How Did The Executive Order 906 Dbq

850 Words4 Pages

At different times in U.S history the government has disputed about certain actions that limited civil liberties. Some include the Executive Order 9066 which relocated Japanese Americans in 1942 and the USA Patriot Act in 2001. These acts impacted the United States majorly. They both occurred after a tragic event took place and the government wanted to protect themselves, the people, and the country.

The Executive Order 9066 was passed after the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Japanese in 1941. The United States thought that the Japanese was dangerous and were afraid they would attack again. It stunned everyone and the government thought the best solution was to relocate all of the Japanese immigrants. According to Document 4 the author states, …show more content…

However, according to Document 1, “Any statement might interfere with the armed forces, incite disloyalty, or obstruct recruiting to the Army became a punishable offense.” So the Espionage Act was passed to punish anyone who conveyed information intended to interfere with the armed forces. The next year, the Sedition Act was passed to make harsh punishments against anyone who spoke false information that interfered with war. When the Espionage Act was made a law, according to Document 2, “Charles T. Schenck was convicted of violating the act by printing and distributing to draftees leaflets that urged them to resist the draft.” One argument used by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Charles T. Schenck was, “When a nation is at war many things which might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight...no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” So Charles went to court just by speaking his mind. Meanwhile, Senator Robert M. La Follette believes that regardless of whether it is wartime or not, everyone should have freedom of speech. He also believes war time is the best time to have freedom of speech because, he states, “Rather, in time of war, the citizen must be more alert to the preservation of his right to control his government.” He