Presidents and Labor Strikes

Hank Bitten, NJCSS Executive Director

Most decisions by American presidents and other world leaders do not have an immediate impact on the economy, especially regarding the macroeconomic issues of employment and inflation. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s bank holiday, President John Kennedy’s tariff on imported steel, and President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act had limited immediate effects on the economy, but their long-term effects were significant. The accomplishments or problems of a previous administration may impact on the administration that follows.

For example, President Biden faced criticism about the economy during his administration. The jobs created with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve Bank to lower inflation did not show results until years later. The drop in Real Disposable Income from the administration of President Trump is another example. Real Disposable Income is a measure of income that is adjusted for inflation. The drop between the administration of President Bident and Trump is the result of extended unemployment benefits, people working from home during the pandemic when businesses were closed, and stimulus checks from the government. The economic transition following the end of the pandemic had a significant impact on the economy.

PresidentGDP GrowthUnemployment  RateInflation RatePoverty RateReal  Disposable  Income
Johnson2.6%3.4%4.4%12.8%$17,181
Nixon2.0%5.5%10.9%12.0%$19,621
Ford2.8%7.5%5.2%11.9%$20,780
Carter4.6%7.4%11.8%13.0%$21,891
Reagan2.1%5.4%4.7%13.1%$27,080
H.W. Bush0.7%7.3%3.3%14.5%$27,990
Clinton0.3%4.2%3.7%11.3%$34,216
G.W. Bush-1.2%7.8%0.0%13.2%$37,814
Obama1.0%4.7%2.5%14.0%$42,914
Trump2.6%6.4%1.4%11.9%$48,286
Biden2.6%3.5%5.0%12.8%$46,682

This series provides a context of important decisions by America’s presidents that are connected to the expected economic decisions under the second administration of President Trump. The background information and questions provide an opportunity for small and large group discussions, structured debate, and additional investigation and research. They may be used for current events, as a substitute lesson activity or integrated into a lesson.

In the case study below, have your students investigate the economic problem, different perspectives on the proposed solution, the short- and long-term impact of the decision, and how the decision affects Americans in the 21st century.

The Economic Problem

One of the first labor strikes in the United States occurred in Paterson, New Jersey on July 3, 1835.  About 2,000 textile workers stopped working in about 20 textile mills demanding better hours. Workers, including women and children worked 13 hours a day six days a week and their wages were reduced as fines for infractions. The strike eventually led to a 12-hour day and a nine-hour day on Saturday.

In 1835 carpenters, masons, and stonecutters in Boston staged a seven-month strike in favor of a ten-hour day. The strikers demanded that employers reduce excessively long hours worked in the summer and spread them throughout the year. In Philadelphia, carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers, masons, leather dressers, and blacksmiths went on strike. In Lowell, MA, women also went on strike. The history of labor complaints and strikes date back to the colony of Jamestown. Although the common law in England provided protection for peaceful demonstrations, the courts in the colonies and states often fined workers because their organization as a group was viewed as a ‘restrain of free trade’ or a violation of the right of property for employers. In 1842, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Hunt was a landmark decision that allowed peaceful demonstrations. “In March 1842, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw ruled that labor combinations were legal provided that they were organized for a legal purpose and used legal means to achieve their goals.”

The economic problem was long hours, low wages, and oppressive working conditions. The market revolution led to the demand for consumer goods. The new inventions of the cotton gin, steamboats, locomotives, and factories. The nature of work was changing and this led to profound changes in society. Employers and entrepreneurs believed this was the idea behind the pursuit of happiness in the declaration of Independence and how a republic was governed. Laborers used the press to voice their concerns which led to the organization of trade unions in Philadelphia.

President Andrew Jackson’s decision to let the charter of the Second Bank of the United States to expire had an unexpected and profound impact on ordinary people. Working conditions continued to decline and President Jackson’s decision led to an increase in paper money and inflation. Higher prices led to unemployment and longer hours for those who were employed. Illness or injury and debt led to homelessness and poverty. According to a New York City physician, the laboring poor in the 1790s lived in “little decayed wooden huts” inhabited by several families, dismal abodes set on muddy alleys and permeated by the stench from “putrefying excrement.” Source

In 1840 the federal government introduced a ten-hour workday on public works projects. In 1847 New Hampshire became the first state to adopt a ten-hour day law. It was followed by Pennsylvania in 1848. Both states’ laws, however, included a clause that allowed workers to voluntarily agree to work more than a ten-hour day. Despite the limitations of these state laws, agitation for a ten-hour day did result in a reduction in the average number of hours worked, to approximately 11 by 1850.  On May 19, 1869, President Grant issue Proclamation 182 making an 8-hour day for all federal government employees. This expanded the decision of Congress made in 1868.

After the Civil War, manufacturing and economic growth increased dramatically. There were many strikes as farmers and laborers, both skilled and unskilled, formed associations and unions. Below are examples of larger strikes that are likely part of the high school curriculum.

During the first week of May,1886 workers in Chicago staged demonstrations and strikes demanding an eight-hour day. On May 4 a bomb exploded near Haymarket Square in Chicago.  Several police officers and protesters were wounded or killed by the blast, and 8 individuals were arrested and convicted. Source

A day to recognize the rights of workers was first proposed by Matthew Maguire from Paterson, NJ in 1882. The balance between the right to have peaceful demonstrations under the First Amendment was respected but the Haymarket Riot became violent, strikes were costly to the profits of employers, and violence and strikes were a threat to property. President Cleveland was the first president challenged by the threat of anarchy from socialists. After the Haymarket Riot, a few states, including New York and New Jersey, recognized a Labor Day holiday. This was the fourth federal holiday after Independence Day, Christmas Day, and New Year’s Day. Congress considered making Labor Day a federal holiday in May, but President Cleveland feared this would become a recognition of the violence of the Haymarket Riot.  President Cleveland was the first president to involve the federal government in resolving issues between labor and business interests or capital.  Source

Newspaper Accounts of the Haymarket Riot, 1886

  1. Under what conditions would you support workers on strike? (higher wages, better working conditions, unfair practices by an employer, benefits, job security, etc.)
  2. Are labor strikes a violation of the property rights of employers?
  3. Do workers have a right to disrupt the production of goods or services by a slowdown in the workplace, strict adherence to their contract agreement, coordinating a sick out, making public expressions or statements about their situation, etc.
  4. Do workers need to be paid in wages or can employers also pay them in other ways? (time off, goods produced, etc.)
  5. Should workers receive an annual salary increase based on their months or years of service, inflationary costs of living, or only if they produce more than in the past?
  6. How would you determine a fair wage?
  7. Do the students in your class (or a larger group) support the right to strike workers?

Open the three-day lesson on the 1835 strike in Paterson, NJ. (Update the CPI index from 2012 to the present)

In the months before the presidential election of 1892, President Harrison was faced with a violent strike at the Carnegie Steel Company in Homestead, PA near Pittsburg. The Knights of Labor and the Amalgamated Association of Iron Workers went on strike on June 30 when their contract expired. Workers in Carnegie’s companies in the area supported the striking workers.  Henry Clay, the manager of the Homestead plant, hired private Pinkerton guards to protect the plant and keep the striking workers away. President Harrison privately sent Whitelaw Reid to mediate the conflict.

The strikers threw rocks at the guards, the crowd size was estimated to be about 5,000, and gunshots were fired. At one point amid the chaos, shots were fired. The Pinkertons surrendered and the strikers continued with verbal abuse and assaulted them with rocks as they marched them to a local Opera Hall.

On July 12, Pennsylvania Governor Robert Pattison sent 8,500 National Guardsmen to end the strike. In less than 30 minutes the Carnegie mill was under martial law, the strikers were arrested. Sixteen of the strikers were arrested for conspiracy, murder, and inciting riots. The strike ended three months later in November with the workers agreeing to lower wages, the elimination of 500 jobs, and a 12-hour day. The labor unions lost, and their membership declined.

President Cleveland faced a nationwide railroad strike that began on May 11, 1894. The American Railway Union went on strike against the Pullman Company and the major railroads.  It became a turning point in U.S. labor law. The workers at Pullman protested the layoff of 2,000 workers and wage cuts that amounted to 25%-50% of their wages. The Pullman workers lived in a company town and paid rent to the Pullman Company, which was located near Chicago, Il. The rents were not reduced. The Pullman Company also had a surplus of $4 million at the time of the strike and consistently paid dividends to shareholders.

The Panic or recession of 1893 negatively affected many companies as production declined. The railroads depended on shipping farm products, which were reduced as a result of crop failures. This was the most serious economic recession in the world as investors in Europe purchased gold from U.S. banks, Americans took their savings out of banks, and companies that had speculated in the stock, bond, and commodity markets lost money/ The economic recovery after the recession ended would take several years.

On July 3, 1894, President Cleveland ordered 2,000 armed federal troops to Chicago to end the strike. The strike ended within a few weeks, union leaders were arrested and jailed on charges of conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce. The justification of using federal troops to move the U.S. mail was based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890. This was not the first time federal troops were used to end a strike. President Jackson used troops in 1834 to end the strike by workers building the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal and in 1877 President Hayes send troops to end the violence in Baltimore during the Great Railroad strike.

In May 1902 President Teddy Roosevelt was faced with a nationwide strike by coal miners. Many homes were heated by coal and a prolonged strike in the winter could be catastrophic, deadly, and cause riots. On October 3, 1902, with winter weather approaching, President Theodore Roosevelt called a precedent-shattering meeting to negotiate a settlement. The President did not have any legal authority to settle a labor dispute, although Presidents Jackson, Hayes and Cleveland used federal troops to end labor disputes.

President Roosevelt’s administration proposed the Anthracite Coal Commission to complete a fact-finding report and negotiate a settlement.  The strike ended on October 20, 1902, and the Commission recommended in March 1903 increasing miners’ pay by ten percent (one-half of their demand) and reducing the working day from ten to nine hours.

Samuel Gompers wrote: “Several times I have been asked what in my opinion was the most important single incident in the labor movement in the United States and I have invariably replied: the strike of the anthracite miners in Pennsylvania … from then on the miners became not merely human machines to produce coal but men and citizens…. The strike was evidence of the effectiveness of trade unions ….

The victory in the anthracite coalfields breathed new life into the American labor movement.55 It strengthened moderate labor leaders and progressive businessmen who championed negotiations as a way to labor peace. It enhanced the reputation of President Theodore Roosevelt. Sometimes overlooked, however, is the change the conflict made in the role of the Federal Government in important national strikes.” Source

The silk strike began in February 1913 when twenty-five thousand striking silk workers shut down the three hundred silk mills and dye houses in Paterson, New Jersey, for almost five months. There were several textile strikes that preceded the one in Paterson. The Paterson strike was related to an increased workload and the desire for an eight-hour day. The other strikes occurred because of wages. The Industrial Workers of the World (I.W.W.) were active in organizing the strike and produced the “Pageant of the Paterson Strike” in Madison Square Garden on June 7.  Pietro Botton opened his home to the labor leaders from New York City and on May 25, a rally of more than 20,000 people took place outside his home. These rallies continued on Sundays until the strike ended in July.

The strikers returned to work without any concessions, although the employers did not implement the plan to have one worker operating four looms instead of two.

  1. What is a yellow dog contract, scab, collective bargaining, closed shop, and right to work protections
  2. What are the differences between skilled and unskilled laborers?
  3. How is an Association different from a labor or trade union?
  4. Who has the advantage in a strike: labor employees or employers?
  5. How do strikes affect the economy and the lives of people who are not associated with the union?
  6. Why do you think the union and workers failed to achieve their goal in the Paterson Strike of 1913?
  1. Make a list of labor unions and associations in the United States.
  2. Use these sources to categorize the list of strikes by length of time, size of the unions, and frequency? List of Unions (Wikipedia)   200 Years of Labor History (NPS)

The Seattle General Strike of February 1919 was the first 20th-century solidarity strike in the United States to be proclaimed a “general strike.”  Seattle had 101 unions that were part of the American Federation of Labor (AFL). On the morning of February 6, 1919, over 25,000 union workers stopped working to support the 35,000 shipyard workers who were already on strike. Although wartime inflation created a need for higher wages, the goals of the striking workers were not clearly articulated. Mayor Ole threatened to declare martial law and two battalions (about 3,000) U.S. Army troops arrived. The union members had already implemented a plan to provide food deliveries, transport people to hospitals, and patrol the streets to prevent crime. Below is an image of a soup kitchen. Union members distributed 30,000 meals a day during the strike.

The strike lasted six days and was peaceful. There were minimal gains for the workers, but most returned to work. There were several outside agitators who were identified as “Reds” or communists who were arrested. The strike is generally viewed as unsuccessful.

Seattle General Strike Project

History of the General Strike (9-minute Video)

History of the General Strike (4-minute Video)

The Seattle General Strike (Roberta Gold) 

“An Account of What Happened in Seattle and Especially in the Seattle Labor Movement, During the General Strike, February 6 to 11, 1919” 

Slide show 

The Seattle General Strike 

The Boston Police went on strike on September 9, 1919. Police officers worked long hours, received low wages, and had inadequate working conditions. They worked thirteen-hour days and wanted an eight-hour day. They had to purchase their own uniforms which cost $200 (about two months’ salary), were required to sleep overnight in the police station several nights a month, and they had not received a salary increase in over ten years. They were paid about 25 cents an hour and earned about $1,400 a year.

The three cases below were landmark decisions in the labor movement. The Lochner decision ruled that employers could issue contracts without any restrictions such as an 8- or 10-hour day. The Adkins decision supported this and ruled it was illegal to have a minimum wage for workers. The Muller decision ruled that the hours of women could be less than those of men if their health was at risk.

The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this includes the right to purchase and sell labor, except as controlled by the state in the legitimate exercise of its police power.

The regulation of the working hours of women falls within the police power of the state, and a statute directed exclusively to such regulation does not conflict with the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses.

Legislation fixing hours or conditions of work may properly take into account the physical differences between men and women, but the doctrine that women of mature age require (or may be subjected to) restrictions on their liberty of contract that could not lawfully be imposed on men in similar circumstances must be rejected.

Frances Perkins was asked to serve as FDR’s Secretary of Labor. As Secretary, she would pursue: a 40-hour work week; a minimum wage; unemployment compensation; worker’s compensation; abolition of child labor; direct federal aid to the states for unemployment relief; Social Security; a revitalized federal employment service; and universal health insurance. She is the longest serving labor secretary and one of only two cabinet secretaries to serve the entire length of the Roosevelt Presidency.

The Wagner Act (1935) created the National Labor Relations Board to enforce employee rights rather than to mediate disputes. It gave employees the right, under Section 7, to form and join unions, and it obligated employers to bargain collectively with unions selected by a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. 

The U.S. Supreme Court in NLRB v. Washington Aluminum in 1962 upheld the right of employees to go on strike whether they have a union or not. However, workers and unions still needed to be careful to avoid an unlawful strike.

A strike is likely protected by law if it is in response to “unfair labor practice strikers” or “economic hardship from low wages, excessive hours, or difficult working conditions.” 

A strike may be unlawful when it supports an unfair labor practice such as requiring an employer to stop doing business with another company. Workers cannot legally strike if their contract prohibits strikes, although workers can stop working if they are subject to dangerous or unhealthy conditions.

After World War II, there were several major strikes and unions were unpopular because of the strikes and fear of the expansion of communism after Churchills’ Iron Curtain speech. The Taft Hartley Act amended the Wagner Act (1935). It was proposed by Rep. Fred Hartley from New Jersey and Senator Robert Taft from Ohio.  The Taft-Hartley Act made major changes to the Wagner Act. It was vetoed by President Truman and required a vote by both houses of Congress to override his veto. The Act was amended to protect employees’ rights from unfair practices by unions by making the closed shop and wildcat strikes to be illegal and prohibiting unions from charging excessive fees for membership.

  1. What are the differences between a walkout, lockout, strike, and sit-down strike? Do the definitions or labels matter if work stops?
  2. Should certain employees be prevented from having a union to represent their interests?
  3. Should certain employees who serve the public be prevented by law from being able to strike when the public’s safety or interest is at risk? (teachers, bankers, police, sanitation, transportation workers, nurses, etc.)
  4. What is arbitration, fact-finding, and collective bargaining? What is the purpose of each?
  5. What is back pay?  Should striking workers be compensated for the days or weeks they did not work?
  1. Interview two or three people or groups of people regarding labor conditions they would like to have negotiated in their favor.
  2. Review the contract between teachers and the Board of Education in your district or another district. Discuss the protections in the contract that are not directly related to salary?

In January 1966, there was a 13-day transit strike in New York City. The buses and trains were shut down. In 1968, the teachers and sanitation workers went on strike. Thousands of New York City teachers went on strike in 1968 when the local school board of Ocean Hill – Brownsville, fired nineteen teachers and administrators without notice. The newly created school district, in a heavily black neighborhood, was an experiment in community control over schools—those dismissed were almost all Jewish. The strike began in September and ended on November 17. There are many important issues relevant to this strike – civil rights, integrated schools, poor performing districts, and local control vs. a central Board of Education. The strike raised the issue if public sector employees (police, fire, teachers, and private sector employees should have the right to strike over unfair business practices.

On the morning of August 5, 1981, approximately 13,000 workers of the air traffic control facilities called a strike.  President Reagan spoke from the Rose Garden at the White House telling them to return to work within 48 hours or be fired. About 2,000 returned to work and the rest were fired. The government used people from the military and retired air traffic controllers to monitor the flights and hired new air traffic controllers. This one event had a proof und effect on the labor movement as workers feared losing their jobs if they went on strike.

The 232-day baseball strike of 1994-95 was the biggest one in professional sports. Although there have been many work stoppages in professional baseball dating back to 1912, the study of this strike is important because of the challenges it presented to labor negotiators. This problem has historical origins and dates back to the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that professional baseball was exempt from the anti-trust protection because it was not considered to meet the definition of trade or commerce. Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs et al.  The case was appealed several times but not reversed. The only option for players was to strike. Source

The strike began on August 12, 1994, and the World Series was cancelled on September 14. One of the main issues was the salary cap that owners placed on the players. The cancellation of the World Series prompted some senators to propose legislation to end the anti-trust exemption given to baseball. This divided the Congress because the protection was favored by owners of smaller teams. President Clinton attempted to intervene but was not able to negotiate a settlement. As the 1995 baseball season was about to begin, baseball owners planned to hire non-union replacement players, a tactic used by the National Football League in 1987. On March 31, 1995, U.S. District Judge Sonia Sotomayor issued an injunction, and the baseball players returned to the field.

Chronological History of Labor Strikes in the United States (NPS

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.

President Richard Nixon – Price Controls and Ending the Gold Standard

Most decisions by American presidents and other world leaders do not have an immediate impact on the economy, regarding the macroeconomics of employment and inflation, at least in the short term of their administration. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s bank holiday, President John Kennedy’s tariff on imported steel, and President Ronald Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act had limited immediate effects on the economy but their long-term effects are significant. The accomplishments or problems of the previous administration will likely impact the administration that follows. For example, President Biden faced criticism about the economy in his administration but the steps taken to address them may not show results until years later. The drop in Real Disposable Income from the administration of President Trump is significant because it measures income after taxes and inflation.

PresidentGDP GrowthUnemployment RateInflation RatePoverty RateReal Disposable Income
Johnson2.6%3.4%4.4%12.8%$17,181
Nixon2.0%5.5%10.9%12.0%$19,621
Ford2.8%7.5%5.2%11.9%$20,780
Carter4.6%7.4%11.8%13.0%$21,891
Reagan2.1%5.4%4.7%13.1%$27,080
H.W. Bush0.7%7.3%3.3%14.5%$27,990
Clinton0.3%4.2%3.7%11.3%$34,216
G.W. Bush-1.2%7.8%0.0%13.2%$37,814
Obama1.0%4.7%2.5%14.0%$42,914
Trump2.6%6.4%1.4%11.9%$48,286
Biden2.6%3.5%5.0%12.8%$46,682

This series provides a context of important decisions by America’s presidents that are connected to the expected economic decisions facing our current president’s administration. The background information and questions provide an opportunity for small and large group discussions, structured debate, and additional investigation and research. They may be used for current events, as a substitute lesson activity or integrated into a lesson.

In the case study below, have your students investigate the economic problem, different perspectives on the proposed solution, the short and long term impact of the decision, and how the decision affects Americans in the 21st century.

  1. The world’s economy collapsed as a result of World War I. The Bretton Woods Agreement provided stability with a fixed exchange rate of $35 U.S. dollars to an ounce of gold. The strength of the U.S. dollar and economy was good for the United States and other countries. In fact, the gold of most countries was at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, so it was easy to physically move gold from one vault to another. The Marshall Plan provided $13.3 billion (about $175 billion in today’s money) to rebuild Europe. The Bretton Woods Agreement supported a global economy and international trade and cooperation.
  • By 1960, the U.S. economy began facing new challenges from the Baby Boomers, national debt, Cold War, trade deficit, higher unemployment and inflation. Economists introduced new research on the economy. The ideas of John Maynard Keynes that were seen as helpful to the challenges of the Great Depression and World War II were questioned in the 1960s by Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson and other economists who carefully followed the money supply in the economy. In response to the cost of the Vietnam War and the Great Society programs, in addition to the increased consumption of the Baby Boomers, the interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve Bank supported an increase in dollars.
  • President Richard Nixon understood the political implications of the U.S. economy. Although an inflation rate of 4.7% may not appear to be a concern, it is an increase of 50% from the expected rate of 3% and a GDP growth rate of 2%. When President Nixon became president ever nation wanted dollars. The amount of dollars in circulation increased to four times the amount of gold in reserves. As aa result the dollar was overvalued and very strong. This situation negatively impacted our balance of trade with other countries. In 1971, the United States reported its first trade deficit.
  • As the supply of dollars increased over the quantity of gold, the United States Treasury feared that countries might ask for their gold and the United States would not be able to meet their demands. As inflation increases, the purchasing power of the dollar decreases. A simple solution would be to devalue the dollar but since it was pegged to gold at $35 an ounce, this was not possible. The situation became critical in 1971when Britain requested selling $3 billion dollars it had from a trade surplus for gold. The United States only had about $10 billion in gold and if other countries asked for gold, there would be an international crisis.

Examine the graph below for the years 1950-1970. Calculate the percent decline in the purchasing power of the dollar.  How does a weaker dollar affect trade and the national economy?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of a stronger and weaker dollar?

Examine the data in this chart, especially for the years, 1960-1980. The amount of gold reserves (left axis) is constant but the value of the dollar changes. Which events in the 1960s likely affected the weakening of the U.S. dollar? Which decisions or events in the 1970’s contributed to the noticeable decline in the dollar. How does a weaker dollar affect the economy differently for consumers and investors?

President Lyndon Johnson responded to the ‘small’ (18%) decrease in the value of the dollar in 1968 with a temporary (one-year) surcharge of 10% on income tax payments. The purpose of the additional tax was to reduce or stabilize the 3.0 percent rate of inflation. Even with the surcharge, inflation increased to 4.7% within the year. On August 25, 1969, the federal funds rate was at 9.75%, the highest level since World War 2, about seven percent above the GDP growth rate, and will cause an economic recession. The economic advisors, including Arthur Burns, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, informed Nixon that the traditional monetary and fiscal policy tools were not working, President Nixon extended the tax surcharge through 1970. With the presidential election in 1972, Nixon knew that he needed to control the rising rate of inflation and avoid causing a recession.

President Nixon called for a secret meeting at Camp David to address this problem. He knew that politically the need to make a bold decision, like FDR with the decision to close the banks in March 1933. He also wisely sought the perspectives of economists with different points of view.

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon addressed the nation from the Oval Office with his historic decision, Executive Order 11615:

  1. Wage and price controls for 90 days
  2. Ending the Bretton Woods Agreement on converting dollars to gold
  3. 10% surcharge tax on tariffs

The Fed Funds rate in August 1971 was at 5.75% about three percent higher than the GDP rate of growth. One of the objectives of the “Nixon Shock” was to force other countries, especially China, to revalue their currencies to allow for a competitive free trade market for the United States. The stock market jumped 4% on August 16, but the decision to allow gold to be bought and sold at the market would lead to an unexpected increase in the price of oil. The wage and price controls and tariff surcharge were lifted by the end of 1971 but making the U.S. dollar the reserve currency of the world had lasting implications for the economy. President Nixon won the 1972 election by a landslide but the negative effects of then Nixon Shock would return in 1973.

Invite students to interview senior citizens who will have different perspectives as investors, bankers, union workers, homeowners, etc. on the “Nixon Shock.” For example, I was a high school teacher in New York City earning $5,500 a year. Prices were high from inflation and I was looking forward to a 20% salary increase, about $1,000, on September 1, 1971. My 1969-70 salary was frozen as was the pay scale for another year.  In 1973, the price of gasoline increased from 39 cents a gallon to more than 60 cents and gas was rationed. Although the energy crisis was the result of an embargo by OPEC against the United States for our support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War. After the embargo was lifted the higher cost of energy continued contributing to unemployment and continuing inflation. This became known as stagflation.

History of the Gold Standard

Gather information about the new technologies of how credit cards, money markets, and currency swaps increased personal spending, consumption, and the velocity of money.

  1. How did the banking industry change to ‘create’ new money in the economy?

In the chart below, currency represents coins and dollars, what we call cash.

M1 money represents currency plus money in a checking account which can quickly be exchanged for cash.

M2 money represents money that requires going to the bank tor waiting more than one month to convert the money to cash. (i.e. certificate of deposit)

  • Calculate the slope of the graph in dollars and also by the annual percentage change.
  • How did this contribute to inequality, consumer debt, and inflation?
  • What is the difference between installment credit and revolving credit?
  • How did the credit card change our standard of living?
  • What were the consequences of higher unemployment and full employment?
  • How did two income households affect the supply of money?

The Evolution of Consumer Credit in America

  1. What information is provided in the graph?
  2. What are several reasons for an increase in productivity by workers?
  3. How can high school students become more productive in their social studies class? (i.e. better grades, complete additional assignments and projects)
  4. Should a worker be paid on the amount of work they produce or on the wage they agreed to when they were hired? Should a teacher be paid based on the output (grades) of the students in their classes?
  5. Why do the red and blue lines diverge after 1970? Why is there a significant gap between what workers are producing in one hour and what they are paid?

The immediate impact of separating the value of the dollar from a fixed exchange rate of $35 was that the new value increased by 10% to $38 an ounce. It took about four years for the global economy to stabilize and accept dollars as the reserve currency (or safety net) in the event of a crisis. The supply of gold increased significantly after 1971 with about half of the current supply of gold being mined since the ‘Nixon Shock’.

  1. How do countries buy dollars? How does this affect our economy?

Source:

  • Is it possible for foreign countries to have too many U.S. dollars?
  • How would the decision of other countries to adopt a different currency affect the economy of the United States?
  • If a group of countries made a secret agreement to sell their U.S. dollars in a short period of time and purchase euros or the renminbi instead, how would the United States economy be affected?
  • What is the future of the dollar as the reserve currency? Does the United States have more advantages than disadvantages of being the dominant economic power in the world? The Dollar: The World’s Reserve Currency

Book Review: Once We Were Brothers

This is yet another wonderful book with great writing and captivating action—but it is a book  about a terrible story.  It describes the close friendship between a German/Polish Christian boy who is raised by a Jewish family in a small village in Poland.  The time is World War II, and the story is based on–and connects to–historical points of the time.

It is said to be a book that is “hard to put down.”  Indeed, it is.  Balson’s first novel, this book contains good writing, suitable pacing and forward movement, plus a lot of information about what was happening in rural Poland in that period.  There is also some direct teaching involved, with characters explaining what certain terms meant and what various Nazi policies entailed.

The book consists mainly of flashbacks to what was happening in Poland among the families and friends of Ben Solomon, the Jewish boy whose life is at the center of the story.  Chicago readers will be interested to know that the modern-day sections include scenes from Winnetka, the Loop, and the lakefront also.  

The book is a novel, with a huge amount of factual and historical foundation.

It dovetails into Common Core Standards college-readiness levels and college-use levels also.

I will recommend the book, but I remind readers that many of the scenes described and the action discussed will not be at all pleasurable.  Like many stories of the Holocaust, this one is very disturbing yet one which we must read, discuss, and remember.  

The book should be required reading for college students–in any major–and good for educators to read also.  As always, educators should read the book closely to see if there are passages inappropriate for younger readers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enhancing Student Learning with AI-Powered Image Features

Andy Szeto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Museums in New York and New Jersey

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

30 West Main Street
Oyster Bay, NY 11771

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1003 Morris Avenue
Union, NJ 07083

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

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

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

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

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

45 Macculloch Ave. Morristown, NJ 07960

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governed by Despots: John Swanson Jacobs Chronicles Enslavement and Resistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondary Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[10] Doherty, 2, 15-18.

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

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

[13] Upton, 171-176.

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

[15] Kruse, 113-122.

[16] Kruse, 180-222.

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

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

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

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

[21] Kruse, 234-235.

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

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

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

[25] Roiblatt 661-666.

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

[27] Humphrey, 8.

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

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

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

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

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

[33] Thompson, 727-729.

[34] Raphael 219.

[35] Raphael, 191.

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

[37] Kohler-Hausmann, 766.

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

[39] “Past Tense, Part 2,” 20:22-

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

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

[42] Kruse, 184-187.

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

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

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

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

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

[47] Kruse, 220-221.

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

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

[50] Kruze, 220.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[60] Kruse, 219-220.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[67] Kruse, 187-188.

[68] Russel, 158-161.


The John W. Jones Story

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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