was america right in limiting civil rights during world war 1?
447616
Limiting ones civil rights is never a good thing
186972
I know that prohibition was a big one. The recovery from WWI had alot to do with it also, and the depression. We had 65% unemployment in some areas of the Country. America was crippled from Taft's legislation, and the control of the banks. The Banks couldn't cover the money, that was put into their banks, it wasn't there, "HUH". I would start there.
1118201
First secret prisons, maybe for terrorest who are arrested outside the US,  there are no civil rights people who are not american citizens outside the US.  Only those rights of the Geneva Convenction, (human rights)\n\nWe are trying to judge military prisons or prisioners of war under the wrong idea of what they are, they do not, never did get consititional rights.\n\nEven in WWII, the US took away the constitutional rightrs of Japanise americans and put them in camps and they lost thier property in the US during this time.\n\nAnd no people are not spying on liberals, why they tell more than they know to start with.  The only spying is to track and trace telephone calls of posible terroest links ( and emails and regular mail)  \n\nMerely alot of issues taken out of context by the opposing public party that cares little about destroying our war effort if they can win an election.
389897
Talk about the general feeling of Americans. In the 1920s, Americans wanted to do what was best for them so America was slightly isolationist. By the 1940s and FDR, America felt that it needed to be involved in foreign affaris because of WWII. The 1930s were a time in which Americans did not want to be involved in forgein affairs because of the great depression, but through some of his acts (i.e. selling weapons to Europe) FDR subtly involved America in world affairs. Between WWI and the late 1930s, America was concerned mostly with itself, whereas WWII marked a final end to American isolationism.
489805
Certainly within the Founders True Intent of the Constitution, States rights were recognized.  With the Union federal government winning of the civil war and the application of the 1868 14th Amendment (justified in Texas v. White [1869] since it never met Constitutional ratification requirements), States came under the power of the federal government and States rights began to diminish.  \n\nThrough the years the federal government has increasingly intruded into what the Founders would have considered as the Constitutional territory of the States.  One of the primary roles of the States (prior to the Civil war) was to protect the rights of its citizens relative to actions of the federal government through an action termed State Nullification.  In this function a single State legislature could decide that federal action was not Constitutional and nullify it in that single State.  \n\nTo get this back where it once was, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified noting the Sovereign role of the States and their power to nullify federal action.
286883
This depends on how we define the U.S.'s ideals. If you asked five different people what the U.S.'s ideals are, I suspect you'd get some overlap and some disagreement in their responses. Added into the problem is the fact that, even with the overlap, common terms such as "democracy" or "liberty" or "freedom" or "equality" mean different things to different people.\n\nOne of the U.S.'s founding ideals was equality under the law. Another was freedom of religion. And another was economic exploitation of a politically and economically weak minority group. Yet another was limiting citizenship to white, property-owning males. Some of these have changed considerably; others haven't. \n\nFor the sake of argument, let's say that U.S. ideals currently encompass personal liberty, freedom of religion, and economic opportunity. I do believe all of these should play a role in our national security policy. Again, what I mean by these terms and what someone else means can be very different. Aaaagghhh! Can't...answer! I think we need a more limiting question.
567341
The emancipation proclamation freed the SLAVES in the SOUTH during the Civil War as declared by the US President, Abraham Lincoln.\n\nThe 13th amendment to the constitution FORBADE slavery throughout the United States after the war was over (and this was the legal freedom for slaves in the border states and NORTH).
803991
Absolutely not. Men and women fought, died and were horrifically wounded in 2 world wars to ensure freedoms that included a range of civil liberties that we now take so much for granted that we seem to care less as they are being progressively eroded by those in positions of power in this country. We are the most spied on citizens in the "free" world, and our freedoms are being taken away by the day. Those vociferous people who constantly repeat the politician's and police mantra that "if you have done no wrong, you have nothing to fear" will be the first to complain when we are subjugated, monitored and controlled to such a degree, in the not too distant future, that they are no longer allowed to even voice their protest.  We are calmly sleep-walking into a totalitarian police state, and most of the responders in this forum appear to think that's fine. I despair for our future, and our liberty, when you have so blithely let it go.
1086971
I wouldn't say America was undefeated.  I would say we have a right to protect ourselves from outside colonists.
875259
America's role in WWI was not as large as it was in WWII (although in both wars the U.S. entered the war late - for more information I would compare the information between the two wars check here for a start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states_of_america#World_War_I_and_II\n\nGood Luck!!!
1072065
Good job! Evidently, you've done your homework! \n\nMany aren't aware that the American Civil War was "NOT" about slavery. Nor are many aware that slaves were still being held as private property in the North during that time. Abraham Lincoln owned a slave during the war, and Union General U.S. Grant owned 4. \n\nThe war was, from the Southern standpoint, over States Rights, i.e., a state had authority over the federal government within it's own borders. And also, to defend against an illegal military invasion from the North. \n\nBut it's always the victors in war that write the history, isn't it?
65986
Of course our rights stem from the Bill of Rights which amended the Constitution.  However, and more importantly, our rights are preserved by the "Rule of Law" and that depends on our Court system being independent of Congress or the Whitehouse.  Many countries had constitutions, lawyers and elections but lost their freedom when they lost the rule of law.  Nazi Germany is a good example.  I know of investors who shy away from investments in Russia today because they doubt that the rule of law there will protect their rights.  perhaps things will change for the better.
606324
No.  That right is reserved for citizens and legal residents.\n\nThey do not have "civil rights."  They have "human rights."  This is an important distinction.  Also, to infer that the Constitution is bestowing rights on illegals is like assuming that illegals have the right to bear arms and vote.  "The people" in the Constitution very specifically means "the citizens" of the USA.\n\nWikipedia\nCivil Rights\nCivil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights"—civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim ought to belong to all people.
502747
no. it was first used in world war I
655777
Well, the civil war didn't end the attrocities being committed against blacks being treated as sub-humans.  I would hope that everyone would be educated about civil liberties which have been perverted by the left wing in this country.\n\nSamuel Adams said:\n\nAmong the rights of the colonists are these:\nfirst, to life; second, to liberty; third, to property; along with the right to support and defend them.\n\nCivil rights is one indicator of how civilized a nation is. Abortion is the most barbaric act against an innocent and helpless human being. In reality, and when compared to slavery, we are far more barbaric than 50 and 200 years ago.\n\nCivility and etiquette are not part of modern society. People of todays generation have perverted natural law and the meaning of civil liberties to mean selfishness. It is appauling and disgusting. When civil liberty is perverted to mean, "I can do whatever I want and have a right to privacy." we have totally ignored our civic duties. \n\nThis is a GOOD QUESTION! Civil rights go in a sequential order as Samuel Adams (father of the American revolution) expressed to the continental congress in 1772.  The recent Supreme Court decision is an example of how we are regressing in civil liberties. Quite often those who want to keep abortion legal would belittle what was written 200 years ago as if it has no relevance.  In effect, they want to play God!
1027381
The soldiers of the North believed they were fighting to preserve the Union (which represented the whole of the United States as it existed at the time).  The soldiers of the South were fighting for the right of secession, and the freedom of self-determination, as they felt that the Federal Government had become to powerful and was over-stepping it's consitutional limits.  \n\nIn specific, the war was not originally over slavery, but over whether or not a man had the right to own property that he could do with as he chose without government interference.  Ever hear of a zoning ordinance?  They did not exist in the South before the Civil War - and the people of the South did not want them.  The reasoning is that if someone else can tell you how you can or can not use your property, then it is not yours - it's theirs, because (much like a king) THEY decide what is done with it.
205004
If by equal rights you mean one group had a chance to be discriminated against, now the other group has that same chance, then sure.  If you mean the same rights to all people regardless of race, color or creed, then no.