The lecture on the danger of subversion versus the danger of enforced conformity deserves further exploration by students. The instructor may begin by excerpting a number of significant documents, portions of laws, court decisions, public speeches, and the like. Henry Steele Commager and Milton Cantor, editors, Documents of American History (tenth edition; 1988) is a good source for such things as Wilson's "Peace Without Victory" address of January 22, 1917, the Fourteen Points address, the 1918 Espionage Act, and portions of the Supreme Court decisions in Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States. Thomas A. Bailey and David M. Kennedy, editors, The American Spirit (seventh edition; 1991) is another good source. The instructor can then divide the documents among the class so that some members are appointed to defend and some to oppose the ideas advanced in the excerpts. Before discussion begins, appoint two students who will later summarize the ideas brought up in discussion. Summarization has the advantage of putting students on record and of emphasizing that they also have the right and obligation to draw conclusions. In addition, some instructors may wish to empower the summary makers to determine which sides in the discussions have had the better arguments.

What was wrong with the Treaty of Versailles? Were American security and independence threatened? Or did Wilson simply ruffle the Republicans' feathers? Ask several students to prepare an assessment of this issue and present it to the class for discussion.

A related question involves participation by the United States in the League of Nations. Students may be somewhat surprised by the enthusiasm with which the United States welcomed the United Nations a quarter of a century later. Why didn't the United States join the League? For these issues see Theodore P. Green, editor, Wilson at Versailles (1957), one of the Problems in American Civilization series. See also Ralph A. Stone, editor, Wilson and the League of Nations (1967), for an assessment of responsibility for the debacle; Thomas A. Bailey, Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace (1944); Arthur A. Link et al., Wilson's Diplomacy: An International Symposium (1973); Arthur Walworth, Wilson and His Peacemakers: American Diplomacy at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (1986); and Lloyd E. Ambrosius, Woodrow Wilson and the American Diplomatic Tradition: The Treaty Fight in Perspective (1987). Thomas J. Knock, To End All Wars: World War I and the Quest for a New World Order (1992), focuses not on the League's creation at Versailles but on the ideological origins of Wilson's peace plan.

"He kept us out of war." Why couldn't he continue to do so? Did the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare make U.S. entry into the conflict inevitable? Or were there other reasons? In each of these cases, assign a couple of students to prepare an assessment for presentation and discussion. See Herbert J. Bass, editor, America's Entry into World War I: Submarines, Sentiment or Security? (1964), one of the American Problem Studies Series. See also Ross Gregory, The Origins of American Intervention in the First World War (1971), and other sources cited in the chapter bibliography.

Increasingly the United States has made efforts to consider the sensibilities of its hemispheric neighbors in its dealings with them. But the Museum of the Revolution in Mexico City shows evidence of bitterness in its treatment of Woodrow Wilson. North of the border Wilson and Mexico are often seen very differently. Ask a student to look into Mexican resentment and prepare a brief explanatory statement for the class. See John S. D. Eisenhower, Intervention! The United States and the Mexican Revolution, 1913-1917 (1993).