Documenting the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence

  1. Common Sense by Thomas Paine (1776)
  2. Remember the Ladies by Abigail Adams (1776)
  3. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
  4. Preamble to the United States Constitution (1787)
  5. Declaration of the Rights of Man, August 26, (1789)
  6. Celebrating the Declaration of Independence by John Q. Adams (1821)
  7. Speech on the Oregon Bill by John C. Calhoun (1848)
  8. Declaration of Sentiments (1848)
  9. What to the Slave is the Fourth of July by Frederick Douglass (1852)
  10. Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln (1863)
  11. Thirteenth Amendment (1865)
  12. The New Colossus by Emma Lazarus (1883)
  13. Release from Woodstock Jail by Eugene V. Debs (1895)
  14. Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
  15. Four Freedoms Speech by Franklin Roosevelt (1941)
  16. The Struggle for Human Rights by Eleanor Roosevelt (1948)
  17. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
  18. Declaration of Conscience by Senator Margaret Chase Smith (1950)
  19. Farewell Address by Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961)
  20. Nation’s Space Effort by John F. Kennedy (1962)
  21. I Have a dream by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963)
  22. Civil Rights Act (1964)
  23. Bicentennial Ceremony by Gerald R. Ford (1976)
  24. The Hill We Climb by Amanda Gorman (2021)

Thomas Paine published Common Sense anonymously in a pamphlet in 1776. In it, he called for independence from Great Britain, which was a foreign idea at the time. He argued that his claims were common sense and that breaking away from the rule of Great Britain was a necessity for the good of the colonists.

Portrait of Thomas Paine, a key figure in American history known for his influential writings advocating for independence and civil rights.

In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense…

I have heard it asserted by some, that as America has flourished under her former connection with Great-Britain, the same connection is necessary towards her future happiness, and will always have the same effect. Nothing can be more fallacious than this kind of argument. We may as well assert that because a child has thrived upon milk, that is never to have meat, or that the first twenty years of our lives is to become a precedent for the next twenty. But even this is admitting more than is true; for I answer… that America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power taken any notice of her. The commerce by which she hath enriched herself are the necessaries of life, and will always have a market while eating is the custom of Europe.

But she has protected us, say some… We have boasted the protection of Great Britain, without considering, that her motive was interest not attachment… This new World hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe… As Europe is our market for trade, we ought to form no partial connection with any part of it…

Europe is too thickly planted with Kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain… There is something absurd, in supposing a Continent to be perpetually governed by an island…

Where, say some, is the king of America? I’ll tell you, Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal brute of Great Britain… So far as we approve of monarchy… in America the law is king…

A government of our own is our natural right… Ye that oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do: ye are opening the door to eternal tyranny. . .

  1. How does Paine compare America to a child? How does this compare to the situation of America wanting independence?
  2. Why is Great Britain protecting America, according to Paine?
  3. What happens to America whenever Great Britain is at war? Why?
  4. According to Paine, who is the king of America?
  5. What does Paine say of people who are opposing independence?

Abigail Adams was the wife of revolutionary and second president John Adams. She herself fought for the rights of colonists and advocated for equal rights for women in a time where this was uncommon. In one of her frequent letters to John Adams, she urged him to “remember the ladies” as he was working on the initial draft to the Declaration of Independence. Ultimately, the wording of the Declaration of Independence was exclusionary and women did not receive equal rights until the twentieth century.

A portrait of a woman seated in an ornate chair, wearing a burgundy dress with a white lace collar, holding a bouquet of flowers, against a backdrop with decorative elements.

Tho we felicitate ourselves, we sympathize with those who are trembling least the Lot of Boston should be theirs. But they cannot be in similar circumstances unless pusillanimity and cowardise should take possession of them. They have time and warning given them to see the Evil and shun it. — I long to hear that you have declared an independancy — and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend. Why then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the Lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity. Men of Sense in all Ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the vassals of your Sex. Regard us then as Beings placed by providence under your protection and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.

  1. What is Abigail Adams asking of John Adams?
  2. What does Abigail Adams believe of all men?
  3. Why must men pay attention to the ladies, according to Adams?

On July 4, 1776, the most important foundational document in the history of the United States was approved by the Second Continental Congress. The Declaration of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson, outlined a formal “declaration” of the 13 colonies as an independent, sovereign state that had broken away from the British Crown and listed various grievances that the new country had against the King. Jefferson scattered the document with political and social ideological thought that would become ingrained principles of American government and society.

A historical painting depicting the signing of the Declaration of Independence, featuring prominent figures in a grand room adorned with an American flag.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government…”

  1. What are the three “unalienable Rights” Thomas Jefferson identifies?
  2. According to Jefferson, what must the people do if a government fails to safeguard these unalienable Rights?
  3. In your opinion, has the U.S. government upheld the message and liberties outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Explain.

Once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain, the nation’s founders needed a stronger, more structured set of laws for government. The initial Articles of Confederation were weak and did structure the government in a way that would be sustainable. Thus, the Constitution was formed after deliberation at the Constitutional Convention. The Preamble serves as the introduction to the Constitution as a whole and establishes the tone and goals for this new budding nation.

A historical painting depicting the signing of the United States Constitution, featuring delegates in formal attire gathered in a large room with decorative details, including a chandelier and an American flag.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

  1. What is the importance of the first three words of the Constitution?
  2. List the six goals outlined in the Constitution.
  3. Why was it important for the United States to write the Constitution after the Articles of Confederation?
  4. Select one of the goals of the Constitution. Why do you think the authors believed it was important to include the goal that you chose?

Just a few years after the end of the American Revolution, France was experiencing a revolution of their own. The Third Estate had become overwhelmingly frustrated by the poverty, stagnant economic growth, inept leadership, and poor quality of life they faced while the First and Second Estates lived in luxury and prosperity. The newly formed National Assembly released the Declaration of the Rights of Man in the midst of this violent revolution.

A large crowd gathered in front of a historical building, waving flags and holding banners, as they engage in a passionate display of political support or protest.

“The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the Social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties…Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims, in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:

1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.

2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, and security, and resistance to oppression.

3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

…7. No personal shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished.

…9. As all persons are held innocent until they have been declared guilty…

10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.

11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights…

  1. According to the preamble, what is the purpose of this declaration?
  2. In the context of the French Revolution, why is the wording of “equal in rights” significant?
  3. Discuss the extent in which this declaration compares to the Declaration of Independence?
  4. How do the two declarations define the rights guaranteed to all men?

While serving as Secretary of State under President James Monroe, John Quincy Adams was invited to Congress to give a speech to commemorate the 45th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Adams spends much of this speech praising the Declaration and commending the Founding Fathers’ bravery and triumph over the British Crown in establishing the new nation. This speech has become synonymous with the idea of “American exceptionalism.”

Portrait of a seated elderly man with gray hair, dressed in formal attire, sitting in a wooden chair with hands clasped, set in a domestic interior with a lamp and a patterned rug.

“…In the long conflict of twelve years which had preceded and led to the Declaration of Independence, our fathers had been not less faithful to their duties, than tenacious of their rights. Their resistance had not been rebellion. It was not a restive and ungovernable spirit of ambition, bursting from the bonds of colonial subjection; it was the deep and wounded sense of successive wrongs, upon which complaint had been only answered by aggravation, and petition repelled with contumely, which had driven them to their last stand upon the adamantine rock of human rights.

            …It was the first solemn declaration by a nation of the only legitimate foundation of civil government. It was the cornerstone of a new fabric, destined to cover the surface of the globe. It demolished at a stroke the lawfulness of all governments founded upon conquest. It swept away all the rubbish of accumulated centuries of servitude.

            …It will be acted o’er [over], fellow-citizens, but it can never be repeated. It stands, and must forever stand alone, a beacon on the summit of the mountain, to which all the inhabitants of the earth may turn their eyes for a genial and saving light, till time shall be lost in eternity, and this globe itself dissolve, nor leave a wreck behind. It stands forever, a light of admonition to the rulers of men; a light of salvation and redemption to the oppressed…so long shall this declaration hold out to the sovereign and to the subject the extent and the boundaries of their respective rights and duties; founded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Five and forty years have passed away since this Declaration was issued by our fathers; and here are we, fellow-citizens, assembled in the full enjoyment of its fruits.”

  1. What does John Quincy Adams say the Declaration of Independence was the “first” declaration to do?
  2. Why does Adams call the American Revolution a “resistance,” not a “rebellion?”
  3. Why does Adams call the Declaration a “beacon on the summit of the mountain?”
  4. Do you agree with Adams’ perspective of the revolution and the Declaration? Explain.

As the nation crept closer to an impending Civil War, American politics became engulfed over the issue of slavery. One of the leading voices of the pro-slavery movement was South Carolina Democrat senator John C. Calhoun. After serving as Andrew Jackson’s vice president, he ended his career in the Senate. There, he was one of the Democratic Party’s most outspoken supporters for “states’ rights” to defend and uphold slavery within its borders. This speech was in response to the Oregon Bill, which was set to outlaw slavery practices in the new Oregon territory.

A historical black and white portrait of a man with long hair, dressed in a dark suit and vest, seated with hands clasped together.

“The proposition to which I allude, has become an axiom in the minds of a vast majority on both sides of the Atlantic, and is repeated daily from tongue to tongue, as an established and incontrovertible truth; it is, that “all men are born free and equal.” I am not afraid to attack error, however deeply it may be entrenched, or however widely extended, whenever it becomes my duty to do so, as I believe it to be on this subject and occasion.

            Taking the proposition literally (it is in that sense it is understood), there is not a word of truth in it. It begins with “all men are born,” which is utterly untrue. Men are not born. Infants are born. They grow to be men. And concludes with asserting that they are born “free and equal,” which is not less false. They are not born free. While infants they are incapable of freedom, being destitute alike of the capacity of thinking and acting, without which there can be no freedom. Besides, they are necessarily born subject to their parents, and remain so among all people, savage and civilized, until the development of their intellect and physical capacity enables them to take care of themselves…

If we trace it back, we shall find the proposition differently expressed in the Declaration of Independence. That asserts that “all men are created equal.” The form of expression, though less dangerous, is not less erroneous…

… [G]overnment has no right to control individual liberty beyond what is necessary to the safety and well-being of society. Such is the boundary which separates the power of government and the liberty of the citizen or subject in the political state, which, as I have shown, is the natural state of man—the only one in which his race can exist, and the one in which he is born, lives, and dies.”

  1. What does Senator Calhoun say about the phrase “all men are created equal?”
  2. According to Calhoun, how should the government’s role be limited?
  3. What is the connection that Senator Calhoun makes between liberty and race? What does this mean about his message in this speech?

At the Women’s Rights Convention in 1848, 68 women and 32 men signed the “Declaration of Sentiments”, which was essentially a Bill of Rights for women. The document called for equal social, civil, and political liberties for women, which included the right to vote, equal education opportunities, and more legal protections. Elizabeth Cady Stanton served as the primary author as well as Lucretia Mott and Martha Coffin Wright. The Declaration of Sentiments was modeled after the Declaration of Independence, which was written just 72 years prior.

Two women in 19th century attire seated together at a table, with a decorative backdrop.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. […]

“The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise. He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice. He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men – both natives and foreigners. Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides. He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead. He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns. […]

“Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation, – in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.”

  1. What other document is the introduction to the Declaration of Sentiments modeled after?
  2. What is the purpose of this excerpt of the Declaration of Sentiments?
  3. List two of the grievances that the authors included.
  4. Do you believe that this declaration is convincing enough to help women gain equal rights? What would you change if anything?

Frederick Douglass was born into slavery in Maryland in 1818. He escaped slavery in 1838 and used his tutoring of the English language to become a renowned orator and writer. He used the strength of his words to call for the abolition of slavery and worked to ensure freedom for all enslaved people. This speech was written to encourage people to think about what the Fourth of July means for those in America who are not free and who do not experience the same rights and opportunities as their White counterparts.

A historical portrait of Frederick Douglass, a prominent abolitionist and social reformer, seated with an earnest expression, showcasing his distinctive hairstyle and 19th-century attire.

“This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July. It is the birthday of your National Independence, and of your political freedom . . . There is consolation in the thought that America is young […] The simple story of it is, that, 76 years ago, the people of this country were British subjects . . . You were under the British Crown . . . But, your fathers . . . They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to […] Citizens, your fathers made good that resolution. They succeeded; and to-­‐day you reap the fruits of their success. The freedom gained is yours; and you, therefore, may properly celebrate this anniversary. The 4th of July is the first great fact in your nation’s history—the very ring-­‐bolt in the chain of your yet undeveloped destiny.

“What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy—a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the every day practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival […]

“Allow me to say, in conclusion . . . I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably, work the downfall of slavery. “The arm of the Lord is not shortened,” and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope.”

  1. What words does Douglass use that show he does not align with free Americans?
  2. How is the fourth of July different for enslaved people and free people? Use one example from the text.
  3. How does Douglass conclude his speech? Why do you think he feels this way?

Between July 1 and 3, 1863, the bloodiest battle of the Civil War took place in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Both the Union and Confederacy faced catastrophic losses, with casualties totaling over 50,000 men. The Battle of Gettysburg remains the deadliest battle of American history. Four months later, President Abraham Lincoln arrived at Gettysburg to declare the battlefield as a national cemetery. Many in the crowd were anticipating a long speech from President Lincoln, however this famous address only lasted about 3 minutes. Nevertheless, the Gettysburg Address would become enshrined as one of Lincoln’s, and U.S. history’s, most powerful speeches.

Black and white portrait of a man with a beard and a bow tie, looking directly at the camera.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

…But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate–we can not consecrate–we can not hallow–this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us–that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion–that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain–that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

  1. According to Lincoln, what is the “proposition” that the nation was founded on?
  2. What is this civil war “testing?”
  3. What is Lincoln’s tone throughout the speech? Use at least two pieces of textual evidence to support your response.
  4. How does President Lincoln use ideas from the Declaration of Independence in this speech? To what extent is it effective? Use at least two pieces of textual evidence to support your response.

The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States. Slavery had been an institution in the United States since the first ship holding enslaved people arrived from the shores of Africa in 1619. Prior to the entire United States abolishing slavery, some states had already dismantled the system of slavery. Many became champions for the abolition of slavery and helped enslaved people escape to freedom. The amendment was ratified in December 1865 after being passed by Congress in January 1865. The Thirteenth Amendment serves as the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments. While it ended legal slavery, Southern states later used the “punishment for crime” clause to create “Black Codes”, which prevented Black people from voting and limited their rights.

An 1860s political cartoon depicting Abraham Lincoln addressing a group of people, including both Black and white individuals, with a banner stating 'Freedom for all, both Black and White.'

“Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

“Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

1. What did the thirteenth amendment accomplish?

2. Where is involuntary servitude still legal?

3. Who has the power to enforce the thirteenth amendment?

4. Do you believe that it is justified for involuntary servitude to be used for criminal offenders? Why or why not?

The New Colossus – Emma Lazarus, 1883

Emma Lazarus was an American poet who wrote the poem “The New Colossus” in 1883. When writing this sonnet, she was inspired by the Statue of Liberty and what the statue represents. In 1903, this poem was engraved onto a bronze plaque and is now on the base of the Statue of Liberty in New York.

Image of the Statue of Liberty against a backdrop of the New York City skyline.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

  1. How does Emma Lazarus describe the Statue of Liberty in the poem? Use one line from the text that supports your answer.
  2. What group of people might lines 10-14 be referring to? How do you know?
  3. Why is it appropriate that Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus” appears on the base of the Statue of Liberty?

Eugene V. Debs was one of the nation’s leading critics of big business and corporations. He was an adamant socialist and sought to educate workers to unionize to combat malicious business practices by their employers. In 1893, there was a massive strike organized against the Pullman Sleeping Car Company. Debs helped organize a boycott with the American Railway Union. President Grover Cleveland had sent the U.S. military to handle the strike, and Debs was later arrested for federal contempt and conspiracy charges.

A black and white portrait of a man wearing a suit and bowtie, looking directly at the camera.

            “Manifestly the spirit of ‘76 still survives. The fires of liberty and noble aspirations are not yet extinguished. I greet you tonight as lovers of liberty and as despisers of despotism. I comprehend the significance of this demonstration and appreciate the honor that makes it possible for me to be your guest on such an occasion. The vindication and glorification of American principles of government, as proclaimed to the world in the Declaration of Independence, is the high purpose of this convocation.

            Speaking for myself personally I am not certain whether this is an occasion for rejoicing or lamentation. I confess to a serious doubt as to whether this day marks my deliverance from bondage to freedom or my doom from freedom to bondage…It is not law nor the administration of law of which I complain. It is the flagrant violation of the Constitution, the total abrogation of law and the usurpation of judicial and despotic power, by virtue of which my colleagues and myself were committed to jail, against which I enter my solemn protest; and any honest analysis of the proceedings must sustain the haggard truth of the indictment.

            In a letter recently written by the venerable Judge Trumbull that eminent jurist says: “The doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in the Debs case, carried to its logical conclusion, places every citizen at the mercy of any prejudiced or malicious federal judge who may think proper to imprison him.”. .

            The theme tonight is personal liberty; or giving it its full height, depth, and breadth, American liberty, something that Americans have been accustomed to eulogize since the foundation of the Republic, and multiplied thousands of them continue in the habit to this day because they do not recognize the truth that in the imprisonment of one man in defiance of all constitutional guarantees, the liberties of all are invaded and placed in peril.

  1. What ideas is Debs referencing when he says “the spirit of ‘76 still survives?”
  2. What rights does Debs claim the government has taken away from him and/or denied?
  3. Do you agree with Debs’ analysis of the situation he faced during the Pullman Strike? Explain your answer using evidence from the speech.

From the founding of the United States, women have been championing for equal rights and the ability to vote. From Abigail Adams calling for John Adams to “remember the ladies” to the suffragettes of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, women and their allies had been calling for equal opportunities since America’s inception. In 1920, the nineteenth amendment was ratified and women were guaranteed the right to vote.

Historical photograph of a women's suffrage march, featuring women holding signs that advocate for the right to vote.

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Questions:

  1. What did the nineteenth amendment accomplish?
  2. Who holds the power to enforce this amendment?

Do you think that any women were prevented from voting following the 19th amendment? Who? Why?

As World War II engulfed Europe, President Roosevelt and the U.S. government navigated the tightrope of effective foreign policy. The United States had long held a strong position of isolationism, and many Americans were firmly opposed to any involvement in Europe’s second world war. However, the U.S. government had shifted away from its isolationism by the end of the 1930s. FDR’s State of the Union address in 1941 echoed a new dawn of American interventionism, as he outlined the four freedoms everybody in the world was entitled to.

A formal portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd President of the United States, smiling and dressed in a suit with a tie, set against a plain background.

“Since the permanent formation of our Government under the Constitution, in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. Fortunately, only one of these–the four year War Between the States–ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, one hundred and thirty million Americans, in forty-eight States, have forgotten points of compass in our national unity.

            …In like fashion from 1815 to 1914–ninety-nine years–no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nationf…In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

            The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

            The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

            The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants–everywhere in the world.

            The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

            That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very anthesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.”

  1. What does FDR say has been the reason for (most) periods of crisis in U.S. history? Why is the current situation in Europe (World War II) different?
  2. What are the four freedoms FDR lists in this speech?
  3. In your opinion, do people “everywhere in the world” experience the four freedoms today? Explain your answer.

Eleanor Roosevelt was the first lady of the United States from 1933-1945 while her husband, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was president. She redefined the role by speaking out often and calling attention to important social issues. Her speech “The Struggle for Human Rights” was given at the United Nations, to which she served as a delegate to its General Assembly, where she served as chair of the commission that drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Eleanor Roosevelt holding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights document during a presentation.

We must not be confused about what freedom is. Basic human rights are simple and easily understood: freedom of speech and a free press; freedom of religion and worship; freedom of assembly and the right of petition; the right of men to be secure in their homes and free from unreasonable search and seizure and from arbitrary arrest and punishment. We must not be deluded by the efforts of the forces of reaction to prostitute the great words of our free tradition and thereby to confuse the struggle. Democracy, freedom, human rights have come to have a definite meaning to the people of the world which we must not allow any nation to so change that they are made synonymous with suppression and dictatorship…

The basic problem confronting the world today, as I said in the beginning, is the preservation of human freedom for the individual and consequently for the society of which he is a part. We are fighting this battle again today as it was fought at the time of the French Revolution and at the time of the American Revolution. The issue of human liberty is as decisive now as it was then. I want to give you my conception of what is meant in my country by freedom of the individual…

            Indeed, in our democracies we make our freedoms secure because each of us is expected to respect the rights of others and we are free to make our own laws…

​             Basic decisions of our society are made through the expressed will of the people. That is why when we see these liberties threatened, instead of falling apart, our nation becomes unified and our democracies come together as a unified group in spite of our varied backgrounds and many racial strains…

            It is my belief, and I am sure it is also yours, that the struggle for democracy and freedom is a critical struggle, for their preservation is essential to the great objective of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security…

            The future must see the broadening of human rights throughout the world. People who have glimpsed freedom will never be content until they have secured it for themselves. In a true sense, human rights are a fundamental object of law and government in a just society. Human rights exist to the degree that they are respected by people in relations with each other and by governments in relations with their citizens.

  1. What are the basic human rights that Eleanor Roosevelt claims are “simple and easily understood”?
  2. What does Roosevelt say makes freedom secure?
  3. In your opinion, why are freedom and democracy essential for all people?

Following the end of World War II, the victorious European powers and the United States created a new global organization to govern international affairs. The United Nations was created to replace the failed League of Nations, and serve as the leading world institution to maintain peace, protect human rights, and prevent future wars and conflict. One of the first declarations of the United Nations was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Below are Articles 1 through 7 of the UDHR.

United Nations emblem featuring a world map encircled by olive branches on a blue background.

Article 1

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person.

Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Questions:

  1. Identify three (3) rights that are guaranteed by the UDHR.
  2. According to Article 2, what kinds of “distinctions” are prohibited from deny people their rights?
  3. Which phrases of ideas in the UDHR connect to the Declaration of Independence?
  4. How does the UDHR expand on the phrase “all men are created equal?”
  5. In your opinion, does the world today uphold these human rights? Explain.

In June 1950, in the midst of an anti-communist campaign identified with Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin), Senator Margaret Chase Smith (R-Maine) spoke out against “selfish political exploitation” targeting innocent people and threatening basic American rights.

Political cartoon depicting Senator Margaret Chase Smith confronting smear tactics used during the anti-communist campaign.

“I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership either in the legislative branch or the executive branch of our government. … I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States senator. I speak as an American. …  I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some real soul searching and to weigh our consciences as to the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America and the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.   I think that it is high time that we remembered that we have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. I think that it is high time that we remembered that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech, but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.”

Whether it be a criminal prosecution in court or a character prosecution in the Senate, there is little practical distinction when the life of a person has been ruined.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism –

The right to criticize.

The right to hold unpopular beliefs.

The right to protest.

The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us does not? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others. The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.”

1. What is the national feeling identified by Senator Smith?

2. What does she want American leaders to do?

3. What basic rights does Senator Smith believe are threatened?

4. In your opinion, why did Senator Smith focus on “The Basic Principles of Americanism”?

On January 17, 1961, President Eisenhower delivered a ten-minute farewell to the American people on national television from the Oval Office of the White House. In the speech, Eisenhower warned that a large, permanent “military-industrial complex,” an alliance between the military and defense contractors, posed a threat to American democracy. 

Black and white photograph of President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivering a speech from the Oval Office, with microphones in front and the U.S. flag in the background.

“We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. … Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations. … This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.”

1. According to President Eisenhower, why does the United States need to maintain a strong military?

2. Why is President Eisenhower concerned about a “military-industrial complex”?

3. What does President Eisenhower alert the American people to do?

Five years prior, the Soviet Union had successfully launched Sputnik 1 into orbit, sparking the beginning of the Space Race between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. The United States quickly sought to catch up to the Soviet Union’s many “firsts” in the Space Race (first satellite, first man in space, first man to orbit the Earth, etc.). Then, in September 1962, President Kennedy gave a speech at Rice University discussing the new goal for America’s space program: put a man on the Moon before the end of the decade.

President John F. Kennedy delivering a speech at Rice University, discussing the United States' commitment to space exploration.

“…We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

NASA Apollo program logo featuring the letter A with a depiction of Earth and the Moon.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

  1. Why does President Kennedy say it is important to “set sail on this new sea?”
  2. What justification does President Kennedy give that the United States should be the first nation to conquer space?
  3. How does Kennedy’s vision for space reflect the ideals in the founding documents?

On August 28, 1963, in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, civil rights leaders and organizations planned a momentous rally in Washington, D. C. Officially known as the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, over 200,000 people gathered to protest and advocate for the end of segregation and guarantee of civil rights for African Americans. At the end of the march, at the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the Civil Rights Movement’s most influential leaders, delivered his most famous speech.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivering his 'I Have a Dream' speech at the March on Washington, with a large crowd in attendance.

“…It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. 1963 is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual…

            …We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only…

            …So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

            I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.”

  1. How does Dr. King describe the current situation of African Americans in 1963?
  2. Why does Dr. King call 1963 “not an end, but a beginning?”
  3. What founding document does Dr. King reference in this speech? Why does he reference this document?
  4. In your opinion, has the “dream” described in this speech been achieved? Explain.

On July 2, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. This act called for desegregation of public spaces, schools, and made voting free and fair for all. This was the most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. The act made segregation illegal but it also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment.

A historic moment capturing President Lyndon B. Johnson and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. engaged in a conversation, with other attendees in the background, symbolizing the partnership in the Civil Rights Movement.

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Civil Rights Act of 1964”.

TITLE I: No person acting under color of law shall … apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote; deny the right of any individual to vote in any Federal election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting … employ any literacy test as a qualification for voting in any Federal election unless (i) such test is administered to each individual and is conducted wholly in writing…

TITLE II: All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

            All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof…

  1. What era of history led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
  2. What does Title I of the Civil Rights Act pertain to?
  3. What caused Title I to be necessary?
  4. What is the goal of Title II?
  5. Why do you believe that the Civil Rights Act was essential?

On August 9, 1974, President Richard Nixon had resigned from the presidency following the disastrous Watergate scandal. Gerald Ford, Nixon’s vice president, assumed the office immediately and pardoned Nixon one month later. The entire Watergate scandal and Nixon’s resignation created great disdain against the U.S. government. Many Americans became extremely untrustworthy of elected officials and had little faith in the government. Becoming President during the bicentennial of the U.S., Ford dealt with difficult challenges both domestically and abroad.

Portrait of Gerald Ford, the 38th President of the United States.

“The Declaration is the Polaris of our political order–the fixed star of freedom. It is impervious to change because it states moral truths that are eternal.

The Constitution provides for its own changes having equal force with the original articles. It began to change soon after it was ratified, when the Bill of Rights was added. We have since amended it 16 times more, and before we celebrate our 300th birthday, there will be more changes…

Jefferson’s principles are very much present. The Constitution, when it is done, will translate the great ideals of the Declaration into a legal mechanism for effective government where the unalienable rights of individual Americans are secure. In grade school we were taught to memorize the first and last parts of the Declaration. Nowadays, even many scholars skip over the long recitation of alleged abuses by King George III and his misguided ministers. But occasionally we ought to read them, because the injuries and invasions of individual rights listed there are the very excesses of government power which the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and subsequent amendments were designed to prevent…

But the source of all unalienable rights, the proper purposes for which governments are instituted among men, and the reasons why free people should consent to an equitable ordering of their God-given freedom have never been better stated than by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are cited as being among the most precious endowments of the Creator–but not the only ones.”

  1. What role does President Ford say the Constitution has in relation to the Declaration?
  2. Why does President Ford say it is important to read the grievances listed against King George III in the Declaration?
  3. Do you agree with President Ford that the Declaration is unchanging while the Constitution changes over time? Explain your answer.

This poem was read at the inauguration of President Joseph Biden in 2021 by its author, Amanda Gorman. She is a poet, activist, and author who wrote this poem for the inauguration under the theme of “America United”.

Amanda Gorman delivers a poem during the inauguration of President Joe Biden, wearing a yellow coat and red headband, with an audience in the background.

…We, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny black girl descended from slaves and raised by a single mother can dream of becoming president only to find herself reciting for one. And, yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine, but that doesn’t mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect, we are striving to forge a union with purpose, to compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and conditions of man.

So we lift our gazes not to what stands between us, but what stands before us. We close the divide because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside. We lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another, we seek harm to none and harmony for all…

That is the promise to glade, the hill we climb if only we dare it because being American is more than a pride we inherit, it’s the past we step into and how we repair it. We’ve seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it. That would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy, and this effort very nearly succeeded. But while democracy can periodically be delayed, but it can never be permanently defeated.

In this truth, in this faith, we trust, for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us, this is the era of just redemption we feared in its inception we did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifying hour but within it we found the power to author a new chapter, to offer hope and laughter to ourselves, so while once we asked how can we possibly prevail over catastrophe, now we assert how could catastrophe possibly prevail over us. We will not march back to what was but move to what shall be, a country that is bruised but whole, benevolent but bold, fierce and free, we will not be turned around or interrupted by intimidation because we know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation, our blunders become their burden. But one thing is certain: if we merge mercy with might and might with right, then love becomes our legacy and change our children’s birthright.

So let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left, with every breath from my bronze, pounded chest, we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one, we will rise from the golden hills of the West, we will rise from the windswept Northeast where our forefathers first realized revolution, we will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the Midwestern states, we will rise from the sunbaked South, we will rebuild, reconcile, and recover in every known nook of our nation in every corner called our country our people diverse and beautiful will emerge battered and beautiful, when the day comes we step out of the shade aflame and unafraid, the new dawn blooms as we free it, for there is always light if only we’re brave enough to see it, if only we’re brave enough to be it.

  1. Why does Amanda Gorman urge readers to look towards the future?
  2. What does Gorman believe that being an American includes?
  3. What is the overall tone of the poem? Cite two quotes that support your answer.

Book Review: Civic Capitalism, by Colin Hay and Anthony Payne (Polity Press, 2015)

Hay and Payne have assembled in this brief book 11 readings about capitalism and the realities of looking at modern economies through the lens of capitalism.  The book is a result of a blog created and refreshed on the topic of the global crisis of the last few years. 

Hay and Payne discuss and assemble readings here related to what they call “civic capitalism.”  This is the “governance of the market, by the state, in the name of the people, to deliver collective public goods, equity, and social justice” (p. 3).  They explain that this term has as its core the requirement that citizens must now “…ask what we can do for us and not what capitalism can do for us” (p. 4).  Citizens must turn around the notion that they serve capitalism and must respond to its rules

This, in a nutshell, describes what the spirit of this book is and what the readings cover.  The book deals further with the implications for all economies since commerce among nations is so complex now.

The book has to do with getting right what was done wrong.  The book contains a variety of readings current on the disastrous complications of the recent recession and away from a traditional growth model and toward one that takes into account more cultural differences worldwide, the context in which growth (or on-growth happens) and the social side of capitalism. 

Without giving away too much content in this review, I will say that there is very interesting information to read about here related to the workings of civic capitalism, and one does not need to be an expert in Economics to understand the explanations and recommendations coming from these savvy people.  This is a readable and essential book for educators to grab onto.  We must understand much more about the world economic situation if we are to be able to help struggling families, sway political thought, make changes in society, influence others, and convince elected officials how to vote. 

These are all activities in which educators must be involved.  I maintain that we  must be involved in them at least to some extent.  Teachers, administrators, and others who teach other persons at whatever level need to have a good sense of how we got to where we are financially and some ideas on how to move ahead. 

Although the contributors are a little idealistic at some points (can one person really change the international flow of dollars for investment?  Really?) they nonetheless do explain a great deal of information that is essential for understanding the benefits, drawbacks, workings, and potential of capitalism.

It is up to the educator to read this assembly of authentic texts and see how to incorporate them in their own worldview, use them in their plans to influence others, write lesson plans for more advanced level high school courses, make use of them in courses for college students, and take from the readings information good for use in debates and negotiations with other professionals interested in discussing and working on the work world economy.  At least in some smaller fashion.

I recommend the book and especially the introductory chapter on “civic capitalism” because of the clarity and the definitions found there.  Hay and Payne are able to explain a great deal of technical information in that chapter so that the reader will be comfortable diving into the discussions of big changes.  Those big changes—mainly in perspective—make up the rest of the readings in the book.      

Civics – Era 11 The Great Depression and World War II (1929-1945)

www.njcss.org

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

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

Era 11 The Great Depression and World War II (1929–1945)

*  
*  

The beginning of the 20th century marks the foundation of the transformation of the United States into a world power by the middle of the century. In this era industrialization, urbanization, and rapid immigration changed America from an agrarian to an urban society as people lived and worked in cities. The development of the new technologies of electricity, transportation, and communication challenged our long-held traditional policies of limited government, neutrality, and laissez-faire capitalism. The lesson of the Great Depression was that capitalism and free markets did not enable everyone to attain the American Dream. As a result, Americans looked to their government for help with the problems of unemployment, poverty, old age. Housing, and the supply of food.

During the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was 24.9% in the United States (about 13 million people). Without income, there was very limited private consumption. President Roosevelt identified the South as the number one “problem region” of the U.S. for poverty and economic distress. In 1933, President Roosevelt signed the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, a federally funded program to protect  the environment from floods, encourage economic development, and produce electric power.

In 1934, Shareholders of the Alabama Power Company sued to prevent the TVA from acquiring over half of the company’s property and equipment. The sale would allow the government agency to allocate electric power to consumers. The shareholders argued that Congress exceeded its authority.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, held that Congress did not abuse its power. Justice Hughes argued that the Wilson Dam, the location where the TVA was in the business of generating electricity, had been built originally in the interest of national defense because it produced materials involved in the production of munitions. The government could sell excess electricity to consumers without violating the Constitution. The majority concluded that Congress had the authority to construct the Wilson Dam. The majority also found that the disposal of the electric energy generated was lawful. 

This Supreme Court decision is also known for the reasoning of Justice Louis Brandeis regarding conflicts when one branch exceeds its power and infringes on another branch. Justice Brandeis adopted the criteria which has become known as the ‘avoidance doctrine.“One branch of the government cannot encroach upon the domain of another, without danger. The safety of our institutions depends in no small degree on a strict observance of this salutary rule.”

The legacy of the Tennessee Valley Authority brought electricity to the southeastern United States increasing the productivity of farming and transforming this region from poverty to sustainable economic development. Before the Tennessee Valley Authority, electric power was generated by private companies. (e.g. Westinghouse, Edison Electric Illuminating Company, Public Service Corporation, etc.) Private companies are concerned with making a profit instead of investing in public areas such as street lights or rural areas. The first buildings to have electricity around 1880 were often hotels and commercial buildings. Wabash, IN, Appleton, WI, Cleveland, OH, and lower Manhattan were some of the first towns and cities to have electric power. Some members in Congress, namely Senator George Norris, favored public utility companies as the most efficient way to bring this new invention to everyone in the United States.

Since the Russian Revolution of 1917, Lenin prioritized the electrification of the Soviet Union as essential for economic and industrial development.  Each of the 12 Five Year Plans included the expansion of power through the construction of dams, fossil fuels, natural gas, and since 1975, nuclear energy. The Soviet state planning committee, Gosplan, developed these plans with clearly stated production goals.

One of the problems with the energy plan of the Soviet Union is the transmission of electricity from the generating plant to other regions of the country. Russia depends on a unified power system and the complexity of its geography and use of different energy sources (fossil fuels, hydropower, natural gas, and nuclear) makes it difficult to transfer power from one source to another efficiently.  The heaviest demand for electricity is in the western or European side of the country.  However, as electricity became accessible to rural areas, agricultural production became dependent on electricity. The largest nuclear power plant in Europe is on the Dnieper River in Ukraine. It was constructed in 1985.

The Soviet Union could benefit from the computer software used in the United States, but the Five-Year Plan model is dependent on Soviet Union computers and boilers. Some of the Five-Year Plans were completed ahead of schedule, some did not meet their goals, and they also included social changes such as closing houses of worship, providing child care, and using large collective farms. The goals of most of the plans were to transform the Soviet Union into a major industrial and economic power.

The Debate Between Private and Public Electric Companies

Russia’s 12 5 year plans

The Soviet Electric Power Industry

Questions:

  1. How is a market economy different from a command economy? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both models?
  2. Why did the United States and Soviet Union experience challenges or problems with electrifying their countries?
  3. Is a monopoly or market competition the most efficient economic model for providing utilities to the people in a country? (water, electric, phone, education, etc.)
  4. Is a market or command economy the most efficient model to address the expected problems from climate change in the next 25 years?
  5. Which economic model (market, command, or mixed) is the most efficient one to increase worker productivity?

On January 6, 1940, about three months after Hitler’s attack on Poland, President Franklin Roosevelt gave his Four Freedoms speech as part of his State of the Union address. This was during a time when many people in America wanted to remain neutral and isolated from the European conflict which expanded in September 1939 with Germany’s blitzkrieg attack and occupation of independent Poland.

1940 was also a presidential election year. In the mid-term election of 1938, the Republican Party became the majority in the House and Senate.  The Republican Party had several contenders for the nomination, notably Governor Thomas Dewey (NY) Senator Robert Taft (OH), and Wendell Wilkie, a businessman from Kansas. When the Republican Party convention was held in June in Philadelphia, Wendell Wilkie’s popularity had increased significantly, while the popularity of Thomas Dewey and Robert Taft was declining. 

“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception–the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change — in a perpetual peaceful revolution — a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions–without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.”

Historical perspectives were important in 1941, and they are important today. The United States, including President Roosevelt, presented a perspective of Japanese superiority and a destiny to rule the world. He also called America’s citizens to accept the importance of a new moral order that included the religious concept of faith in freedom under the guidance of God. This perspective of American superiority is built on a commitment to an idea and an ideal.

A Life Magazine article about Emperor Hirohito in 1937 stated “To Japanese he is, in all seriousness, a divine descendent of the Sun goddess, the incarnate head of the Japanese divinity idea that makes the conquest of Asia a holy destiny for the Japanese race.” For ordinary Americans, the concept of kami in Japanese culture was not comprehendible. Instead of understanding a perspective of divinity as present everywhere, they accepted Hirohito as a son of a god or goddess or someone connected with divinity.

After the bombing at Pearl Harbor tensions between the United States and Japan escalated. Through the lens of war, the Japanese emperor’s god-like status became a more serious issue because they perceived Japan’s war objectives connected with their religious beliefs.  A 1945 United States News story explains, “Shintoism has no religious content and has ethical content to the extent that it is designed to support the idea of the divine origin of the Emperor.”  A 1945 article in Life Magazine stated, “The Emperor of Japan is neither a man nor a ruler. Nor is he simply a god living in Tokyo. He is a spiritual institution in which center the energy, the loyalty and even the morality of the Japanese.” He is supreme in all temporal matters of state as well as in all spiritual matters, and he is the foundation of Japanese social and civil morality.

American and Japanese civilians had very opposite reactions following the events of December 7, 1941. For Americans, Pearl Harbor represented “A Day Which Will Live in Infamy.” For citizens of Japan, Pearl Harbor represented the success of a justified military retaliation. The American and Japanese governments both utilized nationalism to their advantage, and implemented various forms of propaganda as tools for shaping their civilians’ perspectives.  

     “What an uproar! Japan’s Imperial Forces got things off to a quick start with one splendid strike then another in historic surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor, where the bravado of the US Asia fleet met with sudden defeat, and off the Malaya Coast, where the main forces of the British Asia fleet were utterly annihilated. Word has it that Roosevelt and Churchill were shaken up and went pale upon hearing of the defeats. In a third strike, Hong Kong Island, England’s strategic base for its 100-year exploitation of East Asia, fell into ruin in only a matter of ten days. During this time, Churchill was sent reeling, cutting off contact with others and showing up in Washington.

     What these two headstrong countries are striving for will only lead them on a downhill path to military defeat. Our barbaric enemies are already cowering in fear in the Pacific, and the fall of Manila shall mark the day of the Philippines’ subjugation and reversion back to Greater East Asia. The enemy power of Singapore, which was—alas—boasting of its impenetrable stronghold before the Imperial Forces penetrated the jungle area of the Malay Peninsula and advanced southward like a raging tide, shall also vanish into nothingness in the midst of this glorious chapter in history.

     The military gains of the glorious Imperial Forces are truly great, and the army, navy, and air force should be given our heartfelt gratitude. We should also honor our courageous men who are ready to lay down their lives when charging enemy lines, as well as those who went out to conquer but never returned.”

On January 1, 1946, four months after the surrender on September 2, 1945, Emperor Hirohito made the following statement in Japan’s newspapers.

“I stand by my people. I am ever ready to share in their joys and sorrows. The ties between me and my people have always been formed by mutual trust and affection. They do not depend upon mere legends or myths. Nor are they predicated on the false conception that the Emperor is divine, and that the Japanese are superior to other races and destined to rule the world.

FDR Four Freedoms Speech

FDR Annual Message to Congress, January 6, 1940

Japanese vs. American Perspectives on Pearl Harbor

Japan’s Announcement Following Pearl Harbor, December 8, 1941

President Roosevelt’s Speech Following Pearl Harbor (video:4:48)

Eleanor Roosevelt’s Radio Address on the Evening of Pearl Harbor (transcript)

Eleanor Roosevelt’s Radio Address on the Evening of Pearl Harbor (audio, 2:57)

Questions:

  1. How was the rise of dictators after World War 1 an existential threat? How did ordinary American citizens understand the conflict in Europe and Asia before and after the attack on Poland and the attack on Pearl Harbor?
  2. If you were the President of the United States in 1940, would you deliver the Four Freedoms speech or one that is similar in content and context?
  3. Do you accept President Roosevelt’s statement following Pearl Harbor that before the attack the United States was at peace with Japan? (see video clip above)
  4. Are elected leaders elevated by people and the press or are they criticized to the extent that their decisions and motives are questioned?
  5. Which government delivered the best message to its citizens based on factual evidence and an understanding of the importance of the attack on Pearl Harbor?

Two months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, February 19, 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 to relocate approximately 117,000 Japanese Americans living on the west coast.  At first, the order was voluntary and Japanese Americans had time to sell their property and comply in an orderly manner.

Unfortunately, many did not comply voluntarily, and the relocation became mandatory. Thousands of people lost their homes and businesses due to “failure to pay taxes.” The relocation of Japanese Americans in the United States for safety and security reasons was controversial during World War II and for the decades that followed.  The internment camps provided educational and recreational activities, adequate heat, and a process to hear complaints and address concerns.

There were 12 camps located all over the United States, with the Seabrook Farms camp in New Jersey.

President Truman rescinded the Executive Order on June 25, 1946 allowing the Japanese Americans to return to their homes. They were in relocation camps for more than four years. When they returned home, most found their belongings stolen and their homes and property sold. They also faced prejudice and discrimination for years, even though Japanese Americans were combat soldiers during the war. 

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act. The remaining survivors of the relocation camps were sent formal letters of apology and were awarded $20,000 in restitutions from the United States government.

On February 23, 1944, the Chechens were exiled from their ancestral lands and deported to Siberia and the northern regions of Kazakhstan. The entirety of the Chechen nation was accused of collaborating with the Fascists, even though there is no evidence to support this. The German advance into the Soviet Union never came close to Chechnya. The Chechen deportation of almost 400,000 men, women, and children is the largest Soviet deportation and occurred in a matter of days. Many Chechens had in fact fought on the front lines of the Soviet war against the German aggressor.

On September 1, 1941 the mass evacuation was announced for the approximately 440,000 Volga Germans. Ten days later they began their forced deportation to Kazakhstan and Siberia. Many were forced to work in ‘labor camps’  such as Kolyma. The Volga Germans were then stripped of their citizenship and did not regain their civil rights until after Stalin’s death. Most estimates indicate that close to 40 percent of the affected population perished.

In 1944, Joseph Stalin ordered the deportation of the entire Crimean Tatar community (roughly 200,000), falsely accusing them of collaborating with the Nazis. Reports suggest that nearly half of the deported died during the ordeal. Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, and Canada have all formally recognized Stalin’s brutal deportation as a crime of genocide. During this same period, the Soviet Union adopted a policy of “Russification” for the peninsula. Crimea was “Russified” and any study of the Tatar’s native language was banned, ancient Tatar names were erased, Tatar books were burned, and their mosques were destroyed. Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea from Soviet Russia to Soviet Ukraine.

Behind Barbed Wire: Japanese American Camps

Japanese American Internment Camps

Soviet Union Deportation of Volga Germans

Soviet Union Deportation of Chechnyas

Soviet Union Deportation of Crimean Tatars

Questions:

  1. Is it possible for a government to correct something it did that was morally or legally wrong?
  2. Do governments need to justify the actions they take during a time of war or a national crisis?
  3. Are there significant differences in the actions of the United States and the Soviet Union in the relocation or deportation of innocent people, many who were citizens?
  4. Do ordinary people have any rights during a war or crisis (i.e. Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, etc.)?
  5. How and who determines if and when a government exceeds its authority?

In World War II, the Japanese were fighting for the Emperor who convinced them that it was better to die than surrender. Women and children had been taught how to kill with basic weapons. kamikaze pilots crashed their planes into American ships. A land invasion would be costly with estimates of more than one million American lives lost.

After a successful test of a nuclear bomb at Los Alamos, New Mexico on July 16, 1945, the United States, China, and the United Kingdom issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26 demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government, warning of “prompt and utter destruction.” On the morning of August 6, 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The result was approximately 80,000 deaths in just the first few minutes. Thousands died later from radiation sickness. On August 9, 1945, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The result was 39,000 men, women and children were killed and 25,000 more were injured. Both cities were leveled and Japan surrendered to the United States.

After the news of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, Lieutenant General Leslie R Groves, director of the `Manhattan Project’ that had developed the atomic bomb, commented:

“The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended World War II. There can be no doubt of that. While they brought death and destruction on a horrifying scale, they averted even greater losses – American, English, and Japanese”.

This justification that the use of the bomb saved lives, even though it killed innocent civilians, has haunted the world into our present time.  It was a view that generated controversy then and after as to the justification or otherwise of the use of such weapons on largely defenseless civilian targets, at such Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that has haunted the world into our present times.

Following World War 2, there was an arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States. Although there were threats of war and conflicts in Korea, Southeast Asia, the Congo and other places, this period was called the Cold War. Other countries also developed nuclear weapons leading to concerns of a global conflict.

The world came close to a nuclear attack during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, nuclear weapons could be delivered by airplanes, missiles, and submarines. The Soviet Union placed nuclear warheads in Cuba and the United States had some in Turkey. These missiles could attack cities in both countries within a range of 1,200 miles. Fortunately, the Soviet Union began to withdraw its ships and missiles from Cuba and an agreement was made.

In the 1960s, the military strategy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) was debated, In this strategy, two opposing forces, the Soviet Union and the United States, had enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy each other. This deterrence theory assumed that neither side would initiate a nuclear attack because the resulting retaliation would lead to their own destruction.  The concept, first discussed in the 1960s during the Cold War, is based on the idea that the devastating consequences of nuclear war would outweigh any potential gains for either side. 

As a result, the United Nations initiated the process to limit the production of nuclear testing and weapons.  Since the first test ban treaty, several agreements have been ratified to control the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons. The threat from atomic, hydrogen, neutron, and cobalt nuclear weapons is a concern to every person and every country because of the fallout from dangerous levels of radiation. There are still detectable effects of radiation in our atmosphere today from the 1945 explosion. The effects of radiation from a thermonuclear weapon (Hydrogen bomb) will likely last for hundreds of years and affect every living organism and human.

Following the Attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, the world became concerned about a terrorist group having access to a smaller nuclear weapon, a dirty bomb, that might be detonated in an urban area. The effects of a dirty bomb would likely be limited to the immediate area of the explosion but the damage to property and the cleanup of radioactive elements would be significant and costly.

Nuclear Arms Race and Treaties: 1949-2021 (Council on Foreign Relations)

Timeline of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Arms Control Association)

Devastating Effects of Nuclear Weapons

Questions:

  1. Why did an arms race between the USA and the USSR begin after 1945?
  2. How sane was the policy of MAD?
  3. What factors sustained the arms race for so long?
  4. Is a limited nuclear war a plausible scenario or would it quickly lead to an all-out war?
  5. What would life on Earth be like after a nuclear war? What geographic regions might have a chance of survival?
  6. Should the civil defense from a nuclear war or dirty bomb explosion be best coordinated by local, state, or the federal government in the United States?
  7. How would the governments of Europe or the Middle East, where there are many countries within a small geographic area respond to a nuclear war or explosion from a bomb or nuclear power plant?
  8. What is the most likely scenario for a nuclear explosion in the 21st century?

Election 2024: The Dilemma for Teachers

A major goal of teachers, especially secondary school social studies teachers, is to help students learn to evaluate multiple perspectives on issues by weighing supporting evidence, separating fact from fiction, examining underlying assumptions, and then developing their own informed opinions. As a teacher, I generally withhold my opinion on a topic, however, I have no problem asserting that slavery, genocide, racism, dictatorship, and antisemitism are bad. There are no upsides. When we
consider multiple perspectives, the question we should address is why they happen, not whether they happened in the past or should happen again.

On a variety of topics, I provide students with a package of documents to evaluate that includes things I agree with and things that I don’t. During class, my primary role is to ask questions that promote discussion about the document package and the issues and moderate respectful student to-student conversation. I use this teaching approach whether we are discussing issues from the past such as the causes of the American Revolution, or the present, such as the role of human action in climate change, whether a particular military campaign constitutes war crimes, or if a groups behavior should be identified as terrorism. Important topics for discussion when schools reopen in the fall will be evaluations of the Biden administration’s record on foreign policy, the economy, climate, and the migrant/refugee “crisis.” It will also be legitimate to discuss whether Joseph Biden’s
age and physical and mental condition should be an issue in the election whatever your evaluation of his first administration.

The big problem in September will be what to do about Donald Trump. How do you organize a balanced unbiased discussion and evaluation of a candidate who makes outrageous, hateful, blatantly false statements? He is a candidate convicted of 34 counts in a New York trial and who faces three other criminal cases, who has been found guilty of defamation in a civil suit, who tried to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election, who continues to claim the 2020 election was stolen, who dismisses any accusation against him as politically motivated, and who demands total immunity against prosecution as a former President.

The November election is going to be a major focus in middle school and high school social studies classes. I am not neutral about slavery, genocide, racism, dictatorship, and antisemitism and I am not
neutral about the threat Donald Trump poses to the future of democracy in the United States and the constitutional foundations of American government and society. I will not use unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, propaganda websites, and Trump sycophantic reports in document packages and pretend students are evaluating legitimate sources.

Even a fact-check exercise of Trump statements leaves a teacher open to charges that they are injecting their opinions into class and trying to influence the ideas of their students. But of course, the job of the teacher is to influence the ideas of their students. Our responsibility to promote civic
discourse supported by evidence and advocate for democracy means we have to influence students to critically think about the campaign and candidates and if that means presenting an accurate picture of the threat posed by Donald Trump, we will have to live with the consequences.

Every teacher will almost definitely have students in their classes who support Donald Trump and the Republican Party, which is their right. They should be welcomed into discussion and encouraged to find evidence to support their positions, but they cannot be permitted to shout down or intimidate other students, things that I witnessed in 2016 and 2020. Donald Trump has continually said scary things, some of which he has backtracked on, and some of which he has not. In my opinion, any one of them should disqualify him to be President of the United States. He told American Jews, already
subject to a rising tide of antisemitism, that “Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves.” He described some immigrants as “not people,” “animals,” and “snakes,” accused them of “poisoning the blood of our country,” a statement that echoed the ideas of Adolf Hitler, and is promising mass deportations in violation of constitutional guarantees of due process, guarantees that in the 14th amendment are not limited to citizens. He asserted without evidence that other countries are emptying their prisons and sending criminals across the border. Trump wants “strong ideological screening of immigrants” because if “you don’t like our religion . . . we don’t want you in our country.” He is apparently unaware or does not care that the United States does not have an official religion.

Trump continually berates the American legal system and undermines public confidence in the law, the courts, and the government. He describes people tried and convicted of crimes during the January 6, 2021 violent invasion of the United States Capitol as “unbelievable patriots” being held as hostages and promises to offer these convicted criminals mass pardons if he is elected. Trump dismisses legal charges against his former aides Peter Navarro and Paul Manafort who were convicted, Navarro of contempt of Congress and Manafort of bank and tax fraud, and claims they were “treated very badly.”

Trump lowers the character of political speech as he raises the level of hostility. He denounces Joseph Biden as “Crooked Joe” and as a stupid President and uses vulgar and offensive language to describe other opponents, especially Black women. At campaign stops, Trump warns that if he is not elected, “It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country,” something he later tried to explain away, and that if he does “not win this year’s presidential election, I don’t think you’re going to have another election, or certainly not an election that’s meaningful.” He says he wants to be a dictator, but only on day one.

If elected, Trump says he would support a nationwide ban on terminating a pregnancy after 15 weeks, severely limiting the reproductive rights of women. A rightwing Supreme Court with three members, I hesitate to call them justices, appointed by Trump the last time he was President may well approve such a ban. If Trump is elected President, he threatens to withdraw the United States from the NATO alliance that has helped prevent broader European wars since tens of millions of people died in World War I and World War II or at a minimum sharply reduce U.S. financial support and to once again withdraw the United States from global efforts to minimize climate change because he does not believe in science. At a time when rightwing anti-democratic political movements are gaining followers and threatening to take power in many European countries, Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders like Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi Jinping of China, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, Viktor Orbán of Hungary, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. He praised the Lebanese-based armed group Hezbollah even though they are listed as a terrorist group by the United States State Department. Trump claims, without evidence, that the war in Ukraine and the Hamas attack on Israel would somehow not have happened if he were President.

In his speeches, Trump continuously lies or exaggerates about his own prowess and record as President. Trump didn’t create the greatest economy or pass the biggest tax cut in U.S. history. He didn’t do more for African Americans than any president since Abraham Lincoln. He didn’t defeat ISIS or increase government revenue and he wasn’t reelected in 2020.

Teachers should not tell students who to vote for or tell them how they are voting, but you are remiss if you do not help them understand who Donald Trump is and what he represents. If you are unsure how to do this, you can have students read and debate the points raised in this essay. Students can evaluate whether it raises legitimate concerns, or it is just anti-Trump propaganda.

Era 9 The Great Depression and World War 2

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

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

See the source image

The Great Depression brought about significant changes in the regulatory power of the federal government of the United States. The reforms of the New Deal were to stabilize the capitalistic economics system of the United States and they also imposed a mild form of welfare state capitalism that was prevalent in European countries. As a result, this era provides students with several opportunities to test their analytical skills regarding presidential power, the effectiveness of a democracy in addressing a major crisis, and the effect of the reforms of the New Deal on racial minorities, women, children and other groups.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure. Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.

After winning a landslide election in 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the Judicial Procedures Reform Act which would allow the president to nominate an additional judge to the Court for every sitting judge who had served at least ten years and reached the age of 70. The initial reason that was explained by President Roosevelt was that the aging justices could not keep up with their caseload. Roosevelt changed his reasoning when this argument appeared flawed because the additional judges would likely increase deliberations and delay the time to make a decision. The new argument that the appointed justices did not reflect the will of the people at a time when the United States faced unprecedented economic problems was explained to the people in a Fireside Chat.

President Roosevelt continued to advocate for the Judicial Procedures Reform Act until the Senate voted 70-20 to send the bill back to committee in July, 1937. It was never passed.

The individual states determine the number of judges on their state supreme courts. The number varies between five and nine justices. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has seven judges.

The Supreme Court of Ghana

The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the administration of justice in Ghana.

The Court is presided over by the Chief Justice and in his absence the most senior of the Justices of the Supreme Court, as constituted shall preside. Judges who sit in the Supreme Court are referred to as Justices of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice and not less than nine Justices. It has exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of the 1992 Constitution. It also has supervisory jurisdiction over all the Courts in Ghana. It is located only at the Headquarters in Accra.

Questions:

  1. In the United States, should the final decision on legislation be made by non-elected judges on the U.S. Supreme Court?
  2.  If the United States Congress was to reform the U.S. Supreme Court, what changes would you recommend they consider?
  3. Does the Tenth Amendment best serve the interests of representative democracy by allowing the individual states to make decision on issues not specifically delegated to Congress or is popular sovereignty served through the popular vote of the election of congressional representatives and senators?
  4. Do you prefer the structure of the Supreme Court in Ghana, which establishes a minimum number of judges, to be a better plan for decision making than how the United States structures its Supreme Court?
  5. Can Ghana prevent a president from adding judges with a similar political philosophy?

National Constitution Center

Information on State Supreme Courts

The Structure and Jurisdiction of the Courts of Ghana

To Cap or Not Cap the Justices on the Supreme Court of Ghana

The right of parents to take advantage of the productive capacity of their children was long recognized both in the United States and abroad. The perceived value of the child can be viewed through how the legal system treated the wrongful death of a child and the damages the parents could hope to recover. Courts of that period usually found that the proper amount due was “the probable value of the services of the deceased from the time of his death to the time he would have attained his majority, less the expense of his maintenance during the same time.” The courts recognized that the parent naturally benefited from the productive labors of his child until the child reached the age of majority.

The wages the child earned served the common purpose of supporting the family. The wages of a child generally became the property of the parents and often were the key to survival for many working-class families. Rather than the wife being the secondary wage earner, as became the case in the 1970s, for many families the child performed this role in American history.

Today, states have moved to extending working hours for children, eliminate work permit requirements and lower the age for teens to handle alcohol or work in hazardous industries. At the same time, there has been a 69% increase in children employed illegally by companies since 2018, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.” Source 

New Jersey: 34:2-21.2. Minors under 16 not to be employed; exceptions; nonresidents.

“No minor under 16 years of age shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work in, about, or in connection with any gainful occupation at any time; provided, that minors between 14 and 16 years of age may be employed, permitted or suffered to work outside school hours and during school vacations but not in or for a factory or in any occupation otherwise prohibited by law or by order or regulation made in pursuance of law; and provided, further, that minors under 16 years of age may engage in professional employment in theatrical productions upon the obtaining of a permit therefor and may engage outside school hours and during school vacations in agricultural pursuits or in street trades and as newspaper boys as defined in this act, in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of this act.”

Except as to the employment of a minor for whom a theatrical employment permit has been issued, no minor under 16 years of age not a resident of this State shall be employed, permitted or suffered to work in any occupation or service whatsoever at any time during which the law of the state of his residence required his attendance at school, or at any time during the hours when the public schools in the district in which employment in such occupation or services may be available are in session.

NLS data show that 52 percent of 12- and 13-year-olds in its 1997 cohort had paid work experience. The work performed at these ages was found to be freelance in nature. Babysitting and yardwork accounted for more than 70 percent of the work they performed.  For 14- and 15-year-olds, the dominant form of work remains freelancing. When children do work, it is most commonly when school is out of session. Children have largely shifted to the service industries.

Child Labor in Côte d’Ivoire

Due to security issues in both Mali and Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire has an estimated 13,214 refugees (2,489 households), of which an estimated 59 percent are children. Children are also brought to Côte d’Ivoire from those countries for commercial sexual exploitation and forced labor, including in begging, cocoa production, and mining. Children from Côte d’Ivoire are also subjected to human trafficking for forced labor in domestic work within the country and North Africa. Although the minimum age for a child to work is 16, this law lacks enforcement.

School is mandatory for children ages 6 to 16 in Côte d’Ivoire. Although the Law on Education provides for free education, students are often required to pay for textbooks and uniforms, which may be prohibitive to some families. A shortage of teachers, poor school infrastructure, lack of transportation systems in rural areas, and inadequate sanitation facilities have negatively impacted children’s ability to attend school.  Research also suggests that some students are physically and sexually abused at school, which may deter some students from attending school. Because of this, roughly one in four girls (25%) in Côte d’Ivoire are not able to attend primary school.

The UN Special Rapporteur, Tomoya Obokata, reported in November 2023 on the progress the government is making:

“I commend Côte d’Ivoire for its solid legal and institutional architecture on child labor and trafficking in persons. But the Government needs to do more to lift people, including in rural areas, out of poverty, promote the economic empowerment of women and ensure access to decent work, particularly for young people,” the expert said.

“Despite the efforts undertaken, I was informed that instances of child labor persist in various sectors of the economy including agriculture, domestic work, street vending and in artisanal gold mining. I am also concerned about the fate of girls who have either been trafficked from countries in the region for the purpose of sexual exploitation or who are subject to forced and early marriage in the country,” Obokata said.”

Questions:

  1. Should the state or federal government regulate child labor laws?
  2. Should the government have any authority over parental decisions regarding child labor?
  3. Should children be protected from working in unhealthy or dangerous occupations? (serving alcohol, casinos, nail salons, landscaping, etc.)

History of Child Labor in the United States (Part 1, Bureau of Labor Statistics)

History of Child Labor in the United States, (Part 2, Bureau of Labor Statistics)

Child Labor in America, 1920 (NPR)

The Unjust Cost of Child Labor (Roosevelt Institute)

Hammer v. Dagenhart (U.S. Supreme Court, 1918)

Child Labor and Forced Labor Reports in Côte d’Ivoire  (U.S. Department of Labor)

Child Labor Rises to 160 Million-First Increase in Two Decades (UNICEF)

The U.S. government influences private business through compulsory taxes by spending the tax revenues on public functions such as parks, roads and other infrastructure, schools, law enforcement, homeland security, and scientific research, as well as welfare and social insurance programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment assistance. The federal government also issues and enforces standards ranging from environmental quality, to consumer protection, business and banking practices, nondiscrimination in employment, Internet privacy, and safety for food, drugs, manufactured products, and the places where people work.

Chinese tech giant ByteDance, in 2017, purchased the popular karaoke app Musical.ly and relaunched the service as TikTok. Since then, the app has been under the microscope of national security officials in Washington fearing possible influence by the Chinese government.

Government Regulation of Private Enterprise in India

India began its regulatory reforms in the early 1990s, reducing state involvement through the privatization of companies, by putting in place independent regulatory mechanisms to boost competition and private-sector-led growth, and to strengthen consumer protection. But the reform efforts lacked coherence and have stalled. Even though the economy grew rapidly over the past decade, the slowing-down of reforms created an image of a country where doing business is difficult.

India lacks a modern regulatory governance regime. Based on the Constitution, all levels of government can regulate, including the Central Government and 29 state governments. Regulatory barriers to competition are high and rule-making in India is complex due to the different layers of government.

India needs to further strengthen the governance of state-owned enterprises, simplify regulations, and reduce administrative burdens on firms. India should develop and implement a regulatory governance system following international good practices such as regulatory impact assessment, public consultation, and administrative simplification. The creation of national Regulatory Commissions since 2005 was a positive move, but there is lack of accountability and consistency of the overall regulatory system.

Establishing a whole-of-government approach to regulation, using international best practice tools and systems such as regulatory impact assessments and public consultation, and building effective institutions for regulatory quality management, are key. In this sense, India needs to catch up with other emerging economies such as China, Mexico and Vietnam, which have already taken important steps in that direction, in line with the OECD’s 2012 Recommendation on Regulatory Policy and Governance.

In 2019, India passed a new Consumer Protection Act which streamlined all methods of exchanges relating to the purchase of merchandise and e-commerce. It also expanded the protections for deceptive trade practices and introduced product liability laws for the first time.

Questions:

  1. Should governments encourage or restrict startup businesses?
  2. Is it possible for governments to regulate the safety of products manufactured and sold withing their country?
  3. Are government requirements for minimum wage, social security, safety, equal opportunity in hiring, necessary or should they be optional?

Examples of Government Regulation of Business in the United States

The Role of the U.S. Government in the Economy

Consumer Protection Act of 2019 in India

Consumer Handbook in India

OCED Regulatory Reform in India

The Roosevelt Corollary signaled an important shift in the economic and diplomatic policy of the United States in Latin America at the beginning of the 20th century. In its efforts to ensure that Latin and Central American governments repaid their debts, the United States also used its military power to protect its hegemony or interests. By doing this the Roosevelt Corollary also negatively affected our diplomatic relations with Europe and set a precedent for the foundation for the Fourteen Points after World War I.

There are different perspectives about the impact of the Roosevelt Corollary in policy regarding its history of imperialism, limitations on self-government, and the impact it had on the social order and culture in Latin and Central America.  The U.S. Constitution is silent on a president acting as the international policeman to correct wrong behaviors in another country. President Roosevelt changed the original interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine from keeping foreign powers out of the western Hemisphere to justifying America’s intervention in independent countries in Latin America.

This set a precedent for future presidents who sent American troops into Latin American countries eight times.

China’s Hegemony in the South Pacific

In the beginning of the 21st century, China expanded its naval power and influence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Since 2016, China has constructed naval ports in an around the Spratly Islands. China’s actions impinge in the maritime entitlements and legal claims of Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam for fishing and oil exploration. The South China Sea may have billions of barrels of untapped oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.

China should consider the economic cost of its investments in these small islands as the impact of rising sea levels is likely to limit their economy and increase their debt. Will the economic costs weaken instead of strengthening China in the future?  The security of Australia, Taiwan, and Japan is a concern as military support from the United States may be limited by China’s presence in this area. The distance from the United States to Japan, Taiwan, and Australia is much further than it is for its rivals of North Korea, Russia, and China.

The novel legal argument is that under the Belt and Road Initiative, China is providing economic assistance to these small island in exchange for a ‘good neighbor’ policy with Beijing.

Questions:

  1. Does the Roosevelt Corollary set a precedent for giving the president of the United States too much authority in foreign affairs?
  2. How should situations of violations of international laws regarding financial matters and human rights be addressed in the 21st century?
  3. Is China’s policy of expanding its military and economic influence into the South China Sea a violation of the UN’s Law of the Sea?

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

How Theodore Roosevelt Changed the Way America Operated in the World

Council of Foreign Relations Perspective on the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

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

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dollar Diplomacy in Qatar

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

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

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

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

William Howard Taft’s Dollar Diplomacy

Dollar Diplomacy

The Qatar Blockade is over but the Gulf Crisis Lives On

U.S. Relations with Qatar

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

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

Child Labor in the Ivory Coast

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

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

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

History of Child Labor in the United States

Child Labor Laws are Under Attack in the United States

United States v. Darby

New Jersey Child Labor Laws

Child Labor in the Côte d’lvoire

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

Harkin-Engel Protocol

The Framework for Private Enterprise in the United States

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

The Framework for Private Enterprise in India

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of Government Regulation of Business in the United States

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

Regulatory Reform in India

The Roosevelt Corollary (1904)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Roosevelt Corollary (1904)

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine

China’s Security Agreement with the Solomon Islands

U.S. and China Security Review Commission Report

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

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

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

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

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

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

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

Twentieth Amendment

Section 1

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

Section 2

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

Section 3

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

Section 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Proposal of Candidates (Amendment 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Presidential Term and Succession

      Date Changes for Presidency, Congress, and Succession

      Interpretation and Debate of the 20th Amendment

      Historical Background to the 20th Amendment

      Democracy and Elections in Israel

      Israel’s Elections

      Reforming the Israeli Electoral System

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

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

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

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

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

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

      British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

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

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

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

      BBC Guidelines for Inappropriate Content

      The Communications Act of 1934

      History of the Federal Communications Commission

      History of Commercial Radio

      Suez Canal Crisis (1956)

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

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

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

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

      History of the Panama Canal

      The Panama Canal

      International Law and the Panama Canal

      The Suez Canal Crisis

      Why was the Suez Canal Crisis Important?

      Poll Taxes and the 24th Amendment

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

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

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

      Chartist Movement in the United Kingdom

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

      All men to have the vote (universal manhood suffrage)

      Voting should take place by secret ballot.

      Parliamentary elections every year, not once every five years

      Constituencies should be of equal size.

      Members of Parliament should be paid.

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

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

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

      Barriers to Voting: Poll Taxes

      Abolition of Poll Taxes: 24th Amendment

      Voting Rights for African Americans

      Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

      Voting Rights Act of 1965

      The Chartist Movement

      The Importance of the Chartist Movement

      The Transformation of Regional Politics in Philadelphia

      Kevin McCabe

      The dawn of urbanization in the U.S. arrived in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from which came rapid innovations in transportation and construction technology. The colonial legislation put in power by the founding fathers was tested immensely by the growing population of urban life. The necessities of sustaining an exponentially large and dense city seem evident at first glance: political, economic, and social representation, a stable job income for single or multi-family homes, access to public services, and affordable housing stock. Unfortunately, as one may notice by the pattern of urban decline as early as the 1950s, accomplishing such a feat is nearly impossible with the lack of quality political representation for marginalized members of the urban community.  Philadelphia, faced with the issues of urban decline, embarked on a project of urban renewal to revamp the public and private housing sector, introduce new forms of transportation for suburban commuters, and fix the educational landscape of the city. Similarly to other cities facing urban decline, the ‘City of Brotherly Love’ has seen countless projects or urban revitalization that historians, over time, began to view differently. Public Housing, Race, and Renewal by John F. Bauman (1987) indicates that historians viewed the solution to Philadelphia’s housing segregation, job discrimination, deindustrialization, and part of its economic decline issues through government intervention in the public housing sector. Carolyn T. Adams, author of From the Outside In (2014), exemplifies the shift of focus to local and federal intervention in Third-Sector organizations, and the lack thereof, in the startup of big industrial and transportation renewal. Similarly to Bauman, Adams refers to many of the solutions and ideas being created from a local level and being affected by public preference and federal policy. Lastly, The Problem of Jobs by Guian A. McKee (2010) takes a more positive outlook on urban renewal in Philadelphia, claiming that despite providing mixed results, the actions of a new form of Liberalism, local and federal policies, and initiatives slowed the progress of deindustrialization and moderated its effects.[1] Over the last 30 years, the scholarship on Philadelphian policies toward reshaping the historical city has changed dramatically from a focus on blaming federal policy, suburbanization and deindustrialization, the failure to provide adequate public housing and proper restructuring of the city’s inner-city blocks as the cause of economic decline and racial conflict. A newer approach to these issues is to take a city-wide approach to how local politicians and project professionals maneuvered a complex level of federal aid, Third-Sector organizations, and an angry white working class to achieve successes in some areas and failures in other neighborhoods.

      Public Housing, Race, and Renewal by John F. Bauman focuses on those who debated, promoted, and shaped Philadelphia’s public housing and urban development policies, and how the local and national shift of focus from public housing to rebuilding the city turned a desegregation project into a reinforcement of public housing poverty stereotypes as a federally-funded welfare program. Bauman, having written his book in 1987, comprises the oldest historical outlook of the three books being analyzed in this historiography study. Therefore, both Adams and McKee draw from elements of Bauman’s argument and other authors of his time to build a comprehensive outlook on the complexity of undertaking complete urban reform in one of the oldest and historically significant cities in the U.S. Bauman utilizes the terms professionals and communitarians to describe the progressive outlook of urban leaders during the middle of urban slum expansion in the 1920s. Adams’ and McKee’s central focus on the privatization of industry follows the pattern of slowing progressivism in mid-19th century Philadelphia. Bauman wrote of the tendencies of the federal government, and how the ideas around poverty-stricken areas led to the failure of public housing as a program for economic mobility: “…the federal government’s rigid funding formula for public housing construction, as well as its strict guidelines for tenant selection and tenant retention, begged the question of public housing’s mission. Was public housing to provide good housing for the working class, or was the program to build modern asylums where the poor could learn habits of thrift and cleanliness?”[2] A few ideas are present in Bauman’s argument that hold merit for future scholarship on Philadelphia’s inner city. Particularly, how government funding, despite having the intention of fixing blighted neighborhoods, ends up exacerbating the issue by being too strict with rules, regulations, and the location of the project. Bauman goes even further to state that the racial composition of a project was made to conform to the prevailing composition of the surrounding neighborhood.[3] Essentially, public housing was the same as black housing in inner-city Philadelphia. As public housing became more attached in name to the characteristics of the poor, the politically right-leaning citizens of Philadelphia lost hope that public housing would help people in poverty learn habits of thrift and cleanliness. One would also argue that the idea that public housing would help the poor learn good habits solely based on the architecture itself perpetuates the notion that all people in black-majority neighborhoods promote a culture of poverty. The hopes of architects and city planners were quickly dashed as public opinion on public housing became politicized- it was no longer a rehabilitation program, but a public welfare program for housing the city’s worst residents. Bauman also takes note of the war-spawned conservatism that swept the nation during WWII, a pattern of decentralized federal housing policy that would become a staple in how local Philadelphian officials would carry out construction projects in the future.[4] Federal funding would be provided for projects, but only constructed by private enterprises. This foreshadows the states’ use of nonprofits to accomplish construction projects more efficiently than traditional means of project approval depicted in From the Outside In. The bullish conservative real estate established for new housing projects, and the use of subdivision in existing housing to create an artificially lower demand for low-income and public housing meant that Washington and the city Housing Authority were: “… sacrificing the goals of good housing and defense to the particular interests of the homebuilding and real estate industries.”[5] The pattern imposed by the federal and state governments is private and public organizational appeasement, an act that helped speed up the development process of housing and urban renewal at the expense of ill-planned resident displacement and the diminishment of government authority over the real estate market and urban planning. Even when projects were underway, residency was determined by the current racial composition of the neighborhood. Bauman, noticing the injustice in urban housing planning, stated: “Crassly denying the new housing to low-income black slum residents reeked of injustice… Blacks were being forced to make more than their share of the sacrifice.”[6] Historians’ views on urban redevelopment in Philadelphia have not changed from Bauman’s to Adams’ interpretation- despite good intentions, the fears of black slum encroachment barred minorities from economic mobility by transforming a creative, community-building public housing movement into a cookie-cutter asylum for the poor. As the Housing Act of 1954 rolled around, the idea of city rebuilding became synonymous with economic revitalization.[7] Forced by the realities of the failures of massive elevator towers to fix the city’s housing issues, planners had to decide what locations would be best for a project’s success, zoning certain areas as unsalvageable (black zones), and blighted neighborhoods as buffer zones.[8] This is a form of redlining that reinforced segregated city patterns, instead of fixing the economic and social disparity between residents that are only blocks apart. Furthermore, it further ostracized inner-city black residents from society. Bauman claims that “Only a massive infusion of local, state, and federal money into housing and blight removal could make city neighborhoods ripe again for private investment.”[9] City politicians took their eyes off a lack of housing in certain areas to transform areas to be more appealing to white commuters and future residents, as only 21 percent of displaced families found satisfactory housing; in the eyes of a Philadelphian politician, urban renewal meant black removal.[10] Slum clearance continued, even though public housing became a welfare program: “… at the end of the decade, [the public housing program] remained demoralized and directionless.”[11] Federal housing policy established a framework for a decentralized program of low-income housing that favored white residents and suburban commuters to attract a larger visitor economy, at the expense of inner-city residents. Bauman shows how the government built and bureaucratically managed complexes that contrasted too starkly with American housing norms- how too much government involvement can create complexity in the rebuilding process when housing authorities have to adhere to a changing political climate.[12] Adam’s book works to recount that moving too far in the opposite direction- losing control over infrastructure oversight- was a step in the right direction to starting larger projects, that despite being rarely beneficial to inner-city residents, were economically beneficial to the Philadelphian region as a whole.

      Adams’ From the Outside In contradicts Bauman’s belief that Philadelphian urban renewal was a total failure, despite the shortcomings of public housing. Bauman set up Adam’s argument, relating most of the failures in the public housing sector with a shift in ideology that indicated both left and right-leaning political participants supported government intervention and federal funding, and that the division of party lines lies along the direction of the money in the public and private sectors. To set up her perspective of a new form of regionalism, Adams first had to argue against the premise that suburbs have turned their back on central cities.[13] A common assumption made by Bauman that Adams looks to unravel is that suburbanites, as a result of suburbanization, deindustrialization, and the policies of the state and federal government ruined the city’s economy and have made no effort to revitalize it. In fact, over the last 15 years of redevelopment, which would put it squarely in between the publication dates of Bauman’s and Adams’ books, suburbanites have recognized the critical role the city plays in economic functions. De facto regionalism, through the use of Third-Sector organizations, blurs the lines between public and private sectors in American civic life. [14] City managers now turn to private investors to help finance Philadelphian’s transportation system. A new issue has arisen in urban politics- whether these nonprofits, volunteer organizations, research institutions, (etc.), should be used solely to save money and avoid the regulations set by the city and federal government. By using these organizations and providing them with federal aid, they have control over the equal distribution of services and have more authority than state legislation as to where, how, and why a project will be played out. In Bauman’s book, one sees the federal government’s intervention forcing the hand of city planners to change the location of public housing depending on local reception and federal funding. As Adams depicts, the opinion of the urban resident no longer matters, as these non-profits do not need to adhere to the public will or make press releases on the findings and undergoing of the project. While describing the thought process of local politicians at the time, Adams states: “Politicians generally prefer to distribute dollars and services more broadly. It is virtually impossible for the city council to agree to target development dollars in only a few locations because that shortchanges other areas.”[15] Essentially, the agreement behind using Third-Sector organizations is that some people will benefit, while others will suffer from economic, social, and physical displacement. Therefore, the government focuses its efforts on redeveloping one area, a way for suburbanites to slowly change the city without considering the lives of the inhabitants and their organizations’ effects. For example, the Vine Street Expressway, “…offers a classic example of infrastructure that serves the region’s interests at the expense of city dwellers who live nearby… the initial proposal for eight lanes… would have eliminated a Catholic church and school that served as crucial institutions to Chinatown.”[16] One may see a parallel between Bauman and Adams, as the issue of where public housing should be located meant that they were placed in predominantly black neighborhoods, further segregating the minorities that live in public housing and worsening the issue of cramped neighborhoods. Similarly, the issue of where to locate transportation services for commuters fell on black neighborhoods that were seen as ‘unsalvageable’, despite them being a product of a failed distribution of public services. Overall, Adams wanted to indicate how intergovernmental authorities carry out their responsibility for transportation systems that link the city to the suburbs across municipal boundaries, and the inequality present when relying on Third-Sector organizations to carry out the job of the federal and state governments.[17] Adams also alludes to the new centers of gravity within Philadelphia, and how the responsibility of building major districts and developing entirely new districts plays out in the private and public sectors. As the number of organizations grew, the power of the mayor diminished. Government and nonprofit organizations are almost equal in terms of political standing. Revitalizing Philadelphia meant two things- establishing a successful visitor and commuter economy, and reshaping the educational landscape. The City’s 1960 Comprehensive Plan addressed where certain public services should be placed, as well as transportation services and the estimated amount of jobs that should be accomplished by 1980.[18] As Third-Sectors got involved, however, the Plan fell apart and instead the ‘Building Our Strengths’ city plan was enacted, a ratification of existing racial and infrastructure trends in Philadelphia. It contains a compendium of various different projects, ideas, and locations, without offering a comprehensive goal. Third-Sector organizations were hard for even the mayor to control, as their professional positions put them at the forefront of decision-making. As one will see, there are many successes and failures produced by these Third-Sector organizations, most of the failures attributed to poor planning for future usage of the project. In terms of educational attainment, inner-city school districts serve children that are from impoverished or immigrant homes, which means property tax bases cannot produce enough revenue to support schools. A high academic need and weak local tax base meant that, in the 70s and 80s, there was a large downward spiral for urban school districts nationally, from which this pattern the Philadelphia School District reflected. As a result, the government had to intervene and take over: “The most striking change in U.S. education governance in the last forty years has been the growth of centralized state control.”[19] If a school was labeled as distressed, it could legally be taken over by the state. Suburbanites and city dwellers alike saw budgetary shortfalls that are a result of a funding formula incapable of accounting for the city’s high educational costs; restructuring the delivery of education to emphasize competition and mimic market patterns would increase consumer choice. The government was providing EMOs to the worst performing schools, which allowed private management of public schools, but after the failure of EMOs, Philadelphia backed the Charter school movement. Unlike public schools, profit-making businesses play a sizable role in the aspects of charter operations.[20] To make private schools and charter schools more popular, Philadelphia incorporated a portfolio model of pedagogy, where empowered teachers have direct oversight over their students, and parents were given more freedom of choice as to where their child attended school. Portfolio models, however, tended to, “… expand the geographic focus of local school leaders because locals find themselves soliciting support from many outsiders beyond their traditional and local political allies.”[21] Regionalism is seeping into Philadelphia’s educational system, and as Bauman and Adams both clearly indicate, the intersection of local and national politics became an issue when infrastructure was not being built with an image of the future, the ‘bigger picture’, or not being built at all. The charter operators shifted enrollments out of residential neighborhoods and into buildings in the center of the city. Although this is both better economically for the success of charter schools, as there were more students available in the area, the current pattern of location weakened the historical links between public schools and surrounding neighborhoods.[22] Adams and Bauman both highlight the importance of schools in fostering a community and in both cases, residential neighborhoods suffered because of the poor housing quality surrounding these schools. Public housing ended up being placed in areas with the worst housing, often disconnected from the school system after a more conservative voting base blocked public housing and low-income housing in the more affluent neighborhoods. Charter school locations ended up in two positions- either filled to its max capacity with non-caucasian students or filled to less than half-capacity with white students. Charter schools and public housing followed the same path of reinforcing residential segregation patterns, and as both Bauman and Adams write, the educational system is only getting worse as it is privatized; the state lost direct oversight over their students, and the government made no attempt to create a comprehensive plan to rebuild the city with its poverty-stricken residents in mind. Adams does not dislike the use of Third-Sector organizations to accomplish bigger projects faster and cheaper but takes note that city and state governments are channeling dollars into organizational fields where the recipients use those public resources to compete rather than cooperate with one another.[23] Lodging, such as displacement and the need for new residential buildings and the refurbishment of old buildings, made the process more difficult because the well-being for the future of locals’ residency depended on the layout of the city. Despite this, politicians were pushing reliance on the Third Sector anyway. A high level of public funding does not align the Third Sector with government objectives, even if Philadelphia had a comprehensive plan. Instead, public officials only put limited requirements for projects to get them approved faster. The policy around these projects favored competition between the organizations to produce greater efficiency, which then led to competition between the projects post-construction, such as with the charter school movement. Competition fosters organizational isolation- to fix this, Adams indicated a few ways the federal and state governments can navigate the current path of private and public enterprise. Adams states: “City officials should work to induce greater sectoral coherence and concern for serving Philadelphians, to see that the city gains the greatest possible benefit from its concentration of tax-exempt institutions.”[24] Bauman’s book shows how historians of the time witnessed federal funding and building requirements, as well as public opinion on the project, as an obstacle to public housing and urban renewal’s success. Similarly, Adams shows how a move in the opposite direction, a form of laissez-faire economic regionalism, also posed issues because of an emphasis on capitalistic competition that contradicted the government’s goal of urban renewal and a lower inner-city poverty rate. The influx of suburban money bolstered the economy of Philadelphia, which disproves Bauman’s scapegoating of suburbanization as the main cause of an economic decline in Philadelphia, but the oversight in fixing Philadelphia’s racially segregated housing meant that the new projects were being built over the worst areas. Philadelphian low-income neighborhoods were bulldozed and rarely were residents fairly compensated.

                  McKee’s The Problem of Jobs contained elements from both Bauman’s and Adams’ work but stood out for its usage of larger, national issues put into context for the rise of Liberalism, a continuation of unemployment issues, and a lack of racial equality in Philadelphia. As opposed to the other books, McKee emphasizes the need for jobs, specifically how  left-leaning political participants’ support of government intervention in the economy persisted at the local level even as national ideologies swayed in the other direction.[25] McKee begins his book after World War II and ends in the 1970s, a timeframe that just overlaps with Bauman’s book and finishes where Adams starts. McKee presents the history of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC), a quasi-public organization that added about 68,000 jobs between 1959 and 1970, and the projects it had undertaken to promote racial equality and prevent further segregation in the city. The placement of McKee’s book at the end of this historiography study, despite taking place in between Bauman and Adams, is not a mistake. McKee’s book indicates the transformation of federal and local policy to reflect the involvement of Third Sector organizations: “These local policy initiatives engaged with and, in some cases, relied on the resources and incentives provided by federal programs, but they remained projects of the local state- of liberal policymakers and activists who constructed public, private, and community-based institutions that sought to address the city’s loss of industrial jobs.”[26] Bauman’s book introduces the concept of using private goals to accomplish public services- McKee takes this and identifies the various projects undertaken to accomplish the Philadelphia Plan and Model Cities program, the first of which to include non-profits to shorten construction periods and bring in more jobs at a rapid rate. McKee is also innovative in his contribution to how Philadelphia’s job-focused programs paralleled racial tracks; the projects that failed generally ignored the social component of industrial decline and racial discrimination in the Philadelphian industry. Specifically, how PIDC’s tendency to work in isolation from those most dramatically affected by economic change led to more suffrage on the part of Philadelphia’s black population.[27] Black-run projects, which both Bauman and Adams failed to allude to, were vulnerable to the real estate market and fluctuations in federal support as a result of changing market conditions. Public action by a hostile white working-class privileged a focus on cultural factors in urban renewal over the need for a long-term plan for fixing structural economic concerns in the city.[28] PIDC and the Philadelphia Plan lost momentum as Liberalism lost its momentum- the national concern for the War on Poverty offered opinionated white city residents a way to lay out their concerns for undergoing an urban renewal project in already affluent neighborhoods. The focus, they believed, should be on the city’s worst slums. Unfortunately, this meant continuing the residential divide of the city’s black population, or in the worst cases, complete displacement and removal. McKee’s analysis of the direct effect of the War on Poverty in the slums of Philadelphia draws parallels to Bauman’s foundation of placing public and low-income housing in economically advantaged neighborhoods. Simply, government intervention focused on white appeasement without the realization of the importance of black economic and social participation in Philadelphia’s inner city. While Bauman is pessimistic about the future, however, McKee focuses on the PIDC’s victory in slowing the progress of deindustrialization and moderating its effects.[29] McKee brings to the table a level of optimism unseen in Bauman’s perspective, while Adams adheres to a methodology of unbiased analysis of the city’s and Third Sector organizations’ urban renewal agenda and necessary racial progressivism. McKee and Adams acknowledge the local and federal politicians’ complete disconnection between economic decline and racial inequality. McKee, however, claims that local public policy can still have a wide effect on the rate of economic change independent of racial matters.[30] Adams believes that economic decline is synonymous with racial inequality, dictating a change in the historical perspective that inequality should be at the forefront of urban redevelopment programs. McKee also addresses racial matters continuously throughout the book, which differs from Bauman’s and Adams’ use of dedicated chapters advocating the involvement of racial matters in shaping Philadelphia’s urban renewal process. For example, McKee noted the shortfalls of the liberal agenda in embracing civil rights, and how the lack of black political representation in city-building meant the expansion of industry was inaccessible to inner-city residents: “… the interaction of job discrimination and industrial decline in Philadelphia had placed African Americans at a severed disadvantage in the local labor market…nonwhite men held a disproportionate share of low-wage, low-scale jobs… only 8.7 percent of [African Americans held] professional and technical jobs…”[31] Black residents, according to McKee, act solely out of response to economic crisis in Philadelphia, making it apparent that black political participants focused on creating jobs, without realizing that the jobs being made were hard for the average inner-city black resident to attain. McKee ends his book with the Model Cities program, a shift from a focus on the renewal of Philadelphia’s manufacturing industry to the services industry: “… the PIDC had slowed but not reversed the decline of Philadelphia’s manufacturing sector during the 1960s and that the base of the national economy had begun to shift from manufacturing to services. This led both city and… PIDC to question whether the nonprofit corporation should continue to focus exclusively on industrial development or expand its operations into services.”[32] A large part of Adams’ book lies in the development of these service institutions; McKee takes note of the availability of land for future industrial uses, and Adams picks up with the various service projects conducted on that land. McKee’s analysis of the bifurcation of local and federal policy is hopeful, at the very least, that Liberalism will overtake the agendas of status-quo residential ‘segregationists’ for a more inclusive economical base in Philadelphia.

      The last 30 years have witnessed scholarship on Philadelphian inner-city politics change to include the active participation of suburbanites, the rise of Progressivism and Liberalism, and the inclusion of the black struggle for economic and social participation. At the same time, Bauman, McKee, and Adams all take note of the large number of contradictions that come into play when federal and local policy intersect. Bauman’s Public Housing, Race, and Renewal follows the issue of national political ideologies in the context of war-spawned conservatism, and how the failure of public housing led to a reliance on private sectors to provide housing for those in need. Private interests, however, do not always align with the public; housing was built but did not always reach a level of adequacy that modern homes have. Adams’ From the Outside In shows how the move towards private sector construction and subsequent failure led to a new form of regionalism based on Third Sector organizations’ involvement. To blur the lines between private and public sectors and circumnavigate the general public’s opinion on whether the project should be built in the first place, Philadelphia’s mayors utilized a growing medium of regionalism. McKee’s The Problem of Jobs takes into consideration this shift and depicts the transformation in ideology to include Liberalism, similar but not exact to Bauman’s interpretation of the definition of Progressivism in Philadelphian local politics. While Bauman remains pessimistic about the future of public housing and urban renewal, McKee exemplifies a shift in public opinion to focus on the positives of urban renewal, with some constructive criticism concerning how race should be considered in the application of the process; Adams represents a politically unbiased retelling of events, with many points as to how city politicians should carry construction projects in the future. All three books, however, fully understand that economic decline was tied to racial inequality and that the power of the state and Third Sector organizations are necessary to have a significant effect on the character of economic and racial progress.

      Teaching racial inequality in the educational and infrastructural fields is important for closing the social and economic gap that has developed since the removal of the institution of slavery. When teaching in West Windsor South, I noticed that students were hyper aware of their social classes. The very topic of racial disparity was often talked about in the 12th grade Social Justice class I helped out in, and each and every student noted how important it was to be actively thinking about solutions to solve the issues our predecessors have created. The books listed in this historiography study are a good start to help students understand the gravity of the situation and the attempts previously made to solve the issue, especially when the authors’ research delves into the closest city to them, Philadelphia.

      Adams, Carolyn Teich. From the Outside In: Suburban Elites, Third Sector Organizations, and the Reshaping of Philadelphia. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univ. Press, 2014.

      Bauman, John F. Public Housing, Race, and Renewal. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1987.

      McKee, Guian A. The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2018.


      [1] Guian A. McKee, The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2018), 67.

      [2] John F. Bauman, Public Housing, Race, and Renewal (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1987), 40.

      [3] Bauman, Public Housing, 47.

      [4] Bauman, Public Housing, 56.

      [5] Bauman, Public Housing, 64.

      [6] Bauman, Public Housing, 68.

      [7] Bauman, Public Housing, 139.

      [8] Bauman, Public Housing, 147.

      [9] Bauman, Public Housing, 148.

      [10] Bauman, Public Housing, 148-150.

      [11] Bauman, Public Housing, 200.

      [12] Bauman, Public Housing, 208.

      [13] Carolyn Teich Adams, From the Outside In: Suburban Elites, Third Sector Organizations, and the Reshaping of Philadelphia (Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univ. Press, 2014), 2.

      [14] Adams, From the Outside In, 9.

      [15] Adams, From the Outside In, 21.

      [16] Adams, From the Outside In, 29.

      [17] Adams, From the Outside In, 49.

      [18] Adams, From the Outside In, 81.

      [19] Adams, From the Outside In, 84.

      [20] Adams, From the Outside In, 87-88.

      [21] Adams, From the Outside In, 93.

      [22] Adams, From the Outside In, 104.

      [23] Adams, From the Outside In, 173.

      [24]  Adams, From the Outside In, 181

      [25] Guian McKee, The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia (Chicago, Illinois: TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 2018), 4.

      [26] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 12.

      [27] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 81.

      [28] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 111.

      [29] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 67.

      [30] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 76.

      [31] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 119.

      [32] McKee, The Problem of Jobs, 251.

      We Have A Civics Education Crisis – And Deep Divisions on How to Solve It

      According to the most recent analysis by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 13 percent of eighth graders are proficient in U.S. history — down from a peak of 18 percent in 2014. A mere 22 percent of those students are proficient in civics, the first decline since the test began in 1998.

      Adults fare little better. Less than half of those surveyed could name the three branches of government (1 in 4 could not name any). Nor did they know that a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling becomes the law of the land.

      Yet, even as Americans across the political spectrum believe that more civic awareness could help heal the country’s divides, only seven states require a full year of civics education.

      The belief that an educated citizenry is the best protection for democracy is as old as the Republic. As George Washington asked in the founding era: “What species of knowledge” is more important than “the science of government?”

      Yet, U.S. history and civics curriculums have long been attacked from the political right as insufficiently patriotic and from the left as woefully incomplete and discriminatory. In short, Americans have never agreed about what should be taught when it comes to our nation’s history and government. And as this latest round of test scores suggests, that has real implications for schoolchildren.

      How to teach American history and civics was not initially an issue of national debate or concern. At the nation’s founding, most Americans received little or no formal schooling, but learned instead from family, work and church.

      That began to change with the adoption of universal, state-funded education. By the 1840s, education reformers like Horace Mann argued that publicly supported schools could help to create “disciplined, judicious, republican citizens” by “teaching the basic mechanics of government and imbuing students with loyalty to America and her democratic ideals.”

      To protect public schools from “the tempest of political strife,” fears spurred in part by the arrivals of immigrants, Mann insisted civics be presented in a nonpartisan, nonsectarian manner — even as he and his allies, consciously or not, imbued their own values into this supposedly neutral curriculum. Civics was taught through study, memorization and recitation of patriotic speeches and foundational texts, such as the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. These exercises were paired with readings from the King James Bible “that exemplified the Protestant ethic.”

      Unsurprisingly, controversies arose. Abolitionists complained that the nonpartisanship required the exclusion of anti-slavery principles. Roman Catholic leaders attacked non-sectarianism as a stealth imposition of Protestantism, prompting “school wars” that led to the creation of the Catholic parochial school system.

      In the North, some native-born critics feared that the 9 million immigrants arriving in their port cities between 1880 and 1917 — predominantly non-English-speaking Catholics and Jews from Southern and Eastern Europe — lacked the instincts and training to qualify as citizens. “Americanizers” sought to prepare the children of these “new immigrants” for citizenship through instruction in English, basic civics and a history that celebrated the country’s political institutions, downplayed its shortcomings and implanted in them “the Anglo-Saxon conception of righteousness, law and order, and popular government.” Eager to become citizens, most immigrants did not object. But some resisted the effacing of their linguistic, cultural and religious heritage.

      During World War I, former president Theodore Roosevelt demanded that schools discontinue instruction in the German language and declared that “there is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans.” In New York, state legislators banned textbooks containing material “disloyal to the United States.” In response, nascent cultural pluralists proposed that the metaphor for “transnational America” should not be a melting pot, but a “symphony orchestra,” where “each ethnic group is the natural instrument.”

      After the nation took stock of the blood and treasure expended in war, isolationist sentiment took root alongside an anti-communist red scare, overriding pluralist sentiment in the 1920s. Congress implemented strict quotas in 1924 that dramatically reduced immigration, especially from the non-English-speaking world.

      World War II accelerated a backlash against progressive educators like John Dewey who, during the Great Depression in the 1930s, advocated that students “critically examine” the nation’s institutions and economic inequality. Instead, with America at war again by the end of 1941, politicians demanded that teachers promote “an abiding love of American institutions.”

      In the Cold War that followed, elected officials again used the nation’s schools as a space to pit the virtues of U.S. democracy against the evils of communism — this time to an even greater degree than before. Congress created the Zeal for American Democracy” program in 1947, which encouraged educators in public schools to exalt U.S. democracy, while glossing over McCarthy-era violations of free speech and freedom of association.

      Throughout the century following the Civil War, teachers instructed White students in the South that the conflict was a struggle over states’ rights, fought by gallant Confederate soldiers. They learned that during the brief period of Reconstruction after the war, corrupt northern carpetbaggers and formerly enslaved men now eligible to vote drove basic civic and governmental institutions into the ground — and that race mixing was contrary to the law of man and God. As late as 1961, an Alabama textbook maintained that “slavery was the earliest form of social security in the United States.

      But the civil rights and women’s and gay and lesbian rights movements, as well as opposition to the Vietnam War, called into question the dominant vision of U.S. civics and history that had long prevailed in American classrooms. Demands for immigrants to assimilate were recast by underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as “cultural imperialism,” as questions increasingly arose about the desirability of building a common civic culture. Advocates created a pluralist, multicultural curriculum that featured voices seldom before included in history and civics curriculums, such as Frederick Douglass’s oration, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” and the proceedings of the 1848 Women’s Rights Convention.

      A conservative movement soon grew in opposition, with activists warning that “secular humanism” was creeping into schools and usurping religious, traditional family-centered values taught at home. The fact that the Supreme Court had outlawed school-sponsored prayer in public schools in 1962 — seen as a potential antidote to this trend — only fueled their ire.

      By the 1980s, opponents began decrying multicultural education and ethnic studies as “political correctness,” and in 1992, they successfully derailed an attempt to establish national history standards and adopt the voluntary guidelines developed by dozens of civic organizations and educators. Lynne Cheney, chair of the National Endowment of the Humanities from 1986-1992, derided these efforts as a politicized, “grim and gloomy portrayal” of American history, focused excessively on women, ethnic and racial groups. The standards were rejected by the U.S. Senate in a 99-1 vote.

      At the beginning of this century, concerns about American economic competitiveness prompted a renewed focus on reading and math under President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act and then on STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) subjects under President Barack Obama’s Educate to Innovate campaign. Both came at the expense of civics, history and related subjects.

      As political polarization in the United States escalated, President Donald Trump denounced the New York Times’ 1619 Project, which put enslavement and discrimination at the center of the history of the United States. Trump claimed that such efforts taught children “to hate their own country.” He established the Advisory 1776 Commission, which declared that U.S. history, when properly taught, reveals the United States to be “the most just and glorious country in all of human history.”

      In 2021, in an attempt to bridge these divides, over 300 experts with diverse political views recommended new guidelines for civics education. Their Roadmap To Educating for American Democracy calls for treating disagreement “as a feature, not a bug of democracy,” and an account of U.S. history “that is honest about the wrongs of the past without falling into cynicism, and appreciative of the founding of the United States without tipping into adulation.” Supported by six former secretaries of education, Republicans and Democrats and over 120 civic organizations, it was attacked by conservatives, who distorted its purpose and content and gave it an “F+.”

      The bipartisan Roadmap has gone nowhere, and many states are going their own way. This is unsurprising. Efforts to establish national history and civics guidelines have always been subjected to withering criticism — just as attempts to ignore contested aspects of our past to foster national unity have only produced partisan divisions.

      Understanding this history may well be the most important civics lesson of all.

      Thinking and Teaching the Implications of Federalist Paper #10

      Thinking and Teaching the Implications of Federalist #10 for Democracy

      Jeff Schneider

      When I picked up my copy of Federalist #10 to begin writing this article, I was stunned by the subtitle: “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.” Despite my 30 years of teaching this document, the emotions that welled up in me upon reading “Insurrection” were a shock. These are hard times. That the present shapes our understanding of the history we study was brought home to me with new force.

      Knowing that Shays’ Rebellion was a cause of the calling for and high attendance at the Constitutional Convention, and the prominence of the phrase “to insure Domestic Tranquility” in the preamble, helps explain what the framers thought was at stake in 1787. As a high school teacher, I always spent 10 or 15 minutes parsing the meanings of the preamble, but even though I taught the Constitution more than 150 times over the years, I never felt the depth of those words as I do at this time. The January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol by followers of Donald Trump puts us in a situation James Madison would recognize. Donald Trump and his followers have been frightening us every day for years now. It is time to analyze the most famous of Madison’s Constitutional commentaries: Federalist #10. This essay is addressed to teachers.

      This article is in two major parts: An analysis of Madison’s Federalist #10 on his terms in the first section, which is a pared down student-led lesson, and a second section which builds on the first to critique #10. Usually historians and political scientists refer to the electoral college as the major anti-democratic feature of the Constitution, but in Federalist #10 Madison, as you will see, had fundamentally no respect for the will of the of the people. He baked this idea into his theory of the republic.

      That final section takes on the chimerical idea of the (single) public good and Madison’s outright rejection of “the people themselves” to protect the government from dangerous majorities. In 2022 the white supremacist Republican Party has ditched democracy and gerrymandered Madison’s constitutional structure. We are on the brink of a fascist takeover. These contradictions could not be compromised away in 1787 and cannot be smoothed over in 2022. “The Miracle in Philadelphia” nearly failed as a system on January 6, 2021. Democracy cannot be defended by depending on a group of men of “wisdom” to lead us to control “the mischiefs of faction.” Instead we need majority rule.

      Part I: Federalist #10 taken on Madison’s terms

      When I assigned Federalist #10 I asked the students to download and read the document. They were required to choose two sentences from the beginning, three from the middle, and two from the end of the document. As I have explained in detail in “The Tarzan Theory of Reading,” on my Substack site, the students were to single out sentences with which they agreed or disagreed strongly or those that they thought were important and explain why. The students will lead the discussion with their questions, comments, and the sentences they choose which they will read out loud to the class. In addition, I asked them to identify the sentence that was at the logical center of the argument in Federalist #10, which has an elegant architecture.

      When I began the class, I asked for questions or comments. Students often made comments on the definitions of faction or insurrection, which is now a term many students will encounter in the news. The definition of faction is “a majority or minority… opposed to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” The students will come up with the common term “special interest,” but how can that be a majority? This is key problem with Federalist #10, since Madison’s understanding of the term faction is not intuitive. The students may object that the Constitution describes a democracy: does not the majority rule? You should put that idea in a separate list on the board and leave it until the end of the discussion (we will discuss that separate list of ideas in depth in the Part II critique). The students know that Shays’ Rebellion (1786 – 87) was an insurrection, an attempt at the violent overthrow of a government.

      Majority faction is itself a contradiction that can be addressed by working through Madison’s series of subtopics: the climate of disorder in the country, his diagnosis of factions the proposals to eliminate them, or to control them, and a critique of his solution. Although the discussion will jump around the document, as the students volunteer their sentences those subtopics will organize the notes as we go along.

      Disorder in the country

      Shays’ Rebellion was a major factor in Madison’s concerns. The students will know that indebted farmers in western Massachusetts denounced unaffordable taxes and complained that they were losing their mortgages to foreclosure. Daniel Shays was a Revolutionary War captain who led his followers to attempt to close the courts to prevent the foreclosures. In addition, they demanded representation equal to the proportional per capita representation in the east close to Boston. After the rebellion was quashed, Shaysites were elected to the Massachusetts legislature. Another problem was that the rebellion was a protest against unfair taxation reminiscent of the protests in the 1760s and 70s. It reminded many leaders in Massachusetts of the lead-up to 1776 (similarly, some of the insurrectionists in 2022 used 1776 as a threatening slogan). This armed insurrection was a major cause of the convening of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, because the Articles Congress had no power to raise an army directly: the state had to defend itself along with any allies it could muster.

      Madison describes how, in his view, the public good was being ignored. “The friend of popular governments” opposes the “violence of faction” which causes “instability, injustice and confusion.” There are “overbearing” majorities that cause “ governments” to be “too unstable” because they do not respect the “rights of the minority,” and governments controlled by “specious (unsupportable) arguments” causing “mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.” Madison blames the “factious spirit that has tainted our public administrations.”

      Madison’s definition of faction

      “By faction I understand a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse or passion or of interest adversed (sic) to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” If a student chooses this sentence, you have to be careful to explain each part of the definition. I ask, “How do you explain this definition?”. Eventually the students come to realize that Madison expected that the people would support particular conclusions (how else could he call it a majority faction?). How could a leader find “the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,” I ask. This should also go in the Critique section for discussion. The rest of Federalist #10 discusses how to eliminate factions or how to control them.

      Eliminating factions

      This is the first of the methods to secure the government against the “mischief of faction.” There are two methods to eliminate factions: destroying liberty or giving everyone the same opinions. The students will then come to the conclusion that restricting liberty is not possible in a democratic government because we depend on freedom of thought and action to maintain democracy.

      The second method, giving “everyone the same opinions,” is also an impossible solution because “as long as man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” I ask, “How do you understand that?” Here, students might note Madison’s identification of opinions based on “self-love,” the diagnosis that “reason is connected to passion” and the observation that “Diversity in the faculties of man” were factors in the differences of political opinions.

      The rights of property and the ownership of different kinds of property and the faculties to obtain those kinds of property all cause divisions. “Faculties” seems to mean “abilities,” students will likely conclude. So, Madison describes it thus: “(t)he latent (underlying) causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man.” It soon becomes clear that Madison was not making an argument for the change in distribution or the control of production or property or goods in the U.S. — Madison was not a Marxist! Instead, the students will conclude that Madison was attempting to find ways to manage the political effects of that inequality or those differences. But in whose interest did he want to manage those inequalities: was it to be a country of the enslaved, the ordinary people, or did he favor his class of the southern gentry?

      Controlling the effects of faction

      “The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in controlling its EFFECTS.” In the ensuing discussion students will come to the conclusion that this sentence begins the second half of the argument. It is the sentence at the logical center of the argument. Here Madison turns to the idea of controlling the effects of factions instead of eliminating them, and eventually introduces the republic as a solution.

      “If the faction consists of less than a majority” voting, the “republican principle” is the remedy. There might be disagreements, but majority rule does offer a solution. Therefore, what to do about a majority faction is the most intractable problem. Someone is likely to pick the sentence: “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a (majority) faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.” The ensuing discussion can conclude that it is a thesis sentence pointing to the chief point of the whole article.

      The “existence of the same passion in the factional majority” must be prevented or “the majority must be rendered unable to concert. When people “concert” they work together. Madison is actually opposing the rule of the majority here. A pure (direct) democracy in which the citizens are the legislature “can admit of no cure” for “the mischiefs of faction” because “the common passion or interest will in almost every case be felt by a majority of the whole and there is nothing to check… an obnoxious individual” or group from influencing everyone.

      In a republic as envisioned by Madison, however, “the representatives refine and enlarge the public views by passing through a medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country (my italics).” He added, “the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people might be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves.” Here Madison added the idea of making the republic cover larger areas. He suggests that by “(e)xtend(ing) the sphere — you take in a greater variety of parties and interests (and) you make it less possible they will concert….” The conclusion of this part of the argument can lead to a choice of more famous and experienced statesmen who possess the “wisdom” referred to above, because the a large number of voters would be participating in a larger district, the chances if a more famous or experienced person (i.e. of wisdom) would be greater.

      Finally, “The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states.” He uses religious sects, a rage for paper money, and abolition of debt as examples that are more likely to “taint a particular county or district than an entire State.” These are some of Madison’s most famous statements. The students will see that the purpose of representation and extending the area of the republic was to elect men of wisdom. The factions may cancel each other out or the men of wisdom will convince the other legislators to follow the “true ideas” of the public good because ordinary people cannot end the controversy. Madison and his fellow leaders will decide for them.

      Madison’s essay seems clear as a the ringing of two groups of bells: There are two groups of opposing solutions: Eliminating Factions or Controlling its Effects. Each has two methods of solution: He moves through the ideas with alacrity going from one solution to another. The logic is stunning and elegant, like a mathematical proof.

      Part II: A critique of Madison’s argument

      Now we have to confront the sentences we have put aside or left without exploring thoroughly, in particular the idea of the majority faction: “By faction I understand a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse or passion or of interest adversed (sic) to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Eventually, the students will conclude that a majority vote is not what Madison is seeking as a solution to the problem of the majority faction. Somehow the government must override the majority.

      Another example of Madison’s majority problem: The “public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people” might be more consonant “to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves.” The students will determine that Madison is counter-posing the representatives to “the people themselves.” Representatives certainly do not have to vote by taking instructions from their constituents, but it is clear that Madison is trying to circumvent the majority. Why would a legitimate republic be so designed? When we discuss this idea the students reach the conclusion that he does not trust the people to make the right decisions. It is obvious from the sentences that are there for the choosing.

      Another of Madison’s sentences expresses the same contradictory view: “To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a (majority) faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.” What, students may ask, is the “public good” other than the will of a majority? If you have not yet discussed “public good,” it is an opportunity to discuss the major contradiction. When the students analyze this, discussion is not done until students understand that although Madison seems to be arguing the solutions benefit all the people, he is claiming the right of the elite to decide for the majority, which citizens are going to benefit.

      Eventually the students reach the conclusion that everyone does not have the same interests in society or that the public good may change. It is not clear how to determine the public good, or that the public good can be expressed as a singular rather than a series of public goods. Madison believed, however that the public good was not only attainable, but a key factor in overcoming the mischiefs of the majority faction. Do we really think that the Constitution has been a success for all the people as Madison designed it and the conventional wisdom in the US has always assumed?

      Now we have entered a realm of ambiguity and contradiction. Madison’s elegant proof, which seemed so clear, becomes murky, and most importantly, unreachable by the majority of ordinary men — or women! I ask, “How do you understand this “public good” now?” The students will determine that not all people under the Constitution have the same interests as propertied white men. There are women and Black people and the poor and wealthy. In 1787 these individuals were not all formally part of the political community. The First Peoples, “not taxed,” were excluded from representation by the clause on taxing and the 3/5th clause. The Black underclass in the U.S. has been living without the protection of the law for the vast majority of American History; much of white America seemed to only discover the true level of relentless and widespread violence against Black people on May 25, 2020 —  the day of George Floyd’s murder. Madison had been fine with slavery and its terrible consequences; violence against Black men and women was not a new development.

      The interracial uprising that resulted was unique. They were the largest multiracial demonstrations ever in the US. The violence against Blacks has been a dark undercurrent in the US since the ratification of the Constitution. What is the public good? Do you think now that Madison was protecting the whole people as he implied in paragraph after paragraph by calling his goal the public good?

      Now we come to the final sentence in the statements we have put aside for critique. When Madison brought up the danger of Shays’ Rebellion, he blamed the eastern leaders of Massachusetts for the unequal taxation, which caused the rebellion. The western farmers rebelled against the unfair taxation as they had in the 1760s and 70s. Madison commented: “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm,” i.e. elected to office.

      These men on whom Madison depended must convince the other representatives and the senators that they know the public good better than the people themselves. Are these people philosopher kings who see the reality in Plato’s cave? Or are they advocating legislation based on the general will in the theory of Rousseau? The general will is discerned outside of debate, and expresses the “true will” of the people. This ability is a “faculty” of enlightened statesmen. It depends not on majority vote but on “the permanent aggregate interests of the community” or the “public good,” determined by the men “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country” in Madison’s phrase. These men of the “better sort” must convince other legislators to follow their lead. What in Madison’s argument places these statesmen in power, I ask. The students eventually identify the layering that takes the decisions out of the hands of the direct voters who have elected men of deeper perception or who represent more conservative interests that protect the government from the “vexed,” the poor or the enslaved, in other words, the factions born of ambition race, and class. These men can find the public good for the benefit of the permanent aggregate interests of their countrymen. But as I stated at the outset such a belief is a chimera.

      How can we call the history of the US a long story of a developing public good for all the people when the 3/5th Compromise was in effect until it was repealed by the 14th Amendment in 1868, when the large white population of the North overwhelmed the slaveholders’ advantages, and up until the Civil War the small population states controlled the Senate with the help of the “dough-faced” northerners who voted with the South in the Senate and the House? These all acted together to repress democratic solutions to slavery and keep women, the poor and the First Peoples in literal and virtual shackles and chains.

      When the slave power was overthrown and the Reconstruction Amendments were passed after the Civil War, there was a brief period from 1866 to 1877 when a fragile interracial democracy existed in the South, which for a time kept the Republican reformers in power. But then violent mobs attacked and killed Black Republican voters, overturned that hard won peace between the races, and Blacks lost suffrage in nearly the whole South. White supremacy ruled again until the Civil Rights Revolution capped by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 produced a second period of Black and minority participation.

      Now we are in a different era in which our political life has also been commandeered by white supremacy in the form of Republican re-districting in the states so, despite the large populations in the Democratic-controlled states, the Democrats have only bare majorities in the House and only the tie-breaking vote of the vice president in a 50-50 Senate. Democratic senators represent 41.5 million more Americans than the Republicans. These are problems quite different from Madison’s majority factions. It is minority rule that the majority cannot use the “republican principle” to “cure.” It is a deadlock caused by the filibuster and the small population states, which have controlled the Senate since they were born in the Great Compromise. Madison’s “Machine that Would Go of Itself” has been rejiggered. There is a fascist threat to democracy led by the followers of the former President. Madison’s governmental structure has been under threat by these insurrectionists and the democratic traditions have been undermined to the breaking point. It is unclear whether democracy shall survive the next election, let alone the ones after.

      The call in Federalist #10 for the protection of the public good and for the permanent and aggregate interests of the community was based on the will and experience of a minority Madison called the “enlightened statesmen,” who protected slavery for the white majority. The white majority in the country is now disappearing and the movements to defend the “historical white republic” are threatening the lives of workers, women and all minorities. This is our problem now, and it is rooted in the ideal of the public good which Madison believed he and other enlightened statesmen could conjure up to protect the true interests of the “whole” community. He fought to maintain the rule of people like himself. There was no working compromise between the interests of slavery and freedom, or today between the evangelical radicals opposed to abortion and advocates of women’s rights, or between the refusal of the rights of the poor to health care and advocates of Medicare for all, or finally, the interests threatening the rights to clean air, water, food, and jobs and the movement for a Green New Deal. The Electoral College and the unrepresentative Senate must not control our politics. We are at a crossroads.

      The myth of the “divinely inspired” Constitution has sustained Madison’s reputation of infallibility, but the flaws in his reasoning, as we have pointed out, have come to haunt us and brought us to the brink of losing our democracy. What, after all, is the public good if it does not represent a clear majority of the US population? As the students realized in their analysis there is no single or public good. We are a country of classes, races and genders. We should not be controlled by rich white men or their MAGA insurrectionists. We are still being ruled by the magical thinking of former centuries, from ancient Greece to the early modern concepts of the virtue of the white landed aristocracy. All this is embodied the persons of senators from states with populations smaller than assembly districts in New York or the city of Washington DC. These modern-day conservatives talk about the Constitution as a document describing a republic, not a democracy. They believe that the proper leaders of this republic are the whites: the real Americans. This idea brings us back to the earlier argument concerning the dangers of reaching for the single public good or the “permanent aggregate interests of the community.” The chimera of the public good turns out to be a smokescreen for white supremacy — as it always was. No amount of leisure or learning can motivate the white supremacists to discern the true interests of our country; they are in it for themselves.