Www.cbsd.org



Ms. Wiley’s APUSH Period 7 Packet, 1914-1945 Name:Page #(s)Document Name:2-41) Period 7 Summary: ?s, Concepts, Themes, & Assessment Info52) Timeline OR Flashcard Assignment6-163) World War I & Treaty of Versailles (1914-1919)17-254) The 1920s26-365) FDR & the New Deal (1933-1940s)37-406) World War II Textbook Assignment (1937/9-1945) 41-487) Japanese Internment Camp Analysis (1941-1946)Reminder: We’ve already covered two Period 7 topics in our Period 6 work: Imperialism and the Progressive Era. This will lessen the burden in an already jampacked Period. Period 7 Summary (1914-1945)Key Questions for Period 7:How did America’s place in the world shift from the Progressive Era to the end of World War II? What would the Founders say about these changes? Have such changes produced positive or negative outcomes for Americans and the world?Was rejection of the Treaty of Versailles and, thus, the League of Nations, in the best interest of the U.S. and global community? Were violations of civil liberties during the World Wars justifiable?What competing visions of the 1920s are offered by historians today? What makes it so difficult to generalize about the era?To what extent did the laissez-faire economics and pro-Big Business attitude of the 1920s cause the Great Depression?Should FDR’s dramatically hands-on approach to the Depression be celebrated or viewed with caution/concern?What lessons should be learned from the 1920s and ‘30s regarding economic policy?What (really) compelled American to fight in both World Wars? How has historiography on this shifted over recent years?To what extent did the lives of minority groups and women improve during this period?To what extent did America move closer to the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence throughout this period? Topics covered: World War I, 1920s, Great Depression & New Deal, World War IICollege Board Descriptions:left16002000377063016065500Exam Information:National Exam: Period 7 comprises approximately 12% of the national APUSH exam. Multiple-choice assessment(s): WWI, 1920s, and Great Depression & New Deal. Students will write a DBQ on the Great Depression / New Deal.World War II seminar, focusing on how contemporary historians are telling the story of America’s involvement: This summative assessment will be weighted significantly (40 points total), requiring students to read and analyze chapter extracts and video segments from historians Howard Zinn and Oliver Stone; respond in writing to several classmates’ comments, using evidence from class materials; and participate in a class seminar, demonstrating their knowledge of the materials analyzed.Period 7 Timeline / FlashcardsTask: Complete a timeline OR a set of Period 7 flashcards to aid in the study of the unit. This assignment will count as a 20-point formative grade. Timeline: Select what you believe to be the 20-25 most important dates from the Period. You can set-up your timeline in whatever way you’d like, however, be sure it’s something you can include in your binder/folder for study purposes. In terms of content, it should be similar to our other timelines, which cover events as well as their related context (revisit the Period 4 timeline to be sure you’re on the right track). You will be evaluated on historical accuracy, pinpointing the most critical events, and organization.Flashcards: Complete a set of flashcards with detailed bullets on the following items. Have these in your binder/folder for reference purposes. When possible, use your own words to succinctly summarize the key info and its significance. Include dates, either specific or general (note: Period 7 is roughly 1914-1945). Also include a “P7” in the corner of each card. You will be evaluated on historical accuracy and pinpointing the most critical events/issues related to the items below.Reasons for entry in WWIWWI + II homefront quick facts (focus on changes to civilian life; chart)Schenck v. United StatesWilson’s 14 PointsLeague of Nations debateThe lost generationPost-war problems in AmericaEconomic policies of the 1920sEconomic outcomes of the 1920s (positive vs. negative chart)Harlem RenaissanceThe “new” KKKScopes TrialRed Scare / Palmer RaidsCauses of the Great DepressionHoover’s VoluntarismBonus ArmyImpact of the New DealNew Deal CoalitionNew Deal reform Court packing schemeU.S. in the interwar period (general trends)Reasons for U.S. entry in WWIIWomen in the world wars (I and II chart)Double V Campaign Korematsu v. United StatesD-Day InvasionPacific island-hoppingDecision to drop atomic bomb (include new theses from contemporary historians)America in World War I (1914-1918) & Treaty of Versailles (1919)46755052984500When Would You Go to War? Situation 1: War Breaks Out, 1914War breaks out in Europe between the Triple Entente (Britain, _____________, and _____________; though Britain is not yet in the fight) and Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary); other countries and imperialized peoples are joining the fight as well, in hopes of being on the winning side and gaining territory/independence; trench warfare develops; the futile nature of the war quickly becomes apparent Disputed issues have nothing to do with the U.S. Both sides want to buy American goodsPresident Wilson issues the following message: “Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned. The people of the United States are drawn from many nations, and chiefly from the nations now at war. It is natural and inevitable that there should be the utmost variety of sympathy and desire among them with regard to the issues and circumstances of the conflict. Some will wish one nation, others another, to succeed in the momentous struggle. It will be easy to excite passion and difficult to allay it. I venture, . . . to speak a solemn word of warning to you against [an] . . . essential breach of neutrality which may spring out of partisanship, out of passionately taking sides. The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men's souls.”What should the U.S. do? (Sell to both sides? … only one? … not to either? etc.)My Thoughts:What Occurred: Situation 2: German Invasion of Neutral Belgium (Part of Schlieffen Plan), 1914Germany attacks and quickly defeats Belgium, a small neutral nation, so as to beat _____________ in the West before heading East to beat the _____________Gruesome stories appear in American newspapers about the atrocities committed by the Germans against the people of the defeated country (some are true, some are exaggerations—like the yellow journalism seen in the lead up to the _____________War of 1898) Britain, who has close ties to Belgium, joins the fightWhat should the U.S. do? (Nothing, since it doesn’t concern the U.S. / U.S. committed similar atrocities themselves in the Philippines? Issue statement condemning their actions? Declare war?) My Thoughts:What Occurred: Situation 3: British Blockade and German Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 1914-15Britain has blockaded the ports of Germany since the start of the war; Britain’s blockade violates international law, which protects the right of nonbelligerents to trade with warring countries; the blockade effectively prevents U.S. trade to Germany (and will result in the starvation and death of approximately 500,000 German civilians)_____________, in desperation, uses submarines to attack all ships sailing to and from the ports of Britain without warning (“unrestricted submarine warfare”), beginning in 1915; Germany hopes to disrupt the flow of supplies from the U.S. to England, so as to weaken and defeat the British; they declare the area around the British Isles a war zone—neutral powers are warned Neutral U.S. ships, which are protected by international laws, are sunk by German submarines on their way to Britain What should the U.S. do?My Thoughts:What Occurred: Situation 4: Sinking of the Lusitania, 1915A German submarine sinks a luxury liner, the Lusitania, belonging to ______________ (it was carrying war materials)Over 1000 passengers drown, including 120+ vacationing ________________, who were advised not to travel on any ships from the nations at war by Secretary of State, William Jennings BryanGermany’s action violates international law, which calls for warning ships and providing for passengers’ safety before sinking them (unless they fail to stop)What should the U.S. do?My Thoughts:What Occurred: Situation 5: Resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 1917After urging from President Wilson in 1915, Germany had promised to stop sinking liners without first warning them and providing for passengers’ safety (what international law had codified), but they disregard their promise and resume unrestricted submarine warfare on neutral American ships in 1917______________ is desperately searching for a way to end the stalemate and achieve decisive victory—they gamble that they can starve Britain into defeat before America can mobilize for war (they know the U.S. is going to be furious at their resumption of USW)What should the U.S. do?My Thoughts:What Occurred: Situation 6: The Zimmerman Note, 1917America learns that Germany was planning to ask ______________ to aid in an attack against the U.S. if America decides to enter the war, so that the U.S. would be kept out of Europe [text pasted below]In return, parts of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona (which the U.S. had won from Mexico following the Mexican-American War of ______________) would be returned to MexicoThe note, along with the sinking of several other U.S. merchant ships, causes a sensation in the U.S. – the people [finally?] want war! (despite the fact that Mexico is in no position to fight the U.S.; civil wars have ravaged the country for decades)“We [the German navy] intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain. . . . Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN (German foreign secretary to the German ambassador in Mexico)What should the U.S. do?My Thoughts:What Occurred: Given the events that transpired above, do you believe there was enough of a reason for the U.S. to join this global conflict? Why or why not?right-4046430053771802032000Wilson’s War Message to Congress, 1917 (about 1.5 months after the Zimmerman Note)5486400182499000[Recently,] . . . I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German Government that . . . its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and use its submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean. That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial Government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in conformity with its promise then given to us that passenger boats should not be sunk and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek to destroy, when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair chance to save their lives in their open boats. . . . The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. . . When I [last] addressed the Congress . . . , I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with arms . . . . But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks. . . There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or violated. . . With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities which it involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare the recent course of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the Government and people of the United States. . . What this will involve is clear. . . . It will involve the organization and mobilization of all the material resources of the country to supply the materials of war and serve the incidental needs of the nation in the most abundant and yet the most economical and efficient way possible. . . It will involve the immediate addition to the armed forces of the United States already provided for by law in case of war at least 500,000 men, who should, in my opinion, be chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service, and also the authorization of subsequent additional increments of equal force so soon as they may be needed and can be handled in training. . . While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us be very clear, and make very clear to all the world what our motives and our objects are. Our object . . . is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles. . . We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong doing shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states. We are glad . . . to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. . . We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion . . . . [W]e shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. . . Note: Four days after the speech, Congress overwhelming voted for a declaration of war.What reasons are cited in Wilson’s call to arms? What, surprisingly, is not mentioned? What were the objectives of the war, according to Wilson?How do you suspect a Filipino would respond to Wilson’s war message? An American woman? An African-American? Excerpts from EDsitement, National Endowment for the Humanities: Diverging Interpretations of Why the U.S. Went to WarNote: All explanations are plausible. You want to consider which carried the most weight.center171640500 center253682500Organize “answers” into most convincing/important to least convincing/important and provide a brief explanation in the space below.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________LEAST CONVINCING/IMPORTANTMOST CONVINCING/IMPORTANTright-59100Wilson’s Fourteen Points, 1918 Summary: President Wilson set down his 14 points speech as a blueprint for world peace that was to be used for peace negotiations after World War I. The speech was read 10 months before the war’s end. In the speech, Wilson directly addressed what he perceived as the causes for the world war by calling for the abolition of secret treaties, a reduction in armaments, an adjustment in colonial claims in the interests of both native peoples and colonists, and freedom of the seas. Wilson also made proposals that would ensure world peace in the future. For example, he proposed the removal of economic barriers between nations, the promise of “self-determination” for those oppressed minorities, and a world organization that would provide a system of collective security for all nations. Wilson’s 14 Points were designed to undermine the Central Powers’ will to continue and to inspire the Allies to victory. The 14 Points were broadcast throughout the world and were showered from rockets and shells behind the enemy’s lines.When the Allies met in Versailles to formulate the treaty to end World War I with Germany and Austria-Hungary, most of Wilson’s 14 Points were scuttled by the leaders of England and France. To his dismay, Wilson discovered that England, France, and Italy were mostly interested in regaining what they had lost and gaining more by punishing Germany. Germany quickly found out that Wilson’s blueprint for world peace would not apply to them. However, Wilson’s capstone point calling for a world organization that would provide some system of collective security was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles. This organization would later be known as the League of Nations. Though Wilson launched a tireless missionary campaign to overcome opposition in the U.S. Senate to the adoption of the treaty and membership in the League, the treaty was never adopted by the Senate, and the United States never joined the League of Nations. Wilson would later suggest that without American participation in the League, there would be another world war within a generation. Speech: Introduction: It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. . . . We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which . . . made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program . . . .XIV: A general association of nations must be formed . . . for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. . . . [W]e feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. . . . For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war . . . . Create a bulleted list of the key themes and facts regarding the 14 Points, as outlined above:Had the Allies supported Wilson’s vision for the post-war world, as outlined in his 14 Points, how might world history have been different?Wilson has often been regarded as an optimist on foreign policy. Based on the material on this page exploring his 14 Points, to what extent is that characterization a fair one?right635000League of Nations Covenant, 1919Wilson drafted the League of Nations Covenant for League members. He was deeply saddened by the U.S. Senate’s rejection of the League.In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another, Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.Article I:Any fully self-governing State . . . may become a Member of the League if its admission is agreed to by two-thirds of the Assembly, provided that it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval and air forces and armaments.Any Member of the League may, after two years' notice of its intention so to do, withdraw from the League, provided that all its international obligations and all its obligations under this Covenant shall have been fulfilled . . . . Article III:The Assembly may deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of the world. At meetings of the Assembly each Member of the League shall have one vote, and may have not more than three Representatives. Article IV: The Council shall consist of Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, together with Representatives of four other Members of the League. These four Members of the League shall be selected by the Assembly from time to time in its discretion. Article V:[D]ecisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League represented at the meeting.Article VII: All positions . . . in connection with the League . . . shall be open equally to men and women. Article VIII:The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments. The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes. Article X: The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled. (Section called for assistance to be given to a member that experiences external aggression.)Article XI: Any war or threat of war . . . is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. Article XII: The Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture they will submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision, or the report by the Council. Article XIII: The Members of the League agree that they will carry out in full good faith any award or decision that may be rendered, and that they will not resort to war against a Member of the League which complies therewith. In the event of any failure to carry out such an award or decision, the Council shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect thereto. Article XIV: The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. Article XVI:Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants . . . it shall . . . be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not. It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the Members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League. 4357370444500Article XXII: [Regarding imperialized peoples Creation of Mandate System]To those colonies . . . which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories [“mandates”] on behalf of the League. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire [heart of the now collapsed Ottoman Empire] have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. [Other mandates were created in Africa and the Pacific Islands] Article XXIII:Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the Members of the League: (a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend . . . (b) undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control;(c) will entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs;(d) will entrust the League with the general supervision of the trade in arms and ammunition with the countries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest;(f) will endeavour to take steps in matters of international concern for the prevention and control of disease.Reminder: The U.S. Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles, which included this plan for the League of Nations. Thus, the U.S. never joined this international association that President Wilson devised. Which articles do you agree with? Which do you have reservations about? Be specific. Did the U.S. make a mistake in rejecting this plan for the League of Nations? Explain.Treaty of Versailles/League of Nations SourcesWhen you see liberal or conservative used in these sources/questions, the context is view of change (new change is liberal vs. support for the status quo and/or backwards change is conservative). Liberals of the period would likely be progressive-minded/socialist.1905635381000What is Borah’s main argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not? Is it conservative or liberal?Why would a liberal in 1919 object to the Treaty of Versailles? What specific claims could be added to this source to strengthen its argument?center4072500Why was Wilson so adamant about Article X? Was he being unreasonable? Why or why not?Article X: The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled. (Section called for assistance to be given to a member that experiences external aggression.)9568783302000How does Hoover’s message present a compromise? Is the compromise a good one? Why or why not?22764753810000What is the message/perspective of the cartoon? How does the cartoonist likely feel about the League of Nations debate?Cartoon Summary: Uncle Sam is marrying a woman who has “Foreign Entanglements” written on her dress. The officiant is reading from a text titled, “League of Nations.” The officiant says: “If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak.” The man breaking through the glass is the U.S. Senate, armed with the Constitution.201304531503619532603326800Was Wilson correct in his assertion about the founders? Why or why not?19526256223000Summarize Keynes’ comments:[To be completed in class after presentations and review questions:] What, ultimately, led to the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles in the U.S. Senate? Was it the strength of oppositional forces, both liberal and conservative, the ineptitude and stubbornness of President Wilson, or something else? The 1920sBeyond the Glitter Video right698500What characteristics are typically associated with the 1920s?What were the factors that led to the economic expansion of the 1920s?What were some of the new industries of the time? What were the “old industries” experiencing?Describe some of the changes in business/labor relations:Describe the impact of continued southern black migration into the North:543433040957500What was the role of women in the workplace during the 1920s? (differentiate between black and white)What were some of the problems farmers faced during the post-WWI years?What/who gets the most attention from the 1920s? What was the “consumer revolution” of the 1920s?right7400Describe the Harlem Renaissance: How did Prohibition fare in the 1920s?How and why did immigration policy change during the 1920s? How did the KKK change during the 1920s?What were the issues involved in the Scopes Trial (1925)? What was the result of the trial? While Democrats struggled at the national level to unify around a clear vision, Republicans of the 1920s had a clear political core. What was it? What do you suspect the video creators hoped to achieve with this 1920s video? What are some key takeaways regarding this decade that may not have been emphasized in earlier U.S. classes?right11856800 Cultural/Religious Divides of the 1920s: Case Study— Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 The Census of 1920 reported that, for the first time, more than half of the American population lived in urban areas. The culture of the cities was based on tastes, morals, and habits that were increasingly at odds with the strict religious and moral codes of rural America. Most of the social and political issues of the 1920s reflect sharp divisions in U.S. society along urban-rural, modern-fundamentalist, lines. One such issue was religion; more specifically, how Protestants should interpret the Bible and how it could be reconciled with scientific theories of the modern age. Modernists took a critical view of certain Bible passages and believed they could accept Darwin’s theory of evolution without abandoning their Protestant faith. Modernists tended to hail from cities and had often been influenced by the earlier Social Gospel Movement (which emerged in the 1890s), scientific knowledge, and the changing roles of women. Meanwhile fundamentalists tended to be Protestants in rural areas who condemned the modernists and taught that every word in the bible must be accepted as literally true. A key point in the fundamentalist doctrine was that creationism (the idea that God had created the universe in seven days, as stated in the Book of Genesis) explained the origin of all life. Fundamentalists blamed the liberal views of modernists for causing a decline in morals throughout the decade. Revivalists of the 1920s preached a fundamentalist message but did so for the first time using the new tool of mass communication, the radio. Radio evangelists drew large crowds as they attacked drinking, gambling, jazz music, and dancing. More than any other single event, a much-publicized trial in Tennessee focused the debate between religious fundamentalists in the rural South and modernists of the northern cities. Tennessee, like many southern states, outlawed the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in public schools. To challenge the constitutionality of these laws, the American Civil Liberties Union persuaded a Tennessee biology teacher, John Scopes, to teach the theory of evolution to his high school class. For doing do, he was arrested and tried in 1925.right2286000The Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) Summary:When Darwin announced his theory that humans had descended from apes, he sent shock waves through the Western world. (In Darwin’s The Origin of the Species he stated that “the view which most…entertain, and which I formerly entertained – namely, that each species has been independently created – is erroneous.”) In the years that followed his 1859 declaration, America's churches hotly debated whether to accept the findings of modern science or continue to follow the teachings of ancient scripture. 494474523685500By the 1920s, most of the urban churches of America had been able to reconcile Darwin's theory with the Bible, but rural preachers preferred a stricter interpretation. Amid the dizzying changes brought by the 1920s, religious fundamentalists saw the Bible as the only salvation from a materialistic civilization in decline. Many felt like it was better to know the “Heavenly Father, than to know how far the stars in the heavens are apart” (William Jennings Bryan, prosecutor in the Scopes case). 521970070421500Fundamentalist revivalists emphasized a literal interpretation of the Bible and rejected modern science as inconsistent with the revealed word of God. They, like advocates of Prohibition and nativist supporters of the KKK, often found themselves on the defensive against what they viewed as an alien/corrupted culture in 1920s America. Fundamentalists, like the aforementioned groups, remained deeply suspicious of postwar cultural and economic trends of the 1920s. In 1925, the Tennessee legislature forbade the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in any public school or university. Butler’s law, as it was called, prohibited the teaching of “any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” Other Southern states followed suit. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) led the charge of evolution's supporters. It offered to fund the legal defense of any Tennessee teacher willing to fight the law in court. A showdown between modernity and tradition was unfolding.The man who accepted the challenge was John Scopes (pictured, right), a science teacher and football coach in Dayton, Tennessee. In the spring of 1925, he walked into his classroom and read part of a chapter on the evolution of humankind and Darwin's theory of natural selection. His arrest soon followed, and a trial date was set. Representing Scopes was the famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow. Slick and sophisticated, Darrow epitomized the urban society in which he lived. The prosecution was led by William Jennings Bryan, three-time presidential candidate and former secretary of state under Wilson. The "Great Commoner" was the perfect representative of the rural values he dedicated his life to defend. Bryan was a Christian who lobbied for a constitutional amendment banning the teaching of evolution throughout the nation.The trial turned into a media circus. Journalists, preachers and fortune seekers filled the streets, where entrepreneurs sold everything from food to Bibles to stuffed monkeys. The trial became the first ever to be broadcast on radio. It was commonly called a “monkey trial” by fundamentalists who trivialized Darwin’s theory into a claim that humans had descended from monkeys. The trial opened up with a long speech by Scopes’s defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who argued that the Butler law violated freedom of religion and represented “as brazen and as bold an attempt to destroy learning as was ever made.” The key to Darrow’s defense was to have scientists testify, but Judge Raulston (a devout Christian) refused to admit expert testimony on the validity of evolutionary theory. Judge Raulston stated, "It is not within the province of the court under these issues to decide and determine which is true, the story of divine creation as taught in the Bible, or the story of the creation of man as taught by evolution." In short, no experts were needed to understand the simple language of the Tennessee law. As such, Darrow lost his best defense. He decided that if he was not permitted to validate Darwin, his best shot was to attack the literal interpretation of the Bible. The climax of the trial came when Darrow asked Bryan to take the stand as an expert on the Bible. Darrow hammered Bryan with tough questions on his strict acceptance of several Bible's stories from the creation of Eve from Adam's rib to the swallowing of Jonah by a whale.In the end, the jury sided with the law and convicted Scopes, who was fined $100 and released. Throughout the duration of the trial, Judge Raulston argued that the Butler law gave “no preference to any particular religion of mode of worship.”Though he appealed the conviction, the Tennessee court system again ruled against him by asserting that the Butler law was constitutional in 1927. It would remain on the books until 1967, when the Tennessee legislature repealed the statute. But it is often said that the battle that played out before the nation had no clear winner. The trial could be viewed as a victory for supporters of evolutionary theory by making literal interpretations of the Bible look “foolish” (Bryan was allegedly embarrassed on the stand when he could not explain miracles, Immaculate Conception, how God created the world in a matter of days, etc.). On the other hand, fundamental Christians gained thousands of new followers who had tuned into the radio airwaves to listen to revivalist ministers preach. The debate between religion and science continued to plague state legislatures and state courts in the South well into the 1990s.Other related cases: 1968 would mark the first time that a state supreme court would strike down a law prohibiting the teaching of evolution: Epperson v. Arkansas – the Court held that the statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment does not permit a state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect/doctrine.In 1973, Tennessee became the first state to pass a law requiring that public schools give equal emphasis to “the Genesis account in the Bible” along with other theories about the origins of man. It demanded that evolution be taught as a theory and not fact. Two years later, the law would be declared unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. In 1987, in Edwards v. Aguillard the Court held Louisiana’s Creationism Act unconstitutional. The act prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools, except when it was accompanied by instruction in “creation science.” The Court found that by advancing religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind the act impermissibly endorses religion. In addition, the Court found that the provision of a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught. William Jennings Bryan on science: “Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it . . . fails to supply the spiritual element needed robbing the ship of its compass and thus endangering its cargo. In war, science has proven itself an evil genius. Man used to be content to slaughter his fellowmen on a single plane, the earth's surface. Science has taught him to go down into the water and shoot up from below and to go up into the clouds and shoot down from above, thus making the battlefield three times as bloody as it was before. . . . If civilization is to be saved from the wreckage threatened by intelligence not consecrated by love, it must be saved by the moral code of Christ. His teachings, and His teachings alone, can solve the problems that vex the heart and perplex the world.”Why did the urban-rural divide create tension in American society in the 1920s? (see context)What were the primary differences between fundamentalists and modernists? What were the results of the Scopes Monkey Trial? (Note: this should be a nuanced answer, since it’s not entirely clear…)What is your reaction to William Jennings Bryan’s comments regarding religion and science?45656501460500What role should the government (local, state, and/or federal) play in this debate between fundamentalists and modernists?Presidents and Politics of the 1920s, excerpts from :In the early 1920s, weary from fighting a world war and disillusioned by the failure of Wilson’s plans to create a new world order, Americans sought stability. Republicans, in contrast to the Democrat Wilson, promised a “return to normalcy.” Republicans ceased promises of progressive reforms (remember, TR and Taft had both been Republican) and instead aimed to settle into traditional patterns of government. Note: It is during this decade that the Republican Party starts to resemble the general economic core of the modern Republican party, whereas the Republicans dating back to the party origins (Lincoln), were more like the modern Democratic party. Republican policies of the 1920s generally gave corporations free rein, raised protective tariffs, cut taxes for the rich, and neglected growing signs of economic instability. Throughout the decade, rural banks failed, farmers lost their lands, tax cuts contributed to an uneven distribution of wealth and the overproduction of goods, and Americans were deeply in debt but continued taking part in a spiraling spending spree “paid for” by easy installment credit terms. Many historians contend that the roots of the Great Depression, which began in 1929, lie in the policies of these conservative presidents. Yet, they pursued policies that seemed in step with the times; additionally, some of the major economic problems had been somewhat masked by the false image of the glittery “roaring twenties.” 46291501016000Warren G. Harding, 1921-1923Before his nomination, Warren G. Harding declared, "America's present need is not heroics, but healing; not revolution, but restoration; not agitation, but adjustment; not surgery, but serenity; not the dramatic, but the dispassionate; not submergence in internationality, but sustainment in triumphant nationality." After winning the Presidential election by an unprecedented landslide of 60 percent of the popular vote, Republicans in Congress allied with Harding to undo many of the progressive policies of the Wilson administration. They eliminated wartime controls and slashed taxes on higher incomes, restored the high protective tariff, and imposed tight limitations upon immigration. Harding’s promise was: "Less government in business and more business in government."Accusations of patronage and wrongdoing, which turned out to be true, sidetracked the president's agenda early in his administration. In the wake of scandals and his untimely death while still in office (after a heart attack), Harding's domestic achievements lost what little luster they had. Harding's short term as president prevented him from crafting a distinctive foreign policy. His style was to defer to Congress as much as possible. The Washington Disarmament Conference of 1921 is a good example. The conference, which succeeded in reducing the navies of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, and Italy, came at the insistence of the Senate, not the administration.Calvin Coolidge, 1923-1929right1460500As conservative with his words as he was with his politics, "Silent Cal" espoused a policy of keeping the government out of the way of big business and generally appeared to embrace the status quo. As President, Coolidge demonstrated his determination to preserve the old moral and economic precepts amid the material prosperity which many Americans were enjoying. He refused to use federal economic power to check the growing boom or to ameliorate the depressed condition of agriculture and certain industries; the neglect of these issues would later contribute to economic calamity. In the realm of foreign affairs, Coolidge supported the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which renounced war in principle; the document was signed by 62 other nations. Though it was celebrated by peace organizations, critics asserted that the pact was meaningless, as it lacked powers of enforcement. right190500Coolidge’s signature foreign policy achievement was the Dawes Plan of 1924 (drafted by Herbert Hoover and Chicago banker Charles Dawes; different from the Dawes Act we studied in Period 6 concerning Native Americans). The plan dealt with German reparations. Not surprisingly, and as predicted by economists and Wilson at Versailles, Germany had defaulted on their ability to deliver further amounts of coal, timber, and steel in line with its reparation quotas. In response, French and Belgian troops occupied the Ruhr River Valley in Germany, which outraged Germans. To defuse this situation and increase the chances of Germany resuming reparation payments, the Allied Reparations Commission asked Dawes to find a solution fast. The results were as follows: 1) the Ruhr was to be evacuated; 2) reparations would be gradual and increase annually; 3) the German banking system would be reorganized under Allied supervision; 4) the sources for reparation money would include transportation, excise, and customs taxes; and 5) U.S. investment companies, under the supervision of the U.S. State Department, would loan Germany money so they could begin paying back Britain and France. The plan worked in the short-term, softening the burdens of war reparations for Germany and making the German economy dependent on foreign markets and economies. This cycle of money from U.S. loans to Germany, which made reparations to other European nations, who then paid off their debts to the U.S., locked the western world’s economy into that of the U.S., which helps explain why the Great Depression had such far-reaching impacts. right33294700Herbert Hoover, 1929-1933Herbert Hoover brought to the Presidency an unparalleled reputation for public service as an engineer, administrator, and humanitarian. After the United States entered WWI, President Wilson appointed Hoover head of the Food Administration. He succeeded in cutting consumption of foods needed overseas and avoided rationing at home, yet kept the Allies fed. After the Armistice, Hoover, a member of the Supreme Economic Council and head of the American Relief Administration, organized shipments of food for starving millions in central Europe. He extended aid to famine-stricken Soviet Russia in 1921. When a critic inquired if he was not thus helping Bolshevism, Hoover retorted, "Twenty million people are starving. Whatever their politics, they shall be fed!"After capably serving as Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Harding and Coolidge, Hoover became the Republican Presidential nominee in 1928. Seven months later, the stock market crashed, and the Great Depression took hold. Hoover responded to the economic catastrophe with a completely hands-off approach, which was quite surprising given his earlier political career. To the millions of Americans who were unemployed, Hoover’s “voluntarism” (the assertion that care for those suffering must be a local and voluntary responsibility) was interpreted as apathy and negligence; soon Hoover became the scapegoat for the depression itself. The economic catastrophe continued to worsen, with no direct response from Hoover, until his successor—Franklin Roosevelt— overwhelmingly defeated him in the 1932 election. What economic policies did the Republican presidents of the 1920s pursue? How did these policies compare with earlier generations of Republican leaders? (think Lincoln, TR, Taft, …) Use evidence from readings and slides below.What were the significant foreign policy actions taken by these presidents?right1016000The 1920s Womanright208234200Though the women who had pushed so hard for the 19th Amendment (1920) had wanted women to keep pushing for more rights in the aftermath of the Great War, many young women of the age just wanted to…have fun. Enter the “Flappers.” Flappers gained a reputation for keeping their hair and skirts short, smoking and drinking illegally in public and using birth control to engage in more promiscuous behavior. But flappers were very much a minority in America. They were northern, urban, single, young, middle-class women, many of whom had jobs in the changing American economy as phone operators or department store workers. By night, they often engaged in the active city nightlife, frequenting jazz clubs, theaters, and speakeasies. These women of the ‘20s adopted the same carefree attitude toward Prohibition as men. Ironically, more young women consumed alcohol in the decade when it was illegal than ever before. Smoking, another activity previously reserved for men, became popular among flappers. With the political field now leveled with the 19th Amendment, some women sought to eliminate social double standards. Consequently, the flapper was less hesitant to experiment sexually than previous generations. Many women celebrated the age of the flapper, with its experimentation with new looks, jobs, and lifestyles that seemed liberating compared to the “silent woman” of the Victorian Age. But critics were quick to elucidate the shortcomings of “flapperism,” as it was sometimes called: most women were still expected to marry, have children, and be the ones to work the new washing machines. And flappers failed to push for greater legal and political rights, something the previous generation of women were disheartened by.right30821100Those women of the previous generation—not the flappers—moved quickly after ratification of the 19th Amendment to gain support for another amendment they hoped to add to the Constitution—the Equal Rights Amendment, or ERA for short. It read, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” Female political activists tried to get it passed for decades; the fight was still going strong in the 1960s and early ‘70s. To those that supported the amendment, it was viewed as the only way to eliminate all legal gender-based discrimination in the U.S. Surprisingly, conservative women often led the most visible opposition to the amendment. These women believed one of two things: 1) that the ERA would eliminate laws designed to protect women—such as shorter working hours or the all-male draft. Or, 2) that the ERA would lead to the complete unraveling of traditional American society. Though the U.S. House eventually approved the amendment in 1970 and the Senate in 1972, it was never passed by the requisite states (3/4). While some states debated the amendment, “Stop-ERA” advocates baked pies for legislatures and hung “Don’t draft me” signs on baby girls for public display. The strategy worked.If you had been a young woman of the 1920s living in urban America, do you suspect you would have been a flapper, or a political activist pushing for the ERA? Explain.-114300000The Harlem Renaissanceright10160And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,And torn from Black Africa's strand I cameTo build a "homeland of the free."The free?Who said the free? Not me?Surely not me? The millions on relief today?The millions shot down when we strike?The millions who have nothing for our pay? For all the dreams we've dreamedAnd all the songs we've sungAnd all the hopes we've heldAnd all the flags we've hung,The millions who have nothing for our pay--Except the dream that's almost dead today.O, let America be America again--The land that never has been yet--And yet must be--the land where every man is free.The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--Who made America,Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,Must bring back our mighty dream again.Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--The steel of freedom does not stain.From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,We must take back our land again,America!O, yes,I say it plain,America never was America to me,And yet I swear this oath--America will be!Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,We, the people, must redeemThe land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.The mountains and the endless plain--All, all the stretch of these great green states--And make America again!What is Hughes’s message? What/who is he writing for?What evidence from earlier periods could be used to support OR refute Hughes’ message? 00And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,And torn from Black Africa's strand I cameTo build a "homeland of the free."The free?Who said the free? Not me?Surely not me? The millions on relief today?The millions shot down when we strike?The millions who have nothing for our pay? For all the dreams we've dreamedAnd all the songs we've sungAnd all the hopes we've heldAnd all the flags we've hung,The millions who have nothing for our pay--Except the dream that's almost dead today.O, let America be America again--The land that never has been yet--And yet must be--the land where every man is free.The land that's mine--the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME--Who made America,Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,Must bring back our mighty dream again.Sure, call me any ugly name you choose--The steel of freedom does not stain.From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,We must take back our land again,America!O, yes,I say it plain,America never was America to me,And yet I swear this oath--America will be!Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,We, the people, must redeemThe land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.The mountains and the endless plain--All, all the stretch of these great green states--And make America again!What is Hughes’s message? What/who is he writing for?What evidence from earlier periods could be used to support OR refute Hughes’ message? A “Harlem Renaissance” Poem by Langston Hughes: Let America be America Again Let America be America again …Let it be the pioneer on the plainSeeking a home where he himself is free.(America never was America to me.)Let it be that great strong land of loveWhere never kings connive nor tyrants schemeThat any man be crushed by one above.(It never was America to me.)O, let my land be a land where LibertyIs crowned with no false patriotic wreath,But opportunity is real, and life is free,Equality is in the air we breathe.(There's never been equality for me,Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark? …I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.I am the red man driven from the land,I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek--And finding only the same old stupid planOf dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.I am the young man, full of strength and hope,Tangled in that ancient endless chainOf profit, power, gain, of grab the land!Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!Of work the men! Of take the pay!Of owning everything for one's own greed!I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.I am the worker sold to the machine.I am the Negro, servant to you all.I am the people, humble, hungry, mean--Hungry yet today despite the dream . . . Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dreamIn the Old World while still a serf of kings,Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,That even yet its mighty daring singsIn every brick and stone, in every furrow turnedThat's made America the land it has become. O, I'm the man who sailed those early seasIn search of what I meant to be my home--For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,FDR & the New Deal, 1933-1940s50203106477000It is difficult to imagine the pervasive impact of the Great Depression. Various economic indicators and statistics might help to put the depression in perspective: the U.S. Gross Domestic Product—the value of all the goods and services produced by the nation in one year—dropped from $104 billion to $56 billion in four years (1929 to 1932); the nation’s income declined by over 50%; some 20% of all banks closed, wiping out 10 million savings accounts; as banks failed, the money supply contracted by 30%; by 1933, the number of unemployed had reached 13 million people, or 25% of the workforce, farmers not included; and poverty, homelessness, mortgage foreclosures, suicides, and evictions, became commonplace. The depression ended Republican domination of government and people pushed for more dramatic changes in policies and an expansion of the federal government, beyond even what Progressives had imaged in the first two decades of the 20th century. Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945), elected in 1932, would usher in a “New Deal” for the American people. Excerpts from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Inaugural Address, March 1933 I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. . . This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. . .In such a spirit on my part and on yours we face our common difficulties. They concern, thank God, only material things . . . our ability to pay [taxes and for goods/services] has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange [money, bonds] are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence . . . . Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.Yet our distress comes from no failure of substance. We are stricken by no plague of locusts. Compared with the perils which our forefathers conquered because they believed and were not afraid, we have still much to be thankful for. Nature still offers her bounty. . . .Happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort. . . . Recognition of the falsity of material wealth as the standard of success goes hand in hand with the abandonment of the false belief that public office and high political position are to be valued only by the standards of pride of place and personal profit; and there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing. Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now.Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources. . . The task can be helped by definite efforts to raise the values of agricultural products . . . . It can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure [bank seizure] of our small homes and our farms. . . It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a public character. . . We must act and act quickly.Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require . . . safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency. . . 54864001905000If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems. Action in this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our Constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress of vast expansion of territory, of foreign wars, of bitter internal strife, of world relations.It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure. I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis - broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe. . . We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity; with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values; with the clean satisfaction that comes from the performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life. We do not distrust the future of essential democracy [note: FDR likely made this statement in response to Russia’s claims that the Great Depression proved democracy/capitalism was a flawed system doomed to fail]. The people of the United States have not failed. In their need they have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it.In this dedication of a Nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come.What were FDR’s objectives in his First Inaugural Address? Make a list below:What plan for the future does FDR lay out? Make a list of specifics below:Given the specter of suffering (see economic indicators in context section, as well as slides on the Great depression), did the extract provided here adequately deal with the national crisis?How would you characterize FDR’s speech—liberal, conservative, patriotic, capitalist, socialist, etc.? Explain. 4899660571500FDR’s Fireside ChatsMany historians, critics as well as supporters, credit the success of much of the early New Deal as much to the delivery of the messages as to their content. What was it about FDR's voice, the structure of his Fireside Chats, and the relative novelty of radio in 1933 that made his use of this medium so effective and important historically? What can we learn from this example of presidential leadership?Roosevelt made a total of thirty-one Fireside Chats, from the initial days of his first administration to the dark days of World War II. He used these opportunities to explain his hopes and ideas for the country, while inviting the citizenry to "tell me your troubles." The combination of the novelty and intimacy of radio with the believability of his message created a powerful force that enabled him to pass a sweeping set of legislation in the first 100 days of his presidency and then go on to many other accomplishments in the following twelve years. The first broadcast set the pattern for the content and tone of the rest: FDR patiently and calmly explained the complexities of the nation's banking crisis in a way that was understandable and accessible to the masses.“I never saw him—but I knew him. Can you have forgotten how, with his voice, he came into our house, the President of these United States, calling us friends?" —Carl Carmer, 1945 Fireside Chat on the Bank Crisis, March 1933:I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking -- with the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking but more particularly with the overwhelming majority who use banks for the making of deposits and the drawing of checks. I want to tell you what has been done in the last few days, why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be. I recognize that the many proclamations from State Capitols and from Washington, the legislation, the Treasury regulations, etc., couched for the most part in banking and legal terms should be explained for the benefit of the average citizen. I owe this in particular because of the fortitude and good temper with which everybody has accepted the inconvenience and hardships of the banking holiday. I know that when you understand what we in Washington have been about I shall continue to have your cooperation as fully as I have had your sympathy and help during the past week. First of all let me state the simple fact that when you deposit money in a bank the bank does not put the money into a safe deposit vault. It invests your money in many different forms . . . [and gives out] loans. In other words, the bank puts your money to work to keep the wheels of industry and of agriculture turning around. A comparatively small part of the money you put into the bank is kept in currency -- an amount which in normal times is wholly sufficient to cover the cash needs of the average citizen. In other words the total amount of all the currency in the country is only a small fraction of the total deposits in all of the banks. What, then, happened during the last few days of February and the first few days of March? Because of undermined confidence on the part of the public, there was a general rush by a large portion of our population to turn bank deposits into currency or gold. -- A rush so great that the soundest banks could not get enough currency to meet the demand. . . By the afternoon of March 3 scarcely a bank in the country was open to do business. Proclamations temporarily closing them in whole or in part had been issued by the Governors in almost all the states. It was then that I issued the proclamation providing for the nation-wide bank holiday, and this was the first step in the Government's reconstruction of our financial and economic fabric. The second step was the legislation promptly and patriotically passed by the Congress confirming my proclamation and broadening my powers so that it became possible in view of the requirement of time to extend the holiday and lift the ban of that holiday gradually. This law also gave authority to develop a program of rehabilitation of our banking facilities. I want to tell our citizens in every part of the Nation that the national Congress -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- showed by this action a devotion to public welfare and a realization of the emergency and the necessity for speed that it is difficult to match in our history. . . right000This bank holiday while resulting in many cases in great inconvenience is affording us the opportunity to supply the currency necessary to meet the situation. . . [T]he banks that reopen will be able to meet every legitimate call. . . A question you will ask is this - why are all the banks not to be reopened at the same time? The answer is simple. Your Government does not intend that the history of the past few years shall be repeated. We do not want and will not have another epidemic of bank failures. . . It is necessary that the reopening of banks be extended over a period in order to permit the banks to make applications for necessary loans, to obtain currency needed to meet their requirements and to enable the Government to make common sense checkups. Let me make it clear to you that if your bank does not open the first day you are by no means justified in believing that it will not open. A bank that opens on one of the subsequent days is in exactly the same status as the bank that opens tomorrow. . . We had a bad banking situation. Some of our bankers had shown themselves either incompetent or dishonest in their handling of the people's funds. They had used the money entrusted to them in speculations and unwise loans. This was of course not true in the vast majority of our banks but it was true in enough of them to shock the people for a time into a sense of insecurity and to put them into a frame of mind where they did not differentiate, but seemed to assume that the acts of a comparative few had tainted them all. It was the Government's job to straighten out this situation and do it as quickly as possible -- and the job is being performed. . . [T]here is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system; it is up to you to support and make it work. It is your problem no less than it is mine. Together we cannot fail.What was FDR aiming to accomplish in his first fireside chat? Describe what FDR and Congress planned to do about the banking crisis:Evaluate FDR’s plan to manage the banking crisis:FDR’s New Deal LegislationThe new president—a distant cousin of President Theodore Roosevelt who was married to TR’s niece, Eleanor—expanded the size of the federal government, altered its scope of operations, and greatly enlarged presidential powers. He would dominate the nation and the government for an unprecedented stretch of time; 12 years and two months. FDR became one of the most influential world leaders of the 20th century and is commonly ranked as one of the best presidents. With the nation desperate and close to the brink of panic, Congress looked to the new president for leadership, which Roosevelt was eager to provide. Immediately after being sworn into office in 1933, Roosevelt called Congress into a hundred-day-long special session. During this period, Congress passed into law every request of the President, enacting more legislation than any single Congress in history. Most of the new laws and agencies were commonly referred to by their initials (WPA, AAA, CCC, etc.), or more generally as “alphabet soup.” Even after the Hundred Days expired, Roosevelt continued devising new remedies for the nation’s ills, which Congress enacted. Category: FINANCIAL REFORMProgram/Agency/Reform, DatePurposeImpactEmergency Banking Act, ‘33Enlarge federal authority over private banksProvide loans to private banksAllow president to declare bank holidayBanks closed to prevent further withdrawals and bank failuresAuthorized Treasury to inspect country’s banksHelped restore faith in banking systemGlass-Steagall Act, ’33 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)FDIC to provide federal insurance for bank accountsReassured millions that their money was safe and that capitalism would prevailFederal Securities Act, ‘33Securities and Exchange Commission, ’33 (SEC)Regulate stock marketMade companies liable for any misrepresentationsPrevented insider tradingCategory: EMPLOYMENTProgram/Agency/Reform, DatePurposeImpactCivilian Conservation Corps, ‘33Unemployment relief Conservation of natural resourcesMost popular of all programsRoad construction, reforestation, flood control, park improvementsEmergency Relief Appropriations Act, ‘35Works Progress Administration (WPA)Public Works Administration (PWA)Public works programs for joblessIncrease employment and consumer spendingRoad construction, new schools, bridges, courthouses, public buildings, etc. (PWA)Community service projects Artists, musicians, actors, writers employed in the Federal Art Project (covering writing, theater, music, visual arts) – sparked controversy (WPA)Category: SOCIAL WELFAREProgram/Agency/Reform, DatePurposeImpactFederal Emergency Relief Administration ’33 (FERA)Direct federal money for relief, funneled through state/local gov.Half given to states; other half distributed on basis of $1 federal for every $3 of state/local funding for reliefFunds used to create new unskilled jobs in local and state governmentTerminated in ’35; work taken over by WPASocial Security Act, ‘35Provide old-age pensionsProvide unemployment insurancePensions quite smallFailed to cover many in needEstablished principle of federal authority for America’s vulnerable citizens Category: FARMING / AGRICULTUREProgram/Agency/Reform, DatePurposeImpactAgricultural Adjustment Administration, ’33 (AAA)Provide federal farm aid and subsidies Set prices for crops Raise crop prices by cutting productionImmediate relief to large growersRaised farm income and pushed prices upFailure to share subsidy payments with tenants or sharecroppersPayments used for new technology displaced workers Sparked controversy when farmers were subsidized by the government to cut production (looked bad when many people were starving)Declared unconstitutional in ’37; Court ruled that agriculture was a state matterTennessee Valley Authority, ’33 (TVA)Economic development and cheap electricity for Tennessee ValleyConstruction of dams to prevent floodingBrought modern conveniences to an underdeveloped regionAttracted industry to the area when living standards increasedSparked controversy: “dangerous step towards socialism”Resettlement Administration, ’35 (RA)Farm Security Administration, ’37 (FSA)Relocate poor rural familiesLoan money to poor familiesProvide relief for Dust Bowl victimsLack of funds and poor administration: only about 1% of projected 500,000 families were actually moved Established network of camps for displaced farm workersMade a pictorial record by hiring photographers to document life in rural America Category: INDUSTRY / LABORProgram/Agency/Reform, DatePurposeImpactNational Industrial Recovery Act, ’33 National Recovery Administration (NRA)Create centralized industrial codes to revive the economyCodes of fair practice intended to help workersSet prices Codes seemed to favor big businessNRA pronounced unconstitutional in ’35; Court ruled that the enforcement of industry codes went beyond interstate commerce; many labor provisions included in Wagner ActNational Labor Relations Act, ‘35Wagner ActFederal guarantee of right to organize trade unions and engage in collective bargaining Prohibit unfair labor practicesExplosion in union growth, especially in previously unorganized industries (auto, steel, textiles) Labor Relations Board acts as mediator in labor disputesFair Labor Standards Act, ‘38Establish first minimum wage (25 cents/hr)Maximum work week of 44-hours for all engaged in interstate commerceBan on child laborFor first time in U.S. history, federal government set standards for minimum wages and maximum hoursChildren under 12 could no longer be employed in non-agricultural jobs; children between 12-16 could be employed in certain occupations for limited hours; children 16-18 could be employed in non-hazardous occupationsRevisit your Progressive Era materials. Which programs/agencies would Progressives circa 1912 support?Labeling: A) Place a check mark by the programs/agencies you would have agreed with, given the context of the Great Depression. B) Put an X by the programs/agencies you would have disagreed with at the time. C) Put a T for programs/agencies that seem temporary and P for permanent (intended to last beyond the current crisis) by each program/agency.How Successful was the New Deal?, CNN, by John Blake, 2008President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal traditionally has been credited with helping lift the nation out of the Great Depression. When Roosevelt took office in 1933, he pushed through the passage of a sprawling set of laws and public works programs geared to revive the economy. But there are some historians who say the New Deal not only failed to help lift the nation out of the Great Depression, it made it worse. We talked to two New Deal historians who represent opposing sides of this debate. Adam Cohen is the author of "Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days That Created Modern America." Jim Powell is the author "FDR's Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression."Did the New Deal help lift the U.S. out of the Great Depression?Powell: It certainly did not. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression not because of one mistake, but because of a combination of policies that make it more expensive to hire people. Some of the time during the 1930s, the economy expanded, but chronic high unemployment persisted throughout the period. It averaged 17 percent. The best the New Deal could do was 14 percent (over double what we have now), and at times, New Deal unemployment was over 20 percent. The chronic high unemployment is what concerns everybody. FDR might have lifted people's spirits, but he never could figure out how to promote the recovery of private-sector employment.Cohen: Yes, and in two different ways. One, it had a definite impact on the U.S. economy. From 1933 on, you saw a steady increase in the GDP [gross national product], which showed that it was helping with economic activity. You also saw unemployment going down. It is true that the Great Depression didn't end until World War II, with the [fiscal] stimulation it provided. That really suggests we just needed more spending. The New Deal was working, but we needed more of the New Deal. We needed more New Deal spending. When FDR started pulling the spending back (’37-’38), that’s when things slipped. People who say the New Deal didn't help also ignore the fact that the New Deal put millions of people to work. Ronald Reagan’s father had a New Deal job. People could see actual progress on the ground. They could see the economy getting better and they regained trust in capitalism. If people believe things are getting better, they start spending. What was radical about the New Deal when it was introduced?Powell: It involved the biggest peacetime expansion of government power in American history. So the New Deal was different, but I'm not sure one would call that radical. Was it radical to triple the tax burden, which is what FDR did between 1933 and 1940? Was it radical to destroy food and make three-quarters of the American population pay higher prices for food -- in the country's worst depression? That's what the New Deal did under the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Was it radical to make it more expensive for employers to hire people, triggering unemployment, as a number of New Deal policies did? Regardless of whether one would call such policies radical, I think it's fair to say that they harmed the people they were supposed to help.Cohen: When FDR took over, the federal government was limited in scope [due to the conservatism of the 1920s presidents]. FDR reimagined what the federal government could be. It could be an employer of people. It could be a provider of relief payments. It could regulate the stock market. Those were things that no one thought the government should do, but terrible times allowed plete the chart below:Praise for the New Deal/FDRCritique of the New Deal/FDRWhat specific materials would need to be analyzed before reaching a conclusion regarding the success or failure of the New Deal?FDR’s New Deal—Historiography:Roosevelt's New Deal was unique. In later decades, there would be nothing quite like it in terms of either the challenges faced or the legislative record achieved. Recognizing its scope, historians have debated whether the New Deal represented a revolutionary break with the past or an evolutionary outgrowth of earlier movements.The first historical interpretations tended to praise the New Deal as a continuation or revival of the Progressive reform movement. In the late 1950s, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. saw the New Deal in terms of his theory of a recurring political cycle from a period of liberal reforms to a period of conservative reaction and back again to reform.Some liberal historians such as Carl Degler went further and characterized the New Deal as an American Revolution that went far beyond earlier reforms. They argued that such measures as the NRA, the WPA, and the Social Security Act redefined the role of government in American society. In his Age of Reform (1955), Richard Hofstadter agreed that the New Deal had ventured beyond traditional reform movements. It was unique, he said, because it concentrated not on regulating corporate abuses as in the past but on providing social-democratic guarantees for different groups in such forms as Social Security, housing credits, and minimum wage laws.Revisionists of the 1960s and 1970s viewed the New Deal differently. William E. Leuchtenburg in Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal (1963) depicted a "halfway revolution" that helped some (farmers and labor unions), ignored others (African Americans), and implemented changes without being either completely radical or conservative. Leuchtenburg believed Roosevelt did the best he could given both his own personal ideas and the political realities of the time. A highly critical interpretation came from New Left scholars (radical thinkers of the 1970s), who argued that the New Deal was a missed opportunity that did not do enough to meet society's needs. They saw New Deal measures as conservative in purpose, aimed at preserving capitalism from a worker revolution. New Left historians have been criticized for judging the New Deal in terms of the 1970s rather than the 1930s.In recent years, some historians have questioned whether it is useful to characterize the New Deal as either conservative on the one hand or revolutionary on the other. They see the New Deal as nothing more or less than a pragmatic political response to various groups. In their view, Roosevelt and his political advisers had no central plan but simply responded to the different needs of special interests (farmers, business, labor, and elderly).right2410900In defense of Roosevelt, they ask: If the nation in general and the South in particular was essentially conservative, then how far could the New Deal go in improving race relations? If the government bureaucracy was relatively small in the 1930s, how could it be expected to implement massive new programs?Which interpretation above did you find most persuasive or intriguing? Why?What is the message of the cartoon? What is the cartoonist suggesting? Do you think it’s an accurate portrayal of FDR and the New Deal? Why or why not?right17605Feather in [very old] woman’s hat reads “Miss Democracy;” horse has “Constitution” written on its body, Uncle Sam is driving the carriage; FDR holds a blueprint of a sharp looking car that says “Federal Control.”00Feather in [very old] woman’s hat reads “Miss Democracy;” horse has “Constitution” written on its body, Uncle Sam is driving the carriage; FDR holds a blueprint of a sharp looking car that says “Federal Control.”How would you characterize FDR’s approach to battling the New Deal? Was it socialism? Why or why not? Read his response to the claim that his approach was socialism, or some other –ism with a negative connotation before coming up with your own response. “A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it "Fascism," sometimes "Communism," . . . sometimes "Socialism." But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical. . . . All that we do seeks to fulfill the historic traditions of the American people. Other Nations may sacrifice democracy for the transitory stimulation of old and discredited autocracies. We are restoring confidence and well-being under the rule of the people themselves. We remain, as John Marshall said a century ago, "emphatically and truly, a government of the people." Our Government "in form and in substance . . . emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefits." –Fireside Chat, July, 1934Letters to FDR:Briefly summarize the key insights gained from each letter in the margins:March 13, 1933May 8, 1933 May 16, 1933May 8, 193352260502794000World War II (1937/9-1945) Textbook AssignmentInstructions: Use your text, pages 766-797, to respond to the following prompts. 1. Introduction (p. 766): Why is WWII considered the “defining international event of the twentieth century”?When and why did the war begin in Asia? Europe? When and why did it end?AsiaEuropeWar’s EndHow did FDR and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill see the war? What was it also about, though they might not have said it? What were some changes on the domestic front in the U.S.?The Road to War (pp. 768-773):What led to the rise of fascism in the interwar period? What characteristics are associated with fascism?How did Japan and Italy defy the League of Nations? What was the result?JapanItalyGermany specific: How did Germany fare after WWI?Once Hitler became chancellor of Germany in 1933, what did he do? What were his goals? How did Germany defy the League of Nations? What was the result?What was “appeasement”? Provide an example for Germany.America specific:For what reason(s) was there isolationist sentiment in America? How did Americans feel about the war when it began in Europe?Although there was a small but vocal group of Americans encouraging Roosevelt to take a stronger stand against European fascism, what actions did the U.S. take in 1935, ’36, and ’37 with regards to the approaching war? Make a list of the ways in which FDR pushed the nation [cautiously] towards involvement in the war:right3443700How did the U.S. respond to Japan’s actions in China? Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos)? Describe the attack on Pearl Harbor, including its results:Organizing for War (in America) (pp. 773-781):What was the War Powers Act of 1941?Make a list of the ways in which the war was financed: Describe the U.S. military force:Why did unions see victories during the war?right317500How were women impacted by war?Civil Rights:What was the Double V campaign? What was Executive Order 8802 and why was it passed?How did wartime developments lay the groundwork for the 1960s “Civil Rights Revolution”?How were Mexicans impacted by the war?Describe the victories and setbacks for labor during the war:VictoriesSetbacksWhat was the “GI Bill of Rights”?Life on the Home Front (pp.781-788):What wartime responsibilities did civilians take on?What was the major inconvenience during the war? What demographic changes took place during the war?Racial conflict on the Home Front:African AmericansMexican AmericansWhat was Executive Order 9066 and why was it passed? Fighting and Winning the War (pp. 788-797):Why is WWII considered a war “for control of the world”?What tensions existed in the Allied camp?Why was the D-Day Invasion (1944) launched? What were the results?Why did Americans refuse many Jewish refugees in the years before and during the war?What were some of the characteristics of war in the Pacific?Describe the racial undertones of the conflict, from an American and Japanese perspective:American PerspectiveJapanese Perspective457200016510000Describe the Manhattan Project: its purpose, cost, etc.What compelled President Truman to drop atomic bombs on Japan?What were the human costs of this war?What were some [other] results of this war?How did America emerge from the war? WWII Japanese Internment Camps, 1941-‘46In 1991, President George H.W. Bush issued a formal apology from the U.S. government for the decision to intern Americans of Japanese ancestry during World War II: he said, "In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated." Bush’s statement reflects the prevailing view today among historians and politicians: but is it the right one? This document will help us to analyze why the camps were created, what life was like for those interned, what constitutional issues were involved, and how historiography on the camps has changed over time. Summary of InternmentFollowing the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 (1942), which forced the Japanese-American population of the Western U.S. into internment camps. Military and political leaders suspected that Imperial Japan, who had rapidly conquered a large portion of Asia and the Pacific since the beginning of WWII, was preparing a full-scale attack on the West Coast of the United States. Civilian and military officials had concerns about the loyalty of the ethnic Japanese and decided it would be best for purposes of national security to intern those of Japanese descent for the duration of the war. 127,000 people of Japanese ancestry, two-thirds of them American citizens, were living in California, Washington, and Oregon in 1942. These individuals, “threats” to national security, were given, on average, five days to sell or store their properties, businesses, assets, etc. Since potential buyers knew the Japanese only had a few days to report for evacuation, sales of properties (etc.) usually resulted in great financial loss for those of Japanese ancestry. Those that could afford to pay for storage of furniture and other belongings were disappointed after the war, when they found that much of what they had placed there was stolen or destroyed. Living conditions at the internment camps were very poor. Most were similar to military barracks, fashioned in communal style (unpartitioned toilets, dormitories, etc.), and lacked proper medical care, which resulted in a number of deaths throughout the war. Internees could no longer report to their job, attend school, worship at their usual place of worship, or choose when to eat and sleep, and military personnel guarded the camps at all times.Some of the internees proved that they were loyal by volunteering to enter the U.S. Army forces. Thousands joined the military while their families stayed on at the camps. Those living in the camps contributed to the war effort by making camouflage netting for the military, among other things. Why were citizens of Japanese descent living on the West Coast interned during WWII?For what reason(s) did the evacuation process result in “great financial loss for those of Japanese ancestry”?If you had been an internee, do you think you would have volunteered to fight for America or contribute to the war effort in spite of the internment policy? Why or why not?4110535324883004445-710800Executive Order No. 9066, Franklin D. Roosevelt, February 19, 1942Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities… Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order. I hereby further authorize and direct the Secretary of War and the said Military Commanders to take such other steps as he or the appropriate Military Commander may deem advisable to enforce compliance with the restrictions applicable to each Military area hereinabove authorized to be designated, including the use of Federal troops and other Federal Agencies, with authority to accept assistance of state and local agencies.Did Executive Order 9066 give too much power to the military? Or, was it an appropriate war-time order?42373554318000U.S. Government Explains Internment, 1942—Video AnalysisThe United States Office of War Information (OWI) was a U.S. government agency created during World War II to consolidate government information services. It operated from June 1942 until September 1945. It coordinated the release of war news for domestic use, and, using posters and radio broadcasts, worked to promote patriotism, warn about foreign spies and recruit women into war work. The office also established an overseas branch, which launched a large scale information and propaganda campaign abroad. The OWI produced a short propaganda film titled Japanese Relocation in 1942, the purpose of which was to justify and explain Japanese American internment on the West Coast during World War II.How did the U.S. government justify internment? How did the U.S. government convey the internment experience? Which arguments made by the government seem legitimate and which do not? (analyze potential bias in the government’s point of view)Japanese Internment and the Korematsu Case (1944)—Video AnalysisDid Congress support FDR’s Executive Order 9066?Describe what transpired between the issuance of the Order and actual evacuation.Why were Japanese uncertain about where they were going and what the future held?Describe the assembly centers used to house Japanese-Americans:Why did Japanese-Americans go into the camps peacefully?Who was Fred Korematsu? Why was he arrested? How did his family react to his arrest?What did Korematsu’s attorneys argue?What did the government argue? What is important to note about the larger historical context?What was the result of the Korematsu case (1944)? What did the Court argue? Why?What arguments were made in the dissents?What was the experience of going home for individuals that had been interned?What is coram nobis? How was it utilized in Korematsu’s case? What was the result?156127370930033896306985004554220-889000Primary Sources on InternmentMary Tsukamoto Interview, Copyright 2001 Smithsonian Institution: “And I never will forget, the train stopped and we got off and they put us on a big truck. It looked like one of those cattle cars. Anyway, we stood up because there were no chairs for us to sit on this pickup and crowded into this truck. They drove us to the Fresno Assembly Center. And then we got off there and they told us to get in and there was the barbed wire gate, and the police around there and uh... We had to go in through that gate and after we got in there we knew that the gate was shut. And so, we saw all these people behind the fence, looking out, hanging onto the wire, and looking out because they were anxious to know who was coming in. But I will never forget the shocking feeling that human beings were behind this fence like animals [crying]. And we were going to also lose our freedom and walk inside of that gate and find ourselves... cooped up there. And the police, with their guns and some of them had bayonets. I don’t know what they were going to do with it, if they thought we were going to run away I guess. But anyway, when the gates were shut, we knew that we had lost something that was very precious; that we were no longer free.…You know, we were so naive, and I guess, you know, we should have known what Americanism really meant. But we were young, and inexperienced, and uh, I hadn’t trained to be a lawyer or anything like that... So we had no thought about defying the government. And of course the Japanese people respect the elderly, and those who are important, the President of the United States, we wouldn’t, you know, even if he’s wrong, we wouldn’t say anything.” Sue Embrey Interview, Copyright 2001 Smithsonian Institution: “For myself, I think I was really disillusioned about democracy, and what the Constitution stood for. Because all my life, and all through school, I was in it for 12 years, that’s all I was learning, and all of a sudden, it really didn’t mean anything when it came to my own personal freedom, and my civil liberties. I guess when I left, and went to the mid-west, and began to meet a lot of people, who couldn’t believe that I had been treated that way, and that all of us, you know, had been treated that way, that it occurred to me that the government really wasn’t doing something that the entire population supported them. It was just a governmental order, which many people didn’t know about. And that if they knew about it they might have objected to it. And I think gradually, I began to realize that there are lots of things that we needed to do to correct democracy…”Record two important insights that you gained from the excerpts above: Summary of Constitutional Rights Violated [other violations arguably took place; what appears here is just a sampling]4403090-762000RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Freedom of religion, speech, press, and right to assembleBILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT: I. Restrictions on Powers of Congress: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.VIOLATIONS? Japanese Americans’ religious freedoms were violated with respect to the practice of Eastern religious beliefs. The practice of the Shinto religion was prohibited in the camps. Christianity was officially encouraged by camp administrators. At the same time, Buddhism was severely restricted by the ban on written materials in Japanese and the placement of Buddhist clergy in separate Department of Justice internment camps.44577001317200? Japanese Americans were denied the guarantee of freedom of speech and press with the prohibition of using the Japanese language in public meetings and the censorship of camp newspapers. The right to assemble was abridged when mass meetings were prohibited.? The guarantee of freedom to petition for redress was violated when a few Japanese Americans exercised their citizen rights and demanded redress of grievances from the government. The War Relocation Authority administration labeled them as “troublemakers” and sent them to isolation camps.RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizuresBILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT: IV. Seizures, Searches, and Warrants: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized.VIOLATIONS? The FBI searched homes of Japanese Americans often without search warrants, seeking any items identified as being Japanese. RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Right to an indictment or to be informed of the charges; right to life, liberty and property; right to be confronted with accusatory witnesses; right to call favorable witnesses; right to legal counselBILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT: V. Criminal Proceedings and Condemnation of Property: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.VIOLATIONS? Japanese Americans who were picked up in the FBI sweep were denied a speedy trial or access to any legal representative. They could not call upon witnesses nor confront accusatory witnesses.? Japanese Americans were not told of their crime or the charges against them.RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Right to a speedy and public trialBILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS: VI. Mode of Trial in Criminal Proceedings: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district, wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.VIOLATIONS? Japanese Americans were deprived of their liberty and property by being forcibly removed from their homes and locked up in detention camps without the required statement of charges and trial by jury. How could this happen? The government adopted semantics to justify the act of imprisonment. Even though Japanese Americans were held against their will in barbed wire compounds under armed guard, the government euphemistically called the event an “evacuation” or “relocation.”RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Right to reasonable bail; freedom from cruel and unusual punishmentBILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT: VIII. Bails, Fines, Punishments: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.VIOLATIONS? The treatment of the Japanese Americans in the “assembly centers” and detention camps were a form of cruel and unusual punishment on the basis that conditions were “grossly inadequate.” Hospitals were understaffed, medical care poor and food was dietetically deficient.RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Right to voteBILL OF RIGHTS AMENDMENT: XV. Elective Franchise: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.VIOLATIONS? The right to vote in public elections was essentially denied to Japanese Americans since they were prohibited from returning home to vote at their place of residence. No provisions were made to enable them to vote absentee. Although elections were held in the camps, the internee “self-government” had no power to regulate their own welfare or direct their own destiny.RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Right against involuntary servitude.CONSTITUTIONAL ARTICLE: XIII. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.In some cases, Japanese-Americans were forced to build the camps they were forced to live in. This involuntary servitude took place without Japanese-Americans having been convicted of any crime.RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS: Right to equal protection under the law.XIV. Citizenship Representation, and Payment of Public Debt: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.VIOLATIONS? The equal protection of Japanese American was violated because the government acted “solely on the basis of race and national ancestry” when identifying persons to be excluded from designated “military areas” along the West Coast states.? In addition, the government failed to compensate or provided grossly inadequate compensation to the internees for losses of property rights when they were forced to leave within 48 hours to a couple of weeks.? Japanese Americans were deprived of their liberty and property by the State when forced from their jobs, homes, and communities into barbed wire, guarded centers and camps.Of all the constitutional violations above, which stood out as the most severe? Why? Were any justifiable given the circumstances?An Apologetic NationIn 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed legislation to create the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, which would conduct an official governmental study of Executive Order 9066 and its impact on Japanese Americans. Two years later, the Commission issued its findings, concluding that the incarceration of Japanese Americans had not been justified by military necessity, as had been espoused by military officials at the time. The report determined that the decision to incarcerate was based on “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” The Commission recommended legislative remedies consisting of a government apology and redress payments to the survivors. In 1988, Congress and President Ronald Reagan passed the Civil Liberties Act based on the Commission’s recommendations. One year later, George H. W. Bush signed an appropriation bill authorizing payments to be paid out between 1990 and 1998. In 1990, surviving internees began to receive individual letters of apology and redress payments. By the time the Act was passed the IRS had already destroyed most of the tax records of the internees, thus, it was extremely difficult for claimants to establish that their claims were valid. Nonetheless, each surviving internee received $20,000. 535749545085000President George H.W. Bush issued a formal apology from the U.S. government on December 7, 1991, on the very day of the 50th-Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack: "In remembering, it is important to come to grips with the past. No nation can fully understand itself or find its place in the world if it does not look with clear eyes at all the glories and disgraces of its past. We in the United States acknowledge such an injustice in our history. The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry was a great injustice, and it will never be repeated."What were the findings of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians?Did the U.S. government make the right decisions regarding apologies and reparations? Why or why not? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download