Primary Source Documents

A "Seditious" Pamphlet Opposing American Intervention in the Russian Revolution^*

The Sedition Act of 1918 made it a felony "to utter, print, or publish disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government, the Constitution, [or] the flag…or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States." Jacob Abrams published pamphlets attacking President Wilson for intervening in the Bolshevik revolution. He advocated resistance to the policy and was later convicted under the Sedition Act. An excerpt from one of the pamphlets follows.

Yes, we, the Workers of America, have been duped -- duped by the wonderful speeches of President Wilson. Although most of us did know the corruption of all the capitalists and rulers, be they Kaisers, Czars, Kings or Presidents, yet we have revered the attitude that "our" President had taken toward our COUNTRY, the country which is now the only country of the proletariat. We really thought that he would not consent to intervention, or in other words, that her, that he would keep his hands clean of this dirty business of destroying the Russian Revolution, the real proletarian revolution.

And here lies the hypocrisy of it. The President of the United States had not the courage to come forward straight and openly and say "We, as well as all other capitalist nations of the world, cannot have this revolution in Russia prolonged. We also are dead afraid of this proletarian government, which, when once in full power, will destroy capitalism forever and will spread its dangerous doctrines all over the world." No, he kept his policy secret, but instead fed us on pretty, empty phrases, and in the meanwhile American troops were already landing in Russia and were allying themselves with the other nations in the destruction of the Russian freedom, the real freedom of the working class, and not the so-called democratic "freedom."

1		According to the pamphlet, how have the "Workers of America" been "duped?"
2		Who are the "proletariat?" In the view of this pamphleteer, how are their interests threatened by American intervention in the Russian Revolution?
3		This pamphlet had nothing to do with the war against Germany. How might the Sedition Act, designed to control wartime dissent, have been applied here?
4		As inflammatory as the pamphlet was, Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes nonetheless dissented from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court on the grounds that, because relatively few pamphlets (about 5,000) had been distributed by an "unknown man," there was no "present danger of immediate evil." Does this mean the status of the writer and the number of pamphlets he printed is as important as the language itself? What does constitute a "present danger"?