Isolationism: FDR’s Immigration Crisis 

Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Belzec, and Ravensbrück. Think of an ice-cold place with no hope of getting out of your worst nightmare. These were some of the most well-known labor camps during World War 2 in Germany and Poland. They were built to target many different groups, like Jehovah’s witnesses, gypsies, and homosexuals. The biggest group targeted was the Jewish population. Hitler’s goal with building these labor camps was to relocate as many Jewish people as possible and make them work to death or just to kill them, these camps were meant for mass murder. There is a lot of hidden history that is not discussed about the Holocaust.

There was a lot of blame going around and new power coming into place that America was not fully aware of because they focused on being stable after the Great Depression. In Europe tensions rose and Germany became very angry about the outcome of World War 1. Germany believed the repercussion from World War I they had gotten was not fair.  Hitler blamed the Jewish population for their loss in World War 1 and thought that they had to pay for their betrayal to the German people. Thus, sparked the idea for Hitler to create labor camps to torture and destroy the Jewish population. While the labor camps were being built there were things going on beforehand that sparked antisemitism in Germany. They had to go around wearing the star of David on all their clothing, they couldn’t go to public schools just Jewish schools, couldn’t go to the movies or to certain restaurants and a lot of Jewish business owners lost their businesses from German soldiers trashing it and shutting them down all because they were Jewish. 

Gas chambers were the kiss of death. Jews and others who made it farther would get tattoos. Jews had no name anymore and just were referred to as a number. All hair would be cut off and then would be told to change into the same striped outfits and sent to their barracks and from there they would be sent to work all day and every day with little to no food. One wrong move and anyone could be killed. Reapings would happen as well. Those who were picked were sent to either different camps or to the gas chambers to be killed. This was kept secret in Europe and only thought to be rumors for many years. Around 6 million lives were lost. 

            FDR was a great leader in so many ways and did want to help the country and the people of the United States out first and foremost. He wanted to get the country out of the Great Depression and make sure that the people were being taken care of. However, there were split sides on what the United States should have been doing during this time. Historians are still debating this topic to this day and disagree with the isolationist mindsets that were put into place and FDR should have gotten involved and helped the Jewish population more. Saying he should have done what he wanted regardless of the backlash he would have gotten from the people. The isolationist mindset and closed-door policies has been seen as something that ruined the United States because in 1941 Japan had conducted a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. That created other countries to have animosity towards the United States. Pearl Harbor ended up being the turning point for the United States to get involved in the war, leading to all of those closed-door policies to go out of the window. America was finally waking up and realizing what was going on outside of the country. 

The public loved FDR. He had a great relationship with the country because they had felt like they truly knew him. This starts with his fireside chats where the country was able to listen to him and what he wanted to do for the American people. While he was their president there was his hominess about him where he became more than a president to them.  The people saw how FDR had a helping hand in the reason the country got out of the Great Depression because of his New Deal policy. The New Deal was a domestic program between 1933-1939 which aimed to provide relief and reform the people of the country.

So many lives were lost. Lives were lost because of leaders not believing the rumors of the labor camps, but also because of the restraints put on the immigration policies and visas that would have helped the immigrants trying to get into the country.  Policies have to get passed through many different levels of the government because of the checks and balances system so FDR isn’t the main source of the issue, it was the government as a whole. While the borders had been closed and not as open for quite some time, the decision to close the border angered immigrants who greatly needed help.. There was a genocide happening in Europe because of Nazi regime and the antisemitism running through Germany. America had a lot of difficult decisions to make when it came to policies and deciding what they wanted to do with the immigrants, specifically the Jewish population. America wants to be neutral, and the Jewish population was not something the country was prioritizing. From another entry that was written by FDR he states “I have no intention in getting into a war with Germany. American will not enter. (343) There was no way that FDR was going to allow American to assist with anything including with the immigrants.  The US turned an eye and the immigrants had to then go back to their countries they were trying to leave. Many went into hiding and others were captured and sent to different places, whether it be different countries or a labor camp. This did not just affect the Jewish population, it affected so many immigrants from all over and while the Holocaust as a whole killed around 13 million innocent lives, 6 million of which were Jewish men, women and children. 

At this point the country was torn on what to do. There were some groups that wanted to just get involved in the war because they didn’t want anything to happen to us because we were staying out and cutting ties with other countries. Yet there were the other groups that wanted nothing to do with the war because it was on European soil and did not concern the US in any way.  Due to this split there were discussions being had in Congress over what to do with these sets of Neutrality acts that were rolled out and how to rethink the mindsets of the isolationist. 

After the attack on Pearl Harbor it was like the United States woke up. The Japanese had bombed America’s soil and the people were shocked and distraught. This is what isolationist mindsets do, they had created enemies because with these policies the US was cutting ties with allies and countries had been trading with which was going to create conflict. We never truly had any issues with Japan until all of this happened. The immigration policies after the attack got even tighter than they were before. They truly didn’t want anyone, no matter where they were coming from, to come in and that showed because of the way they were treating the Japanese American groups in the country. However, the containment mindset and isolationism changed completely after the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The people were angry; they wanted everyone who was on the axis side to pay for what they had just done to us, so America joined the allied powers and in 1941 America was officially a part of the war. 

The United States was involved in the war and helping out the Allied powers, men and women were being a part of the war being nurses and taking over the jobs that men were doing and in ways being a part of the war was an eye opening for what women’s roles were like showing women can do just as much as men could do. The American citizens started to speak out more about how they were feeling about the policies already in place and in the novel America Between The Wars there is a letter that gets discussed about how the American families are feeling during his time of presidency, this section shows the side of the American families that want nothing to do with the war, it states“ Dear Mr. President, my wife and I have just heard your speech over the radio, I can not refrain from expressing our deepest appreciation for your state will do everything to keep this country neutral.”(214) This was what the American citizens were thinking; however, being isolated was the wrong move for this country even though the leaders and some of the public agreed to just be focused on the country but in the end the country got attacked by enemies. The isolationism did bring harm to the country and didn’t truly help us. It made the country look weak and made the people feel divided because if the country had not been  isolated could Pearl Harbor have been prevented. While that is a question historians will never truly know it shows FDR should have listened to his heart. FDR should have focused on the people like he did but not in a containment isolationist mindset where certain events might have been avoided. 

Overall, FDR did a lot of good for the people of the country. Did he do the same for immigrants that wanted to come into the country or for the immigrants already in the country?  That is questionable. FDR did not treat the Japanese American immigrants in America right after that attack on Pearl Harbor and FDR changing his immigration quotas and rejecting the Jewish population into the country was not seen as a good move. There will always been good and bad things that any president will do but in this case things could have been different and prevented if he did what he wanted to do and stopped listening to mixed opinions of the public and his cabinet members and because of these policies and the split down the middle this caused a lot of antisemitism and hatred in the country to the Japanese Americans and to the Jewish population that were already here and or the ones who were trying to come in. 

Antisemitism is all too well known throughout the world. Antisemitism is something that has been seen for centuries, the meaning of antisemitism is to be hostile or prejudiced against Jewish people, this has dated back to ancient times but became more seen during the time when Hitler was the dictator of Nazi Germany. The Nazi’s were corrupting the youth and they were being taught how to spot a Jew based on their eyes and hair color, their nose side, how their skull lined up etc. The antisemitism that was happening in Germany would later on during the war spread to the United States in a different way.  As mentioned before, it was antisemitism was always around but because of the increase in hate crimes and antisemitism, other countries were seeing what was really going on.

The Jewish population is one of the groups throughout history that have been blamed and have suffered for far too long. Hitlers building of the labor camps was a genocide and a way to try and erase them for good. FDR and the American population had heard word about these labor camps that were built out in Germany and Poland but had just thought they were rumors. Over in the United States, immigrants had always been coming in for quite some time from all over the world for a fresh start for their families and at the time we were a very friendly and welcoming country when it came to these matters. This had stopped for a while and had been tightened during World War I. When the Great Depression began and people were laid off from their jobs and couldn’t afford anything for their families, their outlooks on immigration started to shift. The people of the United States started to think it wasn’t fair that there were all of these immigrants coming into the country and because they had just suffered through a Depression where they could hardly afford anything that the immigrants should either go somewhere else or that America should be going from open door to a closed-door policy with self-containment and isolationism. 

From that moment on when FDR listened to the majority of the public to become self-contained and isolated matters started to get worse from the Jewish population trying to come into the country and the Jewish population that was already here in the states before the policies were put into place. Historian Breitman who has done a lot research specifically when it comes to the Holocaust and the efforts FDR had states “FDR knew that many Americans held prejudicial views of the Jews.”(5) Breitman has done a lot of research through his book to be able to make a statement like this. There were protests before WW2 was happening towards immigrants and the Jewish population because of fear. . There was an argument made my Breitman stating “ Even if FDR has been more willing to override domestic  opposition and twist arms abroad, he could not have stopped the Nazi’s in the mass murder of about six million Jews.”(5) to make this point is saying that nothing was going to change regardless of the United States changing their quotas and foreign policies to now not allowing them in wouldn’t change anything. There was nothing that could have happened from these events and issues from happening. 

Congress at that point was getting very frustrated. They were seeing the reactions from FDR and the people of the US. There was craziness because emotions were all over the place. In Texas the governor had reported “Efforts to expand Jewish immigration, he said had created a terrible anti-semetic sentiment throughout the country which might break into riots if his bills go through.”(150) The people were getting very vocal about their feelings towards immigration. FDR made a case to congress about their concerns and stated “ This would be a divide with the American people and add to widespread perceptions at home and abroad that Jews had manipulated the policies.”(207) Whether Congress believed what FDR had to say is still a mystery however, what FDR had to say about the American people  was something that was already going through the American people’s minds. 

When the rumors were going around about the labor camps in Europe the people wanted nothing to do with. The public didn’t believe that in Europe there could possibly be any chance of a genocide to a specific group of people. FDR had heard wind of these rumors as any leader would have during this time and states in one of his letters to his Secretary of State “ I do not favor American participation over this matter.”(55) The fact he was getting wind of this and still didn’t want to believe it either and was listening to the American people was an outright shock. FDR seemed to be brushing these rumors away and just wanted to continue to only focus on his isolationism and being neutral during this war.

While the Jewish population was living in fear not only in Germany, they had come to fear the United States. The Jewish population had thought the states would be a safe place for them to come to but when they were turned away because FDR and his committee wanted to change his foreign immigration policies that all changed. The Jewish population was happy for what FDR had done for them, they felt like they were finally able to escape the troubles they were having with the Nazi’s slowly growing to have power. However, once World War II had started those policies changed drastically. Some of those policies were not in place anymore or changed significantly. Numbers were cut by over half and so many Jewish families were sent back to Germany at the start of the war and taken to the labor camps or just killed on the spot for trying to escape. In some ways the United States did such a disservice to the Jewish population They lost all of their clothes, jewelry, houses and worst of all their identity, they were not humans anymore according to the Nazi’s.  So many of the Jewish population were killed or died of illness in those labor camps and the antisemitism that was in Germany had spread to the United States. 

The people of the United States were calling the Jewish population spies to the Nazi government thinking they wanted us to get involved in the war. That was not the case. They wanted a safe place to live where they didn’t have to fear for their lives. Some were sent back to Germany. The people did not want to believe that a genocide towards the Jews were actually happening and they wanted to live in their own happy bubble. The government did nothing to stop the hatred that had spread to the United States because it was not their issue. A little later on in the war when the Americans were on Europe soil and came across a strange looking area in the middle of nowhere was when they realized what they had just stumbled upon. The United States had to do something about this, so they sent word back to the United States and FDR declared that all of the labor camps be liberated. The anger and sadness that got back to the American people and their views on the Jewish population changed drastically. 

Breitman, Richard, and Allan J Lichtman. 2014. FDR and the Jews. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press Of Harvard University Press.

Wayne, Cole.  1983. Roosevelt & the Isolationists, 1932-45. Lincoln : University of Nebraska Press.

Robert, Divine A. 1969. Roosevelt and World War II. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bernard, Fay. 1972. Roosevelt and His America.

Rafael,Medoff. 2009. Blowing the Whistle on Genocide : Josiah E. Dubois, Jr. And the Struggle for a U.S. Response to the Holocaust. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press.

Welky, David, 2012. America between the Wars, 1919-1941: A Documentary Reader. Malden, Mass.: Wiley-Blackwell. Harrap, and Elliot Roosevelt, The Roosevelt Letters Volume 3; 1928-1945.

The John W. Jones Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


The Eight: The Lemmon Slave Case and the Fight for Freedom

The Eight tells the story of Lemmon v. New York—or, as it’s more popularly known, the Lemmon Slave Case. All but forgotten today, it was one of the most momentous civil rights cases in American history. There had been cases in which the enslaved had won their freedom after having resided in free states, but the Lemmon case was unique, posing the question of whether an enslaved person can win freedom by merely setting foot on New York soil—when brought there in the keep of an “owner.” The case concerned the fates of eight enslaved people from Virginia, brought through New York in 1852 by their owners, Juliet and Jonathan Lemmon. The Eight were in court seeking, legally, to become people—to change their status under law from objects into human beings. The Eight encountered Louis Napoleon, the son of a slave, an abolitionist activist, and a “conductor” of the Underground Railroad, who took enormous risks to help others. He was part of an anti-slavery movement in which African Americans played an integral role in the fight for freedom. The case was part of the broader judicial landscape at the time: If a law was morally repugnant but enshrined in the Constitution, what was the duty of the judge? Should there be, as some people advocated, a “higher law” that transcends the written law? These questions were at the heart of the Lemmon case. They were difficult and important ones in the 1850s—and, more than a century and a half later, we must still grapple with them today.

Teaching with Documents: Wallace’s Defense of Segregation

Alabama Governor George Wallace delivers his first inaugural address.

In Freedom’s Dominion: A Saga of White Resistance to Federal Power (Basic Books, 2002), Jefferson Cowie focused on the history Barbour County, Alabama, to document the way a deeply self-serving concept of “freedom” was used by whites to justify racist policies. It was all about their “freedom.” White freedom meant freedom from government restraints; freedom from taxes to support public institutions and services; freedom to own and use guns; and freedom to mistreat African Americans without federal intervention. White freedom, dating to the era of Black enslavement and Jim Crow segregation, equated with racism. Source:https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/12/books/review/freedoms-dominion-jefferson-cowie.html

Sadly, fear of federal imposition on white freedom remains alive and well today and was part of the justification for the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the United States Capitol building in Washington DC and is the ideological underpinning for the attack on Critical Race Theory by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and other conservative Republicans. When DeSantis was reelected in November 2022, he declared that his election signified “Freedom is here to stay!” Polls repeatedly show that a large majority of white voters who identify as Republican believe that there is discrimination against white people in the United States and that little or nothing needs to be done to ensure equal rights for African Americans and other minority groups.

Sources: https://www.local10.com/vote-2022/2022/11/08/is-desantis-on-path-to-remain-governor-of-florida/https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/433270-poll-republicans-and-democrats-differ-strongly-on-whether-white/https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/08/12/deep-divisions-in-americans-views-of-nations-racial-history-and-how-to-address-it/

Barbour County’s best-known native son was George Wallace, Governor of Alabama from 1963 to 1967, 1971 to 1979, and 1983 to 1987. Wallace was also a candidate for President of the United States four times, both in Democratic Party primaries and as an independent candidate. In June 1963, while Governor of Alabama, Wallace staged standing in the entrance to the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa to block the enrollment of Black students. In defiance of a federal court order, he accused the federal government of usurping state authority in the field of education by calling for desegregation. Wallace finally backed down when the Kennedy Administration federalized Units of the 31st (Dixie) Division of the Alabama National Guard.

Source: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/national/race/061263race-ra.html

For Black History Month, students, Black, white, Asian, and Latinx, should read texts and listen to speeches by inspiring Black authors and orators. But to understand the depth of racism in the past and today, they also need to read and understand racist texts that defended slavery and racial segregation. In his January 1963 inaugural address, George Wallace, as the newly elected governor of Alabama, issued a defiant defense of racial segregation. At the time, only fourteen percent of eligible Black citizens were registered to vote in Alabama although at least 30% of the population was Black. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and hostile registrars effectively ensured white supremacy, white freedom, in the state. Sources: https://rediscovering-black-history.blogs.archives.gov/2016/10/25/voting-rights-in-the-early-1960s-registering-who-they-wanted-to/; http://www.bplonline.org/resources/government/AlabamaPopulation.aspx

“Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” (1963)

By Alabama Governor George Wallace

A. “Before I begin my talk with you, I want to ask you for a few minutes patience while I say something that is on my heart: I want to thank those home folks of my county who first gave an anxious country boy his opportunity to serve in State politics. I shall always owe a lot to those who gave me that first opportunity to serve . . . This is the day of my Inauguration as Governor of the State of Alabama. And on this day I feel a deep obligation to renew my pledges, my covenants with you . . . the people of this great state.”

B. “General Robert E. Lee said that ‘duty’ is the sublimest word on the English language and I have come, increasingly, to realize what he meant. I SHALL do my duty to you, God helping . . . to every man, to every woman . . . yes, to every child in this state . . . I shall fulfill my duty in working hard to bring industry into our state, not only by maintaining an honest, sober and free­ enterprise climate of government in which industry can have confidence . . . but in going out and getting it . . . so that our people can have industrial jobs in Alabama and provide a better life for their children.”

C. “Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo­ Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom­ loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.”

  1. Who did Wallace quote on the importance of “duty”? What signal was Wallace sending to his audience by quoting him?
  2. What other references does Wallace make in the speech to ensure his audience understands his political point of view?
  3. How does Wallace propose to battle “tyranny” and defend “freedom”?
  4. Wallace pledged to honor “covenants with you . . . the people of this great state.” In your opinion, to who was Wallace referring? What evidence in the text supports this interpretation?

Teaching “What to the Slave Is the 4th of July?” by Frederick Douglass: A Two-Part Student Led Lesson

Reprinted with permission (https://historyideasandlessons.substack.com/p/teaching-what-to-the-slave-is-the-66e?r=710fi&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web)

Now that Ron DeSantis has caused a widespread walkout by Florida college students defending both their right to diversity and the free exchange of ideas in the classroom, and he virtually outlawed any teaching of conflict in Black history, it is evident that he will run into serious roadblocks in his campaign to rule the whole country with an iron fist. The increasingly cloudy and claustrophobic atmosphere emanating from the formerly sunny state of Florida begs for an eloquent and big-hearted response. The following two-day student-led lesson will introduce American history students to one of our leading intellectuals and, arguably, the greatest speaker of the 19th century: America’s teacher, Frederick Douglass. He never fails to impress.

The assignment I give the students for the first day is to download and read the first 10 pages of “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” They choose one sentence from each page for homework, write it down on a separate sheet of paper, and explain underneath each one why they chose it. They are to read to the end of the top paragraph of the second column of page 10. The students are asked to underline their sentences on the PDF. It is necessary to collect the homework at the beginning of the class in order to make sure each one of them did their own work. Since they had underlined their sentences on the PDF, the students did not need their homework for class. I asked the students to write the first 5 words of those sentences on the blackboard. I picked the students randomly by jumping around asking for their fifth sentence or their first sentence or their eighth sentence and so on. Each student was to sign their name and sit down. Before class I had drawn 10 vertical lines with one horizontal line across the middle, forming 20 boxes on the board for the students to write in. I placed two pieces of chalk under each vertical group of two boxes so that the writing could go faster. The teacher should know the speech inside and out to create an ease of discussion. It makes the class more interesting. While the students were writing the words they had to start at the beginning of their sentence and make sure that no one else had picked the same sentence. From the time the students were entering the class through the writing on the board, I played a song by the Melodians called “By the Rivers of Babylon.”

Once the students had finished writing on the board, they sat down, and I asked literally “Who has comments or questions?” Nothing more: no suggestions or hints. Usually, they remarked how impressed they were by Douglass’ intelligence and language, or they mentioned how understandable the speech was. They found it a shock to read the work of an escaped slave who could write with clarity and on such a high level of complexity. After the comments died down, I would ask the class to turn to page 6 and look at the bold indented passage in the first column. The students recognize the words of the tune they had just listened to. They appeared in the speech from 1852! I played the song again and asked why Douglass had quoted the verse. Some students might have heard the song because their parents or grandparents had played it at home: It is from the soundtrack of the movie “The Harder they Come” from 1972. Alternatively, some might know that it is the Old Testament Psalm 137 that Douglass quoted. I asked if there were any words they did not understand in the passage, or if someone had picked that passage or would like to comment on it, even if they had not picked it. Someone might want to know what Zion was or eventually someone would notice that the exiled Jews were asked to sing one of the songs of Zion, their homeland. Many thousands of Jews were enslaved in Babylon from 586 BCE to about 538 BCE. It was great insult to be asked to sing for their enslavers the students could conclude. Africa is Zion for Douglass someone might say.

Now it was time to begin analyzing the sentences that the members of the class had chosen. As I called on the students to read their sentences, I asked them to point out the page, the column, and first words of the paragraph where the sentence appeared. The students must read slowly and loudly so that the others can get the meaning. “Why did you choose that?” I asked. Often the student explained what it meant but not what attracted them to it. I would ask what they thought or why they liked it or impressed them or not. Sometimes, I would ask who else wanted to comment, but it is not possible to do that more than a few times because there is not enough time in a period to keep discussing one sentence. The students did not often choose the long period sentences that took up whole paragraphs. Most of those we would pick up later because they are the emotional heart of the speech.

When there is time at the end of each class, I asked the students for their favorite sentences and had them read these out loud. The speech is so powerful partly because the rhythm of the words, the internal rhymes and alliterations drive you on. Reading the “Fourth of July Oration” is a real learning experience: Douglass employs grand and deeply affecting rhetoric to illuminate wrongs of slavery. It also shows the great power of the Declaration of Independence despite its obvious hypocrisy. These contradictions have led to tragic cancellations of the Declaration by Nikole Hannah-Jones of The 1619 Project and others. The importance of the study of slavery and of the Declaration has been confused by these journalists who are not trained historians.

In the course of this exposition of my lesson on Douglass’s speech, I will discuss sentences frequently chosen by the students. We had to leave out much of the speech, but what we did in class explored the breadth and depth of the oration giving the students giving them the confidence that they had discussed the work in detail and that they had directed the learning themselves. I had them write a paper on the speech by first summarizing it, choosing 2 ideas in the speech and explaining what each meant and why they were important. They often produced wonderful papers because we had gone over the Oration in sufficient detail. They were comfortable in their interpretations and almost everyone was excited by the assignment. I chose one essay each year to go in our social studies magazine.

Now we are ready to dive into the speech itself.

At the beginning of the Oration, Douglass confesses his trepidations about the task before him. Despite his close relationship with the Rochester Ladies Anti-Slavery Society and the Corinthian Hall, where he had spoken many times, he declared, “The fact is ladies and gentlemen the distance between this platform and the plantation from which I escaped, is considerable. . .  That I am here today is a matter of astonishment as well as gratitude.” The students will know that he was born into slavery. “This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the Fourth of July.” “Why did you choose that?” I asked. The students will realize he is not speaking on July 4th. Instead, he said that he is protesting the day right from the start. Many versions of the speech on the web, in fact, begin with that sentence. He continues, “It is the birthday of your political independence and political freedom,” starkly using the second person plural that he was not speaking of his liberation, but theirs. All this the students can glean after you ask why did you choose that? He then compares the day to Passover when the Jews, the “emancipated people of God,” were delivered from bondage in Egypt. The students will notice that there are numerous quotes from and references to the Bible.

Douglass’ writing is so densely packed that the ideas rush at you as you read. He points out that the country is “young,” only “76 years old,” in 1852; That it is a topic for rejoicing, noting that a young river that can change its course more easily than an old river or a country thousands of years old. He adds that the nation is still in the “impressible stage of its existence . . . Great rivers are not easily torn from their channels worn deep by the ages . . . [but while] refreshing and fertilizing the earth . . . they may also rise in wrath and fury and bear away on their angry waves the accumulated wealth of years toil and hardship. . . As with rivers so with nations.” Recently floods and tornadoes have been ravaging wide swaths of land and forests in nearly every part of the US. From the waters and winds of Hurricane Katrina to the floods of Hurricane Sandy to the fires and droughts in the far West, we have seen unprecedented levels of destruction. Eliciting these resonances with open-ended questions such as why did you choose that or what does that remind you of should be straight forward. At some point in discussing the speech it will be clear that Douglass is setting the context for discussing the effects of the multifarious and wholly predictable dangers of slavery to the body politic of the young nation.

In the second paragraph of the second page, he turns to his duty to the 4th of July itself. Addressing his “Fellow citizens,” he introduces the history of the Revolution explaining that in 1776 “your fathers were British subjects” who “esteemed the English Government as the home government” which “imposed upon…its colonial children such restraints, burdens and limitations…it deemed wise, right and proper.” However, these acts produced a widespread reaction by the future revolutionists not “fashionable in its day” because the colonists did not believe in the “infallibility of government” but “pronounced the measures unjust, unreasonable and oppressive.”

“To side with the right against the wrong, the weak against the strong and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit and one which seems unfashionable in our day . . .” Here, is the first burst of eloquence from Frederick Douglass. The internal rhyme and the rhythm of these lines stand out. Douglass could astound the listener in just a few words. His eloquence matched the gravity of the cause. His description of the Stamp Act protests and the protests against the Townshend Acts and the Tea Tax bring us back to the streets and the harbors of our colonial past connecting his listeners to our heritage of activism.

But the colonists “saw themselves treated with sovereign indifference, coldness and scorn . . . As the sheet anchor [heaviest anchor] takes a firmer hold when the ship is tossed by the storm, so did the cause of your fathers grow stronger as it breasted the chilling blasts of kingly displeasure.” But “like the Pharaoh whose hosts were drowned in the Red Sea, the British Government persisted in the exactions complained of . . . Oppression makes a wise man mad. Your fathers were wise men. They did not go mad . . . They became restive under this treatment . . . With brave men there is always a remedy for oppression. Just here the (startling) idea of the separation of the colonies from Britain was born!” However, the opposition Loyalists or Tories “hate all changes . . .  (b)ut silver gold and copper change! . . . amid all their terror and affrighted vociferations against it the alarming and revolutionary idea moved on and the country with it.” Are there words here you do not know, I ask. Mad of course refers to mental illness and restive means to be agitated. Vociferations are chants shouted by the demonstrators.

The revolutionists’ solution was to “solemnly publish and declare that these united colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states and that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.” This is the famous core of the Declaration by Richard Henry Lee that is in the penultimate paragraph of the document. It rings with preternatural force shocking the sleepy 18th century kings and subjects in the monarchies of Europe. Many American and British historians who still claim in 2023 that the Americans were provincials who had no good reason to rebel, but over the course of the next 7 years the British learned they had to accept the wishes of these “naive” colonists.

Douglass continues “I have said that the Declaration of Independence is the ring-bolt [fastener] to the chain of your nation’s destiny, so, indeed I regard it. The principles contained in that instrument are saving principles. Stand by those principles, be true to them on all occasions in all places, against all foes and at whatever cost.” Students will realize that Douglass had great respect for the Declaration and the dogged persistence of the revolutionary forces.

Douglass says, “My business, if I have any this day, is with the present. The accepted time with God and His cause is the ever-living now.” A phrase I had to look up to confirm that it was Douglass”! “We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present . . . Washington could not die until he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood and the traders in the bodies and souls of men shout — ‘We have Washington to our father.’– Alas that it should be so, yet so it is. ‘The evil that men do, lives after them, The good is oft’ interred in their bones.’” Douglass challenges his audience with that quote from Shakespeare: Mark Antony’s funeral oration for Julius Caesar.

He praises Washington for freeing some of his stolen human “property” before he died, but immediately pulls the compliment back by condemning the first president’s admirers for employing enslaved workers to build the Washington monument. “Can anyone comment on that?” I asked the students. Some members of the class might know that later the capitol building and the White House were also built by slaves. Now he is done with his task of recalling the Fourth of July.

“Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask why am I called upon to speak here today? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? . . . I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us . . . The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. to drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me by asking me to speak here today?”

In discussing these lines above someone will point out that the stripes are the wounds caused by whips and also are the stripes on the flag. This was a common abolitionist trope utilized even in an Abecedarium, an alphabet book for children. 

“Are there any words you do not know?” I asked. The students will probably not know what a pale is. Those were the segregated areas where Jews were confined in the shtetls of Russian-Poland, but also more precisely in this case the English confined themselves in a pale after conquering Northern Ireland. The idea of “American exceptionalism” was clearly a commonplace in 1852. His sarcastic description of the “grand illuminated temple of liberty” is shocking to see in his 1852 speech. Americans, even then, had a bloated idea of the purity of American democracy. He goes right for the jugular: Douglass states his thesis as his duty to defend the slave and his condition.

He refers in the paragraph above the Psalm to the violent retribution that Yahweh ( a Jewish name for God) at the Hebrews’ request to be visited upon the Babylonians for enslaving them and mocking them, which is rarely quoted by Christians. The shocking lines which Douglass avoided are in the King James Version of the Old Testament. 

Then he quotes the first parts of Psalm 137 that we have encountered before: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth.”

I asked the students to recall the song we heard at the beginning of the class in the light of our analysis so far. “How can you interpret these words now?” I asked. The students will conclude that the enslaved Jews were mocked by the Babylonians who asked them to sing a song of their homeland, Zion – just as he is in America singing the praises of the white people’s freedom document while his people are enslaved.

“My subject, then fellow-citizens is American slavery. I shall see this day . . . from the slave’s point of view . . . I do not hesitate to declare… that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than it does on this 4th of July! . . . (T)he conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future.” He dares to “call into question and to denounce . . . everything that serves to perpetuate slavery, the great sin and shame of America.” Then, quoting his teacher, William Lloyd Garrison, “’I will not equivocate, I will not excuse’ . . . and yet no one word shall escape me that any man whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder, shall not confess to be right and just.”

The students will conclude that the Declaration from the past is the founding document but has been desecrated and tossed aside by the slave holders in power in the country from then, through the present and into the future. Anyone who finds slavery to be repugnant will discern the truth in his arguments.

In order to continue with the lesson, over the next few pages (from the last paragraph of 6 to the middle of the second column on page 9), every sentence and every word is crafted to thrill the reader with Douglass’s intelligence and skill and cringe in horror as he speaks the truth of the brutality of American slavery. Each passage is another lesson in the illogic of the excuses for the system and cruel treatment perpetrated on the Black population in our so-called democratic and freedom-loving land. I will provide the teacher with sentences and clauses comprising a bare bones narrative. But most of this, must be read aloud in class. These paragraphs are too dramatic and inspiring to skip over. Here is a precis of the next few pages. I quote some of the sentences, but the full power is in the reading. Be sure to have the students read them. They will be shocked at how the words help them keep the rhythm with both understanding and expression: The images, the sounds, and the meters carry them, pushing and pulling them along. Douglass’s energy is so intense that the quotes never lose their power.

“Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? . . . Nobody doubts it . . . There are seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia, which, if committed by a black man . . . (no matter how ignorant he be), . . . (acknowledging) that the slave is a moral, intellectual and responsible being . . . It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write… When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the… dogs in your streets, (or) when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!”

When you ask how the students understand this sentence you are not done until they can say “Even animals see the enslaved as men, but the slaveholders cannot.” The students discover that the enslaved are expected to know right from wrong, but animals are not expected to. “For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, . . . having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, . . . living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, . . . we are called upon to prove that we are men! . . . Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body?”

All the verbs, all the verbs strung together: An astonishing effect! So many powerful images in this paragraph.

“There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.”

Here we must stop and make sure the last thought is clear. The students must interpret this last sentence. Is there a word you do not know in this? A canopy is a covering. All men are beneath the canopy of heaven. The analysis is not complete until the students state that no man wants to be a slave. The listeners are cornered. The orator has taken their minds hostage.

And now one of the most powerful passages of all. “[T]o work them without wages . . . to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families.” The paragraph is a masterpiece. This is a sonorous but brutal description of violence complete with startling images, crafted with alliterations and internal rhymes. As above the reader must ask: Is he arguing or not while he claims not to argue at all? “What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? . . . Who can reason on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time for such argument is past.”

And now the most famous paragraph: “What, to the American slave, is your Fourth 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 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.”

“How do you comment on this?” I asked. It is a perfect description of systemic racism: Incontrovertible intersectionality. It is where Governor DeSantis’s views come to die.

“Go where you may, . . . for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival. Take the American slave-trade, . . . This trade is one of the peculiarities of American institutions. It is carried on in all the large towns and cities in one-half of this confederacy; and millions are pocketed every year, by dealers in this horrid traffic.”

Here Douglass refers to the euphemism, “the peculiar institution,” which is supposed to assuage the guilt of the leaders of the so-called southern “civilization.” It is the hackneyed trope of a racist attempting to endear himself to his audience by turning slavery into a peccadillo. Continuing, he quotes the proposed paragraph written by Thomas Jefferson for the Declaration of Independence but rejected by the Continental Congress calling slavery “piracy” [manstealing] and “execrable commerce.” “Are there words here you do not know?” I asked. Excrement is human waste. Nearing the end of this paragraph, he denounces the scheme of colonization that our “colored brethren should leave this country and establish themselves on the western coast of Africa!”

“Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade, (The slave drivers) perambulate the country, and crowd the highways of the nation, with droves of human stock…They are food for the cotton-field, and the deadly sugar-mill. . . Cast one glance, if you please, upon that young mother, whose shoulders are bare to the scorching sun, her briny tears falling on the brow of the babe in her arms. See, too, that girl of thirteen, weeping, yes! weeping, as she thinks of the mother from whom she has been torn! . . . suddenly you hear a quick snap, like the discharge of a rifle; the fetters clank, and the chain rattles simultaneously; your ears are saluted with a scream, that seems to have torn its way to the center of your soul! The crack you heard, was the sound of the slave-whip; the scream you heard, was from the woman you saw with the babe. Her speed had faltered under the weight of her child and her chains! that gash on her shoulder tells her to move on.”

The students will comment that this paragraph is filled with images and rings with sounds of whips and clanging chains. The powerful ideas are matched by the thundering rhetoric keep you on the edge of your seat.

Then: “I was born amid such sights and scenes. To me the American slave-trade is a terrible reality. When a child, my soul was often pierced with a sense of its horrors. I lived on Philpot Street, Fell’s Point, Baltimore, and have watched…this murderous traffic (which) is, to-day, in active operation in this boasted republic. In the solitude of my spirit . . . My soul sickens at the sight.”

Students will see how he brings this experience directly to our hearts. Is this the land your fathers loved, the freedom which they toiled to win? Is this the earth whereon they moved? Are these the graves they slumber in? Students will react to the emotion in the lines of his childhood memories. The paragraph and the lines of the poem are poignance beyond measure. The lines by the abolitionist poet, John Greenleaf Whittier, are a tribute to the lost glory of the American promise. It can make the reader cry. When activists say that the “personal is political” there is no better example than this memory of Douglass’s childhood traumas. This concludes the first day of the lesson.

The second day I would ask the students to finish the speech, choosing 5 more sentences from pages 11 to 15 and to find places in the first 10 pages that explain that the slave is a man. They also were asked to point out the structure of the speech: where does the introduction end and the conclusion begin? Where is the thesis? Here we discussed the major sections of the speech which they could identify as the introduction, the Revolution, the section in which the thesis is stated and the proofs of why the slave is a man and why slavery is wrong. The speech’s final sections Douglass argues that slavery is not divine, examines the politics of slavery, and the Constitution, delivers a summary, and a peroration (conclusion).

“But a still more inhumane, disgraceful, and scandalous state of things remains to be presented. By an act of the American Congress, not yet two years old, slavery has been nationalized . . .  (T)he Mason & Dixon’s line has been obliterated; New York has become as Virginia; and the power to hold, hunt, and sell men, women, and children as slaves . . . the liberty and person of every man are put in peril…. The oath of any two villains is sufficient, for black men there are neither law, justice, humanity, not religion. The Fugitive Slave Law makes mercy to them a crime; and bribes the judge who tries them. An American judge gets ten dollars for every victim he consigns to slavery, and five, when he fails to do so.”

“How can you comment on this?” I asked. This bribe is rarely mentioned in the standard discussion of the odious Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which of course, was part of the Compromise of 1850. In 2021 the vicious Texas anti-abortion bill borrowed its form and method of enforcement to this law. The reward of $10,000 has been substituted for the $10 in the 19th century law. It deputizes the whole population of Texas to arrest anyone who aids in arranging for an abortion. Douglass points out that the magistrates for the fugitive slave law were acting like the Protestant, John Knox, denouncing the Catholic supporters of Mary Queen of Scots who were threatening to murder Queen Elizabeth.

The leading American ministers “have taught that man may properly be a slave that the relation of master and slave is ordained of God . . . and this horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity.” “How do you think about this,” I asked. Black men slave or free walking down the street even in the North were subject to false identification, imprisonment, and enslavement. It became a religious duty to show no mercy! What an abomination and evisceration of religious belief and practice. Are these Evangelical Christians in the Texas legislature or in 1852 practicing the teachings of mercy and forgiveness?

Douglass answers the question: “For my part, I would say, Welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything—in preference to the gospel, as preached by those divines. They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion.”

“Do you know these names,” I asked? Some students might know Thomas Paine or Voltaire. Bolingbroke was also a free thinker, an 18th century term for atheists, agnostics, and deists. Here Douglass claims he would favor these anti-slavery free thinkers, Thomas Paine, and Voltaire and he adds the dissenter Viscount Bolingbroke, claiming they were all three at least sympathetic to the plight of the enslaved. If students have a question, bowels of compassion refers to the deepest recesses of the human body, a common 18th and 19th century expression. These last lines are really shocking coming from such a religious man as Frederick Douglass.

“At the very moment that they are thanking God for the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, and for the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences, they are utterly silent in respect to a law which robs religion of its chief significance and makes it utterly worthless to a world lying in wickedness.” “How would you interpret that,” I asked. The students will come to the conclusion that Douglass is emphasizing the hypocrisy of the leaders of the congregations and denominations in the United States.

Douglass continues: “The American theologian, Albert Barnes uttered what the common sense of every man at all observant of the actual state of the case will receive as truth, when he declared that ‘There is no power out of the church that could sustain slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it.’” “How do you understand that?” I asked. The students will reach a conclusion that this is a very broad statement. It is a condemnation undercutting all the pronouncements of the pro-slavery divines. In contemporary terms, this is a thought based in the ideas of systemic racism and embedded in the American economy and society. It is an example of intersectionality between religion and politics, an unmistakable interdependence, however much Ron DeSantis might argue to the contrary. In a previous passage, Douglass had pointed out that there were many minister abolitionists in Britain where the monarchy opposed slavery since the 1820s but very few in America where the weight of the church was behind the slaveholders. Above on page 12 of the speech he calls them out: the many pro-slavery American ministers and the few anti-slavery heroes in the United States.

And now we are coming to the ending of the speech. There are just two topics left before the Summary and Conclusion: America’s hypocrisy toward foreign nations and the nature of the Constitution.

Douglass turns to yet another theater of hypocrisy in the United States. “Americans! your republican politics, not less than your republican religion, are flagrantly inconsistent. You boast of your love of liberty, your superior civilization . . . You hurl your anathemas [condemnations] at the crowned headed tyrants of Russia and Austria, and pride yourselves on your democratic institutions, while you yourselves consent to be the mere tools and bodyguards of the tyrants of Virginia and Carolina. You invite to your shores fugitives of oppression from abroad, honor them with banquets, greet them with ovations, cheer them, toast them, salute them, protect them . . . You profess to believe ‘that, of one blood, God made all nations of men to dwell on the face of all the earth’ . . . yet, you hold securely, in a bondage [a seventh part of the inhabitants of your country] which, according to your own Thomas Jefferson ‘is worse than ages of that which your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose’.”

The students will understand that Douglass contrasted the boasts of equality including in the Declaration of Independence that “‘all men are created equal’ yet (they) steal Black wages and deny the common ancestry of Adam that all men are of one blood.” “How do you interpret that quote from the Bible?” I asked. The students will conclude that a single origin for all humanity [Adam], which we now know to be African, proves the equality of all men. Finally, Douglass quotes Jefferson’s comments in his book, Notes on the State of Virginia, on the oppression of the enslaved as being worse than the so-called slavery of the Patriots to England.

If a student chooses the sentence containing “as it ought to be interpreted the Constitution is a glorious liberty document,” it is likely they will not agree with Douglass. Currently, almost all textbooks and historians contend that the Constitution is pro-slavery. Douglass’s interpretation is frankly a surprise for Americans even in 2023. The great abolitionist has been criticized for the latter statement by everyone from William Lloyd Garrison in the 1850s to Nicole Hannah-Jones in The 1619 Project, but his argument has a more complex basis that has not been brought to light except in the most recent academic monographs on abolitionism. 

Douglass debated for more than two years until he became exhausted with his friend and ardent supporter, Gerrit Smith, whether there existed a morally justified position that the founders opposed slavery. In the oration he said, “if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slave holding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it.” Students might know that the words slave or slavery are never mentioned in the Constitution. Instead in the 3/5 Compromise slaves are called “other persons.” In the international slave trade compromise in Article I section 9, slaves are called “such persons.” Finally in the fugitive slave clause in Article 4 the escaped slave is called “no person.” Douglass was still hesitant in 1852 about this position as you can see when he continued, that the founders were not to blame for the apparent support of slavery “or at least so I believe.” But after such a long struggle he was relieved to be able to support a fight in the Congress (i.e., politically) and not just by “moral suasion,” as Garrison had taught. The Constitution, then, was not Garrison’s “covenant with death,” but became a “glorious liberty document” that he could use to fight for the freedom of his people. 

“Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie. It destroys your moral power abroad; it corrupts your politicians at home.

“How do you interpret that sentence?” I asked. The students will realize that Douglass is signaling he is coming to the end of the oration: he is ready to conclude. Here he lists the topics of the oration after the recital of the facts and ideas of the Revolution. At this point he adds one powerful metaphor relating to slavery that we have before encountered in the raging rivers and their dangerous floods in the introduction. Now these dangers have become one “horrible reptile…coiled up in your nation’s bosom; the venomous creature is nursing at the tender breast of your youthful republic; for the love of God, tear away, and fling from you the hideous monster, and let the weight of twenty millions crush and destroy it forever!” “How do you interpret this?” I asked. The students will realize that the twenty million was the northern majority. The undemocratic nature of the slave power is reminiscent of the white nationalist minority we are suffering from today in the arguments about abortion, the warming of the planet and the massive inequality to which our mainstream politicians are bowing today.

Here is where Douglass defends the founders as blameless, as above, for the pro-slavery Constitution, “at least, so I believe,” he maintained. “Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, 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.” “How can you comment on this,” I ask. The students will remember that at the beginning Douglass, pointed out that the young country was only 76 years old in 1852. God’s arm is all powerful. “The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together . . . Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other.”

The students will interpret these ideas as the familiar causes and effects of globalization. “Wind, steam, and lightning” are boats and telegrams. These are all causes of optimism the students will conclude.

“The fiat of the Almighty, ‘Let there be Light,’ has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. ‘Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God.’” “Are there words here you do not know?” I ask. A fiat is a command. The passage also refers to foot-binding in China that ended only with the revolution in 1911, and Ethiopia is a reference to all of Africa and the effects of imperialism and racism. The very last part of the speech is a poem by William Lloyd Garrison who was Douglass’ teacher and mentor from early in his life as a free man. Here is an excerpt:

“How would you interpret that?” I asked. Certainly, first of all the speech has been about freedom for the slaves, but second as a personal and political gesture Douglass showed his respect and admiration for Garrison even though their interpretations of the Constitution conflicted. Jubilee is the abolitionist term for emancipation which originated among the secular kings in the ancient holy land of the Hebrews as a 50-year celebration of forgiveness of slaves, debts, and debtors. There is a similar concession to Garrison’s leadership of the abolitionist movement when Douglass states his thesis later on.

Now that we are at the end of the speech, it is time to go back and figure out how Douglass put the speech together. Seeing the speech as a whole is a revelation for the students. After the rhetorical apologies at the very beginning, the speech proper begins: “This, for the purpose of this celebration, is the 4th of July” is near the top of the second column of the first page of the speech. The students have realized that he begins with a protest, it is the 5th. The first extended section is about the Revolution which comes after the context of the young nation and the hopes and dangers of rivers with their dual roles of fertility and flooding. His recounting of the floods includes power of the Red Sea. “How do you understand his reasoning?” I ask.

To begin with these stories, the students might say that he is clearly paying respect to the tradition of July 4th celebrations. But the great upheaval of 1776 was marked by patriotic sacrifice and brave action by the ancestors of the whites. There is a strong and dangerous undertow preceding the discussion of the Revolution. Douglass is setting a context unique to his purpose in the speech.

In the next section Douglass introduces his Thesis. He leads up to it from the first full paragraph on the left column of page 5 of the document. The thesis itself is on the bottom of the right column on page 6.

“My subject, then fellow-citizens, is American slavery . . . Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery—the great sin and shame of America!” It is a bold and dramatic period sentence. Next is his first quote from Garrison, his mentor. “I will not equivocate; I will not excuse.” This is one of the most famous lines from the great leader.

The optimism Douglass feels for the young country at the “impressible stage of its existence” only 76 years old at the beginning is always in conflict in the speech with the dangers of nature and the wrath of God against the Egyptians and Babylonians. Similarly at the end he describes his feeling of possibility for peace and abolition despite the “dark picture” he has painted. But this joy in the chances for change are abruptly flung aside as he describes the “horrible reptile . . . coiled up in your nation’s bosom,” of the “youthful” republic. However, again, the “arm of the Lord is not shortened” and change can be part of the work of history and if Americans “act in the living present.”

Douglass signals many of the sections by using the phrase, “My fellow citizens” or directly addressing his audience as “Americans.” He introduces the section on the Revolution with “Fellow-citizens.”  He asks, “Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask why am I called upon to speak here today?” after the description of the Revolution to introduce the central conflict of the speech with Psalm 137 that identifies the oppression of the Jews during the Babylonian Captivity with his cause as a representative of the American slaves. We have quoted the thesis above that contains the same signal. Again, as he begins the topic of slavery: “Fellow-citizens; above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions!” right under the quote of Psalm 137. It is in this section that Douglass proves that the Slave is a Man despite his protestations to the contrary and then he describes the slave trade in Bringing Slavery Before the Eyes saying, “Behold the practical operation of this internal slave-trade.”

Finally, Douglass introduces his Summary and Conclusion going back to the very same call to attention. This time with a deeply sarcastic turn of phrase: “Fellow-citizens! I will not enlarge further on your national inconsistencies. The existence of slavery in this country brands your republicanism as a sham, your humanity as a base pretence, and your Christianity as a lie.”

This statement shows the power behind the ideas of systemic racism. The teacher is now prepared to take on the machinations of Ron DeSantis. The self-educated escaped slave puts the Governor’s inhumane and frankly ignorant ideas in the dustbin of history. Frederick Douglass oration, “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” is a powerful antidote to DeSantis’ anti-woke bullying. Douglass’s descriptions make you feel their power. They will entrance your students and leave them ready to defend their values as learners and humanitarians. Douglass’ oration shows Ron DeSantis to be a man of limited intellectual force and a mean spirited and dangerous leader who acts with thoughtless abandon. His actions are the very definition of performative. He is an authoritarian poseur. In the face of Douglass’s oration DeSantis is shamed and outclassed.

I dedicate this this lesson to the brave students and educators who are in the classrooms fighting for the truth and complexity in the study of history. Remember that Frederick Douglass believed, “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.”

Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Association

Cesar Chavez, a Mexican American, is the president of the National Farm Workers Association, an organization of farm workers fighting for more benefits and equality. Cesar Chavez’s goals for his fellow farm workers were to create a Union, an insurance program for farm workers, higher wages and contracts for farm workers, and equality. Cesar Chavez’s historic strike, the Delano Grape Strike, is one of the many strikes he takes pride in for expressing his unwavering conviction that he is on the right side of history and that the violence and humiliation that the growers are showing towards the workers will only fuel them more with conviction and determination to strike until they receive the benefit they are entitled to because of their hard work. Thousands of supporters helped Cesar Chavez in their fight for unionizing by participating in strikes, boycotting the companies’ products, and much more. This constant fight for equality painted a bad image for the company. The companies were both Schenley Industries and the DiGiorgio Corporation. This nonviolent approach and fight for equality was inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who also had peaceful protests. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the many prominent figures throughout Cesar Chavez’s career who supported Cesar Chavez and was able to inspire him to take a peaceful approach in order to achieve his goals for these strikes, which are being able to Unionize insurance programs to better benefits for farm workers.

This research dives into the challenges and struggles Cesar Chavez, and the National Farm Workers Association faced as they tirelessly worked to achieve fundamental rights and improved working conditions for marginalized and exploited farm laborers by shedding light on the strategies used by Cesar Chavez and his National Farm Workers Association in their fight against the obstacles standing in the way of their equality. Cesar Chavez’s legacy as a labor leader and civil rights activist is a testament to how hard he fought in the face of adversity.

Cesar Chavez was influenced by his own experiences in a migrant farm-working family, he then decided to face the injustices prevalent in his community. Working under Fred Ross Jr. Cesar Chavez learned about the rights of Hispanic, specifically Mexican, farmworkers and was empowered by his community and the injustices to fight against discrimination. Cesar Chavez’s journey in building a labor movement, started with grassroots efforts in his community. Challenges such as fear of reprisal and deportation scared and made people reject Cesar Chavez, Cesar Chavez successfully recruited supporters, including religious figures and community organizers. The lack of unity and coordination within the United Farm Workers is also an obstacle the organization had to overcome, as well as the violence and intimidation faced by supporters from anti-union groups. Cesar Chavez’s goals included creating a union, insurance programs, higher wages, and contracts for farmworkers to improve their living conditions. The success of the United Farm Workers is thanks to various strategies, including boycotts, strikes, and protests, which pressured large companies like Di Giorgio to negotiate with Cesar Chavez and the organization. Cesar Chavez’s leadership and organizational skills, played an important role in advancing the cause for farmworker justice.

Through the movement Cesar Chavez was supported by a diverse group of people. It highlights Cesar Chavez’s ability to connect with various groups, such as the Mexican Pentecostal church, religious leaders, college students, and workers from different ethnic backgrounds such as Mexican Americans, Filipinos, and Puerto Ricans. The Mexican Pentecostal community provided moral and financial support, while college students actively participated in protests, strikes, and fundraising efforts. The teamwork among different ethnic groups in the civil rights movement, notably influenced by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., contributed to the movement’s strength. Despite facing hardships and sacrifices, the labor movement achieved its goals, in succeeding in getting contracts with major growing companies and paving the way for the Agricultural Labor Relations Act to govern farm workers’ rights and union activities. Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers faced hardships and challenges in their mission to better the rights and working conditions of farm laborers, facing industry resistance, violent opposition, and internal struggles. Despite the obstacles faced, Cesar Chavez’s strategic approach, marked by nonviolent protests, strikes, and boycotts, garnered crucial attention and support for the movement. The community, including Mexican Americans, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, college students, and religious leaders, emerged as a pivotal force in achieving the movement’s goals. Cesar Chavez’s dedication, inspired by personal experiences and the struggles of farm workers, led to the success of the United Farm Workers.

This article provides a summary of Cesar Chavez’s activism, the challenges faced by the National Farm Workers Association, and the broader labor movement in the southwest. Some reasons why Cesar Chavez should be taught in school is because it sheds light on the historical context of the labor movement in the southwest, providing students with insights into the challenges faced by marginalized and exploited farm laborers during that time. Cesar Chavez’s connection with the civil rights movement, particularly his inspiration from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., offers an opportunity to explore the different social justice movements during the 20th century. Students can also analyze how Cesar Chavez adapted nonviolent protest strategies from the civil rights movement to advocate for the rights of farm workers. Students can learn about the challenges and criticisms faced by Chavez and analyze how he overcame them to achieve the goals of the United Farm Workers. Highlighting the diverse support of the labor movement, showing the unity between different ethnic groups, religious communities, and college students. Students can explore how diverse communities came together to support a common cause and the role of solidarity in achieving social justice goals. By incorporating this article into the classroom, teachers can help provide a diverse perspective about social justice, labor rights, leadership, and the unity of historical movements. It encourages critical thinking, analysis of historical events, and reflection on the ongoing struggles for equality and justice.

Forgotten Trails: Unmasking the Legacy of Native American Removal and its Contemporary Implications

Once, in the vast and untamed lands of what is now known as the United States, there thrived a multitude of Native American communities. These diverse and vibrant nations had cultivated rich cultures, deep-rooted traditions, and an intricate understanding of their surroundings. However, as the 19th century unfolded, a dark cloud loomed over these indigenous peoples. In the late 19th century, following a series of conflicts and broken treaties, Native American communities faced forced complete removal from their ancestral lands. The government policies aimed at assimilation and expansion systematically uprooted these communities, displacing them from their homes and severing their ties to their traditions and in 1890, a turning point occurred in Native American history with the forced removal of their communities from their ancestral lands. This displacement was not merely an isolated event but rather part of a broader pattern of marginalization that had persisted for centuries and continues to persist. Yet, despite its undeniable significance, this chapter of American history has largely been forgotten or intentionally overlooked.

The historical marginalization and lack of mainstream attention to the forced removal of Native American communities in U.S. history after 1890 has had profound effects on their social, economic, and political development in contemporary society. This study aims to explore how this neglect and amnesia surrounding the forced removals have contributed to ongoing disparities, underrepresentation, and challenges faced by Native Americans. By relegating this significant chapter of American history to obscurity, society unintentionally perpetuates the cycle of neglect and underrepresentation experienced by Native Americans. The absence of acknowledgment and understanding of the removal policies and their consequences has hindered the recognition of indigenous rights, cultural contributions, and the unique challenges faced by these communities. This research seeks to shed light on this historical oversight and highlight its implications for present-day disparities within Native American communities. By recognizing the impact of historical marginalization, it becomes possible to address current challenges effectively and foster development within these marginalized communities. Through an exploration of relevant literature, primary sources, and historiography, this research will provide a comprehensive understanding of how historical amnesia has shaped the experiences of Native Americans today. By uncovering the underlying causes of ongoing disparities, underrepresentation, and challenges they face, this study aims to contribute to broader efforts towards achieving equity and justice for Native American populations.

The study of the removal of Native Americans after 1890 has long been approached from various perspectives, often reflecting prevailing societal attitudes and biases. Traditional approaches to this topic have tended to focus on a few main ideas namely the notion that Native Americans desired urbanization and the belief that non-Native Americans were providing assistance in their transition. One common argument put forth by traditional studies is that Native Americans willingly sought relocation to urban areas. Proponents of this perspective suggest that indigenous communities recognized the benefits of modernity and sought opportunities for economic advancement through urbanization
        Another idea frequently emphasized in traditional approaches is the assumption that Native Americans were uneducated or culturally deficient compared to non-Native Americans. This perspective suggests that native cultures were inherently inferior and needed intervention from more advanced societies to progress. Consequently, it portrays non-Native American efforts as benevolent attempts to elevate indigenous populations through education, religious conversion, and exposure to Western technologies. In these traditional interpretations, non-Native American involvement was often depicted as an act of assistance rather than forced displacement. Advocates argue that government policies such as the Dawes Act of 1887 aimed at breaking up tribal landholdings into individual allotments were well-intentioned steps toward promoting private property ownership among Native Americans. Similarly, boarding schools designed to eradicate indigenous languages and cultural practices were presented as educational endeavors meant to “civilize” Native American children.

Lastly, the final common approach seen with the study of Native Americans on a broader scale is that Native American history stopped after 1890. Traditional approaches to the study of Native Americans have often treated Native American history as if it came to a standstill after the infamous Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, perpetuating a skewed and incomplete narrative. This historical tunnel vision neglects the rich and complex tapestry of Native American experiences and contributions beyond that point. It wrongly reinforces the notion that Native Americans exist solely in a historical context, overlooking their vibrant and evolving cultures, traditions, and communities. This approach inadvertently marginalizes contemporary Native voices and their ongoing struggles, creating an inaccurate portrayal of their identity and relevance in modern America.

Overall, the approaches described, in addition to the obvious are problematic because they contribute to historical amnesia surrounding the removal of Native Americans by perpetuating a narrative that downplays the systemic injustices and challenges faced by Native communities during the process of urbanization and relocation. These traditional approaches tend to obscure the agency and resistance of Native Americans, portraying them as passive actors who willingly embraced modernity and external intervention. By emphasizing the supposed benefits of urbanization and the alleged cultural deficiencies of Native cultures, these narratives silence the historical reality of forced displacement, loss of land, and the violation of treaties. They fail to acknowledge the broader context of Native American history, including their resilience and efforts to preserve their cultures in the face of relocation and its effects.

With all of these mentioned ideas in mind imagine having your land taken away, your culture suppressed, and your way of life disrupted. This is the harsh reality that Native Americans faced following the tumultuous period of removal and relocation, particularly after 1890. As the dust settled on a nation rapidly expanding westward, it became increasingly clear that indigenous communities were bearing the brunt of this progress. Following this period marked by forced removals and relocations, these indigenous peoples found themselves grappling with an array of disparities that continued to persist long after their displacement. To begin this study, we will delve into the disparities experienced by Native Americans as a consequence of forced removal and relocation policies implemented during the late 19th century.

The late 19th century marked a pivotal period in the history of Native Americans in the United States, a time when government policies and actions began to create enduring disparities within indigenous communities. At the forefront of these policies was the Dawes Act of 1887, legislation with far-reaching consequences. With the aim of assimilating Native Americans into American society, the Dawes Act of 1887 symbolizes significant inequities and unjust policies imposed on them. This legislation had devastating consequences for indigenous groups by removing essential tribal lands necessary for survival, cultural practices, and economic stability under its allotment system. [1]As a result of inadequate inheritance in land resources, many families suffered from economic challenges leading to loss or dispossession over time. Furthermore, traditional languages and customs were interrupted through mandatory enrolment in boarding schools designed to wipe out native identities entirely. Furthermore, the act crippled governance structures within tribes creating complications when advocating their rights among native communities – currently manifesting itself today as disparities experienced daily by native Americans including poverty levels that remain high, lack quality healthcare access and education along with political under-representation all of which are core legacies felt as a result of the Dawes Act.

Continuing, the Dawes Act’s repercussions would later shape the 1950s’ relocation policies. One of its main outcomes was the relinquishment of valuable tribal lands, frequently transferred to non-Native settlers, limiting Native Americans’ entry into their traditional domains. This deprivation contributed significantly to various economic challenges faced by numerous indigenous communities for years afterward. As a result, decreased land ownership resulted in struggling tribal economies that made Native Americans susceptible and prone to hardships. The Dawes Act and the relocation policies in the 1950s both had assimilation as a central concept. The former sought to do so through land ownership while the latter aimed for urbanization, but their underlying goal was similar: making Native Americans conform to mainstream American society’s ideals. This reflected how federal authorities wanted to alter identities and lifestyles within Indigenous communities at that time. Basically, the Dawes Act set the stage for economic fragility and property deprivation which led to some policymakers finding urban relocation policies in the 1950s more desirable. The act’s effects of taking away land from Native Americans and interfering with their customary way of life established a foundation for inequalities and difficulties encountered by these communities. This ultimately made them easier targets for future initiatives focused on promoting urbanization or moving elsewhere during the 1950s.

Moving forward, in the 1950s, Native Americans were coerced into relocating to urban areas in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency and assimilate into mainstream society. Commissioned by Bureau of Indian Affairs commissioner Dillon S. Myer the relocation program was launched with the aim of relocating reservation-based Native Americans to urban environments, providing promises such as educational and occupational opportunities, transportation services, housing provisions and everyday necessities. Although this lured over thirty thousand participants; inadequate funding led to poor execution which left many re-locators facing inferior living conditions coupled with gender-segregated low-level jobs that eventually forced them back home. [2] Despite its shortcomings however it can’t be ignored that some relocated Native Americans thrived in cities securing upward socioeconomic mobility by being pro-active in the process of organizing and establishing themselves. As a result, these Native Americans were able to advocate for better livelihoods on reserves, but this was not a common happening. Ultimately, the 1950’s relocation policies failed to fulfill their objectives as many individuals lacked the necessary skills for city life due to emphasis on quantity over quality during recruitment. Consequently, they experienced racial discrimination and limited job opportunities while residing in low-income neighborhoods despite some meager benefits of relocation that favored those with initial job expertise. [3] This historic instance highlights disparities encountered by Native American communities through government policies that lacked adequate support which would eventually lead them towards developing pan-Indian social institutions amidst harsh living situations. These occurrences are consistent with the historical experiences of Native Americans within urban environments illustrating the overlooked complexities faced historically across the developmental stages of these regions.

Furthermore, after the failure of the relocation act and the increasing issues it caused in its attempt to force urbanization on to Native Americans the disparities they faced as result only increased. After the relocation act of the 1950’s, the 1960’s brought new hope to the Native Americans with the emergence of the Civil Rights movement. Despite the promises of social and political change during the Civil Rights era, Native American communities continued to face significant challenges. The termination policy, which aimed to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society, led to the loss of tribal sovereignty and the dispossession of lands. This policy resulted in economic instability and the erosion of traditional cultural practices. Additionally, the forced relocation of many Native American families from reservations to urban areas disrupted their social fabric and often led to poverty and social marginalization. These challenges and the disparities faced by Native Americans would cease to end even as changes came about for other minority groups this is evident by the “Longest Walk” protest. In the 1970s, Native American activists staged a protest in Washington D.C. called the “Longest Walk,” which brought to light the longstanding disparities faced by their communities. These inequalities were largely impacted by governmental policies and legislation that threatened fundamental rights such as land ownership, access to water and fishing resources, treaty alteration or elimination of reservation systems. These protesters understood that these legal provisions weren’t just mere abstractions but intricately woven into cultural identity and economic sustenance for indigenous people’s survival.[4] Even though this was a peaceful demonstration it highlighted many unaddressed issues inherent with historical wrongdoings towards Indigenous peoples. This event serves as evidence of an ongoing struggle against oppression where multifaceted disparities continue to exist related not only within educational attainment gaps but also unequal healthcare opportunities due mainly because race-based discrimination persists even today. Additionally, the fact that such legislative proposals were considered as late as the 1970s emphasizes that even in modern times, Native Americans grapple with legislative threats that have the potential to perpetuate their marginalization, illustrating that these disparities remain relevant and pressing issues in the present day.

The disparities outlined in this section strongly demonstrate how the neglect and historical amnesia surrounding the forced removals have played a pivotal role in perpetuating the ongoing challenges faced by Native Americans. The Dawes Act of 1887 and the 1950s relocation policies, both driven by the goal of assimilation into mainstream American society, inflicted lasting damage on indigenous communities. These policies resulted in the loss of tribal lands, economic instability, cultural erosion, and social marginalization, creating a foundation of inequality that continues to shape Native American experiences. The subsequent civil rights era did not bring significant relief, as termination policies persisted, further undermining tribal sovereignty and land ownership. The “Longest Walk” protest of the 1970s highlighted the enduring disparities related to land, resources, and cultural identity that continue to plague Native communities. These historical injustices, neglected for so long, have left a lasting imprint, contributing to the disparities in education, healthcare, and political representation still experienced by Native Americans today, underscoring the argument that acknowledging and addressing this historical legacy is crucial to addressing these ongoing challenges.

Moving forward, in the previous section, we delved into the significant disparities that Native Americans experience across various domains, including healthcare, education, and socioeconomic status. However, it is important to recognize that these disparities are not isolated incidents but rather part of a larger pattern of underrepresentation faced by Native Americans in contemporary society. This section aims to shed light on this critical issue and explore how Native Americans continue to be marginalized and overlooked within systems that shape their lives. By examining the various aspects of underrepresentation, such as inadequate political representation, limited media visibility, and exclusion from decision-making processes, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted challenges faced by Native American communities today. Through an analysis of these underrepresented perspectives, we can contribute to ongoing efforts towards achieving greater equity and inclusivity for all individuals in our diverse society including the Native Americans.

To start off, the history of Native Americans has suffered from a consistent pattern of marginalization and misrepresentation in dominant societal narratives. This regrettable circumstance has resulted in many prevalent misunderstandings, misconceptions, and knowledge gaps when it comes to essential aspects related to the rich cultural heritage that defines each tribe’s unique traditions and experiences. Furthermore, this persistent systemic under-representation issue is not limited only to these crucial historical elements but also encompasses an immediate threat regarding indigenous languages’ endangered status along with their respective rituals or customary practices. Consequently, there exists a critical risk linked with the disappearing traditional elements integral towards forming Native identity amidst modern times – making preservation efforts necessary for combating culture erasure as well as safeguarding ancient customs vital toward uniquely defining those who still maintain them today. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that the underrepresentation of Native Americans in modern discourse and media coverage not only pertains to historical injustices but also extends towards contemporary challenges faced by Indigenous communities. These adversities encompass issues such as poverty, healthcare disparities, and political obstacles which are oftentimes disregarded or downplayed within public discussions. The failure to adequately report on these matters impedes progress towards enacting effective policy changes and support systems for Native American peoples who continue to suffer from systemic marginalization.

An emblematic example of this broader issue of Native American underrepresentation in the United States is found in an examination of the lack of acknowledgement of Native American communities within the state by the state of Pennsylvania. The historical denial of the existence of Native Americans in Pennsylvania serves as a noteworthy example of underrepresentation perpetuated by public institutions. This denial results in Native American communities not receiving official recognition or acknowledgment, therefore rendering them largely invisible within the state’s records and narratives. The absence of official status places these groups at a disadvantage – lacking legal rights, resources and opportunities that come with full acknowledgement. Moreover, this lack further contributes to their underrepresentation. Denying their cultural contributions creates an even greater disconnection from history, amplifying this invisibility throughout public awareness about Pennsylvania’s past[5].  Furthermore, it is distressing to recount how societal pressure forced many members of Native American tribes in Pennsylvania into concealing ancestry leading towards the erasure of cultural identity  – ultimately creating another form of ongoing-under-representation for Native Americans.

Moving forward, we will be focusing primarily on the political underrepresentation of the Native Americans. However, it is important to understand that the underrepresentation of Native Americans is a multifaceted issue that transcends the and extends deep into various aspects of American society. While the lack of political representation is a significant concern, it is important to note that it is just one facet of a broader pattern of systemic inequity and marginalization that Native American communities grapple with. Recognizing that underrepresentation is not confined solely to the political arena, is crucial to adopt a thorough approach that addresses these interconnected issues.

Continuing on, the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of significant political transformation for the United States. As the nation grappled with industrialization, urbanization, and the expansion of democratic ideals, various marginalized groups strove to gain representation within the political arena. However, one group that often remains overlooked in this narrative is Native Americans. Despite their rich cultural heritage deeply intertwined with the American landscape, Native Americans found themselves systematically excluded from meaningful participation in the political process. Continuing into this section we will dive into an examination of how Native Americans experienced political underrepresentation during this crucial period. By shedding light on this lesser-known aspect of American history, we can better understand the complexities surrounding democracy’s development and confront enduring issues related to Indigenous rights and representation.

To truly gain and understand the development of the intense political underrepresentation of Native Americans we have to take step back in time, particular to the year 1878 when the Washington Constitutional Convention would convene. The Washington Constitutional Convention of 1878 stands as a pivotal moment in American history, particularly concerning the political underrepresentation of Native Americans. Held during a time when the nation was grappling with issues of equality and inclusion, this convention shed light on the deep-rooted injustices faced by indigenous communities. The proceedings not only highlighted the systemic marginalization of Native Americans but also sparked conversations that would shape future legislation and advocacy efforts aimed at rectifying these longstanding disparities. During this era, Native Americans across the United States were consistently denied their basic rights to political participation. Discriminatory policies and practices had effectively silenced their voices and hindered their ability to influence decisions that directly impacted their lives. This disenfranchisement was acutely felt in Washington state, where tribal nations faced numerous challenges in asserting their political power.

 At the convention, the creators of Washington State’s Constitution made significant choices that directly impacted Native American involvement in politics and representation. One such choice was excluding non-citizens from voting, which affected many Natives as their tribal affiliations rendered them ineligible for citizenship. This exclusion prevented a large portion of Native Americans from participating until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act was passed. Furthermore, although there were Indigenous representatives present at this meeting, they did not have any power to vote which resulted in inadequately considering native perspectives during constitution drafting – leading to underrepresentation within political processes across the state. In addition, the 1878 constitution confirmed Washington’s indigenous tribes’ limited sovereignty by placing them under strict jurisdiction where self-governance could be undermined. Additionally, voting restrictions imposed disproportionate property requirements on natives impeding fair opportunities towards meaningful participation or political representation. [6] Notably, these decisions continue impacting today’s policies & governance locally with these communities still facing challenges asserting rightful political rights while maintaining sufficient influence over local affairs.

Furthermore, after the convention in 1878, a significant period of political underrepresentation was set off in the United States. This era was characterized by a combination of legal, cultural, and socio-political factors that marginalized Native American voices in the national political landscape. As mentioned previously, after the passage of the Dawes Act in 1887, Native American lands were dramatically reduced through allotment, often leading to the loss of tribal communal ownership and self-governance. The imposition of citizenship and land ownership requirements for voting further disenfranchised Native Americans, as many were deemed unfit to vote due to their tribal affiliations or lack of individual property. For example, various state constitutions, such as North Dakota’s in 1889, introduced clauses demanding that Native Americans sever tribal ties to be eligible to vote. This effectively disconnected them from their tribal communities and cultural identities. Not only did this impact their involvement in tribal governance, but it also hindered their political representation in state and national politics. Additionally, the federal government’s policies of forced assimilation and the establishment of Indian boarding schools which aimed to eradicate Native cultures and languages also dealt a serious blow to the political representation of Native Americans. This cultural assault hindered Native Americans’ political participation by disconnecting them from their traditional forms of governance and communal decision-making. Native Americans were also not afforded equal opportunities for education and employment, which further in return additionally limited their political influence. [7] Continuing, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 represented a partial shift in federal policy, allowing tribes to reconstitute their governments and regain some measure of self-determination. This brief positive shift after 1934, however, wouldn’t be long lived as it following the trend would be undermined by the shift that would occur in the 1940’s.

The 1940s would mark a critical turning point in Native American policy in the United States, heralding a shift that significantly deepened political underrepresentation of Indigenous peoples. This era was characterized by a series of policy changes and legislative actions that not only neglected the voices and interests of Native American communities but actively marginalized them. During the 1940s, there was a significant transformation in government policies towards Native Americans. These changes led to a reduction of tribal sovereignty and autonomy as the government began considering terminating its responsibilities to these communities[8]. Influential members of Congress advocated for assimilating Native Americans into mainstream society while seeking to shift decision-making authority away from them. Simultaneously, states were pressuring federal authorities to withdraw their obligations regarding indigenous populations. The overarching objective was economic and social rehabilitation; however, such policies often disregarded unique cultural and political needs required by these communities. [9] This era is marked by a pivotal shift in Native American policy that had long-lasting consequences on their political representation and self-determination.

This shift would continue through the 1950’s with the previously mentioned relocation policies put in place. However, as we enter the 1960’s another shift occurs with the emergence of the African American Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement brought about a significant change in Native American political representation. Initially aimed at addressing the rights of African Americans, its principles resonated with other marginalized groups such as Native Americans, who also sought equal treatment and non-discrimination. The passing of two legislative acts – the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 facilitated greater access to voting for minorities by eliminating discriminatory practices like voter literacy tests and poll taxes that had long plagued native communities. Inspired by these changes, activists emerged from within local tribes seeking self-determination which ultimately led to increased participation in politics resulting in greater engagement on all levels-locally statewide and even federally.

Although the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aimed to eradicate racial discrimination in voting and grant Native Americans full participation in elections, their communities still faced political underrepresentation due to various challenges. These obstacles encompassed issues such as gerrymandering, voter identification requirements, and limited access to polling places on reservations or rural areas. These circumstances adversely impacted Native American voters’ capacity for exercising their democratic rights effectively. [10] Furthermore, a lack of representation at both state legislatures and federal levels persisted throughout subsequent elections — underscoring an ongoing struggle toward inclusive politics that continues today. Even with advancements made through the Voting Rights Act, these barriers demonstrate how deep-seated inequities continue denying fair political representation for Indigenous peoples across America. A prime example of the continuing political underrepresentation that followed the Voting Rights Act is the campaigns for the election of 1972. The campaigns for the election of 1972 underscore the persistent lack of political representation for Native Americans, even in the aftermath of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It is evident that Native American concerns remained marginalized as both presidential candidates in the 1972 election, George McGovern and Richard Nixon, primarily focused on broader national issues like foreign policy and economic reforms, neglecting specific Native American issues. The campaigns further highlight a historical pattern of unfulfilled promises and pledges of support, further indicating that Native American voices were not adequately heard or represented in the political discourse. Furthermore, Nixon’s decision to reduce the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget by nearly $50 million exemplifies a lack of commitment to addressing the unique challenges and needs of Native American communities. Additionally, the campaigns brought attention to the historical trust-based relationship between the United States and Native Americans, which has often been unfulfilling and marked by neglected promises. [11] Overall, despite the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the political underrepresentation of Native Americans persisted, as demonstrated by the government’s ongoing failure to address their specific concerns and needs as evidenced by the 1972 election campaigns.

Before we bring this study to an end, in order to provide a more comprehensive picture, it is important to acknowledge the rise of movement for Native American rights that began to develop during the end of the time frame discussed here. Serving as a culmination of the enduring disparities and underrepresentation faced by Native Americans for centuries the Red Power Movement developed in the late 1960s and 1970s. Emerging as a response to these long-standing injustices, the movement sought to address issues such as tribal sovereignty, land rights, cultural preservation, and political activism. The Red Power Movement played a crucial role in raising awareness and advocating for the rights of Native Americans in contemporary American society. While it paved the way for significant progress, Indigenous communities continue to grapple with ongoing challenges, including poverty, healthcare disparities, and political obstacles. [12]These disparities persist, emphasizing the need for continued advocacy and change. However, it’s important to note that the comprehensive examination of the Red Power Movement and its contemporary implications lies beyond the scope of this study, which primarily focuses on the historical context and challenges faced by Native Americans during earlier periods.

Ultimately, the underrepresentation both politically and in general detailed in this section intensely shines a light on how the neglect and amnesia surrounding the forced removals of Native Americans have played a significant role in perpetuating the disparities and challenges faced by these communities. The historical narrative reveals how Native Americans have consistently been excluded from meaningful participation in various aspects of American society, including politics, despite their rich cultural heritage and contributions to the nation. This exclusion extends to the denial of basic rights, voting restrictions, and the erosion of tribal sovereignty. Even after legislative efforts like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was aimed at ensuring equal political participation, barriers persisted such as gerrymandering and limited polling access, demonstrating ongoing obstacles to representation. In addition, the focus in the 1972 election campaigns serves as a poignant example of how Native American concerns have been marginalized in national politics. This pattern culminated in the emergence of the Red Power Movement in the late 1960s and 1970s which further pushed the need for advocacy and change in response to deep-rooted disparities. Additionally, this historical underrepresentation and discrimination contribute to the idea that acknowledging and addressing these past injustices and the pattern of underrepresentation are crucial steps toward rectifying the ongoing challenges faced by Native American communities and achieving greater equity and inclusivity.

In conclusion, the involuntary displacement of Native American communities from their traditional lands during the late 19th century and subsequent ignorance about this period in U.S. history have had significant repercussions that still impact Indigenous people today. The marginalization and lack of acknowledgment these occurrences received has contributed to ongoing inequalities, limited representation, and hardships faced by Native Americans and neglecting past injustices has continued a pattern of disregard for indigenous  peoples’ rights which perpetuates further neglect and subordination meant toward them.

Furthermore, the research has highlighted that government policies, such as the Dawes Act and relocation policies of the 1950s, had profound and lasting effects on Native American communities. These policies aimed at assimilation and urbanization disrupted traditional ways of life, eroded tribal sovereignty, and contributed to economic instability. The consequences of these policies are high poverty levels with limited access to quality healthcare and education and political underrepresentation which affects Native Americans even today. Moreover, along with these consequences, light is shed on the matter of political underrepresentation faced by Native Americans throughout history. Starting from exclusionary policies adopted at Washington Constitutional Convention in 1878 to harmful transformations in federal policy during the 1940s; Native Americans have been systemically oppressed within political procedures. Continuing, despite having The Voting Rights Act introduced in 1965, hindrances such as gerrymandering, and voter ID requirements still hinder their impact over politics.

Additionally, the research has also highlighted how the underrepresentation of Native Americans extends beyond politics and encompasses various aspects of American society, including education, healthcare, employment, and media representation. Recognizing the impact of historical amnesia and underrepresentation, it becomes clear that addressing current challenges and fostering development within Native American communities is essential. By shedding light on these historical oversights and their implications for present-day disparities, this research aims to contribute to broader efforts toward achieving equity and justice for Native American populations. Acknowledging their rich cultural heritage, enduring resilience, ongoing struggle for rights and representation are crucial steps towards rectifying past injustices while building a more inclusive society equitable for everyone including the Native Americans.

Burt, Larry W. “Roots of the Native American Urban Experience: Relocation Policy in the 1950s.” American Indian Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1986): 85–99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1183982.  

“Dawes Act of 1887.” National Archives Catalog , 2016. https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5641587.  

Jacobs, Michelle R. Indigenous memory, urban reality stories of American Indian relocation and reclamation. New York: New York University Press, 2023.

Legislative Review 1, no. 12 (1972). https://jstor-org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/community.28145368.   

Minderhout, David, and Andrea Frantz. “Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania.” Human Organization 67, no. 1 (2008): 61–67. http://www.jstor.org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/44127040.

“Resolution Regarding Native Americans Adopted at the Washington Territory Constitutional Convention, July 17, 1878.” University of Washington Libraries. Special Collections Division. ; Washington Territory Records. Accession No. 4284-001, Box 3. Accessed September 26, 2023. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.73849FE4&site=eds-live&scope=site.  

Treuer, David. “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present.” Amazon, 2020. https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.  

Tyler, S. Lyman. A history of indian policy. Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973.

Wolfley, Jeanette. “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans.” American Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 167–202. https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694.   “‘Longest Walk,’ Protest March to Oppose Abrogation of All Native American Treaties and the Genocide of Indian People.” Accessed September 26, 2023. https://jstor.org/stable/community.34557616


[1]  “Dawes Act of 1887,” National Archives Catalog , 2016, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/5641587.

[2] Larry W. Burt, “Roots of the Native American Urban Experience: Relocation Policy in the 1950s,” American Indian Quarterly 10, no. 2 (1986): 85–99, https://doi.org/10.2307/1183982.

[3] Michelle R. Jacobs, Indigenous Memory, Urban Reality Stories of American Indian Relocation and Reclamation (New York: New York University Press, 2023).

[4] “‘Longest Walk,’ Protest March to Oppose Abrogation of All Native American Treaties and the Genocide of Indian People,” accessed September 26, 2023, https://jstor.org/stable/community.34557616 .

[5] David Minderhout and Andrea Frantz, “Invisible Indians: Native Americans in Pennsylvania,” Human Organization 67, no. 1 (2008): 61–67, http://www.jstor.org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/44127040.

[6] “Resolution Regarding Native Americans Adopted at the Washington Territory Constitutional Convention, July 17, 1878,” University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections Division, Washington Territory Records, Accession No. 4284-001, Box 3, accessed September 26, 2023.”

[7] S. Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy (Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973).

[8] David Treuer, “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present,” Amazon, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.

[9] S. Lyman Tyler, A History of Indian Policy (Washington D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973).

[10] Jeanette Wolfley, “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans,” American Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 167–202, https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694.

[11] Legislative Review 1, no. 12 (1972), https://jstor-org.rider.idm.oclc.org/stable/community.28145368.

[12] David Treuer, “The Heartbeat of Wounded Knee: Native America from 1890 to the Present,” Amazon, 2020, https://www.amazon.com/Heartbeat-Wounded-Knee-America-Present/dp/0399573194.


 

 

The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

Norman Markowitz

Rage and confusion over the recent Supreme Court decisions is sweeping the nation. The Roe v. Wade decision (1973) establishing women’s reproductive rights has been repealed. A New York State law prohibiting the carrying of concealed guns, passed in response to escalating shootings and deaths, has been declared unconstitutional. The court has sharply reduced the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, established in 1970. This comes after decades of scientific research showing the dangers of climate change and global warming.

What is the logic behind this? There is a standard used in philosophy which should be applied to the Court’s recent decisions. Statements, or assertions, should be judged by their “validity and reliability.” Are they true statements in terms of logic, reason, and consistency (validity)? Is the evidence (facts, data) used to support the statement true (reliability)? I will use this standard to look at the Court’s rulings.

The Constitution was a political compromise among merchant capitalists, landlords, slaveholders, creditors, and debtors on a variety of issues — slavery, the payment of debts, and the regulation of trade. It cannot be interpreted like the Jewish Torah, the Christian Gospels, or the Muslim Koran — sacred, unchanging texts. And the Supreme Court has no right to interpret legislation passed by Congress or the directives of the president, since the Constitution did not give the Court the power of judicial review.

However, that power was in effect taken by the Court in 1805 in a brilliant maneuver by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. The court has maintained the power of judicial review for over two centuries, often adjusting its interpretations to major changes in society.

The representatives who drafted and approved the Constitution, much less the former colonies/states which ratified it, all rejected the principle of universal suffrage. The leaders of the revolution associated the term “democracy” with mob rule. Property qualifications for voting in federal elections was the established rule. If one took the original intent seriously, the Court would have the power to establish property qualifications for voting, since there is no constitutional amendment abolishing property qualifications for voting, just as there are constitutional amendments abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote.

When the Constitution was drafted and enacted, English common law defined life as existing when a fetus could be felt moving or kicking in the mother’s womb, called “quickening.” If the mother claimed that the fetus had been aborted before this “quickening,” she was held harmless. Laws banning abortion and contraception, and pamphlets and manuals about both in the mails, were enacted at the state and federal levels in the late 19th century as part of a movement led by the Reverend Anthony Comstock, organizer of the Society for the Suppression of Vice. These laws were part of a backlash against the growing movement for women’s civil rights, equality under the law, and the right to vote. The women’s rights/women’s liberation movement of the 1960s, following in the path of the civil rights/Black liberation movement, led the successful campaign to repeal these laws, which finally resulted in Roe v. Wade, a century after they began to be enacted.

The Court’s decision invalidating a New York state law prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns is also unreliable. Here the evidence is direct and incontrovertible. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” But in English law and in colonial theory and practice, as Joshua Zeitz in an excellent analysis argues, the amendment never meant that all citizens had the right to bear arms. This right “was inextricably connected to the citizen’s obligation to serve in a militia and to protect the community from enemies domestic and foreign.” And “well-regulated militias” meant militias constituted by legitimate authorities, not private groups like the later KKK, Nazi storm troopers, or self-proclaimed state militias.

Zeitz makes the important point that James Madison, a major author of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, had earlier drafted legislation in the Virginia legislature barring individuals from openly carrying and displaying guns, like the present New York State law that the Court has declared unconstitutional. The purpose of the amendment was clearly to prevent a government from doing what Britain did in the aftermath of the Boston Tea Party: disperse the colonial legislature and its militia and in effect declare martial law. Also, the guns in question fired single “balls,” not bullets, and had very limited range and accuracy. Today’s AR-15 rifles, for example, used in recent mass shootings, have greater fire power and accuracy than the assault rifles used during World War II and the Korean War.

The Supreme Court’s other decisions on the regulatory powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the right of a school employee to engage in religious action, are neither valid in their relationship to the Constitution nor reliable in regard to their factual assertions. They are a repudiation of more than a century of law and policy of the federal regulation of industry and the post–Civil War 14th Amendment defending the civil rights and liberties of citizens from their infringement and/or denial by the states.

The Supreme Court and the judiciary have been the most conservative section of the federal government throughout most of U.S. history. The fact that the justices are not elected and can be removed only through impeachment, resignation, or death explains this.

The courts have in the past and once more in recent decades used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to declare unconstitutional legislation that regulates business and promotes social welfare. Beginning in the 1880s, they declared corporations “persons” to give them 14th Amendment protections from regulation and taxation by the states, and have over and over again used the 10th Amendment to support states’ rights.

The political nature of the Supreme Court from its very inception is indisputable. The Court, for example, represented the interests of the slaveholder class from the administration of George Washington (himself a slaveholder) up to the Civil War. But as the nation changed, industrial capitalism grew, and the anti-slavery movement became broader, the demands of the slaveholders and the actions of their Supreme Court became more extreme. The Dred Scott decision (1857), which in effect repealed the earlier restrictions on the expansion of slavery in the Western territories, supporting legislation advanced by pro-slavery congresses and presidents, reflected this development. As an afterthought, the slaveholder-dominated Supreme Court claimed that the authors of the Constitution had not intended any Black person, slave or free, to have the rights of an American citizen, an expression of “original intent” which both enraged and strengthened the increasingly militant anti-slavery national coalition.

With the defeat of the Confederacy, slavery was abolished through constitutional amendment in all the states, and the former Confederate states now under Union army occupation had to ratify the amendment to regain admission to the Union. With the support of President Andrew Johnson, a pro-Union former senator from Tennessee (and himself a former slaveholder), they did so while enacting labor codes that in effect declared the former slaves to be unemployed vagrants and returned them to the “custodial care” of their former owners.

In response to these acts, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, and other militant anti-slavery leaders of the Republican Party proposed a second constitutional amendment to establish national citizenship and protect the civil rights and civil liberties of the nearly 4 million former slaves. They did this for two reasons. They feared that President Johnson would veto the civil rights legislation they were advancing in Congress. And even if they were able to override his veto, they feared that the Supreme Court, where the now former slaveholders remained a powerful force, would declare such legislation unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment establishing national citizenship was passed, followed by the 15th, which extended the right to vote. However, the war was a victory for the industrial capitalists and their banker allies, who within a generation betrayed both the former slaves and the workers and farmers who saw Civil War policies like the Homestead Act and the creation of land grant colleges as advancing their class interests.

The Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in the aftermath of the Civil War fiercely defended the interests of “big business” against organized farmers, workers, state governments, and the federal government. In the 1880s, the Supreme Court in a series of decisions invalidated the civil rights acts of the Reconstruction era and the 14th Amendment’s protection of citizenship rights from state government policies. States were permitted to ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which banned exclusion and discrimination in public accommodations. That protection would only be restored by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after a century of de jure segregation.

In 1896, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision gave states the right to establish segregation by law, using as a cover the principle of “separate but equal” under such laws, although it was clear to everyone that the systematic exclusion of African Americans from public schools, public employment, public transportation, and commercial establishments was crudely unequal. The courts also endorsed state laws which denied the overwhelming majority of Black people the right to vote; the convict lease system, a form of slave labor for prisoners; and state “poll taxes,” which primarily discriminated against poor whites (in most places African Americans had been already disenfranchised).

At the same time, the Court in the 1880s took the 14th Amendment’s defense of the rights of “persons” and applied it to business and corporations, declaring state laws regulating business to be unconstitutional.  At the time the 14th Amendment was proposed and enacted, everyone understood that the “persons” referred to were the 4 million former slaves, no longer under law, but not yet citizens.

But this was just the beginning. An early modest federal income tax (a surcharge on high incomes) was declared unconstitutional in the Pollock case. It negated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) by declaring that the federal government and the states could only regulate commerce — not manufacture — under the Constitution. In an industrial society, regulation became a farce.

Decades later, a constitutional amendment gave the federal government the right to levy income taxes, and Congress passed legislation that, to a limited extent, regulated trade and restructured the banking system. However, the Court routinely declared unconstitutional state laws protecting the right of workers to organize unions, providing for the health and safety regulation of workplaces, minimum wages, and the 1916 federal law outlawing child labor.

It was not until the Great Depression of the 1930s, which saw the great upsurge of labor with the Communist Party playing a central role, that the New Deal government enacted the most important labor and social welfare legislation since the abolition of slavery and battled to compel the judiciary to accept these major reforms in the interests of the working class and the whole people.

The struggle for major judicial reform went back to the late 19th century. It sought to de-emphasize precedence, the “dead hand” of previous decisions, and make the law respond to social changes and realities, to connect the “facts” as they existed in the present with past decisions under the law. Law professor Roscoe Pound and attorney Louis Brandeis were the champions of this approach to law, called “legal realism.” Brandeis especially popularized the doctrine in leading campaigns against corporate monopolistic price fixing and business corruption of public officials, which earned him the name “the People’s Attorney.”

He also developed a legal brief which incorporated social research (the Brandeis brief) in arguing cases. His fame in the early 20th-century Progressive movement led Woodrow Wilson to appoint him to the Supreme Court, where he joined with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to represent a minority that supported the regulation of industry, social legislation, and the defense of First Amendment civil liberties. Regarding civil liberties, the minority supported freedom of speech, assembly, and association unless, in Holmes’s language, there was a “clear and present danger” to society, and not just a “dangerous tendency” that certain acts might lead to others, which was the conservative position.

In the 1936 elections, Roosevelt campaigned against the old-guard Court and the “economic royalists” whom they represented, reviving the language of the American revolution in his and the New Deal’s sweeping victory. Roosevelt sought to expand the court for every justice over the age of 70, which would have increased its size to 15 justices.

Conservatives fought back, wrapping the Court in the Constitution, attacking his court reorganization plan as “court packing.” In the Court fight, conservative Southern Democrats, including many who had worked behind the scenes against the New Deal like senators Tom Connally of Texas and Walter George of Georgia, along with the vice president, John Nance Garner, turned against Roosevelt. The weakened GOP let the Democrats carry the ball, but it was from this court fight that the informal conservative coalition of Southern Democrats and Republicans began to take shape.

Faced with the attack, the Court, which had four Coolidge/Hoover “Business of America is Business” conservatives, three urban liberals, and two moderate conservatives, shifted. In 1936 the Court had voted 6-3 against the New York minimum wage law. But in 1937 the Court upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 a similar Washington State minimum wage law, ruled in favor of the Wagner Act in the Jones and Laughlin Steel case, and upheld the Social Security Act and unemployment insurance. In all these rulings, Owen Roberts and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes changed their votes to side with Roosevelt.

By the end of 1937, as the old-guard conservatives began to retire, Roosevelt, defeated in the reorganization fight, began to replace them with New Dealers and by the time of the Pearl Harbor attack had forged a New Deal majority. The new Court moved away from the old doctrines of constitutional original intent associated with the corporate-dominated courts of the post–Civil War era toward a view that the Court must change with changing economic and social conditions. Most of all, the Court retreated from its support for business and its defense of the absolute right of freedom of contract. Instead, a law was to be “presumed constitutional” on questions concerning economic power and government regulation — constitutional regulation came to be seen, as one decision put it, as regulation for the “public good.” Economic freedom was no longer the preferred freedom of the court, and economic activity was no longer local and thus not regulatable.

The court also upheld in the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum wages for all citizens, whereas later it vetoed state minimum wage legislation for women, refused to apply the anti-trust laws to unions, and outlawed the sit-down strike in 1939 (NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.), but in a decision that defended and established peaceful picketing.

At the same time, the Court under New Deal leadership began to develop a new doctrine of preferred freedoms, a doctrine that stressed the need to protect the rights of political dissenters and minorities. In late 1937, the Court declared unconstitutional state laws barring speech and assembly that had been used to convict and imprison Communist Party activists like Angelo Herndon in Georgia, later explicitly defended religious freedom in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ refusal to swear allegiance to the flag and revived the clear and present danger criteria to protect free speech and assembly. In 1938 the Court, for the first time since the end of Reconstruction, enforced some civil rights claims when it contended that the state of Missouri, by not supplying legal education for Black students had violated the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy (Missouri had offered to pay part of their tuition). While the decision didn’t challenge segregation, it pressured Southern states to increase educational programs under segregation for African Americans.

In the Hague case, the Court declared unconstitutional a local Jersey City ordinance against picketing and demonstrations which had been used for mass arrests — subsequently, this was defined to mean peaceful picketing. In U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938), the majority ruled that the court would no longer apply “heightened scrutiny” to economic legislation; however, in a footnote, Harlan Fiske Stone added that the Court was obligated to apply a “more exacting judicial scrutiny” in cases where laws or regulations contradicted the Bill of Rights or adversely affected minorities. The famous “footnote 4” had important implications for Bill of Rights freedoms for dissenters and minorities.

Following the recession of 1937 and the business-conservative counterattack and backlash of 1938, the New Deal was politically stalemated in Congress and without a clear program. However, by this time, the labor social welfare program was consolidated, at least for the short term. Further, the great fortress of conservative power protected from the electoral process — the Supreme Court — was overthrown.

Democratic President Harry Truman’s appointees set back the Court’s support for civil liberties, especially in the 1950–51 Eugene Dennis case, where the Court upheld the convictions and imprisonment of the leadership of the CPUSA under the 1940 Smith Act. The appointments of Earl Warren as Chief Justice and William Brennan by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, however, greatly strengthened the Court’s progressive majority at a time when Cold War policies moved Congress and the president to the right.

In the Brown decision (1954), the Court declared school segregation unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also in the Yates and other decisions made illegal some of the worst aspects of state and federal anti-Communist policies, leading the FBI to establish its secret Cointelpro program. In the later Miranda and Gideon decisions the Court limited police power to interrogate and hold suspects without formally charging them and reading them their rights, including their right to legal representation or a court-appointed attorney to represent them. The Court also rejected early challenges to the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. Although Richard Nixon’s election to the presidency and his appointments moved the Court in a more conservative direction over time, Court decisions in the early 1970s effectively abolished the death penalty in the U.S. and, in Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion.

Even before Ronald Reagan gained the presidency, the Nixon-influenced Court began to move to the right. In 1976, the court gave states the right to reestablish the death penalty (subsequently the death penalty would be established at the federal level in a more extensive way than at the state level). In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld an amendment to the funding of Medicaid in 1976 which barred the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, a cruel blow to the rights of low-income and poor women.

Over the following four decades, a series of decisions chipped away at civil rights and civil liberties; weakened the regulation of commerce, industry, and finance; and removed restrictions on the use of money in elections. The Court’s conservative majority became more militantly reactionary, destroying earlier compromise decisions brokered by conservatives. Donald Trump, who gained the presidency in large part because of the deeply undemocratic nature of U.S. politics, failed to implement his far-right domestic policies, which both large numbers of Americans and people throughout the world saw as “neofascism.” However, his “success” in appointing three Supreme Court judges is now his “legacy,” in that they are doing what he failed to accomplish.

First, we must understand that a large majority of the people oppose these decisions, just as in 1857 and 1936 a large majority of the people opposed the Supreme Court’s pro-slavery Dred Scott decision and its decisions declaring New Deal regulatory and social legislation unconstitutional. The Republican Party mobilized opposition to the Dred Scott decision to win the 1858 congressional elections. More than 70 years later, the Democratic Party mobilized opposition to the conservative Court’s decisions to propel Roosevelt to an overwhelming victory in the 1936 national elections. The same kind of united opposition must be organized now. We must point out that the present Court has set the nation back and may continue to block progress regarding immediate issues such as inflation, health care, or the cost of energy and transportation. Were the government to attempt, for example, to establish price controls, create a national public health system, and expand public transportation, the Court would not be on the people’s side.

The trade union movement, all civil rights and women’s rights organizations, and all environmental organizations must mobilize supporters and communities throughout the nation to vote against the Republican senators and congresspeople who over decades have created this judiciary. Such an electoral victory is necessary but not in itself sufficient. Many today are calling for an expansion of the Court. Congress and the president have the power to do that, since the number 9 is not in the Constitution. We should begin to think about a larger expansion of the federal judiciary itself. Since the 1980s, the conservative Federalist Society has advanced the doctrine of original intent as a cover to restore Court rulings opposing federal regulation of business and social welfare legislation. A government committed to restoring what the Court had represented in the New Deal–Great Society era should actively appoint attorneys who support those positions.

Finally, the question of judicial review itself could be formally ended by Congress and the president. As was contended earlier, it is not a part of the Constitution, and there is no evidence that the Constitutional Convention intended it to be established. The Court has acted to strike down and take away from the people major social protections and rights. As such its power of judicial review can and should be taken away from it.

Book Review: Longing and Belonging: Parents, Children, and Consumer Culture, by Allison J. Pugh

This is a very important book for teachers, teacher trainers, and teacher candidates to read because it offers an explanation of the desires of children and the interesting way the desires are met, or not met, by their parents.  In this day of increasing demand for newer and better toys and technology, children ask for more and more expensive items.

Allison Pugh uses a qualitative research approach from the side of sociology to look at the phenomenon, namely the decision to reward children with gifts or to withhold them, and why or why not.  Pugh looks at the desires and needs of kids from very disparate family backgrounds, socioeconomic class, and racial and cultural experiences in a region of southern California.

The pivotal point is the school, the type of school, including whether it is public or private, and the ways that having technology and other assets are viewed by the students.  The author interviews several parents to find out how the decision is made as to whether the kids will receive something they want.  In some cases, the parents do buy the items so that the kids will not stand out as being too different from others, so that the kids will be able to participate with others in their school and be able to “save face.”

Not all parents immediately purchase items for their child, however, sometimes waiting to make sure it is a wise choice or until the family can afford it.  In other cases, the parents can indeed afford the time but wait before buying it.  The author uses the term “symbolic deprivation” to describe parents waiting until the child truly deserves the item or it is somehow time to go ahead and purchase the gift, toy, or technology.    

In this ethnographic study, the author discovers some surprising aspects many people do not consider.  Parents often want their children to fit in, so buying them fruit snacks or certain kinds of lunch items is very important as they help their kids to be part of the scene.  Some parents consider the social life at school to be as important or even more important than what the kids are learning.  Sometimes parents do try to get children to adopt better eating habits, but they agree to help them fit in better by purchasing trendy snacks or desserts for the lunchbox.

For a variety of reasons, parents do or do not buy certain items.  Parents of all income levels explained it was a struggle to know when to say enough is enough.  In many cases, the parents say they try to buy the majority of the things the kids want, and sometimes that means kids do have to wait so the family will not wind up “in trouble” financially.  Still, though, kids in this study tended to eventually get the lion’s share of what they had on their conscious wish list.

Important reading for educators, this book shows the social and family side of the desires and needs of children in three very different kinds of schools.  Other factors such as class and race place interesting roles in the decision process employed by parents.  It is essential to better understand the kinds of pressures on kids and their parents in terms of the technology and toys so much of the kid landscape these days.  Understanding what is going on behind the scenes, in the lunchroom, and in the playground can be very helpful in comprehending a little more of the kid’s world and that of the parents raising them.

It will be interesting to study these patterns and decisions after COVID-19 has come to a more secure stop at the end of the road.

Book Review: The Sewing Girl’s Tale: A Story of Crime and Consequences in Revolutionary America by John Wood

Sweet (Henry Holt) uses the trial of the accused rapist, Harry Bedlow, of a seventeen-year-old seamstress named Lanah Sawyer in 1793 to analyze New York City’s social hierarchy during the early republic. Alexander Hamilton was part of Bedlow’s legal team. Bedlow’s      acquittal[1]  after the jury deliberated for only fifteen minutes sparked riots in the streets and ignited a vigorous debate about class privilege and sexual double standards. Sawyer received some justice when her stepfather won a civil suit against Bedlow and the family was awarded a significant sum. The book received a Bancroft Award from the American Historical Association.