Explain the impact of World War 1 on American civil liberties.

During World War I, the Woodrow Wilson administration took unprecedented steps to mobilize public support for the war. In addition to a massive government propaganda campaign, Congress passed laws designed to silence dissent. Newspapers were censored, politicians

were jailed, and mobs attacked those suspected of disloyalty. Some Americans organized to protest the erosion of democratic freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, a group of rights that they called "civil liberties." Thus, while democratic freedoms were undermined during World War I, public concern over these policies inspired the beginnings of a twentieth-century movement to guard the right of Americans to criticize their government, even when their country is at war.

When President Woodrow Wilson called on Congress to declare war on Germany in April 1917, the government faced a formidable task. Millions of young men had to be drafted, equipped, trained, and shipped an ocean away. To accomplish this in time to break the military stalemate on Europe's western front, Wilson demanded unprecedented powers to mobilize American society.

In addition to drafting men and directing the economy, Wilson took steps to control public opinion, encouraging patriotic support for the war effort. The task was made more urgent because Americans remained deeply divided about the conflict. When Germany invaded France in 1914, most Americans shared Wilson's desire to remain neutral. His reelection in 1916 was widely considered a vote for the man who "kept us out of war." When he declared war five months later, many Americans still opposed involvement. Some German immigrants remained sympathetic to their ancestral home; socialists thought the war was inspired by capitalist greed; and various religious sects opposed all war on principle. Considering national unity essential to military success, Wilson took steps to silence these critics, guarding American society from what he called "the poison of disloyalty."

monarchy doesn’t have to have the hereditary element. there have been elective monarchies in the past where you choose your king-for-life and when he dies elect someone else for the job.

i think it’s will be a yes