Tag: Politics

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

New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

www.njcss.org

Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

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

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

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

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

Activity #1:  The 20th Amendment and the Government of Israel

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

Twentieth Amendment

Section 1

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

Section 2

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

Section 3

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

Section 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Proposal of Candidates (Amendment 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions:

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

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

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

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

      Presidential Term and Succession

      Date Changes for Presidency, Congress, and Succession

      Interpretation and Debate of the 20th Amendment

      Historical Background to the 20th Amendment

      Democracy and Elections in Israel

      Israel’s Elections

      Reforming the Israeli Electoral System

      Activity #2: The Federal Communications Commission and the BBC in the United Kingdom

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

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

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

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

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

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

      British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

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

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

      Questions:

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

      BBC Guidelines for Inappropriate Content

      The Communications Act of 1934

      History of the Federal Communications Commission

      History of Commercial Radio

      Activity #3: The Panama Canal Crisis (1903) and the Suez Canal Crisis (1953).

      Suez Canal Crisis (1956)

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

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

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

      Questions:

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

      History of the Panama Canal

      The Panama Canal

      International Law and the Panama Canal

      The Suez Canal Crisis

      Why was the Suez Canal Crisis Important?

      Activity #4: Poll Taxes in the USA and the Voting Petitions of the Chartist Movement in the United Kingdom

      Poll Taxes and the 24th Amendment

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

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

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

      Chartist Movement in the United Kingdom

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

      All men to have the vote (universal manhood suffrage)

      Voting should take place by secret ballot.

      Parliamentary elections every year, not once every five years

      Constituencies should be of equal size.

      Members of Parliament should be paid.

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

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

      Questions:

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

      Barriers to Voting: Poll Taxes

      Abolition of Poll Taxes: 24th Amendment

      Voting Rights for African Americans

      Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

      Voting Rights Act of 1965

      The Chartist Movement

      The Importance of the Chartist Movement

      The Exploitation of Enslaved Women During The 18th Century Colonial America

      The Exploitation of Enslaved Women During The 18th Century Colonial America

      Logan Stovall

      Logan Stovall is an eighth grade student at Montclair Kimberley Academy in Montclair, NJ

      The 18th century represents a dark period in American history when the institution of slavery thrived, and the exploitation of enslaved Black women flourished. The cruel realities endured by Black women during this time were not only a consequence of their enslavement but were magnified by both their race and gender, perpetuating a cycle of inequality and suffering. Beyond the physical captivity, these women endured a complex oppression that not only involved grueling labor but also made them victims of sexual violence. The harsh reality of this oppression becomes evident when one reflects on how the clothing worn by enslaved Black women served as a physical manifestation of their fragile existence. The clothes they wore were not just rags or pieces of fabric used to cover their bodies; they represented a system that dehumanized and abused them.  During the 18th century, an enslaved Black woman’s gender and race primarily affected the way she lived and thrived in an illiberal society. Understanding the exploitation of enslaved Black women during the American colonial era requires a closer look into the sweat of their daily labor, the sexual abuse they endured, and the clothing they wore that bound them to such a harsh life.

      However, before any analysis regarding the exploitation of enslaved Black women is made, one must first consider that the racial stereotypes and discriminatory practices against enslaved Black women during the colonial era were the underlying causes of their mistreatment. The widely accepted racist ideas of Antebellum white slaveholders led them to think of their enslaved people as both biologically and culturally inferior. Due to their understanding of the social hierarchy at this time, slaveholders often whipped and physically mistreated enslaved women under their supervision.[i] In addition to the racist beliefs they held, slaveholders also created various stereotypes about enslaved Black women. One such popular stereotype was the “Mammy” caricature. The “mammy caricature” depicted enslaved Black women as enjoying their servitude, being physically unattractive, and only fit to be domestic workers.[ii]

      In contrast to the “mammy caricature”, slave owners also created a more promiscuous stereotype of enslaved Black women: the “Jezebel” figure. The Jezebel caricature was used during slavery to justify a slaveholder’s objectification and sexual exploitation of enslaved Black women.[iii] The Mammy and Jezebel caricatures, along with various other derogatory stereotypes that plagued enslaved Black women, heavily influenced how the rest of the White population during the Antebellum period perceived and treated Black women. Sadly, these caricatures endured for decades even after colonial times.

      With racial stereotyping forming the underlying cause of discrimination against Black women, a significant amount of White slave masters often subjected Black women to harsh labor conditions. Enslaved women were often forced to work in the fields from sunrise to sunset where they endured physical and emotional abuse. On larger farms and plantations, for example, women were forced to perform tasks like hoeing and ditching entire fields. These were the most exhausting and uninteresting forms of fieldwork.[iv] Slaveholders also held enslaved women accountable for cleaning and tidying communal areas like stables and expected them to spread manure as a fertilizer.[v] Moreover, slave owners frequently questioned how much time off enslaved women needed to adequately take care of their families and children. When not offered any downtime by their slaveholders, enslaved women had to bring their children with them to the fields and strap them to their backs as they worked tirelessly. [vi]

      Black women’s exploitation extended beyond the fields. In many instances, the labor performed by enslaved women was prolonged and complicated. For example, many enslaved women began to work for slaveholders at a very young age. There was little free time for enslaved women to rest, given that most women worked for their master five to six days a week. This included keeping the owner’s homes clean, cooking food, and washing their clothes.[vii] In short, enslaved women were expected to work tirelessly, both in the fields and in the house. The slave masters did not care about  the well-being of their enslaved women and exploited them for their free labor.  For Black women, slavery in the southern colonies meant long days performing menial, exhausting tasks, sometimes in the hot, baking sun.  After working prolonged, hard days for the slaveholders, these women had to care for their own families, which was often a physical and mental challenge due to the absence of time to rest. When enslaved women did not meet the expectations for their work by their enslaver, they would oftentimes be taken advantage of sexually or physically assaulted as a form of punishment. Unfortunately, this possibility became a reality for many enslaved Black women.

      Indeed, as the slave population in America grew larger through the importation of slaves, enslaved Black women primarily as reproducers of a valuable labor force rather than merely a part of the labor force.  The sexual exploitation of Black women extended from sexual gratification of their White slaveholders to include reproducing offspring that would expand their workforce. Though slave owners valued enslaved women as laborers, they were also well aware that female slaves could be used to successfully reproduce new labor (more children who would grow up to be slaves) by continuing their role as full-time mothers.[viii] This presented slaveholders with a dilemma because West African women usually had some prior agricultural experience (like growing tobacco and rice) which could be used to the slaveholders’ benefit.[ix]

      In 1756, Reverend Peter Fontaine of Charles City County, Virginia, stated that Black females were “far more prolific than…white women.” This form of racial stereotyping made enslaved women extremely vulnerable to physical assault.[x] Many white enslavers raped Black women for sexual pleasure, as well as for their ability to produce children who would become slaves and ultimately increase their wealth. Instead of perpetuating the stereotype that all enslaved Black women were unattractive and were only fit to be domestic workers, they now were feeding into the stereotype that Black women were promiscuous and desired for the reproduction of enslaved children who could be used or sold. This form of physical exploitation was pervasive throughout the Antebellum South.

      In addition to labor and sexual exploitation, clothing was another form of exploitation that enslaved Black women were forced to endure. While these women often knitted or otherwise made beautiful garments for White women and their children, the fabrics that enslaved Black women wore themselves offered minimal protection from the weather and had to be inexpensive and easy to make.[xi] Their clothing was so cheap in quality that it often disassembled or tore within weeks. As a result, enslaved women often borrowed clothing from one another or even stole clothing from the slave master’s house. They did this to give themselves or their families warm, sustainable garments, and sometimes, to blend into the free population. Oppressors often made enslaved women wear poor, rugged clothing to symbolize a Black woman’s low status and to cultivate racial stereotypes depicting Black women as inferior. Indeed, one reason why enslaved women wanted to steal White people’s clothes was because they wanted to appear as free Black people with increased status.[xii]

      Despite being subjected to clothing exploitation, many enslaved women nevertheless tried to continue to be connected to their former culture by wearing West African garments. Enslaved women working in slaveholders’ homes were expected to cover their heads with lightweight white caps, which other members of the household also wore. However, to continue the West African tradition, many enslaved women also chose to wear brightly colored head wraps that surrounded their heads and were secured with knots and tucking’s.[xiii] They also sometimes wore cowrie shells in their hair; which were very expensive and far more valuable than money. These cowrie shells also appeared in spirit bundles as parts of clothing and jewelry, implying their use as amulets.

      Black women not only wore these West African garments to remain connected with their former cultures, but they also wore the garments as a form of resistance against enslavement.[xiv] Enslaved Black women despised their status as slaves but were able to feel proud about and connect to their former West African heritage when they wore their cultural headdresses. The significance of these garments likely gave Black women a feeling of strength and empowerment as they were emotionally frightened by the abuse they faced from their enslavers.

      During the 18th century, the exploitation of enslaved Black women through their gender and race greatly influenced the way they survived and flourished in a prejudicial society. Enslaved women were exploited in numerous ways and were expected to address the needs of others to the detriment of caring for themselves and their families. They worked extremely hard, both in the house and in the field, and did whatever they were commanded to do withstanding both physical and emotional abuse. They were often raped through their shabby clothing and physically assaulted by their master’s for punishment, as a means to increase their profit in human labor. But still, an enslaved Black woman was able to overcome these acts of exploitation non-violently and create her own peace by wearing and displaying garments that were distinct to her West African culture. Given all that these enslaved women endured, we should respect and admire their ability to overcome such incredible hardships.

      Bibliography

      Primary Sources:

      Smithsonian, and National Museum of African American History and Culture. “Cowrie Shells and Trade Power.” National Museum of African American History and Culture. Accessed November 15, 2023. https://nmaahc.si.edu/cowrie-shells-and-trade-power#:~:text=Europeans%20in%20the%2016th%20century,at%20their%20use%20as%20amulets .

      [i] LDHI, “Hidden Voices: Enslaved Women in the Lowcountry and U.S. South,” LDHI, accessed November 27, 2023, https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/hidden-voices/enslaved-womens-work.

      [ii] LDHI, “Hidden Voices,” LDHI.

      [iii] LDHI, “Hidden Voices,” LDHI.

      [iv] Jennifer Hallam, “The Slave Experience: Men, Women & Gender,” Slavery and the Making of America, accessed November 27, 2023, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/gender/history.html.

      [v] Emily West, Enslaved Women in America: From Colonial Times to Emancipation (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017), 29

      [vi] West, Enslaved Women, 28.

      [vii] LDHI, “Hidden Voices,” LDHI.

      [viii] West, Enslaved Women, 28.

      [ix] West, Enslaved Women, 29

      [x] West, Enslaved Women, 31.

      [xi] Daina Ramey Berry and Deleso A. Alford, eds., Enslaved Women in America: An Encyclopedia enhanced credo edition ed. (Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2012), 34 and 35.

      [xii] Katherine Gruber, ed., “Clothing and Adornment of Enslaved People in Virginia,” Encyclopedia Virginia, last modified December 7, 2020, accessed November 5, 2023, https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-clothing-and-adornment-in-virginia/.

      [xiii] Gruber, “Clothing and Adornment,” Encyclopedia Virginia.

      [xiv] Smithsonian and National Museum of African American History and Culture, “Cowrie Shells and Trade Power,” National Museum of African American History and Culture, accessed November 15, 2023, https://nmaahc.si.edu/cowrie-shells-and-trade-power#:~:text=Europeans%20in%20the%2016th%20century,at%20their%20use%20as%20amulets.

      Secondary Sources:

      Berry, Daina Ramey, and Deleso A. Alford, eds. Enslaved Women in America: An Encyclopedia. Enhanced Credo edition ed. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2012.

      Gruber , Katherine, ed. “Clothing and Adornment of Enslaved People in Virginia.” Encyclopedia Virginia. Last modified December 7, 2020. Accessed November 5, 2023. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/slave-clothing-and-adornment-in-virginia/.

      Hallam, Jennifer. “The Slave Experience: Men, Women & Gender.” Slavery and the Making of America. Accessed November 27, 2023. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/gender/history.html.

      LDHI. “Hidden Voices: Enslaved Women in the Lowcountry and U.S. South.” LDHI. Accessed November 27, 2023. https://ldhi.library.cofc.edu/exhibits/show/hidden-voices/enslaved-womens-work.

      West, Emily. Enslaved Women in America: From Colonial Times to Emancipation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017.

      Sally Hemings’ Legacy of Freedom and Motherhood

      Sally Hemings’ Legacy of Freedom and Motherhood

      Mireicy Aquino

      Ms. Aquino is an eighth grade student at Montclair Kimberley Academy in Montclair, NJ

      Sally Hemings led an extraordinarily complex life, yet her story inspires thousands of women, myself included. Despite the intricacies, she fought against the notion of becoming just another enslaved individual in her family’s generational cycle. Sally sought to change the trajectory of her children’s lives, offering them opportunities beyond enslavement. Instead of securing her own freedom, she made a selfless choice to promise freedom to her future children—a decision that stands out as a remarkable act of heroism. Sally Hemings’s life, sacrifices, and ability to persuade Thomas Jefferson into making her a  promise was an act of heroism towards her children. Her story is a testament to the profound strength of a mother’s love and the power of quiet rebellion against an oppressive system.

      Born into slavery, Sally began her journey as one of Polly’s , Thomas Jefferson’s daughter, maid, and caretaker. Over time, she developed a close relationship with Polly, potentially even her aunt as well.[1] During their time in Paris, where Sally accompanied Polly in her studies, Thomas Jefferson expressed reservations about Sally’s  ability to care for his daughter because she was so young, fourteen at the time. However, although she was well-trained in caring for people, Thomas Jefferson expressed that she was “wholly incapable of looking after” his daughter and could not do it “without some superior to direct her.”[2]  Despite Jefferson’s doubts about her abilities, Sally gracefully navigated the unfamiliar Parisian landscape and spent twenty-six months in Paris, also reuniting with her brother James. She contracted smallpox but received proper care and was compensated for her work. Sally also learned French during her stay, though her literacy in both languages remains uncertain.[3]

      In Paris, at the age of fourteen, Sally’s  involvement in a sexual relationship with Thomas Jefferson, whose wife died in 1782, resulted in her pregnancy, which shifted her trajectory dramatically. While accompanying Thomas Jefferson’s daughter, Polly, to Paris, Hemings was caught in a complex web of power dynamics and his unspoken desires. Yet, a fateful encounter with Jefferson forever altered her life. Madison Hemings, Sally Hemings’s son, stated that his mother became Mr. Jefferson’s concubine in France. Though in France, slavery was not legal, so Sally was considered a free person. Torn between the possibility of freedom in Paris and the promise of a better future for her children, Sally made a heart-wrenching choice. She negotiated an extraordinary deal: freedom for her future children at 21, sacrificing her own chance at escape. In the face of unimaginable hardship, this selflessness began her quiet rebellion. She did not try to negotiate for freedom for herself.[4] Additionally, Thomas Jefferson wrote about Sally as they continued their “relationship” after returning to Monticello. He wrote, “It is well known that the man whom it delighted the people to honor, keeps, and for many years past has kept, as his concubine, her name is Sally.”[5] Jefferson clearly stated that Sally was his concubine, his mistress. In his eyes, Sally was just another woman.

      After returning to Monticello with Jefferson and his daughters in 1789, she became a household servant and lady’s maid.[6] In addition, Madison Hemings stated, “It was her duty, all her life which I can remember, up to the time of father’s death, to take care of his chamber and wardrobe, look after us children and do such light work as sewing.” As well as being a maid, Sally’s job was cleaning Jefferson’s closet and sewing. Also, upon returning to Monticello, Sally’s relationship with Jefferson, though shrouded in secrecy, was an undeniable reality. Sally Hemings’s relationship with Thomas Jefferson was well-known throughout Monticello. Some of Jefferson’s friends and even political colleagues knew about them. However, this new sexual relationship did not come as a surprise to people. It was, unfortunately, widespread for white men to have sexual activity with enslaved women, let alone enslavers with enslaved women. However, society could ignore Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings if he kept them discreet, so he never acknowledged the rumors, and they continued their “relationship.”[7] Their relationship lasted until Jefferson died on July 4, 1826.

      She  bore him six children, each carrying the weight of their father’s legacy and the burden of slavery. Although, only four survived to adulthood, Harried, Beverly, Madison and Eston. Despite her duties as a servant and Jefferson’s “concubine,” Sally nurtured her children with unwavering love and a fierce determination to see them free. Madison Hemings said, “She gave birth to four others, and Jefferson was the father of all. They were Beverly, Harriet, Madison (myself), and Eston – three sons and one daughter.”[8] The oldest, Beverly Hemings, worked as a carpenter for the duration of his enslaving. He was also into music, more specifically, the violin.[9] Harriet Hemings was born a few years after Beverly in 1801. She grew up enslaved, spinning wood. After Harriet, Madison is the child that had the most to say about his mother’s life and what he thinks about their relationship. Lastly, there is Eston Hemings, the youngest son out of them all. He obtained knowledge in woodworking and was granted freedom in 1829. After Jefferson’s death, Martha, his daughter, allowed Sally to leave the plantation to live with her younger sons, Madison and Eston, in Charlottesville, Virginia. Madison and Eston gladly took their mother in with open arms and loving hearts. They initially passed as white for the U.S. Census, but later Sally identified as “free mulatto.” Sally lived freely with her sons until she died in 1835.[10] 

                   Throughout her life, Sally Hemings made decisions that transformed her children’s lives and impacted women at large. Her selfless act in Paris, negotiating freedom for her unborn children, inspires women and their own children. In the course of her life, just like many other enslaved women, Sally Hemings’s children were fathered by her owner. In  the context of the era where enslaved women lacked legal rights,[11] Sally’s story reflects the harsh reality of exploitation. The dynamic between her and Jefferson can vary, though, taking into consideration age and consent. Sally was fourteen, and  Jefferson was about forty years old.[12] Additionally, enslaved women often were raped and sexually harassed without being able to speak up or say no. Despite  these challenges, she rose above and stands as a stark motivation for women across the globe.  

                  Sally Hemings’s story is a personal triumph and a beacon of hope for all who fight against injustice. Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed also said, “Though enslaved, Sally Hemings helped shape her life and the lives of her children, who got an almost 50-year head start on emancipation, escaping the system that had engulfed their ancestors and millions of others. Whatever we may feel about it today, this was important to her.” The measures Sally took to ensure emancipation for her children were significant and display the unconditional love she had for them. For a mother to surrender her own freedom, her only chance to escape, for her children was selfless. Her quiet defiance, her unwavering love for her children, and her ability to negotiate freedom within the confines of slavery inspire generations of women and mothers. Her life, sacrifices, and ability to persuade Thomas Jefferson into making her a promise was an act of heroism towards her kids. While inspiring many women worldwide, the most significant impact was on her children. Ones who exclaimed the great things she did for them. On the other hand, her children were not the only ones who spoke highly of her.  Her story carries a historical significance and profound lessons about the human spirit’s capacity for resilience and love. A woman who defied the odds and shaped the destiny of her children, leaving behind a legacy that continues to resonate  with many women and children today.

      Bibliography

      Primary Sources

      Hemings, Madison. “Sally Hemings” [Sally Hemings]. https://monticello.org. Accessed November 9, 2023. https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/.

      “The Memoirs of Madison Hemings” [The Memoirs of Madison Hemings]. https://www.pbs.org. Accessed December 17, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/cron/1873march.html.

      Secondary Sources

      Adams, William Howard. The Paris Years of Thomas Jefferson.

      Gordon-Reed, Annette. The Hemingses of Monticello.

      “Life Story: Sally Hemings” [Life Story: Sally Hemings]. https://nyhistory.org. Accessed December 14, 2023. https://wams.nyhistory.org/building-a-new-nation/american-woman/sally-hemings/#:~:text=Sally%20lived%20in%20Paris%20long,together%20when%20they%20reached%20adulthood .

      Thorson, David. “Beverly Hemings” [Beverly Hemings]. https://www.monticello.org/. Accessed December 17, 2023. https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/beverly-hemings-2/.

      The University of Virginia. “The Hemings Family” [The Hemings Family]. https://monticello.org. Accessed November 6, 2023. https://www.monticello.org/slavery/paradox-of-liberty/enslaved-families-of-monticello/the-hemings-family/ .

      [1] William Howard Adams, The Paris Years of Thomas Jefferson, Page 220

      [2] William Howard Adams, The Paris Years of Thomas Jefferson, Page 220

      [3] Madison Hemings, “Sally Hemings” [Sally Hemings], Monticello.org, accessed November 9, 2023, https://www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/.

      [4] Hemings, “Sally Hemings,” Monticello.org.

      [5] Hemings, “Sally Hemings,” Monticello.org.

      [6] Hemings, “Sally Hemings,” Monticello.org.

      [7] “Life Story: Sally Hemings” [Life Story: Sally Hemings], nyhistory.org, accessed December 14, 2023, https://wams.nyhistory.org/building-a-new-nation/american-woman/sally-hemings/#:~:text=Sally%20lived%20in%20Paris%20long,together%20when%20they%20reached%20adulthood.

      [8] Hemings, “Sally Hemings,” https://monticello.org.

      [9] David Thorson, “Beverly Hemings” [Beverly Hemings], https://www.monticello.org/, accessed December 17, 2023, https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/beverly-hemings-2/.

      [10] Life Story,” https://nyhistory.org

      [11] Hemings, “Sally Hemings,” https://monticello.org.

      [12] Hemings, “Sally Hemings,” https://monticello.org.

      The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

      The Trumpist Supreme Court: Off the Rails of Democracy

      Norman Markowitz

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

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

      The Court doctrine of original intent is not valid

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

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

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

      The Supreme Court’s recent decisions are not reliable

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

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

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

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

      The revival of “original intent”

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The Supreme Court as the defender of unregulated monopoly/finance capital, 1877–1937

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The Supreme Court and government as the protector and defender of the general welfare, 1937–78

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The empire strikes back: The Court’s long march to the right, 1978–present

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

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

      What we can and should do now

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

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

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

      Era 5 – Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

      New Jersey Council for the Social Studies

      www.njcss.org

      Engaging High School Students in Global Civic Education Lessons in U.S. History

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

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

      Era 5 The Development of the Industrial United States (1870–1900)

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

      Activity #1:  The Granger Movement in America (1875) and the Yellow Vests in France (2019)

      The Patrons of Husbandry, or the Grange, was founded in 1867 to advance methods of agriculture, as well as to promote the social and economic needs of farmers in the United States. The financial crisis of 1873, along with falling crop prices, increases in railroad fees to ship crops, and Congress’s reduction of paper money in favor of gold and silver devastated farmers’ livelihoods and caused a surge in Grange membership in the mid-1870s. Both at the state and national level, Grangers gave their support to reform-minded groups such as the Greenback Party, the Populist Party, and, eventually, the Progressives.

      The social turmoil that the Western farmers were in was mainly a result of the complete dependence on outside markets for the selling of their produce. This meant that they had to rely on corporately owned railroads and grain elevators for the transport of their crops. To make matters worse, “elevators, often themselves owned by railroads, charged high prices for their services, weighed and graded grain without supervision, and used their influence with the railroads to ensure that cars were not available to farmers who sought to evade elevator service.” In 1871, Illinois created a new constitution allowing the state to set maximum freight rates but the railroads simply refused to follow the mandates of the state government.

      The Grangers became political by encouraging friends to elect only those officials with the same views. Furthermore, while Republicans and Democrats had already been bought out by corporations looking to curry favor in the government, Grangers vowed to create their own independent party devoted to upholding the rights of the general populace.

      On Independence Day, 1873 (known as the Farmer’s Fourth of July), the Grangers read their Farmer’s Declaration of Independence, which cited all of their grievances and in which they vowed to free themselves from the tyranny of monopoly.  The Supreme Court decision in Munn v. Illinois stated that businesses of a public nature could, in accordance with the federal constitution, be subject to state regulation. Following this ruling, several pieces of legislation, collectively known as the Granger Laws, were passed. Unfortunately, many of these laws were repealed.

      Though the organization did not last, it demonstrated the effects that monopolies have on society. It subjugated these individuals to its whims, and then forced them to take action against it. 

      The Yellow Vests Protest in France

      Donning the now-famous fluorescent waistcoats that are mandatory in French cars, the  Yellow Vests staged 52 consecutive weeks of protests against economic hardship, mounting inequality and a discredited political establishment. They manned roundabouts across the country night and day, took to the streets on every Saturday since November 17, and at their peak in December even stormed the Arc de Triomphe in central Paris, amid scenes of chaos not witnessed since May ’68. The movement had an indelible mark on France, forcing the government into billions of euros of tax breaks.

      “The picture that emerged was that of a movement made up largely of workers and former workers in a situation of financial insecurity, with relatively few unemployed,” said Gonthier. Yellow Vests were present across France, but strongest in small towns and rural areas. They came from all walks of life, but liberal professions were underrepresented, while small business owners and employees, craftspeople and care workers formed the bulk of the movement. About two thirds of respondents earned less than the average wage, and a slightly higher percentage registered as having a “deficit of cultural resources and social links”. This in turn “conditioned the way they defined themselves, and helped distance them from traditional social movements”, Gonthier added.

      Another defining feature was the high proportion of women, who made up roughly half the Yellow Vests, whereas social movements traditionally tend to be male-dominated. Gonthier said this reflected the significant mobilization of women in care work, “most notably hospital workers from a public health sector that is plunging deeper into crisis”. They included a high number of single mothers who couldn’t go out and protest, or were scared away by the police’s heavy-handed response, but who supported the movement online.

      Questions:

      1. Are monopolies harmful to a growing economy or are they a necessary ‘evil’?
      2. Is it inevitable that an oppressed people will revolt and attempt to destroy that which has kept them down?
      3. How can governments best address poverty and inequality?
      4. If a significant minority feels oppressed, do they have a right to overthrow their government by protest or violence if they cannot get satisfaction through the process of elections?
      5. Do you support the Grangers, Yellow Vests, both or neither?

      The Granger Revolution

      The Grange Movement

      A Brief Essay on the Grange Movement

      Who are France’s Yellow Vest Protestors and What do they Want?

      The Yellow Vest Movement Explained

      Activity #2: Munn-Wabash Railroad in Illinois and the Trans-Siberian Railroad in Russia

      Route of the Wabash Railroad in the Midwest

      The Wabash Railroad Company went bankrupt and was sold. The new Toledo and Wabash Railroad Company was chartered October 7, 1858. The Wabash and Western Railroad was chartered on September 27 and acquired the Indiana portion on October 5. On December 15, the two companies merged as the Toledo and Wabash Railway, which merged with the Great Western Railway of Illinois. The right of continuous transportation from one end of the country to the other is essential in modern times to that freedom of commerce. The Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the States and with foreign nations. If Illinois or any other state within whose were permitted to impose regulations concerning the price, compensation, or taxation, or any other restrictive regulation it would be harmful to commerce between states.

      The Trans-Siberian Road in Russia

      Trans-Siberian Railroad Crossing a large river in Siberia

      The construction of the longest railway in the world  was launched in April 1891 and was completed in 1894. Three years later the section between Vladivostok to Khabarovsk with a length of 772km was opened in November 1897. The Central Siberian Railway from the River Ob to Irkutsk with a length of 1839km was built in 1899. The construction involved more than 100,000 workers, including prisoners, and the work was carried out by hand using shovels, axes, crowbars, saws. Despite the many challenges of the taiga, mountains, wide rivers, deep lakes, and floods, the tracks were built with amazing speed – around 740km per year.

      Questions:

      1. Does the protection of technology for the efficiency of commerce justify federal regulations over state regulations?
      2. If a corporation is losing money, do they have a right or obligation to raise rates to become profitable?
      3. Do authoritarian governments have an advantage or disadvantage in the construction of large infrastructure projects?

      Consolidation of Railroads in Four States

      The Supreme Court Strikes Down Railroad Regulation

      Interstate Commerce Act (1887)

      Construction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad

      History of the Trans-Siberian Road

      Activity #3: The Debt Crisis of the U.S. Government in 1894 and Inflation in Weimar Germany in 1923.

      No crisis of the Cleveland presidencies exceeded the magnitude of the financial panic that gripped the nation at the start of his second term in 1893, and which presaged a depression that still lingered when he left office in March 1897.

      The Constitution granted Congress the power “to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” (Article 1, Section 8) Article I, Section 8, and Clause 2 The Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In the 14th Amendment, Section 4, it states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.”

      In the century preceding 1893, Congress experimented with two central banks, a national banking system, laws regulating so-called “wildcat banks,” paper money issues, legalized suspension of specie payments, and fixed ratios of gold and silver. Gold and silver rose to prominence as the predominant monies of the civilized world because of their scarcity and value. Under the direction of Alexander Hamilton, the federal government adopted an official policy of bimetallism and a fixed ratio of 15 to 1 in 1792.

      In 1875, the newly-formed National Greenback Party called for currency inflation through the issuance of paper money tied, at best, only minimally to the stock of specie. The proposal attracted widespread support in the West and South where many farmers and debtors joined associations to lobby for inflation, knowing that a reduction in the value of the currency unit would alleviate the burden of their debts.

      When President Cleveland assumed office on March 4, 1893, the Treasury’s gold reserve stood at the historic low of $100,982,410 — slightly above the $100 million minimum required for protecting the supply of greenbacks. The Panic of 1893 began when the gold reserves fell below $100,000,000. Stocks fell and factories closed with many going bankrupt. Unemployment rose to 9.6%, nearly three times the rate for 1892. By 1894, the unemployment rate was almost 17%. The Sherman Silver Purchase Act was repealed in support of gold as a stable currency.

      Cleveland’s position on sound money was not supported by his Democratic Party. The Gold Standard Act of 1900 resulted in a stable gold standard and economic growth. Cleveland’s position on sound money worked.

      Hyperinflation in Germany

      Under the Treaty of Versailles Germany was forced to make a reparations payment in gold-backed Marks. On June 24, 1922, Walter Rathenau, the foreign minister was assassinated. The French sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations and the Germans were powerless to resist. More than inflation, the Germans feared unemployment. A cheaper Mark, they reasoned, would make German goods cheap and easy to export, and they needed the export earnings to buy raw materials abroad. Inflation kept everyone working.

      The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. For example, a student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a café for 5,000 Marks. He had two cups but when the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. When the 1,000-billion Mark note came out, few bothered to collect the change when they spent it. By November 1923, with one dollar equal to one trillion Marks, the breakdown was complete. The currency had lost meaning and value.

      Although the currency was worthless, Germany was still a rich country — with mines, farms, factories, forests. The backing for the new Rentenmark was the value of the land for mortgages and bonds for the factories. Since the factories and land couldn’t be turned into cash or used abroad the value of one Rentenmark was equal to one billion of the former Marks. People lost their savings and homes.

      Questions:

      1. Is a sound currency policy, where the dollar is backed by gold or some other form of credit, always the best policy for governments to follow?

        2. Does the financial debt of a country matter if its economy is growing?  Does it matter in times of war or the recovery from a natural disaster?

        3. In a financial crisis, a depression, does everyone suffer equally or are some more affected than others?

        4. Which problem should the government address first? High Unemployment of 8% or rising inflation of 5%? Why?

        5. Is foreign investment in a country’s economy necessary to maintain a balance of payments?

        6. Based on the U.S. Constitution, is the debt of our government limited or unlimited?

        The Panic of 1893 and the Election of 1896

        Price Stability and the Fed

        The Weimar Republic

        The German Hyperinflation, 1923

        Hyperinflation in Germany

        Activity #4: The debate over Laissez-faire Economics

        Historians often call the period between 1870 and the early 1900s the Gilded Age. This was an era of rapid industrialization, laissez-faire capitalism, and no income tax. Captains of industry like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie made fortunes. They also preached “survival of the fittest” in business.

        By the late 1800s, however, monopolies, not competing companies, increasingly controlled the production and prices of goods in many American industries.

        Workers’ wages and working conditions were unregulated. Millions of men, women, and children worked long hours for low pay in dangerous factories and mines. There were few work-safety regulations, no worker compensation laws, no company pensions, and no government social security.

        Starting in the 1880s, worker strikes and protests increased and became more violent. Social reformers demanded a tax on large incomes and the breakup of monopolies. They looked to state and federal governments to regulate capitalism. They sought legislation on working conditions, wages, and child labor.

        Railroad builders accepted grants of land and public subsidies in the 19th century. Industries facing strong competition from abroad have appealed for higher tariffs. American agriculture benefited with land grants and government support. State governments helped finance canals, railroads, and roads.

        It is difficult to separate government intervention, regulation, and laissez-faire in American history. It is likely even more difficult to find the proper balance between government and free enterprise. Perhaps the most serious violations occurred during this era in America’s history with land grants to railroads, regulating the rates railroads could charge, mandating time zones, and allowing paper currency.

        Questions:

        1. Why is limited government and laissez-faire economics popular in the United States over time and today?
        2. Should the federal government regulate education and schools or should this be left to the local and state governments?
        3. Does laissez-faire economics bridge or widen the income gap between the social classes?
        4. Who benefits the most from increasing government regulation?

        Laissez-faire Economics in Practice

        Social Darwinism and Laissez-faire Capitalism in America

        Defending the Free Market from Laissez-faire?

        Clifford Case and the Challenge of Liberal Republicanism

        Clifford Case and the Challenge of Liberal Republicanism

        By William R. Fernekes

        Reviewed by Hank Bitten, NJCSS Executive Director

        The first speech Rep. Clifford Case spoke on the floor of the U.S. Capitol on June 11, 1945, should be taught to every student studying World War II and the Civil Rights era. The speech is printed in the opening paragraphs and defines Clifford Case as a public servant and human rights advocate. His statement below was a response to the defense of poll taxes as a voting requirement by Congressman John E. Rankin (D) who advocated for the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor, the mass deportation of Japanese Americans after the war, segregation, attacked Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, questioned the patriotism of African Americans, and explicitly spoke of racial equality as a slippery slope leading to the end of the white man’s civilization on the planet.

        “Mr. Chairman, I am native-born, white, a gentile-a Protestant. That I am these things entitles me to no special status or distinction.  Indeed, I had no choice in any of them, except the last.”

        “Mr. Chairman, no group in this country has a monopoly on patriotism. Men of all races, colors, and creeds, whether native-or foreign born, have equally sacrificed their lives or given the best years of their youth in this war. The casualty lists show that, as do the gold stars in the windows of homes, both high and humble, in every city, town, and hamlet, and on the farms throughout the land. I suppose there are not many Jews in the State of Mississippi, but I am convinced that their casualties are in proportion to their number in the population, as they are all over the country.  And if that be not true of the Negroes, it is due, I am sure to no lack of courage or patriotism on their part, but rather to these two reasons: First, that, because of poverty and lack of equal educational and economic opportunity for generations, the percentage of Negro draft rejections on medical and mental grounds is far above the average for other groups.  Second, that, to some extent, they may have been given noncombat service of one kind or another more often than most other groups. Obviously, both of these factors have been quite beyond the control of the Negroes themselves.  I am sure the records of this war will vindicate fully the heroism of the Negro combat soldier.”  (page 6)

        Most students and teachers will have no prior knowledge of Clifford Case. I voted for him in 1972 in my first opportunity to cast a ballot for senator in New Jersey. Who is he and how did his career path lead him to be a public servant for the residents of New Jersey?

         Clifford was a preacher’s kid, born in Franklin Park, a small community of farmers, craftsmen, and a few merchants.  He was baptized in the historic Six Mile Run Reformed Church, where his father was the pastor. This church dates back to 1710.

        His father accepted a call to the Second Reformed Church in Poughkeepsie, NY when he was three years old. Clifford attended the schools in Poughkeepsie. His father unexpectedly died of pneumonia in 1920, when Clifford was age 16 and a junior in high school.  His father’s church would merge with the First Reformed Church in Poughkeepsie in 1923, in a newly built church.

        Rev. Clifford Case resigned as “Old First” pastor.  At the first meeting of the new consistory on January 7 he was called as the pastor of the united congregations. Thus, the Mill Street or Second Reformed Church became the fifth house of worship of The Reformed Dutch Church of Poughkeepsie.  Rev. Case remained its pastor until his death on March 7, 1920.  His picture hangs at the entrance to the present Reformed Church’s ‘Case Chapel.’ (http://churches.rca.org/poughkeepsierc/Booklet2014A.pdf)

        Clifford returned to New Jersey to attend Rutgers University where he enjoyed courses in civics, constitutional history, U.S. history, European history, and literature. He met Ruth Smith, from Linden, NJ, who was a student in the New Jersey College for Women at Rutgers (Douglass), where Barnard College graduate Mabel Smith Douglass was the Dean. They both enjoyed the music and dancing. (After all, this is the ‘Roaring 20’s!)  The humor of Bill Fernekes, author, is captured through his interview with Mary Jane Weaver, Clifford and Ruth’s daughter.

        “Arriving late “Buddy” Case was slightly embarrassed because his pants were split and he covered the tear with his music folder, a fact detected by the observant Ruth…. She (Ruth Case) would tell me the story of how she met this handsome, athletic Rutgers student, with a strong tenor singing voice. She would plan her departure from her dorm to coincide with him.” (page 14)

        Following Rutgers, Clifford attended Columbia Law School and Ruth taught English at Linden High School. They were married in July 1928 and honeymooned in Europe. Columbia law curriculum was unique with its emphasis on interdisciplinary courses and an understanding of the social problems in society. Following his graduation, he joined the law firm of Thatcher, Simpson and Bartlett in Manhattan and worked with Cyrus Vance. Clifford and Ruth moved to Rahway and he commuted to work.

        The biography written by Bill Fernekes provides insights into the power of the local and state political party ‘machine’ and why some politicians, like Clifford Case, take positions that are to the left or right of the center. It is a fascinating perspective on competitive democracy, the influence of the Hague machine in the Democratic Party in New Jersey, and the views of the media and residents regarding segregation, foreign policy, labor, health care, to identify a few of the public issues that Clifford Case held liberal Republican views.

        His first election to the Rahway Council in 1937 was decided by 311 votes. (page 20) He advocated for transparency in local government and an end to the private caucuses between small groups of council members. The 1930’s was a difficult decade in the United States but in particular this was a time of prosperity for some in New Jersey and poverty for others who were without employment. Teachers in high school emphasize the Great Depression and the New Deal and this book provides some insight into the importance of local government.  Rahway was a place for large manufacturing companies and a major station on the Pennsylvania RR. Clifford Case also served on the Board of Foreign missions for the Presbyterian Church, which gave him a valued perspective on the abuses faced by others living in a dangerous world.

        Cherry Street in Rahway, NJ, circa, 1920

        “Rahway’s municipal government established a separation between a mayor who oversaw daily city operations, and the Common Council, which set priorities, functioned in an oversight role regarding city operations, and provided resources for funding municipal operations and services.  With Clifford P. Case and Sherman Lusk as the only two Republican council members, any influence they desired would require coalition building with Democrats.” (page 21)

        In 1941, Clifford Case campaigned in the primary election for the Republican Party nomination in the NJ Assembly.  The Frank Hague political machine had a powerful influence in New Jersey, making it almost impossible for Republican candidates from northern New Jersey to win.  Hague’s influence secured governors from the Democratic Party and Thomas Brogan as Chief Justice, who would dismiss challenges of election fraud at this time. Hague also influenced the candidates for local and state positions in the Republican Party. Although Case did not secure the Republican Party nomination in 1941, he prevailed in 1942. He understood the importance of campaigning on a personal level in towns in Union County, especially Cranford, Elizabeth, Hillside, New Providence, Roselle, and Westfield. The result was a victory with a margin of more than 16,000 votes.

        The context of the information in the chapter, “Development of a Political Servant” is important for students studying political institutions and/or local New Jersey history during World War II because of its relevance to voter fraud issues, campaign strategies and promises, the use of voting machines, and the outcome of elections. The lessons in the past provide insight into how fragile democracy has been over time.  Case’s term in the NJ Assembly resulted in significant legislation for civil service reforms certification for lawyers, and legal status for ride sharing, which became a necessity with fuel rations during World War II.  

        The depth of the research and perspective in this book is with the legislative decisions and sponsorships of Congressman and later Senator Clifford Case. The historic context of civil rights, segregation, anti-lynching, and labor bills provide important information for teachers regarding the teaching of these standards-based indicators for high school students. For teachers who are committed to historical inquiry and decision-making lessons, Clifford Case and The Challenge of Liberal Republicanism is a book that must be read!  Let’s examine two case studies:

        Segregation:  The incident of Isaac Woodward (Woodard), a black World War II veteran, who was in his uniform, at a bus stop in Batesburg, South Carolina on February 12, 1946, motivated the first significant legislation proposed by Congressman Case in 1947.

        “An especially vicious attack occurred in South Carolina in February 1946, when recently discharged army veteran Isaac Woodward was assaulted by a white sheriff and his deputy after having been pulled off an interstate bus when the driver complained Woodward took too much time during a restroom stop and quarreled with him.,. Woodward was removed from the bus, violently beaten by Sheriff Linwood Shull and his deputy, and permanently blinded when one of his attackers drove a blunt instrument into his eyes. Although tried before a federal court after the NAACP and celebrities such as Orson Welles made a cause celebre about the case, Shull was acquitted.” (page 41)

        Although more than 200 federal anti-lynching bills have been introduced since 1918 none of them became a law. The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018, co-sponsored by NJ Senator Cory Booker and now V.P. Kamala Harris, finally became law in 2022.  The Case bill introduced in 1948 (HR3488) is important because of the continuing relevance of this issue which has continued without agreement for over 140 years!  Students need to understand the slow process of our Legislative Branch in reaching agreement on controversial issues such as guns, health care, rights of women, and other timely issues. The perspective below leads to historical inquiry in the classroom about continuity and change in history.

        “While the legislative efforts of Case and other civil rights supporters generated more frustration than concrete results, their work and Truman’s Committee report were important.  Historian Philp Dray stated that while ‘the Dixiecrats torpedoed many of Truman’s good works-the permanent FEPC antilynching legislation, and measures to end the poll tax, the Truman Committee’s report and recommendations, legislative proposals like Case’s bill, and related discussions and debates in the Congress shifted the national conversation about civil rights and racial equality. Dray argues Southern obstructionism to civil rights legislation reinforced the perception by many Americans the South was resistant to change, and lynchings, although less frequent, were now subject to ‘swift national denunciation,’ which ‘helped to convince many Americans that the South was once again carrying the country toward some form of cataclysm.’ Just a few years before the Brown v. Board of Education decision, the seeds of change regarding federal action on civil rights were planted by courageous legislators like Clifford P. Case.” (pp. 44,45) (Philip Dray is an Assistant Professor of History at the Eugene Lang College of Liberal Arts at the New School in New York City)

        Clifford Case’s position as a congressman on the Taft Hartley Act provides an opportunity for students to understand the important labor issues of the 20th century. In our current service-sector economy the issues discussed on the classroom are likely a fair minimum wage, medical benefits, and the wage gap between men and women. In the middle of the 20th century, The Taft Hartley Act of 1947 was unpopular with labor and unions. The sponsors were Senator Robert Taft (R-Ohio) and Congressman Fred Hartley (R-New Jersey).  New Jersey was a manufacturing state and unions were an important part of life for most families. After World War II there were shortages of many goods and prices were inflated. Unions used this time to expand their membership and there were frequent strikes and boycotts demanding higher pay and better benefits. After Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech on March 5, 1946, Americans feared communism and strikes and unions were associated with socialism and communism.

        In this political climate, Clifford Case introduced a bill to restrict the power of organized labor, co-sponsored a bill with Christian Herter that did not become law, and voted for the Taft Hartley Act and after President Truman’s veto of Taft Hartley he voted to override the president’s veto. Although Case was re-elected in 1948, eighty-two congressmen who supported Taft-Hartley were not re-elected. Labor and the Democratic Party were determined to repeal Taft Hartley and Clifford Case was faced with a difficult decision. He voted against the Wood bill which retained most of the provisions in the Taft Hartley Act. The competitive arguments between the Wagner and Taft Hartley Act, the right to work and the right to strike, are critical issues for workers, public safety, and the American economy. Visit the resources in the Truman Library for the reasons why the Taft Hartley Act was harmful and see if your students agree or disagree with President Truman and Congressman Case.

        “When we passed the Taft Hartley Act, we believed it was a good law.  But all of us also agreed that if experience should prove it deficient in any respect, such deficiency should be cured by amendment.  There is now almost unanimous agreement that a number of the provisions of the Taft Hartley Act are actually or potentially harmful to the legitimate interests of organized labor and hence to the entire economy, and that the Act should be amended to eliminate these defects….

        I was convinced that it would be possible to work out and pass a bill which met the legitimate objections to the Taft-Hartley law, which was fair to both management and labor, and a bill which adequately safeguarded the public interest.  The Wood bill, despite changes made on the floor in a number of his provisions, including those mentioned, did not satisfy those objectives.” (page 48)

        Students in New Jersey, and likely most other states learn about the McCarthy hearings and the threat of communism to the stability of the government of the United States and the spreading of this ideology around the world. Clifford Case became a senator in January 1955 and was faced with the threat of communism in China, Southeast Asia, Africa, and in the United States. Senator McCarthy and Senator Case were members of the Republican Party. The performance expectation for high school students in New Jersey is “Analyze efforts to eliminate communism, such as McCarthyism, and their impact on individual civil liberties.” 

        The campaign for Senate in New Jersey is a race that teachers should consider including when teaching about communism and McCarthyism. Case stated that if elected he would remove the powerful Senator Joseph McCarthy as chairman of all committees. Case will win the election against Rep. Charles Howell by 3,369 votes which was challenged by a recount that validated a win for Clifford Case by 3,507 votes. The 84th Congress had the Senate divided with 48 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 1 Independent. Although McCarthy’s influence was declining by the summer of 1954, the media labeled Clifford Case as being soft on communism and Stalin’s choice for Senator. One question for students to explore is: ‘Why did Case take such a strong position against McCarthy when he could have moderated his criticisms and left McCarthy to self-destruct, following President Eisenhower’s lead?  

        “The evidence suggests Case’s opposition to McCarthy was rooted in deeply held principles of fairness and justice with Case believing his stance would attract support from moderate Republicans, Independents, and possibly even Democrats. Although critical of McCarthy, Howell’s stance was little different from the national Democratic Party’s position on McCarthy.  Case’s call to remove McCarthy from any committee chairmanship went much further, highlighting Case’s courage in taking on a well-known and powerful Republican senator.” (page 62) Senator McCarthy was censured after the November 2, 1954 election.

        Clifford Case was also confronted with the conservatism of Senator Barry Goldwater and his attempts to eliminate communism in the 1960s and as the Republican Party’s candidate for president in 1964. Again, teachers should consider his positions on civil rights, communism, nuclear weapons, and his vision for the future of the GOP. This is an opportunity to teach the influence of local and state government and the influence of state political leaders in both political parties. There was a price to pay for challenging the powerful and conservative Republican leaders in New Jersey and Senator Case was the only elected Republican who would not endorse Barry Goldwater in 1964.

        “My refusal to support Barry Goldwater unless he asserts his leadership, by both word and deed, against attempts to capitalize on the white backlash and against extremist appeals of any sort is based upon a moral principle which I regard as transcendent. No perspective person in attendance, and I should guess no television viewer, could miss the ugly racist undercurrent at the Convention. There is simply no comparison with whatever differences there were between Taft and Dewey or Eisenhower.” (page 150)

        One of the hidden gems in this scholarly book is the ‘big picture of American history from Truman to Carter. This includes the period of 1945-1975, which some historians consider the zenith of American power when the world looked to the United States for moral leadership, economic leadership, and as the protector of freedom and democracy from the threats of communism and terrorism.

        The opportunity to view this period of American domestic and foreign policy through the lens of a public servant provides an opportunity for inquiry and study by students. For teachers who provide direct instruction through primary source materials, the quotes in this book by Clifford Case provide unique insights into why a Republican congressional representative and senator challenged members within his political party and found ways to educate every president with his perspective. For teachers who differentiate instruction and enable students to investigate essential questions, the quotes and narrative in this book provide a resource for understanding the big picture of American history.

        Here is an example from Senator Case on his opposition to President Nixon’s nomination of Clement Haynsworth as Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969.

        “The conclusion is inescapable, I believe, that Judge Haynsworth has shown a persistent reluctance to accept, and considerable legal ingenuity to avoid, the Supreme Court’s unanimous holdings in the Brown case and in subsequent decisions barring discrimination in areas other than the field of education….As late as 1968, Judge Haynsworth was continuing to voice his preference for “freedom of choice” plans in the desegregation of schools even while he reluctantly implemented prior decisions by the Supreme Court.  Only last year he was still insisting that the burden of expensive litigation to secure constitutional rights be borne by those seeking relief, even when those people had been upheld in their contentions by his own court.” (page 191)

        “I believe there can be no doubt that Judge Haynsworth’s confirmation by the Senate would be taken by great numbers of our people as the elevation of a symbol of resistance to the historic movement toward equal justice for every American citizen.  This appointment, at this time, would drive more deeply the wedge between the black community and the other minorities on the one hand, and on the other, the rest of American society.  I shall vote against the confirmation.” (page 192)

        One of my observations after reading this book is that the challenges facing our government today are different but also very similar to the challenges our democracy faced when Clifford Case served in Congress.  The major issues that Senators Clifford Case (R) and Harrison Williams (D) from New Jersey had positions on are the foundation of all curriculum and courses relating to 20th century American history and likely include:

        NSC-68                                                   Cuban Missile Crisis                                             Middle East

        McCarran Walter Act                          Southeast Asia                                                      Inflation & Recession

        Korean Conflict                                     Civil Rights Act                                                      Watergate

        McCarthy Hearings                              Voting Rights Act                                                  Energy Independence

        School Desegregation                          Immigration and Nationality Act                       War Powers Act

        National Highway Act                          Environmental Protection Act                           Human Rights

        The three chapters on the Vietnam War (Chapters 14, 15, and 16) provide a comprehensive picture of the conflicts between the legislative and executive branches that has particular utility for teachers of American history and government. Dr. Fernekes provides insights into the debates about funding, responsibilities for declaring and fighting wars, negotiated agreements, the death of civilians, and transparency between the branches. His perspective is scholarly, analytical and clear with carefully numbered observations. Senator Case was an outspoken supporter of American engagement in Vietnam who became an outspoken critic.  His perspective is critical to studying this period of history and although Vietnam is different than the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine, and Israel, the similarities of the debate and division provide teachers with an opportunity to gather evidence for inquiry and building a thesis. Here are two examples in the words of Clifford Case:

        “The President’s power as commander in chief does not extend to his unilateral decision to protect another government by military action.  If it were otherwise, the President would be free to engage our military forces whenever and wherever he pleases.  Denying any such unfettered executive authority, our Founding Fathers carefully counterposed against the president’s power as commander in chief of our military forces the Congress’ power to declare war and control the purse strings.  We must restore this vital part to our constitutional system of checks and balances.” (page 288)

        “I do not accept the suggestion that the only way the peace settlement is going to work is if the North Vietnamese think we are going to intervene, if they violate the agreement.  But even if that were so, we have a Constitution; and the question that the Senator from Idaho and I have raised by this bill is not whether we should or should not intervene in particular hypothetical circumstances.  The question is: Who should make the decision?….The Founding Fathers not only gave Congress the constitutional authority of parliaments to withhold funds from particular ventures, they gave Congress the power to declare war and to start war, whether the President happened to have money on hand or not.” (page 288)

        The second example provides both the context for the continuing support of the United States for Israel and the complexity of debate among members of Congress and the position of the president in the words of Senator Case in 1978 about an arms package to the Middle East.

        “Mr. President, I suggest it is time we recognized again and kept bright and shining in our eyes this truth: The existence of Israel, its strength to defend itself, is essential to the preservation of the West, to the preservation of NATO and inevitably, in the end, to the preservation of the United States.  More than that, it is essential to the preservation of the moderate Arab regimes.

        Can you imagine, if there is no Israel, the kind of fighting that would go on among the various nations and interests and groups within the Middle East?  Can you imagine the fertile field for Communist stirring up of strife that would exist if that happened?  Can you imagine the possibility-any possibility of moderate leaders such as President Sadat surviving long in such a shambles? I cannot.  I think no reasonable people can…. It is time that we restored to our thinking the concept that a strong Israel is not just a beneficiary of the United States. It is essential to the security of the United states and of all the West.“ (page 363, 364).

        Senator Case also served during the time when the Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and Executive Brank from 1953-1955 and when the Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Executive Branch in the Sixties. Clifford Case was also an important voice in defining the vision of the Republican Party after the 1964 election. The perspective of his local New Jersey voice is necessary to grasp the struggle behind each of the issues above. Students should also use the Library of Congress sources of Thomas to and Chronicling America for information.

        The book includes excellent photographs and images of political cartoons from newspapers and the Works Cited sources are also helpful. There is a Digital Exhibit at Rutgers that was created by Dr. William Fernekes, the author.  https://exhibits.libraries.rutgers.edu/clifford-p-case Although the book is expensive at $135.00, it is a book that should be in every high school, college, and public library in New Jersey. Clifford Case and the Challenge of Liberal Republicanism

        History of America’s Immigration: The Background to Today’s Border and Asylum Crises

        History of America’s Immigration: The Background to Today’s Border and Asylum Crises

        Dr. Harry Stein, City University of New York

        Harry.stein@manhattan.edu

        Defining American: The Bureau of Naturalization’s Attempt to Standardize Citizenship Education and Inculcate ‘the Soul of America’ in Immigrants during World War 1

        Barred Zones, Rising Tides, and Radical Struggles: The Antiradical and Anti-Asian Dimensions of the 1917 Immigration Act

        In this wood engraving caricaturing the Chinese Exclusion Act, a well-dress Chinese man embodying “Order” and “Industry” sits outside the Golden Gate of Liberty. The sign to his right declares “Communists, Nihilist, Socialist, Fenian & Hoodlum Welcome but no Admittance to Chinamen.”  Below the title, the text reads: “Enlightened American Statesman – “We must draw the line somewhere, you know.” Reprinted from Frank Leslie’s illustrated Newspaper, April 1, 1882. Courtesy Library of Congress, LC-DIG-ds-11861.

        U.S. Immigration History – There are 4 eras

        Following is a description with vocabulary for each era.  Following the four eras mis a collection of data that students can use to learn more about each time period.  In each era examine who came to the USA, why, and how did government policy favored or discouraged immigration.

        Era #1: Populating the Continent-Colonial to 1875

        Authority was with individual states, not the Federal Government.  States used what was then called “state police power” to set and enforce rules.  States set rules stopping the admission of convicts, free Blacks, paupers, diseased, sick or disabled persons or passengers on ships who tried to enter without the captain posting a bond on their behalf.  No free person whether black, mulatto, or colored from a Caribbean country, especially Haiti, could enter some states.  Haitian seamen on a ship entering Charleston, S.C., could not leave the ship.  These powers were confirmed by a Supreme Court decision (Miln Decision, 1837) and the Passenger Cases decision (1849) approve state laws on bonding and taxing incoming passengers.  The 1830 Indian Removal Act was another example of state police power.  The movement of free Blacks within Missouri and Ohio was also regulated.

        There were also federal laws in 1793, 1842 (Prigg decision), and 1850 concerning the return of runaway slaves to their owners.  Legislation in 1809 prevented the importing of additional slaves from west Africa.  In 1817 the Liberia colony was established and federally funded for free Black who wished to return to Africa. 13,000 did.

        Federal laws permitting or excluding contract labor from China and Europe were enacted.  In 1862 the Coolie importation from China was stopped under the logic that since slavery was illegal in northern states and Coolies were slaves therefore, they could not get into the USA.  In 1867 contract labor was permitted from Europe.  In conclusion, high, consistent demand for labor led to favorable State and federal immigration policies.

        Critical terms: Era #1

        1790 Naturalization Act

        Know Nothing Party

        Dred Scott Decision

        Burlingame Treaty

        Northern European Migration from Ireland, UK, Germany, Netherlands

        Era #2: The Opening and Closing the Immigration Doors, 1875 – 1924

        During this era, power to legislate and enforce laws came totally to the national government. Immigration power resided in the Federal government’s ability to control commerce, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) and the theory of national sovereignty critical for national security through border control.  Between 1871 and 1914, 23.5 million Europeans entered.  Eastern and southern Europeans joined those from Ireland, the U.K. and northern Europe. 1.7 million entered in 1907.

        The country was industrializing and urbanizing.  Labor demand was high.  But gradually laws were established excluding some and regulating the entry of others.  Many Americans wanted more immigration.  Other Americans were critical of who were admitted.  By 1924 the doors were almost closed to many Jews, Catholics, Hindus, and Chinese. See the Page Act (1875) and Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Research the Foran Act (1885) and the Dillingham Commission (1911).

        1917 –  Law aimed at South Asians, Indians, who settled in California and Washington and spoke out against British control of their homeland.  This was part of a wider American nativist movement merging with white supremacy ideology, anti-communism and earlier opposition to immigrants with physical or mental disabilities.  A literacy test was passed.  A “barred” zone was created stopping all Asian entry except from the Philippines and Japan, already excluded by an informal 1907 “Gentlemen’s Agreement”, Mexicans were turned into temporary labor migrants.  There was also the fear that if the US entered the League of Nations this could endanger national security.  In 1920, 16% of the US population was foreign born.  Bad foreigners = crime, immorality, and labor conflict.

        1921 – First law closing loopholes in the 1917 law and establishing first national origin quotas. This law fused beliefs about eugenics, racial bigotry, anti-disabilities prejudice, mixed racial marriages into a category of undesirable immigrant groups.  The Johnson-Reed Act (1924) created quotas by ethnic origin.  The Border Patrol created an illegal entry called a misdemeanor and felony (1929) if done twice.

        Critical Terms: Era #2

        Harry Laughlin

        Madison Grant

        Prescott Hall

        Bracero

        Thind Supreme Court Case, 1923

        Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court Case, 1898

        Jones/Shafroth Act, 1917

        Ellis Island,

        Castle Garden

        Era #3: The Closed Door, 1925-1965  

        The Johnson-Reed Act (1924) confined immigration to mainly northern Europe.  National quotas were based on ethnic origins of the 1890 census.  Through the Depression of the 1930s and World War II, immigration was severely curtailed.  Following World War II, the law remained intact and parallel laws dealing with World War II refugees were created that bypassed but did not displace the 1925 Law.

        In 1948, Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act permitting European refugees to enter.  In 1948 the law was amended permitting refugees from camps in west Germany who could not return to former homes in Poland and the USSR to enter the USA.  332,000 arrived including 141,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors between June 1948 and December 1951.

        Critical Terms: Era #3

        Xenophobia

        The 1938 Voyage of the St. Louis

        Project Paperclip

        Chinese Citizen Act of 1943

        Mariel Boat Lift, 1960

        Era #4: The Door Opens to the World, 1965 – Present

        The 1925 law was replaced by the Hart/Cellar Act of 1965.  Racial and ethnic quotas were eliminated.  Numerical quotas were retained.  Entrance was open to people from anywhere.  The law favored family unification, preference for certain occupations, and a new side variety of visas.  In 1950, the USA was 90% white with a European origin. By 2000, 50% of new immigrants were from Latin America and 27% from Asia.  In 2020, the USA population was 69% European white.

        This law changed the racial composition and, some say, the national identity of the USA.  The acrid, hot odor of 1924 bigotry and nativism returned magnified and channeled through social media.  By 2020, some Americans were talking of white racial suicide and replacement theory.  Politicians pointed to the loss of border control.  The 9/11 Attack on America led to Islamophobia and Muslin immigration bans.

        Many Americans supported legal immigration and the use of work visas for both unskilled and professional work.  Most wanted to stop migration but the government system to judge asylum claims became broken.  Since May 2022, 1.85 million border crosses have been permitted to remain in the country following a favorable “credible fear” claim.  By September 2022, 86,815 immigrants were deported and 1.7 million were approved to stay.  200,149 immigrants came to New York City.

        More Data:

        1. From February 2021 to September 2023, Border Patrol arrested 6 million migrants who crossed the border illegally.
        2. 1.7 million immigrants were released to stay in the USA.
        3. There were about 1,500 immigration judges and asylum offices available to decide these immigrant cases.
        4. People apply for asylum at the border or if they are caught illegally in the country or overstay a visa.  They have up to one year to apply.  800,000 applied in 2022.
        5. It could cost $2 billion to hire more staff to eliminate the 2 million backlog of cases.
        6. In some cities, it will take up to ten years to hear a case.
        7. 1.3 million have been told they must leave the USA.  They have 90 days to do so.
        8. Many do not leave and they disappear.  There is no national ID in the USA to identify them.
        9. Some marry Americans and become parents of children who are natural born citizens.

        All of this data is used by politicians running for federal office. Some promise to clear them ‘out.’  How they will do this is not clear.

        Many local officials run to Washington, D.V., seeking money to care for migrants in their cities.  There is a deadlock in Washington, D.C.  Many do not want to tax the many to pay for the foreign immigrants.  The memory of 1924 is in the air and a chaotic border has become a drug channel.

        Critical Terms: Era #4

        Pyler Supreme Court Case, 1982

        Temporary Protective Status

        Humanitarian parole

        Refugee Act, 1980

        DACA

        Visa Lottery System

        John Tanton

        Naturalization

        Our laws were not designed to deal with BOTH old and new reasons for migrations.  The new reasons are climate change, corruption in many countries, the I-phone which immediately connected migrants with friends already in the USA who send money to assist migrants in their journey.  Migration used to be single men seeking jobs who would then return home.  Now, it is entire families seeking a new life in the USA.  Many Americans do not know what to make of it and they will vote their hopes and fears.

        How Do We Teach Politics in a Society Where Political Affiliations Have Become Toxic?

        How Do We Teach Politics in a Society Where Political Affiliations Have Become Toxic?

        Nick Zolkiwsky

        Throughout my time as a student from kindergarten up until the eighth grade, politics and government were never taught in my classes. To which I was not at all surprised, after all how do you teach a second grader the difference between a conservative and a liberal when they should be learning how to construct paragraphs and learn how to use a keyboard? Let alone how do you get them interested in such a topic? Even more importantly, how do we get them interested in the topic and teach them to respect others who may hold different political views?

        The first time I can vividly recall politics being taught in my class was when I was in fourth grade and we were fastly approaching the 2008 Presidential election. During those short and brief lessons, my teachers did not tell us where Senators McCain or Obama sided on certain issues or even a basic background of the parties they were affiliated with. Instead, we were all taught to like Obama because he was younger and was the more “favorable” candidate among teachers at my elementary school. The same situation occurred four years later when I was in eighth grade and the 2012 election was approaching. To which I was genuinely surprised because at this point we were all teenagers and had a better understanding of how the world works compared to when we were still in grade school, at least I thought I did. However, it wasn’t until the 2016 election that my teachers actually began talking about the issues that Americans would be voting for and where Donald Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood. While for the first time we were having open discussions about beliefs and the two major parties it was undoubtedly one of the most toxic environments one could have ever imagined. Instead of listening to each other oftentimes I would find classmates getting into heated arguments, which were then followed by one person attacking the personal character of the other. Even as a 17 year old I knew this was no way to hold political discussions. Where was the respect? Where were the listening skills? And most importantly, where was the maturity? The answer, nowhere to be found. So the question is, how do we, as teachers, teach and create a healthy environment where students can learn and discuss politics when we live in a society that becomes toxic when these discussions arise?

        To say 2020 has been one of the most unpredictable years in recent memory would be an understatement. It’s been a 12 month period where every 30 days or so we are met with another apocalyptic type event: first it was wildfires, then a pandemic, then heightened racial issues, and to make it all the more fun we threw in a Presidential election into the mix. According to an article from “weareteachers.com” there are easy steps to teaching politics within the classroom in the current climate that we live in. The first step that the article suggests is to discuss biases and “fake news” within the American mainstream media. This is a perfect starting point as understanding biases will better help all students fully understand the concepts of politics and how different media outlets portray a candidate/policy than a rivaling network. This also opens up the door to teach students the importance of fact-checking and doing their own research, which in the past few years has become so much more important than ever. Unfortunately, due to the easy access to media and the increasing influence of social media, individuals will typically see a picture or a meme on Twitter or Instagram and assume it to be true. Not only will they outright believe it but they won’t even go through the effort of reading up on the issue or using that additional information to form their own opinion.

        The next three steps that the article discusses are more so related to notifying parents that you are about to discuss politics within the class. As many social studies teachers know, politics is a very touchy subject to teach about, and as many teachers in general know, parents sometimes are not afraid to tell you how they really feel about you teaching a particular subject. What this step aims to do is to notify the parents before the lesson is taught and lay out for them how the subject will be delivered to the students. By doing so, not only will the parents be as caught up as their students are but, it better prepares them to answer those difficult questions that their children may ask at the dinner table or in some cases, provide clarification and context to when a student tells their parents what they did in school that day. In addition to notifying parents about the upcoming lessons on politics and how you intend on delivering the information, it is a good idea to also encourage parents to talk about politics with their students at home. This is done so not only will the students have a better understanding of what they are getting into and about to learn, but it will also help them start to relate to certain focal points and issues that personally matter to them and their family.

        Lastly, once the day has arrived to start teaching about politics in your classroom there are a few ground rules that you should establish right off the bat. The first rule, and quite possibly the most important rule, is to ensure that your students will show respect and remain respectful during the lesson. The way I like to think of it is, respectful ears are ears that are open to hearing the voices of others without judgment. The next rule is more geared towards you as the teacher and that is to remain neutral on the subject matter. While it is oftentimes difficult to remain neutral on certain topics, you have to understand that some of your students might have little to no understanding of the issues that you are about to discuss. Rather than giving them a biased opinion, which they have learned about at this point, you are giving them a non-partisan view and allowing them to make their own opinions on the topic. The third and final rule is to make sure that the students know that their opinions are their own opinions and they have the right to have them. This can be very empowering for students, especially those in High School who now find themselves in the “young adult” category. By having their own free-formed opinions this helps them establish a sense of identity as to who they are and where their morals lie and if you think about it you’re killing two birds with one stone.

        How you want to present the information is totally up to you, just as long as you feel that you can provide the necessary information and that the information provided will be retained by the students in the classroom. Some suggest that PowerPoints and lectures may be the best option because this allows students to ask questions throughout the lesson and does provide room for a short class discussion. The more you allow students to voice their opinions and ask questions shows that they are engaging in the topic and that they are getting curious about why things are the way that they are. Other ways could include holding a mini-election within your own classroom, however, this activity may take a few class periods to run its full course, but on the flip side is it keeps them engaged longer and it allows them to go home after class and do their own research to further their own side of the topic. The last way you could do it is a much more laissez-faire approach and that is an open class discussion where you go around and have students speak up on what they know about politics. In doing so, the students are teaching one another and it gives you the teacher the opportunity to expand on talking points, correct any misconceptions brought up and even guide them to areas of further discussion. However, the one drawback that this approach comes with is that you will have biased opinions from students, so be sure to neutralize any bias that could be presented and most importantly, if a student holds similar views as you do, do not promote those as the “correct” way of thinking. 

        In conclusion, it is safe to say that we live in a time like no other. Our political climate in our nation today has never been as divisive as it has been over the past few years. But we as educators and even future parents must realize that if we want to change the toxic climate that is our political spheres, then we must lead the charge. Show our students it’s okay to disagree with others and that you can still be friends just because one person voted for one candidate and the other voted for the opposite candidate. The sooner we implement respect in our classrooms and when discussing politics with younger generations the more likely they will pass those traits down to their children.