Education, Social Studies, History, Civics, Current Issues

The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

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 The Roe v. Wade decision (1973) establishing women’s reproductive rights has been repealed.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 Court doctrine of original intent is not valid

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.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions are not reliable

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 revival of “original intent”

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 as the defender of unregulated monopoly/finance capital, 1877–1937

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 Supreme Court and government as the protector and defender of the general welfare, 1937–78

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.

The empire strikes back: The Court’s long march to the right, 1978–present

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.

What we can and should do now

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.

Era 5 – Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

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.n j css.org

Era 5 The Development of the Industrial United States (1870–1900)

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 19^th 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.

Activity #1: The Granger Movement in America (1875) and the Yellow Vests in France (2019)

The Patrons of Husbandry, or the Grange, was founded in 1867 to advance methods of agriculture, as well as to promote the social and economic needs of farmers in the United States. The financial crisis of 1873, along with falling crop prices, increases in railroad fees to ship crops, and Congress’s reduction of paper money in favor of gold and silver devastated farmers’ livelihoods and caused a surge in Grange membership in the mid-1870s. Both at the state and national level, Grangers gave their support to reform-minded groups such as the Greenback Party, the Populist Party, and, eventually, the Progressives.

The social turmoil that the Western farmers were in was mainly a result of the complete dependence on outside markets for the selling of their produce. This meant that they had to rely on corporately owned railroads and grain elevators for the transport of their crops. To make matters worse, “elevators, often themselves owned by railroads, charged high prices for their services, weighed and graded grain without supervision, and used their influence with the railroads to ensure that cars were not available to farmers who sought to evade elevator service.” In 1871, Illinois created a new constitution allowing the state to set maximum freight rates but the railroads simply refused to follow the mandates of the state government.

The Grangers became political by encouraging friends to elect only those officials with the same views. Furthermore, while Republicans and Democrats had already been bought out by corporations looking to curry favor in the government, Grangers vowed to create their own independent party devoted to upholding the rights of the general populace.

On Independence Day, 1873 (known as the Farmer’s Fourth of July), the Grangers read their Farmer’s Declaration of Independence, which cited all of their grievances and in which they vowed to free themselves from the tyranny of monopoly. The Supreme Court decision in Munn v. Illinois stated that businesses of a public nature could, in accordance with the federal constitution, be subject to state regulation. Following this ruling, several pieces of legislation, collectively known as the Granger Laws, were passed. Unfortunately, many of these laws were repealed.

Though the organization did not last, it demonstrated the effects that monopolies have on society. It subjugated these individuals to its whims, and then forced them to take action against it.

The Yellow Vests Protest in France

Donning the now-famous fluorescent waistcoats that are mandatory in French cars, the Yellow Vests staged 52 consecutive weeks of protests against economic hardship, mounting inequality and a discredited political establishment. They manned roundabouts across the country night and day, took to the streets on every Saturday since November 17, and at their peak in December even stormed the Arc de Triomphe in central Paris, amid scenes of chaos not witnessed since May ’68. The movement had an indelible mark on France, forcing the government into billions of euros of tax breaks.

“The picture that emerged was that of a movement made up largely of workers and former workers in a situation of financial insecurity, with relatively few unemployed,” said Gonthier. Yellow Vests were present across France, but strongest in small towns and rural areas. They came from all walks of life, but liberal professions were underrepresented, while small business owners and employees, craftspeople and care workers formed the bulk of the movement. About two thirds of respondents earned less than the average wage, and a slightly higher percentage registered as having a “deficit of cultural resources and social links”. This in turn “conditioned the way they defined themselves, and helped distance them from traditional social movements”, Gonthier added.

Another defining feature was the high proportion of women, who made up roughly half the Yellow Vests, whereas social movements traditionally tend to be male-dominated. Gonthier said this reflected the significant mobilization of women in care work, “most notably hospital workers from a public health sector that is plunging deeper into crisis”. They included a high number of single mothers who couldn’t go out and protest, or were scared away by the police’s heavy-handed response, but who supported the movement online.

Questions:

Are monopolies harmful to a growing economy or are they a necessary ‘evil’?
Is it inevitable that an oppressed people will revolt and attempt to destroy that which has kept them down?
How can governments best address poverty and inequality?
If a significant minority feels oppressed, do they have a right to overthrow their government by protest or violence if they cannot get satisfaction through the process of elections?
Do you support the Grangers, Yellow Vests, both or neither?

The Granger Revolution

The Grange Movement

A Brief Essay on the Grange Movement

Who are France’s Yellow Vest Protestors and What do they Want?

The Yellow Vest Movement Explained

Activity #2: Munn-Wabash Railroad in Illinois and the Trans-Siberian Railroad in Russia

Route of the Wabash Railroad in the Midwest

The Wabash Railroad Company went bankrupt and was sold. The new Toledo and Wabash Railroad Company was chartered October 7, 1858. The Wabash and Western Railroad was chartered on September 27 and acquired the Indiana portion on October 5. On December 15, the two companies merged as the Toledo and Wabash Railway, which merged with the Great Western Railway of Illinois. The right of continuous transportation from one end of the country to the other is essential in modern times to that freedom of commerce. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the States and with foreign nations. If Illinois or any other state within whose were permitted to impose regulations concerning the price, compensation, or taxation, or any other restrictive regulation it would be harmful to commerce between states.

The Trans-Siberian Road in Russia

Trans-Siberian Railroad Crossing a large river in Siberia

The construction of the longest railway in the world was launched in April 1891 and was completed in 1894. Three years later the section between Vladivostok to Khabarovsk with a length of 772km was opened in November 1897. The Central Siberian Railway from the River Ob to Irkutsk with a length of 1839km was built in 1899. The construction involved more than 100,000 workers, including prisoners, and the work was carried out by hand using shovels, axes, crowbars, saws. Despite the many challenges of the taiga, mountains, wide rivers, deep lakes, and floods, the tracks were built with amazing speed – around 740km per year.

Questions:

Does the protection of technology for the efficiency of commerce justify federal regulations over state regulations?
If a corporation is losing money, do they have a right or obligation to raise rates to become profitable?
Do authoritarian governments have an advantage or disadvantage in the construction of large infrastructure projects?

Consolidation of Railroads in Four States

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Railroad Regulation

Interstate Commerce Act (1887)

Construction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad

History of the Trans-Siberian Road

Activity #3: The Debt Crisis of the U.S. Government in 1894 and Inflation in Weimar Germany in 1923.

No crisis of the Cleveland presidencies exceeded the magnitude of the financial panic that gripped the nation at the start of his second term in 1893, and which presaged a depression that still lingered when he left office in March 1897.

The Constitution granted Congress the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” (Article 1, Section 8) Article I, Section 8, and Clause 2 The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In the 14^th Amendment, Section 4, it states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.”

In the century preceding 1893, Congress experimented with two central banks, a national banking system, laws regulating so-called “wildcat banks,” paper money issues, legalized suspension of specie payments, and fixed ratios of gold and silver. Gold and silver rose to prominence as the predominant monies of the civilized world because of their scarcity and value. Under the direction of Alexander Hamilton, the federal government adopted an official policy of bimetallism and a fixed ratio of 15 to 1 in 1792.

In 1875, the newly-formed National Greenback Party called for currency inflation through the issuance of paper money tied, at best, only minimally to the stock of specie. The proposal attracted widespread support in the West and South where many farmers and debtors joined associations to lobby for inflation, knowing that a reduction in the value of the currency unit would alleviate the burden of their debts.

When President Cleveland assumed office on March 4, 1893, the Treasury’s gold reserve stood at the historic low of $100,982,410 — slightly above the $100 million minimum required for protecting the supply of greenbacks. The Panic of 1893 began when the gold reserves fell below $100,000,000. Stocks fell and factories closed with many going bankrupt. Unemployment rose to 9.6%, nearly three times the rate for 1892. By 1894, the unemployment rate was almost 17%. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act was repealed in support of gold as a stable currency.

Cleveland’s position on sound money was not supported by his Democratic Party. The Gold Standard Act of 1900 resulted in a stable gold standard and economic growth. Cleveland’s position on sound money worked.

Hyperinflation in Germany

Under the Treaty of Versailles Germany was forced to make a reparations payment in gold-backed Marks. On June 24, 1922, Walter Rathenau, the foreign minister was assassinated. The French sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations and the Germans were powerless to resist. More than inflation, the Germans feared unemployment. A cheaper Mark, they reasoned, would make German goods cheap and easy to export, and they needed the export earnings to buy raw materials abroad. Inflation kept everyone working.

The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. For example, a student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a café for 5,000 Marks. He had two cups but when the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. When the 1,000-billion Mark note came out, few bothered to collect the change when they spent it. By November 1923, with one dollar equal to one trillion Marks, the breakdown was complete. The currency had lost meaning and value.

Although the currency was worthless, Germany was still a rich country — with mines, farms, factories, forests. The backing for the new Rentenmark was the value of the land for mortgages and bonds for the factories. Since the factories and land couldn’t be turned into cash or used abroad the value of one Rentenmark was equal to one billion of the former Marks. People lost their savings and homes.

Questions:

Is a sound currency policy, where the dollar is backed by gold or some other form of credit, always the best policy for governments to follow?

2. Does the financial debt of a country matter if its economy is growing? Does it matter in times of war or the recovery from a natural disaster?

3. In a financial crisis, a depression, does everyone suffer equally or are some more affected than others?

4. Which problem should the government address first? High Unemployment of 8% or rising inflation of 5%? Why?

5. Is foreign investment in a country’s economy necessary to maintain a balance of payments?

6. Based on the U.S. Constitution, is the debt of our government limited or unlimited?

The Panic of 1893 and the Election of 1896

Price Stability and the Fed

The Weimar Republic

The German Hyperinflation, 1923

Hyperinflation in Germany

Activity #4: The debate over Laissez-faire Economics

Historians often call the period between 1870 and the early 1900s the Gilded Age. This was an era of rapid industrialization, laissez-faire capitalism, and no income tax. Captains of industry like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie made fortunes. They also preached “survival of the fittest” in business.

By the late 1800s, however, monopolies, not competing companies, increasingly controlled the production and prices of goods in many American industries.

Workers’ wages and working conditions were unregulated. Millions of men, women, and children worked long hours for low pay in dangerous factories and mines. There were few work-safety regulations, no worker compensation laws, no company pensions, and no government social security.

Starting in the 1880s, worker strikes and protests increased and became more violent. Social reformers demanded a tax on large incomes and the breakup of monopolies. They looked to state and federal governments to regulate capitalism. They sought legislation on working conditions, wages, and child labor.

Railroad builders accepted grants of land and public subsidies in the 19th century. Industries facing strong competition from abroad have appealed for higher tariffs. American agriculture benefited with land grants and government support. State governments helped finance canals, railroads, and roads.

It is difficult to separate government intervention, regulation, and laissez-faire in American history. It is likely even more difficult to find the proper balance between government and free enterprise. Perhaps the most serious violations occurred during this era in America’s history with land grants to railroads, regulating the rates railroads could charge, mandating time zones, and allowing paper currency.

Questions:

Why is limited government and laissez-faire economics popular in the United States over time and today?
Should the federal government regulate education and schools or should this be left to the local and state governments?
Does laissez-faire economics bridge or widen the income gap between the social classes?
Who benefits the most from increasing government regulation?

Laissez-faire Economics in Practice

Social Darwinism and Laissez-faire Capitalism in America

Defending the Free Market from Laissez-faire?

Era 4 – Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons of in U.S. History

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

Era 4 Civil War and Reconstruction

The Civil War put the constitutional government of the United States to its severest test. It challenged the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government as well as the federal system of power with state and local government. The activities below provide an opportunity to learn about the breakdown of a democratic political system, the conflict between geographic regions and different subcultural, and the competitive ideas for reconstruction. Students will learn about the hope regarding equality for black Americans through the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments and the resistance leading to disenfranchisement, segregation, and debt peonage.

Activity #1: The Dred Scott Decision (1857), Magna Carta (1215), and Johnson-Reed Immigration Act (1924)

Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear the case? The law suit was properly in federal court only if a “citizen” of one State was suing a “citizen” of another State. Sanford was a citizen of New York. Even if we assume, with Scott, that the law made him a free man, was he then a “citizen” of Missouri? If Scott was a “citizen” and jurisdiction was proper, then what about the basic issue on the merits? Did the law make Scott a free man?

Was the Dred Scott Decision a failure of the Judicial system in the United States because it violated the fundamental principle in the Magna Carta regarding the rule of law and the individual rights and liberties of all people, regardless of their estate or condition. Article 39 of the Magna Carta, secured a promise from the monarchy that “no free man shall be arrested or imprisoned, or disseized or outlawed or exiled or in any way victimized, neither will we attack him or send anyone to attack him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” In the fourteenth century, Article 39 was redrafted by Parliament to apply not only to free men but also to any man “of whatever estate or condition he may be.”

The Supreme Court’s conclusion: It “is the opinion of the Court that the act of Congress, which prohibited a citizen from holding and owning property of this kind . . . is not warranted by the Constitution and is therefore void; and that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made free by being carried into this territory, even if they had been carried there by the owner with the intention of becoming a permanent resident.”

How do the principles of the Magna Carta and the precedent of the Dred Scott decision apply to the restrictive immigration decisions legislated by Congress in the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act of 1924? Does the United States, or any country, have the authority to restrict immigration based on race, ethnicity, or geographic location? Aliens in the United States do not have a right to a court-appointed attorney, Miranda rights, the right to a jury trial, or the right to see all the evidence against them. However, they have the protection of the Due Process of Law clause.

But one constitutional right that applies to aliens in removal proceedings is Due Process. According to the Supreme Court: “The Due Process Clause applies to all “persons” within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, (1886)

Questions:

Did the U.S. Supreme Court have the authority to issue an obiter dictum regarding Mr. Dred Scott?
Did enslaved persons who received freedom also become citizens of the state where they lived? Would their status as citizens change because of their race or ethnicity if they moved to another state?
Does Article 39 of the Magna Carta apply to free blacks who were arrested as fugitives?
Do people living in America, who are not citizens, entitled to rights in addition to the due process of law and should they also receive the equal protection of the laws of the United States?
What about people living in America who entered illegal or have expired documents?
Should birthright citizenship, everyone born in the United States or one of its territories, be considered a full citizen regardless of the status of their immigrant parent(s)?

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s Address to the Supreme Court Historical Society on June 1, 2009

Slavery and the Magna Carta in the development of Anglo American Constitutionalism

The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act)

The 1924 Act that Slammed the Door on Immigrants and the Politicians who Pushed it Back Open

Activity #2: Secession of Southern States (1861) and the Secession of Bangladesh from East Pakistan (1971)

The question is whether the Southern states possessed the legal right to secede. Jefferson Davis, president of the new Confederate States of America, argued that the Tenth Amendment was the legal basis for secession. The U.S. Constitution is silent on the question of secession. Therefore, secession is a right reserved to the states and is supported by the ‘compact theory’ regarding the right to nullify a federal law.

Another argument in support of the right of secession involves the states of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island because these states included a clause in their constitutions that permitted them to withdraw from the Union if the government should become oppressive. Virginia cited this provision when it seceded in 1861. The Constitution is also based on the principle that all the states are equal and no state can have more rights than another. The right of secession cited by these three states must extend equally to all the states. This is an interesting question for debate and discussion.

In 1971, the Pakistan army launched a brutal campaign to suppress its breakaway eastern province. A large number of people lost their lives, an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 died. The Bangladesh government puts the figure at three million. Bangladesh seceded because of the oppressive genocide against their population. It is now more than 40 years since they became an independent country.

Questions:

Do the “opt out’ clauses by Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island support secession at a later date from an early agreement to join into the common government or the Union?
If a government violates the natural rights of life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness against a specific group of people or a state, do they have the right to secede?
Would you support the secession of Bangladesh if less than 1,000 people were killed?

The Secession of East Pakistan in 1971 and the Question of Genocide

The Secession of Bangladesh in International Law: Setting New Standards?

Activity #3: Emancipation Act of 1863, 13^th Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1866

Historians and constitutional scholars question if the Emancipation Proclamation was constitutional. This is a different question than asking if the Proclamation was justified. The debate over constitutionality is based on the question if it was lawful to own another human being if you lived in a state that was loyal to the Union. The Supreme Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) upheld the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 stating that Pennsylvania could not prevent the return of a fugitive slave to its owner. Consequently, The Thirteenth Amendment was necessary to make the Emancipation Proclamation constitutional.

On January 5, 1866, a few weeks after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Senator Lyman Trumbull, from Illinois, introduced the first federal civil rights bill in our history. President Andrew Johnson vetoed the bill, opposing laws for the equality of African Americans as compared to the natural progression for this to happen over time. The veto message incensed Congress, who had evidence of widespread mistreatment of African Americans throughout the South by both private and public parties. Congress overrode Johnson’s veto on April 9, 1866, and elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 eventually became the framework for the Fourteenth Amendment. The constitutional question relates to the argument if the Act applies only to states that discriminate or if it applies to both state governments and private citizens.

Questions:

Does the U.S. Constitution need to explicitly state that all human beings are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 go too far or was it too limited in prohibiting discrimination?
Should the Thirteenth Amendment have included a provision for reparations for enslaved persons and a provision for compensating slave owners for their losses?

Emancipation Proclamation (National Archives)

Was the Emancipation Proclamation Constitutional? (Illinois Law Review)

Origin and Purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment (Cornell Law School)

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

Racial Discrimination and the Civil Rights Act of 1866

Activity #4: 14^th Amendment and the Miranda Decision

The 14th amendment explicitly contains an equal protection clause. Miranda warnings and other amendments were not only created to protect certain individuals but all individuals. Equal protection is a foundational principle in our society. No one should have their rights unjustly taken away from them; and no one should be allowed to get away with crimes because of their ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, etc. Everyone is under the rule of law.

An uneducated or uninformed individual may be pressured by authorities in an interrogation and confess to a crime they did not commit in order to stop the questioning. The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney ensures that all individuals get equal protection regarding of their situation or circumstance.

Questions:

Does Miranda provide adequate protections for accused persons?
Does the right to remain silent benefit an innocent person who is detained or accused?
Should a detained or accused person have to specifically state and document their request to remain silent?
Do the police have to stop questioning after a person states their intention to remain silent?
If the police need information two or three weeks after the initial detainment, do they need to repeat the Miranda warning a second time?
Should Miranda warnings apply to juveniles in school or only in matters involving questions by the police?

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

Fourteenth Amendment(Cornell Law)

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology(Northwestern University School of Law, 1996)

Era 3 – Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

Era 3 Westward Expansion

Concept of Self-Government

In the late 17^thcentury the colony of New Jersey was divided between East Jersey with a capital city in Perth Amboy and West Jersey with a capital city in Burlington. The situation was chaotic with arguments over property investments and the selection of governors. In 1702, a decision was made for New Jersey to become a royal colony with the appointment of Edward Hyde, Lord Cornbury.

In the first 50 years of the 19^th century the United States expanded its territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean and from Canada to the Rio Grande River. The expansion of territory also challenged the fundamental principles of democracy in the United States with the debt of purchasing land, wars with other countries, determining the meaning of equality, the migration of populations, and conflicts between the branches of government. In this era, teachers and students will discover that these conflicts in our government are not unique.

Activity #1: Orders of Nullification and Conflicts over Laws – United States (1832) and Catalonia(2017)

One of the challenges facing sovereign states is when the right of self-determination conflicts with the rule of law, especially constitutional law. The people of South Carolina opposed the Tariff of 1828, the law of the land, because of the economic harm to their citizens. On November 24, 1832, the state legislature adopted the Orders of Nullification which included the following statement, …”and that the people of this State will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States; and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do.”

In 2017, the state of Catalonia, one of Spain’s wealthiest states, filed a petition for independence following the sentencing of nine of their citizens to jail for protests against the government and charges that the government does not tax the people of Catalonia equally with other citizens in Spain.

Questions:

Do the people of a territory have the legal right to withdraw from a compact or union?
If a federal government violates the rights of the people it promises to protect, does this justify a right to withdraw from the compact or union?
What states or territories have attempted to separate from a federal union? (Quebec,

Activity #2: Missouri Compromise (1820) and European Union (1992)

Missouri applied for statehood in 1819 allowing for slavery. Congress was already divided and there was a competitive debate over human rights and how Missouri’s application would tip the balance of an equally divided legislature of 11 free states and 11 slave states. The last state admitted was Louisiana in 1812. Illinois was admitted on December 3, 1818 and Alabama on December 14, 1819. The compromise was that Maine (part of Massachusetts) would be admitted as a free state and Missouri as a slave state, providing that slavery would be banned north of the latitude line 36^o30’.

The European Union was created in 1993 with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Today it has 27 states. In 2009 the Lisbon treaty amended the constitution and adopted the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the acceptance of this charter and human rights is a requirement for membership. However, Hungary and Poland do not embrace the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the same manner as the other member states.

The newly elected leaders in Poland and Hungary have taken strong positions against abortion and the equality of individuals identifying as LGBTQ. The constitutional question before the Court of Justice is similar to the Dred Scott v. Sanford case of 1857 which challenged the legal authority of the Missouri Compromise and prohibiting slave property in states.

Questions:

Why was the United Kingdom allowed to leave the European Union?

Should states without an ‘opt out’ clause be allowed to leave the European Union? What conditions should be considered?

How does the secession of one state impact its own people and the other states in Europe?

Under Article 7 of the Treaty of the European Union, can a state leave if it is suspended?

Is it possible for member states to end diplomatic relations with another member state?

Activity #3: The U.S. Election of 1824 and the Election of 2018 in Germany with the Green Party

After eight years of government by the Democratic-Republican Party, in 1824, the Democratic-Republican Party splintered as four separate candidates sought the presidency. The election tested the Twelfth Amendment. Since no candidate received a majority of the electoral vote, it was decided by the House of Representatives. Although Andrew Jackson received the most popular votes and the most electoral votes, he did not become president. At this time, several states did not have a popular vote for president and electors in some states were chosen by state legislators.

In 2018, the Green Party in Germany became the second strongest political party. After years of government by the Social Democratic Party and the Christian Democratic Party, the Green Party has rallied the citizens of Germany around environmental issues, specifically climate change. They also have positions against racism and support immigration. The parliamentary system of government selects the chancellor or leader of Germany through alliances of the political parties elected.

Questions:

How would you describe a competitive democracy?

Are political parties supporting a single issue with limited experience in diplomacy or political administration qualified to govern in countries defined as the G20?

Why do populist movements emerge? Is there strength based on the issues or the charisma of an individual?

How do new voices and political leaders gain support withing their countries?

Does the Electoral College in the United States provide protection against third parties? Is this appropriate for a 21^st century democracy?

Do you think the Democratic and Republican parties will be the leaders of the two-party system of government in the United states at mid-century, the election of 2048 or 2052?

Presidential Election of 1824: A Resource Guide (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress) (loc.gov)

Activity #4: Gag Rule and Democratic Centralism in the Soviet Union

The ‘gag rule’ was a legislative tactic employed by southern members of Congress beginning in the 1830s to prevent any discussion of enslavement in the House of Representatives. The silencing of enslavement opponents was accomplished by a resolution first passed in 1836 and renewed repeatedly for eight years.

The suppression of free speech in the House was naturally deemed offensive to northern members of Congress and their constituents. What came to be widely known as the gag rule faced opposition for years, most notably from former president John Quincy Adams. The gag rule was finally rescinded in December 1844.

Democratic Centralism is essential to the internal political debates withing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. To what extent is debate permitted withing the Soviet Congress influencing policy and implementing changes? In the 1920’s there was dissent within the Communist Party regarding the proletariat and farmers. In December 1927, the opposition voices led by Leon Trotsky were expelled from the Congress, a ‘gag rule’ as debate was ended. In the 1980s, some voices within the Communist Party called for reforms and supported market forces in the economy and more democracy. The principle of democratic centralism challenged the authority of Gorbachev in a failed attempt to overthrow his authority. Eventually, democratic centralism changed the government as the former Soviet Union collapsed.

Questions:

Is a single party system, two-party-system, or a multi-party system the most practical way to govern in the 21^st century?

In a democracy, should the majority have the right to limit or suppress debate on controversial issues?

What is the most effective way for people to change their government: public protests or elections?

How effective is a strong leader with charisma in today’s government?

To what extent is the news media (including social media) a political influence or force in the United States?

What type of government does Russia have today and what type of government does the United States have today?

Is a parliamentary system of government more effective than the two-party system of representative government that the United States has?

Era 2 – Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

Era 2 Revolution

Concept of Self-Government

The 18^th century was a unique time in world history as this was a time when the concept of government changed in Europe from the authority of the divine right of kings to the authority of the social contract and sovereignty of the people. This period is unique in western civilizations because of its focus on natural rights, limited government, and enlightened ideas.

Activity #1: What is the pursuit of happiness? – United States (1776) and Tanzania (1967)

The Ujamaa concept was the centerpiece in Tanzania’s Declaration of Independence (1967) and the concept of natural or inalienable rights is the centerpiece of America’s Declaration of Independence (1776). This is an opportunity to analyze how the pursuit of happiness was defined in the 18^th century and in the 20^th century. To what extent has time and history changed our understanding of equal opportunity, empowerment, property, and the means to establish social justice and independence?

Questions and Activity:

Compare how America and Tanzania defined equality, property, and opportunity for their people in different centuries.
Are there unique advantages or disadvantages in each document?

Activity #2: The Development of Democracy – United States (1785)and Canada (1867)

The Land Ordinance of 1785 is considered a hallmark for considering future states as equals to the original 13 states which declared independence from Great Britain. Equality is a fundamental principle in democracy. Under the Land Ordinances of 1784, 1785, and 1787, slavery was abolished, religious and civil liberties, and an education about democratic values provided opportunities for all citizens.

Although Canada was settled around the same time as the thirteen American colonies, the colonies in Canada were divided culturally and politically. Lower Canada was settled by France and the majority of the people professed the Roman Catholic religion and Upper Canada was influenced by England and the Protestant religion. In the Unification of Upper and Lower Canada in 1867, there was a debate about future territories and democracy.

Questions and Activity:

Compare and contrast the fundamental ideals of democratic government in the United States and Canada regarding the structure of government, role of education, concept of equality and opportunities for all citizens, end the separation of powers in both governments.

Does one country emphasize direct democracy over indirect democracy or do both countries have similar governments?

Land Ordinance of 1785 – Ohio History Central

The History of Upper and Lower Canada

An Act of Union (1867)

The Road to Democracy in Canada

Activity #3: Gradual Abolition of Slavery – New Jersey (1804)and Jamaica (1833)]

What was the force behind the emancipation of enslaved persons in the 19^th century? Was the movement to end slavery motivated by the abolitionist movement, economics, legislation, resistance, or something else? Liberty is considered a natural or inalienable right and for millions in North America, this basic right was denied. The Atlantic slave trade ended in 1807 but slavery continued and the population of enslaved persons continued.

Questions:

What is the role of civic responsibility and empowerment in the movement to abolish slavery in the British colonies in the Caribbean and in the United States of America?
One defense of slavery in opposition to those who would abolish it was the claim that slaves were private property essential to a slaveowner’s way of life and livelihood. Therefore, to abolish the institution of slavery was to force an owner of slaves into a life of having to work for wages or hire people and pay them wages. Thus, the slaveowner would be enslaved by a law abolishing slavery. Does this claim of individual freedom through the ownership of property have any constitutional support?

Use the links below for evidence to support your thesis or claim.

Jamaica The Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in NJ (Feb. 15, 1804)

Jamaica and the Atlantic World Legislating Slavery in New Jersey

Emancipation in Jamaica Resources for the Abolition of Slavery in New Jersey

The Emancipation Act of 1833

Activity #4: Equality for Enslaved Persons – United States (1865)and Brazil (1883)

The history of the United States was determined by compromises regarding the legislature, property, and the importation of slaves. A controversial compromise was over the counting of enslaved persons in the 13 independent states for purposes of representation and taxation. An agreement was reached to count enslaved persons for the purpose of taxation and representation as only three-fifths of the population. This method of determining representation in the House of Representatives continued until the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.” The “other Persons” were slaves. The Southern states wanted to count the entire slave population, which would increase their number of members of Congress. The Northern delegates and others opposed to slavery wanted to count only free persons, including free blacks in the North and South.

The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio.

Slavery was essential to the Brazilian economy. 40 percent of the 10 million enslaved African brought to the New World ended up in Brazil. The institution of slavery in Brazil was supported by a majority of white citizens and the Roman Catholic Church. Gradual abolition began in 1871 for children born to enslaved women. Unfortunately, with no plan for assimilation into Brazilian slavery continued into the 20^th century with informal agreements for food and housing.

Questions:

Should the decisions about equality and freedom be determined by governments or by the vote of the citizens?
How should decisions be made about the protection of property when property conflicts with human life and personal liberty?
If automobiles are harmful to the environment should government have the authority to ban them without compensation?

Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 1865

Golden Law of 1883 in Brazil

Era 1 – Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

Era 1 Colonization and Settlement

Concept of Self-Government

Throughout most of world history, the ownership of property was challenged by trespassers, squatters, and invaders. The amount of autonomy for citizens, especially the wealthiest citizens and the protection of the rights of others is an issue that goes beyond New Jersey and the American colonies. The desire for protection and rule by law often leads people to a decision involving the exchange of some independence for the authority of a government to provide for order and protection. As a result of this ‘social contract’ there is competition between the authority of the state and the independent lives of private citizens.

Activity #1: Self-Government or State Government? – China (221 B.C.E.) and New Jersey (1702 C.E.)

Compare the account of Queen Anne’s Instruction to Lord Cornbury (Green. Words That Make NJ History, p.20) with the account in China in 221 B.C.E following the chaos of the warring states and the unification of independent Chinese states under Chu De (Shi Huangdi).

Questions:

How effective are these instructions in bringing order to chaos in the colony of New Jersey?
How did Chu De (Shi Huangdi) bring order and unity to China?
How important is self-government to people if the government is not willing or able to protect their property and lives?
In a large country like the United States, how would our leaders restore order today in the event of chaos and disorder?

Activity #2: Protection of Property – New Jersey (18^th century) and South Africa (19^th century)

In the colony of New Jersey during the 18^th century there were frequent cases of trespass, stealing, and claiming land. The reason for this was that titles to property were confusing, lost, and in many cases gave non-owners permission to live or work on a particular tract of land. Although rent was required, it frequently was not paid which resulted in vigilantes or mobs removing offenders and having them imprisoned for theft or treason for disobeying the Crown.

The migration of people in the Natal province in southern Africa provides another case study over the titles to property and riots that resulted over a shortage of land with thousands of people fleeing for their safety. Research the Mfecane Invasion and how this despotic leader gained control of property and redistributed it to the Zulu. The conflict resulted in the migration of Boers and Bantu to areas outside of the vast resources in Natal.

Read the account, Land Riots and the Revolution in NJ and compare it with the Mfecane Invasion in southern Africa.

Questions:

Should a government have the authority to collect money to improve property and collect taxes on property without their consent?
Are people without property entitled to the same economic and political rights as people with property?
When rulers or invaders gain control of property, what recourse do innocent people have?

Activity #3: Should Citizens Determine Justice? – Vatican City (1633) and Salem, Massachusetts (1692-93)

Throughout history, the individual liberty of individuals regarding their freedom to express ideas, defend scientific evidence, and express diverse opinions has frequently been challenged by the state or other powerful institution in the community or state. In Salem, Massachusetts in 1692-93, more than 200 men and women were accused of being witches and the mass hysteria led to the conviction and execution of 20 women in the Salem Trials. The hysteria was motivated by the fear of the devil in unexplained incidents in the community. The religious bias of the judicial system resulted in injustice.

In Naples, Italy the scientific research of Copernicus challenged the Biblically based teaching in the Book of Joshua 10:13 that the earth was the center of the universe. Compare the hysteria in support of the Aristotelian view of the universe with the persecution of Giordano Bruno and the house arrest of Galileo Galilei with the hysteria and the religious bias that supported injustice in the Salem trials..

Questions:

Has the evolution of our system of justice improved since the Salem trials of the 17^th century?
Does biased or false testimony in a trial violate the principle of equal justice for all?

Activity #4: The Debate Over Freedom of Religion – Massachusetts (1630-1650) and China (1850-1867)

Throughout history, people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. In many cultures, religious institutions are an important part of the culture. However, when individuals or groups express beliefs different from those accepted by the majority and when new populations migrate into a country or culture, they have frequently been persecuted. Although the freedom to worship is considered as a fundamental right by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948), there continue to be examples of persecution and conflict.

Read the accounts of the persecution and exile experienced by Anne Hutchinson & Roger Williams in colonial America and compare their accounts to the religious zeal expressed in the Taiping Rebellions in China (1850-1867).

Have a separate group read about the experience of Quakers in West Jersey and Puritans and Presbyterians in East Jersey in the late 17^th century. Discover the reasons for the adoption of religious liberty in Concessions and Agreements of West Jersey and restrictions against atheists in East Jersey. Read the accounts of persecution against Christians and others for their beliefs by the Taliban in Afghanistan and the reaction of groups in Afghanistan to the mass killings of Hazara, a Shiite community.

Questions:

To what extent can freedom be restrained?
Is it possible to maintain the separation of church and state and legislate morality that is inherent in the religious teachings of specific faiths?
Do you think the separation of church and state is essential to a democracy when citizens believe in different faiths or are atheists without faith in any deity or religion?