Notes

With the U.S. being considered an "isolationist" country, they claimed neutrality during the 1920's and 1930's because they longer wanted to be involved in any wars containing "foreign alliances." However, once the Lend-Lease act came around, the idea of "neutrality" didn't seem so neutral anymore. Many saw it as a way of choosing sides by providing aid to those fighting in the war without the U.S. actually fighting in the war. And is supported by the political cartoon in lesson 5.01, "the neutrality acts of 1935 and 1936 barred Americans from lending money to warring nations or selling them arms."

In my opinion, I considered the U.S. to drop all neutrality once they were involved or in better words, when they chose an ally to aid. In 1937, Japan had invaded China and since President Roosevelt was supportive of China, he couldn't help but send in aid. However, since the U.S. was 'technically' staying neutral, the Cash and Carry act was made. The Cash and Carry act is very similar to the Lend-Lease act but instead of lending, the arms are being sold for cash. As this action helped and made others happy, the U.S' isolationists were not very pleased with all this aid being given to those foreign in the wars. But even thought they were not happy, the neutrality was still formally intact and it protected America from any conflict.

1st Neutrality Act - I think the 1st Neutrality Act was a good idea. There wasn't any lending or selling, just simply minding their business and away from the wars. But once the other acts were created to aid others, that's when true neutrality was lost.
Cash and Carry - As much as many dislike the idea of the cash and carry act. It was a good idea considering how many foreign countries were in need of arms in such a rough time and having to sell those arms would mean pretty good business.
U.S. Aid to China - Now this situation is a little sticky since the U.S. was remaining "neutral" but giving direct aid to one country is not considered to be neutral so I cannot defend this decision.
Lend-Lease Act - This act is a good and bad idea. It's a good idea because the U.S. lent or leased their arms in-exchange for arms in the future. But it was a bad idea because it was considered to be aiding and went the opposite of where the first neutrality act was going.