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.
Transformative Assessment, by W. James Popham ((Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2008)
Unlike the majority of short paperbacks published by ASCD, this book does not seem to lend itself so well to use in very brief meetings with teachers or teacher candidates. While many ASCD titles work well on weekend retreats or for “introduction, discussion, and application” in a one-day workshop, this one may need to be used in several meetings.
Because of the complicated presentation of the four major levels of formative assessment and the steps to using each one, presenters or teacher-educators may wish to assign a chapter and then cover it separately from others. The problem with adding so much complicated work to a busy teacher’s workday or semester is that a teaching tool meant to improve one’s teaching can have an adverse effect: it can confuse educators to the point that they give up trying to use it.
The author tells us there are four different levels of formative assessment, starting with the teacher’s strategies for checking on students’ ongoing mastery of concepts and ranging all the way to schoolwide implementation of the process. He tells us of the development of the term and shows the interest in this process, starting with work done by the Council of Chief State School Officers. Growing out of the work on formative assessment is Popham’s work with “transformative” aspects of assessment, meaning the ways in which a school can be changed at those four levels.
Popham here presents a helpful but difficult explanation of formative assessment, beginning by explaining that this process is one used by teachers as a way to monitor student learning and by students as a way to assess whether they are digesting the pieces of information being covered by the teacher. It has a constructivist aspect to it, in that the students are supposed to get better as figuring out what they should know and how they should be able to show it.
Murky begets murky, though, and on top of the four different levels of formative assessment there are different stages that need to be given attention. This makes the confusion a little more pointed, and it may be that many busy educators simply don’t have the energy to focus on what is being proposed here. There is, however, a very clear discussion of how standardized testing works, and why 1) it is not a form of formative assessment; 2) it does not necessarily reflect good teaching; and 3) it does not necessarily improve in a building where educators have embraced the strategies and principles of formative assessment.
The above negative points having been made, I would recommend that you regard this text as a good resource and a decent overview of formative assessment and Popham’s version of it. However, you as teacher educators and classroom experts in your own right will have to decide whether you have a good use for this short book. I might use it as optional reading in an advanced course for students who would have experience teaching and who could critique it for themselves.
Longing and Belonging: Parents, Children, and Consumer Culture, by Allison J. Pugh (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2009)
This is a very important book for teachers, teacher trainers, and teacher candidates to read because it offers an explanation of the desires of children and the interesting way the desires are met, or not met, by their parents. In this day of increasing demand for newer and better toys and technology, children ask for more and more expensive items.
Allison Pugh uses a qualitative research approach from the side of sociology to look at the phenomenon, namely the decision to reward children with gifts or to withhold them, and why or why not. Pugh looks at the desires and needs of kids from very disparate family backgrounds, socioeconomic class, and racial and cultural experiences in a region of southern California.
The pivotal point is the school, the type of school, including whether it is public or private, and the ways that having technology and other assets are viewed by the students. The author interviews several parents to find out how the decision is made as to whether the kids will receive something they want. In some cases, the parents do buy the items so that the kids will not stand out as being too different from others, so that the kids will be able to participate with others in their school and be able to “save face.”
Not all parents immediately purchase items for their child, however, sometimes waiting to make sure it is a wise choice or until the family can afford it. In other cases, the parents can indeed afford the time but wait before buying it. The author uses the term “symbolic deprivation” to describe parents waiting until the child truly deserves the item or it is somehow time to go ahead and purchase the gift, toy, or technology.
In this ethnographic study, the author discovers some surprising aspects many people do not consider. Parents often want their children to fit in, so buying them fruit snacks or certain kinds of lunch items is very important as they help their kids to be part of the scene. Some parents consider the social life at school to be as important or even more important than what the kids are learning. Sometimes parents do try to get children to adopt better eating habits, but they agree to help them fit in better by purchasing trendy snacks or desserts for the lunchbox.
For a variety of reasons, parents do or do not buy certain items. Parents of all income levels explained it was a struggle to know when to say enough is enough. In many cases, the parents say they try to buy the majority of the things the kids want, and sometimes that means kids do have to wait so the family will not wind up “in trouble” financially. Still, though, kids in this study tended to eventually get the lion’s share of what they had on their conscious wish list.
Important reading for educators, this book shows the social and family side of the desires and needs of children in three very different kinds of schools. Other factors such as class and race place interesting roles in the decision process employed by parents. It is essential to better understand the kinds of pressures on kids and their parents in terms of the technology and toys so much of the kid landscape these days. Understanding what is going on behind the scenes, in the lunchroom, and in the playground can be very helpful in comprehending a little more of the kid’s world and that of the parents raising them.
It will be interesting to study these patterns and decisions after COVID-19 has come to a more secure stop at the end of the road.
Assignments Matter: Making the Connections that Help Students Meet Standardsby Eleanor Dougherty (Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 2012)
Reviewed by Thomas Hansen, Ph.D
This helpful book provides information on all stages of assignments, including basic starting points, reasons for the strategies employed, assessment ideas, and rubrics to help the classroom teacher evaluate what has happened. The author walks us through why we include assignments as part of the educational process for students, how to design them, why they are important in the classroom, and what they mean outside the school also.
The book is divided into three main sections. The first, “Why and What,” explains the basics of assignments and why they matter. The second, “In the Classroom,” talks about crafting assignments and how they reflect and expand the teaching of the related topics. Included is a discussion of how to properly sequence assignments and five design principles—including literacy as common practice (p. 88). The third section deals with assignments serving as anchors to instruction and also being used as data in themselves. These connect assignments to life outside the classroom.
Included in this short book are links to technology that will yield additional resources and ideas for designing and enriching lessons and assignments (inside cover, back cover, and p. 180). An appendix (pp. 171-180) yields even more information, including websites for assignment content and for organizations providing some interesting prompts also.
The book does reference standards and common core issues and statements, so teachers in Illinois and many other states can make use of it. In the prairie state, teachers are making use of a variety of standards, anchors, statements, and other outcomes-related guidance in their teaching and testing. There is nothing in this book that contradicts such an eclectic approach to education.
I would recommend the book as a good basic introduction for teacher education courses. The book would also be beneficial for new teachers, I think. It is clear and thorough, and I really like the examples. I think more experienced teachers who want to make more use of technology when designing units and writing lessons may wish to look into this book also.
As a professional development book, this is suitable as general background reading for teachers in different fields to come up with their own adaptations of the ideas and strategies employed. The book would also perhaps work for people coming to teaching from other fields and who have a great deal of technical knowledge on their subject but who want a thorough treatment of how to get assignments and assessments planned quickly for use in the classroom right away.
A Brief History of France: People, History, and Culture, by Cecil Jenkins (Philadelphia, PA: Running Press. 2011)
Reviewed by Dr. Thomas Hansen, Ph.D
In 15 information-filled chapters, Jenkins gives us a decent amount of French history in a short book. Chapter One is called “Cro-Magnon Man, Roman Gaul and the Feudal Kingdom,” and the last chapter is called “France in the New Global Order.” By chapter 6 we are already reading about Napoleon, so if that is any indication of the coverage here you know that means most of the book is about the last few hundred years and not about Cro-Magnons or Romans or Celts. If you want more emphasis on those guys, you have to seek a different book.
Jenkins is a great writer, and he not only uses clever turns of phrase. He also uses a great deal of humor and fun in his writing. The book is enjoyable to read. I hold a BA in French Language & Literature, but I found a huge amount of information here I had not expected and had not known about before reading the book.
The book is really quite funny, at points. For example, on page 28, Jenkins explains, “Again, the old practice of dividing estates among the sons, which had created so many problems with the royal succession, caused continual private wars among the minor nobles who had often little else to do but strike knightly attitudes.”
This striking-a-pose reference is typical of the funny ways Jenkins tells us in more modern terms what went on in the French past. See, also, the mention of Philippe IV’s “cold good looks (p. 33) and the “déjà vu all over again” discussion on page 72 and the bitchiness notes on page 75.
Without giving too much of the actual content away, I will say here that the framework of French history gives Jenkins a wonderful playground to exercise in. He enjoys writing about this topic, obviously, and the reader will enjoy finding out about some of the more interesting and sometimes weird passages of time within the French world.’
Teachers of social studies and of history will probably like the book because of its approach and clever language. More advanced students—especially those who know something of French history—may like this also. It is not a very basic review of French history, however. It does demand some overall familiarity with the topic so that the reader can follow what is happening. I have read some other similar books recently on history of countries I knew little about and feel for those who read this one if they are not somewhat versed in French history.
This is a brief history, indeed, and best for those who need a good review and an exciting read about the topic. I recommend the book especially for Francophiles who want another perspective. This point of view is certainly refreshing.
njcssjournal 