civil liberties essay questions

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Unit 3: Civil liberties and civil rights

About this unit.

How does the Constitution protect civil liberties and rights? How have different Supreme Court interpretations of different amendments impacted and defined civil rights in the U.S.?

The Bill of Rights

• The Bill of Rights: an introduction (Opens a modal)
• The Bill of Rights: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• The Bill of Rights Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The First Amendment: freedom of religion

• The First Amendment (Opens a modal)
• Engel v. Vitale (1962) (Opens a modal)
• Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) (Opens a modal)
• Freedom of religion: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Freedom of religion Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The First Amendment: freedom of speech

• Schenck v. United States (1919) (Opens a modal)
• Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) (Opens a modal)
• Freedom of speech: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Freedom of speech Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The First Amendment: freedom of the press

• New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (Opens a modal)
• Freedom of the press: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Freedom of the press Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The Second Amendment

• The Second Amendment (Opens a modal)
• The Second Amendment: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• The Second Amendment Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Balancing individual freedom with public order and safety

• The Fourth Amendment (Opens a modal)
• The Eighth Amendment (Opens a modal)
• Balancing individual freedom with public order and safety: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Balancing individual freedom with public order and safety Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Selective incorporation

• Selective incorporation (Opens a modal)
• McDonald v. Chicago (Opens a modal)
• Selective incorporation: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Selective incorporation Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Due process and the rights of the accused

• The Fifth Amendment (Opens a modal)
• The Sixth Amendment (Opens a modal)
• Miranda v. Arizona (Opens a modal)
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) (Opens a modal)
• Due process and the rights of the accused: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Due process and the rights of the accused Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Due process and the right to privacy

• Roe v. Wade (Opens a modal)
• Due process and the right to privacy: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Due process and right to privacy Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Social movements and equal protection

• The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection (Opens a modal)
• Letter from a Birmingham Jail (Opens a modal)
• Social movements and equal protection: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Social movements and equal protection Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Government responses to social movements

• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Opens a modal)
• Government responses to social movements: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Government responses to social movements Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Balancing minority and majority rights

• Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court (Opens a modal)
• Balancing minority and majority rights: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Balancing minority and majority rights Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Affirmative action

• Affirmative action (Opens a modal)
• Affirmative action: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
• Affirmative action Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

What Are Civil Liberties?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Define civil liberties and civil rights
• Describe the origin of civil liberties in the U.S. context
• Identify the key positions on civil liberties taken at the Constitutional Convention
• Explain the Civil War origin of concern that the states should respect civil liberties

The U.S. Constitution —in particular, the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights—protects the freedoms and rights of individuals. It does not limit this protection just to citizens or adults; instead, in most cases, the Constitution simply refers to “persons,” which over time has grown to mean that even children, visitors from other countries, and immigrants—permanent or temporary, legal or undocumented—enjoy the same freedoms when they are in the United States or its territories as adult citizens do. So, whether you are a Japanese tourist visiting Disney World or someone who has stayed beyond the limit of days allowed on your visa, you do not sacrifice your liberties. In everyday conversation, we tend to treat freedoms, liberties, and rights as being effectively the same thing—similar to how separation of powers and checks and balances are often used as if they are interchangeable, when in fact they are distinct concepts.

DEFINING CIVIL LIBERTIES

To be more precise in their language, political scientists and legal experts make a distinction between civil liberties and civil rights, even though the Constitution has been interpreted to protect both. We typically envision civil liberties as being limitations on government power, intended to protect freedoms that governments may not legally intrude on. For example, the First Amendment denies the government the power to prohibit “the free exercise” of religion; the states and the national government cannot forbid people to follow a religion of their choice, even if politicians and judges think the religion is misguided, blasphemous, or otherwise inappropriate. You are free to create your own religion and recruit followers to it (subject to the U.S. Supreme Court deeming it a religion), even if both society and government disapprove of its tenets. That said, the way you practice your religion may be regulated if it impinges on the rights of others. Similarly, the Eighth Amendment says the government cannot impose “cruel and unusual punishments” on individuals for their criminal acts. Although the definitions of cruel and unusual have expanded over the years, as we will see later in this chapter, the courts have generally and consistently interpreted this provision as making it unconstitutional for government officials to torture suspects.

Civil rights, on the other hand, are guarantees that government officials will treat people equally and that decisions will be made on the basis of merit rather than race, gender, or other personal characteristics. Because of the Constitution’s civil rights guarantee, it is unlawful for a school or university run by a state government to treat students differently based on their race, ethnicity, age, sex, or national origin. In the 1960s and 1970s, many states had separate schools where only students of a certain race or gender were able to study. However, the courts decided that these policies violated the civil rights of students who could not be admitted because of those rules. [1]

The idea that Americans—indeed, people in general—have fundamental rights and liberties was at the core of the arguments in favor of their independence. In writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson drew on the ideas of John Locke to express the colonists’ belief that they had certain inalienable or natural rights that no ruler had the power or authority to deny to his or her subjects. It was a scathing legal indictment of King George III for violating the colonists’ liberties. Although the Declaration of Independence does not guarantee specific freedoms, its language was instrumental in inspiring many of the states to adopt protections for civil liberties and rights in their own constitutions, and in expressing principles of the founding era that have resonated in the United States since its independence. In particular, Jefferson’s words “all men are created equal” became the centerpiece of struggles for the rights of women and minorities (Figure) .

CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution as written in 1787 did not include a Bill of Rights , although the idea of including one was proposed and, after brief discussion, dismissed in the final week of the Constitutional Convention. The framers of the Constitution believed they faced much more pressing concerns than the protection of civil rights and liberties, most notably keeping the fragile union together in the light of internal unrest and external threats.

Moreover, the framers thought that they had adequately covered rights issues in the main body of the document. Indeed, the Federalists did include in the Constitution some protections against legislative acts that might restrict the liberties of citizens, based on the history of real and perceived abuses by both British kings and parliaments as well as royal governors. In Article I , Section 9, the Constitution limits the power of Congress in three ways: prohibiting the passage of bills of attainder, prohibiting ex post facto laws, and limiting the ability of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

A bill of attainder is a law that convicts or punishes someone for a crime without a trial, a tactic used fairly frequently in England against the king’s enemies. Prohibition of such laws means that the U.S. Congress cannot simply punish people who are unpopular or seem to be guilty of crimes. An ex post facto law has a retroactive effect: it can be used to punish crimes that were not crimes at the time they were committed, or it can be used to increase the severity of punishment after the fact.

Finally, the writ of habeas corpus is used in our common-law legal system to demand that a neutral judge decide whether someone has been lawfully detained. Particularly in times of war, or even in response to threats against national security, the government has held suspected enemy agents without access to civilian courts, often without access to lawyers or a defense, seeking instead to try them before military tribunals or detain them indefinitely without trial. For example, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln detained suspected Confederate saboteurs and sympathizers in Union-controlled states and attempted to have them tried in military court s, leading the Supreme Court to rule in Ex parte Milligan that the government could not bypass the civilian court system in states where it was operating. [2]

During World War II, the Roosevelt administration interned Japanese Americans and had other suspected enemy agents—including U.S. citizens—tried by military courts rather than by the civilian justice system, a choice the Supreme Court upheld in Ex parte Quirin (Figure) . [3]

More recently, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush and Obama administrations detained suspected terrorists captured both within and outside the United States and sought, with mixed results, to avoid trials in civilian courts. Hence, there have been times in our history when national security issues trumped individual liberties.

Debate has always swirled over these issues. The Federalists reasoned that the limited set of enumerated powers of Congress, along with the limitations on those powers in Article I , Section 9, would suffice, and no separate bill of rights was needed. Alexander Hamilton , writing as Publius in Federalist No. 84, argued that the Constitution was “merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation,” rather than to concern itself with “the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.” Hamilton went on to argue that listing some rights might actually be dangerous, because it would provide a pretext for people to claim that rights not included in such a list were not protected. Later, James Madison , in his speech introducing the proposed amendments that would become the Bill of Rights, acknowledged another Federalist argument: “It has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions.” [4]

For that matter, the Articles of Confederation had not included a specific listing of rights either.

However, the Anti-Federalists argued that the Federalists’ position was incorrect and perhaps even insincere. The Anti-Federalists believed provisions such as the elastic clause in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution would allow Congress to legislate on matters well beyond the limited ones foreseen by the Constitution’s authors; thus, they held that a bill of rights was necessary. One of the Anti-Federalists, Brutus , whom most scholars believe to be Robert Yates , wrote: “The powers, rights, and authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of any state government—It reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness—Life, liberty, and property, are under its controul [sic]. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the state governments.” [5]

The experience of the past two centuries has suggested that the Anti-Federalists may have been correct in this regard; while the states retain a great deal of importance, the scope and powers of the national government are much broader today than in 1787—likely beyond even the imaginings of the Federalists themselves.

The struggle to have rights clearly delineated and the decision of the framers to omit a bill of rights nearly derailed the ratification process. While some of the states were willing to ratify without any further guarantees, in some of the larger states—New York and Virginia in particular—the Constitution’s lack of specified rights became a serious point of contention. The Constitution could go into effect with the support of only nine states, but the Federalists knew it could not be effective without the participation of the largest states. To secure majorities in favor of ratification in New York and Virginia, as well as Massachusetts, they agreed to consider incorporating provisions suggested by the ratifying states as amendments to the Constitution.

Ultimately, James Madison delivered on this promise by proposing a package of amendments in the First Congress, drawing from the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia state constitution, suggestions from the ratification conventions, and other sources, which were extensively debated in both houses of Congress and ultimately proposed as twelve separate amendments for ratification by the states. Ten of the amendments were successfully ratified by the requisite 75 percent of the states and became known as the Bill of Rights (Figure) .

EXTENDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES

In the decades following the Constitution’s ratification, the Supreme Court declined to expand the Bill of Rights to curb the power of the states, most notably in the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore . [6]

In this case, which dealt with property rights under the Fifth Amendment , the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Bill of Rights applied only to actions by the federal government. Explaining the court’s ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that it was incorrect to argue that “the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their [Federal] government.”

In the wake of the Civil War, however, the prevailing thinking about the application of the Bill of Rights to the states changed. Soon after slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment , state governments—particularly those in the former Confederacy—began to pass “black codes” that restricted the rights of former slaves and effectively relegated them to second-class citizenship under their state laws and constitutions. Angered by these actions, members of the Radical Republican faction in Congress demanded that the laws be overturned. In the short term, they advocated suspending civilian government in most of the southern states and replacing politicians who had enacted the black codes. Their long-term solution was to propose two amendments to the Constitution to guarantee the rights of freed slaves on an equal standing with whites; these rights became the Fourteenth Amendment , which dealt with civil liberties and rights in general, and the Fifteenth Amendment , which protected the right to vote in particular (Figure) . But, the right to vote did not yet apply to women or to Native Americans.

With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, civil liberties gained more clarification. First, the amendment says, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” which is a provision that echoes the privileges and immunities clause in Article IV , Section 2, of the original Constitution ensuring that states treat citizens of other states the same as their own citizens. (To use an example from today, the punishment for speeding by an out-of-state driver cannot be more severe than the punishment for an in-state driver). Legal scholars and the courts have extensively debated the meaning of this privileges or immunities clause over the years; some have argued that it was supposed to extend the entire Bill of Rights (or at least the first eight amendments) to the states, while others have argued that only some rights are extended. In 1999, Justice John Paul Stevens , writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, argued in Saenz v. Roe that the clause protects the right to travel from one state to another.  [7]

More recently, Justice Clarence Thomas argued in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago ruling that the individual right to bear arms applied to the states because of this clause. [8]

The second provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that pertains to applying the Bill of Rights to the states is the due process clause, which says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This provision is similar to the Fifth Amendment in that it also refers to “due process,” a term that generally means people must be treated fairly and impartially by government officials (or with what is commonly referred to as substantive due process). Although the text of the provision does not mention rights specifically, the courts have held in a series of cases that it indicates there are certain fundamental liberties that cannot be denied by the states. For example, in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job because it required working on the Sabbath. [9]

Beginning in 1897, the Supreme Court has found that various provisions of the Bill of Rights protecting these fundamental liberties must be upheld by the states, even if their state constitutions and laws do not protect them as fully as the Bill of Rights does—or at all. This means there has been a process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the practices of the states; in other words, the Constitution effectively inserts parts of the Bill of Rights into state laws and constitutions, even though it doesn’t do so explicitly. When cases arise to clarify particular issues and procedures, the Supreme Court decides whether state laws violate the Bill of Rights and are therefore unconstitutional.

For example, under the Fifth Amendment a person can be tried in federal court for a felony—a serious crime—only after a grand jury issues an indictment indicating that it is reasonable to try the person for the crime in question. (A grand jury is a group of citizens charged with deciding whether there is enough evidence of a crime to prosecute someone.) But the Supreme Court has ruled that states don’t have to use grand juries as long as they ensure people accused of crimes are indicted using an equally fair process.

Selective incorporation is an ongoing process. When the Supreme Court initially decided in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, it did not decide then that it was a fundamental liberty the states must uphold as well. It was only in the McDonald v. Chicago case two years later that the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment into state law. Another area in which the Supreme Court gradually moved to incorporate the Bill of Rights regards censorship and the Fourteenth Amendment. In Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court disagreed with state courts regarding censorship and ruled it unconstitutional except in rare cases. [10]

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the freedoms of individuals from interference by government officials. Originally these protections were applied only to actions by the national government; different sets of rights and liberties were protected by state constitutions and laws, and even when the rights themselves were the same, the level of protection for them often differed by definition across the states. Since the Civil War, as a result of the passage and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and a series of Supreme Court decisions, most of the Bill of Rights’ protections of civil liberties have been expanded to cover actions by state governments as well through a process of selective incorporation. Nonetheless there is still vigorous debate about what these rights entail and how they should be balanced against the interests of others and of society as a whole.

• Green v. County School Board of New Kent County , 391 U.S. 430 (1968); Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737 (1984). ↵
• Ex parte Milligan , 71 U.S. 2 (1866). ↵
• Ex parte Quirin , 317 U.S. 1 (1942); See William H. Rehnquist. 1998. All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime . New York: William Morrow. ↵
• American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond, “Madison Speech Proposing the Bill of Rights June 8 1789,” http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php (March 4, 2016). ↵
• Constitution Society, “To the Citizens of the State of New-York,” http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus02.htm (March 4, 2016). ↵
• Barron v. Baltimore , 32 U.S. 243 (1833). ↵
• Saenz v. Roe , 526 U.S. 489 (1999). ↵
• McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U.S. 742 (2010). ↵
• Sherbert v. Verner , 374 U.S. 398 (1963). ↵
• Near v. Minnesota , 283 U.S. 697 (1931). ↵

American Government Copyright © 2016 by cnxamgov is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

U.S. History

Dbq essay prompt: civil liberties post 9/11, document based essay question.

Throughout United States history, many constitutional and civic issues have been debated by Americans. These debates have resulted in efforts by individuals, groups, and governments to address these issues. These efforts have achieved varying degrees of success. One of these constitutional and civic issues is Civil liberties post 9/11 .

• Describe the historical circumstances surrounding this constitutional or civic issue
• Explain efforts by individuals, groups, and/or governments to address this constitutional or civic issue
• Discuss the extent to which the efforts were successful
• Develop all aspects of the task
• Explain at least two efforts to address this issue
• Incorporate information from at least four documents
• Incorporate relevant outside information
• Support the theme with relevant facts, examples, and details
• Use a logical and clear plan of organization, including an introduction and conclusion that are beyond a restatement of the theme

"Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence [...], to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.’’ Source: US Congress "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT Act) Act of 2001." October 26, 2001. The Library of Congress https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.pdf .

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its homeland security mission are bo...

By upgrading a subject, you'll have access to the rest of the  Prompt, a Sample Response, and an Explanation.

• Name Search
• Browse Legal Issues
• Browse Law Firms

Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties

By Lark Lewis, J.D. | Legally reviewed by Aviana Cooper, Esq. | Last reviewed October 16, 2023

Legally Reviewed

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by  FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys  and in accordance with  our editorial standards .

Fact-Checked

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our  contributing authors . We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please  contact an attorney in your area .

The terms "civil rights" and "civil liberties" are often used interchangeably, but their meanings are distinct.  Civil liberties  are freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution to protect you from tyranny. One key civil liberty, for example, is the  First Amendment right  to freedom of speech.  Civil rights , in contrast, are the legal rights detailed in federal laws and statutes that protect you from discrimination. An example of a civil right is the right to be free from employment discrimination based on a protected factor.

You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to a fair court trial. You also have the right to vote and the right to privacy. Americans are generally familiar with these rights, but are they considered  civil rights  or civil liberties?

This article explores the differences between civil rights and civil liberties, with specific laws corresponding to each term.

Civil Rights

Civil rights concern the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics. Civil rights are generally associated with protecting minority groups such as women and African Americans. Protected characteristics include:

• National origin
• Sexual orientation

Civil rights protect you in numerous settings. These include:

• Access to public facilities

A civil rights violation occurs in designated situations when a person experiences  discrimination  based on a protected characteristic. Discrimination can come in the form of segregation, for instance.

Most civil rights laws are established by the federal government through federal laws enacted by Congress or by case law. Many civil rights laws arose as a result of the Civil Rights Movement. Examples include the  Civil Rights Act of 1964  and the  Voting Rights Act of 1965 .

Federal courts — and especially the U.S. Supreme Court — play a big role in determining the extent of civil rights protections. Supreme Court cases often clarify, expand, or limit civil rights.

Civil Liberties

Civil liberties concern basic rights and freedoms that are explicitly guaranteed by the  Bill of Rights  and the U.S. Constitution or have been interpreted and inferred by legislatures or the courts. They offer protection from federal or state government action.

Civil liberties include:

• The right to free speech and freedom of the press, granted by the First Amendment
• The right to freedom of religion
• The right to remain silent in a police interrogation
• The right to be free from unreasonable searches, afforded by the Fourth Amendment
• The right to a fair trial and due process of law
• The right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, granted by the Eighth Amendment
• The right to vote, afforded by the 15th Amendment
• The right to bear arms, granted by the Second Amendment

The 14th Amendment's due process clause provides the basis for civil liberties. In contrast, the equal protection clause provides the basis for civil rights.

The law differentiates between civil rights and civil liberties. Civil liberties concern the actual basic freedoms. Civil rights concern the treatment of a person regarding certain rights. Unlike  civil liberties , under which people enjoy broad-based rights, civil rights contain a protective aspect of those rights based on certain characteristics.

One way to consider the difference between civil rights and civil liberties is to consider:

• What right is affected
• Whose right is affected

For example, as an employee, you don't have the legal right to a promotion. This is mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed civil liberty. However, as a female employee, you have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion. You can't legally be denied a promotion based on your gender or any other protected factor. By choosing not to promote a female worker solely based on gender, an employer commits a civil rights violation. In doing so, the employer engages in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender.

Contact a Civil Rights Attorney for Help With Your Legal Claim

Knowing the difference between civil rights and civil liberties can help to determine whether you have a civil rights claim. Do you think your human rights have been violated? You have a right to equal protection of the law. Consider speaking with a civil rights attorney near you to  better understand your legal options  and protect your individual rights.

Thank you for subscribing!

FindLaw Newsletters Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life

The email address cannot be subscribed. Please try again.

Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Contact a qualified civil rights attorney to help you protect your rights.

Help Me Find a Do-It-Yourself Solution

• Complaint for Employment Discrimination

Popular Directory Searches

• Civil Rights Attorneys
• Constitutional Lawyers
• Discrimination Lawyers

Civil Rights Overview

• Civil Rights Basics
• Civil Rights History
• Hate Crimes

Find a Lawyer

• Search Legal Resources
• Find Cases and Laws

Read the following essay and answer the question, “Why do our civil liberties matter?”

Feel free to submit your essay below for review or contribute your thoughts on other essays posted. Both activities will help you prepare for the exam and the more you contribute, the more you will get out of this section.

ESSAY PROMPT

Civil liberties.

It is easy to forget that unlike your parents, and perhaps much like the students from Venus who have never seen the sun in Ray Bradbury’s All Summer in a Day essay prompt, you have never known a world without restrictions on civil liberties in the name of protection from the war on terror. The Patriot Act, whistleblowers, and NSA spying are accepted facts of life: they are the new ‘normal’ and the only paradigm you have known in your lifetime. However, generations of Americans prior to 2001, dating all the way back to the founding fathers experienced a different paradigm in part due to one patriot who preferred the consequence of death to the absence of liberty when he famously stated, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

In honor of Patrick Henry, it is worth reflecting on the subject of civil liberties and our freedom. Why do our civil liberties matter?

“Why do our civil liberties matter?”

Your essay should be well-organized and include support from the story for your main ideas .

If commenting on the essays please remember the rules and stick with positive suggestions that can help the author. Focus on the essay structure and quality. The following guidelines are by no means compete, but can serve as a guide for useful suggestions.

• Quality and impact of thesis statement and opening paragraph. This may be the most important paragraph. Does it provide a roadmap for the essay?
• Supporting paragraphs. Do these follow the outline of the 1st paragraph? Do they use explicit examples and not deviate unnecessarily from topic?
• Prose. Are the sentences direct and effective with proper grammar and correct spelling?
• Conclusion. Perhaps the least important paragraph. Does it wrap it all up?

This Post Has 3 Comments

Freedom of speech is a great amendment, and everyone in this land can feel free to express their feelings. But, it comes in one condition, and that it when you offend or violate another person’s skin color, race, religion, etc. Everyone is meant to live together, not caring about one another’s looks, and if that doesn’t work out, it could possibly mean a lot of controversies, or possibly war. Being able to say what you want freely is great and all, but you should never use that to your advantage, especially to hurt other people. They are meant to be free as well.

Also, it’s no one’s fault that they are who God made them, and they should feel special about it. No one should ever brag that just because they are one color and someone is another, because we are all humans meant to live together. When Patrick Henry famously stated, ” Give me liberty or give me death,” he obviously meant that he wanted to live free of all the controversies and do whatever he wanted. That’s how many people feel if someone said anything hurtful about them; they almost feel as if they are being kept under control by other people and feel as if they are less important.

As you may see, freedom of speech and being who you are two key points in living life the right way. Humans-no matter how much different they look from each other-are meant to live together, not apart. We are all at a equal level, and no one should feel as if they are lower than the people around them. If we treat everyone the way they want to be treated, this world would be a better place to live in.

I am a little unsure what your thesis statement is in response to the prompt. Why do civil liberties matter? I interpret your answer to be, “Civl liberties matter because nobody deserves to have their feelings hurt.” In the introduction, I think you could make a stronger thesis statement and provide a road map for the points you intend to argue in the body paragraphs in support of the thesis. Be careful of your references to “it”. These are vague pronouns. It may be better to say specifically what “it” is.

The second paragraph states that freedom of speech is great. How exactly does that answer the prompt? Once the thesis statement becomes unclear or lacks precision, then the supporting arguments kind of wander as well. In general, I would try to avoid too casual language and make certain to write in a high school level voice. Examples include ,”is great and all.” Find a more precise word or phrase. Also ” he (PH) obviously meant that he wanted …to do whatever he wanted.” I do not think PH wanted to do whatever he wanted, and it is by no means obvious. Be careful about assuming something is obvious when it is not. I would add grammar as a general point. It is an important part of writing in a HS level voice. Review of individual grammar issues would be a lengthier review.

I do like the final sentence or two. Civil liberties help make the world a better place to live. That might even be a stronger thesis and a point you might use in the introduction. Keep up the effort. If you first work on keeping the thesis clean and clear and organize your arguments effectively around that thesis, then you will see significant gains. Then we can focus more on the grammar and related issues.

Thanks for the feedback.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• previous post: Free Speech – Sample Essay
• next post: New Medicine – Sample Essay

BCTS Website BCTS Admissions Practice Exams BCAcademy Pricing FAQ

Contact Us Customer Service External Links Bergen County DOE B.C. School Reviews HS Rankings

BCATestPrep.com  ©2023 - All Rights Reserved

• Content & Features
• Pricing Packages

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Civil Liberties — Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights In The US

Civil Liberties Vs Civil Rights in The Us

• Categories: Civil Liberties Civil Rights Political Correctness

About this sample

Words: 1466 |

Published: May 14, 2021

Words: 1466 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3039 words

4 pages / 1789 words

3 pages / 1290 words

4 pages / 1801 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Civil Liberties

Police cameras have become a widely debated topic in recent years, with proponents arguing that they enhance accountability and transparency within law enforcement, while opponents raise concerns about privacy issues and the [...]

The conservative politicians of the Roaring 20s left a complex legacy through their policies and administrations. The creation of the FBI, despite its positive contributions to law enforcement, raised concerns about civil [...]

Government overreach refers to the excessive involvement of the government in the lives of citizens, often infringing upon their rights and freedoms. While government intervention is necessary for maintaining order and providing [...]

The legality of stop-and-frisk practices remains a topic of significant controversy, with differing viewpoints among scholars, policymakers, and the general public. While stop-and-frisk practices have been upheld by the courts [...]

Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. (1982). Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Civil Liberties Public Education Fund.Daniels, R. [...]

Civil liberties and civil rights are mechanical components that have influence on the way we live our lives. Each category can be applied in different situations, to identify different experiences for each individual. People in [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Controversial Suspension of Habeas Corpus by the Controversy Behind Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus Lincoln

This essay is about Abraham Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus during the American Civil War a contentious act aimed at maintaining national security amidst crisis. Lincoln’s authorization allowed for detaining individuals without trial to protect the Union sparking intense debate over executive power and civil liberties. While some viewed it as necessary for wartime others criticized it for undermining constitutional rights. The suspension underscores the ongoing tension between national security and individual freedoms reflecting on the challenges faced by leaders during national emergencies.

How it works

Abraham Lincoln’s decision to suspend habeas corpus during the American Civil War stands as one of the most debated acts of his presidency. This bold move made amidst a nation in crisis has sparked considerable discourse among historians legal experts and advocates of civil liberties. The suspension allowed for the arrest and detention of individuals without immediate trial raising profound questions about the balance between national security imperatives and individual rights.

In April 1861 with the nation reeling from the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter and facing internal threats Lincoln confronted a precarious situation.

The safety of Washington D.C. was in jeopardy and Maryland’s loyalty a border state crucial to the Union cause hung in the balance. To safeguard the Union Lincoln authorized General Winfield Scott to suspend habeas corpus along critical rail lines from Philadelphia to Washington. This decision executed without Congressional consent ignited immediate criticism and triggered a legal and political maelstrom.

Among the pivotal cases stemming from this suspension was that of John Merryman a Maryland state legislator detained for alleged pro-Confederate activities. Merryman’s lawyers petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus which Chief Justice Roger B. Taney granted. However Lincoln’s administration chose to disregard Taney’s order asserting that the President possessed the authority to suspend habeas corpus in times of rebellion or invasion. Lincoln defended his actions by invoking Article I Section 9 of the Constitution which permits the suspension of habeas corpus “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Lincoln justified his controversial decision on the unprecedented nature of the Civil War arguing that extraordinary measures were essential for preserving the Union. In correspondence with Erastus Corning and others Lincoln famously questioned whether all laws but one should remain unexecuted suggesting that the suspension of habeas corpus represented a lesser evil compared to the potential disintegration of the government. His paramount concern lay with the nation’s survival which he deemed sufficient grounds for temporarily limiting certain civil liberties.

However Lincoln’s actions were met with vigorous opposition. Critics contended that suspending habeas corpus set a dangerous precedent undermining constitutional safeguards and consolidating excessive power within the executive branch. They insisted that such a fundamental right should only be curtailed with explicit Congressional approval as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. Moreover detractors feared potential abuses of power and the arbitrary detainment of civilians.

Despite these criticisms Lincoln garnered support from those who viewed the suspension of habeas corpus as a necessary measure in wartime. The Civil War concluded with the Union intact and Lincoln’s bold actions were credited by some with contributing to that outcome. Nevertheless debate persisted over the suspension’s implications with ongoing discussions over the proper limits of presidential authority and the protection of civil liberties during times of national crisis.

In hindsight Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus underscores the delicate balance between national security imperatives and individual freedoms. It highlights the tension between executive authority and judicial oversight themes that resonate in contemporary discussions about presidential powers. While Lincoln’s actions were driven by the extraordinary circumstances of the Civil War they serve as a reminder of the imperative to safeguard civil liberties even amidst national emergencies.

Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus remains a complex and contentious issue emblematic of the challenges leaders face in times of profound national turmoil. It prompts crucial reflections on the lengths to which governments may go to protect their citizens and themselves. Lincoln’s decision controversial though it was forms a crucial chapter in American history illustrating the difficult decisions leaders must sometimes make in the pursuit of national unity and survival.

Cite this page

The Controversial Suspension of Habeas Corpus by The Controversy Behind Abraham Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus Lincoln. (2024, Jul 06). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-by-the-controversy-behind-abraham-lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpuslincoln/

"The Controversial Suspension of Habeas Corpus by The Controversy Behind Abraham Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus Lincoln." PapersOwl.com , 6 Jul 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-by-the-controversy-behind-abraham-lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpuslincoln/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Controversial Suspension of Habeas Corpus by The Controversy Behind Abraham Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus Lincoln . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-by-the-controversy-behind-abraham-lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpuslincoln/ [Accessed: 11 Jul. 2024]

"The Controversial Suspension of Habeas Corpus by The Controversy Behind Abraham Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus Lincoln." PapersOwl.com, Jul 06, 2024. Accessed July 11, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-by-the-controversy-behind-abraham-lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpuslincoln/

"The Controversial Suspension of Habeas Corpus by The Controversy Behind Abraham Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus Lincoln," PapersOwl.com , 06-Jul-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-by-the-controversy-behind-abraham-lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpuslincoln/. [Accessed: 11-Jul-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Controversial Suspension of Habeas Corpus by The Controversy Behind Abraham Lincoln's Suspension of Habeas Corpus Lincoln . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-controversial-suspension-of-habeas-corpus-by-the-controversy-behind-abraham-lincolns-suspension-of-habeas-corpuslincoln/ [Accessed: 11-Jul-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Our privacy statement has changed. Changes effective July 1, 2024.

ACLU Scholarship for Emerging Advocates

The ACLU is proud to announce a major investment in the next generation of advocates for civil rights and liberties: a generous college scholarship program of up to $40,000 . This is a challenging time for so many of the core issues the ACLU works on — and, with so much at stake amid a fractured political environment, one important way we’re meeting this moment is to support young changemakers in becoming the advocates, activists, organizers, lawyers, and policy makers they are meant to be. The Emerging Advocates Scholarship – a new program of the ACLU’s National Advocacy Institute !

The ACLU Foundation will select 25 Emerging Advocates eligible to receive up to $40,000, over 4 years, toward undergraduate tuition cost. These Emerging Advocates will not only be supported in their education, but will be connected to ACLU resources and a peer-network of change-makers.

Awarded Emerging Advocates will receive:

• $10,000/year toward undergraduate tuition, up to $40,000 total, up until their graduation year;
• The opportunity to connect with other emerging national leaders in cohort meetings of “Emerging Advocates;”
• Support from National Advocacy Institute staff and other opportunities such as events, professional development, and information about work opportunities with the ACLU.

Who is eligible?

An applicant must meet the following criteria to be eligible to apply:

• Applicant has successfully attended the ACLU’s National Advocacy Institute for high school students (in-person and virtual programs qualify);
• Applicant is currently in their senior year of high school;
• Applicant is fully eligible for high school graduation and expecting to enroll in higher education in Fall 2024; and,
• Applicant can display the need for financial-assistance for tuition cost.

Application & Selection

The application will consist of two rounds: Open Application & Finalist Interviews.

Open Application Eligible candidates will need to submit an application consisting of:

• Personal Information
• High School Transcript
• Two Letters of Recommendation
• Personal Statement
• Essay Questions ( One Long-Form, Two Short-Form )
• High School Resume or CV
• SAT/ACT/AP/IB Test Scores ( optional )

Finalist Interviews Select candidates will receive the designation of Emerging Advocate Finalist. All Finalists will be contacted to schedule a 20-minute virtual interview with members of the Selection Committee. Details regarding the interview will be shared with Finalists upon selection.

Following the Finalist Interviews, the ACLU Emerging Advocates will be named and contacted. Each candidate awarded will confirm their participation before announcements.

The ACLU values diversity and strives to build an inclusive culture of belonging. We encourage applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, age, national origin, citizenship, disability, and record of arrest or conviction, or any other personal identity characteristic. We are committed to providing reasonable accommodation(s) to individuals with disabilities. If you are a person with a disability and have any questions or need assistance applying online, please email [email protected].

Open Application – The application will be open until July 7th at 11:59pm EDT. There will be a grace period to submit any missing documents until Friday July 12th.

Finalist Interviews – We intend to contact all Finalists in mid-July, interviews will be completed by end of July. All candidates can expect to receive notification of their application status.

Announcement – Early August or sooner.

Selection Criteria

Emerging Advocates will be considered through the 3-key components:

• College Readiness – It is important that Emerging Advocates are prepared to complete college within a 4-year timeline.
• Advocacy – ACLU is investing in the next generation of civil rights and liberties advocates, organizers, and activists. While the recipients will be Emerging Advocates, it is important for candidates to already have a knowledge of the ACLU, its mission of civil rights and civil liberties advocacy, and display a passion to pursue it specifically.
• Leadership – It is important that Emerging Advocates display the abilities of leadership in the civil rights and liberties advocacy space (or their potential to be such a leader).

Applications are read holistically. All eligible candidates are strongly encouraged to apply, regardless of how they feel they will perform on one of the components listed above. All applications that meet the eligibility requirement will be carefully considered by the Selection Committee. All applicants will receive written communication of their award status.

Externally Funded Legal Department Fellowship Opportunity to Advance State Constitutional Protections (Starting Fall 2025)

The Roger Baldwin Foundation of the ACLU of Illinois (ACLU of Illinois) is currently accepting applications from qualified rising third-year law students and recent law graduates with a commitment to civil rights and civil liberties and strong legal research and writing skills, who seek a host organization for an externally funded fellowship (e.g., Equal Justice Works, Justice Catalyst, law school sponsored fellowships, etc.). The focus of this fellowship will be helping to launch a project seeking to advance state constitutional protections in Illinois.

The Legal Department of the ACLU of Illinois works with colleagues across the organization to advance civil rights and civil liberties. Our work protects democracy by advancing federal and state constitutional rights; fights racism in the criminal and civil legal systems and policing; promotes access to reproductive health care, the rights of LGBTQ+ communities, and gender equity; and addresses and prevents the harm experienced by children in the foster system, young people in juvenile detention, and people in prisons and jails.

We are currently accepting fellowship applications to support the development of litigation to enforce and expand state constitutional protections in Illinois . 

Federal civil rights litigation remains an indispensable tool for litigants to enforce their rights and achieve justice, particularly on issues of what is now settled law.  But recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have rolled back previously recognized constitutional protections.

In this environment, it has never been more important for the Illinois Constitution to fulfill its considerable promise as a “font of individual liberties,” and to establish our State as a place of refuge for liberty. Illinois has the benefit of a Constitution that features remarkably sweeping and expansive language on civil rights and liberties. And this language carries the unique benefit of recent ratification (in 1970) as compared to most states, a fact that grounds the charter’s protections in a different era than the U.S. Constitution and makes the will of the document’s drafters comparatively easy to discern.

The fellow would help launch a project to help establish the Illinois Constitution as a robust source of rights and protections that may exceed those established by the U.S. Constitution.  The fellow would assist in any or all of the following:  (1) developing affirmative litigation to enforce state constitutional provisions; (2) writing amicus briefs to advance expansive interpretation of Illinois constitutional provisions; (3) developing internal and external case tracking and other litigation support resources to allow the more efficient identification of opportunities to advance interpretation of the Illinois Constitution; (4) assisting in legislative advocacy to enhance opportunities to give full force to state constitutional provisions; and (5) through outreach, events, and other collaboration, building a community of scholars, experts, and advocates dedicated to helping advance the project’s goals. 

The successful fellowship applicant may also have the opportunity to support other Legal Department projects that are ongoing or in development, including without limitation: litigation to reduce racial disparities in traffic stops and searches;  litigation to protect young people from abusive and unconstitutional conditions at juvenile detention centers; or the ACLU of Illinois’ representation of community-based organizations that are part of a Coalition advocating for systemic reform of Chicago Police Department practices.

The fellow will be supervised by managers in the ACLU of Illinois Legal Department to support new and ongoing impact litigation and non-litigation advocacy done in collaboration with other Departments. Previous fellows have had the opportunity to develop facts and research for new litigation; work with current and potential ACLU-IL clients; participate in discovery matters in pending litigation; conduct legal and policy research on a variety of issues; participate in settlement negotiations; draft sections of legal briefs and complaints; and collaborate with grassroots and community-based organizations.

Applicants should send the following materials to [email protected] :

• A current resume
• clearly stating the academic year or other timeframe for which you seek a fellowship;
• specifying the name(s) and deadline(s) of the fellowship(s) for which you are applying (e.g., EJW, Justice Catalyst, Law-school funded, etc.); and
• describing your commitment to civil rights and civil liberties generally, and to protecting constitutional rights at the state level, especially on behalf of members of the LGBTQ+ community, racial and religious minorities, and other marginalized groups.

Priority consideration will be given to those who contact us before August 1, 2024. Later applications will also be considered.

We review submissions on a rolling basis. Any decision to support a candidate will be made considering the ACLU-IL Legal Department’s programmatic needs and supervision resources, and the applicant’s skills and qualifications. 

Supervisors in the ACLU of Illinois Legal Department will work closely with the selected applicant to develop proposals for external funding. Our team is committed to supervising and mentoring up-and-coming public interest lawyers who are excited to work collaboratively in a multi-issue organization that advances civil rights and civil liberties.

The ACLU of Illinois is an equal-opportunity employer. We value a diverse workforce and encourage applications from all qualified individuals without regard to race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, criminal record, or veteran status.

The ACLU makes every effort to ensure that its recruitment and employment provide all qualified persons, including persons with disabilities, with full opportunities for employment in all positions. If you have a disability and need a reasonable accommodation regarding any part of the application process, please include your accommodation request(s) in your application email. 

ACLU of Illinois staff are based in Chicago, IL.  Currently, we are working on a hybrid basis with a minimum of three days per week in the office, and the number of required days in the office may increase.  Fellows will be expected to work out of our Chicago office, likely on a hybrid schedule, to be determined in 2024.

Referral Source

Demographic questions (optional), voluntary self-identification of disability.

Disabilities include, but are not limited to: blindness, deafness, cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, autism, cerebral palsy, HIV/AIDS, schizophrenia, muscular dystrophy, bipolar disorder, major depression, multiple sclerosis (MS), missing limbs or partially missing limbs, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder, impairments requiring the use of a wheelchair, and intellectual disability.

Significant Disability Status

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

DHS Announces New Resources to Combat Gender-Based Violence

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Council on Combating Gender-Based Violence (CCGBV) has launched a Combating Gender-Based Violence webpage. This new page is an online hub for information and resources related to gender-based violence (GBV). The site provides an overview of GBV, as well as links to trainings for law enforcement and the public, and information on immigration options available to survivors of human trafficking, domestic violence and other crimes. 

Addressing GBV is a priority  of the Department. Recent initiatives to prevent and address GBV in the United States include the CCGBV Directive 002-03 and Instruction 002-03-001 , finalized in November 2023, to advance DHS’s efforts to address gender-based violence by using a victim-centered approach. The instruction includes:  

• The development of a new mandatory training on GBV and the victim-centered approach for employees and contractors who interact with survivors of GBV. 

A new requirement that DHS components and offices that meet the definition of a T visa or U visa certifying agency provide copies of their certification policies to the CCGBV. 

Informational resources provided to DHS personnel on GBV and secondary (vicarious) trauma to equip them with the knowledge and resources to effectively serve survivors of gender-based violence. 

DHS is committed to combating all forms of GBV, including domestic violence, sexual violence, stalking, forced marriage, female genital mutilation or cutting, and more. Through the CCGBV, DHS ensures that policies combating gender-based violence are consistent Department-wide and that the Department takes a victim-centered approach to implementing all its programs and policies. Visit the Combating Gender-Based Violence webpage and follow DHS on Facebook , Instagram and X (formerly known as Twitter) for updates on our work on GBV and other important issues. 

• Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
• Civil Rights
• Gender-Based Violence (GBV)
• Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL)
• Public Engagement
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

The Red Scare and Civil Liberties

Written by: david e. hamilton, university of kentucky, by the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the causes and effects of international and internal migration patterns over time

Suggested Sequencing

Use this Narrative with the Mitchell Palmer, “The Case against the Reds,” 1920 Primary Source and the Ellison DuRant Smith, “Shut the Door,” 1924 Primary Source to have students discuss the increased anxiety about radicalism and immigrants during the Red Scare.

The fighting in World War I ended on November 11, 1918, but the ceasefire halted only one of wars America was engaged in during the years 1917-1920. Another war, the internal battle against revolutionaries and radicalism, soon intensified into a national fury that became the twentieth century’s first “Red Scare.” In the name of protecting the nation from revolution, vigilante mobs fought deadly battles with labor radicals, and state legislatures passed laws criminalizing radical beliefs and actions, banning the display of red communist flags and banners, and demanding that teachers sign loyalty oaths declaring they would not teach un-American doctrines. The state of New York went further still when, in 1920, its legislature refused to seat five Socialist members on the grounds that they had been “elected on a platform that is absolutely inimical to the best interests of the State of New York and of the United States.” By far the most extreme measures were the massive dragnet campaigns of the Wilson administration’s Justice and Labor Departments, aimed at locating and then deporting anarchists and communists who were not citizens and who made up perhaps 90 percent of the war era’s radical parties and organizations.

The Justice Department raids, which were known as the “Palmer Raids” because they had been ordered by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, initially were praised as necessary acts, but they also incited a counterreaction that was one reason for the Red Scare’s demise by mid-1920. Antiradicalism hardly disappeared, but the panicked fears that the nation was in peril subsided. Difficult questions persisted, however. The individual rights of citizens and non-citizens to discuss, hold, and express unpopular beliefs under the First Amendment was a cornerstone of American constitutionalism. But the war had raised the question of the scope of the federal government and Justice Department’s legitimate powers and necessary responsibilities to protect both national security and the rights of individuals.

A photograph of Attorney General Palmer taken in 1919.

The postwar fears of subversion and radicalism were rooted in part in wartime demands for loyalty and national unity by the administration of President Woodrow Wilson. During the war, Wilson stated he would not tolerate anyone who would “inject the poison of disloyalty into our most critical affairs.” The administration saw the war as a progressive crusade to “make the world safe for democracy” and to promote a rational social order, harmony, patriotism, and Americanization at home. Federal executive agencies curbed and controlled individuals’ rights in the public interest. The Committee on Public Information managed propaganda, the Eighteenth Amendment prohibited alcohol, Congress passed immigration restrictions based on literacy tests, and a wave of repressive legislation limited free speech and other civil liberties.

Encouraged by Wilson, Congress had quickly passed the Espionage Act (in June 1917), which expanded the government’s power to control suspected espionage and sabotage. The federal government used this authority to convict 1,000 Socialists, anarchists, and pacifists who opposed the war under the 1918 amendments to the act, commonly called the Sedition Act. The day before, Wilson had delivered a warning in his Flag Day address: “Woe be to the man or group of men who seeks to stand in our way in this day of high resolution when every principle we hold dearest is to be vindicated and made secure for the salvation of the nation.” The president issued a secret executive order authorizing the firing of federal employees seen as disloyal. Postmaster Albert Burleson stringently censored the mails.

Congress also expanded the administration’s power to regulate speech. The Sedition Act of 1918 criminalized written or spoken opposition to military recruitment and the war bond drives. The war’s most strident opponents were members of the International Workers of the World (IWW), a communist labor organization that saw itself as locked in a violent struggle with oppressive capitalists and the avowedly anticapitalist Socialist Party (of America). To the Wilson Administration and much of the public, these groups’ opposition to the war was a dangerous form of disloyalty, and many of their members drew lengthy prison terms for encouraging workers to strike or to resist enlistment or conscription. Eugene V. Debs, the head of the Socialist Party, was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison after he declared in a speech that workers were being sent to death to fight a capitalists’ war.

Eugene Debs is pictured here in 1921 after being released from his prison sentence.

The Immigration Act allowed the government to deport any alien member of an anarchist organization. The record of wartime repression was not surprising given Attorney General Thomas Gregory’s statement, “May God have mercy on [dissenters] for they need expect none . . . from an avenging government.”

With the war’s end, fears of radicalism only intensified, especially after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia of 1917, which threatened to spread to other parts of Europe. Events in the postwar United States increased social strife and made many Americans suspicious of radicals. The rapid demobilization of four million troops, a burst of price inflation, general strikes and police strikes, bombings, and race riots produced a fractious and fearful public climate. President Wilson’s disengagement from domestic issues made matters worse. In 1919, Wilson was first in Paris negotiating the terms of the peace, then was preoccupied by the debate over the League of Nations, and then was incapacitated by a stroke from which he never fully recovered. Ambitious members of his own administration seized on popular fears for their own advantage and continued the wartime repression of civil liberties.

Some of the dangers that stoked these fears were real and, indeed, ominous, and others were largely illusory. Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution inspired leftist radicals throughout Europe to form communist parties and, in the case of Germany and Hungary, to attempt ill-fated revolutions in 1919. In the United States, the Socialist Party split apart, with its radical members leaving to form the Communist Labor Party and the Communist Party of the USA. Although small (their combined membership was perhaps 50,000 or 60,000 members, most of whom were immigrant aliens), the two parties launched aggressive campaigns to win workers to radical causes.

In the United States, Europe’s turmoil and the specter of American communists committed to Bolshevist ideals aroused new fears of radical subversion. These fears were confirmed and inflamed by a series of shocks and crises for which the United States was almost entirely unprepared.

Among these were bombings and attempted bombings by followers of the Italian anarchist Luigi Galleani. In late April 1919, the Galleanisti mailed at least 36 bombs of dynamite and acid to prominent public figures such as members of Congress, governors, mayors, and business people. These were intended to arrive on May 1, which for many worker organizations and radicals was May Day or International Workers’ Day. Most of the bombs were intercepted in post offices, but one sent to a Georgia senator badly maimed a housekeeper. More ominous were the eight bombings of June 2, in which explosives detonated almost simultaneously at the homes of public figures in eight cities. The intended victims escaped injury, but one bomb killed a night watchman and another ripped apart the front of the home of Attorney General Palmer.

This photograph was taken in front of Attorney General Palmer’s home after the June 1919 bombing. Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, a young couple who lived across the street from Palmer, were shaken by the blast.

Though they were too few to incite a revolution, the Galleanisti were dangerous terrorists, and the bombings they carried out lent plausibility to the possibility of a full-scale radical war. Massive labor unrest and a surge in extreme racial violence added to the public’s sense of imminent danger. There were perhaps 3,000 labor strikes in 1919, and four were particularly frightening. The first occurred in Seattle, where a strike by members of the shipbuilding trades escalated into a general strike by 65,000 workers. A few months later, most of Boston’s police force went on strike, which left the city vulnerable to crime sprees. Then 350,000 steelworkers went on strike, followed by 400,000 coal miners across the country. Meanwhile, there were perhaps 30 reported racial incidents, including riots in Charleston, South Carolina, and Washington, DC. In Chicago, a riot raged for five days and left more than 38 people dead; in Elaine, Arkansas, a massacre of striking farm workers claimed the lives of 100 to 200 African Americans.

Members of the Wilson administration saw the strikes, riots, and bombings as the work of a Bolshevik-inspired campaign of radical subversion and warned of a looming revolution unless the nation acted to repress the “red” threat. The Justice Department and A. Mitchell Palmer, who was understandably shaken by the June bombing and who also harbored presidential ambitions, seized the offensive late in 1919. A new intelligence division in the Bureau of Investigation was created (renamed the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1935) and headed by the 24-year-old J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover amassed files on suspected radicals, and in November, he and other officials launched the first of the Palmer Raids. With the help of local police, they arrested several hundred immigrants (mostly Russians), of whom 249 were subsequently deported by the Bureau of Immigration under the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1918. Then on January 2 and January 6, 1920, agents and police in 33 cities swarmed offices, headquarters, pool halls, homes, and just about any place where “reds” might be gathered. Perhaps 10,000 people were detained and 4,000 arrested without due process of law. Eventually, 3,000 were deported, including the anarchist and activist Emma Goldman, who was sent to Russia.

These men were arrested on January 2, 1920, in New York City as part of the Palmer Raids. They are waiting at Ellis Island to be deported.

The Palmer raids weakened the new communist parties, but they also ignited powerful opposition. The roundups had violated the Constitution in several ways, and it was soon clear that many of those detained had no connection to radical causes. Some suspects were imprisoned without a warrant, many were denied access to counsel when first interrogated, and others were held for lengthy periods because bail had been set at exorbitant levels. The evidence for deportation, moreover, was often flimsy. In many cases, the charges were based not on people’s actions or any intent to undermine the government, but on their associations.

Outside the Wilson Administration, some lawyers and law school professors, judges and elected officials, and church leaders denounced the raids as arbitrary and lawless actions of unchecked government bureaus. The country, they said, was in far less danger than was the Constitution. Within the administration, Louis Post, the acting secretary of Labor, began a review of more than 1,000 deportation orders, rescinded nearly three-fourths of them, and imposed stricter procedural safeguards on any future orders. Fears of subversion and revolution also waned as the public mood drifted into the “normalcy” of the 1920s. Republican president Warren Harding commuted the sentence of Eugene Debs, and he left prison in 1921. Thereafter, both Harding and President Calvin Coolidge commuted the sentences of the remaining prisoners convicted under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. The return to normalcy happened in part because of a decline in labor and racial unrest at home and in radical upheavals in Europe. But there was also a growing sense that those who had help foment the Red Scare had exaggerated the actual dangers. Palmer and Hoover warned that May Day of 1920 might bring radical violence, but when the day passed without incident, it served to discredit what now seemed to be an antiradical extremism.

The danger of anarchist terrorism, however, remained real. On September 16, 1920, the Galleanisti struck again with a massive bomb on Wall Street that killed 38 people and wounded nearly 150. But despite its deadly toll, the bombing did not spark a Red Scare revival. What developed instead was an uneasy search for some means of balancing the need for security with the protections of civil liberties in a constitutional democracy. The individual rights of citizens and non-citizens to discuss, hold, and express unpopular beliefs under the First Amendment was a cornerstone of American constitutionalism. But the war had raised the question of the scope of the federal government and Justice Department’s legitimate powers and necessary responsibilities to protect both national security and the rights of individuals.

Review Questions

1. The Red Scare of 1919-1920 refers to the

• demands for loyalty during World War I
• anti-German hysteria of World War I
• fears of a Bolshevik-inspired revolution in the United States after World War I
• Wilson Administration’s efforts to win support for the League of Nations

2. The purpose of the Palmer Raids was to

• enforce Prohibition
• uncover German saboteurs
• execute a World War I offensive
• arrest suspected radicals

3. What groups were especially targeted by the Palmer Raids?

• Anticapitalist immigrants
• Pro-French tourists
• Republican Party functionaries
• Democratic Party organizers

4. The Palmer Raids violated constitutional protections by

• convicting suspects charged with terrorist bombings
• decreasing confidence in the federal government’s ability to enforce the law
• deporting suspects who were U.S. citizens
• imprisoning suspects without providing warrants or access to attorneys

Free Response Questions

• Explain why the United States became consumed by fear of leftist radicals in 1919-1920.
• How did the government respond to fears of radicalism during the Red Scare?
• In what ways was freedom of expression under attack during and after World War I?

AP Practice Questions

“The world of capitalism is today in a state of physical collapse and moral bankruptcy and only Socialism can save it from lapsing into the barbarism of the dark ages. . . . . . . The twin political parties of capitalism are disintegrating from their own sheer rottenness and corruption. Thousands upon thousands of decent voters are deserting both in disgust and seeking another fit for their allegiance. That other is the Socialist Party and in the campaign now in progress that fact must be made manifest in every way in our power. Think for a moment of the present condition of this country and what it might be if the working class but made intelligent use of its organized industrial strength and its political voting power! Let us all realize the challenge to our loyalty, our courage, our capacity to think and act, and set to work to rebuild the party. . . . . . . We have a party to rebuild, a press to restore, a campaign of supreme account to wage, and in this great work in the service of the working class there is room and need for us all! Let us at once provide the means to place every available speaker and organizer in the field! Let us rally to the support of our press which has been all but strangled in the foul clutches of capitalism and renew our subscriptions and secure others who are ready now and waiting for our literature as never before! . . . . . . Thousands are now ripe and waiting for Socialist Party membership! . . . Let us organize meetings everywhere, on the street corners, on the commons, in public halls, schoolhouses, churches, anywhere, and see that they are attended by the people who are sufficiently alive to wish to hear the only live message that will be heard in this campaign!”

Eugene V. Debs, “Review and Personal Statement,” October, 1922

1. According to Debs, why are voters deserting “the twin political parties of capitalism”?

• Capitalism is rotten and corrupt, and only Socialism can save the United States from a return to the dark ages.
• The Democrats and Republicans are abandoning the use of the free press and no longer publishing literature about socialist meetings.
• The working class is too intelligent to rebuild the two capitalist parties and will need to get over its disgust with the present system.
• Voters are tired of meeting on street corners and need to organize meetings to campaign together for better government.

2. Debs refers several times to the need to rebuild and restore the party. What caused the party to decline?

• The deportation of so many party members that too few were left to continue
• Enforcement of the Espionage and Sedition Acts
• Execution of search warrants in the Palmer Raids
• Terrorist bombings resulting in the deaths of many party leaders

3. Which constitutional amendment is most closely related to the actions Debs suggests?

• The First Amendment, which guarantees free speech, free press, and freedom of assembly
• The Second Amendment, which guarantees a right to bear arms
• The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure
• The Fifth Amendment, which guarantees due process

Primary Sources

Newspaper articles related to the Palmer Raids: https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/topics/palmer.html

Suggested Resources

Cooper, John Milton, Jr. Pivotal Decades: The United States, 1900-1920 . New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1990.

Kennedy, David M. Over Here: The First World War and American Society . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Murphy, Paul L. World War I and the Origin of Civil Liberties in the United States . New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979.

Murray, Robert K. Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955.

Stone, Geoffrey R. Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism . New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.