A CHatGPT-Produced and CED-Aligned APUSH Review

For Topics 7.1–7.3 and Topic 7.5–7.6

With the help of CHatGP, I created this “Topic 7.1–7.3 and 7.5–7.6 Review” in less than two hours. If I can do it, so can the kids. Guessing some even have already. Mindboggling!

Even more mindboggling — ask CHatGPT to pair down by at least 50% various sections of this long read and then ask CHatGPT to take what it has produced and explain it in much simpler terms.

Topic 7.2: Imperialism: Debates

Imperialists cited economic opportunities, racial theories, competition with European empires, and the perception in the 1890s that the western frontier was “closed” to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to peoples around the globe.

What’s an imperialist?
An imperialist is a person or a group of people who believe in or advocate for the expansion of a country’s power and influence through colonization or military intervention in other countries. Imperialists often seek to extend a country’s territorial control and to spread its culture, political system, and economic institutions to other parts of the world. Imperialism is often motivated by economic, political, and ideological factors, such as the desire to gain access to resources, markets, and strategic locations, as well as the belief in the superiority of one’s own culture or political system. Imperialism has been a powerful force in world history and has played a significant role in shaping the modern world through the spread of empires and the colonization of countries around the globe

What’s one good example of a racial theory that American imperialists cited between 1890–1945 and used to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to people around the globe?
One example of a racial theory that American imperialists cited between 1890 and 1945 to justify their expansionist goals is the concept of “Anglo-Saxonism.” This theory posited that people of Anglo-Saxon descent (primarily those of British and Northern European ancestry) were racially superior to other groups and that they were therefore destined to spread their culture and institutions to other parts of the world.

This theory was used to argue that the United States, as a largely Anglo-Saxon nation, had a special duty to expand its influence and culture around the globe. It was used to justify the annexation of territories such as Puerto Rico and Guam, as well as the colonization of Hawaii, in the late 19th century, and it was also used to justify American interventions in countries like the Philippines, Cuba and Mexico at the turn of the 20th century.

What does it mean to say “that imperialists between 1890–1945 cited competition with European empires to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to peoples around the globe?
It means that during the time period of 1890 to 1945, some individuals in the United States believed that the country needed to expand its influence and culture to other parts of the world in order to compete with the established European empires. They argued that this expansion was a necessary step for the United States to become a major global power and to spread its values and way of life to other nations. This idea was known as “imperialism,” and it was used to justify a variety of actions, such as colonization and military intervention, in countries around the world.

What are two perceptions that Americans used between 1890–and 1945 that were used to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to people around the globe?
One perception that Americans used between 1890–1945 to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to peoples around the globe is the idea of “Manifest Destiny.” Manifest Destiny was a belief popularized in the 1840s that the expansion of the United States across North America was both inevitable and divinely ordained. It was used to justify American territorial expansion and the conquest of indigenous peoples. The belief in Manifest Destiny was not limited to North America, but also extended to other parts of the world, including Asia and Latin America, where American expansion was seen as a way to spread American culture, institutions, and values to “uncivilized” peoples. Many Americans during this period believed that it was their duty to “civilize” and “Christianize” other cultures, and that it was their destiny to expand the American way of life to the world.

Another perception that Americans used between 1890–1945 to argue that Americans were destined to expand their culture and institutions to peoples around the globe is the idea of “American Exceptionalism.” American exceptionalism is the belief that the United States is unique and superior to other nations, and that it has a special role to play in the world. This belief was used to justify American intervention in foreign affairs and to promote American culture and values abroad. Many Americans during this period believed that the United States had a special mission to spread democracy, freedom, and capitalism to other nations, and that it was their duty to use their power to bring these ideals to the world. This belief in American exceptionalism was used to justify American expansionism and intervention in other countries, as Americans believed that they were bringing a superior way of life to other peoples.

Describe Jackson Turner’s essay relating to the closing of the frontier and how it relates to the topic of American Imperialism.
Frederick Jackson Turner’s essay, “The Significance of the Frontier in American History,” was presented in 1893 and argued that the existence of an open frontier had shaped American democracy and individualism. He argued that the “closing of the frontier,” marked the end of the western expansion, and would have a profound impact on the nation’s future. He argued that the end of the western expansion would lead to the end of the traditional American identity and would force the nation to confront new social and economic problems, thus justifying the call for American to go into other countries for political and economic gain (aka to imperialize.)

Describe Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” and how it relates to the topic of American Imperialism.
Rudyard Kipling’s poem “The White Man’s Burden” was written in 1899 and it was directed to the Americans in the context of the colonization of the Philippines. The poem urged the United States to take on the responsibilities of imperialism and “civilizing” the people of the Philippines. It portrayed colonization as a duty and a moral obligation of the white man to uplift and Christianize “heathen” peoples.

The poem reflects the belief, common in the late 19th century, that it was the” duty of white, Western nations to “civilize” and “Christianize” the non-Western world. The poem describes the “white man’s burden” as the responsibility to bring the benefits of Western civilization, including Christianity, education, and commerce, to the “new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.”

The poem is controversial and widely criticized for its racist, paternalistic and imperialist tone, which is seen as promoting the idea that non-Western peoples were inferior and in need of rescue by Western nations. It’s also seen as justification for the exploitative and exploitive policies of imperial powers. The poem is also viewed as an expression of the idea that imperial powers had the moral duty to “civilize” and “Christianize” the non-Western world, which has been widely discredited and rejected by the modern society.

It was widely criticized by anti-imperialists, who argued that the poem justified the subjugation of non-white peoples and ignored the exploitation and violence that often accompanied imperialistic expansion.

Describe Alfred Mahan’s book The History of Sea Power
Alfred Thayer Mahan’s book “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783” was published in 1890, and it argued that naval power was a crucial factor in the rise of the great nations of the world. Mahan’s thesis was that control of the seas was essential for a nation to maintain its power and security, and that a strong navy was necessary for a nation to project its power and influence overseas. He also argued that the control of key naval bases, such as the island of Gibraltar and the Suez Canal, would give a nation a strategic advantage in times of war.

The book had a significant impact on American military and political thought, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It was read by many American naval officers, politicians, and business leaders, who saw in its arguments a justification for the expansion of American naval power and the acquisition of overseas territories. In particular, Mahan’s ideas were used to justify the building of the Panama Canal and the annexation of Hawaii, and to argue for American imperialism in the Philippines and Puerto Rico.

Mahan’s ideas were also influential in other countries, such as Japan, where they were used to justify the building of a powerful navy and the expansion of the empire.

Anti-imperialists cited principles of self-determination and invoked both racial theories and the U.S. foreign policy tradition of isolationism to argue that the United States should not extend its territory overseas.

What does it mean when one says that anti-imperialists invoked the U.S. foreign policy tradition of isolationism to argue that the United States should not extend its territory overseas?
Anti-imperialists were individuals or groups who opposed the expansion of the United States' territory or influence overseas. They often used the idea of isolationism to argue that the United States should not extend its control to other countries or territories. Isolationism is the belief that a country should avoid involvement in international affairs and avoid forming alliances with other nations. Isolationists argued that the United States should not attempt to expand its territory or influence in other countries, as it would be detrimental to both the United States and the peoples of the colonized countries. Hence they opposed the acquisition of territories such as Hawaii and the Philippines, arguing that it went against the principles of liberty and self-government. Additionally, some anti-imperialists felt that imperialism would lead to increased military engagement and potential entanglement in foreign conflicts.

Topic 7.3: The Spanish American War

The American victory in the Spanish–American War led to the U.S. acquisition of island territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific, an increase in involvement in Asia, and the suppression of a nationalist movement in the Philippines

Briefly describe the story of the sinking of the USS Maine.
The sinking of the USS Maine was a tragic event that occurred on February 15, 1898. The Maine was an American battleship that was sent to Havana, Cuba as part of a show of force during a period of political tension between the United States and Spain. On the night of February 15th, the ship suddenly exploded and sank in the harbor, killing 266 of the 354 crew members on board.

At the time, the cause of the explosion was unknown, but many Americans immediately blamed Spain for the attack. The newspapers of the time period, which were controlled by the imperialists, fueled public opinion by publishing headlines that were intended to blame Spain, such as “Remember the Maine: To hell with Spain!”. This helped to build public support for a war with Spain, which eventually led to the Spanish-American War.

It was later determined that the explosion was caused by an internal malfunction, possibly a malfunction in the ship’s ammunition stores. However, the damage had already been done, and the sinking of the Maine became a rallying cry for American imperialism and the country’s entry into the Spanish-American War.

Who are Pulitzer and Hearst and what role did their newspapers and yellow journalism play in the Spanish American War?
The Spanish-American War was a conflict fought between the United States and Spain in 1898. The war was sparked by a desire for American expansion and the influence of yellow journalism, a type of journalism characterized by sensationalism, exaggeration, and a focus on scandal. Two newspaper publishers, Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, were instrumental in shaping public opinion in favor of the war through their newspapers. Pulitzer’s New York World and Hearst’s New York Journal published articles and illustrations that depicted the Spanish as brutal oppressors, while exaggerating or fabricating stories of Spanish atrocities in Cuba. This type of journalism helped to create a sense of outrage among the American public, and ultimately led to support for the war.

What does it mean when one says that the American victory in the Spanish–American War led to the U.S. acquisition of island territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific?
It means that the United States acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines as territories from Spain after winning the Spanish–American War in 1898.

W hat does it mean when one says that the American victory in the Spanish–American War led to increased involvement in Asia?
It means that after the war, the United States acquired territories in Asia, specifically the Philippines, which led to the US becoming more politically, economically and militarily involved in the region. This increased involvement marked the beginning of the US’s expansion in the Asia-Pacific region, and it has been a significant player in the region since then.

What does it t mean when one says that the American victory in the Spanish–American War led to the suppression of a nationalist movement in the Philippines?
It means that after the war, the United States acquired the Philippines as a territory and attempted to suppress the independence movement led by Filipinos who were fighting for self-rule and independence from foreign rule. The Philippines were under Spanish rule for more than 300 years and a nationalist movement was already happening. The US military fought against the nationalist movement, ultimately suppressing it and establishing American control over the Philippines. This suppression of nationalism marked the beginning of a period of American colonization of the Philippines which lasted until 1946.

Topic 7.5: World War I: Military and Diplomacy

After initial neutrality in World War I, the nation entered the conflict, departing from the U.S. foreign policy tradition of noninvolvement in European affairs, in response to Woodrow Wilson’s call for the defense of humanitarian and democratic principles.

What’s meant by the phrase “after America’s initial neutrality in World War I?
During World War I (1914–1918), the United States initially adopted a policy of neutrality, meaning that it did not take sides in the conflict and sought to remain impartial. However, this position changed over time as the US became increasingly drawn into the conflict, mainly due to its economic interests and the actions of Germany.

For example, German submarines began to attack American shipping vessels, which led to the loss of American lives and threatened US commerce. Additionally, the German government made attempts to engage Mexico in a war against the US, which further strained relations between the two countries.

As a result of these developments, the US eventually decided to enter the war on the side of the Allies (Great Britain, France, and Russia) in 1917. This marked a significant shift in American foreign policy and had far-reaching consequences for the country, as well as for the outcome of the war.

According to President Wilson, why should Americans fight in the war?
According to President Woodrow Wilson, Americans should fight in World War I for several reasons. In his speeches and writings, he argued that the war represented a struggle between the forces of democracy and freedom on one hand, and the forces of autocracy and tyranny on the other.

Wilson believed that the values of democracy and freedom were at stake in the war, and that it was important for the US to defend these values against the aggression of the Central Powers (led by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire). He argued that the US had a moral obligation to support the Allies (France, the United Kingdom, and Russia) and to help secure a lasting peace based on the principles of justice and fairness.

Additionally, Wilson believed that American entry into the war would help to ensure that the US would be a major player in shaping the post-war world and in defining the terms of peace. He saw the war as an opportunity for the US to assert its power and influence on the international stage, and to promote its interests and values in the world.

In his speeches, Wilson also emphasized the importance of the war for the future of humanity and for the progress of civilization. He argued that the war represented a turning point in history, and that it was up to the US and the Allies to ensure that a lasting peace was established that would help to prevent future wars and secure a better future for all people.

What’s the story behind the slogan “to make the world safe for democracy?”
The phrase “to make the world safe for democracy” was first used by President Woodrow Wilson during World War I. It became one of the most famous slogans of the war and was widely used by the US government and media to explain why the US was fighting in Europe.

Wilson believed that the war represented a struggle between the forces of democracy and freedom on one hand, and the forces of autocracy and tyranny on the other. He argued that the US had a moral obligation to support the Allies (France, the United Kingdom, and Russia) and to help secure a lasting peace based on the principles of justice and fairness.

In his speeches and writings, Wilson repeatedly emphasized the importance of the war for the future of humanity and for the progress of civilization. He argued that the war represented a turning point in history, and that it was up to the US and the Allies to ensure that a lasting peace was established that would help to prevent future wars and secure a better future for all people.

The phrase “to make the world safe for democracy” was an expression of Wilson’s vision for the future, and it became a powerful rallying cry for many Americans who wanted to support the war effort. It helped to create a sense of shared purpose and national unity, and it also helped to explain the US’s involvement in the war to a wider audience.

Today, the phrase remains an important part of American history and is often used to describe the US’s role in promoting democracy and freedom around the world.

What events convinced most Americans to support the call for America’s entry into the war?
The sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmermann Telegram, and Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare were three key events that played a significant role in causing most Americans to want to enter World War I.

1. The Sinking of the Lusitania: The Lusitania was a British passenger ship that was sunk by a German submarine in 1915, killing over 1,000 people, including 128 Americans. This event horrified Americans and increased anti-German sentiment in the US. It also put pressure on the US government to take a more active role in the war.
2. The Zimmermann Telegram: The Zimmermann Telegram was a secret message sent by the German Foreign Secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, to the German ambassador in Mexico. The message proposed that Mexico should join the war on the side of Germany in exchange for territory in the US after the war was won. The telegram was intercepted by British intelligence and decoded, and the US government was given a copy of the message. The revelation of the telegram increased American anger towards Germany and added to the growing sense that the US needed to enter the war.
3. German Unrestricted Submarine Warfare: In early 1917, Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare, meaning that they would sink any ship that entered the war zone around Britain, without warning and without checking to see if there were civilians on board. This included American ships, and several American civilians were killed as a result. The US government saw this as a direct attack on American sovereignty and as a reason to declare war on Germany.

These three events helped to build a case for American entry into World War I and to create a climate of public opinion that was favorable to war. They demonstrated to many Americans the dangers posed by Germany’s aggressive behavior and helped to build support for US involvement in the conflict.

Although the American Expeditionary Forces played a relatively limited role in combat, the United States’ entry helped to tip the balance of the conflict in favor of the Allies.

What is meant by the term “the American Expeditionary Forces?
The American Expeditionary Force (AEF) was the American military force sent to Europe during World War I to support the Allies in their fight against Germany and the Central Powers. The AEF was commanded by General John J. Pershing and was comprised of soldiers, sailors, and Marines.

The AEF played a crucial role in the final months of the war, and its arrival on the Western Front helped to turn the tide in favor of the Allies. The American soldiers brought fresh troops and new equipment, as well as a fresh determination to win the war.

Who were the allies?
The Allies in World War I were a coalition of countries that fought against the Central Powers (led by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire) from 1914 to 1918. The main Allies were:

1. France
2. United Kingdom
3. Russia (until 1917, when it withdrew from the war following the Bolshevik Revolution)
4. Italy
5. United States (joined the war in 1917)
6. Japan, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, Serbia and also several smaller nations and colonies.

As the war came to a close, President Wilson’s brought forth his “14 Points. What’s that?
Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points were a set of principles for peace that were outlined by President Woodrow Wilson in a speech to Congress on January 8, 1918. The Fourteen Points were designed to end World War I and to prevent future wars. They covered a range of issues, including open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, disarmament, and the establishment of a League of Nations.

The main points of the Fourteen Points were:

1. Open diplomacy: Wilson advocated for open diplomacy, with all agreements made public and conducted without secret treaties or understandings.
2. Freedom of the seas: Wilson called for the freedom of the seas, without interference from naval blockades or restrictions.
3. Disarmament: Wilson called for the reduction of armaments to the lowest level possible, so that nations could save resources for their own development.
4. Fair trade: Wilson called for free trade and equal access to markets, without tariffs or other trade barriers.
5. Adjustment of colonial claims: Wilson called for the adjustment of colonial claims in a way that would be just to both colonizers and the colonized.
6. Reduction of national armaments: Wilson called for the reduction of national armaments, so that nations could use their resources for peace and prosperity, rather than war.
7. Establishment of a League of Nations: Wilson called for the establishment of a League of Nations, an international organization that would ensure peace and security for all nations.
8. Adjustment of territorial claims: Wilson called for the adjustment of territorial claims in a way that would be fair to all parties concerned.
9. Self-determination: Wilson called for the principle of self-determination, giving people the right to choose their own government and political system.
10. International cooperation: Wilson called for international cooperation, with nations working together for the common good.
11. Abolition of secret diplomacy: Wilson called for the abolition of secret diplomacy, with all international agreements and negotiations conducted openly.
12. Removal of economic barriers: Wilson called for the removal of economic barriers, so that nations could trade freely and benefit from each other’s prosperity.
13. Peaceful settlement of international disputes: Wilson called for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, through diplomacy and international law.
14. Promotion of world peace: Wilson called for the promotion of world peace, through cooperation, disarmament, and the establishment of a League of Nations.

The Fourteen Points were widely discussed and debated, both in the US and abroad, and they helped to shape the post-war world. Although many of the points were not implemented, the idea of the Fourteen Points remains an important part of modern international relations and continues to influence international debates about peace and security.

Why were most of President Wilson’s 14 Points not implemented?
Most of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points were not implemented for several reasons, including:

1. Opposition from other nations: Many of Wilson’s ideas were seen as idealistic and unrealistic, and they faced opposition from other world leaders, who had their own priorities and interests. For example, the idea of self-determination was seen as a threat to the existing power structures in Europe, and many nations were not willing to give up their colonies.
2. Resistance from the US Senate: The US Senate was divided on the issue of US involvement in the League of Nations, and many senators were not willing to support the idea of an international organization that could limit American sovereignty. As a result, the League of Nations was not ratified by the US Senate, and the US did not join.
3. Post-war political and economic instability: The aftermath of World War I was marked by political and economic instability, which made it difficult to implement many of Wilson’s ideas. The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the war, was seen as too harsh by many nations, and it fueled resentment and contributed to the rise of totalitarian regimes in Europe.
4. Lack of international cooperation: In order to implement the Fourteen Points, international cooperation was necessary, but this was not always forthcoming. Many nations were more concerned with their own interests and were not willing to work together for the greater good.

In conclusion, while Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points represented a visionary idea for world peace, they were not implemented in full due to a combination of political, economic, and international factors. Nevertheless, the idea of the Fourteen Points continues to influence international debates about peace and security, and many of Wilson’s ideas remain relevant today.

Despite Wilson’s deep involvement in postwar negotiations, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or join the League of Nations.

What was the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations and why did the US Senate refuse to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or join the League of Nations?
The Treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty signed in 1919 that officially ended World War I between the Allied Powers and Germany. The treaty sought to establish a new international order and prevent future wars by imposing strict penalties on Germany, including disarmament, territorial losses, and heavy reparations. The treaty was negotiated by the victorious Allied Powers, including the United States, Great Britain, France, and Italy, and it was signed in the Palace of Versailles near Paris.

The League of Nations was an international organization founded in 1919 to promote international cooperation and to prevent future wars. The League was established as part of the Treaty of Versailles and was seen as the cornerstone of the new international order established by the treaty. The League was intended to be a forum for nations to resolve their differences peacefully and to promote disarmament, economic cooperation, and human rights.

The US Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and to join the League of Nations for several reasons:

1. Isolationism: Many Americans were skeptical of the League of Nations and saw it as an infringement on American sovereignty. They believed that the US should focus on its own affairs and not get involved in international affairs.
2. Domestic politics: The issue of US involvement in the League of Nations was politically divisive, and many senators were more concerned with their own re-election prospects than with the merits of the treaty.
3. Reservations: The US delegation to the Paris Peace Conference had some reservations about the provisions of the treaty, including the size of the reparations imposed on Germany, the treatment of Japan, and the lack of provisions for free trade.
4. Failure to secure enough support: The League of Nations faced opposition from various quarters, and the US government was unable to secure enough support in the Senate to ratify the treaty.

In conclusion, the US Senate’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and to join the League of Nations was a result of a combination of political, economic, and ideological factors. The decision reflected the country’s growing isolationist sentiment and its reluctance to become involved in international affairs. Nevertheless, the League of Nations remained in existence until it was replaced by the United Nations after World War II.

Topic 7.6: World War I: Homefront

Official restrictions on freedom of speech grew during World War I, as increased anxiety about radicalism led to a Red Scare and attacks on labor activism and immigrant culture.

What was the (first) Red Scare
The First Red Scare was a period of political and social fear and anxiety in the United States during and immediately after World War I. It was characterized by a widespread fear of radicalism, anarchism, and communism, and a concern that these ideologies would spread and threaten American democracy.

The First Red Scare was triggered by a series of events, including the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917, the rise of socialist and communist parties in the US, and a series of bombings in the country, which were attributed to anarchist groups. As a result, the government and many Americans became increasingly concerned about the spread of radicalism, and there was a wave of repression and censorship aimed at suppressing dissent.

One of the most notable figures of the First Red Scare was J. Edgar Hoover, who later became the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Hoover played a key role in the Red Scare, and he used his position to gather information on suspected radicals and communists, and to suppress their activities.

The First Red Scare also had a significant impact on civil liberties, as many Americans were arrested and deported for their political beliefs, and freedom of speech and assembly were restricted. Some of the most famous cases of the First Red Scare include the Palmer Raids, in which thousands of individuals were arrested and held without trial, and the trial and execution of the anarchist Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.

The First Red Scare faded in the 1920s, as the US economy improved and the threat of radicalism seemed to recede. Nevertheless, its legacy lived on, as the fear of communism and radicalism remained a significant part of American political and cultural life for many decades to come.

What were the Palmer Raids?
The Palmer Raids were a series of raids conducted by the US Department of Justice in 1919 and 1920, aimed at suppressing dissent and radicalism in the wake of World War I. The raids, named after US Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, targeted suspected anarchists, socialists, and communists, and resulted in the arrest and detention of thousands of individuals without trial. The Palmer Raids were widely criticized for violating civil liberties, and they marked a low point in the history of American civil liberties during the First Red Scare.

What was the trial of Sacco and Vanzetti?
The trial of Sacco and Vanzetti was one of the most famous cases of the First Red Scare, and it became a cause célèbre for the defense of civil liberties and workers’ rights. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were Italian immigrants and anarchist activists who were charged with murder and robbery in 1920. The trial was widely seen as a political show trial, and the verdict was widely criticized for being based on flimsy evidence and anti-anarchist and anti-immigrant sentiment. The case remains a controversial and widely debated aspect of American legal and political history.

Immigration from Europe reached its peak in the years before World War I. During World War I, nativist campaigns against some ethnic groups led to the passage of quotas that restricted immigration, particularly from southern and eastern Europe, and increased barriers to Asian immigration.

What is meant by “nativist campaigns against some ethnic groups led to the passage of quotas that restricted immigration, particularly from southern and eastern Europe, and increased barriers to Asian immigration?”
Nativist campaigns refer to efforts by some individuals and groups in the US to promote the interests and values of native-born Americans over those of immigrants, and to restrict or limit the influx of new immigrants into the country. In the 1920s, these campaigns took the form of a widespread movement to restrict immigration, particularly from southern and eastern Europe, which was seen as a threat to American jobs, values, and culture. In response to these nativist campaigns, the US government passed a series of quotas that restricted immigration, particularly from southern and eastern Europe, and increased barriers to Asian immigration. These quotas reflected the deep-seated anti-immigrant sentiment of the era and the belief that the country was being overwhelmed by a tide of foreign, and in some cases, unwanted, immigrants. The impact of the quotas was significant and long-lasting, shaping the course of American immigration policy and society for decades to come.

The increased demand for war production and labor during World War I led many Americans to migrate to urban centers in search of economic opportunities.

In the Great Migration during and after World War I, African Americans escaping segregation, racial violence, and limited economic opportunity in the South moved to the North and West, where they found new opportunities but still encountered discrimination.