Initially, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois) claimed neutrality during the conflict between Britain and the colonists, seeing the disagreement as a civil war and valuing loyalty to their families and to their lands above all else. When the political discontent erupted into the American Revolutionary War, the member nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy split their support between the British and newly formed American forces. The majority of nations and individual members supported the British under the belief that those nations would be more likely to keep their relative independence and land under continued British rule, while the Oneida and Tuscarora backed the American Colonists.
As with many American families, alliance was not clear-cut, and in some cases, allegiance was split on a person-by-person basis, which destabilized the clan-based society. What had started as a European civil war on North American soil soon turned the Confederacy against itself, undermining the social unity and political stability that the Six Nations had enjoyed for centuries. In 1778, Loyalists and members of the British-backed nations participated in destructive raids that crippled Continental forces and destroyed frontier settlements in New York and Pennsylvania. Fearing that the New York frontier would be pushed east to the Hudson River if divisive action was not taken, General George Washington ordered General John Sullivan to lead four brigades of men — a sizable portion of the Continental Army — on a scorched-earth campaign that would limit the Haudenosaunee’s ability to attack in the future.
Washington tasked Sullivan with launching a terror campaign to destroy the food supply of the Cayuga and Seneca Nations in the heart of the Finger Lakes and to reduce the Cayuga and Seneca’s forces. Smaller expeditions were tasked with destroying Seneca settlements in western Pennsylvania and Onondaga settlements in Central New York. General Sullivan and his second-in-command, General James Clinton met in Tioga near the Pennsylvania-New York border and began their campaign by destroying the Munsee Delaware settlement of Chemung in present-day Chemung County. Instead of deploying the guerrilla tactics that long served Haudenosaunee well, Confederacy war chiefs and the meager British forces available to counterattack decided to retaliate with a standing battle.
The Battle of Newtown on August 29, 1779, ended in a British and Indian retreat and destroyed morale for the British-backing Confederacy Nations, who now chose to proactively flee to other nearby settlements. For the next two weeks, Sullivan’s forces moved from Seneca Lake to Canandaigua Lake to Chenussio — a Seneca stronghold near present-day Leicester in Livingston County that included 128 multi-family longhouses. By the end of the campaign, Sullivan’s men destroyed more than 40 Haudenosaunee villages, at least 160,000 bushels of corn, countless pounds of stored vegetables and fruit, and only suffered 40 casualties.
While the American forces did not take Haudenosaunee prisoners, the Sullivan Campaign destroyed the nations’ capacity to wage war. By the end of September 1779, more than 5,000 nation members had arrived at the British Fort Niagara expecting food, clothing, and shelter in the face of their catastrophic losses at the hands of the Americans. Instead of lessening the threat to frontier settlements, the Sullivan Campaign increased the animosity of Natives and British alike, laying the ground for fierce fighting within the New York frontier of British-backed Indian raids during the 1780s.
As the 1920s advanced, the economy soared. But with that dramatic expansion came irrational exuberance and unchecked speculation: stock prices reached levels that had no basis in reality; margin purchases were rampant; banks handed out loans lavishly and imprudently; and giddy product production resulted in a vast oversupply of goods. On Tuesday, October 29, 1929, it all came crashing down. This is the story of the Great Depression in New York City.
After an erratic week in which stocks, including blue chip stocks, mostly declined, waves of panicked investors sold off their shares, driving the market ever downward. On that one day, now known as Black Tuesday, the market lost $14 billion in value; over the ensuing week, it erased another $30 billion — eventually suffering the staggering loss of 89.2% over its peak in early September.
Bank failures and business bankruptcies followed, presaging a decade of unprecedented economic hardship. New York City came to be viewed as “the symbolic capital of the Depression, the financial capital where it had started, and the place where its effects were most keenly felt.” Many residents lost their savings, their jobs and their homes. By 1932, half the city’s factories were closed, almost one-third of New Yorkers were unemployed (vs. one-quarter of the rest of the country and over one-half in Harlem), and some 1.6 million residents were on relief. Those who remained employed and therefore ineligible for the dole were often forced to take severe pay cuts.
At the time of the crash, under Mayor Jimmy Walker, there were few centralized municipal services that could be tapped for jobs or rescue: there were no central traffic, highway or public works department; street-cleaning was a function of individual boroughs; there were five separate parks departments; unemployment insurance was non-existent and, in the beginning, the Department of Public Welfare had no funds available. New York City, like most cities, was dependent on charitable institutions and alms houses to succor the poor, the homeless and the hungry. Yet these organizations publicly admitted their inability to meet the heavy demands being made of them.
In March 1930, 35,000 out-of-work protesters marched toward City Hall as part of International Unemployment Day organized by the Communist Party. They were met with violent attack by the New York Police Department. Several years later, it was the Black and Latino population’s turn. In addition to being jobless, they had to deal with blatant discrimination, including exclusion from more than 24 of the city’s trade unions and rejection at public work sites. With tempers boiling, a furious Harlem mob vandalized white-owned stores. Some 4,000 individuals took part, inflicting over $2 million in damages, resulting in 30 hospitalizations and several deaths. While an investigation into discriminatory practices was launched, little came of it and the situation continued unchanged.
Riots in New York flared and petered out. What didn’t peter out was the sheer fight to survive – for the hungry, the need to eat, and for the homeless, the need to find shelter. Breadlines and soup kitchens were one aspect of the fight. People lined up daily in long, snaking queues outside bakeries or pantries to score a ration of day-old bread or thin soup. To hide their humiliation from neighbors, many would leave their homes dressed up as if they were going to work. Once on the line, they just stared straight ahead, refusing to interact with their downtrodden peers — in fact, refusing to admit to themselves where they were.
Thousands evicted from their homes took to living in shacks in parks or backstreets. As more and more homeless joined these camps, they grew into little shantytowns nicknamed “Hoovervilles” in condemnation of the inactivity of President Herbert Hoover to remedy the situation. The largest such settlement was located next to the Reservoir in Central Park. Ironically, many of the Hooverville men were construction tradesmen — bricklayers, stone masons, carpenters — who had helped build the luxury buildings surrounding the park and who now set to building their own shanties out of scavenged materials. Despite the skill and artistry with which these abodes were constructed, they were illegal; so both local and federal authorities regularly raided the settlements, destroying the shelters and scattering their inhabitants.
Conditions were dire and pleading letters from city officials and residents alike piled up in the Mayor’s office. Finally, in October 1930, Jimmy Walker created the Mayor’s Official Committee for Relief of the Unemployed and Needy, and things started to happen. By November there was:
a City Employment Bureau, which obviated the problem of job-seekers having to pay private employment firms;
a stop to the eviction of poor families for rent arrears;
a large-scale investigation by the police to determine needs in all 77 precincts;
a windfall of contributions to unemployment relief from police and other city employees;
an expansion of city lodging facilities; and
a special Cabinet Committee to deal with questions of food, clothing and rent.
In the first eight months of its existence, the Committee raised some $1.6 million. Direct relief funds were paid to 11,000 families, while 18,000 tons of food, including Kosher food, was given out to almost a million families. (Night patrolmen spent a good part of their shifts packing and wrapping these food parcels.) The money also paid for coal, shoes and clothing. Another city agency, the Welfare Council, disbursed over $12 million for relief and emergency work wages. These funds too came from voluntary donations. Private citizens contributed; sports teams organized exhibition matches (for example Notre Dame football vs. the New York Giants); and Broadway staged special benefit performances.
For a while spirits rose and hopes of normalcy returned. But by April 1931, it was clear that private welfare measures and one-off City actions could not keep up with the growing distress. Help was needed and it came from a now-familiar individual — Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not as president, but as Governor of New York State. Despairing of any constructive efforts by the Federal government, Roosevelt, unique among governors to accept liability for his constituents, declared: “upon the State falls the duty of protecting and sustaining those of its citizens who, through no fault of their own, find themselves… unable to maintain life.” By August 1931, foreshadowing elements of the future New Deal, a robust public works program was in effect to reduce unemployment. State income tax was increased by 50% and the Comptroller authorized the issuance of revenue bonds at both the state and local level. Some would say that New York City was in better shape than many other cities. Yet it was still on the critical list.
It wasn’t until 1932, when Walker resigned amid an investigation for graft and Herbert Hoover was voted out of office, that the way was paved for major innovations. Newly elected President FDR embodied the optimism of his catchy campaign song, “Happy Days Are Here Again.” Within a couple of years, he promulgated the historic, blockbuster New Deal, and working in close partnership with newly elected Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, transformed both the country and the City. The “New Deal” New York — the most populous American city with almost seven million residents — was the single greatest beneficiary of the New Deal’s Works Project Administration (WPA) in the entire U.S.
Under the WPA, more than a dozen federal agencies paid for the labor and materials to support hundreds of projects designed to put New Yorkers back to work. The New Deal built housing, schools, courthouses, roads, hospitals and health clinics, libraries, post offices, bridges, and highways. It was the impetus and money behind the Triborough Bridge, LaGuardia Airport, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the East River (FDR) Drive. It also gave the city an extensive system of recreational facilities, including swimming pools, playgrounds, ball fields, hiking trails, and parks.
But construction wasn’t its only recipient. FDR, Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Hopkins (head of the WPA) recognized that funding culture and practitioners of culture was just as important. (“Hell, they’ve got to eat just like other people,” Hopkins is reported to have said). So, jobless artists, designers, craftsmen and photographers were hired to embellish public spaces with murals and sculptures, while posters publicized other WPA programs, and illustrations, photos and crafts found their way into newly opened galleries and respected museums. Playwrights, writers, actors and singers were paid to create theatrical shows — even Yiddish and German theater. And out-of-work musicians and composers of all stripes (classical, folk, jazz, light opera) were employed to give concerts indoors and out. At the same time, New Deal legislation began strengthening workers’ rights by allowing them to organize, earn a minimum wage and, as discussed below, obtain unemployment compensation and sign up for Social Security.
When Frances Perkins, a fierce advocate of social justice and economic security, was tapped as Secretary of Labor, she brought a list of proposals for FDR’s approval. Among them were unemployment insurance and what she called “old age” insurance. Both of them knew that the development of such programs would encounter many obstacles, not the least of which would be challenges to their constitutionality.
Be that as it may, in 1935, the enabling legislation passed overwhelmingly and FDR authorized the establishment of unemployment insurance and Social Security. And in 1937, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of levying taxes to fund both programs. IBM won the bid to create the largest and most complicated data processing system ever built. It even designed novel equipment for the unprecedented task of enrolling some 30 million employers and workers, and registering their contributions into the Social Security system for later retirement payouts. According to Perkins, “Nothing [other than the Great Depression] would have bumped the American people into a social security system except something so shocking, so terrifying, as that depression.”
Above and beyond the homeless, 30% of the City’s housed population lived in deteriorating, squalid tenements. There were other slums deemed “unfit for human habitation.” The National Recovery Act of 1933 authorized the clearance of slums, repair of salvageable structures and construction of low cost housing. And the country’s very first “public housing” — a previously unheard of concept — was built in New York under the newly formed New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). The first three public projects were: First Houses, between First Avenue and Avenue A, from Second to Third Streets in the East Village; Williamsburg Houses, Scholes to Maujer Streets, Leonard Street to Bushwick Avenue, Williamsburg, Brooklyn, Harlem River Houses, Seventh Avenue to Macombs Place, Harlem River Drive, and 151st to 153rd Streets in Harlem. Their public ownership represented a radical step that both created jobs and sheltered people in up-to-date homes. By 1941, nine such projects had been developed in New York City, providing 11,570 units. They are all still with us and the first three have been designated New York City landmarks.
The sheer range of educational programs implemented by the New Deal was remarkable. From kindergarten to college (for example, Hunter College, Brooklyn College, the Merchant Marine Academy in the Bronx), new buildings expanded the student population. Thousands of teachers were hired, and adjunctive programs such as preschool, work-study programs for young people, and vocational classes for adults were instituted. Community education classes were held in libraries, settlement houses, local facilities, trade union halls, park buildings, and even on the radio. There was no end to what a willing individual could learn, including driving, English, home arts, visual arts and new vocational skills. Much of the funds secured for New York City can be directly attributed to LaGuardia’s force of personality. According to Roosevelt, he would show up in Washington “and tell me a sad story. The tears run down my cheeks and tears run down his cheeks and the first thing I know he has wrangled another $50,000,000.”
For many City residents, lack of work had devolved into declining health, malnutrition, and increasing rates of infant mortality. New Deal funding produced new hospitals and neighborhood health clinics. The latter were often located in or near public housing developments and provided free medical and dental care, including immunizations, for all ages. The clinic doctors and nurses also visited homes and schools, and gave classes in healthy living. The clinics even sent housekeepers to help out where parents were ill. Access to regular health care was a first for many New Yorkers and its effects were incontestable: decreased infant mortality, a drop in serious illness and a decline in the suicides that so darkened the Depression years. It took entry into the Second World War to completely obliterate the Great Depression. Tens of thousands of men went off to battle, while the rest of the country was galvanized into full employment by the war effort. Still, the New Deal, with its plethora of alphabet soup subsidiaries, was nothing short of miraculous. It carried the country and New York City through one of the most challenging eras in our history. It transformed the relationship of government to its citizens — embodying a dynamism that has strengthened New York through the years and continues to empower it to this day
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.
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.njcss.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 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.
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?
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?
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 14th 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?
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?
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.
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 13th, 14th, and 15th 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)?
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?
Activity #3: Emancipation Act of 1863, 13th 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?
Activity #4: 14th 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?
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.njcss.org
Era 3 Westward Expansion
Concept of Self-Government
In the late 17thcentury 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 19th 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.
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,
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 36o 30’.
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?
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 21st 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?
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 21st 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?
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.njcss.org
Era 2 Revolution
Concept of Self-Government
In the late 17thcentury 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.
The 18th 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 18th century and in the 20th 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?
Activity #3: Gradual Abolition of Slavery – New Jersey (1804)and Jamaica (1833)]
What was the force behind the emancipation of enslaved persons in the 19th 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.
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 20th 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?
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.njcss.org
Era 1 Colonization and Settlement
Concept of Self-Government
In the late 17thcentury 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.
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 (18th century) and South Africa (19th century)
In the colony of New Jersey during the 18th 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.
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 17th 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 17th 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 democracywhen citizens believe in different faiths or are atheists without faith in any deity or religion?
Clifford Case and the Challenge of Liberal Republicanism
By William R. Fernekes
Reviewed by Hank Bitten, NJCSS Executive Director
The first speech Rep. Clifford Case spoke on the floor of the U.S. Capitol on June 11, 1945, should be taught to every student studying World War II and the Civil Rights era. The speech is printed in the opening paragraphs and defines Clifford Case as a public servant and human rights advocate. His statement below was a response to the defense of poll taxes as a voting requirement by Congressman John E. Rankin (D) who advocated for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, the mass deportation of Japanese Americans after the war, segregation, attacked Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, questioned the patriotism of African Americans, and explicitly spoke of racial equality as a slippery slope leading to the end of the white man’s civilization on the planet.
“Mr. Chairman, I am native-born, white, a gentile-a Protestant. That I am these things entitles me to no special status or distinction. Indeed, I had no choice in any of them, except the last.”
“Mr. Chairman, no group in this country has a monopoly on patriotism. Men of all races, colors, and creeds, whether native-or foreign born, have equally sacrificed their lives or given the best years of their youth in this war. The casualty lists show that, as do the gold stars in the windows of homes, both high and humble, in every city, town, and hamlet, and on the farms throughout the land. I suppose there are not many Jews in the State of Mississippi, but I am convinced that their casualties are in proportion to their number in the population, as they are all over the country. And if that be not true of the Negroes, it is due, I am sure to no lack of courage or patriotism on their part, but rather to these two reasons: First, that, because of poverty and lack of equal educational and economic opportunity for generations, the percentage of Negro draft rejections on medical and mental grounds is far above the average for other groups. Second, that, to some extent, they may have been given noncombat service of one kind or another more often than most other groups. Obviously, both of these factors have been quite beyond the control of the Negroes themselves. I am sure the records of this war will vindicate fully the heroism of the Negro combat soldier.” (page 6)
Most students and teachers will have no prior knowledge of Clifford Case. I voted for him in 1972 in my first opportunity to cast a ballot for senator in New Jersey. Who is he and how did his career path lead him to be a public servant for the residents of New Jersey?
Clifford was a preacher’s kid, born in Franklin Park, a small community of farmers, craftsmen, and a few merchants. He was baptized in the historic Six Mile Run Reformed Church, where his father was the pastor. This church dates back to 1710.
His father accepted a call to the Second Reformed Church in Poughkeepsie, NY when he was three years old. Clifford attended the schools in Poughkeepsie. His father unexpectedly died of pneumonia in 1920, when Clifford was age 16 and a junior in high school. His father’s church would merge with the First Reformed Church in Poughkeepsie in 1923, in a newly built church.
Rev. Clifford Case resigned as “Old First” pastor. At the first meeting of the new consistory on January 7 he was called as the pastor of the united congregations. Thus, the Mill Street or Second Reformed Church became the fifth house of worship of The Reformed Dutch Church of Poughkeepsie. Rev. Case remained its pastor until his death on March 7, 1920. His picture hangs at the entrance to the present Reformed Church’s ‘Case Chapel.’ (http://churches.rca.org/poughkeepsierc/Booklet2014A.pdf)
Clifford returned to New Jersey to attend Rutgers University where he enjoyed courses in civics, constitutional history, U.S. history, European history, and literature. He met Ruth Smith, from Linden, NJ, who was a student in the New Jersey College for Women at Rutgers (Douglass), where Barnard College graduate Mabel Smith Douglass was the Dean. They both enjoyed the music and dancing. (After all, this is the ‘Roaring 20’s!) The humor of Bill Fernekes, author, is captured through his interview with Mary Jane Weaver, Clifford and Ruth’s daughter.
“Arriving late “Buddy” Case was slightly embarrassed because his pants were split and he covered the tear with his music folder, a fact detected by the observant Ruth…. She (Ruth Case) would tell me the story of how she met this handsome, athletic Rutgers student, with a strong tenor singing voice. She would plan her departure from her dorm to coincide with him.” (page 14)
Following Rutgers, Clifford attended Columbia Law School and Ruth taught English at Linden High School. They were married in July 1928 and honeymooned in Europe. Columbia law curriculum was unique with its emphasis on interdisciplinary courses and an understanding of the social problems in society. Following his graduation, he joined the law firm of Thatcher, Simpson and Bartlett in Manhattan and worked with Cyrus Vance. Clifford and Ruth moved to Rahway and he commuted to work.
The biography written by Bill Fernekes provides insights into the power of the local and state political party ‘machine’ and why some politicians, like Clifford Case, take positions that are to the left or right of the center. It is a fascinating perspective on competitive democracy, the influence of the Hague machine in the Democratic Party in New Jersey, and the views of the media and residents regarding segregation, foreign policy, labor, health care, to identify a few of the public issues that Clifford Case held liberal Republican views.
His first election to the Rahway Council in 1937 was decided by 311 votes. (page 20) He advocated for transparency in local government and an end to the private caucuses between small groups of council members. The 1930’s was a difficult decade in the United States but in particular this was a time of prosperity for some in New Jersey and poverty for others who were without employment. Teachers in high school emphasize the Great Depression and the New Deal and this book provides some insight into the importance of local government. Rahway was a place for large manufacturing companies and a major station on the Pennsylvania RR. Clifford Case also served on the Board of Foreign missions for the Presbyterian Church, which gave him a valued perspective on the abuses faced by others living in a dangerous world.
Cherry Street in Rahway, NJ, circa, 1920
“Rahway’s municipal government established a separation between a mayor who oversaw daily city operations, and the Common Council, which set priorities, functioned in an oversight role regarding city operations, and provided resources for funding municipal operations and services. With Clifford P. Case and Sherman Lusk as the only two Republican council members, any influence they desired would require coalition building with Democrats.” (page 21)
In 1941, Clifford Case campaigned in the primary election for the Republican Party nomination in the NJ Assembly. The Frank Hague political machine had a powerful influence in New Jersey, making it almost impossible for Republican candidates from northern New Jersey to win. Hague’s influence secured governors from the Democratic Party and Thomas Brogan as Chief Justice, who would dismiss challenges of election fraud at this time. Hague also influenced the candidates for local and state positions in the Republican Party. Although Case did not secure the Republican Party nomination in 1941, he prevailed in 1942. He understood the importance of campaigning on a personal level in towns in Union County, especially Cranford, Elizabeth, Hillside, New Providence, Roselle, and Westfield. The result was a victory with a margin of more than 16,000 votes.
The context of the information in the chapter, “Development of a Political Servant” is important for students studying political institutions and/or local New Jersey history during World War II because of its relevance to voter fraud issues, campaign strategies and promises, the use of voting machines, and the outcome of elections. The lessons in the past provide insight into how fragile democracy has been over time. Case’s term in the NJ Assembly resulted in significant legislation for civil service reforms certification for lawyers, and legal status for ride sharing, which became a necessity with fuel rations during World War II.
The depth of the research and perspective in this book is with the legislative decisions and sponsorships of Congressman and later Senator Clifford Case. The historic context of civil rights, segregation, anti-lynching, and labor bills provide important information for teachers regarding the teaching of these standards-based indicators for high school students. For teachers who are committed to historical inquiry and decision-making lessons, Clifford Case and The Challenge of Liberal Republicanism is a book that must be read! Let’s examine two case studies:
Segregation: The incident of Isaac Woodward (Woodard), a black World War II veteran, who was in his uniform, at a bus stop in Batesburg, South Carolina on February 12, 1946, motivated the first significant legislation proposed by Congressman Case in 1947.
“An especially vicious attack occurred in South Carolina in February 1946, when recently discharged army veteran Isaac Woodward was assaulted by a white sheriff and his deputy after having been pulled off an interstate bus when the driver complained Woodward took too much time during a restroom stop and quarreled with him.,. Woodward was removed from the bus, violently beaten by Sheriff Linwood Shull and his deputy, and permanently blinded when one of his attackers drove a blunt instrument into his eyes. Although tried before a federal court after the NAACP and celebrities such as Orson Welles made a cause celebre about the case, Shull was acquitted.” (page 41)
Although more than 200 federal anti-lynching bills have been introduced since 1918 none of them became a law. The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, co-sponsored by NJ Senator Cory Booker and now V.P. Kamala Harris, finally became law in 2022. The Case bill introduced in 1948 (HR3488) is important because of the continuing relevance of this issue which has continued without agreement for over 140 years! Students need to understand the slow process of our Legislative Branch in reaching agreement on controversial issues such as guns, health care, rights of women, and other timely issues. The perspective below leads to historical inquiry in the classroom about continuity and change in history.
“While the legislative efforts of Case and other civil rights supporters generated more frustration than concrete results, their work and Truman’s Committee report were important. Historian Philp Dray stated that while ‘the Dixiecrats torpedoed many of Truman’s good works-the permanent FEPC antilynching legislation, and measures to end the poll tax, the Truman Committee’s report and recommendations, legislative proposals like Case’s bill, and related discussions and debates in the Congress shifted the national conversation about civil rights and racial equality. Dray argues Southern obstructionism to civil rights legislation reinforced the perception by many Americans the South was resistant to change, and lynchings, although less frequent, were now subject to ‘swift national denunciation,’ which ‘helped to convince many Americans that the South was once again carrying the country toward some form of cataclysm.’ Just a few years before the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the seeds of change regarding federal action on civil rights were planted by courageous legislators like Clifford P. Case.” (pp. 44,45) (Philip Dray is an Assistant Professor of History at the Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts at the New School in New York City)
Clifford Case’s position as a congressman on the Taft Hartley Act provides an opportunity for students to understand the important labor issues of the 20th century. In our current service-sector economy the issues discussed on the classroom are likely a fair minimum wage, medical benefits, and the wage gap between men and women. In the middle of the 20th century, The Taft Hartley Act of 1947 was unpopular with labor and unions. The sponsors were Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) and Congressman Fred Hartley (R-New Jersey). New Jersey was a manufacturing state and unions were an important part of life for most families. After World War II there were shortages of many goods and prices were inflated. Unions used this time to expand their membership and there were frequent strikes and boycotts demanding higher pay and better benefits. After Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech on March 5, 1946, Americans feared communism and strikes and unions were associated with socialism and communism.
In this political climate, Clifford Case introduced a bill to restrict the power of organized labor, co-sponsored a bill with Christian Herter that did not become law, and voted for the Taft Hartley Act and after President Truman’s veto of Taft Hartley he voted to override the president’s veto. Although Case was re-elected in 1948, eighty-two congressmen who supported Taft-Hartley were not re-elected. Labor and the Democratic Party were determined to repeal Taft Hartley and Clifford Case was faced with a difficult decision. He voted against the Wood bill which retained most of the provisions in the Taft Hartley Act. The competitive arguments between the Wagner and Taft Hartley Act, the right to work and the right to strike, are critical issues for workers, public safety, and the American economy. Visit the resources in the Truman Library for the reasons why the Taft Hartley Act was harmful and see if your students agree or disagree with President Truman and Congressman Case.
“When we passed the Taft Hartley Act, we believed it was a good law. But all of us also agreed that if experience should prove it deficient in any respect, such deficiency should be cured by amendment. There is now almost unanimous agreement that a number of the provisions of the Taft Hartley Act are actually or potentially harmful to the legitimate interests of organized labor and hence to the entire economy, and that the Act should be amended to eliminate these defects….
I was convinced that it would be possible to work out and pass a bill which met the legitimate objections to the Taft-Hartley law, which was fair to both management and labor, and a bill which adequately safeguarded the public interest. The Wood bill, despite changes made on the floor in a number of his provisions, including those mentioned, did not satisfy those objectives.” (page 48)
Students in New Jersey, and likely most other states learn about the McCarthy hearings and the threat of communism to the stability of the government of the United States and the spreading of this ideology around the world. Clifford Case became a senator in January 1955 and was faced with the threat of communism in China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and in the United States. Senator McCarthy and Senator Case were members of the Republican Party. The performance expectation for high school students in New Jersey is “Analyze efforts to eliminate communism, such as McCarthyism, and their impact on individual civil liberties.”
The campaign for Senate in New Jersey is a race that teachers should consider including when teaching about communism and McCarthyism. Case stated that if elected he would remove the powerful Senator Joseph McCarthy as chairman of all committees. Case will win the election against Rep. Charles Howell by 3,369 votes which was challenged by a recount that validated a win for Clifford Case by 3,507 votes. The 84th Congress had the Senate divided with 48 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 1 Independent. Although McCarthy’s influence was declining by the summer of 1954, the media labeled Clifford Case as being soft on communism and Stalin’s choice for Senator. One question for students to explore is: ‘Why did Case take such a strong position against McCarthy when he could have moderated his criticisms and left McCarthy to self-destruct, following President Eisenhower’s lead?
“The evidence suggests Case’s opposition to McCarthy was rooted in deeply held principles of fairness and justice with Case believing his stance would attract support from moderate Republicans, Independents, and possibly even Democrats. Although critical of McCarthy, Howell’s stance was little different from the national Democratic Party’s position on McCarthy. Case’s call to remove McCarthy from any committee chairmanship went much further, highlighting Case’s courage in taking on a well-known and powerful Republican senator.” (page 62) Senator McCarthy was censured after the November 2, 1954 election.
Clifford Case was also confronted with the conservatism of Senator Barry Goldwater and his attempts to eliminate communism in the 1960s and as the Republican Party’s candidate for president in 1964. Again, teachers should consider his positions on civil rights, communism, nuclear weapons, and his vision for the future of the GOP. This is an opportunity to teach the influence of local and state government and the influence of state political leaders in both political parties. There was a price to pay for challenging the powerful and conservative Republican leaders in New Jersey and Senator Case was the only elected Republican who would not endorse Barry Goldwater in 1964.
“My refusal to support Barry Goldwater unless he asserts his leadership, by both word and deed, against attempts to capitalize on the white backlash and against extremist appeals of any sort is based upon a moral principle which I regard as transcendent. No perspective person in attendance, and I should guess no television viewer, could miss the ugly racist undercurrent at the Convention. There is simply no comparison with whatever differences there were between Taft and Dewey or Eisenhower.” (page 150)
One of the hidden gems in this scholarly book is the ‘big picture of American history from Truman to Carter. This includes the period of 1945-1975, which some historians consider the zenith of American power when the world looked to the United States for moral leadership, economic leadership, and as the protector of freedom and democracy from the threats of communism and terrorism.
The opportunity to view this period of American domestic and foreign policy through the lens of a public servant provides an opportunity for inquiry and study by students. For teachers who provide direct instruction through primary source materials, the quotes in this book by Clifford Case provide unique insights into why a Republican congressional representative and senator challenged members within his political party and found ways to educate every president with his perspective. For teachers who differentiate instruction and enable students to investigate essential questions, the quotes and narrative in this book provide a resource for understanding the big picture of American history.
Here is an example from Senator Case on his opposition to President Nixon’s nomination of Clement Haynsworth as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969.
“The conclusion is inescapable, I believe, that Judge Haynsworth has shown a persistent reluctance to accept, and considerable legal ingenuity to avoid, the Supreme Court’s unanimous holdings in the Brown case and in subsequent decisions barring discrimination in areas other than the field of education….As late as 1968, Judge Haynsworth was continuing to voice his preference for “freedom of choice” plans in the desegregation of schools even while he reluctantly implemented prior decisions by the Supreme Court. Only last year he was still insisting that the burden of expensive litigation to secure constitutional rights be borne by those seeking relief, even when those people had been upheld in their contentions by his own court.” (page 191)
“I believe there can be no doubt that Judge Haynsworth’s confirmation by the Senate would be taken by great numbers of our people as the elevation of a symbol of resistance to the historic movement toward equal justice for every American citizen. This appointment, at this time, would drive more deeply the wedge between the black community and the other minorities on the one hand, and on the other, the rest of American society. I shall vote against the confirmation.” (page 192)
One of my observations after reading this book is that the challenges facing our government today are different but also very similar to the challenges our democracy faced when Clifford Case served in Congress. The major issues that Senators Clifford Case (R) and Harrison Williams (D) from New Jersey had positions on are the foundation of all curriculum and courses relating to 20th century American history and likely include:
NSC-68 Cuban Missile Crisis Middle East
McCarran Walter Act Southeast Asia Inflation & Recession
Korean Conflict Civil Rights Act Watergate
McCarthy Hearings Voting Rights Act Energy Independence
School Desegregation Immigration and Nationality Act War Powers Act
National Highway Act Environmental Protection Act Human Rights
The three chapters on the Vietnam War (Chapters 14, 15, and 16) provide a comprehensive picture of the conflicts between the legislative and executive branches that has particular utility for teachers of American history and government. Dr. Fernekes provides insights into the debates about funding, responsibilities for declaring and fighting wars, negotiated agreements, the death of civilians, and transparency between the branches. His perspective is scholarly, analytical and clear with carefully numbered observations. Senator Case was an outspoken supporter of American engagement in Vietnam who became an outspoken critic. His perspective is critical to studying this period of history and although Vietnam is different than the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, and Israel, the similarities of the debate and division provide teachers with an opportunity to gather evidence for inquiry and building a thesis. Here are two examples in the words of Clifford Case:
“The President’s power as commander in chief does not extend to his unilateral decision to protect another government by military action. If it were otherwise, the President would be free to engage our military forces whenever and wherever he pleases. Denying any such unfettered executive authority, our Founding Fathers carefully counterposed against the president’s power as commander in chief of our military forces the Congress’ power to declare war and control the purse strings. We must restore this vital part to our constitutional system of checks and balances.” (page 288)
“I do not accept the suggestion that the only way the peace settlement is going to work is if the North Vietnamese think we are going to intervene, if they violate the agreement. But even if that were so, we have a Constitution; and the question that the Senator from Idaho and I have raised by this bill is not whether we should or should not intervene in particular hypothetical circumstances. The question is: Who should make the decision?….The Founding Fathers not only gave Congress the constitutional authority of parliaments to withhold funds from particular ventures, they gave Congress the power to declare war and to start war, whether the President happened to have money on hand or not.” (page 288)
The second example provides both the context for the continuing support of the United States for Israel and the complexity of debate among members of Congress and the position of the president in the words of Senator Case in 1978 about an arms package to the Middle East.
“Mr. President, I suggest it is time we recognized again and kept bright and shining in our eyes this truth: The existence of Israel, its strength to defend itself, is essential to the preservation of the West, to the preservation of NATO and inevitably, in the end, to the preservation of the United States. More than that, it is essential to the preservation of the moderate Arab regimes.
Can you imagine, if there is no Israel, the kind of fighting that would go on among the various nations and interests and groups within the Middle East? Can you imagine the fertile field for Communist stirring up of strife that would exist if that happened? Can you imagine the possibility-any possibility of moderate leaders such as President Sadat surviving long in such a shambles? I cannot. I think no reasonable people can…. It is time that we restored to our thinking the concept that a strong Israel is not just a beneficiary of the United States. It is essential to the security of the United states and of all the West.“ (page 363, 364).
Senator Case also served during the time when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Executive Brank from 1953-1955 and when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Executive Branch in the Sixties. Clifford Case was also an important voice in defining the vision of the Republican Party after the 1964 election. The perspective of his local New Jersey voice is necessary to grasp the struggle behind each of the issues above. Students should also use the Library of Congress sources of Thomas to and Chronicling America for information.
The book includes excellent photographs and images of political cartoons from newspapers and the Works Cited sources are also helpful. There is a Digital Exhibit at Rutgers that was created by Dr. William Fernekes, the author. https://exhibits.libraries.rutgers.edu/clifford-p-case Although the book is expensive at $135.00, it is a book that should be in every high school, college, and public library in New Jersey. Clifford Case and the Challenge of Liberal Republicanism
Defining American: The Bureau of Naturalization’s Attempt to Standardize Citizenship Education and Inculcate ‘the Soul of America’ in Immigrants during World War 1
Barred Zones, Rising Tides, and Radical Struggles:The Antiradical and Anti-Asian Dimensions of the 1917 Immigration Act
In this wood engraving caricaturing the Chinese Exclusion Act, a well-dress Chinese man embodying “Order” and “Industry” sits outside the Golden Gate of Liberty. The sign to his right declares “Communists, Nihilist, Socialist, Fenian & Hoodlum Welcome but no Admittance to Chinamen.” Below the title, the text reads: “Enlightened American Statesman – “We must draw the line somewhere, you know.” Reprinted from Frank Leslie’s illustrated Newspaper, April 1, 1882. Courtesy Library of Congress, LC-DIG-ds-11861.
U.S. Immigration History – There are 4 eras
Following is a description with vocabulary for each era. Following the four eras mis a collection of data that students can use to learn more about each time period. In each era examine who came to the USA, why, and how did government policy favored or discouraged immigration.
Era #1: Populating the Continent-Colonial to 1875
Authority was with individual states, not the Federal Government. States used what was then called “state police power” to set and enforce rules. States set rules stopping the admission of convicts, free Blacks, paupers, diseased, sick or disabled persons or passengers on ships who tried to enter without the captain posting a bond on their behalf. No free person whether black, mulatto, or colored from a Caribbean country, especially Haiti, could enter some states. Haitian seamen on a ship entering Charleston, S.C., could not leave the ship. These powers were confirmed by a Supreme Court decision (Miln Decision, 1837) and the Passenger Cases decision (1849) approve state laws on bonding and taxing incoming passengers. The 1830 Indian Removal Act was another example of state police power. The movement of free Blacks within Missouri and Ohio was also regulated.
There were also federal laws in 1793, 1842 (Prigg decision), and 1850 concerning the return of runaway slaves to their owners. Legislation in 1809 prevented the importing of additional slaves from west Africa. In 1817 the Liberia colony was established and federally funded for free Black who wished to return to Africa. 13,000 did.
Federal laws permitting or excluding contract labor from China and Europe were enacted. In 1862 the Coolie importation from China was stopped under the logic that since slavery was illegal in northern states and Coolies were slaves therefore, they could not get into the USA. In 1867 contract labor was permitted from Europe. In conclusion, high, consistent demand for labor led to favorable State and federal immigration policies.
Northern European Migration from Ireland, UK, Germany, Netherlands
Era #2: The Opening and Closing the Immigration Doors, 1875 – 1924
During this era, power to legislate and enforce laws came totally to the national government. Immigration power resided in the Federal government’s ability to control commerce, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and the theory of national sovereignty critical for national security through border control. Between 1871 and 1914, 23.5 million Europeans entered. Eastern and southern Europeans joined those from Ireland, the U.K. and northern Europe. 1.7 million entered in 1907.
The country was industrializing and urbanizing. Labor demand was high. But gradually laws were established excluding some and regulating the entry of others. Many Americans wanted more immigration. Other Americans were critical of who were admitted. By 1924 the doors were almost closed to many Jews, Catholics, Hindus, and Chinese. See the Page Act (1875) and Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Research the Foran Act (1885) and the Dillingham Commission (1911).
1917 – Law aimed at South Asians, Indians, who settled in California and Washington and spoke out against British control of their homeland. This was part of a wider American nativist movement merging with white supremacy ideology, anti-communism and earlier opposition to immigrants with physical or mental disabilities. A literacy test was passed. A “barred” zone was created stopping all Asian entry except from the Philippines and Japan, already excluded by an informal 1907 “Gentlemen’s Agreement”, Mexicans were turned into temporary labor migrants. There was also the fear that if the US entered the League of Nations this could endanger national security. In 1920, 16% of the US population was foreign born. Bad foreigners = crime, immorality, and labor conflict.
1921 – First law closing loopholes in the 1917 law and establishing first national origin quotas. This law fused beliefs about eugenics, racial bigotry, anti-disabilities prejudice, mixed racial marriages into a category of undesirable immigrant groups. The Johnson-Reed Act (1924) created quotas by ethnic origin. The Border Patrol created an illegal entry called a misdemeanor and felony (1929) if done twice.
The Johnson-Reed Act (1924) confined immigration to mainly northern Europe. National quotas were based on ethnic origins of the 1890 census. Through the Depression of the 1930s and World War II, immigration was severely curtailed. Following World War II, the law remained intact and parallel laws dealing with World War II refugees were created that bypassed but did not displace the 1925 Law.
In 1948, Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act permitting European refugees to enter. In 1948 the law was amended permitting refugees from camps in west Germany who could not return to former homes in Poland and the USSR to enter the USA. 332,000 arrived including 141,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors between June 1948 and December 1951.
Era #4: The Door Opens to the World, 1965 – Present
The 1925 law was replaced by the Hart/Cellar Act of 1965. Racial and ethnic quotas were eliminated. Numerical quotas were retained. Entrance was open to people from anywhere. The law favored family unification, preference for certain occupations, and a new side variety of visas. In 1950, the USA was 90% white with a European origin. By 2000, 50% of new immigrants were from Latin America and 27% from Asia. In 2020, the USA population was 69% European white.
This law changed the racial composition and, some say, the national identity of the USA. The acrid, hot odor of 1924 bigotry and nativism returned magnified and channeled through social media. By 2020, some Americans were talking of white racial suicide and replacement theory. Politicians pointed to the loss of border control. The 9/11 Attack on America led to Islamophobia and Muslin immigration bans.
Many Americans supported legal immigration and the use of work visas for both unskilled and professional work. Most wanted to stop migration but the government system to judge asylum claims became broken. Since May 2022, 1.85 million border crosses have been permitted to remain in the country following a favorable “credible fear” claim. By September 2022, 86,815 immigrants were deported and 1.7 million were approved to stay. 200,149 immigrants came to New York City.
More Data:
From February 2021 to September 2023, Border Patrol arrested 6 million migrants who crossed the border illegally.
1.7 million immigrants were released to stay in the USA.
There were about 1,500 immigration judges and asylum offices available to decide these immigrant cases.
People apply for asylum at the border or if they are caught illegally in the country or overstay a visa. They have up to one year to apply. 800,000 applied in 2022.
It could cost $2 billion to hire more staff to eliminate the 2 million backlog of cases.
In some cities, it will take up to ten years to hear a case.
1.3 million have been told they must leave the USA. They have 90 days to do so.
Many do not leave and they disappear. There is no national ID in the USA to identify them.
Some marry Americans and become parents of children who are natural born citizens.
All of this data is used by politicians running for federal office. Some promise to clear them ‘out.’ How they will do this is not clear.
Many local officials run to Washington, D.V., seeking money to care for migrants in their cities. There is a deadlock in Washington, D.C. Many do not want to tax the many to pay for the foreign immigrants. The memory of 1924 is in the air and a chaotic border has become a drug channel.
Our laws were not designed to deal with BOTH old and new reasons for migrations. The new reasons are climate change, corruption in many countries, the I-phone which immediately connected migrants with friends already in the USA who send money to assist migrants in their journey. Migration used to be single men seeking jobs who would then return home. Now, it is entire families seeking a new life in the USA. Many Americans do not know what to make of it and they will vote their hopes and fears.
njcssjournal 