Tim Bailey, 2009 National History Teacher of the Year
NEH EDSITEment’s blog presents an interview with Tim Bailey, 2009 National History Teacher of the Year. Bailey discusses teaching with documents in the middle school classroom with students of all ability levels and tying that to Common Core requirements. An excellent read whether you are finishing your school year or starting to plan for the fall.
Looking for ways to integrate Common Core Literacy standards into your social studies classroom? NEH EDSITEment has some nifty suggestions for using the writing and speeches of Winston Churchill to create cross-curricular lessons that addresses both historical content and literacy standards.
The Thomas Paine version that is. This pamphlet was originally published anonymously, and advocated independence for the American colonies from Britain and is considered one of the most influential pamphlets in American history. Credited with uniting average citizens and political leaders behind the idea of independence, “Common Sense” played a remarkable role in transforming a colonial squabble into the American Revolution.
At the time Paine wrote “Common Sense,” most colonists considered themselves to be Englishmen. Paine fundamentally changed the tenor of colonists’ argument with the crown when he wrote the following: “Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither they have fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.”
This
Edsitement lesson looks at Thomas Paine and at some of the ideas presented in Common Sense, such as national unity, natural rights, the illegitimacy of the monarchy and of hereditary aristocracy, and the necessity for independence and the revolutionary struggle.
As the new year dawns another Civil War sesquicentennial can be celebrated with the Emancipation Proclamation. There are a number of great resources to be found at TAH to aid in the teaching of this great document. Check out this lesson developed by Professor John Moser and High School Teacher Lori Hahn. Through primary documents, students examine Abraham Lincoln’s role as a wartime president. Students will focus on Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, the Emancipation Proclamation, his decision to arm the freed slaves, his refusal to accept a compromise peace with the South, and the election of 1864.
This podcast of a lecture devlivered at the Ashbrook Center by Professor Allen Guelzo from February 28th of 2004 tells of the complicated story of the first of January, 1863, Lincoln’s “Emancipation Moment,” and the greatest moment of the American Civil War.
On December 18, 1620, the British ship Mayflower docked at modern-day Plymouth, Massachusetts, and its passengers prepared to begin their new settlement, Plymouth Colony.
The story began in 1606, when a group of reform-minded Puritans founded their own church, separate from the state-sanctioned Church of England. Accused of treason, they were forced to leave the country and settle in the more tolerant Amsterdam. However, after years of struggling to adapt and make a decent living, the group sought financial backing from some London merchants to set up a colony in America. On September 6, 1620, 102 pilgrims–named by William Bradford who was another passenger who would become the first governor of Plymouth Colony–crowded on the Mayflower to begin the long, hard journey to a new life in the New World.
On November 11, 1620, the Mayflower anchored at what is now Provincetown Harbor, Cape Cod. Before going ashore, 41 male passengers–heads of families, single men and three male servants–signed the famous Mayflower Compact, agreeing to submit to a government chosen by common consent and to obey all laws made for the good of the colony.
To learn more about the significance of this document check out this archived Ashbrook podcast 
(session 1) recorded Saturday September 24th, 2005 by Professor Larry Schweikart.
Jackie Earle Haley playing Alexander Stephens in Spielberg's newest movie.
In the newest Spielberg movie, titled Lincoln, the Confederacy’s vice president makes a cameo appearance. Some of your students may not know much about Alexander Stephens. After I read a speech he gave in 1861, I decided that was all I ever cared to know about him. Known as the Cornerstone Speech, this document outlines the reasons for the secession of Stephens’ home state of Georgia and attempts to justify that action.
In the middle of the speech, he happens across a theme that this blog has been concerned with lately: equality. Lincoln’s view of ad commitment to equality would be given high marks by most modern Americans. This was an important part of Spielberg’s latest film. Stephens, however, promotes the old ideas of antebellum racists (the contrast between the two men in Lincoln is striking).
If you want your students to delve into this topic, have them read the Cornerstone Speech. If you want a shorter version that quickly gets to the heart of the issue of equality, see the excerpt pasted below. Ask your students to what extent Calhoun (see the previous blog) and Stephens agree. Ask them to contrast Stephens with Lincoln. It may even be useful to have discussion on how each man viewed the concept of natural law.
Some context: when Stephens refers to “the new constitution,” he is alluding to the constitution of the newly formed Confederacy.
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
On this day in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson arrived in France to take part in World War I peace negotiations and to promote his plan for a League of Nations, an international organization for resolving conflicts between nations.
In an Edsitement lesson created by Professor David Krugler (University of Wisconsin-Platteville) students can study this event as well as the formation, application, and successes/failures Wilson’s foreign policy. Students will subsequently appreciate the profound legacy of Wilsonianism in U.S. foreign relations as they continue their study of modern U.S. history.
On this day in 1787, Pennsylvania became the second state to ratify the Constitution, by a vote of 46 to 23. Pennsylvania was the first large state to ratify, as well as the first state to endure a serious Anti-Federalist challenge to ratification.
If you didn’t already know, Professor Gordon Lloyd of Pepperdine University has created a website in collaboration with the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs at Ashland University on the Ratification of the Constitution. Professor Lloyd organizes the content on the Ratification in various ways on the website. One lesson plan has been created to align with the content of the “in doors” conversations of ratification. There are four main component parts to the “in doors” coverage on the website. 1) A Commentary that breaks down the “in house” ratification into The Six Stages of the Ratification of the Constitution. 2) Elliot’s Debates is the major source for learning what took place at the various state ratifying conventions. 3) We have provided a day-by-day summary of each of the three ratifying conventions Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York. This summary highlights the particular clauses of the Constitution that were under consideration on that day along with a synopsis of the main points that were made by the delegates. Each of the three Day-by-Day Summaries is preceded by a brief overview of the entire ratifying convention. 4) A set of individual Maps along with a comprehensive map that shows the location of Federalist and Antifederalist strength throughout the thirteen states.
The full lesson can be found here.
A homely and somewhat terrifying visage of John C. Calhoun.
As Christian Pascarella blogged in August of this year, Lincoln saw a concrete link between the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Union. That link, of course, was the principle that “all men are created equal.”
Not every antebellum thinker saw eye-to-eye with Lincoln’s espousal of this principle, however. John C. Calhoun, a South Carolinian politician and latter-day states’ rights advocate, was one of the main proponents of interposition, nullification, and in extreme cases, secession. When the Senate debated on the topic of whether the U.S. should sign a treaty with Britain to share the Oregon Territory, Calhoun spoke at length. One of the issues that he happened upon during his discourse was the topic of equality.
Have your students read his speech (it may be beneficial to truncate what lower-level students read, as the point is driven home early in this piece). Ask your students to consider how Calhoun understands the concepts of liberty and equality. Have your students hypothesize what Calhoun’s stance on slavery would have been. Ask what differences exist between Lincoln’s view of equality and Calhoun’s? Put in this light, all those who claim that Lincoln was not fully committed to black equality may tend to reconsider.
In 1953, the Abraham Lincoln Association published The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, a multi-volume set of Lincoln’s correspondence, speeches, and other writings. Roy P. Basler and his editorial staff, with the continued support of the association, spent five years transcribing and annotating Lincoln’s papers. The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln represented the first major scholarly effort to collect and publish the complete writings of Abraham Lincoln, and the edition has remained an invaluable resource to Lincoln scholars. Through the efforts of the Abraham Lincoln Association, the edition is now available in electronic form.
Pearl Harbor Day is sadly fading from being commemorated in many U.S. classrooms. For students of the war the day still serves as an amazing event that truly placed the world into a war that would last for four more years and impact every continent. This interactive site from National Geographic illustrates the events of that infamous day in an extraordinary way.
Lincoln (highlighted) at Gettysburg, 1863
The previous installation of this blog focused on Lincoln’s view of the nature of the Civil War. Looking at his 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, one may come to the conclusion that Lincoln’s only purpose was to preserve the Union. There is more to the story, however.
Later that year, Lincoln issued the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. In essence, this document declared that slaves held in the areas of rebellion would be freed upon the new year. Some may say that this proves Lincoln sought emancipation as a war goal–a goal that was as important to him as the preservation of the Union. Others may more cynically state that Lincoln had no desire to interfere with the institution of slavery. He only meant to free certain slaves in order to speed the war’s end. Therefore he was not dedicated to equality. Both sides have their proponents and merits.
The study of another famous document that was produced after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued officially on January 1, 1863 may be instructive. The Gettysburg Address is one of the most famous speeches in American–and perhaps world–history. But what does it have to say about the issue of the nature of the war?
Have your students read this document carefully. Does the Gettysburg Address tell us anything about Lincoln’s view of the nature of the war? How does he frame the concept of “liberty”? What does he mean by “new birth of freedom”? Answering these questions may help shed a different light on the subject of Lincoln’s commitment to equality of the races.
Movie Poster for Stephen Spielberg's 2012 flim "Lincoln"
The release of Spielberg’s epic movie Lincoln brings up an intriguing question. Was Lincoln as adamantly dedicated to the emancipation of slaves as the movie suggests? After all, there are countless websites, media outlets, and historians that claim Lincoln only desired emancipation, not for humanitarian purposes, not for the sake of those enslaved nor for the sake of egalitarianism, but only as a means to end the Civil War. Others, like this Time magazine book review, have raised the question of whether Lincoln was an outright racist!
When teaching the history of the Civil War, especially in light of Lincoln hitting the theaters recently, these questions pertaining to Lincoln’s devotion to the cause of abolition are highly pertinent. An effective way for teachers to delve into the question of the Lincoln’s publicly-stated views on the nature of the war is to have students read the actual words of the man himself!
The Teaching American History website is a treasure trove of historical documents from the American past. Doing a simple search within this site for a letter Lincoln wrote in August 1862 to New York editor Horace Greeley can start learners down the path of answering these questions for themselves.
Note: it is highly important that students understand the historical context of this letter. It would seem on the surface to imply that Lincoln’s sole purpose in waging the war was to preserve the Union. Certainly that was his publicly-stated goal up to August 1862. However, note that the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was written about one month later. Lincoln had been waiting for a good news from the battlefield to release such a statement (the near-draw at Antietam had to suffice, won in late September 1862).
Looking at these two documents, students may bring up the point that it does not seem that Lincoln was publicly professing full commitment to black equality. The nature of the war, they may say in so many words, was only to preserve the Union, and any talk of emancipation seemed to be only geared toward that end. They may have a point. Leave them with that thought at the end of your time in class with them. Tune in to the next installment on this blog for further food-for-thought.
In Federalist 68, Hamilton defended the institution of the Electoral College
In the previous two posts, this blog has attempted to provide teachers with lessons from PBS and C-SPAN that can explain the basics of the Electoral College system to students. Implied in both lessons were opportunities for students to ponder the advantages and disadvantages of this uniquely American institution. This current post is designed to provide teachers with ammunition to defend the utility of the Electoral College.
Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. If not perfect, he said, it is at least very proper in its constitution. The system is much different today than it was designed to be. Many states have winner-take-all provisions, in which the electors are required to cast their votes for the popular vote winner of that state. With such changes, one cannot blame many Americans for desiring a switch to a simple nationwide popular vote system. However, the original system was not intended to be constructed in that manner.
Dr. David Foster has written a very insightful piece that analyzes Hamilton’s Federalist 68. In it this Ashland University professor explains the original intent of the constitutional method of choosing a president and explains Hamilton’s defense of it. Allowing students to read this article and to read Hamilton’s essay may not change their mind on the utility of the modern electoral system, but at least it can help explain what so manysound it’s seem to be missing: the elegance of the original intent of the Electoral College.
"There is a bear in the woods. For some people, the bear is easy to see. Others don't see it at all. Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it's vicious and dangerous. Since no one can really be sure who's right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear."
Almost every modern presidential campaign has used fear and other emotive tactics to attempt to persuade voters. The last post on this blog highlighted the fear-mongering of the LBJ camp against Goldwater in the 1964 election. Democrats are not solely guilty of utilizing this method, however. Republicans have used fear in political advertisements as well, as seen in the Reagan campaign of 1984.
Reagan’s campaign slogan for 1984 was “Morning in America.” Most of the televised campaign ads endorsed by the Republicans were upbeat, optimistic, detailing a strong economy and gains on the Cold War front. One ad, however, was noted for its exploitation of American fear of the Soviets. The ad was simply called “Bear” and can be viewed here. The ad opens with a calm, serene narrator speaking about a bear in the woods. As the commercial progresses, it becomes obvious, through the usage of ominous music and a loud heart-beat sound recording, that the bear is a threat. Most Americans came to the conclusion that the threat the bear symbolized was the USSR, although the ad never directly stated this.
This ad has been analyzed for its subliminal affect on viewers. The ominous music coupled with close-up shots of the beast evokes a sense of dread. Additionally, the heart-beat sound works to intensify feelings of fear. Notice, as you watch the commercial again and again, how your own heart beat begins to mimic the sound-over. Further, the fact that the viewer would almost inevitably conclude that the bear symbolizes the Soviets, despite the fact that this only indirectly implied by the commercial, effectively manipulates a person’s ability to jump to his/her own conclusions via inductive reasoning. Reagan’s landslide victory may not be directly attributable to his lone ad. However, it demonstrated how masterfully he and his advisers were able to use television to persuade.
TeachingAmericanHistory.org is a project of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University
401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)
info@TeachingAmericanHistory.org
© 2006-12 Ashbrook Center | Design by CiV Digital