Progressivism as a framework linking Wilson's domestic and foreign policy can help students understand the man within the context of the period. See John M. Blum, Woodrow Wilson and the Politics of Morality (1956), and other works cited in the chapter bibliography. See also E. David Cronon, editor, The Political Thought of Woodrow Wilson (1965); Earl Latham, editor, The Philosophy and Policies of Woodrow Wilson (1958).

It is possible to argue that the nineteenth century really ended with the First World War. Perceptions of the world changed. Among other things, the concept of war as an engagement of honor between gentlemen seems finally to have been laid to rest by sheer mass destruction. Moreover, it was no longer possible in the United States to ignore the participation and contributions of women and members of American minority groups. A lecture discussing this participation on the war front and on the home front will focus on American diversity in contrast to the strong pressure for conformity. See David M. Kennedy, Over Here (1980), and the older, more chatty, and less scholarly fifth volume, Over Here, 1914-1918, of Our Times by Mark Sullivan (1930).