Recognizing the need to “insure domestic tranquility,” how would
you react to Attorney General Palmer and the general public’s
attitude toward dissent?
HELPFUL STUFF FOR YOU:
What does "Insure Domestic Tranquility" mean? Well, it's from the Constitution, which I think you guys are familiar with somewhat. Here is an answer to your question - http://answers.yahoo.com/
Dissent:
1) to differ in sentiment or opinion, especially from the majority; withhold assent; disagree.
2) to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.
Mitchell Palmer's views rub against the constitution because he feels that the Americans have “poisonous theories” and they should not be followed. The constitution is a guide to the government and Palmer feels that he is “compelled to clean up the country almost unaided by any virile legislation”. He said that he had not been “embarrassed by political opposition.” Those are examples of instances in which the government annoyed him and what he felt like of felt like he had to do. If the country is being shaped by the people you hate, then the “tranquility” wanted, would not come to that person. He wants to change to communism because he thinks that the style of government would fix the country from what it already was, an unruly and badly functional country. He could make everyone equal and all flow well in the government because everyone would be equal and not need to annoy the leaders of the country.
ReplyDeleteAt this time, people are uneasy about communists and the reds. Attorney General Palmer made it seem like the whole United States were revolting when it was only small groups of people. To “insure domestic tranquility” means to insure peace in the United States and have no disagreements. What Attorney General Palmer was trying to achieve was “domestic tranquility” by shipping all of the “reds” back to where they came from. I feel that most of the strikes were about the soldiers coming home and not being able to get all of their jobs back. Since the “red scare” had recently occurred Attorney General Palmer overreacted and made it seem that all of the communists had started these strikes to over through the government. I believe that Palmer meant well by trying to clean up the streets but what he did was an overreaction to the scenario.
ReplyDeleteGeneral Palmer was determined to not let any Bolshevik Revolution happen in the United States. The Bolsheviks were highly in favor of communism, and Palmer was an anti-communist. Palmer thought that the Bolsheviks were going to try to overthrow the American government and was very worried since he believed that “communism distorts our social law.” The attorney general had lots of raids (known as the Palmer Raids) in order to try to protect the government and country. I agree with Palmer and the public’s attitudes toward dissent because I would not want the type of government in my country to be communism; however, Palmer probably overreacted and could’ve protected the country/citizens/government in a different way. Communism could easily be an obstacle for domestic tranquility in the United States.
ReplyDeleteAttorney General Palmer was a progressive and a Quaker, so it would seem that he would allow free speech and differences of opinion. However, he stated " ... Condition threatening internal revolution in the nation that confronted us. Legislation which I then recommended to meet this great menace had not ben enacted. This is not my fault, for I knew that Congress was fully aware of the "Reds" activities in this country. " At the time of World War I, Palmer was scared of Communist and their threat to the government. He and the general public’s attitude toward dissent, was that in ordinary times, you can use your freedom of speech, but in extraordinary (like WWI) times you cannot. "Reds, who apparently indifferent to their threats against the USA government, until they are out of sight and sound of it, betray the characterless ideas that purposes that Trotzky gad impressed upon the criminal classes which constitute communism." Basically, Communism can ruin the domestic tranquility of America.
ReplyDeleteI would say that Attorney General Palmer was well within his rights in the Constitution in his doings to discourage communism and "insure domestic tranquility." According to DaChickenLady who had the best answer on Yahoo! answers, Attorney General Palmer is 100% following the preamble and the laws of our nation. All the reasons DaChickenLady listed as the definition of "insuring domestic tranquility;" 1. to form a country that is better than other countries in existence and a true union of the states; 2.to establish a just society; 3. to maintain a peaceful/lawful/orderly society; 4.to protect itself against hostile enemies; 5. and to maintain a free society for its people so that the people will reap the benefits, can justify the actions of Mr. Palmer. Communism was a threat to American life and to the country. The United States has thrived on Capitalism and if anarchists and and socialists continues to speak out then people may begin to start taking sides and the country would definitely be on same terms as other countries because they can't prosper and there is no motivation to excel. That is the first point. The second point: Capitalism is just as in everyone everyone earns according to their abilities. The third point: Communism has proved to be disorderly because there is no motivation to do better and people don't follow the philosophy and try to take advantage. The fourth point: Mr. Palmer stopped a threat before it happened. Riots could have happened and people could have turned traitorous and been spies for countries, like Russia, who were enemies with the United States at that time. The fifth and final point: People will most likely gain from Capitalism country in reality. People who do more for the country and work harder are the ones who get more wages and more benefits. My reaction is that Attorney General Palmer saved us from a disastrous part in U.S history, something that I believe could of led to another civil war.
ReplyDeleteI personally would react to the idea of insuring domestic tranquility by Attorney General Palmer and the public’s attitude by feeling very thankful after a war or my home in country would be more protected from distant enemies. The public could react in two different ways. The first would be having the country united, protected, and promoting general welfare to its people. On the other hand, people could disagree with domestic tranquility because they don't like the system and how the country is being ruled. It truly does depend of the persons thoughts on the subject. However, I feel that this subject is a very positive one and is a great idea for everyone.
ReplyDeleteA. Mitchell Palmer and the general public held hostile opinions towards dissent. This was probably because they wanted to maintain a peaceful environment in all situations. This is understandable, but we were given freedom of speech for a reason. So that everyone could voice their opinions without worry of repercussions. If you raise an issue and expect everyone to agree on it, you may as well not raise the issue at all. You are given the freedom of speech to deliver the opinion, and everyone deserves the freedom to respond. It can’t work only one way because it ruins the equality created.
ReplyDelete