Practice worksheet
World War I Primary Source Analysis: Two Wilson Documents and a Worksheet
Read Wilson’s April 1917 war address beside his January 1918 Fourteen Points. Use short extracts and eight questions to identify audience, persuasive language, policy proposals and evidence limits. Each example answer names the passage that supports it and separates a stated aim from a later historical result.
Start with the source, date and purpose
These two documents let you study how a president publicly justified war and described a proposed peace. They do not speak for every person who experienced World War I. Begin with the document’s identity, then ask what its words can support.
| Document | Historical date | Speaker and direct audience | Immediate purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| A: address requesting war action against Germany | 2 April 1917 | President Woodrow Wilson addressing Congress | Ask Congress to accept belligerent status and authorize action. |
| B: Fourteen Points address | 8 January 1918 | President Woodrow Wilson addressing Congress | State a program for peace arrangements and international order. |
The National Archives presents both records with citations to Records of the United States Senate, Record Group 46. Its webpage has several layers: the archival citation, a modern explanatory introduction, images or catalog links, and a historical transcript. A statement in the introduction is not automatically a sentence Wilson spoke.
Keep three dates separate: when a speech was delivered, when an action it requested occurred, and when an archive webpage was reviewed. In particular, the date of a war request is not evidence of the date a declaration was enacted. This worksheet dates the two speeches; it does not turn them into legislative instruments.
Make an annotation that does more than paraphrase
Read the archive citations, distinguish the introductory commentary from the transcript, and locate each short extract in its surrounding paragraph or numbered point. Give a claim, an exact quotation or clause, an explanation of how it supports your claim, and a limit. The extracts are short selections, not the whole documents. Use the linked transcripts for context. The eight answers are examples of supported reasoning, not the only acceptable wording.
- Identify the words doing the work. Circle a contrast, a verb of request or obligation, an audience label, or a qualification.
- Name the historical job. Explain how the passage seeks action, legitimizes a policy, defines a standard or limits a promise.
- Test the inference. Does the wording support your exact claim, or only a narrower one?
- Name the next evidence. An outcome claim may require a resolution, negotiation record, implementation record or another perspective.
The labels A1–A5 and B1–B5 are local worksheet labels, not archive paragraph numbers. The quoted phrases retain the archive transcript’s wording. Read the surrounding passage before interpreting them; a short extract can hide a condition or a shift in audience.
Download the extracts and eight questions · Download the evidence-based example answers.
Document A: a war request and its persuasive language
Open the National Archives transcript of the 2 April 1917 address. In the posted text, Wilson discusses submarine warfare, neutral rights, government responsibility, democratic partnership and the measures he asks Congress to take. His public explanation is evidence of the argument he presented; it is not an unfiltered record of every private motive or every person’s experience.
A1: 1917 address: paragraph beginning “With a profound sense”
“I advise that the Congress declare”
Annotation: Identify the action requested and the institution addressed. This wording is a recommendation to Congress, not the text of an enacted declaration.
A2: 1917 address: paragraph beginning “I am not now thinking”
“Property can be paid for; the lives of peaceful and innocent people cannot be.”
Annotation: Notice the contrast between replaceable property and irreplaceable lives. Explain its persuasive job without assuming that it lists every cause of U.S. entry.
A3: 1917 address: paragraph beginning “We have no quarrel”
“We have no quarrel with the German people.”
Annotation: Track Wilson’s distinction between a government and a people. Compare this claim with the later conditions he attaches to loyalty.
A4: 1917 address: paragraph beginning “We shall, happily”
“If there should be disloyalty, it will be dealt with with a firm hand of stern repression;”
Annotation: The sentence is conditional and announces a policy intention. It does not establish who was judged disloyal or what actions later occurred.
A5: 1917 address: paragraph beginning “We are glad”
“The world must be made safe for democracy.”
Annotation: The scale is global. Ask how the phrase frames national participation as a wider cause, then distinguish the stated aim from evidence of its achievement.
Read A3 and A4 together. A profession of friendship and a conditional threat appear in the same address. You can analyze that tension without guessing a person’s secret thoughts. When moving from language to treatment of affected people, change the evidence as well: the speech’s assurances and threats are not a substitute for records of enforcement or lived experience.
Document B: proposed peace terms, with qualifications
Open the National Archives transcript of the 8 January 1918 address. The numbered points address peace agreements, navigation, trade, armaments, colonial claims, territorial questions and an association of nations. They are a wartime program; the verbs and qualifications tell you what Wilson proposes.
B1: 1918 address: Point I
“Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at,”
Annotation: “Covenants” means agreements here. The phrase proposes openness in peace arrangements; its appearance in a speech does not show that diplomacy already met that standard.
B2: 1918 address: Point V
“the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.”
Annotation: Keep both sides of the comparison: populations’ interests and a government’s claims. Do not replace this qualified wording with an unconditional promise of independence for every colony.
B3: 1918 address: Point XIII
“An independent Polish state should be erected”
Annotation: This point explicitly proposes an independent state in a named case. Compare its wording with the adjustment of colonial claims in Point V.
B4: 1918 address: Point XIV
“A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants”
Annotation: “Must be formed” is prospective. Read the rest of the point for its proposed mutual guarantees; do not treat this line as a record of an institution already operating.
B5: 1918 address: paragraph beginning “For such arrangements”
“we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved;”
Annotation: Wilson connects the proposed arrangements to continued fighting. A peace program issued during war is different from a peace treaty or a completed end to hostilities.
For Point V, read “equal weight” alongside the government claims it names. For Point XIII, notice the explicit proposal for an independent Polish state. Different clauses do different jobs. Treating all of them as one universal independence promise erases evidence you need to explain the program.
Later outcome, different source layer: the archive’s modern introduction says the League of Nations provision was incorporated into the Versailles settlement and that the United States never joined the League. That commentary can orient a later-outcome answer. It is distinct from Point XIV’s prospective language and does not turn the speech into a record of membership.
Eight analysis questions and example answers
Case 1
Who produced documents A and B, when, in what capacity, and for which directly addressed audience? Distinguish each historical document from the National Archives webpage that presents it.
Show answer and explanation for case 1
A is Wilson’s presidential address to Congress dated 2 April 1917; B is his address to Congress dated 8 January 1918. The modern archive page is a separate presentation layer.
Evidence: each page’s archival citation names President Wilson, its date and Records of the United States Senate, Record Group 46. A opens “GENTLEMEN OF THE CONGRESS.” The archive’s descriptions identify both addresses to Congress. Wilson’s office and the institutional audience matter because the speeches seek policy action. The webpage’s review date does not date the original speech. The broader public could also encounter the message, but these records do not measure how every audience received it.
Case 2
Using A1 and its surrounding paragraph, identify the action Wilson requests. Can the phrase alone establish the date on which Congress enacted a declaration of war?
Show answer and explanation for case 2
Wilson asks Congress to declare the German government’s recent course to be war and accept belligerent status. The request does not establish an enactment date.
Evidence: A1 says “I advise that the Congress declare,” and the surrounding paragraph asks Congress to accept belligerent status and take immediate defense and war measures. The verb “advise” identifies a recommendation. This is an address seeking legislative action, not the resulting resolution. The archive introduction reports a subsequent congressional vote, but dating or analyzing that legal act requires its own record. Keep the speech’s 2 April date attached to the speech.
Case 3
How does A2 frame the harm caused by submarine warfare? Write one interpretation supported by the wording, then one broader causal claim it cannot establish alone.
Show answer and explanation for case 3
A2 elevates noncombatant lives above compensable property. It supports a reading of Wilson’s moral framing, not a finding that one motive fully explains U.S. entry.
Evidence: “Property can be paid for” contrasts with lives that “cannot be.” The surrounding paragraph names noncombatants and describes destruction of their lives. This helps Wilson cast the issue as human harm rather than only financial loss. “Wilson emphasizes civilian lives in this passage” is supported. “Economic interests played no role in U.S. entry” is not established by that emphasis. Assessing competing causes requires other diplomatic, economic and political evidence, rather than treating a public justification as an exhaustive inventory of motives.
Case 4
Read A3 beside A4 and the surrounding loyalty discussion. What tension appears in the address? Why is neither “all Germans were enemies” nor “everyone of German origin was guaranteed protection” a sound summary of these lines?
Show answer and explanation for case 4
Wilson distinguishes the German people from their government while pairing professions of friendship with conditional language about loyalty and repression.
Evidence: A3 explicitly denies a quarrel with the German people. Later, the address speaks of friendship toward people of German birth living in the United States, qualifies praise with loyalty and states A4’s conditional threat of “stern repression.” Those passages support an analysis of the speech’s distinction and tension. They do not document every person’s treatment, prove the stated conditions were fair or show whether the professed friendship was realized. For those questions, seek enforcement records and evidence from affected people.
Case 5
In B1, what does Point I propose? Separate the policy language from a claim about actual practice. Give one kind of additional evidence that could test implementation.
Show answer and explanation for case 5
Point I proposes openly reached peace agreements and public diplomacy. The speech does not prove that negotiations were already open or that no secret understandings survived.
Evidence: B1 reads “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at.” The remainder of Point I rejects private international understandings and calls for diplomacy in public view. This is programmatic language about what should happen. A proposed standard is evidence of a stated aim; it is not a complete record of negotiations. Meeting records, published agreements and relevant diplomatic correspondence could test how a particular process operated. Specify the negotiation and time period before judging implementation.
Case 6
Compare Point V (B2) with Point XIII (B3). Does the displayed language promise an independent state to every colonized population? Preserve the qualifications in your answer.
Show answer and explanation for case 6
No blanket promise is stated here. Point V gives populations’ interests equal weight with the specified government claims; Point XIII explicitly proposes an independent Polish state.
Evidence: B2 includes both “interests of the populations concerned” and “equitable claims of the government.” B3 names a particular independent state. The different wording matters: adjustment of colonial sovereignty claims is not identical to an unconditional independence promise. This comparison concerns what the text proposes, not a verdict about all later borders or colonial experiences. “Self-determination” is a useful historical discussion term, but substituting the label for these clauses would obscure their differing scope.
Case 7
Using B4 and the remainder of Point XIV, identify the proposed institution’s purpose. Can the speech alone show that the United States later became a member? Separate transcript evidence from the archive’s historical commentary.
Show answer and explanation for case 7
Point XIV proposes an association offering mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity. The speech cannot establish later membership; the archive commentary says the United States never joined the League of Nations.
Evidence: B4 says the association “must be formed”; the rest of Point XIV specifies guarantees for “great and small states alike.” These are proposed institutional arrangements. The archive’s introduction, a modern explanatory layer, describes the League provision in the Versailles settlement and states that the United States never joined. Cite that layer separately when making the later-outcome claim. To study ratification disputes or membership decisions in detail, add the relevant legislative and diplomatic records rather than presenting the speech as proof of its own success.
Case 8
Compare A5 with B5, using each document’s date and purpose. Write one claim about continuity and one about change. Does the 1918 peace program show that fighting had ended?
Show answer and explanation for case 8
The speeches connect U.S. action to a wider account of peace and rights. Their immediate jobs differ: the 1917 address seeks war action; the 1918 address specifies a peace program while explicitly contemplating continued fighting.
Evidence: A5’s global democracy claim appears in an address requesting Congress’s war action. B5 links achieving proposed arrangements to willingness “to fight and to continue to fight.” The dated contrast supports continuity in public justification alongside a change from a war request to articulated peace terms. It does not show that fighting had ended in January 1918. A concise comparative answer uses both quotations and keeps aims, means and outcomes separate; claims about lasting peace require evidence after the speeches.
Write one bounded comparison paragraph
Use four moves: claim → passage → explanation → limit. A workable claim is that Wilson connected U.S. action to international peace and rights while changing the immediate policy task between these addresses. A5 supplies a global democratic justification; A1 identifies the request for Congress’s war action. B’s numbered proposals give the peace program more specific institutional and territorial form, while B5 retains willingness to fight.
The explanation must connect the words to the claim. “These speeches concern war” is too broad to show what changed. “Wilson abandoned every earlier aim” is too strong for this pair of passages. A better paragraph says which public justification continues and which immediate proposal changes, with both document dates visible.
Then state the limit: the two addresses do not establish all motives for entry, every audience’s response, actual implementation of every point or a lasting peace. This is not a reason to dismiss them. It tells you why a speech, a treaty, a legislative vote and a witness account answer different questions.
For an additional investigation, choose one claim and identify the missing source family. Test an enactment claim against the congressional record, an openness claim against negotiation evidence, a membership claim against legislative and diplomatic records, or a claim about affected people against their accounts and relevant enforcement records. Do not insert an imagined result simply because the original speaker expressed confidence.
Check your answer before treating it as evidence
- Did I distinguish the speech date from a requested action’s date?
- Did I name the speaker, office, audience and source layer?
- Did I preserve “if,” “should,” “must,” “equal weight” and other qualifications?
- Does each quotation support the specific inference I draw?
- Did I separate public persuasion, proposed policy and demonstrated outcome?
- Have I identified what this pair of sources leaves unanswered?
A strong answer can acknowledge bias without saying that a source is useless. Public persuasion is precisely what these speeches can help you study. Nor does “primary source” mean automatically true about every subject: proximity to an event does not remove the need to ask who is speaking, what they want and what kind of claim the record can establish.
The annotations, worksheet labels and example answers are original study material. They are not a facsimile, a transcript edition or a claim of professional classroom review. Use the archive transcripts to inspect the quoted passages and their context, then follow the chronology when your question reaches beyond the speeches.
Sources and further reading
- U.S. National Archives: Joint Address to Congress Leading to a Declaration of War Against Germany (1917)Archival citation and the posted 2 April 1917 address: requests to Congress, submarine-warfare framing, government/people distinction, loyalty qualification and public democratic aims. Short quotations come from the transcript, not the modern introduction.
- U.S. National Archives: President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points (1918)Archival citation and posted 8 January 1918 transcript: Points I, V, XIII and XIV, and continued-fighting language. The modern introduction is explicitly identified when discussing the later League outcome.