How did FDR'S attitude towards neutrality change and how does the four freedoms speech explain that change?

1 answer:

3 0

On January 6, 1941 President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his eighth State of the Union address, now known as the Four Freedoms speech. The speech was intended to rally the American people against the Axis threat and to shift favor in support of assisting British and Allied troops. Roosevelt's words came at a time of extreme American isolationism; since World War I, many Americans sought to distance themselves from foreign entanglements, including foreign wars. Policies to curb immigration quotas and increase tariffs on imported goods were implemented, and a series of Neutrality Acts passed in the 1930s limited American arms and munitions assistance abroad.

In his address, Roosevelt called for the immediate increase in American arms production, and asked Americans to support his "Lend-Lease" program, which gave Allies cash-free access to US munitions. Most importantly, Roosevelt announced his vision for the world, "a world attainable in our own time and generation," and founded upon four essential human freedoms: freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

These freedoms, Roosevelt declared, must triumph everywhere in the world, and act as a basis of a new moral order. "Freedom," Roosevelt declared, "means the supremacy of human rights everywhere."

You might be interested in

How is a representative democracy similar to a constitutional monarchy?

Gre4nikov [31]

A representative democracy is similar to a constitutional monarchy because power in both governments is limited.

A representative democracy is when the people are allowed to vote for their leaders to serve for them in the government such as electing the President. A constitutional monarchy is when a monarch is held back by the law and Parliament.

6 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

What impact did President Buchanan have on southern secession?

vichka [17]

<span>Buchanan believed that slavery was wrong while also claiming that states did not have the right of succession. As the North and South adamantly debated whether slavery was illegal and immoral or legal and ethical, Buchanan admitted that there were certain grievenances that would make the succession justified, but then he condemed the act of slavery, saying that it was unconstitutional adn that the Founder Fathers never intended to endow any group of people with the right to enslave another group of people. But in a surprising turn, he said that if the succession was renamed to be called a revolution, then it would be acceptable because then, it would fail to call for the enforcement of a constituional right, and it also seperated the government from the requirement of giving the succession recognition. So in effect, Buchannan hindered the succession by declaring the right to a secession to be null and void, but failed to denouce slavery because he also defended the excuses that the sourtherns were using to threaten the secession in the first place. The postition he took angered both the people of the North and South. In the end, the Battle of Fort Sumter commenced and the South excercised their right to sucession after all.</span>

3 0

3 years ago

Would Rousseau’s system work? Why or why not?

iris [78.8K]

Answer:

The Social Contract

Explanation:

Would Rousseau’s system work? Why or why not?

4 0

2 years ago

In American history, the Connecticut Compromise is also known as __________.

harina [27]