Era 8 The Twenties (1920–1930)

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

The relationship between the individual and the state is present in every country, society, and civilization. Relevant questions about individual liberty, civic engagement, government authority, equality and justice, and protection are important for every demographic group in the population.  In your teaching of World History, consider the examples and questions provided below that should be familiar to students in the history of the United States with application to the experiences of others around the world.

These civic activities are designed to present civics in a global context as civic education happens in every country.  The design is flexible regarding using one of the activities, allowing students to explore multiple activities in groups, and as a lesson for a substitute teacher. The lessons are free, although a donation to the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies is greatly appreciated. www.njcss.org

The Twenties were the first time that more Americans lived in cities than on farms. It was a decade of social, economic and political change following the devastating effects of World War I, the mass production of the automobile, and the radio brought news, sports, and entertainment into the homes of people. The way people understood information was changing as newspapers and advertisements supported a “consumer culture.”  It was also a time when many people were uncomfortable with the secular lifestyle and attitudes rejected alcohol, even though it was the fifth largest industry in the country and restrictive laws were passed regarding immigration as the country favored isolationist policies.

Education in the United States is under the control of local communities and each of the 50 states. The federal government tries to influence education with financial assistance and has authority to enforce national laws that apply to civil and human rights. In 1923, Tennessee became the first state to ban the teaching of evolution. Tennessee had the legal authority to determine the content of the curriculum in public schools. The legal issues would test the freedom of speech for teachers and the right of the state to respect the views of many citizens and state legislators, regarding their understanding of the Holy Bible.

Fundamentalism represented the literal interpretation of the Holy Bible and had been gaining popularity in American culture for 40 years before the Scopes Trial. The philosophy of communism in the Soviet Union opposed the freedom of religious expression and the unprecedented death in World War I prompted many to question the existence of God. It was also a time of spiritual evangelism when people used the teachings of the Holy Bible to counter the modern ideas of jazz music, sexual promiscuity, and secularism.

The jury found Scopes guilty of violating the law and fined him $100. Bryan and the anti-evolutionists claimed victory, and the Tennessee law would stand for another 42 years.  The ACLU publicized scientific evidence for evolution. The verdict did have a chilling effect on teaching evolution in the classroom, however, and not until the 1960s did it reappear in schoolbooks. It continues as an issue in some states today.

Kenya has an educational system that is considered one of the best in the world. Education is controlled by the government and changes take time to make. Recently, Kenya made significant changes in the curriculum with a vision to make Kenya a leader in Africa by 2063, the next 40 years. “The overall aim of the new curriculum is to equip citizens with skills for the 21st century and hinges on the global shift towards education programs that encourage optimal human capital development. Education should be viewed in a holistic spectrum that includes schooling and the co-curriculum activities that nurture, mentor, and mold the child into productive citizens.”

There are advantages and disadvantages to both a national and federal system of education. Canada, Australia, and Germany have federal systems of education that might be compared to the United States. The majority of countries in the world have a national system similar to the one in Kenya.  U.S. News & World Report published a study of the education in 87 countries. For discussion, consider if the goal of a well-developed educational system is to prepare students for higher education, support employment, educate citizens, teach values, access, efficiency of costs, etc.  Another area for discussion could be if the purpose of education is the focus on the well-being and development of the individual or if the emphasis is on subject matter content.

  1. Who should decide matters of content in the curriculum?
  2. Should parents have the authority to ‘opt out’ of lessons?
  3. Should teachers or assessments determine what is taught?
  4. What is the purpose of education?
  5. Is the primary purpose of education to teach skills, content, or to prepare children to be citizens?
  6. Should the U.S. government limit or empower the U.S. Department of Education in the area of curriculum?

The Scopes Trial (National Constitution Center)

The Scopes Trial (History Channel)

The Scopes Trial (Bill of Rights Institute)

On the evening of the president’s death, Herbert Hoover sent out the official news that the president had died of “a stroke of cerebral apoplexy.” But it was most likely a heart attack, that ended Harding’s life at the age of 58, two years more than the average life span for an American male in 1923 (56.1 years).

President Harding’s Vice President was Calvin Coolidge. He was from Massachusetts and at the time of Harding’s death he was visiting his family at their home in Plymouth, Vermont. He issued the following statement:

“Reports have reached me, which I fear are correct, that President Harding is gone. The world has lost a great and good man. I mourn his loss. He was my chief and my friend.

It will be my purpose to carry out the policies which he has begun for the service of the American people and for meeting their responsibilities wherever they may arise. For this purpose I shall seek the cooperation of all those who have been associated with the President during his term of office. Those who have given their efforts to assist him I wish to remain in office that they may assist me. I have faith that God will direct the destinies of our nation.

It is my intention to remain here until I can secure the correct form for the oath of office, which will be administered to me by my father, who is a notary public, if that will meet the necessary requirement. I expect to leave for Washington during the day.”


CALVIN COOLIDGE

Calvin Coolidge’s father was a notary public and administered the Oath of office at 2:47 a.m. in the middle of the night in his home. President Coolidge addressed Congress for the first time when it returned to Washington D.C. on December 6, 1923, expressing support for many of Harding’s policies and he continued with most of Harding’s advisors. The transfer of political power was orderly.

Vladimir Lenin died at age 58 on January 21, 1924, less than six months after President Harding. He had suffered from three strokes and his death was expected. Lenin did not name a successor and the transition to power was contentious between Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky.

Alexsei Rykov and V.M Molotov were technically the leaders of the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and Leon Trotsky was the Minister of War. As party secretary Stalin controlled appointees and used the position to install people loyal to him. Trotsky represented the faction that favored the spread of socialism in a world revolution. He believed this was necessary for the Soviet Union to develop a stronger economy. In contrast, Stalin did not see a world revolution as probable and favored the gradual economic development through a series of five-year plans with quotas and state ownership of land. Leon Trotsky was exiled to Mexico in 1928 and Josef Stalin became the de facto leader of the Soviet Union.

  1. Is it likely that the death of an American president in this decade would result in an orderly transfer of power or would it be contentious between leaders within the Democratic and Republican Party?
  2. Should the successor of an American president be expected to continue with the appointed advisors and policies of the Administration, or should the new president be encouraged to develop policies consistent with his or her political views?
  3. Is Russia at risk of a contentious transition to a new government in the event of the unexpected death of Vladimir Putin?
  4. Is a parliamentary system of government more effective and efficient in the transfer of political power than the government of the United States, Russia, or China?

How does a government protect the equality and presumed innocence of individual citizens and also protect the general welfare and safety of the public?  On May 1, 1919 (May Day), postal officials discovered 20 bombs in the mail of prominent capitalists, including John D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, Jr., as well as government officials like Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. A month later, bombs exploded in eight American cities. In 1919 and 1920, President Wilson’s attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, led raids on the Communist Party and the International Workers of the World.

In November 1919, Palmer ordered government raids that resulted in the arrests of 250 suspected radicals in 11 cities. The Palmer Raids reached their height on January 2, 1920, when government agents made raids in 33 cities.  More than 4,000 alleged communists were arrested and jailed and 556 immigrants were deported.

The secret police in the Soviet Union is sometimes called or associated with the Checka, Red Terror, Gulag, KGB, or state police.  The Bolsheviks formed the Cheka when Vladimir Lenin was wounded in an assassination attempt in 1918. After the October Revolution in 1917, Russia was in a civil war. The OGPU was commissioned in November 15, 1923 and conducted mass shootings and hangings without trials. It is estimated that the revolutionary tribunals executed 100,000.  The tribunals sanctioned purges of everyone including Russia’s imperial family, land-owning peasants, journalists, priests, scholars, and the homeless.  

The operations of the OGPU reflected decisions of the Party leadership. It was directed to check on church activities, foreigners, and members of opposition parties. It supervised kept a watchful eye on the morale, loyalty, and efficiency or workers.

  1. Do governments have a responsibility to secretly observe the activities of any of its people?
  2. How can a government responsibly protect its citizens from terrorist or subversive activities?
  3. Is the suspension of habeas corpus and individual liberties justified in times of war or civil unrest?
  4. In the United States does the federal government (President) have the authority to send the National Guard or armed forces into a city or state without the approval of the governor or state government?

Palmer Raids (Chronicling America)

The Red Scare (Digital History)

Bombing on Wall Street (You Tube, American Experience, PBS)

Authority of the President to Use the National Guard and Army to Control the Border (CRS)

Establishment of the OGPU (November 15, 1923)

In 1965, the United States passed the Immigration and Nationality Act ending all quotas based on national origin and replacing them with a system of preferences based on family relations to US residents and labor qualifications. Total immigration was limited to 170,000 annually for the Eastern Hemisphere; and 120,000 for the Americas.  The flow of immigrants to the southern border of the United States has exceeded this number for decades. It is now almost one million a year, with about 40% of this number coming from Central America and Mexico. It is also difficult to hire border patrol officers to process the requests for asylum and legal entry. The population of the United States is declining and immigration is the reason for the small increase.  Immigrants also fill needed jobs. Most of the migrant population is living in six states.

In 2021, political tensions between Lithuania and Belarus flared, precipitating a crisis at the borders during which more than 4 000 migrants largely from the Middle East and South Asia were stranded facing inadequate food, water, clothing, or shelter.  Lithuania is a country of about 4 million people and the government did not welcome the surge of immigrants The Lithuanian Red Cross provided humanitarian assistance in the form of non-food items, medicine, and food, as well as mental health care. Since 2021, Lithuanian border guards have prevented around 20,000 people from crossing the border from Belarus. They check the documents of each individual and have permitted asylum seekers to enter.

“The protection of the right to life and the prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment provide the cornerstones of any human rights compliant response to border crossing and must be fully upheld at all times, including in emergency situations. I have received consistent worrying reports of patterns of violence and other human rights violations committed against migrants, including in the context of pushbacks at Lithuania’s border with Belarus. Parliament should contribute to putting a stop to these human rights violations and take the lead in guaranteeing a human rights compliant migration policy.” (European Union Commissioner on Human Rights, 2023)

The Lithuanian parliament adopted a law on Tuesday (25 April, 2023) legalizing the turning away of irregular migrants at the border under a state-level extreme situation regime or a state of emergency.

  1. Do nations have the right to stop people from entering their country or does the need to provide humanitarian care take precedence?
  2. Many countries are facing large numbers of immigrants for economic and political reasons. How can countries manage this population movement?
  3. How would you define a humanitarian immigration policy?
  4.  Which countries have the most humane and effective immigration policies?

https://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-have-best-migration-policies

Era 7 The Emergence of Modern America: World War I (1890–1930)

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

The relationship between the individual and the state is present in every country, society, and civilization. Relevant questions about individual liberty, civic engagement, government authority, equality and justice, and protection are important for every demographic group in the population.  In your teaching of World History, consider the examples and questions provided below that should be familiar to students in the history of the United States with application to the experiences of others around the world.

These civic activities are designed to present civics in a global context as civic education happens in every country.  The design is flexible regarding using one of the activities, allowing students to explore multiple activities in groups, and as a lesson for a substitute teacher. The lessons are free, although a donation to the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies is greatly appreciated. www.njcss.org

The beginning of the 20th century marks the foundation of the transformation of the United States into a world power by the middle of the century. In this era industrialization, urbanization, and rapid immigration changed America from an agrarian to an urban society as people lived and worked in cities. The development of the new technologies of electricity, transportation, and communication challenged our long-held traditional policies of limited government, neutrality, and laissez-faire capitalism.

President Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy was popularized with a 20th century interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The Roosevelt Corollary (1904) stated that the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the western Hemisphere fulfilled their obligations to international creditors and did not violate the rights of the United States or invite foreign aggression to the detriment of the entire body of American nations.  The expansion of our navy changed the Monroe Doctrine from a passive to an assertive policy that justified the intervention of the United States in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic, as well as an American presence in Panama, China, and the Philippines. When President William Howard Taft became president in 1909, his foreign policy substituted dollars for bullets. He formalized his vision in his 1912 State of the Union Address:

“The diplomacy of the present administration has sought to respond to modern ideas of commercial intercourse. This policy has been characterized as substituting dollars for bullets. It is one that appeals alike to idealistic humanitarian sentiments, to the dictates of sound policy and strategy, and to legitimate commercial aims.”

President Taft focused on trade and he refinanced the debts of several countries in Central America who were at risk of default. He supported private economic investment in China to counter the aggression of Japan and maintain the balance of power in East Asia.

Taft’s policy led to the rise of nationalist movements who opposed the influence or interference of the United States and in China where the investments in infrastructure by Americans and American companies led to mistrust.  His successor, President Wilson introduced “Moral Diplomacy” as his vision for diplomatic leadership, which included sending American troops to Haiti, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Mexico.

Dollar Diplomacy in Qatar

Qatar is a small Persian Gulf state with a population of less than 3 million and one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world at $85,500 USD. It is about half the size of New Jersey and close in size to Connecticut. It is the richest country in the world and most of its wealth comes from natural gas and petroleum.

In 2017 Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain imposed a blockade on Qatar because of their support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. Qatar is currently using its wealth to promote international relations and trade and investment agreements with Russia, Central America, South Africa, Europe, and several U.S. energy companies. Qatar produces Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) which is becoming more popular to offset carbon emissions. In 2021, the blockade ended.

Qatar has hosted the Doha trade talks, the World Cup, pledged $500 million to the United Nations’ programs, and has been central to the negotiations between Israel and Hamas on the release of hostages and humanitarian supplies.

  1. Is there a difference between Dollar Diplomacy and economic imperialism?
  2. Why did Dollar Diplomacy fail in the Taft Administration and is it likely to meet with failure in Qatar?
  3. What is the most effective way to change the position of a country that supports terrorist organizations?
  4. Does the richest country in the world have more power than the country with the strongest military?
  5. Should the United States become less trustworthy of Qatar or does pragmatism suggest that by increasing our economic agreements we will attain more benefits than disappointments?
  6. Is it the role and responsibility of the Legislative or Executive Branch to decide foreign policy in the United States?

William Howard Taft’s Dollar Diplomacy

Dollar Diplomacy

The Qatar Blockade is over but the Gulf Crisis Lives On

U.S. Relations with Qatar

From a Civics perspective, the issue of child labor is about the amount of regulation by the federal and state government that is necessary to protect children from exploitation under the Commerce Clause. The United States v. Darby decision by the U.S. Supreme Court (1941) is a landmark case that supports federal regulation of child labor.

Food insecurity is a problem for more than 10% of American families who might benefit from additional income. The historically low unemployment rate of 4% or less in the United States also creates demand for additional workers. National Labor Statistical (NLS) data show that 52% of 12 and 13-year-olds have paid work experience. The work performed at these ages was found to be freelance in nature. Babysitting and yardwork accounted for more than 70 percent of the work they performed. For 14 and 15-year-olds, the dominant form of work is also freelancing.  It is estimated that 153,600 children are employed at an activity in violation of the FLSA or state law on a weekly basis. Many are children of migrant families whose labor may be exploited. The most common violations entail working excessive hours or engaging in a hazardous occupation before the age of 18.

Child Labor in the Ivory Coast

Children in Côte d’Ivoire are subjected to the worst forms of child labor, including in the harvesting of cocoa and coffee, sometimes as a result of human trafficking. Children who work in cocoa production are often deprived of adequate schooling. Children who carry heavy loads of cocoa are exposed to pesticides, insect and snake bites, machete wounds, fatigue and leg and back problems.

In 2016, in light of the Harkin-Engel Agreement, the National Plan for fighting Against Child Labor and Child Trafficking, numerous Government, NGO and private sector initiatives and projects were being implemented in Cote d’Ivoire to improve productivity, community development and child rights in cocoa producing areas.

  1. Should states be allowed to make their own laws about child labor laws when work is being done only withing their state?
  2. Should parents be empowered to make the decisions regarding employment for their children under age 16 or another age?
  3. Do you agree with the federal District Court or the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Darby?
  4. Should volunteer work under the supervision of a nonprofit organization be exempt from child labor law requirements? (soccer referee v. construction of affordable houses)
  5. Should there be a requirement by the government for employers to monitor and report child employment?

History of Child Labor in the United States

Child Labor Laws are Under Attack in the United States

United States v. Darby

New Jersey Child Labor Laws

Child Labor in the Côte d’lvoire

U.S. State Department Report on Trafficking in Cote  d’Ivore in 2022

Harkin-Engel Protocol

The Framework for Private Enterprise in the United States

The government of the United States regulates businesses by taxing them. There are income taxes, employment taxes, excise taxes, and local and state taxes. The government also offers tax incentives for businesses to locate in areas of poverty and to hire veterans, women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.  The federal and state governments also regulate price increases for public utilities, credit and have laws to prevent monopolies or price-fixing.  Health and safety regulations are regulated to protect workers from injury, toxic substances, excessive noise, and a safe and clean environment. There are also regulations on equal pay for jobs with the same or similar skills and the hours worked. The government requires retirement programs for larger businesses and has laws to protect consumers.

The Framework for Private Enterprise in India

In India, it is in the interest of the government and private sector to improve the productive capacity of the country and its citizens. This improvement leads to real wage growth, more competition and increased consumption.

The top 5 companies in India have a total market value of 20% of India’s GDP.  The government needs these industries to create jobs.

Chips were originally developed for the American government and then were licensed out to benefit consumer technology products, Mobile networks were originally built for the defense need in America and Finland, and GPS was broad based by President Clinton after Russia shot down a Korean 747 for straying into their airspace.

India needs to further strengthen the governance of state-owned enterprises, simplify regulations, and reduce administrative burdens on firms. India should also review its institutions responsible for regulation and compliance.

  1. Should the primary focus of government regulation emphasize the protection of workers and consumers or to increase innovation and economic growth?
  2. Does the cost of regulation through the payment of taxes limit economic growth or is it necessary to develop a balanced economy?
  3. Investigate areas in public education that are regulated by the local, state, or federal government and identify which regulations are helpful and which are harmful to students and teachers?

Examples of Government Regulation of Business in the United States

Where does the Public Sector End and the Private Sector Begin?

Regulatory Reform in India

The Roosevelt Corollary (1904)

The Roosevelt Corollary of December 1904 stated that the United States would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the Western Hemisphere fulfilled their obligations to international creditors. The United States was concerned that other nations might take advantage of the default on debts by some countries in the Caribbean.  The United States considered the islands in the Caribbean to be of strategic commercial and military importance.  President Roosevelt’s position justified U.S. intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.

The United States is concerned about the increased economic investment by China in several countries in the South Pacific and the diplomatic changes by these island countries ending their support for Taiwan and agreements with China.

Since World War II the Pacific has largely enjoyed independence from foreign influence. There are 14 independent island countries in this area and although they are at risk of rising sea levels and natural disasters, they also have strategic military importance. This has all changed with China’s growing presence in the region.

Australia is an ally of the United States through the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). A military base by China would present a serious threat to its security. However, China’s interests may also be economic. China is investing in infrastructure projects in the South Pacific with investments on an equal level with Australia and the United States.

In 2022, China entered into a security agreement with the Solomon Islands. This agreement provides China with an operational military base about 2,000 miles from Australia. There is no definitive understanding of why China is increasing its presence in this region and the risks may be minimal. The importance for a conversation about civics is about  the right of a major global power to enter into secret or public diplomatic, military, or commercial agreements with other nations. For the United States, should our foreign policy regarding South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Guam, and Australia be determined by the Executive or Legislative Branch in our government?

China needs to consider the economic cost of its investments in these small islands that are in debt as the impact of rising sea levels is likely to limit their economy and increase their debt. Will the economic costs weaken instead of strengthening China in the future?

Australia also needs to re-evaluate its objectives for security as naval and air support from the United States and other countries may be limited by China’s presence in this area. The distance from the United States to Japan, Taiwan, and Australia is much further than it is for its rivals of North Korea, Russia, and China.

  1. Do countries have the right to extend their economic, military, or diplomatic influence to advance their own security or objectives? (Israel, Russia, China, Iran, United States, etc.)
  2. How should the United States determine its foreign policy when Congress and the President cannot agree?
  3. How important is geography in developing a country’s foreign policy?
  4. Does an authoritarian government have an advantage or disadvantage in developing its foreign policy?
  5. Do the foreign policies and laws for countries change as the 21st century military utilizes artificial intelligence and space?

President Theodore Roosevelt’s State of the Union Address: The Roosevelt Corollary (1904)

The Roosevelt Corollary (1904)

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

China’s Security Agreement with the Solomon Islands

U.S. and China Security Review Commission Report

Era 6 The Emergence of Modern America: Progressive Reforms (1890–1930)

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

The relationship between the individual and the state is present in every country, society, and civilization. Relevant questions about individual liberty, civic engagement, government authority, equality and justice, and protection are important for every demographic group in the population.  In your teaching of World History, consider the examples and questions provided below that should be familiar to students in the history of the United States with application to the experiences of others around the world.

These civic activities are designed to present civics in a global context as civic education happens in every country.  The design is flexible regarding using one of the activities, allowing students to explore multiple activities in groups, and as a lesson for a substitute teacher. The lessons are free, although a donation to the New Jersey Council for the Social Studies is greatly appreciated. www.njcss.org

Era 6 The Emergence of Modern America: Progressive Reforms (1890–1930)

The development of the industrial United States is a transformational period in our history. The United States became more industrial, urban, and diverse during the last quarter of the 19th century. The use of fossil fuels for energy led to mechanized farming, railroads changed the way people traveled and transported raw materials and goods, the demand for labor saw one of the largest migrations in world history to America, and laissez-faire economics provided opportunities for wealth while increasing the divide between the poor and rich. During this period local governments were challenged to meet the needs of large populations in urban areas regarding their health, safety, and education.  

Read the information below from the constitutions of the United States and Israel on the election of the head of State and discuss the similarities and differences. Until the 20th Amendment was ratified, the United States did not have a designated date for the transfer of power from one elected leader to the next.

Twentieth Amendment

Section 1

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. (See the 25th Amendment, ratified on February 10, 1967)

Section 4

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. Ratified: January 23, 1933 (See the 25th Amendment, ratified on February 10, 1967)

BASIC LAW. THE PRESIDENT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL (1964)

1. A President shall stand at the head of the State.

2.The place of residence of the President of the State shall be Jerusalem.

3.The President of the State shall be elected by the Knesset for seven years.The President will serve for one term only.

4.Every Israel national who is a resident of Israel is qualified to be a candidate for the office of President of the State.

5.The election of the President of the State shall be held not earlier than ninety days and not later than thirty days before the expiration of the period of tenure of the President in office. If the place of the President of the State falls vacant before the expiration of his period of tenure, the election shall be held within forty-five days from the day on which such place falls vacant. The Chairman of the Knesset, in consultation with the Vice-Chairmen, shall fix

the day of the election and shall notify it to all the members of the Knesset in writing at least three weeks in advance. If the day of the election does not fall in one of the session terms of the Knesset, the Chairman of the Knesset shall convene the Knesset for the election of the President of the State.

6. Proposal of Candidates (Amendment 8)

A proposal of a candidate for President of the State shall be submitted in writing to the Chairman of the Knesset, together with the consent of the candidate in writing, on the fourteenth day before the day of the election;

A member of the Knesset shall not sponsor the proposal of more than one candidate; A person that any ten or more members of the Knesset proposed his candidacy shall be candidate for President of the State, except if the number of sponsors decreased below ten because of the deletion of the name of a member of the Knesset as described in subsection (3);

Where a member of the Knesset sponsored the proposal of more than one candidate, the name of that member of the Knesset shall be deleted from the list of sponsors for all candidates he sponsored; Where the number of sponsors of a candidate decreased below ten because of the deletion of a name from the list of sponsors, a member of the Knesset who did not sponsor any proposal may add his name to the list of sponsors of that candidate, no later than eight days before the day of the election.

The Chairman of the Knesset shall notify all the members of the Knesset, in writing, not later than seven days before the day of the election, of every candidate proposed and of the names of the members of the Knesset who have proposed him and shall announce the candidates at the opening of the meeting at which the election is held.

7. The election of the President of the State shall be by secret ballot at a meeting of the Knesset assigned only for that purpose.

8.If there are two candidates or more, the candidate who has received the votes of a majority of the members of the Knesset is elected. If no candidate receives such a majority, a second ballot shall be held. At the second ballot only the two candidates who received the largest number of votes at the first ballot shall stand for election. The candidate who at the second ballot receives a majority of the votes of the members of the Knesset who take part in the voting and vote for one of the candidates is elected. If two candidates receive the same number of votes, voting shall be repeated.

If there is only one candidate, the ballot will be in favor or against him and he is elected if the number of votes in his favor outweighs the number of votes against him. If the number of votes in his favor equals the number of votes against him, a second ballot shall be held.

1. What was the main problem the 20th Amendment solved? Was this a significant concern at the time?

      2. How did the 20th Amendment solve that problem and what problems were not solved?

      3. Should the United States consider amending the Constitution to provide for the election of the president and vice-president by the House and Senate?

      4. Are the limitations or weaknesses in the way Israel is currently governed or is there system superior to others with popular elections?

      Presidential Term and Succession

      Date Changes for Presidency, Congress, and Succession

      Interpretation and Debate of the 20th Amendment

      Historical Background to the 20th Amendment

      Democracy and Elections in Israel

      Israel’s Elections

      Reforming the Israeli Electoral System

      Regulating communications in the United States has been going on since the Radio Act of 1912. The military, emergency responders, police, and entertainment companies each wanted to get their signals out over the airwaves to the right audiences without interference. The Radio Act of 1912 helped to establish a commission that would designate which airwaves would be for public use and which airwaves would be reserved for the various commercial users who needed them.

      In 1926, the Federal Radio Commission was established to help handle the growing complexities of the country’s radio needs. In 1934, Congress passed the Communications Act, which replaced the Federal Radio Commission with the Federal Communications Commission. The Communications Act also put telephone communications under the FCC’s control. The FCC broke up some of the communications monopolies, such as the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) which part of it became the American Broadcasting Company (ABC).  

      The FCC has been in the middle of controversial decisions. In 1948, the FCC put a freeze on awarding new television station licenses because the fast pace of licensing prior to 1948 had created conflicts with the signals. The freeze was only supposed to last a few months but was extended to four years.

      The breakup of the telephone monopoly AT&T into a series of smaller companies is another example of a controversial decision. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed competition by mandating that the major carriers allow new companies to lease services off of their lines and they could then sell those services to customers.

      Another area where the FCC has been criticized is in regulating the content (“decency”) of radio and television broadcasts. There was an incident at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show when the wardrobe of Janet Jackson malfunctioned, and part of her breast was exposed. The FCC does not set the content standards for movies but has the authority to issue fines.

      Since 2014, the idea of “net neutrality” has been before the federal courts regarding an open and free internet and permission for providers to charge subscription fees.

      British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

      Daily broadcasting by the BBC began on November 14, 1922. John Reith was appointed as the director. There were no rules or standards to guide him. He began experimenting and published the Radio Times.

      The BBC was established by Royal Charter as the British Broadcasting Corporation in 1927. Sir John Reith became the first Director-General. The Charter defined the BBC’s objectives, powers and obligations. It is mainly concerned with broad issues of policy, while the Director-General and senior staff are responsible for detailed fulfilment of that policy.

      1. Is the regulation of radio, television, telephone and internet communications democratic?
      2. Should the freedom of speech be unlimited in the United States or does the government have the responsibility and authority to control the content and images?
      3. Do the Regulatory Agencies of the United States promote the general welfare, or do they restrict the blessings of liberty?
      4. Are monopolies in the communications and technology industries justified because of the expense and protection of patents?
      5. Does the United Kingdom have a state sponsored news media in the BBC?
      6. Which country’s policies on communications do you agree with? Why?

      BBC Guidelines for Inappropriate Content

      The Communications Act of 1934

      History of the Federal Communications Commission

      History of Commercial Radio

      Suez Canal Crisis (1956)

      On July 26, 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser announced the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company, which was jointly operated by a British and French company since its construction in 1869. The British and French held secret military consultations with Israel, who regarded Nasser as a threat to its security. Israeli forces attacked Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula on October 29, 1956, advancing to within 10 miles of the Suez Canal. Britain and France landed troops of their own a few days later.

      The relations between the United States and Britain weakened when Britain bombed Egypt over their blockade of the Suez Canal. The United Nations threatened Britain with sanctions if there were any civilian casualties. This led to economic panic and Britain faced having to devalue its currency. President Eisenhower was shocked that he was not informed of the British military response and put pressure on the International Monetary Fund to deny Britain any financial assistance. The British reluctantly accepted a UN proposed ceasefire. Under Resolution 1001 on 7 November 1956 the United Nations deployed an emergency force (UNEF) of peacekeepers into Egypt.

      The canal was closed to traffic for five months by ships sunk by the Egyptians during the operations. British access to fuel and oil became limited and resulted in shortages. Egypt maintained control of the canal with the support of the United Nations and the United States. Under huge domestic pressure and suffering ill-health Eden resigned in January 1957, less than two years after becoming prime minister.

      1. Does the United States have a responsibility to support its allies even when our policies do not agree with their policies or actions?
      2. Did President Eisenhower overstep his authority by asking for economic sanctions against Britain?
      3. Did President Roosevelt overstep his constitutional authority in signing the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty or was the overstep committed by the Philip Bunau-Varilla, Panama’s ambassador to the United States?
      4. In matters of foreign policy, do economic interests justify military actions?

      History of the Panama Canal

      The Panama Canal

      International Law and the Panama Canal

      The Suez Canal Crisis

      Why was the Suez Canal Crisis Important?

      Poll Taxes and the 24th Amendment

      The US Constitution leaves voter qualifications, except for age, to individual states. By the mid-19th century, however, most states did not limit voting by property ownership or poll taxes. A poll tax of $2 in 1962 would convert to approximately $17 in 2020 dollars. After the ratification of the 15th Amendment, in an attempt to limit Black voter registration and turnout, many states re-established poll taxes. The combination of poll taxes, literacy tests, White primaries (permitting only Whites to vote in primary elections), intimidation, violence, and disqualification of people convicted of felonies succeeded in reducing voter participation.

      In his 1962 State of the Union Address, President Kennedy put the issue on the national agenda when he called for the elimination of poll taxes and literacy tests, stating that voting rights “should no longer be denied through such arbitrary devices on a local level.” The proposal to ban literacy tests did not make it past a Senate filibuster, but after debating the substance of the proposal to end the poll tax and whether or not the tax should be eliminated by a Constitutional amendment, Congress passed the 24th Amendment, abolishing poll taxes in federal elections on August 27, 1962.

      The passage of the 24th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not completely eliminate the obstacles for voter registration or voting. On March 24, 1966, the Supreme Court ruled in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that poll taxes could not be collected in any election, including state and local elections, since they violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote but enforcement is dependent on congressional legislation. To what extent are citizens denied the right to vote today?

      Chartist Movement in the United Kingdom

      In 1838 a People’s Charter was drawn up for the London Working Men’s Association (LWMA) by William Lovett and Francis Place, two self-educated radicals, in consultation with other members of LWMA. The Charter had six demands:

      All men to have the vote (universal manhood suffrage)

      Voting should take place by secret ballot.

      Parliamentary elections every year, not once every five years

      Constituencies should be of equal size.

      Members of Parliament should be paid.

      The property qualification for becoming a Member of Parliament should be abolished.

      The Chartists’ petition was presented to the House of Commons with over 1.25 million signatures. It was rejected by Parliament. This provoked unrest which was swiftly crushed by the authorities. A second petition was presented in May 1842, signed by over three million people but again it was rejected, and further unrest and arrests followed. In April 1848 a third and final petition was presented. The third petition was also rejected but there were no protests. Why did this movement fail to complete its objectives?

      1. Should the requirement of having a birth certificate or another state ID document as proof of residency a modern-day poll tax? In all states these documents have a cost.
      2. Does the Voting Rights Act of 1965 need to be updated with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement act?
      3. Was the poll tax a financial burden on a low-income family? (In today’s currency about $34 for two adults)
      4. What led to the rise of the Chartists Movement?
      5. Why did the Chartist Movement fail to achieve its objectives?
      6. With the many criticisms of a democracy and a republic, is it the preferred form of government?

      Barriers to Voting: Poll Taxes

      Abolition of Poll Taxes: 24th Amendment

      Voting Rights for African Americans

      Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

      Voting Rights Act of 1965

      The Chartist Movement

      The Importance of the Chartist Movement

      Teaching with Documents: Wallace’s Defense of Segregation

      Alabama Governor George Wallace delivers his first inaugural address.

      In Freedom’s Dominion: A Saga of White Resistance to Federal Power (Basic Books, 2002), Jefferson Cowie focused on the history Barbour County, Alabama, to document the way a deeply self-serving concept of “freedom” was used by whites to justify racist policies. It was all about their “freedom.” White freedom meant freedom from government restraints; freedom from taxes to support public institutions and services; freedom to own and use guns; and freedom to mistreat African Americans without federal intervention. White freedom, dating to the era of Black enslavement and Jim Crow segregation, equated with racism. Source:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/books/review/freedoms-dominion-jefferson-cowie.html

      Sadly, fear of federal imposition on white freedom remains alive and well today and was part of the justification for the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol building in Washington DC and is the ideological underpinning for the attack on Critical Race Theory by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and other conservative Republicans. When DeSantis was reelected in November 2022, he declared that his election signified “Freedom is here to stay!” Polls repeatedly show that a large majority of white voters who identify as Republican believe that there is discrimination against white people in the United States and that little or nothing needs to be done to ensure equal rights for African Americans and other minority groups.

      Sources: https://www.local10.com/vote-2022/2022/11/08/is-desantis-on-path-to-remain-governor-of-florida/https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/433270-poll-republicans-and-democrats-differ-strongly-on-whether-white/https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/08/12/deep-divisions-in-americans-views-of-nations-racial-history-and-how-to-address-it/

      Barbour County’s best-known native son was George Wallace, Governor of Alabama from 1963 to 1967, 1971 to 1979, and 1983 to 1987. Wallace was also a candidate for President of the United States four times, both in Democratic Party primaries and as an independent candidate. In June 1963, while Governor of Alabama, Wallace staged standing in the entrance to the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa to block the enrollment of Black students. In defiance of a federal court order, he accused the federal government of usurping state authority in the field of education by calling for desegregation. Wallace finally backed down when the Kennedy Administration federalized Units of the 31st (Dixie) Division of the Alabama National Guard.

      Source: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/race/061263race-ra.html

      For Black History Month, students, Black, white, Asian, and Latinx, should read texts and listen to speeches by inspiring Black authors and orators. But to understand the depth of racism in the past and today, they also need to read and understand racist texts that defended slavery and racial segregation. In his January 1963 inaugural address, George Wallace, as the newly elected governor of Alabama, issued a defiant defense of racial segregation. At the time, only fourteen percent of eligible Black citizens were registered to vote in Alabama although at least 30% of the population was Black. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and hostile registrars effectively ensured white supremacy, white freedom, in the state. Sources: https://rediscovering-black-history.blogs.archives.gov/2016/10/25/voting-rights-in-the-early-1960s-registering-who-they-wanted-to/; http://www.bplonline.org/resources/government/AlabamaPopulation.aspx

      “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” (1963)

      By Alabama Governor George Wallace

      A. “Before I begin my talk with you, I want to ask you for a few minutes patience while I say something that is on my heart: I want to thank those home folks of my county who first gave an anxious country boy his opportunity to serve in State politics. I shall always owe a lot to those who gave me that first opportunity to serve . . . This is the day of my Inauguration as Governor of the State of Alabama. And on this day I feel a deep obligation to renew my pledges, my covenants with you . . . the people of this great state.”

      B. “General Robert E. Lee said that ‘duty’ is the sublimest word on the English language and I have come, increasingly, to realize what he meant. I SHALL do my duty to you, God helping . . . to every man, to every woman . . . yes, to every child in this state . . . I shall fulfill my duty in working hard to bring industry into our state, not only by maintaining an honest, sober and free­ enterprise climate of government in which industry can have confidence . . . but in going out and getting it . . . so that our people can have industrial jobs in Alabama and provide a better life for their children.”

      C. “Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo­ Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom­ loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.”

      1. Who did Wallace quote on the importance of “duty”? What signal was Wallace sending to his audience by quoting him?
      2. What other references does Wallace make in the speech to ensure his audience understands his political point of view?
      3. How does Wallace propose to battle “tyranny” and defend “freedom”?
      4. Wallace pledged to honor “covenants with you . . . the people of this great state.” In your opinion, to who was Wallace referring? What evidence in the text supports this interpretation?

      New Jersey Women Who Belong in the Curriculum

      Katharine E. White (1906-1985). White was Mayor of Red Bank from 1951 to 1956 and then was chairman of the New Jersey Highway Authority. From 1964 until 1968 she was United States Ambassador to Denmark. Source: https://dk.usembassy.gov/ambassador-katharine-elkus-white/

      United States Foreign Policy History and Resource Guide

      The Vietnam Memorial Wall and Women’s Memorial statue in Washington DC.

      This website is designed with three purposes in mind. One is to provide a coherent overview of United States foreign policies, covering the nation’s wars, military interventions, and major doctrines over the course of some 250 years. While written for the general public and undergraduate students, it can be adapted for use in high schools. Each entry draws on the work of experts in the area of study, summarizing major developments, analyzing causes and contexts, and providing links to additional information and resources. 

      The second purpose is to examine great debates over U.S. foreign policies and wars, focusing especially on leaders and movements advocating peace and diplomacy. Controversy has been the hallmark of U.S. foreign policy from the War for Independence to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the 21st century.

      The third purpose is to evaluate U.S. foreign policies and wars from a principled perspective, one that reflects “just war” and international humanitarian norms today. This is a history about the United States’ role in the world, but it does not define “success” and “progress” in terms of the advancement of national power and interests, even the winning of wars.

      The website was launched in October 2015 by Roger Peace.  The Historians for Peace and Democracy became a sponsor the following month, and the Peace History Society, in June 2016. Contributors include Brian D’Haeseleer, Assistant Professor of U.S. History at Lyon College; Charles Howlett, Professor of Education Emeritus at Molloy College; Jeremy Kuzmarov, managing editor for CovertAction Magazine; John Marciano, Professor Emeritus at the State University of New York at Cortland; Anne Meisenzahl, a adult education teacher;  Roger Peace, author of A Call to Conscience: The Anti-Contra War Campaign; Elizabeth Schmidt, Professor Emeritus of history at Loyola University Maryland; and Virginia Williams, director of the Peace, Justice, & Conflict Resolution Studies program at Winthrop University. 

      The website has a Chronology of U.S. Foreign Policy, 1775-2021 with links to pages with documents from the War of 1812 through the 21st century “War on Terror.”

      There is no shortage of books, articles, and websites addressing the history of United States foreign policy. There is nevertheless, within the United States, a dearth of understanding and often knowledge about the subject. This is due in part to popular nationalistic history, which tends to obscure, overwrite, and sometimes whitewash actual history. 

      The central assumption of this celebratory national history is that America “has been a unique and unrivaled force for good in the world,” as the historian Christian Appy described it. This assumption underpins the more muscular belief that the more power the U.S. acquires and wields in the world, the better. In other words, the U.S. should rightfully be the dominant military power in the world, given its benefic intentions and noble ideals. This flattering self-image is often buttressed by depictions of America’s opponents as moral pariahs – aggressors, oppressors, “enemies of freedom.” 

      Celebratory national history is deeply rooted in American culture. As may be seen in the second sentence of the war memorial below, American armed forces are typically portrayed as fighting “the forces of tyranny” and upholding the principles of liberty, dignity, and democracy.

      America’s opposition to “tyranny” has a long ideological pedigree. In the Declaration of Independence of 1776, Patriot rebels denounced the King of Great Britain for “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” In fact, the British objective was to raise revenue from the colonies and curtail their smuggling. However oppressive particular acts, the British government was nonetheless the most democratic in Europe, with an elected House of Commons and established rights for Englishmen that had evolved over a 600-year period. The new American government continued to build on this democratic tradition, as did the British themselves. The idea that America represented “freedom” as opposed to “tyranny” nonetheless became an ideological fixture in the new nation, invoking a virtuous and noble national identity.

      In its second 100 years of existence, the United States became a world power, joining the ranks of Old World empires such as Great Britain. As the U.S. prepared to militarily intervene in Cuba and the Philippines in 1898, President William McKinley declared, “We intervene not for conquest. We intervene for humanity’s sake” and to “earn the praises of every lover of freedom the world over.” Most lovers of freedom, however, denounced subsequent U.S. actions. The U.S. turned Cuba into an American “protectorate,” and the Philippines into an American colony. Rather than fighting to uphold freedom, the U.S. fought to suppress Filipino independence – at a cost of some 200,000 Filipino and 4,300 American lives.

      A half-century later, at the outset of the Cold War, President Harry Truman asserted that the United States must “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Truman highlighted the tyranny of the Soviet Union and its alleged threat to Greece and Turkey, but he utterly ignored the more widespread tyranny of European domination over most of Asia and Africa. In the case of Vietnam, the U.S. opted to side with the oppressor, aiding French efforts to re-conquer the country. Truman’s fateful decision in 1950 led to direct U.S. involvement in Vietnam fifteen years later.

      In 1961, President John F. Kennedy famously proclaimed that the United States would “pay any price, bear any burden . . . to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” These appealing words reminded Americans of their mythic moral identity, but they hardly guided U.S. foreign policy. During the long Cold War (1946-91), the U.S. provided military and economic aid to a host of dictatorial and repressive regimes, including those in Cuba (before Fidel Castro assumed power), Nicaragua, Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina, Ecuador, Chile, Brazil, Zaire, Somalia, South Africa, Turkey, Greece, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, South Korea, South Vietnam, and the Philippines. The U.S. also employed covert action to help overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile. Despite propping up authoritarian governments and undermining democratic ones, U.S. leaders described their allies as the “free world.”

      In the 21st century, the rhetoric of fighting tyranny and upholding freedom has been grafted onto the “War on Terror,” declared by President George W. Bush in the wake of terrorist attacks in the U.S. on September 11, 2001. The attacks were carried out by individuals from Saudi Arabia and other friendly Arab states, but Bush directed public fears and anger toward wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Unable to find weapons of mass destruction or ties to al Qaeda in Iraq, Bush reverted to the standard American rationale – promoting freedom. “As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish,” he declared on November 7, 2003, “it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export.” 

      Today, the U.S. is the world’s sole “superpower,” with the largest military budget, the most sophisticated weaponry, a network of over 700 military bases worldwide, and the capability to militarily intervene in other nations at will. The latter includes the frequent use of armed drones to assassinate suspected terrorists in countries with which the U.S. is not at war. Americans on the whole do not regard this overwhelming military power as a threat to other nations or global stability. British historian Nial Ferguson has commented that the “United States is an empire in every sense but one, and that one sense is that it doesn’t recognize itself as such.” The diplomatic historian William Appleman Williams described this dominant American worldview as “imperial self-deception.” 

      Teaching “What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?” by Frederick Douglass: A Two-Part Student Led Lesson

      Reprinted with permission (https://historyideasandlessons.substack.com/p/teaching-what-to-the-slave-is-the-66e?r=710fi&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)

      Now that Ron DeSantis has caused a widespread walkout by Florida college students defending both their right to diversity and the free exchange of ideas in the classroom, and he virtually outlawed any teaching of conflict in Black history, it is evident that he will run into serious roadblocks in his campaign to rule the whole country with an iron fist. The increasingly cloudy and claustrophobic atmosphere emanating from the formerly sunny state of Florida begs for an eloquent and big-hearted response. The following two-day student-led lesson will introduce American history students to one of our leading intellectuals and, arguably, the greatest speaker of the 19th century: America’s teacher, Frederick Douglass. He never fails to impress.

      The assignment I give the students for the first day is to download and read the first 10 pages of “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” They choose one sentence from each page for homework, write it down on a separate sheet of paper, and explain underneath each one why they chose it. They are to read to the end of the top paragraph of the second column of page 10. The students are asked to underline their sentences on the PDF. It is necessary to collect the homework at the beginning of the class in order to make sure each one of them did their own work. Since they had underlined their sentences on the PDF, the students did not need their homework for class. I asked the students to write the first 5 words of those sentences on the blackboard. I picked the students randomly by jumping around asking for their fifth sentence or their first sentence or their eighth sentence and so on. Each student was to sign their name and sit down. Before class I had drawn 10 vertical lines with one horizontal line across the middle, forming 20 boxes on the board for the students to write in. I placed two pieces of chalk under each vertical group of two boxes so that the writing could go faster. The teacher should know the speech inside and out to create an ease of discussion. It makes the class more interesting. While the students were writing the words they had to start at the beginning of their sentence and make sure that no one else had picked the same sentence. From the time the students were entering the class through the writing on the board, I played a song by the Melodians called “By the Rivers of Babylon.”

      Once the students had finished writing on the board, they sat down, and I asked literally “Who has comments or questions?” Nothing more: no suggestions or hints. Usually, they remarked how impressed they were by Douglass’ intelligence and language, or they mentioned how understandable the speech was. They found it a shock to read the work of an escaped slave who could write with clarity and on such a high level of complexity. After the comments died down, I would ask the class to turn to page 6 and look at the bold indented passage in the first column. The students recognize the words of the tune they had just listened to. They appeared in the speech from 1852! I played the song again and asked why Douglass had quoted the verse. Some students might have heard the song because their parents or grandparents had played it at home: It is from the soundtrack of the movie “The Harder they Come” from 1972. Alternatively, some might know that it is the Old Testament Psalm 137 that Douglass quoted. I asked if there were any words they did not understand in the passage, or if someone had picked that passage or would like to comment on it, even if they had not picked it. Someone might want to know what Zion was or eventually someone would notice that the exiled Jews were asked to sing one of the songs of Zion, their homeland. Many thousands of Jews were enslaved in Babylon from 586 BCE to about 538 BCE. It was great insult to be asked to sing for their enslavers the students could conclude. Africa is Zion for Douglass someone might say.

      Now it was time to begin analyzing the sentences that the members of the class had chosen. As I called on the students to read their sentences, I asked them to point out the page, the column, and first words of the paragraph where the sentence appeared. The students must read slowly and loudly so that the others can get the meaning. “Why did you choose that?” I asked. Often the student explained what it meant but not what attracted them to it. I would ask what they thought or why they liked it or impressed them or not. Sometimes, I would ask who else wanted to comment, but it is not possible to do that more than a few times because there is not enough time in a period to keep discussing one sentence. The students did not often choose the long period sentences that took up whole paragraphs. Most of those we would pick up later because they are the emotional heart of the speech.

      When there is time at the end of each class, I asked the students for their favorite sentences and had them read these out loud. The speech is so powerful partly because the rhythm of the words, the internal rhymes and alliterations drive you on. Reading the “Fourth of July Oration” is a real learning experience: Douglass employs grand and deeply affecting rhetoric to illuminate wrongs of slavery. It also shows the great power of the Declaration of Independence despite its obvious hypocrisy. These contradictions have led to tragic cancellations of the Declaration by Nikole Hannah-Jones of The 1619 Project and others. The importance of the study of slavery and of the Declaration has been confused by these journalists who are not trained historians.

      In the course of this exposition of my lesson on Douglass’s speech, I will discuss sentences frequently chosen by the students. We had to leave out much of the speech, but what we did in class explored the breadth and depth of the oration giving the students giving them the confidence that they had discussed the work in detail and that they had directed the learning themselves. I had them write a paper on the speech by first summarizing it, choosing 2 ideas in the speech and explaining what each meant and why they were important. They often produced wonderful papers because we had gone over the Oration in sufficient detail. They were comfortable in their interpretations and almost everyone was excited by the assignment. I chose one essay each year to go in our social studies magazine.

      Now we are ready to dive into the speech itself.

      At the beginning of the Oration, Douglass confesses his trepidations about the task before him. Despite his close relationship with the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society and the Corinthian Hall, where he had spoken many times, he declared, “The fact is ladies and gentlemen the distance between this platform and the plantation from which I escaped, is considerable. . .  That I am here today is a matter of astonishment as well as gratitude.” The students will know that he was born into slavery. “This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the Fourth of July.” “Why did you choose that?” I asked. The students will realize he is not speaking on July 4th. Instead, he said that he is protesting the day right from the start. Many versions of the speech on the web, in fact, begin with that sentence. He continues, “It is the birthday of your political independence and political freedom,” starkly using the second person plural that he was not speaking of his liberation, but theirs. All this the students can glean after you ask why did you choose that? He then compares the day to Passover when the Jews, the “emancipated people of God,” were delivered from bondage in Egypt. The students will notice that there are numerous quotes from and references to the Bible.

      Douglass’ writing is so densely packed that the ideas rush at you as you read. He points out that the country is “young,” only “76 years old,” in 1852; That it is a topic for rejoicing, noting that a young river that can change its course more easily than an old river or a country thousands of years old. He adds that the nation is still in the “impressible stage of its existence . . . Great rivers are not easily torn from their channels worn deep by the ages . . . [but while] refreshing and fertilizing the earth . . . they may also rise in wrath and fury and bear away on their angry waves the accumulated wealth of years toil and hardship. . . As with rivers so with nations.” Recently floods and tornadoes have been ravaging wide swaths of land and forests in nearly every part of the US. From the waters and winds of Hurricane Katrina to the floods of Hurricane Sandy to the fires and droughts in the far West, we have seen unprecedented levels of destruction. Eliciting these resonances with open-ended questions such as why did you choose that or what does that remind you of should be straight forward. At some point in discussing the speech it will be clear that Douglass is setting the context for discussing the effects of the multifarious and wholly predictable dangers of slavery to the body politic of the young nation.

      In the second paragraph of the second page, he turns to his duty to the 4th of July itself. Addressing his “Fellow citizens,” he introduces the history of the Revolution explaining that in 1776 “your fathers were British subjects” who “esteemed the English Government as the home government” which “imposed upon…its colonial children such restraints, burdens and limitations…it deemed wise, right and proper.” However, these acts produced a widespread reaction by the future revolutionists not “fashionable in its day” because the colonists did not believe in the “infallibility of government” but “pronounced the measures unjust, unreasonable and oppressive.”

      “To side with the right against the wrong, the weak against the strong and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit and one which seems unfashionable in our day . . .” Here, is the first burst of eloquence from Frederick Douglass. The internal rhyme and the rhythm of these lines stand out. Douglass could astound the listener in just a few words. His eloquence matched the gravity of the cause. His description of the Stamp Act protests and the protests against the Townshend Acts and the Tea Tax bring us back to the streets and the harbors of our colonial past connecting his listeners to our heritage of activism.

      But the colonists “saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn . . . As the sheet anchor [heaviest anchor] takes a firmer hold when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure.” But “like the Pharaoh whose hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of . . . Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men. They did not go mad . . . They became restive under this treatment . . . With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here the (startling) idea of the separation of the colonies from Britain was born!” However, the opposition Loyalists or Tories “hate all changes . . .  (b)ut silver gold and copper change! . . . amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on and the country with it.” Are there words here you do not know, I ask. Mad of course refers to mental illness and restive means to be agitated. Vociferations are chants shouted by the demonstrators.

      The revolutionists’ solution was to “solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states and that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.” This is the famous core of the Declaration by Richard Henry Lee that is in the penultimate paragraph of the document. It rings with preternatural force shocking the sleepy 18th century kings and subjects in the monarchies of Europe. Many American and British historians who still claim in 2023 that the Americans were provincials who had no good reason to rebel, but over the course of the next 7 years the British learned they had to accept the wishes of these “naive” colonists.

      Douglass continues “I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt [fastener] to the chain of your nation’s destiny, so, indeed I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions in all places, against all foes and at whatever cost.” Students will realize that Douglass had great respect for the Declaration and the dogged persistence of the revolutionary forces.

      Douglass says, “My business, if I have any this day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and His cause is the ever-living now.” A phrase I had to look up to confirm that it was Douglass”! “We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present . . . Washington could not die until he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood and the traders in the bodies and souls of men shout — ‘We have Washington to our father.’– Alas that it should be so, yet so it is. ‘The evil that men do, lives after them, The good is oft’ interred in their bones.’” Douglass challenges his audience with that quote from Shakespeare: Mark Antony’s funeral oration for Julius Caesar.

      He praises Washington for freeing some of his stolen human “property” before he died, but immediately pulls the compliment back by condemning the first president’s admirers for employing enslaved workers to build the Washington monument. “Can anyone comment on that?” I asked the students. Some members of the class might know that later the capitol building and the White House were also built by slaves. Now he is done with his task of recalling the Fourth of July.

      “Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? . . . I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us . . . The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. to drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me by asking me to speak here today?”

      In discussing these lines above someone will point out that the stripes are the wounds caused by whips and also are the stripes on the flag. This was a common abolitionist trope utilized even in an Abecedarium, an alphabet book for children. 

      “Are there any words you do not know?” I asked. The students will probably not know what a pale is. Those were the segregated areas where Jews were confined in the shtetls of Russian-Poland, but also more precisely in this case the English confined themselves in a pale after conquering Northern Ireland. The idea of “American exceptionalism” was clearly a commonplace in 1852. His sarcastic description of the “grand illuminated temple of liberty” is shocking to see in his 1852 speech. Americans, even then, had a bloated idea of the purity of American democracy. He goes right for the jugular: Douglass states his thesis as his duty to defend the slave and his condition.

      He refers in the paragraph above the Psalm to the violent retribution that Yahweh ( a Jewish name for God) at the Hebrews’ request to be visited upon the Babylonians for enslaving them and mocking them, which is rarely quoted by Christians. The shocking lines which Douglass avoided are in the King James Version of the Old Testament. 

      Then he quotes the first parts of Psalm 137 that we have encountered before: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.”

      I asked the students to recall the song we heard at the beginning of the class in the light of our analysis so far. “How can you interpret these words now?” I asked. The students will conclude that the enslaved Jews were mocked by the Babylonians who asked them to sing a song of their homeland, Zion – just as he is in America singing the praises of the white people’s freedom document while his people are enslaved.

      “My subject, then fellow-citizens is American slavery. I shall see this day . . . from the slave’s point of view . . . I do not hesitate to declare… that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than it does on this 4th of July! . . . (T)he conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.” He dares to “call into question and to denounce . . . everything that serves to perpetuate slavery, the great sin and shame of America.” Then, quoting his teacher, William Lloyd Garrison, “’I will not equivocate, I will not excuse’ . . . and yet no one word shall escape me that any man whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.”

      The students will conclude that the Declaration from the past is the founding document but has been desecrated and tossed aside by the slave holders in power in the country from then, through the present and into the future. Anyone who finds slavery to be repugnant will discern the truth in his arguments.

      In order to continue with the lesson, over the next few pages (from the last paragraph of 6 to the middle of the second column on page 9), every sentence and every word is crafted to thrill the reader with Douglass’s intelligence and skill and cringe in horror as he speaks the truth of the brutality of American slavery. Each passage is another lesson in the illogic of the excuses for the system and cruel treatment perpetrated on the Black population in our so-called democratic and freedom-loving land. I will provide the teacher with sentences and clauses comprising a bare bones narrative. But most of this, must be read aloud in class. These paragraphs are too dramatic and inspiring to skip over. Here is a precis of the next few pages. I quote some of the sentences, but the full power is in the reading. Be sure to have the students read them. They will be shocked at how the words help them keep the rhythm with both understanding and expression: The images, the sounds, and the meters carry them, pushing and pulling them along. Douglass’s energy is so intense that the quotes never lose their power.

      “Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? . . . Nobody doubts it . . . There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man . . . (no matter how ignorant he be), . . . (acknowledging) that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being . . . It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write… When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the… dogs in your streets, (or) when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!”

      When you ask how the students understand this sentence you are not done until they can say “Even animals see the enslaved as men, but the slaveholders cannot.” The students discover that the enslaved are expected to know right from wrong, but animals are not expected to. “For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, . . . having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, . . . living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, . . . we are called upon to prove that we are men! . . . Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body?”

      All the verbs, all the verbs strung together: An astonishing effect! So many powerful images in this paragraph.

      “There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.”

      Here we must stop and make sure the last thought is clear. The students must interpret this last sentence. Is there a word you do not know in this? A canopy is a covering. All men are beneath the canopy of heaven. The analysis is not complete until the students state that no man wants to be a slave. The listeners are cornered. The orator has taken their minds hostage.

      And now one of the most powerful passages of all. “[T]o work them without wages . . . to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families.” The paragraph is a masterpiece. This is a sonorous but brutal description of violence complete with startling images, crafted with alliterations and internal rhymes. As above the reader must ask: Is he arguing or not while he claims not to argue at all? “What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? . . . Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is past.”

      And now the most famous paragraph: “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless . . . your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.”

      “How do you comment on this?” I asked. It is a perfect description of systemic racism: Incontrovertible intersectionality. It is where Governor DeSantis’s views come to die.

      “Go where you may, . . . for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. Take the American slave-trade, . . . This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic.”

      Here Douglass refers to the euphemism, “the peculiar institution,” which is supposed to assuage the guilt of the leaders of the so-called southern “civilization.” It is the hackneyed trope of a racist attempting to endear himself to his audience by turning slavery into a peccadillo. Continuing, he quotes the proposed paragraph written by Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence but rejected by the Continental Congress calling slavery “piracy” [manstealing] and “execrable commerce.” “Are there words here you do not know?” I asked. Excrement is human waste. Nearing the end of this paragraph, he denounces the scheme of colonization that our “colored brethren should leave this country and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa!”

      “Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, (The slave drivers) perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock…They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. . . Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! . . . suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on.”

      The students will comment that this paragraph is filled with images and rings with sounds of whips and clanging chains. The powerful ideas are matched by the thundering rhetoric keep you on the edge of your seat.

      Then: “I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched…this murderous traffic (which) is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit . . . My soul sickens at the sight.”

      Students will see how he brings this experience directly to our hearts. Is this the land your fathers loved, the freedom which they toiled to win? Is this the earth whereon they moved? Are these the graves they slumber in? Students will react to the emotion in the lines of his childhood memories. The paragraph and the lines of the poem are poignance beyond measure. The lines by the abolitionist poet, John Greenleaf Whittier, are a tribute to the lost glory of the American promise. It can make the reader cry. When activists say that the “personal is political” there is no better example than this memory of Douglass’s childhood traumas. This concludes the first day of the lesson.

      The second day I would ask the students to finish the speech, choosing 5 more sentences from pages 11 to 15 and to find places in the first 10 pages that explain that the slave is a man. They also were asked to point out the structure of the speech: where does the introduction end and the conclusion begin? Where is the thesis? Here we discussed the major sections of the speech which they could identify as the introduction, the Revolution, the section in which the thesis is stated and the proofs of why the slave is a man and why slavery is wrong. The speech’s final sections Douglass argues that slavery is not divine, examines the politics of slavery, and the Constitution, delivers a summary, and a peroration (conclusion).

      “But a still more inhumane, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized . . .  (T)he Mason & Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves . . . the liberty and person of every man are put in peril…. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, for black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, not religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes mercy to them a crime; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American judge gets ten dollars for every victim he consigns to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so.”

      “How can you comment on this?” I asked. This bribe is rarely mentioned in the standard discussion of the odious Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which of course, was part of the Compromise of 1850. In 2021 the vicious Texas anti-abortion bill borrowed its form and method of enforcement to this law. The reward of $10,000 has been substituted for the $10 in the 19th century law. It deputizes the whole population of Texas to arrest anyone who aids in arranging for an abortion. Douglass points out that the magistrates for the fugitive slave law were acting like the Protestant, John Knox, denouncing the Catholic supporters of Mary Queen of Scots who were threatening to murder Queen Elizabeth.

      The leading American ministers “have taught that man may properly be a slave that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God . . . and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.” “How do you think about this,” I asked. Black men slave or free walking down the street even in the North were subject to false identification, imprisonment, and enslavement. It became a religious duty to show no mercy! What an abomination and evisceration of religious belief and practice. Are these Evangelical Christians in the Texas legislature or in 1852 practicing the teachings of mercy and forgiveness?

      Douglass answers the question: “For my part, I would say, Welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything—in preference to the gospel, as preached by those divines. They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion.”

      “Do you know these names,” I asked? Some students might know Thomas Paine or Voltaire. Bolingbroke was also a free thinker, an 18th century term for atheists, agnostics, and deists. Here Douglass claims he would favor these anti-slavery free thinkers, Thomas Paine, and Voltaire and he adds the dissenter Viscount Bolingbroke, claiming they were all three at least sympathetic to the plight of the enslaved. If students have a question, bowels of compassion refers to the deepest recesses of the human body, a common 18th and 19th century expression. These last lines are really shocking coming from such a religious man as Frederick Douglass.

      “At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness.” “How would you interpret that,” I asked. The students will come to the conclusion that Douglass is emphasizing the hypocrisy of the leaders of the congregations and denominations in the United States.

      Douglass continues: “The American theologian, Albert Barnes uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that ‘There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.’” “How do you understand that?” I asked. The students will reach a conclusion that this is a very broad statement. It is a condemnation undercutting all the pronouncements of the pro-slavery divines. In contemporary terms, this is a thought based in the ideas of systemic racism and embedded in the American economy and society. It is an example of intersectionality between religion and politics, an unmistakable interdependence, however much Ron DeSantis might argue to the contrary. In a previous passage, Douglass had pointed out that there were many minister abolitionists in Britain where the monarchy opposed slavery since the 1820s but very few in America where the weight of the church was behind the slaveholders. Above on page 12 of the speech he calls them out: the many pro-slavery American ministers and the few anti-slavery heroes in the United States.

      And now we are coming to the ending of the speech. There are just two topics left before the Summary and Conclusion: America’s hypocrisy toward foreign nations and the nature of the Constitution.

      Douglass turns to yet another theater of hypocrisy in the United States. “Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization . . . You hurl your anathemas [condemnations] at the crowned headed tyrants of Russia and Austria, and pride yourselves on your democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and bodyguards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina. You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them . . . You profess to believe ‘that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth’ . . . yet, you hold securely, in a bondage [a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country] which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson ‘is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose’.”

      The students will understand that Douglass contrasted the boasts of equality including in the Declaration of Independence that “‘all men are created equal’ yet (they) steal Black wages and deny the common ancestry of Adam that all men are of one blood.” “How do you interpret that quote from the Bible?” I asked. The students will conclude that a single origin for all humanity [Adam], which we now know to be African, proves the equality of all men. Finally, Douglass quotes Jefferson’s comments in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia, on the oppression of the enslaved as being worse than the so-called slavery of the Patriots to England.

      If a student chooses the sentence containing “as it ought to be interpreted the Constitution is a glorious liberty document,” it is likely they will not agree with Douglass. Currently, almost all textbooks and historians contend that the Constitution is pro-slavery. Douglass’s interpretation is frankly a surprise for Americans even in 2023. The great abolitionist has been criticized for the latter statement by everyone from William Lloyd Garrison in the 1850s to Nicole Hannah-Jones in The 1619 Project, but his argument has a more complex basis that has not been brought to light except in the most recent academic monographs on abolitionism. 

      Douglass debated for more than two years until he became exhausted with his friend and ardent supporter, Gerrit Smith, whether there existed a morally justified position that the founders opposed slavery. In the oration he said, “if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slave holding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.” Students might know that the words slave or slavery are never mentioned in the Constitution. Instead in the 3/5 Compromise slaves are called “other persons.” In the international slave trade compromise in Article I section 9, slaves are called “such persons.” Finally in the fugitive slave clause in Article 4 the escaped slave is called “no person.” Douglass was still hesitant in 1852 about this position as you can see when he continued, that the founders were not to blame for the apparent support of slavery “or at least so I believe.” But after such a long struggle he was relieved to be able to support a fight in the Congress (i.e., politically) and not just by “moral suasion,” as Garrison had taught. The Constitution, then, was not Garrison’s “covenant with death,” but became a “glorious liberty document” that he could use to fight for the freedom of his people. 

      “Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home.

      “How do you interpret that sentence?” I asked. The students will realize that Douglass is signaling he is coming to the end of the oration: he is ready to conclude. Here he lists the topics of the oration after the recital of the facts and ideas of the Revolution. At this point he adds one powerful metaphor relating to slavery that we have before encountered in the raging rivers and their dangerous floods in the introduction. Now these dangers have become one “horrible reptile…coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!” “How do you interpret this?” I asked. The students will realize that the twenty million was the northern majority. The undemocratic nature of the slave power is reminiscent of the white nationalist minority we are suffering from today in the arguments about abortion, the warming of the planet and the massive inequality to which our mainstream politicians are bowing today.

      Here is where Douglass defends the founders as blameless, as above, for the pro-slavery Constitution, “at least, so I believe,” he maintained. “Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work the downfall of slavery. ‘The arm of the Lord is not shortened,’ and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope.” “How can you comment on this,” I ask. The students will remember that at the beginning Douglass, pointed out that the young country was only 76 years old in 1852. God’s arm is all powerful. “The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together . . . Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other.”

      The students will interpret these ideas as the familiar causes and effects of globalization. “Wind, steam, and lightning” are boats and telegrams. These are all causes of optimism the students will conclude.

      “The fiat of the Almighty, ‘Let there be Light,’ has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. ‘Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God.’” “Are there words here you do not know?” I ask. A fiat is a command. The passage also refers to foot-binding in China that ended only with the revolution in 1911, and Ethiopia is a reference to all of Africa and the effects of imperialism and racism. The very last part of the speech is a poem by William Lloyd Garrison who was Douglass’ teacher and mentor from early in his life as a free man. Here is an excerpt:

      “How would you interpret that?” I asked. Certainly, first of all the speech has been about freedom for the slaves, but second as a personal and political gesture Douglass showed his respect and admiration for Garrison even though their interpretations of the Constitution conflicted. Jubilee is the abolitionist term for emancipation which originated among the secular kings in the ancient holy land of the Hebrews as a 50-year celebration of forgiveness of slaves, debts, and debtors. There is a similar concession to Garrison’s leadership of the abolitionist movement when Douglass states his thesis later on.

      Now that we are at the end of the speech, it is time to go back and figure out how Douglass put the speech together. Seeing the speech as a whole is a revelation for the students. After the rhetorical apologies at the very beginning, the speech proper begins: “This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July” is near the top of the second column of the first page of the speech. The students have realized that he begins with a protest, it is the 5th. The first extended section is about the Revolution which comes after the context of the young nation and the hopes and dangers of rivers with their dual roles of fertility and flooding. His recounting of the floods includes power of the Red Sea. “How do you understand his reasoning?” I ask.

      To begin with these stories, the students might say that he is clearly paying respect to the tradition of July 4th celebrations. But the great upheaval of 1776 was marked by patriotic sacrifice and brave action by the ancestors of the whites. There is a strong and dangerous undertow preceding the discussion of the Revolution. Douglass is setting a context unique to his purpose in the speech.

      In the next section Douglass introduces his Thesis. He leads up to it from the first full paragraph on the left column of page 5 of the document. The thesis itself is on the bottom of the right column on page 6.

      “My subject, then fellow-citizens, is American slavery . . . Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America!” It is a bold and dramatic period sentence. Next is his first quote from Garrison, his mentor. “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse.” This is one of the most famous lines from the great leader.

      The optimism Douglass feels for the young country at the “impressible stage of its existence” only 76 years old at the beginning is always in conflict in the speech with the dangers of nature and the wrath of God against the Egyptians and Babylonians. Similarly at the end he describes his feeling of possibility for peace and abolition despite the “dark picture” he has painted. But this joy in the chances for change are abruptly flung aside as he describes the “horrible reptile . . . coiled up in your nation’s bosom,” of the “youthful” republic. However, again, the “arm of the Lord is not shortened” and change can be part of the work of history and if Americans “act in the living present.”

      Douglass signals many of the sections by using the phrase, “My fellow citizens” or directly addressing his audience as “Americans.” He introduces the section on the Revolution with “Fellow-citizens.”  He asks, “Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask why am I called upon to speak here today?” after the description of the Revolution to introduce the central conflict of the speech with Psalm 137 that identifies the oppression of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity with his cause as a representative of the American slaves. We have quoted the thesis above that contains the same signal. Again, as he begins the topic of slavery: “Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions!” right under the quote of Psalm 137. It is in this section that Douglass proves that the Slave is a Man despite his protestations to the contrary and then he describes the slave trade in Bringing Slavery Before the Eyes saying, “Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade.”

      Finally, Douglass introduces his Summary and Conclusion going back to the very same call to attention. This time with a deeply sarcastic turn of phrase: “Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie.”

      This statement shows the power behind the ideas of systemic racism. The teacher is now prepared to take on the machinations of Ron DeSantis. The self-educated escaped slave puts the Governor’s inhumane and frankly ignorant ideas in the dustbin of history. Frederick Douglass oration, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” is a powerful antidote to DeSantis’ anti-woke bullying. Douglass’s descriptions make you feel their power. They will entrance your students and leave them ready to defend their values as learners and humanitarians. Douglass’ oration shows Ron DeSantis to be a man of limited intellectual force and a mean spirited and dangerous leader who acts with thoughtless abandon. His actions are the very definition of performative. He is an authoritarian poseur. In the face of Douglass’s oration DeSantis is shamed and outclassed.

      I dedicate this this lesson to the brave students and educators who are in the classrooms fighting for the truth and complexity in the study of history. Remember that Frederick Douglass believed, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”

      Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Association

      Cesar Chavez, a Mexican American, is the president of the National Farm Workers Association, an organization of farm workers fighting for more benefits and equality. Cesar Chavez’s goals for his fellow farm workers were to create a Union, an insurance program for farm workers, higher wages and contracts for farm workers, and equality. Cesar Chavez’s historic strike, the Delano Grape Strike, is one of the many strikes he takes pride in for expressing his unwavering conviction that he is on the right side of history and that the violence and humiliation that the growers are showing towards the workers will only fuel them more with conviction and determination to strike until they receive the benefit they are entitled to because of their hard work. Thousands of supporters helped Cesar Chavez in their fight for unionizing by participating in strikes, boycotting the companies’ products, and much more. This constant fight for equality painted a bad image for the company. The companies were both Schenley Industries and the DiGiorgio Corporation. This nonviolent approach and fight for equality was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who also had peaceful protests. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the many prominent figures throughout Cesar Chavez’s career who supported Cesar Chavez and was able to inspire him to take a peaceful approach in order to achieve his goals for these strikes, which are being able to Unionize insurance programs to better benefits for farm workers.

      This research dives into the challenges and struggles Cesar Chavez, and the National Farm Workers Association faced as they tirelessly worked to achieve fundamental rights and improved working conditions for marginalized and exploited farm laborers by shedding light on the strategies used by Cesar Chavez and his National Farm Workers Association in their fight against the obstacles standing in the way of their equality. Cesar Chavez’s legacy as a labor leader and civil rights activist is a testament to how hard he fought in the face of adversity.

      Cesar Chavez was influenced by his own experiences in a migrant farm-working family, he then decided to face the injustices prevalent in his community. Working under Fred Ross Jr. Cesar Chavez learned about the rights of Hispanic, specifically Mexican, farmworkers and was empowered by his community and the injustices to fight against discrimination. Cesar Chavez’s journey in building a labor movement, started with grassroots efforts in his community. Challenges such as fear of reprisal and deportation scared and made people reject Cesar Chavez, Cesar Chavez successfully recruited supporters, including religious figures and community organizers. The lack of unity and coordination within the United Farm Workers is also an obstacle the organization had to overcome, as well as the violence and intimidation faced by supporters from anti-union groups. Cesar Chavez’s goals included creating a union, insurance programs, higher wages, and contracts for farmworkers to improve their living conditions. The success of the United Farm Workers is thanks to various strategies, including boycotts, strikes, and protests, which pressured large companies like Di Giorgio to negotiate with Cesar Chavez and the organization. Cesar Chavez’s leadership and organizational skills, played an important role in advancing the cause for farmworker justice.

      Through the movement Cesar Chavez was supported by a diverse group of people. It highlights Cesar Chavez’s ability to connect with various groups, such as the Mexican Pentecostal church, religious leaders, college students, and workers from different ethnic backgrounds such as Mexican Americans, Filipinos, and Puerto Ricans. The Mexican Pentecostal community provided moral and financial support, while college students actively participated in protests, strikes, and fundraising efforts. The teamwork among different ethnic groups in the civil rights movement, notably influenced by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., contributed to the movement’s strength. Despite facing hardships and sacrifices, the labor movement achieved its goals, in succeeding in getting contracts with major growing companies and paving the way for the Agricultural Labor Relations Act to govern farm workers’ rights and union activities. Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers faced hardships and challenges in their mission to better the rights and working conditions of farm laborers, facing industry resistance, violent opposition, and internal struggles. Despite the obstacles faced, Cesar Chavez’s strategic approach, marked by nonviolent protests, strikes, and boycotts, garnered crucial attention and support for the movement. The community, including Mexican Americans, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, college students, and religious leaders, emerged as a pivotal force in achieving the movement’s goals. Cesar Chavez’s dedication, inspired by personal experiences and the struggles of farm workers, led to the success of the United Farm Workers.

      This article provides a summary of Cesar Chavez’s activism, the challenges faced by the National Farm Workers Association, and the broader labor movement in the southwest. Some reasons why Cesar Chavez should be taught in school is because it sheds light on the historical context of the labor movement in the southwest, providing students with insights into the challenges faced by marginalized and exploited farm laborers during that time. Cesar Chavez’s connection with the civil rights movement, particularly his inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., offers an opportunity to explore the different social justice movements during the 20th century. Students can also analyze how Cesar Chavez adapted nonviolent protest strategies from the civil rights movement to advocate for the rights of farm workers. Students can learn about the challenges and criticisms faced by Chavez and analyze how he overcame them to achieve the goals of the United Farm Workers. Highlighting the diverse support of the labor movement, showing the unity between different ethnic groups, religious communities, and college students. Students can explore how diverse communities came together to support a common cause and the role of solidarity in achieving social justice goals. By incorporating this article into the classroom, teachers can help provide a diverse perspective about social justice, labor rights, leadership, and the unity of historical movements. It encourages critical thinking, analysis of historical events, and reflection on the ongoing struggles for equality and justice.

      New York’s Education Wars a Century Ago Show How Content Restrictions Can Backfire

      Bill Greer

       Reprinted with permission from https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/185878

      Matthew Hawn, a high school teacher for sixteen years in conservative Sullivan County, Tennessee, opened the 2020-21 year in his Contemporary Issues class with a discussion of police shootings.  White privilege is a fact, he told the students.  He had a history of challenging his classes, which led to lively discussions among those who agreed and disagreed with his views.  But this day’s discussion got back to a parent who objected.  Hawn apologized – but didn’t relent.  Months later, with more parents complaining, school officials reprimanded him for assigning “The First White President,” an essay by Ta-Nehisi Coates, which argues that white supremacy was the basis for Donald Trump’s presidency.  After another incident in April, school officials fired him for insubordination and unprofessional behavior.

      Days later, Tennessee outlawed his teaching statewide, placing restrictions on what could be taught about race and sex.  Students should learn “the exceptionalism of our nation,” not “things that inherently divide or pit either Americans against Americans or people groups against people groups,” Governor Bill Lee announced.  The new laws also required advance notice to parents of instruction on sexual orientation, gender identity, and contraception, with an option to withdraw their children.

      Over the past three years, at least 18 states have enacted laws governing what is and is not taught in schools. Restricted topics mirror Tennessee’s, focusing on race, gender identity, and sexual orientation.  In some cases, legislation bans the more general category of “divisive concepts,” a term coined in a 2020 executive order issued by the Trump administration and now promoted by conservative advocates.  In recent months, Florida has been at the forefront of extending such laws to cover political ideology, mandating lessons that communism could lead to the overthrow of the US government.  Even the teaching of mathematics has not escaped Florida politics, with 44 books banned for infractions like using race-based examples in word problems.

      In a sense the country is stepping back a century to when a similar hysteria invaded New York’s schools during the “Red Scare” at the end of World War I, when fear of socialism and Bolshevism spread throughout the US.  New York City launched its reaction in 1918 when Mayor John Francis Hylan banned public display of the red flag.  He considered the Socialist Party’s banner “an insignia for law hating and anarchy . . .  repulsive to ideals of civilization and the principles upon which our Government is founded.”

      In the schools, Benjamin Glassberg, a teacher at Commercial High School in Brooklyn, was cast in Matthew Hawn’s role.  On January 14, 1919, his history class discussed Bolshevism.  The next day, twelve students, about one-third, signed a statement that their teacher had portrayed Bolshevism as a form of political expression not nearly so black as people painted it.  The students cited specifics Glassberg gave them – that the State Department forbade publishing the truth about Bolshevism; that Red Cross staff with first-hand knowledge were prevented from talking about conditions in Russia; that Lenin and Trotsky had undermined rather than supported Germany and helped end the war.  The school’s principal forwarded the statement to Dr. John L. Tildsley, Associate Superintendent of Schools, who suspended Glassberg, pending a trial by the Board of Education.

      Glassberg’s trial played out through May.  Several students repeated the charges in their statement, while others testified their teacher had said nothing disrespectful to the US government.  Over that period, the sentiments of school officials became clear.  Dr. Tildsley proclaimed that no person adhering to the Marxian program should become a teacher in the public schools, and if discovered should be forced to resign.  He would be sending to everyone in the school system a circular making clear that “Americanism is to be put above everything else in classroom study.”  He directed teachers to correct students’ opinions contrary to fundamental American ideas. The Board of Education empowered City Superintendent William Ettinger to undertake an “exhaustive examination into the life, affiliations, opinions, and loyalty of every member” of the teachers union.  Organizations like the National Security League and the American Defense Society pushed the fight against Bolshevism across the country.

      After the Board declared Glassberg guilty, the pace picked up.  In June, the city’s high school students took a test entitled  Examination For High Schools on the Great War.  The title was misleading.  The first question was designed to assess students’ knowledge of and attitude toward Bolshevism.  The instructions to principals said this question was of greatest interest and teachers should highlight any students who displayed an especially intimate knowledge of that subject.  The results pleased school officials when only 1 in 300 students showed any significant knowledge of or leaning toward Bolshevism.  The “self-confessed radicals” would be given a six-month course on the “economic and social system recognized in America.”  Only if they failed that course would their diplomas be denied.

      In September, the state got involved.  New York Attorney General Charles D. Newton called for “Americanization,” describing it as “intensive instruction in our schools in the ideals and traditions of America.”  Also serving as counsel to the New York State Legislative Committee to Investigate Bolshevism, commonly known as the Lusk Committee after its chairman, Newton was in a position to make it happen.  In January 1920, Lusk began hearings on education.  Tildsly, Ettinger, and Board of Education President Anning S. Prawl all testified in favor of an Americanization plan.

      In April, the New York Senate and Assembly passed three anti-Socialist “Lusk bills.”  The “Teachers’ Loyalty” bill required public school teachers to obtain from the Board of Regents a Certificate of Loyalty to the State and Federal Constitutions and the country’s laws and institutions.  “Sorely needed,” praised the New York Times, a long-time advocate for Americanization in the schools.  But any celebration was premature.  Governor Alfred E. Smith had his objections.  Stating that the Teacher Loyalty Bill “permits one man to place upon any teacher the stigma of disloyalty, and this even without hearing or trial,” he vetoed it along with the others.  Lusk and his backers would have to wait until the governor’s election in November when Nathan L. Miller beat Smith in a squeaker.  After Miller’s inauguration, the Legislature passed the bills again.  Miller signed them in May despite substantial opposition from prominent New Yorkers.

      Over the next two years, the opposition grew.  Even the New York Times backed off its unrelenting anti-Socialist stance.  With the governor’s term lasting only two years, opponents got another chance in November, 1922, in a Smith-Miller rematch.  Making the Lusk laws a major issue, Smith won in a landslide.  He announced his intention to repeal the laws days after his inauguration.  Lusk and his backers fought viciously but the Legislature finally passed repeal in April.  Calling the teacher loyalty law (and a second Lusk law on private school licensing) “repugnant to the fundamentals of American democracy,” Smith signed their repeal.

      More than any other factor, the experience of the teachers fueled the growing opposition to the Teachers’ Loyalty bill.  After its enactment, state authorities administered two oaths to teachers statewide.  That effort didn’t satisfy Dr. Frank P. Graves, State Commissioner of Education.  In April 1922, he established the Advisory Council on Qualifications of Teachers of the State of New York to hear cases of teachers charged with disloyalty.  He appointed Archibald Stevenson, counsel to the Lusk committee and arch-proponent of rooting out disloyalty in the schools, as one member.  By summer the Council had earned a reputation as a witch hunt.  Its activities drew headlines such as Teachers Secretly Quizzed on Loyalty and Teachers Defy Loyalty Court.  Teachers and principals called before it refused to attend.  Its reputation grew so bad that New York’s Board of Education asked for its abolishment and the President of the Board told teachers that they need not appear if summoned.

      A lesson perhaps lies in that experience for proponents of restrictions on what can be taught today.  Already teachers, principals, and superintendents risk fines and termination from violating laws ambiguous on what is and is not allowed.  The result has been a chilling environment where educators simply avoid controversial issues altogether.  Punishing long-time and respected teachers – like Matthew Hawn, whom dozens of his former students defend – will put faces on the fallout from the laws being passed.  How long before a backlash rears up, as it did in New York over Teachers’ Loyalty?


      The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

      Norman Markowitz

      Rage and confusion over the recent Supreme Court decisions is sweeping the nation. The Roe v. Wade decision (1973) establishing women’s reproductive rights has been repealed. A New York State law prohibiting the carrying of concealed guns, passed in response to escalating shootings and deaths, has been declared unconstitutional. The court has sharply reduced the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, established in 1970. This comes after decades of scientific research showing the dangers of climate change and global warming.

      What is the logic behind this? There is a standard used in philosophy which should be applied to the Court’s recent decisions. Statements, or assertions, should be judged by their “validity and reliability.” Are they true statements in terms of logic, reason, and consistency (validity)? Is the evidence (facts, data) used to support the statement true (reliability)? I will use this standard to look at the Court’s rulings.

      The Constitution was a political compromise among merchant capitalists, landlords, slaveholders, creditors, and debtors on a variety of issues — slavery, the payment of debts, and the regulation of trade. It cannot be interpreted like the Jewish Torah, the Christian Gospels, or the Muslim Koran — sacred, unchanging texts. And the Supreme Court has no right to interpret legislation passed by Congress or the directives of the president, since the Constitution did not give the Court the power of judicial review.

      However, that power was in effect taken by the Court in 1805 in a brilliant maneuver by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The court has maintained the power of judicial review for over two centuries, often adjusting its interpretations to major changes in society.

      The representatives who drafted and approved the Constitution, much less the former colonies/states which ratified it, all rejected the principle of universal suffrage. The leaders of the revolution associated the term “democracy” with mob rule. Property qualifications for voting in federal elections was the established rule. If one took the original intent seriously, the Court would have the power to establish property qualifications for voting, since there is no constitutional amendment abolishing property qualifications for voting, just as there are constitutional amendments abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

      When the Constitution was drafted and enacted, English common law defined life as existing when a fetus could be felt moving or kicking in the mother’s womb, called “quickening.” If the mother claimed that the fetus had been aborted before this “quickening,” she was held harmless. Laws banning abortion and contraception, and pamphlets and manuals about both in the mails, were enacted at the state and federal levels in the late 19th century as part of a movement led by the Reverend Anthony Comstock, organizer of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. These laws were part of a backlash against the growing movement for women’s civil rights, equality under the law, and the right to vote. The women’s rights/women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, following in the path of the civil rights/Black liberation movement, led the successful campaign to repeal these laws, which finally resulted in Roe v. Wade, a century after they began to be enacted.

      The Court’s decision invalidating a New York state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns is also unreliable. Here the evidence is direct and incontrovertible. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But in English law and in colonial theory and practice, as Joshua Zeitz in an excellent analysis argues, the amendment never meant that all citizens had the right to bear arms. This right “was inextricably connected to the citizen’s obligation to serve in a militia and to protect the community from enemies domestic and foreign.” And “well-regulated militias” meant militias constituted by legitimate authorities, not private groups like the later KKK, Nazi storm troopers, or self-proclaimed state militias.

      Zeitz makes the important point that James Madison, a major author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, had earlier drafted legislation in the Virginia legislature barring individuals from openly carrying and displaying guns, like the present New York State law that the Court has declared unconstitutional. The purpose of the amendment was clearly to prevent a government from doing what Britain did in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party: disperse the colonial legislature and its militia and in effect declare martial law. Also, the guns in question fired single “balls,” not bullets, and had very limited range and accuracy. Today’s AR-15 rifles, for example, used in recent mass shootings, have greater fire power and accuracy than the assault rifles used during World War II and the Korean War.

      The Supreme Court’s other decisions on the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the right of a school employee to engage in religious action, are neither valid in their relationship to the Constitution nor reliable in regard to their factual assertions. They are a repudiation of more than a century of law and policy of the federal regulation of industry and the post–Civil War 14th Amendment defending the civil rights and liberties of citizens from their infringement and/or denial by the states.

      The Supreme Court and the judiciary have been the most conservative section of the federal government throughout most of U.S. history. The fact that the justices are not elected and can be removed only through impeachment, resignation, or death explains this.

      The courts have in the past and once more in recent decades used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to declare unconstitutional legislation that regulates business and promotes social welfare. Beginning in the 1880s, they declared corporations “persons” to give them 14th Amendment protections from regulation and taxation by the states, and have over and over again used the 10th Amendment to support states’ rights.

      The political nature of the Supreme Court from its very inception is indisputable. The Court, for example, represented the interests of the slaveholder class from the administration of George Washington (himself a slaveholder) up to the Civil War. But as the nation changed, industrial capitalism grew, and the anti-slavery movement became broader, the demands of the slaveholders and the actions of their Supreme Court became more extreme. The Dred Scott decision (1857), which in effect repealed the earlier restrictions on the expansion of slavery in the Western territories, supporting legislation advanced by pro-slavery congresses and presidents, reflected this development. As an afterthought, the slaveholder-dominated Supreme Court claimed that the authors of the Constitution had not intended any Black person, slave or free, to have the rights of an American citizen, an expression of “original intent” which both enraged and strengthened the increasingly militant anti-slavery national coalition.

      With the defeat of the Confederacy, slavery was abolished through constitutional amendment in all the states, and the former Confederate states now under Union army occupation had to ratify the amendment to regain admission to the Union. With the support of President Andrew Johnson, a pro-Union former senator from Tennessee (and himself a former slaveholder), they did so while enacting labor codes that in effect declared the former slaves to be unemployed vagrants and returned them to the “custodial care” of their former owners.

      In response to these acts, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and other militant anti-slavery leaders of the Republican Party proposed a second constitutional amendment to establish national citizenship and protect the civil rights and civil liberties of the nearly 4 million former slaves. They did this for two reasons. They feared that President Johnson would veto the civil rights legislation they were advancing in Congress. And even if they were able to override his veto, they feared that the Supreme Court, where the now former slaveholders remained a powerful force, would declare such legislation unconstitutional.

      The 14th Amendment establishing national citizenship was passed, followed by the 15th, which extended the right to vote. However, the war was a victory for the industrial capitalists and their banker allies, who within a generation betrayed both the former slaves and the workers and farmers who saw Civil War policies like the Homestead Act and the creation of land grant colleges as advancing their class interests.

      The Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Civil War fiercely defended the interests of “big business” against organized farmers, workers, state governments, and the federal government. In the 1880s, the Supreme Court in a series of decisions invalidated the civil rights acts of the Reconstruction era and the 14th Amendment’s protection of citizenship rights from state government policies. States were permitted to ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned exclusion and discrimination in public accommodations. That protection would only be restored by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after a century of de jure segregation.

      In 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision gave states the right to establish segregation by law, using as a cover the principle of “separate but equal” under such laws, although it was clear to everyone that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from public schools, public employment, public transportation, and commercial establishments was crudely unequal. The courts also endorsed state laws which denied the overwhelming majority of Black people the right to vote; the convict lease system, a form of slave labor for prisoners; and state “poll taxes,” which primarily discriminated against poor whites (in most places African Americans had been already disenfranchised).

      At the same time, the Court in the 1880s took the 14th Amendment’s defense of the rights of “persons” and applied it to business and corporations, declaring state laws regulating business to be unconstitutional.  At the time the 14th Amendment was proposed and enacted, everyone understood that the “persons” referred to were the 4 million former slaves, no longer under law, but not yet citizens.

      But this was just the beginning. An early modest federal income tax (a surcharge on high incomes) was declared unconstitutional in the Pollock case. It negated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) by declaring that the federal government and the states could only regulate commerce — not manufacture — under the Constitution. In an industrial society, regulation became a farce.

      Decades later, a constitutional amendment gave the federal government the right to levy income taxes, and Congress passed legislation that, to a limited extent, regulated trade and restructured the banking system. However, the Court routinely declared unconstitutional state laws protecting the right of workers to organize unions, providing for the health and safety regulation of workplaces, minimum wages, and the 1916 federal law outlawing child labor.

      It was not until the Great Depression of the 1930s, which saw the great upsurge of labor with the Communist Party playing a central role, that the New Deal government enacted the most important labor and social welfare legislation since the abolition of slavery and battled to compel the judiciary to accept these major reforms in the interests of the working class and the whole people.

      The struggle for major judicial reform went back to the late 19th century. It sought to de-emphasize precedence, the “dead hand” of previous decisions, and make the law respond to social changes and realities, to connect the “facts” as they existed in the present with past decisions under the law. Law professor Roscoe Pound and attorney Louis Brandeis were the champions of this approach to law, called “legal realism.” Brandeis especially popularized the doctrine in leading campaigns against corporate monopolistic price fixing and business corruption of public officials, which earned him the name “the People’s Attorney.”

      He also developed a legal brief which incorporated social research (the Brandeis brief) in arguing cases. His fame in the early 20th-century Progressive movement led Woodrow Wilson to appoint him to the Supreme Court, where he joined with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to represent a minority that supported the regulation of industry, social legislation, and the defense of First Amendment civil liberties. Regarding civil liberties, the minority supported freedom of speech, assembly, and association unless, in Holmes’s language, there was a “clear and present danger” to society, and not just a “dangerous tendency” that certain acts might lead to others, which was the conservative position.

      In the 1936 elections, Roosevelt campaigned against the old-guard Court and the “economic royalists” whom they represented, reviving the language of the American revolution in his and the New Deal’s sweeping victory. Roosevelt sought to expand the court for every justice over the age of 70, which would have increased its size to 15 justices.

      Conservatives fought back, wrapping the Court in the Constitution, attacking his court reorganization plan as “court packing.” In the Court fight, conservative Southern Democrats, including many who had worked behind the scenes against the New Deal like senators Tom Connally of Texas and Walter George of Georgia, along with the vice president, John Nance Garner, turned against Roosevelt. The weakened GOP let the Democrats carry the ball, but it was from this court fight that the informal conservative coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans began to take shape.

      Faced with the attack, the Court, which had four Coolidge/Hoover “Business of America is Business” conservatives, three urban liberals, and two moderate conservatives, shifted. In 1936 the Court had voted 6-3 against the New York minimum wage law. But in 1937 the Court upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 a similar Washington State minimum wage law, ruled in favor of the Wagner Act in the Jones and Laughlin Steel case, and upheld the Social Security Act and unemployment insurance. In all these rulings, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes changed their votes to side with Roosevelt.

      By the end of 1937, as the old-guard conservatives began to retire, Roosevelt, defeated in the reorganization fight, began to replace them with New Dealers and by the time of the Pearl Harbor attack had forged a New Deal majority. The new Court moved away from the old doctrines of constitutional original intent associated with the corporate-dominated courts of the post–Civil War era toward a view that the Court must change with changing economic and social conditions. Most of all, the Court retreated from its support for business and its defense of the absolute right of freedom of contract. Instead, a law was to be “presumed constitutional” on questions concerning economic power and government regulation — constitutional regulation came to be seen, as one decision put it, as regulation for the “public good.” Economic freedom was no longer the preferred freedom of the court, and economic activity was no longer local and thus not regulatable.

      The court also upheld in the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wages for all citizens, whereas later it vetoed state minimum wage legislation for women, refused to apply the anti-trust laws to unions, and outlawed the sit-down strike in 1939 (NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.), but in a decision that defended and established peaceful picketing.

      At the same time, the Court under New Deal leadership began to develop a new doctrine of preferred freedoms, a doctrine that stressed the need to protect the rights of political dissenters and minorities. In late 1937, the Court declared unconstitutional state laws barring speech and assembly that had been used to convict and imprison Communist Party activists like Angelo Herndon in Georgia, later explicitly defended religious freedom in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to swear allegiance to the flag and revived the clear and present danger criteria to protect free speech and assembly. In 1938 the Court, for the first time since the end of Reconstruction, enforced some civil rights claims when it contended that the state of Missouri, by not supplying legal education for Black students had violated the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy (Missouri had offered to pay part of their tuition). While the decision didn’t challenge segregation, it pressured Southern states to increase educational programs under segregation for African Americans.

      In the Hague case, the Court declared unconstitutional a local Jersey City ordinance against picketing and demonstrations which had been used for mass arrests — subsequently, this was defined to mean peaceful picketing. In U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938), the majority ruled that the court would no longer apply “heightened scrutiny” to economic legislation; however, in a footnote, Harlan Fiske Stone added that the Court was obligated to apply a “more exacting judicial scrutiny” in cases where laws or regulations contradicted the Bill of Rights or adversely affected minorities. The famous “footnote 4” had important implications for Bill of Rights freedoms for dissenters and minorities.

      Following the recession of 1937 and the business-conservative counterattack and backlash of 1938, the New Deal was politically stalemated in Congress and without a clear program. However, by this time, the labor social welfare program was consolidated, at least for the short term. Further, the great fortress of conservative power protected from the electoral process — the Supreme Court — was overthrown.

      Democratic President Harry Truman’s appointees set back the Court’s support for civil liberties, especially in the 1950–51 Eugene Dennis case, where the Court upheld the convictions and imprisonment of the leadership of the CPUSA under the 1940 Smith Act. The appointments of Earl Warren as Chief Justice and William Brennan by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, however, greatly strengthened the Court’s progressive majority at a time when Cold War policies moved Congress and the president to the right.

      In the Brown decision (1954), the Court declared school segregation unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also in the Yates and other decisions made illegal some of the worst aspects of state and federal anti-Communist policies, leading the FBI to establish its secret Cointelpro program. In the later Miranda and Gideon decisions the Court limited police power to interrogate and hold suspects without formally charging them and reading them their rights, including their right to legal representation or a court-appointed attorney to represent them. The Court also rejected early challenges to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Although Richard Nixon’s election to the presidency and his appointments moved the Court in a more conservative direction over time, Court decisions in the early 1970s effectively abolished the death penalty in the U.S. and, in Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion.

      Even before Ronald Reagan gained the presidency, the Nixon-influenced Court began to move to the right. In 1976, the court gave states the right to reestablish the death penalty (subsequently the death penalty would be established at the federal level in a more extensive way than at the state level). In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld an amendment to the funding of Medicaid in 1976 which barred the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, a cruel blow to the rights of low-income and poor women.

      Over the following four decades, a series of decisions chipped away at civil rights and civil liberties; weakened the regulation of commerce, industry, and finance; and removed restrictions on the use of money in elections. The Court’s conservative majority became more militantly reactionary, destroying earlier compromise decisions brokered by conservatives. Donald Trump, who gained the presidency in large part because of the deeply undemocratic nature of U.S. politics, failed to implement his far-right domestic policies, which both large numbers of Americans and people throughout the world saw as “neofascism.” However, his “success” in appointing three Supreme Court judges is now his “legacy,” in that they are doing what he failed to accomplish.

      First, we must understand that a large majority of the people oppose these decisions, just as in 1857 and 1936 a large majority of the people opposed the Supreme Court’s pro-slavery Dred Scott decision and its decisions declaring New Deal regulatory and social legislation unconstitutional. The Republican Party mobilized opposition to the Dred Scott decision to win the 1858 congressional elections. More than 70 years later, the Democratic Party mobilized opposition to the conservative Court’s decisions to propel Roosevelt to an overwhelming victory in the 1936 national elections. The same kind of united opposition must be organized now. We must point out that the present Court has set the nation back and may continue to block progress regarding immediate issues such as inflation, health care, or the cost of energy and transportation. Were the government to attempt, for example, to establish price controls, create a national public health system, and expand public transportation, the Court would not be on the people’s side.

      The trade union movement, all civil rights and women’s rights organizations, and all environmental organizations must mobilize supporters and communities throughout the nation to vote against the Republican senators and congresspeople who over decades have created this judiciary. Such an electoral victory is necessary but not in itself sufficient. Many today are calling for an expansion of the Court. Congress and the president have the power to do that, since the number 9 is not in the Constitution. We should begin to think about a larger expansion of the federal judiciary itself. Since the 1980s, the conservative Federalist Society has advanced the doctrine of original intent as a cover to restore Court rulings opposing federal regulation of business and social welfare legislation. A government committed to restoring what the Court had represented in the New Deal–Great Society era should actively appoint attorneys who support those positions.

      Finally, the question of judicial review itself could be formally ended by Congress and the president. As was contended earlier, it is not a part of the Constitution, and there is no evidence that the Constitutional Convention intended it to be established. The Court has acted to strike down and take away from the people major social protections and rights. As such its power of judicial review can and should be taken away from it.