AP US History Document Based Question
Directions: The following question requires you to construct an essay that integrates
your interpretation of Documents A-M and your knowledge of the period referred to in
the question. In the essay you should strive to support your assertions both by citing key
pieces of evidence from the documents and by drawing on your knowledge of the period.
Compare and contrast the attitudes of Americans toward war in 1937-1941 with the
attitudes of 1914-1917.
Document A
Document B
Declaration of Lima, 1938, Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United
States of America, 1776-1949, ed. Charles I. Bevans, Vol. 3, p. 534-535
The Governments of the American States Declare:
“That the peoples of America have achieved spiritual unity through the similarity
of their republican institutions, their unshakeable will for peace, their profound
sentiment of humanity and tolerance, and through their absolute adherence to the
principles of international law, of the equal sovereignty of States and of individual
liberty without religious or racial prejudices; ….
Third. And in case the peace, security or territorial integrity of any American Republic
is thus threatened by acts of any nature that may impair them, they proclaim their
common concern and their determination to make effective their solidarity, coordinating
their respective sovereign wills by means of the procedure of consultation, established
by conventions in force and by declarations of the Inter-American Conferences, using
the measures which in each case the circumstances may make advisable. It is understood
that the Governments of the American Republics will act independently in their
individual capacity, recognizing fully their juridical equality as sovereign states.”
Document C
President Franklin Roosevelt 's ''Quarantine the Aggressors'' Address, 1937
“The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those
violations of treaties and those ignorings of humane instincts which today are creating a
state of international anarchy, international instability from which there is no escape
through mere isolation or neutrality.
Those who cherish their freedom and recognize and respect the equal rights of
their neighbors to be free and live in peace, must work together for the triumph of law
and moral principles in order that peace, justice and confidence may prevail throughout
the world. There must be a return to a belief in the pledged word, in the value of a
signed treaty. There must be recognition of the fact that national morality is as vital as
private morality….
And mark this well! When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the
community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the
health of the community against the spread of the disease….
Most important of all, the will for peace on the part of peace-loving nations must
express itself to the end that nations that may be tempted to violate their agreements and
the rights of others will desist from such a cause. There must be positive endeavors to
preserve peace.” Neutrality Act of 1937, U.S. Statutes at Large (75th Cong., Sess. I, p.
121-128).
Document D
Neutrality Act, 1937
''Export of Arms, Ammunition, and Implements of War
'Section 1. (a) Whenever the President shall find that there exists a state of war between,
or among, two or more foreign states, the President shall proclaim such fact, and it shall
thereafter be unlawful to export, or attempt to export, or cause to be exported, arms,
ammunition, or implements of war from any place in the United States to any belligerent
state named in such proclamation, or to any neutral state for transshipment to, or for the
use of, any such belligerent state. Neutrality Act of 1937. U.S. Statutes at Large (75th
Cong., Sess. I, p. 121-128).
Document E
Mr. Con Says No:
“Outraged by Nazi barbarism and Japanese megalomania, we are already
emotionally drifting, as in 1914-17, toward the same maelstrom. Since Munich,
American anti-dictatorship sentiment is just as hot as anti-German sentiment in 1916.
England is again casting sheep’s eyes at us-witness Churchill’s short-wave radio appeal
to America, Eden’s recent visit, recent English muttering about maybe paying a little on
the war debt. In the name of saving freedom our liberals are again deserting anti-military
principles. In sum, we are already hard at what Charles A. Beard, most distinguished of
American liberal historians, calls the ‘demonology’ of naively splitting the world into
blacks and whites and letting our emotions warp us into betting everything on the side of
the angels. They were queer angels in 1919-witness the peace treaties they drew up. Also,
in 1931, when they ran out cynically on American efforts to get Japan to respect the
Kellogg treaty outlawing war. Also when they permitted the rape of Ethiopia.” Source:
“Pro and Con: Should We Act to Curb Aggressor Nations?” Readers Digest, 1939.
Document F
Mr. Pro Says Yes:
“Parallels with 1914-17 are miserably misleading here. Immature sympathies,
Allied propaganda, interests with a financial stake in the Allied cause, had a lot to do with
involving us then. Now the hard core of the matter is a natural horror at the bloody rape
of China, the sadistic persecutions in Germany. There is no need for artificial propaganda
against dictators. The brute facts of their behavior are an irresistible call to action.”
Source: “Pro and Con: Should We Act to Curb Aggressor Nations?” Readers Digest,
March, 1939.
Document G
German note to the United States, February, 1915
“Just as England has designated the area between Scotland and Norway as an area
of war, so Germany now declares all the waters surrounding Great Britain and Ireland,
including the entire English Channel as an area of war, and thus will proceed against the
shipping of the enemy.
For this purpose, beginning February, 1915, it will endeavor to destroy every enemy
merchant ship that is found in this area of war without its always being possible to avert
the peril that thus threatens persons and cargoes. Neutrals are therefore warned against
further entrusting crews, passengers and wares to such ships.”
Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States. Supplement: The
World War, 1915. Washington. Government Printing Office, 1928, 96.
Document H
“The Government of the United States expresses the confident hope and expectation
that American citizens and their vessels will not be molested by the naval forces of
Germany otherwise than by visit and search, though their vessels may be traversing the
sea area delimited in the proclamation of the German Admiralty. The United States
Government protests.”
February 10, 1915. Foreign Relations Supplement: The World War, 1915, 99.
Document I
Document J
“It is important to reflect that if in this instance we allowed expediency to take the
place of principle, the door would inevitably be opened to still further concessions. Once
accept a single abatement of right, and many other humiliations would certainly follow,
and the whole fine fabric of international law might crumble under our hands piece by
piece. What we are contending for in this matter is of the very essence the things that
have made America a sovereign nation. She cannot yield them without conceding her
own impotency as a nation, and making virtual surrender of her independent position
among the nations of the world.” President Wilson to Senator Stone, February 24, 1916.
Foreign Relations Supplement: The World War, 1916, 178.
Document K
The United States to Germany April 18, 1916.
“Vessels of neutral ownership, even vessels of neutral ownership bound from
neutral port to neutral port, have been destroyed along with vessels of belligerent
ownership in constantly increasing numbers.
The Government of the United States has been very patient .... it has sought to be
governed by the most thoughtful consideration of the extraordinary circumstances of an
unprecedented war .... If it is still the purpose of the Imperial Government to prosecute
relentless and indiscriminate warfare against vessels of commerce by the use of
submarines without regard to what the Government of the United States must consider
the sacred and indisputable rules of international law and the universally recognized
dictates of humanity, the Government of the United States is at last forced to the
conclusion that there is but one course it can pursue. Unless the Imperial Government
should now immediately declare and effect an abandonment of its present methods of
submarine warfare against passenger and freight carrying vessels, the Government of the
United States can have no choice but to sever diplomatic relations with the German
Empire altogether.” Foreign Relations Supplement: The World War, 1916, 233-34.
Document L
“The present war is a continuation of the old struggle among western nations for the
material benefits of the world. It is a struggle by the German people to gain territory and
power. It is a struggle by the English and French to prevent another European nation from
becoming strong enough to demand a share in influence and empire.
The last war demonstrated the fallacy of sending American soldiers to European
battlefields. The victory we helped to win brought neither order nor justice in its wake,
and these interminable wars continue unabated and with modern fury. We cannot impose
a peace by force upon strong nations who do not themselves desire it, and the records of
both sides show little indication of such a desire, except when it is to their own material
advantage. Whether one reads a history of England, Germany, or France, the wish for
conquest, when opportunity arose, has always overshadowed the wish for peace.” Source:
Charles A. Lindbergh, “What Substitute for War?” The Atlantic Monthly, February,
1940.
Document M