Book Review: The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine, A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917- 2017

A year after the brutal attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, 2023 and the devastating Israeli military response that has killed over 45,000 Palestinians, I reexamined The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine, A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917- 2017 by Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi, originally published in 2020. A reviewer for The Nation (Hawa, 2020) described it as “one of the best-researched general surveys of 20th and early 21st century Palestinian life, but it’s also a deeply personal work.” A review in The Guardian (Hughes, 2020) called it “informed and passionate. It pulls no punches in its critique of Jewish-Israeli policies (policies that have had wholehearted US support after 1967), but it also lays out the failings of the Palestinian leadership . . . An elegy for the Palestinians.” The New York Times (Anderson, 2020) reviewer was more critical arguing that Khalidi failed to spell out a resolution to the conflicts between Israel and Palestine and dismissing what he did offer as having an “increasingly fantastic quality.”

Rashid Khalidi’s main arguments are that during the 100-year war on Palestine, the dominant powers, including the United States, favored Zionist ambitions and either ignored or thwarted Palestinian nationalism and that Israel justifies inequality and its aggressive nationalism as part of its need for security. Khalidi’s response is that there are two peoples who legitimately occupy Palestine and there can be no resolution until they both acknowledge the legitimacy of the other. This would require removing external support for the discriminatory and unequal current arrangement. At best the United States has paid lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, but it never placed the needed pressure on Israel to make this possible (245-247). 

Khalidi comes from a prominent Palestinian family, so the history of Palestine is interwoven with his family’s history and his own personal experiences. Khalidi was born and educated in New York City while his father was a United Nations official. He has lived and taught in Lebanon and frequently visited Palestine/Israel for research and family visits. His Palestinian family included generations of Islamic and legal scholars and government officials. One noteworthy relative warned of the threat of Zionism to Palestinians as early as 1899 (4). His grandfather was Hussain al-Khalidi, an advocate for Palestinian rights, a mayor of Jerusalem, and member of the Ottoman parliament. A paternal uncle, Husayn al-Khalidi, was mayor of Jerusalem from 1934 to 1937 when he was sent into exile by the British to the Indian Ocean Seychelles archipelago. He was not able to return to Palestine until 1943.

In The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine, Rashid Khalidi writes a history of the region from a Palestinian lens and deconstructs what he considers to be myths about the founding of Israel and its rise as a regional military power. While Khalidi’s title has the history of the struggle of Palestinians for nationhood beginning in 1917, the book actually begins in the 1890s when Theodore Herzl offered a Zionist vision for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Herzl proposed a settlement plan based on the expulsion of Palestinians that continued to be implemented after the founding of Israel as an independent state in 1948. Herzl believed that European Jews had to “expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in transit countries, while denying it employment in our own country” (4).

Yusuf Diya, the late 19th century Palestinian Mayor of Jerusalem, responded to growing Zionist sentiment in an 1899 letter to the chief rabbi of France. Diya argued that “Palestine is an integral part of the Ottoman Empire, and more gravely, it is inhabited by others.” He concluded the letter “in the name of God, let Palestine be left alone” (5). Herzl answered Diya’s letter acknowledging that a Jewish state in Palestine would be a European settler colony and argued it would “form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism” (10). In the 1920s, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a British World War I veteran who promoted a militaristic Zionism, called for military action to support a Jewish state. In 1925, Jabotinsky wrote “If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must find a garrison for the land, or find a benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf . . . Zionism is a colonizing venture, and therefore, it stands or falls on the question of armed forces” (51).

Khalidi believes that the British Empire was never motivated by altruism towards colonized people, but supported Jewish emigration to Palestine because it would buttress Britain’s position in the eastern Mediterranean and solve its own antisemitic “Jewish Problem.” At the same time during and after World War I the British were promising European Zionists a Jewish state in Palestine with the Balfour Declaration, they were also promising Middle Eastern Arab leaders that independent Arab states including a Palestinian state would be carved out of the Ottoman Empire (25). Balfour recognized the contradictory promises that were made, and in a confidential memo to the British cabinet he wrote “we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country . . . the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land” (38).

The hypocrisy of the British position continued when the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine issued in 1922 formalized British control over Palestine. It included a pledge to honor the Balfour Declaration’s promise of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine and while the mandate included a clause that “nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities,” it never directly referenced Palestinians as a people with a right to self-determination, something British and the Americans continued to do in Middle East peace talks into the 1990s (34).

In the 1930s, as Jewish migration from Europe to Palestine expanded, there was growing Palestinian nationalist resistance to the British Mandate including armed battles between the British military and Palestinian rebels that resulted in about one-sixth of the Palestinian male population killed, wounded, imprisoned, or exiled. In response to the uprisings, a British Commission recommended the division of the mandate into two separate states with the formation of a small Jewish homeland on less than 20% of the territory from which the Palestinian population would be transferred, a euphonism for expelled. Khalidi argues that prior to and during World War II, the Palestinian nationalist movement was weakened by British repression and internal division while the Zionist movement was strengthened by British policy that included creating a Jewish Brigade that marched under their own banner in the British Army and arming and training Jewish settlers to help defeat a wartime Palestinian uprising (43-47). The Jewish Brigade and the armed settlers became the core of the Israeli army during the war for independence.

As the horrors of the Nazi extermination campaign became known, with increasing support from diasporan Jews living in the United States and the American and British governments, Zionists positioned themselves for creation of a post-war Jewish state either in a portion of the Palestinian Mandate or in the entire territory (61). After the war, the British Empire receded as the British were forced to accept Indian independence, faced armed colonial resistance in a number of areas, and Jewish settler opposed continuation of the Palestinian Mandate. Great Britain finally turned the future of Palestine over to the newly established United Nations which issued a proposal highly favorable to the Jewish settlers. The Jewish minority would receive over half of the mandate territory to establish an independent state while the much larger Palestinian population would receive a significantly smaller amount of land. The proposed revision led to the Nakba, the catastrophe, the expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians from what would become the Jewish state and war between Israel and neighboring Arab states. Khalidi describes the forced removal of Palestinians from their land and villages as ethnic cleansing (72-75).

According to Khalidi’s chronology, the expulsion of Palestinians began in November 1947, six months before the declaration of Israeli independence in May 1948 and before the invasion of a well-armed Israel by virtually non-existent Arab armies, an invasion that Khalidi dismisses as ill-conceived at best and not necessarily intended to benefit Palestinians. It is a myth that a small and ill-prepared Jewish state defeated seven powerful Arab nations against overwhelming odds to secure its independence. The reality, according to Khalidi, is that Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen did not significantly participate, Egypt and Syria were overmatched, and Transjordan, later Jordan, used the Israeli war for independence as an opportunity to seize control over West Bank territory that was intended as part of an independent Palestinian state (75-77).

Israel’s military victory was aided by a shift in American foreign policy from balanced support for both a Jewish state and newly emerging Arab governments in the region, to near total diplomatic and military support for Israel. While elements of the American foreign policy establishment initially expressed concern that support for Israel would hurt American oil interests in the region, that did not manifest as a problem until the 1970s when the United States began sending Israel massive amounts of military aid. Decisions were often made because of domestic political concerns. President Truman reportedly told a meeting of U.S. diplomats “I am sorry gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents” (79-80).

After independence, Israel treated the remaining Palestinians within its territory as second-class citizens subject to martial law. Dispossessed Palestinians within Israel were prevented from leasing or purchasing land that they had been driven off that was now reserved for Jewish settlement. Palestinians forced into refugee camps in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were completely dependent on the United Nations for relief aid and for maintaining the most basic conditions for survival. They were never integrated into host countries and increasingly they identified as Palestinians with a desire to return to their traditional homes. Military incursions into Israel by Palestinian nationalist groups were met with disproportionate force and collective punishment by Israel which only intensified the desire for an independent Palestinian state (83-88).

One of Khalidi’s more controversial assertions is that justifications given by Israel for the 1967 preemptive strike that destroyed the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian air forces are unfounded. Israel claimed that it faced an impending attack that threatened its existence. Khalidi cites a report by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to President Lyndon Johnson and Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban stating that no attack was imminent and that if the Arab states actually did attack Israel, they would be easily defeated by a far superior Israeli military. In support of his argument, Khalidi cites Lyndon Johnson’s The Vantage Point: Perspectives of the Presidency (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971) and a Department of State analysis from 1967 (Foreign Relations, 1964-1968, Volume XIX, Arab-Israeli Crisis and War, 1967). At the meeting, President Johnson added “All of our intelligence people are unanimous” that if Egypt did attack “You will whip hell out of them” (97). According to U.S. documents later published, General Earl Wheeler, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed the President “The UAR’s [United Arab Republic, Egypt and Syria] dispositions are defensive and do not look as if they are preparatory for an invasion of Israel” and a C.I.A. memorandum reported “Israel could almost certainly attain air superiority over the Sinai Peninsula in 24 hours after the initiative or in two or three days if the UAR struck first” (276). Despite U.S. intelligence reports and the meeting between Johnson, McNamara, and Eban, the head of the Israeli intelligence agency informed McNamara that Israel planned to go ahead with a preemptive attack and McNamara gave tacit approval (104). These documents undermine the myth that the preemptive Israel strike on its neighbors in 1967 was necessitated by survival.

Khalidi accuses the America media of being complicit with this country’s one-sided approach to repeated Middle Eastern crises and the treatment of Palestinians. He opens Chapter 4 with a quote from a 1982 communication between Thomas Friedman, at the time the New York Times Beirut Bureau Chief, with editors at the newspaper. Friedman accuses them of being “afraid to tell our readers and those who might complain to you that the Israelis are capable of indiscriminately shelling an entire city” (139), a telling complaint given Israel’s current bombing campaigns in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and Israel’s claims that the bombings are carefully directed at military targets.

Pointedly, United Nations efforts to mediate the conflict between Israel and its neighbors with Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967 made no mention of Palestinians except to call for a resolution of the refugee crisis. Ignoring the existence of the Palestinian people as a party to the conflict contributed to a claim by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in an interview published in the Sunday Times of London on June 15, 1969 (106). Khalidi quoted an excerpt from the interview; however, the full statement is worth citing because of its total denial of a Palestinian nationality. According to Meir “There was no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either Southern Syria, before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine, including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country from them. They did not exist.”

Israel’s resounding victory in the 1967 war the exposed military weaknesses of the major Arab nations. Khalidi believes their failure to advance the Palestinian cause spurred a sense of political, literary, and artistic Palestinian nationalism and the emergence of Yassar Arafat, the PLO, and Fatah as dominant forces in Palestinian society. Israel countered this resurgence by continually equating Palestinian with terrorist in efforts to discredit the movement in the United States and on the international stage, although the Fatah and the PLO were never a military threat to Israel (110-119). The 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel, Khalidi considers them part of a United States Cold War strategy for pulling Egypt out of the Soviet orbit and effectively dividing the Arab bloc, excluded Palestinians from the negotiations (122). They established as a goal respecting the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people” and the creation of civilian “autonomy” on the Israeli occupied West Bank, but not statehood, something Khalidi criticized in Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East (Beacon Press, 2013) as “devoid of meaning and content.” Developments since the 1978 agreement bear out Khalidi’s view as Israel has absorbed East Jerusalem, built West Bank settlements that are illegal under international law, effectively blockaded the Gaza Strip, and it has continually blocked efforts to create an independent Palestinian state, even after the PLO and Fatah endorsed a two-state solution, accepting the legitimacy of a Jewish state (126).

Khalidi provides much greater coverage of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, than the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In his view it was much more closely linked to the future of Palestine and argues that proponents of a “Greater Israel,” including Ariel Sharon, Menachim Begin, and Yitzhak Shamir, believed the battle to defeat Palestinian forces in Lebanon would destroy the PLO as an effective military force and severely weaken the Palestinian nationalist movement. He quotes former Israeli Chief of Staff Mordechai Gur’s explanation of the war to a Knesset committee that in the “Occupied Territories” it would provide Israel with “greater freedom of action” (142-143). Khalidi also believes that United States Secretary of State Alexander Haig had prior knowledge of the invasion and gave Israel tacit approval.

In an effort to prevent a broader war, the Reagan administration did propose limiting Israeli settlements on the West Bank and the creation of an autonomous Palestinian Authority, but not an independent Palestinian state (151). Despite warnings to Israel, the United States never limited its support for Israeli action in Lebanon, even after the Western press documented Israel’s role in massacres carried out by its local allies at the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps (158-162). We see similar warnings by the U.S. today that continued Israeli attacks on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon will lead to reduced U.S. support, but in both cases the United States took no action.

Unanticipated results of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon were the emergence of Hizballah as a new armed opponent of Israel, growing international sympathy for Palestinians, and increased militancy by Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza as they realized they could not rely on the either the major powers or Arab nations to mediate conflicts with Israel or to press for creation of the long promised Palestinian state. This new Palestinian awareness led to the spontaneous eruption of the First Intifada in 1987 in Gaza that then spread to the West Bank with street battles between largely unarmed young Palestinian protesters and heavily armed Israeli troops (168-169). The Intifada also exposed a growing rift between the PLO/Fatah leadership in exile and the local Palestinian population directly challenging the Israeli occupation although in 1988, the PLO did issue a Palestinian “Declaration of Independence “(178).

In his discussion of the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 and Oslo Accords meetings in 1993, Khalidi believes an important concession by Israel was acceptance that the Palestinians were a people and that the PLO were their legitimate representatives. However, the Palestinian delegation at Oslo was a delegation of exiles who had not been in occupied Palestine for decades; they were not well versed on conditions there and were ill-prepared for negotiations. In exchange for receiving limited administrative responsibility for scattered areas across the West Bank and the ability to return from exile, the PLO leadership conceded the continuation of the Israeli occupation. Arafat mistakenly believed that future negotiations based on the Oslo Accords would bring further concessions from Israel, something the Israeli’s were never prepared to do as they drew out the timeframe for reaching new agreements. The United States, solidly in the same camp as Israel, blamed the PLO and Arafat for any delays. U.S. bias and Israeli intransigence torpedoed the accords despite PLO willingness to acquiesce on virtually every front, acquiescence that further alienated the PLO from Palestinian activists on the West Bank and in Gaza (194-199).

Relocated to the West Bank headquarters, the PLO served at consent of the of the Israeli military, and in 2002, during a Second Intifada set off by Palestinian frustration and Israeli provocations, the headquarters of the Palestinian Authority were forcibly closed (199-203). Khalidi views the Second Intifada as a setback for Palestinians because scenes of violence broadcast globally seemed to justify the Israeli intransigence that caused the violence (2019).

Following Oslo, the Israeli occupation completely sealed off the Gaza Strip. Awareness that Oslo agreements would never end the occupation eventually brought Hamas to power in the Gaza and created the conditions that ultimately forced Israel to close its settlements there and withdraw. Meanwhile, the United States in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, stiffened laws against terrorism making an even remote connection to an organization or individual on its terrorist list impossible to maintain, isolating the groups, reinforcing their alienation, and preventing any attempts to modify their goals or actions (221).

Khalidi cites instances where Israeli actions ran counter to U.S. policy goals, especially during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. In these cases, the United States attempted to put a break on aggressive Israeli actions, however American governments were primarily concerned with its relationship with Arab governments and not with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Writing before the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and the Israeli response, Khalidi believed there was a gradual shift taking place in American public opinion recognizing the legitimacy of Palestinian grievances and aspirations. The problem, he saw, was that the political leadership in the country was non-responsive to this shift. The Republican Party was heavily dependent for votes on Evangelical Christian supporters that perceived the State of Israel as signaling the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and both parties relied on wealthy pro-Israel donors to finance election campaigns. Israel’s success in equating Palestinians with terrorists undermined sympathy for the Palestinian cause after al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11, 2001 and the Bush administration launched a war on terror that continued into the Obama presidency (228-232).

In his conclusion, Khalidi addresses possibilities for shifting public opinion in the United States to become more favorable to the Palestinian cause. One approach is to identify the Palestinian cause with other liberation movements by colonized indigenous people, specifically South Africa, Ireland, and Native Americans. However, this has been difficult because Zionism claims biblical roots in Palestine and that the ancient Jews are the indigenous population, not Palestinian Arabs. American perceptions of United States history and a positive view of settler colonialism have also made it difficult to change American views about Palestinian statehood (41-242).

A second tactic proposed by Khalidi is challenging the myth that Israel is David hoping for peace but prepared to fight against a powerful Arab Goliath. Khalidi wants to reverse the idea of who is powerful and who is victimized. He also wants to challenge the moral legitimacy of Israel, that it cannot be both Jewish and democratic. The Israeli charter ensures Jewish supremacy which makes it illiberal and discriminatory (243-244).

Khalidi believes that at this point the United States cannot be relied on to broker a fair solution and a massive campaign within the United States is needed to shift public opinion. Palestinians will also need to win support in Europe, Russia, India, China, and Brazil. In Arab countries, Khalidi argues Palestinians must appeal to sympathetic populations rather than unsympathetic regimes (252). It may also be possible to influence Israelis tired of decades of war and the intense fighting and hostage situation in the latest conflict. Palestinians, for their part, need to reject Oslo gradualism, demand an entirely new timetable, and insist on a set of conditions based on the initial United Nations decision to establish two independent states.

Khalidi’s coverage of most of the events in the hundred years’ war on Palestine are comprehensive, however there is almost no discussion of the 1973 Yom Kipper War. I think it is a significant omission because in that war neighboring Arab states did attack Israel in an attempt to regain territory seized by Israel in 1967, and at least at the start, Israel appeared to be vulnerable. For many American Jews and for Israelis the attack on Israel and the successful Israeli counterattack justified their belief that Israel’s survival as a small country was continually threatened by hostile neighbors, could only be ensured through a dominant military supported by U.S. aid, and that the occupation of Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank were essential for Israel’s defense. I can only conjecture that the 1973 war is of limited importance in Khalidi’s narrative because the United States was already committed to one-sided support for Israel in Middle Eastern conflicts and because it did not significantly change the situation for Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Anderson, S.  (2020, January 28). “Is There Any Way to End the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/books/review/the-hundred-years-war-on-palestine-rashid-khalidi.html. Accessed December 23, 2024.

Hawa, K. (2020, August 10/17). “Present Absences, A century of struggle in Palestine,” The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/hundred-years-war-on-palestine-rashid-khalidi/. Accessed December 23, 2024.

Hughes, M. (2020, May 7). “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi review – conquest and resistance,” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/07/the-hundred-years-war-on-palestine-by-rashid-khalidi-review-conquest-and-resistance#  Accessed December 23, 2024.

Marantz, A. 2023, December 2. “Columbia Suspended Pro-Palestine Student Groups. The Faculty Revolted,” The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-local-correspondents/columbia-suspended-pro-palestine-student-groups-the-faculty-revolted. Accessed December 23, 2024.

Mashiach, I. (2024, November 30). “Palestinian-American Historian Rashid Khalidi: ‘Israel Has Created a Nightmare Scenario for Itself. The Clock Is Ticking,” Haaretz. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-11-30/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/rashid-khalidi-israel-has-created-a-nightmare-scenario-for-itself-the-clock-is-ticking/00000193-7b6a-d1df-a79f-7beab0db0000. Accessed December 23, 2024.

Notes and Commentary 2023, December “Tenured Barbarians, On academic antisemitism,” The New Criterion, v. 42, n. 4. https://newcriterion.com/article/tenured-barbarians/ . Accessed December 23, 2024.

Shezaf, H. (2019, July 5) “Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs,” Haaretz

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-07-05/ty-article-magazine/.premium/how-israel-systematically-hides-evidence-of-1948-expulsion-of-arabs/0000017f-f303-d487-abff-f3ff69de0000.  Accessed December 23, 2024.

Israel, Russia, and International Law

This article is reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus

International law―the recognized rules of behavior among nations based on customary practices and treaties, among them the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights―has been agreed upon by large and small nations alike. To implement this law, the nations of the world have established a UN Security Council (to maintain international peace and security) and a variety of international courts, including the UN’s International Court of Justice (which adjudicates disputes between nations and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues) and the International Criminal Court (which prosecutes individuals for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression). Yet nations continue to defy international law.

In the ongoing Gaza crisis, the Israeli government has failed to uphold international law by rebuffing the calls of international organizations to end its massive slaughter of Palestinian civilians. The U.S. government has facilitated this behavior by vetoing three UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire, while the Israeli government has ignored an International Court of Justice ruling that it should head off genocide in Gaza by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian population. The Israeli government has also refused to honor an order by the International Court of Justice to halt its offensive in Rafah and denounced the International Criminal Court’s request for arrest warrants for its top officials.

Russia’s military assault upon Ukraine provides another example of flouting international law. Given the UN Charter’s prohibition of the “use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state,” when Russian military forces seized and annexed Crimea and commenced military operations to gobble up eastern Ukraine in early 2014, the issue came before the UN Security Council, where condemnation of Russia’s action was promptly vetoed by Russia. Similarly, in February 2022, when the Russian government commenced a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia again vetoed Security Council action. That March, the International Court of Justice, by an overwhelming vote, ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine—but, as usual, to no avail. Unfortunately, these violations of international law are not unusual for, over many decades, numerous nations have ignored the recognized rules of international conduct.

What is lacking is not international law but, rather, its consistent and universal enforcement. For decades, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France) have repeatedly used their veto power in that entity to block UN action to maintain international peace and security. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of the world’s nations do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, while  more than a third of the world’s nations (including some of the largest, such as Russia, the United States, China, and India) have resisted becoming parties to the International Criminal Court.

Despite such obstacles, these organizations have sometimes played very useful roles in resolving international disputes. The UN Security Council has dispatched numerous peacekeeping missions around the world―including 60 alone in the years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union―that have helped defuse crises in conflict-ridden regions.

For its part, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) paved the way for the Central American Peace Accords during the 1980s through its ruling in Nicaragua v United States, while its ruling in the Nuclear Tests case helped bring an end to nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific. In addition, the ICJ’s ruling in Chad v Libya resolved a territorial dispute between these two nations and ended their military conflict.

Although the International Criminal Court has only been in operation since 2002, it has thus far convicted ten individuals of heinous crimes, issued or requested warrants for the arrest of prominent figures charged with war crimes (including Vladimir PutinBenjamin Netanyahu, and the leaders of Hamas), and conducted or begun investigations of yet other notorious individuals. But, of course, as demonstrated by the persistence of wars of aggression and massive violations of human rights, enforcing international law remains a major problem in the contemporary world.

Therefore, if the world is to move beyond national impunity―if it is finally to scrap the long and disgraceful tradition among nations of might makes right―it is necessary to empower the world’s major international organizations to enforce the international law that nations have agreed to respect. This strengthening of global governance is certainly possible.

Although provisions in the UN Charter make outright abolition of the UN Security Council veto very difficult, other means are available for reducing the veto’s baneful effects. In many cases ―including those of the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts―simply invoking Article 27(3) of the UN Charter would be sufficient, for it states that a party to a dispute before the Security Council shall abstain from voting in connection with that dispute. Furthermore, 124 UN nations have already endorsed a proposal for renunciation of the veto when taking action against genocide, crimes against humanity, and mass atrocities. Moreover, the UN General Assembly has occasionally employed “Uniting for Peace” resolutions to take action when the Security Council has failed to do so.

Improving the effectiveness of the international judicial system has also generated attention in recent years. The LAW Not War campaign, championed by organizations dedicated to improving global governance, advocates strengthening the International Court of Justice, principally by increasing the number of nations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Similarly, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, representing numerous organizations, calls on all nations to ratify the Court’s founding statute and, thereby, “expand the Court’s reach and reduce the impunity gap.”

National impunity is not inevitable, at least if people and governments of the world are willing to take the necessary actions. Are they? Or will they continue talking of a “rules-based international order” while they avoid enforcing the rules?

What You Need to Know about Plagiarism

This article was reprinted with permission from https://njsbf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/plagiarism_2016.pdf

            What is plagiarism? Generally speaking, plagiarism is the taking of someone else’s ideas or means of expression and passing them off as your own work. In some cases, educational institutions define plagiarism in faculty or student handbooks.

Is plagiarism a crime? There is a fair amount of misunderstanding about this. For an act to be criminal and punishable by law, legislation would need to be passed by either a state legislature or the U.S. Congress. Some sources refer to plagiarism as an “academic crime,” but that should not be confused with state or federal law. If a state were to pass a criminal law that described behavior understood to be plagiarism, that behavior would be a crime under that particular state’s statute. As a matter of federal law, while there is no national crime of plagiarism, there is criminal liability for certain copyright infringement.

Is plagiarism fraud? Plagiarism could be considered a form of “fraud” because you are misrepresenting as your own someone else’s ideas or work product, with the intention that others rely on it. Whether or not it is actionable and can subject you to liability would depend upon the rules and regulations of your academic institution or the laws of the state in which the act occurs. It may also be deemed “misappropriation,” which may also be actionable.

Is plagiarism cheating? The online version of Merriam-Webster Dictionary lists one definition of “cheat” as “to practice fraud or trickery.” Since you are acting dishonestly or fraudulently when you plagiarize, it could be considered cheating. Whether it subjects you to punishment in an academic context would depend on your school’s rules and regulations. Some academic institutions may deem it a “breach of contract” based on an expressed or implied contract between student and school.

Is it considered plagiarism if someone takes parts of an old research paper turned in last year and uses it for a current assignment? Some teachers will look upon plagiarism in its broad sense as representing that you have done work that you really have not done, and may view you as plagiarizing yourself to the extent you try to pass off a paper in one class as new and original, when you previously submitted it in another class. Some may not view this technically as plagiarism since you are not taking someone else’s work product. However, if you do not reference that it is a prior paper, then some may consider it a different form of cheating. Even if you are expanding on a prior paper, it is better to cite your own prior work rather than simply recycle it as a “new” paper. If you are using certain information from your prior paper in an entirely new way it may not need to be referenced, but it is probably better to err on the side of caution and cite it.

How can someone avoid plagiarism when doing research? How can information be rewritten without using some of the original writer’s words? Many academic institutions offer advice on their websites on how to avoid plagiarism. Your teachers may have their own ideas as well. In general terms, you should: (1) take careful notes and citations; (2) put quotation marks around any direct quotations; (3) identify specific citation information when you paraphrase; (4) indicate in your notes where you have injected original thoughts or comments. Because plagiarism can occur even when it is not intentional, you need to be thorough not only in your note taking but in how you reference your sources. Direct quotations, paraphrases, reference to another’s ideas or theories, and use of another’s charts or graphs, for example, must be acknowledged. Common facts do not have to be cited, such as the fact that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865. There is probably no one definitive statement as to what is common knowledge; if in doubt, consult your teacher. Even when you use attribution, if you overdo it, and have very little of your own work, it may be considered inappropriate, if not actually plagiarism.

What is the distinction between summarizing and paraphrasing? When you summarize, you are condensing the main points or ideas from someone else. When you paraphrase, you are restating the way someone else expressed something in your own words.

If information is summarized or paraphrased, must the source still be cited? Yes, unless you are summarizing or paraphrasing common facts.

Is an author’s permission needed to use long passages from his or her book or article in a report? The Copyright Act permits you to use appropriately cited material from someone else’s work as “fair use,” if the use is for “purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…scholarship, or research…” However, whether you need permission from an author is not simply a function of the length of a particular passage; it would depend upon the “purpose and character of the use,” the “nature” of the other work, the amount and substantiality of the passages used in relation to the other work as a whole, and the effect of the use on the market or value of the other work. Different journals and academic institutions themselves may have rules of thumb as to how substantial the passage must be in order to require permission. When in doubt, consult your teacher.

What source material needs to be cited in a report to avoid a charge of plagiarism? Different teachers will have different requirements. There are certain reference works, such as The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, (CMS), or A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, (Turabian). These books will tell you what information you’ll need for your bibliography and your footnotes or endnotes, and how citations are used internally and in bibliographies, and in different subject areas. For example, you will generally need to cite in a bibliography the author, title of the work, publisher, city of publication and year of publication.

If parents help to write a paper, is that cheating? Your paper must be your own work product. Most would probably agree that if you write a 20-page paper and ask your father or mother to read it and they say, “It was interesting, but I suggest you rewrite these paragraphs since they are not clear, and you have some spelling errors,” this would not be cheating. However, to the extent your parents actually write part of the paper for you, or give more than the kind of suggestion a teacher might, you are probably crossing the line. Because of the vagueness of the term “help,” there is no hard and fast rule, other than the work must be your own.

What does it mean when someone says to “use your own voice?” You should try to interpret things in your own words and bring your own independent thinking to the subject.

Does writing about personal experiences or thoughts ever require citations? Generally not, unless you are referring to an earlier published or submitted work of your own.

Can you plagiarize facts? Generally, you cannot plagiarize commonly known facts or items of common knowledge, but if the fact itself is someone else’s work product, then failure to cite it appropriately could be considered plagiarism. The University of Pennsylvania calls common knowledge “information that the average, educated reader would accept as reliable without having to look it up.”

What if something is considered common knowledge and is found in several sources? Must each source be cited to avoid a plagiarism charge? You should have a bibliography that refers to all the books you consulted. One school of thought is that if identical information is found in five different sources, then it is common knowledge and does not need to be cited. If the common fact or knowledge, however, is expressed in a particularly different way and you express it that way, you should cite the source of that expression. Again, if in doubt, consult your teacher.

What is the public domain? The public domain refers to works that are no longer copyrighted as a matter of law and that are open to use by anyone. For example, all works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain as a result of expiration of copyright.

Is citing material in the public domain necessary? Yes. While you are not subject to copyright infringement issues, if you do not appropriately cite the source, you would be plagiarizing. Consider, in an extreme example, if you are given a creative writing assignment and you turn in Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, passing it off as your own. You would not be liable for copyright infringement in that instance, but you would be plagiarizing, because you have passed off someone else’s book as your own.

How do you know if you have “substantially rewritten” information you obtained through research? This is very fact sensitive. There has to be some level of common sense and good judgment. One way to approach this is to ask yourself whether the average, objective reader would think that you have simply copied the passage. If, for some reason, the issue reached the courts, various technical tests would be used to determine if there was any type of infringement. If you have any doubts, you should probably try to rework your writing and/or consult your teacher.

Is copying material from the Internet considered plagiarism? Copying material from the Internet and passing it off as your own and not appropriately explaining it is plagiarism. The same rules apply in determining whether you have engaged in copyright infringement. The words appearing on a website are someone else’s product and should be treated the same as a hard copy source. There is no difference between copying from the Internet and copying out of a book. The only thing that matters is whether or not you are passing off someone else’s work as your own, and the same tests will apply. The fact that it is easier because you can cut-and-paste does not change the principle.

What is the appropriate use of Internet material? The same rules apply as for hard copy sources. It’s another published source. Consult the style manuals noted above for the particular format of such a citation.

Is it illegal to purchase an entire term paper from the Internet? If you purchase a term paper and pass it off as your own product, then it is plagiarism. If you wish, however, to purchase the legitimate work product of another for your own reference, you may do so, assuming that work itself is not infringing and the website or company selling the paper is legitimate. For example, you may be able to purchase a student’s unpublished thesis that is in the library of a university and use it as another source. Note: In some states it is illegal to sell terms papers to students.

Can a teacher tell if a term paper came from the Internet? If so, how? In many cases, teachers can tell. First, there are software programs that teachers may use to analyze your paper. Another way the teacher can tell is if the writing or quality of work is uncharacteristic of the particular student; for example, if the vocabulary reflects words that the teacher has never heard the student use or the writing style is inconsistent with prior work. In other instances, the teacher may be familiar with the idea or theory being passed off as the student’s own.

Can someone be suspended or expelled for purchasing a term paper off the Internet and passing it off as their own? If your school’s disciplinary code indicates that one of the penalties for plagiarism could be suspension, then it doesn’t matter from what source you got the paper. What matters is whether you have plagiarized and violated the school’s rules. Plagiarizing someone else’s work and passing it off as your own can be a serious offense, depending upon your school’s rules. Other penalties may apply depending upon the teacher’s rules or policies, particularly in a high school setting.

Is copying information out of the encyclopedia considered plagiarism? Encyclopedias are treated no differently than any other source. While a fact is a fact and you are entitled to use that fact, you cannot simply copy word for word an entry in an encyclopedia and pass it off as your own.

Is copying information from a sourcebook considered plagiarism? There are two different issues here. If someone has prepared a table or chart of data, you should cite the source of that chart or data. On the other hand, if you are citing a particular fact that is a common fact, it would probably not be plagiarism. For example, if the sourcebook contains the annual rainfall over 10 years in the Brazilian rainforest, you should not just copy that chart and pass it off as your own. If you wanted to refer to the rainfall in one year, that, too, may not be a commonly known fact, and you probably should cite the source—not only for protection against plagiarism, but to identify the source for other interested persons. If the sourcebook places information in a particular or creative form, that, too, should be acknowledged. On the other hand, if the sourcebook lists the presidents of the United States and their terms of office, that information in and of itself is commonly known and should be able to be utilized without concern. Again, when in doubt consult your teacher or your school’s website and plagiarism policies.

How can it be proven that someone did not plagiarize? The proof is going to be a comparison of the source or sources to what you wrote. You would seek to prove that either you documented the source and that you’ve given credit, or that you did not need to because you were referring to common facts, or that you have appropriately utilized your own language and thoughts. In essence, you would need to prove that you did not do any of the things that have been discussed in this brochure.

What are the consequences of plagiarism? It depends on an individual school’s policies. Apart from personal embarrassment and damage to reputation, you may be subject to discipline that could include suspension, expulsion or delay in obtaining your degree; or receive a failing or reduced grade on the paper or in the course.

What does “ignorance of the law is not a defense” mean? What this means is that even if you have inadvertently plagiarized, you may still have a problem. Schools have made clear in their rules and regulations, and on their websites, what is and is not permitted, so it is probably not going to help you to say you did not know, particularly if you have had the opportunity to find out. While it is an oversimplification to say in all instances that ignorance of the law is not a defense, it generally means that you cannot rely on ignorance when you have a responsibility to find out what your obligations are. In some instances where intent is required, ignorance may be a mitigating element.

What if you accidentally plagiarized a passage because you couldn’t remember if you copied it from somewhere or rewrote it in your own words? Are you still liable for plagiarism? Yes, you can be liable for accidental or inadvertent plagiarism. While it might be a mitigating factor, in other words the school may take into account the fact that your plagiarism was accidental, depending upon the school’s rules, you might still be subject to disciplinary procedures.

Who is hurt by plagiarism? You are hurt by plagiarism because you are not learning proper research habits or disciplining yourself in proper research and writing techniques, and you are not fully thinking through your arguments. The integrity of the academic institution is hurt if this kind of behavior is tolerated. Other students are hurt because they are competing against someone who is taking unfair advantage and otherwise cheating.

If someone is accused of plagiarism, must the accuser prove that he or she plagiarized, or must the accused prove that he or she didn’t plagiarize? In an academic context, the institution needs to show that you plagiarized. If someone accuses you of copyright infringement, they have the burden of proof. However, once they prove ownership and substantial copying, you have the burden of proving your defense, such as fair use.

Is it better to try to turn a paper in on time even if you have to plagiarize, rather than get an “F” on an assignment? No, since there is no guarantee you’ll get a failing grade if you discuss the situation with your teacher prior to submitting the assignment. Moreover, if you are caught plagiarizing, you can still receive an “F” anyway. If it is a true emergency, most teachers will probably work with you. If you have simply waited until the last minute, however, then you have brought the problem on yourself. You cannot justify plagiarism to cure your own lack of planning.

If caught, should the plagiarist be publicly identified, or should the matter be handled privately? An honor code may provide for a type of private intervention by one student to another as a means of ensuring compliance, and the school’s disciplinary proceedings may have confidentiality requirements. Sometimes dealing with a situation privately does more good than publicly embarrassing someone. On the other hand, the particular institution may have different policies on how public or private a particular incident becomes. Certainly, in a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement, the allegations are generally public.

What is an honor code? An honor code is a set of commitments you make to honor certain principles, whether you’re at a company or in an academic environment. In some circumstances it might take on contractual status, which if breached can trigger consequences in accordance with a school’s rules and regulations.

Is plagiarism a violation of the honor code? Most honor codes would make plagiarism a violation, but each school’s code would have to be consulted for the particulars. The penalty for plagiarism under an honor code would be for an individual school to decide. An honor code may provide for sequential and increased penalties for subsequent offenses. Offenses can include getting a zero or the equivalent of receiving a failing grade on the particular assignment, withdrawal of school privileges, and suspension or delay in receiving a degree, and may depend on whether the institution is a public or private school.

Steven M. Richman, a commercial lawyer whose practice includes aspects of copyright and international law, provided the legal information contained in this brochure. The New Jersey State Bar Foundation thanks Mr. Richman for his time and diligence in the production of What You Need to Know About Plagiarism. For more information or copies of program materials, visit the New Jersey State Bar Foundation online at http://www.njsbf.org or call 1-800 FREE LAW. Please follow the Bar Foundation on Social Media and invite your friends to like and follow us as well. @NJStateBarFdn can be found on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. The Foundation also has a YouTube channel.

Enhancing Student Learning with AI-Powered Image Features

Andy Szeto

Plaza de Toros de la Real Maestranza de Caballería de Sevilla, a Bullring in Seville, Spain. Photo Credit: Andy Szeto

Artificial[HB1]  intelligence (AI) is transforming the way we approach education, providing tools that enhance student engagement and make abstract concepts more accessible. One such innovation is AI-powered image recognition, which has the potential to revolutionize real-world learning experiences, from understanding historical documents to visualizing complex ideas.

My recent experience in Seville, Spain, underscores how AI can make learning more dynamic and personal.  While traveling with my family in Seville, Spain in August 2024, my soon-to-be teenage daughter turned to me as we stood inside a bullfighting ring and asked, “Hey dad, what do the two red circles mean?” I acknowledged my lack of knowledge on the matter but soon recognized that AI could provide valuable assistance. 

Using my paid version of ChatGPT, I uploaded a picture of the bullring, and within moments, the answer appeared. The red circles in the Plaza de Toros de la Real Maestranza are reference points used during bullfighting events, helping the matador and participants position themselves during key stages of the fight. ChatGPT’s photo upload feature, available in its paid version, allowed artificial intelligence to analyze the image quickly and provide a detailed answer to my question, which amazed us both. My daughter was excited to learn this fact, while I marveled at the power of AI in delivering such precise information. This moment highlighted how AI could revolutionize education, by promoting independent learning and engaging students with real-world questions, both inside and outside the classroom.

This small but powerful moment made me reflect on the broader implications of AI in education. Beyond answering real-world questions, AI can also assist students in engaging with historical materials in new ways, such as transcribing handwritten documents or visualizing historical events.  Students can utilize AI image recognition features to enhance their understanding of historical archival materials by uploading images of primary sources, such as draft cards, census records, or letters, into an AI system. These AI tools can process and analyze a wide range of documents, extracting key details such as names, dates, locations, and occupations that are often embedded in handwritten or faded text. This process allows students to work more independently with primary sources, reducing the manual effort needed to transcribe difficult-to-read documents, particularly those written in older or cursive styles.

While the technology is not flawless—certain handwriting styles, ink smudges, or document wear can cause errors—it offers substantial support, especially for novice researchers who might otherwise find these documents inaccessible. For example, students could create a prompt like, ‘Find attached an image, and extract every piece of information from the draft card,’ to encourage the AI to analyze the content in detail. This could include not just the soldier’s name and registration date, but also contextual clues like regional differences in draft registration forms or patterns in the types of exemptions requested.

Furthermore, by leveraging AI’s ability to scan and highlight particular elements, such as identifying a certain region mentioned or flagging unfamiliar terms, students can dive deeper into their analysis. In a classroom setting, teachers can encourage students to compare their own interpretations of a primary source with the AI-generated output, sparking discussions on the reliability and limits of technology in historical research. Through this process, students gain a more hands-on approach to examining archival documents, enhancing their critical thinking skills and historical inquiry capabilities (UTSA Institute of Texan Cultures, 2017)

Similarly, AI can help students transcribe historical handwriting, assisting them in reading handwriting from primary sources. For instance, a student may struggle to read government records, such as those about the Governor’s Mansion in North Carolina, detailing the cost of a house in Raleigh for the governor. In this case, AI can assist with the transcription (North Carolina Digital Collections, 2024). Additionally, AI can help students with cursive handwriting, making it easier for them to understand cursive text, which is often seen in older documents. Again, this technology, like extraction, is not perfect but is useful in supporting students as they delve into historical records. This allows for a deeper exploration of historical documents by aiding in the extraction of text and details that might otherwise be difficult to read manually.

WWI Draft Registration Certificate for Ernst Fritz Schuchard, issued June 5, 1917, in Bexar County, Texas

Governor’s Mansion: Payment to Penitentiary for Construction of Governor’s Mansion and Payment for Yard Work  An AI-generated Image depicting Election Day, November 1884, inspired by Walt Whitman’s poem.  

Beyond text recognition, AI’s image generation capabilities further enrich student learning by bringing historical concepts to life. By transforming abstract texts, like Whitman’s poetry, into visual scenes, students can engage more emotionally and intellectually with the material.  Using AI’s image generation feature to create an illustration inspired by Walt Whitman’s poem Election Day, November 1884 offers a powerful and engaging experience. The poem reflects the importance of civic duty and voting rights during a significant moment in 19th-century America, when the concept of suffrage was expanding, but not yet fully inclusive. Through imagery rooted in historical contexts—voters gathered at polling places, and the somber, reflective mood of Whitman’s work—the visuals deepen students’ understanding of the era’s political and social dynamics.

This process highlights how visual learning can enhance comprehension of abstract or complex ideas, such as the evolution of voting rights and the struggles for representation. By turning Whitman’s words into visual scenes, students can grasp the weight of these moments in American history more profoundly. The combination of poetry and historical imagery helps students emotionally engage with the topic, making the importance of suffrage and the responsibilities of citizenship more tangible.

Beyond aiding comprehension, AI-generated image tools offer creative opportunities for students to engage with historical texts and events. For example, students can generate visuals that reflect their interpretations of political movements or historical milestones, giving a personal touch to their learning. By visualizing historical settings, they can immerse themselves in the world of 19th-century America, imagining what it might have felt like to be at the center of political change. This not only brings history to life but also encourages students to think critically about the significance of voting rights in a democratic society.

Using the image analysis feature to teach data interpretation and visualization is an effective way to engage students in real-world data analysis across multiple disciplines, including economics. For instance, beginning with a handwritten data table, such as voter turnouts for a local election by demographic groups from 2011 to 2015, teachers can guide students in reading, interpreting, and analyzing the data from the image. This activity can extend into mathematics by encouraging students to calculate growth rates, percentages, and year-over-year comparisons. For example, students might calculate the percentage increase in voter turnout for Asian Americans in the five-year period or determine the rate of decline for another demographic group, applying key concepts from algebra and statistics.

Once the data is understood, it can be converted into a graph using tools like Python, Excel, or other data analysis software. In this case, a line graph might be created to visualize trends in voter turnouts. 

As another example, students can use data analysis tools to explore economic principles, such as by examining a company’s online sales data. They can utilize the image feature to create graphs that illustrate trends, such as a clear rise in online sales alongside a decline in phone sales over the years. This step could serve as a foundation for discussions around key economic concepts like supply and demand, market shifts, and consumer behavior. Students can also analyze the economic factors that may have driven the increase in online sales, such as the availability of faster internet services or changing consumer preferences for convenience.

From answering spontaneous questions in a bullring to transcribing historical documents, AI tools help make learning more relevant and personalized. These innovations empower students to interact with their studies in a hands-on way, fostering critical thinking and independent exploration.

AI-powered tools, such as image generators and recognition features, are transforming education by making abstract concepts more tangible and promoting real-world problem-solving. From my personal experience using AI to answer a question in a bullfighting ring in Seville, to students transcribing historical documents or interpreting data, AI fosters engagement and critical thinking across disciplines. It enhances inclusivity by providing personalized support, particularly for multilingual learners. As educators integrate AI into their practices, they can create more dynamic, interactive, and meaningful learning experiences that equip students with the skills needed to thrive in a complex world.

North Carolina Digital Collections. Governor’s Mansion: Payment to Penitentiary for Construction of Governor’s Mansion and Payment for Yard Work, Raleigh, North Carolina. Accessed October 6, 2024. https://digital.ncdcr.gov/Documents/Detail/governors-mansion-payment-to-penitentiary-for-construction-of-governors-mansion-and-payment-for-yard-work/5836538.

UTSA Institute of Texan Cultures. (2017). Object: Draft card. Retrieved from https://texancultures.utsa.edu/collections-blog/object-draft-card/


Museums in New York and New Jersey

New York and New Jersey are home to many historical landmarks and sites, some better known than others. Below are several such sites which may not be as familiar to teachers and students.

30 West Main Street
Oyster Bay, NY 11771

Video tour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSZVM6-qEbw

In 1740, 23-year-old Samuel Townsend purchased the property now known as Raynham Hall, moving from his father’s place in nearby Jericho. His move to Oyster Bay allowed him easier access to the waterfront and benefited his growing shipping business, co-owned with his brother, Jacob, who moved in next door on Main Street. Samuel’s property consisted originally of a four-room frame house on a sizable plot of land, with an apple orchard across the street, hundreds of acres of nearby pasture and woodlands for his livestock, and a meadow leading down to the harbor, where he and Jacob kept their ships.

In short order, Samuel had enlarged the house to eight rooms by building a lean-to addition on the north side, creating a saltbox-style house. This property, then known simply as “The Homestead,” would have been a hub of activity during the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, and was home to Samuel, his wife Sarah Stoddard Townsend, their eight children, and 20 enslaved people.

By 1769, Samuel and his brother Jacob owned five ships, which sailed to Europe, Central America, and the West Indies. They traded in an impressive range of goods, including most importantly logwood (which was and continues today to be a crucial ingredient in the dyeing of textiles), tea, lumber, molasses, sugar, china, wine, textiles, dye and rum. In addition to the shipping business, Samuel operated a general store, providing local access to a wide variety of imported wares. He was an active member of local and state government, as Oyster Bay’s Justice of the Peace and Town Clerk, a member of the New York Provincial Congress from 1774 to 1777, and, after the Revolution, a New York State Senator from 1786 to 1790.

Although most of Oyster Bay sided with the British during the American Revolution, Samuel’s sympathies were with the Patriots, despite the far greater risks those sympathies posed to his position, family and fortune. Following the Patriots’ decisive defeat in 1776 at the Battle of Long Island, British forces occupied all of New York City and Long Island, often brutally. Many people in the area who ran afoul of British authorities were confined to prison ships on which more than 12,000 people would die of illness or starvation by the end of the war in 1783, at a time when Manhattan’s entire population was around 20,000. The Townsend family, unlike many Patriots who fled, decided to stay in their home throughout the occupation.

Typical of wealthy New York families, the Townsends of Raynham Hall held many enslaved people who labored to maintain the house and grounds, the livestock and the fields, as well as possibly working on the Townsends’ ships. Samuel Townsend’s business interests also were intertwined with the economics of slavery, including, as they did, trade in such products as logwood, sugar, rum and tobacco.

The earliest slave record concerning the Townsends is a receipt of the purchase of a man bought by Samuel in 1749 for 37 pounds. No name is listed on the receipt. A Bible in Raynham Hall Museum’s collection contains entries from 1769 to 1795 recording the names, births and deaths of seventeen people held enslaved by the Townsends, as well as a partial genealogy. The record lists first names only, including Hannah, Violet, Susannah, Jeffrey, Susan, Catherine, Lilly, Harry, Gabriel and Jane. When the oldest Townsend son, Solomon, married his cousin Anne in 1782, they were given two people, Gabriel and Jane, as wedding presents. Gabriel and Jane’s children, Nancy, Kate, Jim and Josh, also became enslaved to Solomon, as did several others not listed in the Bible, named Charles, Shadwick, Pricilla, and her unnamed son. Additionally, letters show Samuel also owned a young woman named Elizabeth, who escaped Oyster Bay with the British Queen’s Rangers when they decamped in 1779. Samuel’s daughter Audrey and her husband Capt. James Farley owned a woman named Rachel Parker, and Audrey’s sister Phebe’s husband Ebenezer Seeley held a man named Amos Burling as his property. Interestingly, Robert Townsend was a member of the New York Manumission Society, founded in 1785, which worked towards the abolition of slavery.

Other enslaved people from the Oyster Bay area are recorded as having come to the Townsends’ store to purchase goods for their masters or for themselves, and a ledger now in the collection of the New-York Historical Society, but kept back in the day by sons William and David, records many purchases made during the 1760s and 1770s. In 2015, Raynham Hall Museum’s historian Claire Bellerjeau discovered a document at the New-York Historical Society that was revealed to be the sixth known poem by Jupiter Hammon, the first published African-American author in America, also an enslaved person owned by the Lloyds of Lloyd Harbor.

In September of 1776, British soldiers came to Samuel Townsend’s home in Oyster Bay to arrest him for his outspoken Patriotic beliefs, and to imprison him on one of the notorious prison ships in New York Harbor, where horrendous conditions would result in the deaths of over 12,000 captives by the end of the war. According to the recollection of family members, a British officer in the home smashed a hunting rifle that was mounted above the mantle, declaring that a rebel had no right to possess such a weapon, and then motioned to a portrait of the Townsends’ oldest son, Solomon, demanding to see him as well. When told that Solomon was at sea, he expressed regret that they could not arrest him as well. Outside the house, wife Sarah and daughters Sally and Phebe were frantic, afraid they might never see Samuel again.

Samuel was led away through the village and towards Jericho, traveling up the long hill in Pine Hollow. Coming down the hill in the opposite direction were Thomas Buchanan and his wife Almy, Samuel’s brother Jacob’s daughter, riding in a Phaeton carriage, with Samuel’s daughter Audrey alongside on horseback. Though he was considered a Tory, Buchanan was very close to the Townsends. He was also in the shipping business with the Townsends and had hired Samuel’s oldest son Solomon to captain his merchant ship, the Glasgow.

According to family history, when Buchanan saw Samuel being led away, he took Audrey’s horse and followed the soldiers to Jericho, where he paid a huge sum of money — several thousand pounds — to secure Samuel’s freedom. To the great relief of family and friends in Oyster Bay, Samuel returned home, unharmed, though he was then compelled to sign an oath of allegiance to the king, foreclosing any overt action against the crown. Following the end of the war in 1783, when all British were required to evacuate, Thomas Buchanan’s great loyalty and friendship were remembered, and he was allowed to stay and continue his successful merchant business in New York, unlike many Loyalists who were forced to emigrate, forfeiting their property.

For a six-month period from 1778 to 1779, the Townsend home served as headquarters for a regiment of over 300 British troops called the Queen’s Rangers, and their commander, Lt. Col. John Graves Simcoe, who quartered himself in the house, alongside the family. Daily officers’ meetings were held in the front parlor, and the presence of British officers in the house became an everyday fact of life. In March of 1779, Simcoe was visited for several weeks by a close friend, British officer and intelligence chief Maj. John André, who would later be hanged as a spy for his role in helping Benedict Arnold turn traitor in 1780. André, by all accounts a remarkable charismatic person, and an accomplished amateur artist, was 29 years old at the time of his death. After the war, Lt. Col. Simcoe founded the city of Toronto, where he served as Governor of Upper Canada.

At the time he accepted to join George Washington’s intelligence network in 1779, Robert Townsend operated a Manhattan-based merchant shipping firm with his brother William and cousin John. Using his work as a merchant as a cover, Robert could move about the coffee houses, social events, shops and docks of Manhattan, eavesdropping and observing British troop movements, without arousing suspicion.

Under the code name “Culper Junior,” Robert formed the first link in a chain of agents who came to be known as the Culper Spy Ring. Using a special invisible ink formula, invented by John Jay’s brother Sir James Jay, as well as an elaborate numeric code, the spies supplied Washington with critical information about New York City and Long Island.

Robert Townsend served his country well, and at great risk to himself and his family. Though he moved back to Raynham Hall following his father’s death in 1790 and lived for years with his sisters Sarah and Phebe, he kept his involvement in the Culper Spy Ring a total secret from his family and friends for the remainder of his life. Indeed, Robert’s involvement in the Culper Spy Ring was not uncovered until the 1930s, when historian Morton Pennypacker hired a well-known handwriting analyst to prove the true identity of Culper Junior.

1003 Morris Avenue
Union, NJ 07083

In 1760, when lawyer William Livingston, a member of the prominent Livingston family, was planning to build a country home, he bought 120 acres in what was then sleepy bucolic Elizabethtown, New Jersey, just across the river from his New York home. For the next twelve years, Livingston developed the extensive grounds, gardens and orchards. and oversaw the building of a beautiful fourteen-room Georgian-style home. In 1774, Livingston and his wife, the former Susannah French of New Brunswick, moved to Liberty Hall on a full-time basis with their children and the several people he and his family enslaved. The peace and quiet Livingston sought was short-lived. From 1774 to 1776, Livingston put his retirement on hold and served as a member of the First and Second Continental Congress and as Brigadier General of the New Jersey militia. On August 31, 1776, Livingston became New Jersey’s first elected governor. The ensuing war years were difficult ones for the governor, who spent them on the run from British troops. Finally, after the war in 1783, he was able to return to his home, which was heavily damaged by both British and American troops. Livingston also signed the United States Constitution, in addition to chairing two major committees at the Constitutional Convention. While juggling the demands of governing, Livingston also managed to pursue his great love of gardening and agriculture, utilizing the labor of free and enslaved individuals. Governor Livingston served as governor for fourteen years until his death on July 25, 1790. He is credited with making the New Jersey governorship one of the strongest.

At Liberty Hall, our goal is to deepen our visitors’ understanding of history and nature through the lens of the people who lived and worked in our over 250-year history. We strive to engage with our broader community by providing entertaining and educational programming that will inspire curiosity about the world around them and how that world has changed over time.

Liberty Hall stands at the center of the American Revolution and academic excellence. Home to trailblazing governors, congressmen, senators, assembly persons, philanthropists, and entrepreneurs, its plush gardens have spurred civic change and social innovation for centuries. Inhabited by William Livingston, New Jersey’s first elected governor and a signer of the United States Constitution, the 14-room Georgian-style home evolved over time into a 50-room Victorian mansion.

Liberty Hall began welcoming the public to experience its history and participate in its future in the year 2000. The museum has hosted educational programs, community events, civic ceremonies, and holiday celebrations.

The site is not just home to the stories of public servants and bold industrialists, its magnificent grounds also include an elegant English parterre garden and maze. Visit to view the scenery or explore the collections of antique furniture and decorative artifacts collected by the seven generations, including both the Livingston and Kean families, who called Liberty Hall home.

45 Macculloch Ave. Morristown, NJ 07960

Newly arrived British immigrants George and Louisa Macculloch built Macculloch Hall in 1810. They expanded their Federal-style mansion in 1812 and 1819, tripling its size, as their family’s prominence in local, state, and national affairs grew. Come explore the largest collection of original work of political cartoonist Thomas Nast (1840-1902), art, and American history where it happened.

In 1810 George and Louisa Macculloch purchased a 26-acre parcel of land on which they built Macculloch Hall. The Maccullochs cultivated the land primarily to feed their family, planting a traditional kitchen garden as well as apple and pear orchards. George Macculloch (1775-1858) loved the gardens and kept meticulous journals. From them we know what was planted when and where, how crops did and what the family ate. Some of Louisa Macculloch’s (1785-1863) recipes are among the family’s papers in the Museum’s Archives. Modern adaptations of many of them are under “Interactive Activities.”

In the span of five generations, the Macculloch/Miller/Post family members went from owning enslaved men, women, and children to donating land for one of Morristown’s first Black churches, to speaking out on the national stage against the expansion of slavery, to commanding Civil War African American soldiers, and to raising money to support an African American industrial school in Georgia—all while the family lived at Macculloch Hall. George and Louisa Macculloch arrived in Morristown in 1810 with their daughter Mary Louisa and son Francis. They also brought with them three enslaved adults: Cato, Susan, and Betty, as well as a toddler, Emma. Since no legal requirements existed to record slave sales, it is not known when or where George purchased them. The Morris County manumission records have not survived, so there is no record of their being freed.

We know from the family Bible the names of the children born into slavery at Macculloch Hall: William (1811), Henry (1814), and Helen (1817). Their Bible does not name the parents. However, there is some additional information in birth certificates filed with the county clerk. This registration was required by the 1804 Gradual Emancipation Act. On January 8, 1812, George Macculloch registered the births of Emma “on or about September 1809, mother Susan”, and William “April 18, 1811, mother Susan”. No record is noted about the father. It also seems that Henry and Helen’s birth were not registered.

Very little is known about the enslaved men, women, and children at Macculloch Hall. With one exception, they are not mentioned in the surviving archive of family letters and documents. Although not mentioned, we know that their forced servitude, together with the paid labor of men and women in the area, enabled the Maccullochs to run their house and farm. Mary Louisa Macculloch Miller (1804-1888), George and Louisa’s daughter, spent her entire life at Macculloch Hall. She and her husband Senator Jacob Miller raised their nine children there. The fact that her family had owned enslaved men, women, and children and that Mary Louisa grew up in a house with enslaved servants, did not preclude her from supporting the African Methodist Episcopal Church, one of the first independent Black churches in Morristown.

Jacob W. Miller (1800-1862), a lawyer from Long Valley, N.J., married Mary Louisa Macculloch in 1825. In 1838 he was sent to the New Jersey Legislature and was elected to the U.S Senate in 1840 where he served two terms as a member of the Whig party. After his defeat in 1852, he joined the newly formed Republican party. Although never a full-fledged abolitionist, he remained a staunch supporter of the Union and was opposed to the extension of slavery into the territories. Views he shared in common with Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s. His feelings on the burning issues of the day were expressed in speeches he delivered on the annexation of Texas, the Mexican War, the Wilmot Proviso, and the Compromise of 1850.

On May 23, 1844, Miller delivered a speech in the Senate opposing the annexation of Texas because it would give an advantage to the slave states. He also saw a danger in the Mexican War arguing that President Polk’s…” conquered peace in Mexico will become the fierce spirit of discord at home.” Following the end of the war in 1846, he supported the Wilmont Proviso that would have prohibited slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico. This proposal never passed into law.

In 1850, Henry Clay attempted to seek a compromise and avert a crisis between North and South on the issue of slavery. Senator Miller opposed the combination of Clay’s recommendations into a single Omnibus bill, but he did support several of these measures when split into separate bills. His speeches on these matters reveals the complex nature of his views on slavery and emancipation reflecting the fact that many anti-slavery advocates opposed the western expansion of slavery, but had little interest in the fate of enslaved people in the South. Miller voted to admit California as a free state, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and prohibit slavery in Utah and New Mexico. The results were mixed. California was admitted, Utah and New Mexico could be organized with no restrictions on slavery, and in the District of Columbia slavery was permitted, but the slave trade was outlawed.

In the vote on the Fugitive Slave Act, Miller abstained. However, in the debates he revealed what many of his fellow New Jerseyans thought about the plight of the runaways by stating:

Macculloch Hall Historical Museum’s Historic Archives contain materials from five generations of the descendants of George (1775-1858) and Louisa (1785-1863) Macculloch, United States Senator Jacob Welch Miller (1800-1862), political cartoonist and illustrator Thomas Nast (1840-1902), and museum founder W. Parsons Todd (1877-1976). Garden highlights include the wisteria trellised along the rear porch, given to the Maccullochs by Commodore Matthew Perry in 1857; the sundial on the upper lawn installed in 1876; the sassafras tree at the far end of the lawn, believed to be the second oldest and largest sassafras tree in New Jersey; and many varieties of heirloom roses, meaning their cultivars date to before 1920. Mrs. Macculloch paid Francis Cook $1.00 to plant the first roses in 1810.

Using Stories in History and Social Studies Courses

Teachers often find that stories are a good way to engage students in their U.S. history and social studies courses.  Stories illustrate historical themes, bring historical events and characters to life, and leave a lasting impression. People can sometimes remember a particular story from history years later even if they cannot recall all of the context. There are many stories from New York history that may be of interest to teachers in Grades 4 (local and state history), 7-8 (New York and U.S. history). Lots of them are also useful in Grade 11 (U.S. history) because, while the history-makers were New Yorkers, the stories also illustrate national themes and developments as well.

The historical episodes cited below are all good examples of engaging stories. Each one centers around an event or events, illustrates what led up to the event, and also shows the consequences of it. They all fit into and illustrate broader themes in state and local history. Perhaps best of all, they all have exciting people at their core. In several cases, in fact, the story is best told by the people themselves, through first-hand accounts that students can access and use.

The stories included here – and others — are all covered in my three new books, cited at the end of this article. The first privacy law is included in The Crucible of Public Policy, the others in The Spirit of New York and there is also a Glenn Curtiss document in Progressive New York. But the stories are also covered in many other sources. I have tried to cite some of the most helpful for each story.

Two good starting points for any New York history topic are Peter Eisenstadt, ed., The Encyclopedia of New York State (2005) and Kenneth T. Jackson, The Encyclopedia of New York City (2010). Two sites where you can follow developments in New York history and find out about news books are the Office of State History in the State Museum (https://www.nysm.nysed.gov/research-collections/state-history) and New York Almanack (https://www.newyorkalmanack.com). The journal New York History (https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/new-york-history) carries articles and book reviews.

New York State’s “Birthday,” April 20, 1777: The upcoming 250th anniversary of the American Revolution is a great time to examine New York’s experiences and its role in the war. At the beginning of 1777, “New York State” did not actually exist yet. A convention elected to draft a constitution worked in Kingston to complete the document on April 20, 1777, in effect New York’s “birthday.” That document laid out state government and powers. The first governor and legislature were elected in the summer and got to work in the fall. Before the end of 1777, New York would survive British onslaughts, including the burning of its temporary capital, Kingston, and invasions from the north, west, and east. 1777 might be called New York’s “miracle year,” an exciting time when the state got started.

William A. Polf’s booklet 1777: The Political Revolution and New York’s First Constitution (1977)is available at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32437123007011&seq=3

A copy of the first state constitution is available on the State Archives website, https://digitalcollections.archives.nysed.gov/index.php/Detail/objects/10485; the text is at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ny01.asp. The Archives Partnership Trust has made available the chapter on the first constitution from my book, The Spirit of New York: https://considerthesource.s3.amazonaws.com/3917/2556/5316/Dearstyne_Constitution_Chapter.pdf

“Anti-Rent Wars,” 1839-ca. 1880: New York tenant farmers in the Hudson valley waged one of the largest tenant rebellions in history in these years. They were fighting for the right to purchase and own the farms; where as tenants they had to pay exorbitant rents. They kicked it off with a declaration against the tyranny of landlords on July 4, 1839. The intrepid farmers’ struggle was waged in the courts, the state legislature, a state constitutional convention, and sometimes through armed resistance to sheriffs who tried to evict them for non-payment of rents. By 1880, most owned their farms, but their struggle had been a heroic and exciting one. Henry Christman, Tin Horns and Calico (1945); Charles McCurdy, The Anti-Rent Era in New York Law and Politics (2001).

Elizabeth Cady Stanton led the campaign for women’s rights. This is really two stories in one – the famous 1848 Seneca Falls women’s rights convention, which demanded the right to vote for women, with Stanton as the chief organizer; and Stanton’s long career as an advocate for woman suffrage and women’s rights generally at the state and federal level (she kept working until the time of her death,1902).

Elisabeth Griffith, In Her Own Right: The Life of Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1984); Lori D. Ginsberg, Elizabeth Cady Stanton: An American Life (2009); Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years and More: Reminiscences, 1815-1897 1898; reprint, 1993). Women’s Rights National Historical Park. https://www.nps.gov/wori/index.htm

Syracuse citizens rescued a fugitive slave, 1851. On October 3, 1851, a mob of over 2,000 citizens broke down the doors of a Syracuse police station to liberate William “Jerry” Henry, a fugitive slave, who had been arrested by a Deputy U.S. Marshal under the federal Fugitive Slave Law. That law provided for arrest and return of slaves fleeing the oppression of slavery in the south. New York was an important part of the “underground railroad” which helped escaping slaves find new homes in the North (where slavery was illegal) or Canada (which had also abolished it.). The “Jerry Rescue” was one of the most dramatic events in New York’s growing opposition to slavery. Fergus M. Bordewich, Bound for Canaan: The Epic Story of the Underground Railroad, America’s First Civil Rights Movement (2006); Monique Patenaude Roach, “The Rescue of William ‘Jerry’ Henry: Antislavery and Racism in the Burned-Over District, New York History (2001); Gerald Sorin, The New York Abolitionists: A Case Study of Political Radicalism (1970). “Jerry Rescue” historic marker: https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=138797

New York’s – and the nation’s– first personal privacy law, 1903. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, advertisers widely used the photos of women in ads for their products, without the women’s consent. There was no law against it. That changed when a seventeen-year old Rochester girl, whose photo was being used in ads for flour, went to court to stop it. The Court of Appeals ruled against her in 1902, but, under pressure from the public, the legislature took up the cause and passed a personal privacy law in 1903, the first in the nation. The main provisions of that law are still on the statute books. New York State Archives Partnership Trust, “Who Owns a Photo of Your Face? The Right of Privacy and the Courts,” (Podcast, October 18, 2022. https://www.nysarchivestrust.org/events/recorded-events); Sarah E. Igo, The Known Citizen: A History of Privacy in Modern America (2018); Jessica Lake, The Face That Launched a Thousand Lawsuits: The American Women Who Forged the Right to Privacy (2016).

Hammondsport aviation pioneer Glenn Curtiss made aviation history. Most students probably have heard of the Wright Brothers and their famous flight at Kitty Hawk, NC in 1903. But the story of their contemporary and rival, Glenn Curtiss, is almost equally important and unknown to post[HB1]  people. Curtiss developed essential airplane designs and controls, including ailerons – adjustable wing flaps on the trailing edges of wings, essential for take offs and landings — still in use today. He made the first pre-announced, publicly witnessed, professionally certified airplane flight (July 4, 1908), and the first flight from Albany to New York City, May 29, 1910). He made the first amphibious flight and convinced the Navy to buy airplanes and train pilots, earning him the title “The Father of Naval Aviation.” This is a story of invention, daring, and doing what has never been done before. Lawrence Goldstone, Birdmen: The Wright Brothers, Glenn Curtiss, and the Battle to Control the Skies (2915); Seth Shulman, Unlocking the Sky: Glenn Hammond Curtiss and the Race to Invent the Airplane (2002); Glenn H. Curtiss Museum, Hammondsport. https://glennhcurtissmuseum.org 

Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in major league baseball, April 15, 1947. Major league baseball was a whites-only sport until the day in 1947 when Jackie Robinson debuted as the first Black player for a major league team, the Brooklyn Dodgers. Robinson proved to be a stellar player, and his pioneering role paved the way for other Blacks who followed. He also helped undermine racial prejudice and discrimination and was an early example of what would be called the Civil Rights movement. Jackie Robinson and Alfred Duckett, I Never Had it Made: The Autobiography of Jackie Robinson (2003); Carl T. Rowan with Jackie Robinson, Wait Till Next Year: The Life Story of Jackie Robinson (1960); Jules Tygiel, Baseball’s Great Experiment: Jackie Robinson and His Legacy (1983)

Hamilton: An American Musical debuted in New York City. Feb. 17, 2015. The hit musical Hamilton presented the life and achievements of New Yorker Alexander Hamilton, Revolutionary war patriot leader and the first U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, in the form of a lively musical. The play features a multi-ethnic cast, superb acting, smart dialog, humor, and rap and hip-hop musical scores. It recasts Revolutionary era history in the language of today; it is about “America then, as told by America now,” as its writer and lead actor, Lin-Manuel Miranda put it.  This is an exciting way to explore history. Students can study the history behind the musical, watch the musical itself, and compare and contrast the two. Sources: Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (2004); Edward Delman, “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History,” Atlantic September 29, 2015; Lin-Manuel Miranda and Jeremy McCarter, Hamilton the Revolution. Being the Complete Libretto of the Broadway Musical and a True Account of its Creation (2016)


Governed by Despots: John Swanson Jacobs Chronicles Enslavement and Resistance

(reprinted with permission from New York Almanack (https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2024/12/john-swanson-jacobs-enslavement/)

The University of Chicago Press recently published a unique account of an escape from enslavement in North Carolina decades before the Civil War. The United States Governed by Six Hundred Thousand Despots (2024) by John Swanson Jacobs tells of his escape from enslavement by North Carolina plantation owner and Congressional Representative Samuel Sawyer in 1838 while he and the slaveholder were in transit through the City of New York. Jacobs eventually made it to Australia where his story was published serially in 1855 by the Sydney Empire. It was later republished in 1861 in London, UK under the title “A True Tale of Slavery” by The Leisure Hour: A Family Journal of Instruction and Recreation. The 1861 version of Jacob’s story is available online at the website Documenting the American South.

John Swanson Jacobs was born in 1815 in Edenton, North Carolina, the younger brother of his better-known sister Harriet Jacobs, author of Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl (1861). Harriet Jacobs originally published her book under the pseudonym Linda Brent, possibly to protect those who remained enslaved at home. In the book she referred to her brother John as “William” and Samuel Sawyer, the white father of her two children who “owned” both them and John, as “Mr. Sands.” John Swanson Jacobs, safely in Australia, published under his own name.

In 1838, Sawyer traveled north because he and his fiancé planned to be married in Chicago, Illinois where she had family. He was able to bring an enslaved John Swanson Jacobs with him to New York State because although slavery had been abolished there in 1828, state law permitted enslavers visiting or residing in New York part-time to maintain slaves within their households for up to nine months. This statute was not repealed until 1841.

The following is an excerpt from chapter 5 of A TRUE TALE OF SLAVERY that was published in The Leisure Hour: A Family Journal of Instruction and Recreation (No. 478–February 21, 1861). In this excerpt, Jahn Swanson Jacobs describes his escape from slavery while in New York City.

“THE latter end of the third year after I was sold, my master was elected Member of Congress. I was ordered to get ready for Washington . . .  After my master had been there a short time, he went to board with Mrs. P—-, who had two young nieces here, to one of whom he was soon engaged to be married. As good luck would have it, this young lady had a sister living in Chicago, and no place would suit her like that to get married in . . . Everything was ready, and the hoped-for time came. He took his intended, and off we started for the West. When we were taking the boat at Baltimore for Philadelphia, he came up to me and said, “Call me Mr. Sawyer; and if anybody asks you who you are, and where you are going, tell them that you are a free man, and hired by me.”

We stopped two or three days at the Niagara Falls; from thence we went to Buffalo, and took the boat for Chicago; Mr. Sawyer had been here but a few days before he was taken sick. In five weeks from the time of his arrival here, he was married and ready to leave for home. On our return, we went into Canada. Here I wanted to leave him, but there was my sister and a friend of mine at home in slavery . . . I tried to get a seaman’s protection from the English Custom-house, but could not without swearing to a lie, which I did not feel disposed to do.

We left here for New York, where we stopped three or four days. I went to see some of my old friends from home, who I knew were living there. I told them that I wanted their advice. They knew me, they knew my master, and they knew my friends also. “Now tell me my duty,” said I. The answer was a very natural one, “Look out for yourself first.” I weighed the matter in my mind, and found the balance in favour of stopping. If I returned along with my master, I could do my sister no good, and could see no further chance of my own escape. I then set myself to work to get my clothes out of the Astor House Hotel, where we were stopping; I brought them out in small parcels, as if to be washed. This job being done, the next thing was to get my trunk to put them in. I went to Mr. Johnson’s shop, which was in sight of the Astor House Hotel, and told him that I wanted to get my trunk repaired.

The next morning I took my trunk in my hand with me: when I went down, whom should I see at the foot of the steps but Mr. Sawyer? I walked up to him, and showed him a rip in the top of the trunk, opening it at the same time that he might see that I was not running off. He told me that I could change it, or get a new one if I liked. I thanked him, and told him we were very near home now, and with a little repair the old one would do. At this we parted. I got a friend to call and get my trunk, and pack up my things for me, that I might be able to get them at any minute. Mr. Sawyer told me to get everything of his in, and be ready to leave for home the next day. I went to all the places where I had carried anything of his, and where they were not done, I got their cards and left word for them to be ready by the next morning. What I had got were packed in his trunk; what I had not been able to get, there were the cards for them in his room.

They dine at the Astor at three o’clock; they leave the room at four o’clock; at half-past four o’clock I was to be on board the boat for Providence. Being unable to write myself at that time, and unwilling to leave him in suspense, I got a friend to write as follows: — “Sir–I have left you, not to return; when I have got settled, I will give you further satisfaction. No longer yours, JOHN S. JACOB.”

This note was to be put into the post-office in time for him to get it the next morning. I waited on him and his wife at dinner. As the town clock struck four, I left the room. I then went through to New Bedford, where I stopped for a few months . . . The lawyer I have quite a friendly feeling for, and would be pleased to meet him as a countryman and a brother, but not as a master.”

Once free, John Swanson Jacobs moved to New England where he became an active abolitionist. His efforts took him to Rochester, New York and vicinity on a number of occasions and to New York City at least three times, in May 1849, October 1850, and July 1862. On May 11, 1849, the New York Herald printed an account of a speech by Jacobs at an American Anti-Slavery Society meeting where he called on attendees to make it “disreputable” for people who claimed to be Christians to hold other people in bondage. According to North Star on October 24, 1850, Jacobs spoke in New York City calling for active resistance to fugitive slave laws following the seizure of James “Hamlet” Hamilton by slavecatchers and on July 28, 1862, New York Independent reported on an interview with Jacobs where he recounted his experience as a cook on a British ship, with the support of British authorities in the Bahamas, that was attempting to enter the port of Charleston, South Carolina in violation of the federal blockade of Southern ports (252-258). Excerpts from these articles follow.

“A slaveholder named Skinner, who was a skinner in every sense of the word, was in the habit of coming every year, to visit his brother, Re. Dr. Skinner, who . . . lived at 160 Green[e] street; and yet the baby-stealing, women-whipping tyrant never received a rebuke from his reverend brother, at whose table he sat . . . If anyone asked him what must be done to abolish slavery, his answer was, that it must cease to be respectable. They must make it disreputable, and then slaveholders would be ashamed of it . . . If they had less of religion, and more of Christianity, it would be all for the better” (252-254).

“My colored brethren, if you have not sword, I say to you, sell your garments and buy one . . . I would, my friends, advise you to show a front to our tyrants, and arm yourselves; aye, I would advise the women to have their knives too . . . I advise you to trample on this bill, and I further advise you to let us go on immediately, and act like men” (256).

“[A] very intelligent colored man, formerly a slave in North Carolina, but recently for several years a resident of England, called at our office the other day, and related facts showing that British vessels are stilled engaged in running our blockade, and that the British officials in the Bahamas are, if possible, more inimical to our Union than are the same class of people at home . . . He shipped as a cook on board the steamship Lloyds, at London . . . ‘for Havana and any of the West Indies Islands’ . . . the captain (Smith) announced to the crew that he designed to run the blockade before Charleston, and offered three months pay extra to such as would remain with the ship . . . Jacobs refused to go to Charleston at any price whatever, and demanded, what was his undoubted right, that he be sent home to London. After various efforts on the part of Capt. Smith to indure (sic) Jacobs to either go to Charleston or to settle and sign a satisfaction, he attempted coercion. He had Jacobs taken before a police magistrate to answer the charge of having deserted the ship . . . The law was all on the side of Jacobs, but the public sentiment of Nassau was so strongly against him, and in favor of the unlawful and contraband trade with the Rebels” (257-258).

American Exceptionalism’s Downward Trek: Declining Victory Culture in the 1990s Observed Through the Star Trek Franchise

On January 3, 1993, the first episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine began with the Federation defeat at the Battle of Wolf 359. Captain Jean Luc Picard of the USS Enterprise had been captured and assimilated into the Borg Collective as Locutus of Borg and was forced to lead the battle against the Federation.[1] A fleet of Federation ships, including the USS Saratoga, attempted to engage Locutus in battle, but were quickly overpowered. First officer Benjamin Sisko assumed command of the Saratoga after the captain and majority of the bridge crew were killed and the ship was disabled. Sisko issued the order to abandon ship and went to help his wife and child. He located them in the remains of their living quarters buried under rubble; he was able to rescue his son, but his wife was already dead. Another officer forced him to leave her body behind and board an escape shuttle. As the scene fades, Sisko holds his unconscious son as he watches the Saratoga explode with his wife’s body still on board.[2]

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999) presented a vastly different conceptualization of the future than the one Gene Roddenberry originally created in the 1960s series Star Trek: The Original Series (1966-1969).[3]Roddenberry intended to portray a hopeful future where mankind was able to move past conflict and explore the galaxy.[4] However, as the political atmosphere of the United States changed over time, the themes of the various series in the Star Trek franchise changed as well, especially after Roddenberry’s death in 1991. As a result of political and social turmoil in the 1990s, there was a disillusionment with the United States as an institution that culminated in a concurrent decrease in American exceptionalism and victory culture reflected through contemporary popular media. The concept of American exceptionalism refers to the celebratory ideology that Americans perceive the United States as inherently extraordinary. This is the result of its democratic nature and the unique “American identity” that can be claimed across race, class, and gender; factors that subsequentially makes it fundamentally superior to other nations.[5] One way that this dogma is reflected in American society is through the presence of victory culture, which reflects a glorified exceptionalist view of the nation in order to highlight American superiority and disseminate patriotic values to the populace. The development of an increasingly cynical view of America can be observed by charting and comparing Star Trek: Deep Space Nine with Star Trek: The Original Series in regard to the themes and plotlines of each series and how these changes reflect evolving responses to sociopolitical conflict and violence in the United States in the 1960s and 1990s respectively.[6]

The increased polarization in the United States in the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries is a highly contentious and relevant topic for the current political climate in America. Kevin M. Kruz and Julian E. Zelizer traced the increasing divide of American society between 1974 and 2019 in their book Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974.[7]They determined that economic, racial, political, and gender and sexual divisions are factors of the American experience which have exacerbated the “fault lines” of the United States by tracing their influence on major events between 1974 and 2019. The influence of these factors on American society increased significantly after the 1960s and 1970s because of the institutionalization of polarized ideologies through targeted legislation and widespread access to popular media. This structural division was particularly exacerbated by the end of the Cold War through the development of more accessible and increasingly partisan media news networks such as MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN, which compounded the preexisting divides among the American populace.

Another significant historical factor to consider when analyzing popular opinion through a television show is the influence of current events on the political climate, and how views of those events are reflected through media. Tom Engelhardt detailed the rise and fall of victory culture and American exceptionalism in the United States in his book The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation.[8]He claimed that victory culture, Engelhardt’s term for the propensity of American media and culture to highlight the nation’s military triumphs, gradually ended between the years 1945 and 1975. This was due to the memory of the United States’s actions during the Second World War, specifically the deployment of two atomic bombs onto a surrendering Japan, and the end of the unpopular Vietnam War. As a result, the United States decreasingly viewed conflict as a motivating force and congruently perceived war in a negative light. This was further exacerbated by the end of the Cold War through the loss of a unifying common enemy for the United States that Engelhardt, similarly to Kruze and Zelizer, claimed was critical for the collective victory culture-based American identity.

Analysis of the impact of the Cold War on American society is extensive, and many historians have documented its effect on different forms of film-based media, such as television and movies. Historians like Thomas Doherty, Jim Cullen, and Bryn Upton examined the impact of the Cold War on American film and television, independently demonstrating how contemporary events influenced cinematic themes. In his book Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture Doherty highlighted the influence of television on American society as a result of its increased presence in the majority of American households in the 1950s.[9] Additionally, he refuted common misconceptions regarding the connection between McCarthyism and Cold War era television, ultimately demonstrating that television resulted in social resistance which helped to make the United States a more inclusive place, in addition to aiding in the end of McCarthy’s policies, through the portrayal of an inclusive society.[10] Cullen wrote From Memory to History: Television Versions of the Twentieth Century where he examined how historical shows from the past half a century portrayed earlier decades as a way to understand the time they were created.[11] He determined that the majority of television shows function as interpretations of events, and episodes can be used as “artifacts” that are representative of when they were written to understand the past. Additionally, Upton wrote Hollywood at the End of the Cold War: Signs of Cinematic Change, where he compared pre and post-Cold War films with analogous themes, intending to understand how their “interpretive framework” was influenced by the culture of the period.[12] Similarly to Engelhardt, Upton determined that in the 1980s there was a negative shift in the United States’ perception of themselves after the end of the Vietnam War, which was further exacerbated by the loss of a common enemy with the end of the Cold War. This meant that the United States struggled to develop a new interpretive framework without the presence of the Cold War and a common external enemy such as the Soviet Union. He asserted that the end of the Cold War resulted in altered perception of concepts like heroism and villainy, where binary characters with simple motivations that reflect, or contrast, American values, evolved to become more complex with more detailed backstories and intentions.[13]

While there has been much written about the influences of current events on film before and after the end of the Cold War, there is a gap in general 1990s historical scholarship. The goal of this paper is to examine evolving public perception of the United States as an institution through comparative analysis of diminishing victory culture in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine in relation to Star Trek: The Original Series, in order to determine how American exceptionalism decreased in response to changing political landscapes and major historical events of the decade. While Englehardt argues that victory culture is depicted through media portraying American military triumph, this paper will demonstrate that victory culture is the medium used to disseminate American exceptionalist messages through cinematic plot regarding all perceived accomplishments of the United States in addition to militaristic triumphs. Furthermore, it will evaluate why the hopeful view of the future in the 1960s became significantly less optimistic in the 1990s, explore how public opinion was reflected in the Star Trek franchise, and analyze the role that televised media played in social commentary during the second half of the 20th century. In its conclusion, this paper will also provide pedagogical suggestions for social studies educators on ways they can incorporate science fiction media into the classroom using the analysis in this paper, given the educational practice of utilizing film to engage students as a result of their accessibility and engaging nature.[14]

The 1960s were characterized by perpetual social upheaval and political conflict that stemmed from the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War in the 1940s. This was paralleled by the resulting foreign and domestic tensions of the Cold War as the United States government waged an ideological conflict against communism through the Vietnam War in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in addition to a war of mutual destruction with the Soviet Union until its collapse in 1991. During the Reagan Administration in the 1980s, conflict between Republicans and Democrats increased exponentially in response to the revitalization of the conservative base and a heightened focus on moral politics that subsequentially amplified patriotism throughout the United States.[15] This increased focus on morality culminated in the 1990s culture wars, where the Clinton Administration and the conservative base clashed over moral and values based politics.[16] Additionally, the expanding involvement of the United States military in the affairs of foreign nations and increasing instances of foreign and domestic terrorism at the end of the 20th century exacerbated tensions that were reflected in popular media of the time. As a result, social discord and political fearmongering characterized by heightened sociopolitical conflict and violence was amplified in the 1990s relative to the 1960s.

Since the founding of the United States, there has been an ongoing conflict over the amount of power that the federal government should be able to exert over the individual states and citizens. This conflict was exacerbated in the twentieth century following the implementation of the New Deal, resulting in an ongoing ideological dispute over the responsibility of the United States government to provide welfare assistance to its citizens through a federal social safety net after the pervasive homelessness and poverty experienced during the Great Depression.[17] An additional societal challenge of the late twentieth century was combating high crime rates seen in inner cities that arose in combination with substantial poverty, resulting in a mass incarceration crisis caused by 1960s legislation which disproportionally targeted people of color.[18] This was accomplished through the criminalization of urban spaces through legislation designed to incarcerate minority populations through drug-based crimes that resulted in the relocation of African Americans from urban cities to rural prisons, culminating in a conservative shift during the post-war period. Another social concern of this time was the Johnson Administration’s War on Poverty in response to the pervasive poverty rates in the United States. Moreover the 1980s Reagan era caricature of the “welfare” queen created a negative stereotype that targeted and incarcerated primarily African American women who were suspected of committing welfare fraud, further increasing mass incarceration rates.[19] Furthermore, expedited deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals in the 1990s resulted in the imprisonment of a disproportionate number of people with mental illness who could not access proper psychiatric care in the United States.[20] In response to the culture wars of the 1990s, the Clinton Administration expanded on legislation that limited access to government welfare programs in addition to laws that increased mass incarceration for drug crimes that compounded pre-existing mandatory minimum sentence requirements.[21]

Themes of mass incarceration and poverty are reflected in episodes of both Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which can be used to the determine the zeitgeist of each era in relation to American exceptionalist themes by examining the presence of victory culture in each series. The Original Series provided a significantly more glorified interpretation of social progress than Deep Space Nine, which demonstrates the contrasting overwhelming absence of American exceptionalism in the 1990s. For instance, the 1967 episode of The Original Series “The City on the Edge of Forever” and the two-part 1995 Deep Space Nine episode “Past Tense” both have time travel-based plots where main characters travel back in time to preserve their future. Both episodes center around the significance of advocacy and combatting poverty but have vastly different perspectives regarding the methods that the government should implement to help impoverished citizens. The main characters of each series function as the perspective of the contemporary viewer and can be used to assess the perception of the general populace on sociopolitical developments by examining how they respond to their experiences in the past. Furthermore, the events in these episodes can be used to gauge the general perspective of the public towards the United States as an institution during each decade in response to specific current events by assessing the presence of celebratory victory culture themes in each series.

            In “The City on the Edge of Forever,” Captain James Kirk and First Officer Commander Spock travel back in time to New York in 1930 to restore the “correct” timeline after it was disrupted.[22] When they arrived in New York City they encountered Edith Keeler, a social worker from a local soup kitchen at the 21st Street Mission, who, in exchange for working at the soup kitchen, assisted them with getting jobs and an apartment. Keeler was presented as a progressive thinker through her enlightened view of humanity’s future. However, this was contrasted by her belief that only the “deserving poor” who were not at fault for their circumstances and continued to work despite their misfortune, should receive assistance. This dichotomy is demonstrated through the daily speech she gave to the mission’s attendants before meals as “payment,” where she said:

I’m not a do-gooder. If you’re a bum, if you can’t break off with the booze, or whatever it is that makes you a bad risk, then get out…One day soon, man is going to be able to harness incredible energies…that could ultimately hurl us to other worlds in…some sort of spaceship. And the men that reach out into space will be able to find ways to feed the hungry millions of the world and to cure their diseases. They will be able to find a way to give each man hope and a common future.[23]

The contradiction of this speech emphasizes themes of Social Darwinism and rugged individualism, the belief that people are responsible for their own economic success or failure. By beginning the speech with a demand for “bad risks” to leave based on their reliance on alcohol she distinguished those who were undeserving of help by highlighting the traits she found to be disagreeable. Her contrasting belief in a brighter future was demonstrated in the speech when she discussed how technological advancements and travel to different planets would ultimately resolve the social problems faced during the Great Depression.

During the early years of the Great Depression, before the New Deal revolutionized government-based welfare and federal economic intervention programs in the United States, it was believed that charities should hold the majority of the responsibility for helping the less fortunate. Social workers, like Keeler, were known to have a more progressive view regarding the causes of issues like poverty based on their mission to use grassroot methods to counteract societal inequity by working directly with poor communities through advocacy and education. [24] However, at the time many social workers were also heavily involved in the prohibition movement due to their belief that alcoholism was a disease caused by poor life choices and subsequentially felt that the 18th Amendment outlawing the sale of alcohol in the United States significantly improved the morals and conditions of low income communities.[25] As a result, Keeler’s contradictory assertions that she would not provide assistance to those who were undeserving of help, especially alcoholics, while preaching about the bright future of humanity would be socially acceptable within the context of the period and her chosen profession.

In response to the high rate of poverty in the United States, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a national war on poverty in his 1964 State of the Union Address. In 1966, Vice President Hubert Humphrey wrote an article detailing the goals of the War on Poverty and the Johnson Administration’s actions to eliminate poverty in the United States. [26] Humphrey identified that the independent actions of private charity and the federal government counteracted each other and claimed that they could not simultaneously exist if they continued to operate autonomously.[27] He also acknowledged that before the implementation of the War on Poverty, the dominant American philosophy regarding welfare reflected Social Darwinist perspectives, and recognized that there were many people who still held these beliefs. The federal welfare legislation that Humphrey supported was extremely progressive for the time and did not align with the beliefs of many Americans in the increasingly polarized political climate of the 1960s due to the connection of welfare to racial politics and the fact that it was perceived as an example of federal overreach.[28]

The lack of reactions by Kirk and Spock, in public and in private, regarding Keeler’s statements and the poverty crisis in New York City because of the Great Depression, indicated that they were, at the very least, ambivalent toward her actions. For instance, they could be observed discussing the barbarity of the period but do not provide any commentary on their observations or show any desire to help the people that they encountered in the past. Through Kirk and Spock’s inaction and Keeler’s unwillingness to help individuals that she saw as undeserving, “The City on the Edge of Forever” comments on the philosophies that Humphrey counteracted in the War on Poverty article which reflected common perspectives on poverty, homelessness, and the undeserving poor in the 1960s. Furthermore, the ongoing debate regarding the responsibility of private charities to help citizens verses government funded federal assistance can be observed in the episode based on Keeler’s role as a social worker who ran a private charity organization in New York and subsequent status as the sole social services provider in the episode.[29]

The inflated importance of the United States in The City on the Edge of Forever is representative of the American exceptionalist views of the 1960s and provides an example of victory culture regarding the social progress of the United States through the revelation that deviating from the status quo would result in an undesirable future. In the episode, Spock discovered that Keeler needed to die in a traffic accident because in the version of events where she lived, Keeler developed a peace movement which delayed the United States’ entry into World War II thus allowing the Nazis enough time to develop the atomic bomb and win the Second World War. As a result, humanity stagnated and was incapable of developing sufficient technology to reach space, thus preventing the conception of the United Federation of Planets; the governing interplanetary union in the Star Trek universe that Earth helped to develop. This indicates that the United States’ role in WWII was seen as so significant that without their actions there would have been repercussions for the entire universe that lasted into the 23rd century. Additionally, this helps to rationalize America’s use of atomic weapons in the Second World War by claiming that if the United States did not develop and utilize the bomb, there was a risk of Germany doing so first and destroying the free world.

            Themes and commentary in “The City on the Edge of Forever” can be compared to the 1995 Star Trek: Deep Space Nine two-part episode “Past Tense” to demonstrate evolving perspectives regarding social and welfare programs between the decades. In the episode, space station Deep Space 9’s Commander Benjamin Sisko, Lt. Commander Jadzia Dax, and Doctor Julian Bashir were accidentally sent to San Francisco in August of 2024 to a watershed moment in Earth’s history.[30] In this fictional imagining of the future, cities across the United States isolated “undesirable citizens” like the mentally ill, unemployed, and poor from the rest of society in locked “sanctuary districts” that were utilized as a method of enforced social control, similar to ghettos. Sisko and Bashir were placed into one of these districts, where they were quickly accosted by a group of other residents who wanted to steal their food ration cards. The ensuing fight resulted in the death of another resident, Gabriel Bell, when he attempted to help protect Sisko and Bashir. Bell was a fictional historical figure from 2024 who was famous for protecting hostages that were taken during a violent protest orchestrated by the residents who attacked Sisko and Bashir, and who took advantage of the situation to call attention to the grim reality of the sanctuary districts. In order to preserve the timeline, Sisko assumed Bell’s identity to fulfill his role in the hostage crisis and ensure that national legislation outlawing the districts was enacted. Through this plotline, the episode provides commentary on many different social issues, such as mass incarceration, welfare, unemployment, homelessness, and the mental health crisis caused by the deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals. This was a direct response to the Clinton administration’s 1992 campaign promise to change the welfare system and 1994 legislation that exacerbated the mass incarceration crisis, while also providing a response to pervasive social concerns that arose through actions taken by the Reagan Administration in the previous decade.

Character conversations and overarching plot in “Past Tense” provided commentary on Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign promise to “…end welfare as we know it…” and later legislation like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Authorization Act of 1994, which implemented harsh sentencing minimums for certain crimes, especially those related to drugs, and aggravated the mass incarceration crisis in the United States.[31] In 1992, a Clinton campaign commercial described their goal to restructure the welfare system in order to add mandatory work requirements to “…break the cycle of welfare dependency,” and later resulted in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which restructured federal welfare programs and implemented new requirements to receive assistance.[32] Furthermore, concern regarding rising crime rates in inner cities starting in the 1960s led to the development of new methods of calculating crime rates that subsequentially resulted in the American mass incarceration crisis that perpetuated socioeconomic consequences that increased the violent crime rate from 200.2 per 100,000 in 1965 to 684.6 per 100,000 in 1995.[33] The mass incarceration crisis was further compounded by the escalation of the deinstitutionalization of mental hospitals in the 1990s, which, according to a 2013 study in The Journal of Legal Studies, resulted in a 4-7% growth in incarceration rates between 1980 and 2000.[34] This caused a mental health crisis in the United States because of the lack of education regarding the treatment and care for people with mental illness and, consequentially, there was a disproportionate number of people with mental illness in the United States who were homeless. Law enforcement officers would often arrest these individuals for petty crimes and instances of indecent behavior in public spaces, and would them hold them in local jails to wait for psychiatric care.[35] These developments were reflected in “Past Tense” through the use of sanctuary districts to house the “undesired” citizens of the United States to the extent that overcrowding led to limited housing and resources which resulted in increased instances of organized violence within the districts.

Throughout the episode, Sisko, Dax, and Bashir frequently commented on issues of social injustice in the sanctuary district, both in private conversations and directly to the people who live in 2024. For example, while trying to find a place to sleep, Sisko and Bashir see a man wrapped in a blanket sitting on the street, who appeared to be hallucinating, and proceed to have a discussion regarding the general ambivalence they observed towards the suffering in the sanctuary districts:

Bashir: There’s no reason for him to live like that…they could cure that man now, today if they gave a damn.

Sisko: …it’s not that they don’t give a damn, it’s that they’ve just given up. The social problems that they face are too enormous to deal with.

Bashir: …that only makes things worse. Causing people to suffer because you hate them is terrible but causing them to suffer because you’ve forgotten how to care – that’s really hard to understand.[36]

When taken in the context of the welfare crisis of the period, especially given Clinton’s campaign promises to limit welfare access, this conversation provides commentary on legislation that targeted and incarcerated minority populations for drug based crimes and welfare fraud in addition to incarcerating people with mental illness rather than providing them with psychiatric care.[37] This resulted in the development of a system that punished rather than rehabilitated, perpetuating social injustice without an attempt to find a solution by ignoring and targeting people seen as unworthy of help subsequentially increasing the stigma towards receiving welfare assistance in the United States.

The critique of the United States in the show is further emphasized throughout the two-part episode through the interactions of characters from 2024 with the main cast. Contemporary characters commented on the injustice of their situation and expressed frustration with their inability to change the system. For example, the government worker at the sanctuary district who processed Sisko and Bashir’s paperwork, described the systematic bias of the sanctuary districts based on the categorization of people and defines the pejorative slang terms, gimmes and dims, used to describe the groups: “Gimmes are…people who are looking for help. A job, a place to live…the dims should be in hospitals, but the government can’t afford to keep them there, so we get them instead. I hate it, but that’s the way it is.”[38] The worker, Lee, was later taken as one of the hostages and her critical sentiment towards the sanctuary districts was further emphasized in a conversation with Bashir. She described an incident when she first started working for the sanctuary district where she was almost fired after she processed a woman who had an arrest warrant for the crime of child abandonment. She discussed how the woman left her son with the family that previously employed her, because she could not take care of him, further revealing that:

Lee: I felt so sorry for her. I didn’t log her in, I just let her disappear into the Sanctuary.

Bashir: Well, that was very kind of you…what happened to this woman?

Lee: I don’t know, but I think about her all the time. Ever since then I’ve just done my job, you know? Tried not to let it get the best of me.

Bashir: It’s not your fault that things are the way they are.

Lee: Everybody tells themselves that, and nothing ever changes. [39]

This conversation provides metacognitive analysis on the pervasive feelings of dread and inadequacy that the average American experienced regarding social injustice and their inability to change their role in the perpetuation of a system of oppression. Any aspect of American exceptionalism reflected in “Past Tense” through long term influence of the United States in the forming of the Federation that was displayed through Sisko, Dax, and Bashir’s intervention in the past, is negated through the way that characters blatantly criticized the system in addition to the implication that their intervention into the status quo was necessary for the correct future to occur.[40] This means that the episode does not function as an example of victory culture and, as a result, American exceptionalism is subsequently not evident in this episode to the same extent as it was in “The City on the Edge of Forever,” which lacked the larger criticism of social injustice seen in “Past Tense.” Through their active intervention to change the status quo, Sisko, Dax, and Bashir were able to integrate themselves into the past in a way that Kirk and Spock did not by ensuring Keeler died to prevent the Nazis from winning World War II.

While there are themes of American exceptionalism in “The City on the Edge of Forever,” in the way that it highlighted the social progress of the 1960s, the critical themes in “Past Tense” towards the sociopolitical decisions of the era demonstrate a disillusionment with the institution of the United States. Furthermore, the time periods that the characters traveled to are also significant when analyzing commentary in each series. In The Original Series, Kirk and Spock go back in time to the 1930s, a retrospective point in history that was seen as one of the darkest periods in living memory. This is contrasted in Deep Space Nine, with Sisko, Dax, and Bashir traveling back in time a prospective dark future in 2024 which was created by the writers. By focusing the episode on a dark lived point in history, the writers of The Original Series highlighted the exceptionalism of the 1960s through contrast with the Great Depression, creating an example of social reform-based victory culture. Comparatively in Deep Space Nine, the writers portrayed a negative view of the United States through the creation of a fictional point in the near future where social divisions were heightened to the extent that society was on the verge of collapse, as a result of the actions taken by the American government. This episode provides critique by the writers regarding the sociopolitical failings of the 1990s and functions as a call to action regarding their desire to see social change enacted in order to prevent the possibility of the future that they described in “Past Tense,” which is contrary to the themes of social stagnation seen in “The City on the Edge of Forever” that emphasized the exceptional progress of the 1960s.

            After the end of the Second World War, the United States had to reconcile their new status as the world’s only remaining stable superpower, which manifested through their increased involvement in conflicts in both the Middle East and previously Soviet dominated regions. The other defining political development of the second half of the twentieth century was the Cold War, which permeated every aspect of American sociopolitical and personal life and heightened internal tensions in the United States. The 1960s were a turbulent point in history as a result of the Cold War, especially regarding the ensuing military conflicts in Korea and Vietnam that were waged in an attempt to prevent the spread of communism. During the Vietnam War, there was a disillusionment with the United States because of American involvement in what was perceived to be a useless and never ending conflict. The legacy of the Vietnam War defined perspectives regarding the increasing involvement of the United States military in the affairs of other countries like Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans in the 1990s.[41] This was evident through varying perceptions of the American declared victory in Operation Desert Storm of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, particularly when President Bush claimed that the negative legacy of the Vietnam War was over and called for a “new world order” where countries worked together to protect freedom, security, and the rule of law.[42]

            Another major concern between the 1960s and 1990s was an increase in instances of terrorism in the United States. One example was the heightened threat of international aviation terrorism from the 1960s through the 1980s with saboteurs hijacking or destroying planes to gain political leverage and provide propaganda for their causes.[43] Furthermore, 1970 had the highest number of terrorist attacks recorded by the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), with more than 460 instances in the year alone, before rates steadily declined throughout the 1980s and 1990s.[44] The increasing sociopolitical divide in the United States further resulted in acts of violent domestic terrorism such as the attacks by the left-wing extremist group the Weather Underground who were credited with at least 25 bombings between 1974 and 1978, the Unabomber who killed three people and injured 23 others between 1978 and 1995, and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 that killed 168 people and injured hundreds of others.[45] Furthermore, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing by Islamic fundamentalist extremists associated with Al-Qaeda resulted in a 100-foot crater in the building that killed six people and injured more than one thousand others.[46] This was accomplished by the perpetrators hiding a bomb in the parking garage under the towers with the intent to completely destroy them, a goal which was later completed by Al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001, and had planned a series of plane bombings at the time. Importantly, fear of domestic and foreign terrorism increased exponentially in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995 by American white nationalists Timothy McVey and Terry Nichols, which led to new legislation under the Clinton Administration in 1996 that made terrorism a federal crime, gave funding to federal agencies, and made it easier to deport people who entered the country illegally.[47]

Historians H. Bruce Franklin and Nicholas Evan Sarantakes wrote about how the Cold War and the United States’ involvement in Vietnam were two of the most influential current events represented in Star Trek: The Original Series. Franklin examined select episodes that aired between 1967 and 1969, to demonstrate how they directly related to the Vietnam War.[48] He established that the episodes reflected the United States’ evolving perspective on the war based on how the first two episodes examined presented the war as a necessary evil, while the last two represented the desperation of the era and called for radical change, namely an end to the Vietnam War. Similarly, Sarantakes argued that the Original Series used cinematic allegory to comment on contemporary politics and foreign policy as a way to express the role the writers believed the United States should play in world politics. [49] He accomplished this by highlighting the intentional allegorical comparison of political prowess and the capitalist and communist powers during the Cold War in The Original Series.

Fear in response to of the threat of national and international violence was pervasive in the American consciousness during the 1960s and 1990s. Many episodes in The Original Series had plots that included violence and combat, but there was never an active war. The show did include Cold War inspired plots through the Federation’s ongoing political conflicts with the Romulan and Klingon Empires, which were known to result in minor skirmishes and attempted acts of terrorism such as in the episode “The Trouble with Tribbles.” Furthermore, it is important to note that the conflict with the Romulans was not introduced until the 14th episode and the hostilities with the Klingon Empire did not begin until the 26th episode. The battles between the Federation and these empires were generally isolated to single episodes rather than longer overarching season-long plots. During the 1990s, the number of white supremacist organizations and anti-government militias in the United States was increasing.[50] As a result, Deep Space Nine provided commentary on the mounting examples of political terrorism through the Bajoran religious ideological conflict. Furthermore, the heightened involvement of the United States military in foreign nations was indirectly criticized through the demonstration of the futility of combat and the psychological impacts of war on young civilians and soldiers, specifically through the characters of Jake Sisko and Ensign Nog. These episodes served to comment on the lingering effects of combat on the physical and mental wellbeing of soldiers and civilians in addition to counteracting the perceived glory of combat by presenting protagonists committing morally dubious acts in battle.

The interactions between the Klingons and the Federation were grounded in racist stereotypes and ideological differences rather than active battle-driven hatred. In the episode “The Trouble with Tribbles,” the crew of the USS Enterprise came into contact with a group of Klingon soldiers while on shore leave, who provoked a fight with the Starfleet officers by calling the captain and the Enterprise derogatory names, which resulted in a bar brawl led by the Chief Engineer and the Head Navigator. [51] This altercation exemplified the ideological basis and contemptuous nature of the Klingon-Federation conflict. The episode provided further commentary on the Cold War through the discovery of a Klingon spy on the K-7 space station, who poisoned grain stores in an attempt to allow the Klingon Empire to gain full control of the planet the station was orbiting by killing all of the Federation colonists. This attempted act of sabotage was discovered by the crew of the Enterprise and did not result in a war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. However, the discovery of a Klingon infiltrator who was physically altered to look human and was acting as the aide to a Federation undersecretary, highlights themes of American exceptionalism because the crew of the USS Enterprise was able to identify and neutralize this enemy, thus preventing civilian deaths and a war with the Klingons. This is reflective of the omnipresent fear that communist insurgents were infiltrating the United States government during the Cold War for nefarious purposes.[52] As a result, the episode functions as an example of victory culture that emphasized the moral superiority and successes of the Federation, who represented the United States, by rooting out traitors in comparison to the failed attempt of deceit by the Klingons who acted as an allegory for a communist nation.

A preeminent example of commentary on terrorism in Deep Space Nine is in the episode “In the Hands of the Prophets,” where a religious fanatic bombed a school on the Deep Space 9 station.[53] This attack was motivated by a federation teacher referring to the Bajoran gods as “entities” while employing a purely scientific perspective during her lesson, rather than using terminology that aligned with the Bajoran faith. This situation instigated debate regarding the content children should be taught given that Deep Space 9 was technically a Bajoran station, and whether the Bajoran and Federation children should receive the same education or even attend the same school. This eventually escalated to a bomb being detonated in the school as a message to the teacher, and ultimately led to an assassination attempt against Vedek Bareil, a progressive religious leader who was the most likely candidate to become the next head of the Bajoran religion. It is heavily implied that the orthodox sect leader, Vedek Winn, orchestrated the bombing in order to stage the assassination attempt against Vedek Bareil and prevent him from becoming the Kai of Bajor.[54] The violence in this episode reflected the threat felt in the United States from far right domestic terrorism in recent decades, especially regarding the fear for the safety of civilians and children. Additionally, the religiously motivated school bombing in this episode serves as allegory for the religiously motivated bombing of the World Trade Center by Islamic fundamentalists associated with Al-Qaeda in February 1993, four months before this episode aired, that resulted in the deaths of six people and the injuries of over one thousand others.[55] The success of the station’s crew in thwarting the assassination attempt can be interpreted as an example of exceptionalism, but the underlying implications regarding the motivations behind the incident emphasize the instability of politics by highlighting violent ideological conflict in a manner that vilifies conservative extremism. Furthermore[HB1] , the episode demonstrates the fragile relationship between the Bajoran and Federation residents on the Deep Space 9 stationat the beginning of the series in a manner that depicts the Federation citizens as outsiders and interlopers, because they were imposing their values onto the Bajoran children, ultimately undermining any American exceptionalist themes.

The central theme of war was pervasive throughout Deep Space Nine; the series began by exploring the consequences of the Federation defeat at the Battle of Wolf 359 and the occupation of Bajor by the Cardassians, and subsequentially concluded with the Federation victory in the Federation-Dominion War.[56] The commentary on war in the series was largely accomplished by portraying youth experiencing battle and exploring the psychological impacts of combat through the experience of Jake Sisko in “…Nor the Battle to the Strong” and Nog in “The Siege of AR-558” and “It’s Only a Paper Moon.” These episodes emphasized the disillusionment with the United States and the decreasing view of war as exceptional, through the changing perspective of each character regarding the glory of battle as a direct result of their experiences. This was further accomplished by including multiple examples of violence through plots centered on both terrorism and military conflict in the series in addition to the presentation of immoral actions taken in combat by the Federation soldiers in the name of survival.

 In “Nor the Battle to the Strong,” Jake Sisko, son of Deep Space 9’s Commander Benjamin Sisko, was an 18 year old civilian who accompanied Dr. Julian Bashir to a medical conference with the intention of writing a news article about him.[57] However, when Dr. Bashir was diverted from the medical conference to a field hospital because of an attack by the Klingons, Sisko willingly entered the battlefield with the intention of detailing the glory of combat.[58] When he encountered armed conflict and death, Sisko struggled to reconcile the violence that he experienced with his preconceived notions of the grandeur of war. He witnessed multiple people die in gruesome ways, vomits in reaction to Bashir’s macabre gallows humor about surgery, and fled combat multiple times. For example, when Sisko and Bashir attempted to retrieve a power generator from their ship, they were pinned down by shelling which caused Sisko to run away, leaving an unconscious Bashir behind. This was contrasted by his actions at the end of the episode, where Sisko unintentionally caused their base’s entrance to collapse by blindly shooting into the air to protect himself from advancing Klingons. Sisko’s actions provided the medical team with enough time to safely evacuate the patients in the field hospital, which resulted in Bashir labeling him a “hero.” When Sisko ultimately wrote the article detailing his experiences, he discussed the futility of the battle in the context of greater history, and the impact that it had on his life.

More than anything I wanted to believe what he was saying but the truth is I was just as scared in the hospital as I’d been when we went for the generator, so scared that all I could think about was doing whatever it took to stay alive. Once that meant running away and once it meant picking up a phaser. The battle of Ajilon Prime will probably be remembered as a pointless skirmish but I’ll always remember it as something more – as the place I learned that the line between courage and cowardice is a lot thinner than most people believe.[59]

This quote demonstrates the harmful psychological impact of war and the futility of combat in a time where there was increased threat of the United States entering a global conflict in the Middle East. It also portrayed the decreasing exceptionalism associated with combat by the American populace, through emphasis on the reality of fear and cowardice rather than the historical glorified view of combat seen in examples of media that highlighted America’s exceptionalism through military victory culture.

The fact that the Federation’s war with the Klingons seen in this episode was caused by the infiltration of enemies into the Klingon government via shapeshifters in addition to the conflict being the result of the violation of a cease fire, makes this equally as analogous with terrorism as war. This conflict provided commentary on both the threat of active war and the rise in hate groups and violent protests in the mid-1990s and the subsequent Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, passed by the Clinton Administration.[60] Sisko’s experiences in the episode demonstrate a primal, emotional response to war, even if he had indirectly experienced combat on Deep Space 9 and in the Battle of Wolf 359 as a child. Detailing the experiences of a protagonist who responded to combat in dishonorable and realistic ways further emphasized the lack of American exceptionalism in the 1990s in the wake of increased violence and the threat of terrorism.

In addition to commentary on the psychological effects of combat on civilians through Jake Sisko, Deep Space Nine provided analysis regarding the experiences of young soldiers through Ensign Nog in “The Siege of AR-558.” The episode took place during the War with The Dominion, an empire from the Gamma Quadrant that was trying to destroy the Federation.[61] Captain Sisko brought a group of officers from Deep Space 9, including Ensign Nog of Starfleet and his uncle Quark, who was acting as a representative of the Ferengi Alliance, to deliver supplies to a battalion of Federation soldiers who had taken control of a Dominion communications tower.[62] The 43 surviving Starfleet officers, out of the original 150 stationed at the communications tower, had been pinned down for five months. This was significantly longer than the 90 day maximum deployment mandated by Starfleet and meant that they were experiencing severe battle fatigue that had resulted in infighting among the officers.

Captain Sisko eventually commanded Nog to participate in a small scouting party to determine the number of Dominion Jem’Hadar soldiers encamped nearby.[63] Quark tried to persuade his nephew to stay at the base, but Nog rebuffed his attempt based on his sense of duty as a Starfleet officer and his need to prove himself as the first Ferengi in Starfleet in combination with his hero worship of the surviving officers at the base. While on the mission, they were ambushed by the Jem’Hadar and Nog was wounded, he was rushed back to the base for emergency medical attention, ultimately resulting in Dr. Bashir amputating his leg. During the battle, Quark and Nog remained in the base while the rest of the officers, including Dr. Bashir, engaged the Jem’Hadar. Prior to the battle, the officers were able to repurpose Dominion landmines and use them to slow the Jem’Hadar’s advance by putting them in the path between their encampment and the communications tower. This episode portrayed the cynicism of the 1990s towards the United States by having the protagonists repurpose and intentionally reprogram brutal enemy weapons to be triggered by movement with the intention of eliminating approximately one third of their enemy’s forces. The lack of glory in combat is evident in the episode through the Federation soldiers’ desperation overriding their moral objections to using the landmines in a desperate attempt to survive the battle.

In the episode “It’s Only a Paper Moon,” Nog returned to Deep Space 9 after an extended medical leave where he was fitted with a bio-synthetic leg and received psychological counseling.[64] However, it is revealed that Nog was still experiencing post-traumatic stress symptoms, depression, and phantom limb pain that manifested in a psychosomatic limp which required him to use a cane. Nog also became obsessed with listening to the song “I’ll be Seeing You,” performed by the holographic character Vic Fontaine, because Dr. Bashir played the song for him while he was wounded during the battle. This led to Nog choosing to live in Vic’s holographic world for an extended period of time to recuperate and learn to cope with his experiences.[65] Vic helped Nog to reconcile some of his trauma, but he ultimately refused to leave the Holosuite. When Vic confronted Nog, he said:

When the war began…I wasn’t happy or anything, but I was eager. I wanted to test myself. I wanted to prove I had what it took to be a soldier, and I saw a lot of combat. I saw a lot of people get hurt. I saw a lot of people die. But I didn’t think anything was going to happen to me. And then, suddenly Dr. Bashir is telling me he has to cut my leg off. I couldn’t believe it. I still can’t believe it. If I could get shot, if I could lose my leg, anything can happen to me, Vic. I could die tomorrow. I don’t know if I’m ready to face that. If I stay here, at least I know what the future is going to be like.[66]

Nog was using a fantasy world to cope with the trauma of being wounded at the Siege of AR-558 but was ultimately unable to hide from reality forever. The psychological impact of war on young soldiers was a highly relevant topic in the wake of the Gulf War and with the increasing threat of United States involvement in a major conflict in the Middle East. Furthermore, the diminishing presence of victory culture in the 1990s is evident through the emphasis on the physical and psychological trauma of combat on soldiers. Nog’s injury as a result of his need to prove himself as a soldier emphasized the evolving American consciousness towards warfare and changing perception regarding the lack of glory in combat by highlighting the negative consequences of willingly entering war, even for soldiers who had trained for and previously experienced battle.

            Jake Sisko and Ensign Nog provided two different examples of the exposure of young adults to combat in different contexts. Jake wanted to document the glory of battle as a reporter, while Nog joined Starfleet and felt dutybound to serve in the Dominion War as the first Ferengi officer, but still felt a sense of hero worship towards his fellow soldiers at the battle of AR-558 for their actions in combat. It is important to note that despite the fact that Jake was a civilian and Nog was an officer, both willingly entered battle in search of glory and were disillusioned by their experiences in spite of the fact that they had been previously exposed to conflict in some manner. These characters reflected the shifting mentality of the United States away from victory culture and American exceptionalism towards a disillusionment with the American institution as a whole. The commentary in the show differs from The Original Series through the overarching presence of violence in the series in addition to demonstrating the negative impact that war had on the young characters in the show. By including the aftereffects of combat, they were providing an increasingly realistic view of war that reflected the populace’s understanding of conflict, especially in the wake of the televised aspects of the Vietnam and Gulf Wars.[67]

            The 1990s were a transitional period between the mid-twentieth century and the grim future of the twenty-first. There was still a hopeful view of the future in the 1960s, which can be observed through the presentation of the characters in Star Trek: The Original Series despite the turbulence of the era. This was the result of lingering exceptionalist views of the nation in the wake of the Second World War which persevered during the ideological conflict of the Cold War inflating the United States’ sense of superiority. Contrarily in the 1990s, the general populace became disillusioned with the United States as an institution, culminating in a much darker view of the future in the series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. This change was caused by the shifting American consciousness to become actively critical of the widespread pervasive social conflict that disproportionally targeted disenfranchised populations and the heightened threat of violence in the United States after the end of the Cold War from terrorism and American involvement in foreign conflicts. Additionally, the overwhelming disillusionment with the United States by the general populace resulted in decreased examples of victory culture that depicted the exceptionalism of America in terms of their social and military achievements. By comparing social and political events from the time they were created to themes depicted in each show, the cynicism of the 1990s can be observed, especially when contrasted with the exceptionalist view of America in the 1960s.

Sociopolitical commentary and themes of violence in the Star Trek franchise can be examined to understand both the changing perception of the American populace and the rising tensions of the time in response to the increasing threat of war and violence at the end of the twentieth century. Commentary on major sociopolitical crises like mass incarceration, mental illness, and welfare can be observed through the reactions of major characters to their surroundings in time travel based episodes in addition to the actions of contemporary characters from the past.  Furthermore, the increasingly negative view of combat in the 1990s can be observed by examining the presence of war throughout the entirety of Deep Space Nine and by exploring how the reactions of characters to violence mirrors contemporary developments regarding the threat of terrorism and war. This analysis furthers the examination of popular media commentary on sociopolitical conflict and the increasing threat of violence, which is especially significant in the context of understanding the influence of rapidly changing American media and determining the events that impacted the polarized political climate of the 2020s. Ultimately, this analysis demonstrates that historians can use science fiction shows, like the Star Trek franchise, as primary source relics to understand the zeitgeist of the era they were created, in spite of how they may appear disconnected from modern events due to their unrealistic setting. This paper demonstrates the significance of television to the study of cultural history as a result of its accessibility to the general public and the way that these shows provide commentary on current events, which reflects the public opinion of the general populace. This is especially true for the shows in Star Trek because of the unique opportunity for historical study presented by the way that the Star Trek franchise consists of various independent shows over multiple decades, which can be used to observe changing mentality of the United States. As a result, the declining American exceptionalism and view of the United States in the 1990s can be observed by examining different themes and plots in multiple series of the Star Trek franchise over time in order to determine the declining presence of victory culture in each era.

In the context of the social studies classroom, this research similarly  demonstrates the ability of teachers to use science fiction media, including television series, to show students how historical perspectives are represented in popular culture. Film has been used in the classroom for decades given how engaging it is for students, and how consumable the medium is for students of all backgrounds and abilities as a way to visualize events, understand reactions to incidents, and scaffold conversation.[68] Science fiction has traditionally been a platform for writers to provide analogous commentary on their experiences and perceptions of current events, a quality that is abundantly clear in the Star Trek franchise. This genre has been used in order to portray fictionalized versions of historical events and ideas, which can be explored in the classroom by evaluating the representation of political themes and contemporary events in film and shows. The unique quality of the Star Trek series spanning multiple decades can be used in the classroom in order to demonstrate changing mentality regarding the current and public perception of the United States to students. As a result, teachers can use short clips or entire episodes in order to present the changing perspectives of the United States through this franchise in particular. Using this type of visual media will help students to understand the impact of decisions made during the contemporary era and will also help them to comprehend the impact of complex sociopolitical and military developments in the United States, such as mass incarceration, welfare, increased threat of terrorism, and the consequences of the end of the Cold War and Gulf War in the 1990s.

Behr, Ira Steven and Hans Beimler, writers. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 7, episode 8, “The Siege of AR-558.” Directed by Winrich Kolbe, featuring Avery Brooks, Aron Eisenberg, Armin Shimerman, and Alexander Siddig. Aired November 10, 1998, in broadcast syndication. https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/mIdm1LceoK_eeqS uaO8_jl7G_QNJuhi6/.

Behr, Ira Steven and Robert Hewitt Wolfe, writers. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 3, episode 11, “Past Tense, Part 1.” Directed by Reza Badiyi, featuring Avery Brooks, Terry Farrell, and Siddig El Fadil. Aired January 2, 1995, in broadcast syndication. https://www .paramountplus.com/shows/video/Y2jFFEXQw_2hrGX5mrGX90zqkzR4vi7G/.   

Behr, Ira Steven, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, René Echevarria, writers. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 3, episode 12, “Past Tense, Part 2.” Directed by Jonathan Frakes, featuring Avery Brooks, Terry Farrell, and Siddig El Fadil. Aired January 9, 1995, in broadcast syndication. https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/X1Qfoe06ZqK3hdP4O8YYb bKGSHZ2tydI/.

Berke, Richard L. “THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: THE AD CAMPAIGN; Clinton: Getting People Off Welfare.” New York Times, September 10, 1992, A20. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/ 10/us/the-1992-campaign-the-ad-campaign-clinton-getting-people-off-welfare.html?smid =url-share.

Ellison, Harlan, writer. Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 1, episode 28, “The City on the Edge of Forever.” Directed by Joseph Pevney, featuring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, and Joan Collins. Aired April 5, 1967, in broadcast syndication. https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/1179123511/.

Gerrold, David, writer. Star Trek: The Original Series. Season 2, episode 15, “The Trouble with Tribbles.” Directed by Joseph Pevney, featuring William Shatner, James Doohan, and Walter Koenig. Aired December 29, 1967, in broadcast syndication. https://www.paramo untplus.com/shows/video/1226188697/.

Humphrey, Hubert H. “The War on Poverty.” Law and Contemporary Problems 31, no. 1 (1966): 6-17. https://doi.org/10.2307/1190526.

Mack, David, Ronald D. Moore, and John J. Ordover, writers. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 7, episode 10, “It’s Only a Paper Moon.” Directed by Anson Williams, featuring Avery Brooks, Aron Eisenberg, and James Darren. Aired December 30, 1998, in broadcast syndication. https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/C4tVIj7ZzLXaNyd 1NAVh71SEN85fkPP2/.

Parker, Brice R and René Echevarria, writers. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 5, episode 4, “…Nor the Battle to the Strong.” Directed by Kim Friedman, featuring Cirroc Lofton and Alexander Siddig. Aired October 21, 1996, in broadcast syndication. https://www.paramo untplus.com/shows/video/M0Jzs5X8tCYk_8WOjuCwArnwUfhMEsZD/.  

“The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. US Department of Health and Human Services, August 31, 1996. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/personal-responsibility-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-1996.

Wolf, Robert Hewitt, writer. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 1, episode 20,“In the Hands of the Prophets.” Directed by David Livingston, featuring Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor, Colm Meaney, Rosaland Chao, and Louise Fletcher. Aired June 20, 1993, in broadcast syndication. https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/gg7NOUqKNrbke8RtQxpzYx 9teVPy22Hz/.

Piller, Ira Michael and Rick Berman, writers. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Season 1, episode 1, “Emissary, Parts 1 and 2.” Directed by David Carson, featuring Avery Brooks, Terry Farrell, and Siddig El Fadil. Aired January 3, 1993, in broadcast syndication. https://www .paramountplus.com/shows/video/zbYJuXEpNDasxVJf48I7BRo3vg5ogjuF/

Secondary Sources

“1993 World Trade Center Bombing,” Latest Stories, U.S. Department of State, February 21, 2019, https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/.

Arasly, Jangir. “Terrorism and Civil Aviation Security: Problems and Trends.” Connections 4, no. 1 (2005): 75-90. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26323156.

Carrier, Jerry. A Long Cold War: A Chronology of American Life and Culture 1945 to 1991. New York: Algora Publishing, 2018.

Ceaser, James W. “The Origins and Character of American Exceptionalism,” American Political Thought 1, no. 1 (2012): 3-28. https://doi.org/10.1086/664595.

Cullen, Jim. From Memory to History: Television Versions of the Twentieth Century. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2021.

Doherty, Thomas. Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Engelhardt, Tom. The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation. Rev. ed. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007.

Franklin, H. Bruce. “Star Trek in the Vietnam Era.” Film and History 24, no. ½ (1994): 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1353/flm.1994.a395002.

Hijiya, James A. “The Conservative 1960s.” Journal of American Studies 37, no. 2 (2003): 201-227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021875803007072

Kennedy, David M. “What the New Deal Did.” Political Science Quarterly 124, no. 2 (2009): 251-268. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25655654.

Kohler-Hausmann, Julilly. “Welfare Crises, Penal Solutions, and the Origins of the ‘Welfare Queen.” Journal of Urban History 41, no. 5 (2015): 576-771. https://doi.org/10.1177/009 6144215589942

Kruz, Kevin M. and Julian E. Zelizer. Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

McAndrews, Lawrence J. “Promoting the Poor: Catholic Leaders and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964” Catholic Historical Review 104, no. 2 (2018): 298-321. https://doi.org/10.1 353/cat.2018.0027.

Miller, Erin. “Patterns of Terrorism in the United States, 1970-2013: Final Report to Resilient Systems Division, DHS Science and Technology Directorate.” National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), Department of Homeland Security, (2014): 1-27. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/OPSR_TP_T EVUS_Patterns-of-Terrorism-Attacks-in-US_1970-2013-Report_Oct2014-508.pdf.

Mui, Vai-Lam. “Information, Civil Liberties, and the Political Economy of Witch-Hunts.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 15, no. 2 (1999): 503-525. https://www.jstor. org/stable/3555065.

Nagl, John and Octavian Manea. “The Uncomfortable Wars of the 1990s.” In War, Strategy and History: Essays in Honour of Professor Robert O’Neill, edited by Daniel Marstonand Amara Leahy, 127-154. Canberra: Australia National University Press. https://www.js tor.org/stable/j.ctt1dgn5sf.15.  

“Oklahoma City Bombing,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing.

Raphael, Stephen and Michael A. Stoll. “Assessing the Contribution of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill to Growth of the U.S. Incarceration Rate.” The Journal of Legal Studies 42, no. 1 (2013): 187-333. https://doi.org/10.1086/667773.

Roiblatt, Rachel E. and Maria C. Dinis. “The Lost Link: Social Work in Early Twentieth‐Century Alcohol Policy.” Social Service Review 78, no. 4 (2004): 652-674. https://doi.org/10.1086 /424542.

Russell, William B., III. “The Art of Teaching Social Studies with Film.” The Clearing House 85, no. 4 (2012): 157-164, https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.674984.

Sarantakes, Nicholas Evan. “Cold War Pop Culture and the Image of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Perspective of the Original Star Trek Series.” Journal of Cold War Studies 7, no. 4 (2005): 74-103. https://doi.org/10.1162/1520397055012488

Stoddard Jeremy D. and Alan S. Marcus. “More Than “Showing What Happened”: Exploring the Potential of Teaching History with Film.” The High School Journal 93, no. 2 (2010): 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.0.0044.

“The Unabomber,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber.

Thompson, Heather Ann. “Why Mass Incarceration Matters: Rethinking Crisis, Decline, and Transformation in Postwar American History.” The Journal of American History 97, no. 3 (2010): 703-734. https://doi.org/10.1093/jahist/97.3.703.

Thomson, Irene Taviss. “Culture, Class, and American Exceptionalism,” in Culture Wars and Enduring American Dilemmas, 175-216. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2010.

Upton, Bryn. Hollywood at the End of the Cold War: Signs of Cinematic Change. London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014.

“Weather Underground Bombings,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/weather-underground-bombings.

Weinstein, Paul B. “Movies as the Gateway to History: The History and Film Project.” The History Teacher 35, no. 1 (2001): 27-48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3054508

 “World Trade Center Bombing 1993,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/world-trade-center-bombing-1993.


[1] The Borg are a cybernetic collective in the Star Trek universe that are controlled by the Borg Queen, who conquer planets in order to steal their technology and forcibly assimilate different civilizations into their collective hive mind. Their ultimate goal is to achieve perfection by adding the knowledge and technologies of other civilizations to their own.

[2] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, season 1, episode 1, “Emissary, Part 1,” directed by David Carson, written by Ira Michael Piller and Rick Berman, featuring Avery Brooks, Terry Farrell, and Siddig El Fadil, aired January 3, 1993, in broadcast syndication, 0:00-4:33, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/zbYJuXEpNDasxVJf48I7BRo3v g5ogjuF/. Siddig El Fadil changed his name to Alexander Siddig in 1995, which was reflected in the show starting in season 4, episode 1.

[3] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine chronicles events on the space station Deep Space 9. The stationorbits the planet Bajor, a non-Federation planet that was working to achieve Federation membership, resulting in both Bajoran and Federation officers onboard, and is commanded by Federation Commander (later Captain) Benjamin Sisko with Bajoran first officer Major (later Colonel) Kira Nerys. The station’s significance is its location next to a stable wormhole that connects the Federation in the Alpha Quadrant to the otherwise unreachable Gamma Quadrant. The wormhole is also home to an alien species that exists outside of time who the Bajoran people identified as their gods that they named the Prophets. For the duration of this paper, Deep Space Nine will refer to the title of the show while Deep Space 9 will refer to the station in the series.

[4] Star Trek: The Original Series details the adventures of the crew of the starship USS Enterprise, led by Captain James Kirk. The original pilot of Star Trek: The Original Series, “The Cage,” will only be considered through the flashbacks incorporated into the two part episode “The Menagerie” given that it was not released in its entirety until 1988.

[5] James W. Ceaser, “The Origins and Character of American Exceptionalism,” American Political Thought 1, no. 1 (2012): 3-28, https://doi.org/10.1086/664595. Irene Taviss Thomson, “Culture, Class, and American Exceptionalism,” in Culture Wars and Enduring American Dilemmas (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 2010): 181-187.

[6] It is important to note that there is a production period for television shows that results in a delay between contemporary events and the release of episodes that provide commentary on those events. For the sake of this analysis, commentary on specific events is considered within a time frame of approximately six months to a year before an episode is aired. However, there are also larger themes, concerns, and ongoing conflicts analyzed in this paper that impact public opinion which are considered within the context of the entire decade and do not follow the same time frame restrictions as specific dated events.

[7] Kevin M. Kruse and Julian E. Zelizer, Fault Lines: A History of the United States Since 1974 (W. W. Norton & Company, 2019), 1-8.

[8] Tom Engelhardt, The End of Victory Culture: Cold War America and the Disillusioning of a Generation, Rev. ed., (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2007), 3-15.

[9] Thomas Doherty, Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American Culture, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003): 4.

[10] Doherty, 2, 15-18.

[11] Jim Cullen, From Memory to History: Television Versions of the Twentieth Century, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2021), 1-15.

[12] Bryn Upton, Hollywood at the End of the Cold War: Signs of Cinematic Change, (London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014), 1-15.

[13] Upton, 171-176.

[14] Jeremy D. Stoddard and Alan S. Marcus, “More Than “Showing What Happened”: Exploring the Potential of Teaching History with Film,” The High School Journal 93, no. 2 (2010): 83-90, https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.0.0044; Paul B. Weinstein, “Movies as the Gateway to History: The History and Film Project.” The History Teacher 35, no. 1 (2001): 27-48, https://doi.org/10.2307/3054508; and William B. Russell III, “The Art of Teaching Social Studies with Film The Clearing House 85, no. 4 (2012): 157-164, https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.674984.

[15] Kruse, 113-122.

[16] Kruse, 180-222.

[17] David M. Kennedy, “What the New Deal Did,” Political Science Quarterly 124, no. 2 (2009): 253-254, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25655654.

[18] Heather Ann Thompson, “Why Mass Incarceration Matters: Rethinking Crisis, Decline, and Transformation in Postwar American History,” The Journal of American History 97, no. 3 (2010): 706, 731-733, https://doi.org/10.109 3/jahist/97.3.703.

[19] Julilly Kohler-Hausmann, “Welfare Crises, Penal Solutions, and the Origins of the ‘Welfare Queen,’” Journal of Urban History 41, no. 5 (2015): 757, https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144215589942.

[20] Stephen Raphael and Michael A. Stoll, “Assessing the Contribution of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill to Growth of the U.S. Incarceration Rate,” The Journal of Legal Studies 42, no. 1 (2013): 190, https://doi.org/10.1 086/667773.

[21] Kruse, 234-235.

[22] The episode began with the ship’s doctor, Leonard McCoy, accidentally injecting himself with a medication that caused acute psychosis. In his delusional state, he teleported to a nearby planet and when the captain and command crew went to rescue him, they encountered the Guardian of Forever, an entity that controlled a gateway to any moment in history. McCoy jumped through the portal to the year 1930 resulting in the erasure of the universe as they knew it. Captain Kirk and Commander Spock followed him back in time to retrieve McCoy and preserve the proper timeline.

[23] Star Trek: The Original Series, season 1, episode 28, “The City on the Edge of Forever,” directed by Joseph Pevney, written by Harlan Ellison, featuring William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, and Joan Collins, aired April 5, 1967, in broadcast syndication, 22:04-23:08, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/117912351 1/.

[24] Rachel E. Roiblatt and Maria C. Dinis, “The Lost Link: Social Work in Early Twentieth‐Century Alcohol Policy,” Social Service Review 78, no. 4 (2004): 652-654, https://doi.org/10.1086/424542.

[25] Roiblatt 661-666.

[26] Hubert H. Humphrey, “The War on Poverty,” Law and Contemporary Problems 31, no. 1 (1966): 6-7, https://doi.org/10.2307/1190526.

[27] Humphrey, 8.

[28] James A. Hijiya, “The Conservative 1960s,” Journal of American Studies 37, no. 2 (2003): 222-223, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021875803007072.

[29] “Lawrence J. McAndrews, “Promoting the Poor: Catholic Leaders and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,” Catholic Historical Review104, no. 2 (2018): 319, https://doi.org/10.1353/cat.2018.0027.

[30] While trying to teleport from their ship, the USS Defiant, to Earth, Commander Benjamin Sisko, Lt. Commander Jadzia Dax, and Doctor Julian Bashir were accidently sent to their destination, San Francisco, but at a different point in time. While they tried to get back, they accidently altered the timeline and needed to fix it on their own while they waited for the rest of their crew to figure out how to rescue them.

[31] Richard L. Berke, “THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: THE AD CAMPAIGN; Clinton: Getting People Off Welfare,” New York Times, September 10, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/10/us/the-1992-campaign-the-ad-campaign-clinton-getting-people-off-welfare.html, and Kruse, 235.

[32] Berke, “1992 Campaign,” and “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,” Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, US Department of Health and Human Services, August 31, 1996, https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/personal-responsibility-work-opportunity-reconciliation-act-1996.

[33] Thompson, 727-729.

[34] Raphael 219.

[35] Raphael, 191.

[36] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, season 3, episode 11, “Past Tense, Part 1,” directed by Reza Badiyi, written by Ira Steven Behr and Robert Hewitt Wolfe, featuring Avery Brooks, Terry Farrell, and Siddig El Fadil, aired January 2, 1995, in broadcast syndication, 22:23-24:10, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/Y2jFFEXQw2hrGX5mr GX90zqkzR4vi7G/ .

[37] Kohler-Hausmann, 766.

[38] “Past Tense, Part 1,” 19:42-19:59.

[39] “Past Tense, Part 2,” 20:22-

[40] In the episode, it is revealed that Starfleet and the Federation ceased to exist in the future after Gabriel Bell was killed.

[41] John Nagl and Octavian Manea, “The Uncomfortable Wars of the 1990s,” in War, Strategy and History: Essays in Honour of Professor Robert O’Neill, ed. Daniel Marstonand Amara Leahy (Canberra: Australia National University Press, 2016), 149, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1dgn5sf.15.

[42] Kruse, 184-187.

[43] Jangir Arasly, “Terrorism and Civil Aviation Security: Problems and Trends,” Connections 4, no. 1 (2005): https://www.jstor.org/stable/26323156.

[44] Erin Miller, “Patterns of Terrorism in the United States, 1970-2013: Final Report to Resilient Systems Division,

DHS Science and Technology Directorate,” National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), Department of Homeland Security, (2014): 9, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publicatio ns/OPSR_TP_TEVUS_Patterns-of-Terrorism-Attacks-in-US_1970-2013-Report_Oct2014-508.pdf

[45] “Weather Underground Bombings,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/weather-underground-bombings.; “The Unabomber,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber.; and “Oklahoma City Bombing,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing.

[46] “World Trade Center Bombing 1993,” History: Famous Cases and Criminals, Federal Bureau of Investigation, accessed December 1, 2024, https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/world-trade-center-bombing-1993, and “1993 World Trade Center Bombing,” Latest Stories, U.S. Department of State, February 21, 2019, https://www.state.gov/1993-world-trade-center-bombing/.

[47] Kruse, 220-221.

[48] H. Bruce Franklin, “Star Trek in the Vietnam Era,” Film and History 24, no. ½ (1994): 36-46, https://doi.org/10.1353/flm.1994.a395002.

[49] Nicholas Evan Sarantakes, “Cold War Pop Culture and the Image of U.S. Foreign Policy: The Perspective of the Original Star Trek Series,” Journal of Cold War Studies 7, no. 4 (2005): 74-103, https://doi.org/10.1162/1520397055 012488 .

[50] Kruze, 220.

[51] Star Trek: The Original Series, season 2, episode 15, “The Trouble with Tribbles,” directed by Joseph Pevney, written by David Gerrold, featuring William Shatner, James Doohan, and Walter Koenig, aired December 29, 1967, in broadcast syndication, 21:43-25:57, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/1226188697/.

[52] Vai-Lam Mui, “Information, Civil Liberties, and the Political Economy of Witch-Hunts,” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 15, no. 2 (1999): 503-504, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3555065.

[53] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, season 1, episode 20, “In the Hands of the Prophets,” directed by David Livingston, written by Robert Hewitt Wolf, featuring Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor, Colm Meaney, Rosaland Chao, and Louise Fletcher, aired June 20, 1993, in broadcast syndication, 1:47-1:50, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/gg7 NOUqKNrbke8RtQxpzYx9teVPy22Hz/.

[54] The former Kai, Kai Opaka, was killed in season 1, which meant that a new religious leader needed to be appointed by the religious community. It is also important to note that Commander Sisko was identified as the Emissary of the Prophets and is, unwillingly, connected to the Bajoran faith.

[55] Federal Bureau of Investigation, “World Trade Center Bombing 1993.”

[56] The Deep Space Nine (DS9) station was a former Cardassian military and labor space station that the Bajoran Provisional Government took control of after the end of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor.

[57] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, season 5, episode 4, “…Nor the Battle to the Strong,” directed by Kim Friedman, written by Brice R. Parker, and René Echevarria, featuring Cirroc Lofton and Alexander Siddig, aired 21 October 1996, in broadcast syndication, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/M0Jzs5X8tCYk_8WOjuCwArnwUfh MEsZD/.

[58] The Federation was engaged in a war with the Klingon Empire as a result of the infiltration of the Dominion changeling leaders into their government. During “Nor the Battle to the Strong,” the Klingons had broken an agreed upon cease-fire with the Federation, which resulted in Dr. Bashir’s diversion to the field hospital on Ajilon Prime.

[59] “…Nor the Battle to the Strong,” 43:03-43:38.

[60] Kruse, 219-220.

[61]Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, season 7, episode 8, “The Siege of AR-558,” directed by Winrich Kolbe, written by Ira Steven Behr, and Hans Beimler, featuring Avery Brooks, Aron Eisenberg, Armin Shimerman, and Alexander Siddig, aired November 10, 1998, in broadcast syndication, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/mIdm1Lc eoK_eeqSuaO8_jl7G_QNJuhi6/.

[62] Commander Sisko was promoted to Captain in season 3, episode 26. Additionally, Nog is the first Ferengi Member of Starfleet and Jake Sisko’s best friend.

[63] The Jem’Hadar were a genetically engineered clone species that the Dominion bred to fight wars for them.

[64] Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, season 7, episode 10, “It’s Only a Paper Moon,” directed by Anson Williams, written by David Mack, Ronald D. Moore, and John J. Ordover, featuring Avery Brooks, Aron Eisenberg, and James Darren. Aired December 30, 1998, in broadcast syndication, https://www.paramountplus.com/shows/video/C4tVIj7ZzLXaN yd1NAVh71SEN85fkPP2/.

[65] In the Star Tek universe, the characters use holosuites to create fictional worlds and characters they can immerse themselves in to live out fantasies as part of the story. Vic Fontaine is a hologram who is fully sentient, which means that he is aware of the real world and its events, that runs a casino and lounge in Las Vegas in the year 1962.

[66] “It’s Only a Paper Moon, “38:40-38:50.

[67] Kruse, 187-188.

[68] Russel, 158-161.


The John W. Jones Story

Reprinted with permission from https://www.johnwjonesmuseum.org/the-john-w-jones-story

John W. Jones became an active agent in the Underground Railroad in 1851. In 1854, the Northern Central railroad tracks from Williamsport, Pennsylvania to Elmira, New York were completed. Jones made an arrangement with Northern Central employees and hid the fugitives in the 4 o’clock “Freedom Baggage Car,” directly to Niagara Falls via Watkins Glen and Canandaigua. Most of Jones’s “baggage” eventually landed in St. Catharines, Ontario.

By 1860, Jones aided in the escape of 800 runaway slaves. He usually received the fugitives in parties of six to ten, but there were times he found shelter for up to 30 men, women, and children a night. It is believed Jones sheltered many in his own home behind First Baptist Church. Of those 800, none were captured or returned to the South.

Jones became the sexton for Woodlawn Cemetery in 1859. One of his primary roles was to bury each deceased Confederate soldier from the Elmira Prison Camp. Of the 2,973 prisoners who Jones buried, only seven are listed as unknown. Jones kept such precise records that on December 7, 1877, the federal government declared the burial site a national cemetery.

Historically, the house was the private residence of John W. Jones and his family, changed ownership several times, and was last used as rental property that fell into disrepair. Condemned by the City of Elmira in 1997, Lucy Brown brought it to the public’s attention and with a group of concerned citizens, saved it from demolition. The building currently stands on Jones’ original farm property and the site will continue to be visually interpreted as a farm.

The museum highlights the history of African Americans who settled in New York and the activity of local abolitionists, emphasizing Elmira’s role as the only regular agency and published station on the Underground Railroad between Philadelphia and St. Catharine’s, Canada, and explore Mr. Jones’ community involvement and his relationship with his contemporaries.

John W. Jones was born a slave June 21, 1817, on a plantation south of Leesburg, Virginia. He was owned by the Ellzey family, an influential family who treated their slaves with perhaps more kindness than some plantation owners did. Miss Sarah (Sally) Ellzey was fond of John and was a good friend to him. But she was getting on in years and John was concerned about what would happen to him once she passed away.

On June 3, 1844, at the age of 27, John fled north to the place his mother had told him about “where there is no slavery.” It took one month for John, his two half-brothers, George and Charles, and Jefferson Brown and John Smith from an adjoining estate to walk from Virginia to Elmira, New York, a distance of about 300 miles. The route they followed was part of the Underground Railroad coming up through Pennsylvania and into New York by way of Williamsport, Canton, Alba and South Creek. In South Creek they reached the farm of Dr. Nathaniel Smith, where they crawled into the hay mow of his immense barn and went to sleep, more dead than alive. They remained there over night. Mrs. Smith discovered them and cooked food and took it to them. This is the Mrs. Smith whose grave in Woodlawn Cemetery, just beyond the Langdon plot, always had fresh flowers on it and no one knew where they came from. After John Jones died, there were no more mysterious fresh flowers.

John Jones was an ambitious man and never idle. The first thing he did when he arrived in Elmira was to offer to cut wood in exchange for 50¢ for Mrs. John Culp, Colonel John Hendy’s daughter. Another early job he took was in a tallow and candle store working for Seth Kelly. John wanted to get an education, but was refused at first because he was black. Judge Arial Standish Thurston befriended him, realized his potential and made it possible for him to receive an education – in fact, at the same school where before he had been turned down. As a result, John went to school in the winter and worked as janitor for Miss Clara Thurston’s school for young ladies on Main Street. In October, 1847, he was appointed sexton or caretaker of the first church building of the First Baptist Church that had been constituted in 1829 under the name of the Baptist Church of Southport and Elmira. The first members gathered in homes, but as the membership grew they met in a schoolhouse in Southport. By 1832, the membership had grown to the point where they decided to build their own church building. They were sold the piece of land where the Baptist Church still is today for $1.50 by Jeffrey and Elizabeth Wisner who were in-laws of the first pastor, Rev. Philander Gillett. The first building was a barn-like structure constructed at a cost of $954.

By 1848, 16 years later, the Baptists had outgrown that building and decided to build something larger. The 1863 City Directory says this building was constructed of wood, stucco and cost $8000. Mr. Jones was sexton of this second church building for the 42 years that it was in existence.

In 1854 he bought the “yellow house next to the church” from an Ezra Canfield for $500. Two years later, John Jones married Rachel Swails. Rachel’s brother was Stephen Swails, a Lieutenant in the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. If you have ever seen the movie Glory, you know the story of this famous regiment.

By 1859, Jones was already very active in Underground Railroad work. An article in The Liberator (Boston) signed J.W. Jones, Sec. said: “Resolved, That we, the colored citizens of Elmira, do hereby form ourselves into a society for the purpose of protecting ourselves against those persons, [slave-catchers] prowling through different parts of this and other States since the passing of the diabolical act of Sept. 18th, 1850, which consigns freemen of other States to that awful state of brutality which the fiendish slaveholders of the Southern States think desirable for their colored brethren, but are not willing to try it themselves.”

Arch Merrill said in his book on the UGRR, “Jones quietly took command of the Underground in Elmira, a gateway between the South and the North. It became the principal station on the ‘railroad’ between Philadelphia and the Canadian border. Jones worked closely with William Still, the chief Underground agent in Philadelphia, who forwarded parties of from six to 10 fugitives at a time to Elmira.

“Jones had many allies in Elmira. Mrs. John Culp hid runaways in her home. Other Underground leaders were Jervis Langdon; Simeon Benjamin, the founder of Elmira College; Thomas Stanley Day; S. G. Andrus; John Selover; Riggs Watrous and others. The station master concealed as many as 30 slaves at one time in his home—exactly where, he never told. He carried on his operations so secretly that only the inner circle of abolitionists knew that in a decade he dispatched nearly 800 slaves to Canada. “John Jones demonstrated his winning ways in encouraging the railroad baggage men to stow away the hundreds of men, women, and children who were spirited away to freedom.

“In 1854 the railroad from Williamsport to Elmira was completed and Jones received many more fugitives by train, to ship away in the 4 a.m. ‘Freedom Baggage Car,’ directly to Niagara Falls via Watkins Glen and Canandaigua, where the car was shifted to the New York Central. Most of Jones’s ‘baggage’ eventually landed in St. Catharine’s.”

His house right next to the church was the UGRR station of which Mr. Jones was station master. I often wonder about his wife, Rachel, who never knew how many were coming for dinner. I have also wondered if on those nights when he had 30 or more people to hide, if the church building, which he had access to, gave them shelter. There is no record that tells us this, but still, I wonder.

If you stand at the corner of West Church Street and Railroad Avenue and look north toward the Erie depot, you can envision the journey of the fugitives in the middle of the night as they go from Mr. Jones’s home, where the parking lot of First Baptist is now, up Railroad Avenue to the depot.


Wm. Still’s book about the UGRR is full of stories by the actual people involved in the work. In October, 1855, a lady wrote to Still asking, “Please give me again the direction of Hiram Wilson and the friend in Elmira, Mr. Jones, I think.” [Still, page 40]

Here is a letter written by John W. Jones to William Still:
Elmira, June 6, 1860.
Friend Wm Still:


The Black Plague: A Positive Spin on Death?

How can mass mortality be viewed in a positive light? This is a question that arises when it comes to contemporary discussions of the fourteenth-century Black Death epidemic which wiped out nearly one-third of the population of Europe.[1] It is difficult to understate the immediate negative consequences of the Plague as it dismembered families, ripped apart social structures, and threw the economy into shock. Yet, some historians have now come to see the depopulation of the continent as a sort of necessary evil. Shortages of resources and job opportunities were prevalent by the beginning of the fourteenth century, especially in England, the country this paper will focus on.[2] In contrast, the Plague eliminated the shortages caused by overpopulation which immediately increased demand for workers. This led to increased wage growth and the widening of options of employment for average civilians. So, did the Black Death have a more positive or negative short-term impact on the English labor force? This essay argues that while the epidemic brought about a period of brief devastation, it ultimately eased the shortages of the years that preceded it leading to rapid labor reform which can be seen in first-hand accounts and the post-plague policies aimed at curtailing it.

            The advancements made by laborers as a result of the Black Death can most obviously be seen by comparing their circumstances from before and after the Plague’s onset. As mentioned previously, it is therefore important to begin by establishing the former. This can be done by analyzing “The Statute of Labourers,” a 1351 policy put in place by the English government which attempted to maintain the social structure that was present before the epidemic. In so doing, the law continuously reverts back to the conditions of the “20th year of the king’s reign” which refers to 1346, just one year before the onset of the Black Death.[3] One of the Statute’s stipulations is that most employees, especially in agricultural fields could not be hired for periods less than a year, or other extended tenures that existed beforehand.[4] This severely limited the options of laborers and forced them to remain in jobs that might not pay as well as others. Therefore, not only were there severe shortages of jobs in England during the beginning of the fourteenth century, but workers were often unable to switch jobs, being signed for lengthy terms of service. Furthermore, the Statute makes it clear that virtually no benefits were offered by employers. Laborers were therefore expected to work for their dwindling salaries alone.[5] This shows a circumstance in which there was such a high supply of workers, that employers did not need to create many incentives to fill their openings.

            Karakacili furthers the image of pre-Plague life that the Statute of Labourers provides. Her findings show that the majority of workers in England at the time were farmers. And just as the provisions of the Statute mandated certain tenures of service for employees, Karakacili claims that much of the labor by said farmers was completed by serfs. In addition, Karakacili applies the Malthusian crisis she explains earlier to the predicament of English laborers. As such, she claims that “the average output of a farm worker did not suffice…to feed him or herself.”[6] Therefore, wages were so low, and resources were so scarce, that the majority of people were not able to provide for themselves. But workers remained in their struggling positions because it was likely the best they could achieve.[7] So, in this situation as well, workers were limited in their ability to leave their jobs, both because they were legally prevented from doing so, and because there were very few other viable options.

All aspects of society were affected by the Black Death, and limitations for employees in England were no exception. To this point, Alfani and Murphy explain in “Plague and Lethal Epidemics” that “an inequality decline after a severe mortality is what we should expect.”[8] By this, they mean that various economic consequences of epidemics contribute to a narrowing of the wage gap. This is because as the population declines, so does the supply of labor. And the general rule of economics that Alfani and Murphy outline is that as a resource becomes scarcer, it becomes more expensive.[9] This was clearly the case with the Black Death as it had one of the highest mortality rates of any epidemic in history. Therefore, the mortality of the Plague diminished the supply of workers which immediately led to increased wages and competition between employers for laborers.

            The increase in competition for English laborers can be seen in various accounts of serfs leaving their old employers behind as there were finally better options available. As such, after the Black Death, there are abundant instances showing the diminishing disconnect between serfs and their masters as the former could now achieve sustainable compensation. An account of the East Riding estates of Meaux Abbey in the 1350s outlines several examples of serfs discovering new opportunities in the wake of the Plague. In one instance, the account describes a series of serfs bound to the church in the town of Wawne. However, it goes on to ridicule them saying that despite their long history of being bound to serve the church, they have declared themselves free of their service. Still, it does not say that they just left to wander about the country. Rather, they called themselves servants of the king as they “apparently considered it more glorious to be…royal serfs.”[10] Another example of this trend comes in the Durham hallmoot book of 1350-55 which discusses the experiences of a lord in northern England whose serfs abandon him. These farmers are described as “malicious” as their actions were seen as a betrayal of the master they were bound to. Again though, they are not seen as completely leaving their jobs altogether, but with the intention to “tak[e] holdings elsewhere.”[11] This shows the occurrence of the pattern that Alfani and Murphy discuss. The Black Death wiped out so many workers that demand for them increased dramatically thereby widening the prospects of the labor force. As a result, workers who previously had no hope of ever leaving their insufficient circumstances, could now easily find work elsewhere and for better wages. The serfs of Wawne and Durham are emblematic of this trend as they departed their old livelihoods for better ones in the wake of the Black Death upheaval.

            The Black Death’s economic consequences can be seen not only in firsthand accounts, but also in the legislation instituted by governments following it. Leading Plague historian Samuel Cohn discusses such legislation in his article “After the Black Death: Labour legislation and attitudes towards labour” in which he outlines the motivation behind it and its differences throughout Europe. Cohn explains that these policies were put in place to stimy the supposed advancements that laborers were making as a result of the fear and anxiety that accompanied the great mortality.[12] As Herlihy explained, the Black Death represented an unalterable shift in the labor dynamics of the fourteenth century[13] and this perception was felt throughout Europe just as Cohn describes. Therefore, the reverberations of the Plague on English labor can be seen in post-epidemic policies aimed at curtailing them.

            An example of these post-Plague policies is that of Simon Sudbury who as the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1370s was the foremost religious leader in England behind the Pope. In a 1378 letter to the Bishop of London, Sudbury lays out both his displeasure with the changes in labor, and his solution to them. He thus begins by describing his own priests as “infected with the sin of greed” for they had been selling their services for “vastly inflated salaries” outside the church.[14] In response, the Archbishop raises the wages of the priests in order to get them to stay, but also imposes strict penalties for those would still not adhere to the new salaries.[15] Sudbury’s letter thus proves that post-plague advancements were not only occurring for farmers and serfs, but also for members of the church. This situation widens the scope of Black Death reform from the lowliest peasants to include the clergy as well.

            The hallmark of English post-Plague labor legislation came in the form of the aforementioned 1351 Statute of Labourers which attempted to return the social order to the characteristics it embodied five years earlier.[16] It therefore made it illegal for workers to sign employment contracts that were binding for less than a year, instituted strict salaries for various jobs that were not to be exceeded, and required that employers offer no benefits to their laborers.[17] Its fears of workers making advancements are confirmed by the various accounts of individuals being charged for violating it. In a 1353 case in the town of Lincoln, a ploughman named John Skit is described as fleeing to “distant parts,” fearing his prosecution for accepting a new job under better working conditions before his contract was concluded.[18] In a similar 1360 case from Bolingbroke, a bishop named Alan is recorded as being charged forty pence for leaving his employment to a figure known as “Lady Roos” before his term of service was over.[19] Another case from 1374 describes a so-called “vagabond” named Richard Rote as being placed in stocks until he agreed to work again. However, the case also claims that two people attempted to free Rote, openly defying the provisions of the Statute of Labourers.[20] There are countless examples of violations of the Statue, thereby showing how labor reform was in fact taking place.

            It is not at all difficult to point out the destructive repercussions of the Black Death. By eliminating one-third of the population of Europe, it tore apart institutions, families, and impacted nearly every corner of society. However, there has emerged a sound argument for the Plague having a positive effect on English labor. Before the epidemic ravaged the country, England, like most places in the continent, was suffering immense shortages in both resources and job opportunities. However morbidly, the Black Death’s mortality ended this crisis and opened up the job market. As there were now shortages of workers, employers were forced to raise wages and benefits, and laborers could now leave their jobs (albeit illegally according to the Statutes) as there were other viable options. This trend was not without resistance and the English government attempted to stimy the advancements of employees in order to maintain the social structure. But, these policies prove that reform was indeed taking place, especially since there are many documented violations of them. As such, these circumstances beg the question, was the English workforce more positively or negatively affected by the Black Death? By ending the Malthusian Crisis of the early fourteenth century, the Plague opened up the job market increasing wages and opportunities for average English workers in a way that would not be seen again for centuries.

            At this point, it seems appropriate to ask, so what? What does an epidemic from the fourteenth century have to do with your classroom today, 700 years later. Well, especially considering the events of the last few years, it seems almost more relevant than ever before. The Coronavirus Pandemic we all experienced is perfect fodder for a compare and contrast activity. A clear example is the fact that the Coronavirus was classified as a pandemic but was less deadly. Why was this the case? What were the characteristics of each that they were classified differently? Furthermore, one could easily conduct a simulation with this lesson. It might be a good idea to have the students imagine the methods they would use to handle the Black Death epidemic which might rationalize some of the actions taken by Plague doctors. And if you’re looking for a lesson specifically concerning the labor reforms discussed in this article, consider tying it in with your economics unit. It’s a clear example of supply and demand. There is definitely no shortage of options for lessons on this topic, which could be an eye-opening, yet relatable subject for your class.

Alfani, Guido, and Murphy, Tommy. “Plague and Lethal Epidemics in the Pre-Industrial World.” The Journal of Economic History 77, no. 1 (2017): 314–43.

Bardsley, Sandy. “Women’s Work Reconsidered: Gender and Wage Differentiation in Late Medieval England.” Past & Present, No. 165 (Nov. 1999): 3-29

Cohn, Samuel. “After the Black Death: Labour Legislation and Attitudes Towards Labour in Late-Medieval Western Europe.” The Economic History Review 60, no. 3 (2007): 457–85

Herlihy, David. “The New Economic and Demographic System.” In The Black Death and the Transformation of the West (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 39-57

Karakacili, Eona. “English Agrarian Labor Productivity Rates before the Black Death: A Case Study.” The Journal of Economic History 64, no. 1 (2004): 24–60.

Rosemary Horrox, ed. and trans., The Black Death (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994).

“Difficulties in finding tenants,” pp. 326-331

“Rebellious Serfs at Wawne,” pp. 331-338

“A selection of cases from Lincolnshire,” pp. 319-320

Simon Sudbury, “Simon Sudbury increases priests’ wages,” pp. 311-312

“The Statute of Labourers,” pp. 312-316


[1] Guido Alfani, and Tommy E. Murphy. 2017. “Plague and Lethal Epidemics in the Pre-Industrial World.” The Journal of Economic History 77 (no. 1), 318.

Alfani and Murphy discuss the Black Death’s emergence in the Himalayas in the 1330s and its recognition by the Mongols in control there. From central Asia, it traveled west eventually reaching the shores of the Black Sea, the Hellespont, and then the Mediterranean. Because of the wide area affected by the disease, mortality rates ranged from place to place. The one-third rate discussed in the first paragraph of this essay refers to that of Europe at large and is estimated to be closer to two-thirds in some regions throughout the continent.

[2] Eona Karakacili. “English Agrarian Labor Productivity Rates before the Black Death: A Case Study.” The Journal of Economic History 64, no. 1 (2004), 25.

[3] “The Statute of Labourers” in The Black Death, ed. and trans. Rosemary Horrox (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994), 312.

[4] Ibid., 313

[5] Ibid.

[6] Karakacili, 26.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Alfani and Murphy, 334.

[9] Ibid.

[10] “Rebellious Serfs at Wawne” in Horrox, The Black Death, 332

[11] “Difficulties in finding tenants” in Horrox, The Black Death, 327

[12] Samuel Cohn. “After the Black Death: Labour Legislation and Attitudes Towards Labour in Late-Medieval Western Europe.” The Economic History Review 60, no. 3 (2007), 457

[13] Herlihy, 40

[14] Simon Sudbury, “Simon Sudbury increases priests’ wages” in Horrox, The Black Death, 311

[15] Ibid., 312

[16] “The statute of labourers,” 312

[17] Ibid.

[18] “A selection of cases from Lincolnshire,” in Horrox, The Black Death, 320

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.