LAD #30: Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas
In the early 1950's, racial segregation in public schools was normal across America, especially due to the previous case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed separate, but equal schools between the races. Although all the schools in a given district were supposed to be equal, most black schools were far inferior to their white counterparts. A black third-grader in Topeka, Kansas, named Linda Brown, had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard in order to get to her black elementary school, while a white elementary was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. The NAACP brought this to court in the favor of Linda Brown, and the Board of Education was the defense. The Board of Education's defense was that segregated schools prepared black children for the segregation they would face during adulthood, and they dropped names such as Frederick Douglass and George Washington Carver, in saying that they succeeded after going to segregated schools as children. In the end, the Supreme Court removed the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, and required the desegregation of public education. The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation or require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare the mandatory segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional. This was a step in the direction of public schools around the country, but it proved that it was going to be a long battle in the future.
Monday, April 02, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
LAD #29: Truman Doctrine
The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy designed to contain Communism by giving Greece and Turkey economic aid. This would help both countries and try and keep them out of the Soviet sphere. He asked for a $400 million dollar aid in order to help these countries; Truman said the U.S. must help "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Truman set out in writing and delivering this doctrine because no other country was willing to stand up and fight against Communism, so that it would not spread to the Soviet Union's neighbors, especially. He wrote this as if it were the responsibility of the entire nation, in order to preserve the freedoms that we had fought so hard for in the past. He ended this doctrine with four sentences that were intended to motivate the country to stand behind Truman and believe that his ideas for intervention were worthwhile: "The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.
If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world - and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.
Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.
I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely."
The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy designed to contain Communism by giving Greece and Turkey economic aid. This would help both countries and try and keep them out of the Soviet sphere. He asked for a $400 million dollar aid in order to help these countries; Truman said the U.S. must help "free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." Truman set out in writing and delivering this doctrine because no other country was willing to stand up and fight against Communism, so that it would not spread to the Soviet Union's neighbors, especially. He wrote this as if it were the responsibility of the entire nation, in order to preserve the freedoms that we had fought so hard for in the past. He ended this doctrine with four sentences that were intended to motivate the country to stand behind Truman and believe that his ideas for intervention were worthwhile: "The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms.
If we falter in our leadership, we may endanger the peace of the world - and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation.
Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift movement of events.
I am confident that the Congress will face these responsibilities squarely."
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
LAD #28: FDR's First Inaugural Address
FDR began his inaugural address with a brief statement on fear, and stated how there is nothing to fear but fear itself, and he relieved the crowd, saying how in these critical days, he asked for nothing but their full support. He describes in full detail for a couple paragraphs on the problems that the United States was facing at that time. Wrapping that topic up, FDR said, "Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now," as a inspiring way to make sure the nation knows that action must be implemented. He then goes on to explain the answers to those problems, and announces his plans for the New Deal. FDR's primary task was to put the people to work, to cure the unemployment rates that were skyrocketing during that time, and he also states the need for a solid currency. The upcoming president ended his inaugural address with an inspiring and uplifting quote, "We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. 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."
FDR began his inaugural address with a brief statement on fear, and stated how there is nothing to fear but fear itself, and he relieved the crowd, saying how in these critical days, he asked for nothing but their full support. He describes in full detail for a couple paragraphs on the problems that the United States was facing at that time. Wrapping that topic up, FDR said, "Restoration calls, however, not for changes in ethics alone. This Nation asks for action, and action now," as a inspiring way to make sure the nation knows that action must be implemented. He then goes on to explain the answers to those problems, and announces his plans for the New Deal. FDR's primary task was to put the people to work, to cure the unemployment rates that were skyrocketing during that time, and he also states the need for a solid currency. The upcoming president ended his inaugural address with an inspiring and uplifting quote, "We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. 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."
LAD #27: Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact
The Kellogg-Briand Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris after the city where it was signed on August 27, 1928, was an international treaty "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy." It failed in its purpose but was significant for later developments in international law. It was named after the American secretary of state Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand, who drafted the pact. Sixty-two nations ultimately signed the pact, some including, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The 1927 Kellogg-Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations and remains a binding treaty under international law. In the United States it remains in force as part of the supreme positive law, under Article Six of the United States Constitution.
The Kellogg-Briand Pact, also known as the Pact of Paris after the city where it was signed on August 27, 1928, was an international treaty "providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy." It failed in its purpose but was significant for later developments in international law. It was named after the American secretary of state Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand, who drafted the pact. Sixty-two nations ultimately signed the pact, some including, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Germany, India, the Irish Free State, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The 1927 Kellogg-Briand Pact was concluded outside the League of Nations and remains a binding treaty under international law. In the United States it remains in force as part of the supreme positive law, under Article Six of the United States Constitution.
LAD #26: Schenk v. United States
Schenck v. United States in 1919 was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the question of whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. The defendant, Charles Shenck, a Socialist, circulated a flyer to recently drafted men. The flyer, which cited the Thirteenth Amendment provision against "involuntary servitude," exhorted the men to "assert their opposition to the draft," which it described as a moral wrong. The circulars proposed peaceful resistance, such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime. This goes along with the saying "shouting fire in a crowded theatre," a misquotation of Holmes's view that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In the end, Schenck was found guilty and was sent to prison by a 9-0 decision.
Schenck v. United States in 1919 was a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the question of whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. The defendant, Charles Shenck, a Socialist, circulated a flyer to recently drafted men. The flyer, which cited the Thirteenth Amendment provision against "involuntary servitude," exhorted the men to "assert their opposition to the draft," which it described as a moral wrong. The circulars proposed peaceful resistance, such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. The Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes, Jr., held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. The First Amendment did not protect speech encouraging insubordination, since, "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." In other words, the court held, the circumstances of wartime permit greater restrictions on free speech than would be allowable during peacetime. This goes along with the saying "shouting fire in a crowded theatre," a misquotation of Holmes's view that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." In the end, Schenck was found guilty and was sent to prison by a 9-0 decision.
Monday, February 12, 2007
LAD #25: President Wilson's 14 Points
The Fourteen Points were listed in a speech delivered by President Woodrow Wilson of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress on January 8, 1918. The underlying principles of Wilson's 14 points were
1. Self determination of peoples.
2. Arms reduction.
3. Non punishment.
4. Formation of the League of Nations.
5. Freedom of the Seas.
6. No secret treaties.
7. Free and open trade.
He concluded his speech with the quote, The moral climax of this the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test."
The Fourteen Points were listed in a speech delivered by President Woodrow Wilson of the United States to a joint session of the United States Congress on January 8, 1918. The underlying principles of Wilson's 14 points were
1. Self determination of peoples.
2. Arms reduction.
3. Non punishment.
4. Formation of the League of Nations.
5. Freedom of the Seas.
6. No secret treaties.
7. Free and open trade.
He concluded his speech with the quote, The moral climax of this the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test."
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
LAD #24: The Clayton Anti-Trust Act
The Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914 was enacted to remedy deficiencies in antitrust law created under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices harmful to consumers (monopolies and anti-competitive agreements). Passed during the Wilson administration, the legislation was introduced by Alabama Democrat Henry De Lamar Clayton. The Clayton Act prohibits: (1)price discrimination between different purchasers if such discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, (2)sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor("exclusive dealings"), or that the buyer also purchase another different product, but only when these acts substantially lessen competition effect may substantially lessen competition,(3) mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition,(4)any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations. Section 6 of the Act exempts labor unions and agricultural organizations. Therefore, boycotts, peaceful strikes, and peaceful picketing are not regulated by this statute.
The Clayton Anti-Trust Act of 1914 was enacted to remedy deficiencies in antitrust law created under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices harmful to consumers (monopolies and anti-competitive agreements). Passed during the Wilson administration, the legislation was introduced by Alabama Democrat Henry De Lamar Clayton. The Clayton Act prohibits: (1)price discrimination between different purchasers if such discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, (2)sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor("exclusive dealings"), or that the buyer also purchase another different product, but only when these acts substantially lessen competition effect may substantially lessen competition,(3) mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition,(4)any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations. Section 6 of the Act exempts labor unions and agricultural organizations. Therefore, boycotts, peaceful strikes, and peaceful picketing are not regulated by this statute.
LAD #23: Keating-Owen Child Labor Act
The act starts off with an alarming statistic: "The 1900 census revealed that approximately 2 million children were working in mills, mines, fields, factories, stores, and on city streets across the United States." This census sparked a national crusade against child-labor, as it should have. The conditions for the children working were dangerous and unsanitary, but children were seen as a cheap resource for labor, and they were small, so their tiny fingers and bodies could be used for tasks that adults themselves could not do because of their size. The first child labor bill, the Keating-Owen bill of 1916, was based on Senator Albert J. Beveridge's proposal from 1906 and used the government's ability to regulate interstate commerce to regulate child labor. The act banned the sale of products from any factory, shop, or cannery that employed children under the age of 14, from any mine that employed children under the age of 16, and from any facility that had children under the age of 16 work at night or for more than 8 hours during the day.
The act starts off with an alarming statistic: "The 1900 census revealed that approximately 2 million children were working in mills, mines, fields, factories, stores, and on city streets across the United States." This census sparked a national crusade against child-labor, as it should have. The conditions for the children working were dangerous and unsanitary, but children were seen as a cheap resource for labor, and they were small, so their tiny fingers and bodies could be used for tasks that adults themselves could not do because of their size. The first child labor bill, the Keating-Owen bill of 1916, was based on Senator Albert J. Beveridge's proposal from 1906 and used the government's ability to regulate interstate commerce to regulate child labor. The act banned the sale of products from any factory, shop, or cannery that employed children under the age of 14, from any mine that employed children under the age of 16, and from any facility that had children under the age of 16 work at night or for more than 8 hours during the day.
LAD #22: Wilson's First Inaugural
Woodrow Wilson begins his first inaugural address with stating how the government had recently changed from within. The House of Representatives changed to Democratic by a decisive majority, and Senate was also about to change, as well. He speaks about how the major positions in politics were then being controlled by Democrats, and this address was going to answer questions about that. He says that we, as a country, have built a great government that has passed the test of time. He then concedes, and states how with the great wealth and excess, there is inexcusable waste. The "fine gold has been corroded." He states, "We shall restore, not destroy. We shall deal with our economic system as it is and as it may be modified, not as it might be if we had a clean sheet of paper to write upon..." At the end of his address, he calls for the patriotic people of the country to give their trust to him, and to support him because the country has been successful in the past, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be in the future. As he said, "This is not a day of triumph; it is a day of dedication."
Woodrow Wilson begins his first inaugural address with stating how the government had recently changed from within. The House of Representatives changed to Democratic by a decisive majority, and Senate was also about to change, as well. He speaks about how the major positions in politics were then being controlled by Democrats, and this address was going to answer questions about that. He says that we, as a country, have built a great government that has passed the test of time. He then concedes, and states how with the great wealth and excess, there is inexcusable waste. The "fine gold has been corroded." He states, "We shall restore, not destroy. We shall deal with our economic system as it is and as it may be modified, not as it might be if we had a clean sheet of paper to write upon..." At the end of his address, he calls for the patriotic people of the country to give their trust to him, and to support him because the country has been successful in the past, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be in the future. As he said, "This is not a day of triumph; it is a day of dedication."
Monday, January 08, 2007
LAD #20: William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech
The most famous speech in American political history was delivered by William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The issue was whether to endorse the free coinage of silver at a ratio of silver to gold of 16 to 1. (This inflationary measure would have increased the amount of money in circulation and aided cash-poor and debt-burdened farmers.) Backers of the gold standard felt that the protection against inflation was paramount, and the gold standard would prevent runaway inflation. Such an uncontrollable inflation would put a burden on creditors such as banks whose loans' interest rates would then fall under the inflation rate and garner a loss for the creditor. His powerful ending is why this speech received its powerful name:
"Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
The most famous speech in American political history was delivered by William Jennings Bryan on July 9, 1896, at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. The issue was whether to endorse the free coinage of silver at a ratio of silver to gold of 16 to 1. (This inflationary measure would have increased the amount of money in circulation and aided cash-poor and debt-burdened farmers.) Backers of the gold standard felt that the protection against inflation was paramount, and the gold standard would prevent runaway inflation. Such an uncontrollable inflation would put a burden on creditors such as banks whose loans' interest rates would then fall under the inflation rate and garner a loss for the creditor. His powerful ending is why this speech received its powerful name:
"Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
LAD #19: The Populist Party Platform
The Populist Movement emerged from the farmersí alliances of the 1870s and 1880s. In the 1890s the Populist Party appeared to represent a viable third party independent of the Democrats and Republicans. A response to the growth of industrialism, the Populists opposed the "concentrated capital" of banks and big businesses and decried the many of the effects that industrialism was having on American society. They seek to restore the government into the hands of the "poor people" and they stated that corruption was beginning to take form in the ballots, and they needed to do something about that.
"We believe that the power of government in other words, of the people should be expanded... to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land." - They believe that if the government is restored back into the hands of the common people, the corruption and the injustice will end.
They demanded many things in the areas of finance, transportation, and land, as well as the government reviving itself and becoming what the writers of the Constitution intended it to be.
The Populist Movement emerged from the farmersí alliances of the 1870s and 1880s. In the 1890s the Populist Party appeared to represent a viable third party independent of the Democrats and Republicans. A response to the growth of industrialism, the Populists opposed the "concentrated capital" of banks and big businesses and decried the many of the effects that industrialism was having on American society. They seek to restore the government into the hands of the "poor people" and they stated that corruption was beginning to take form in the ballots, and they needed to do something about that.
"We believe that the power of government in other words, of the people should be expanded... to the end that oppression, injustice, and poverty shall eventually cease in the land." - They believe that if the government is restored back into the hands of the common people, the corruption and the injustice will end.
They demanded many things in the areas of finance, transportation, and land, as well as the government reviving itself and becoming what the writers of the Constitution intended it to be.
LAD #21: Dawes Act
This act authorized the President of the United States to survey Native American tribal land and divide the area into allotments for the individual Native American. SUMMARY OF SECTIONS:
Section One: it says that the head of any household will receive 160 acres and each single individual above the age of 18 and each orphan will receive 80 acres and each minor will receive 40 acres.
Section Two: each Native American will choose his or her own allotment and the family will choose for each minor child. The Native American agent will choose for orphan children.
Section Three: Native American agent to certify each allotment and provide two copies of the certification to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Section Four: Native Americans not residing on their reservation and Native Americans without reservations will receive the equal allotment.
Section Five: Secretary of the Interior will hold the allotments in trust for 25 yrs
Section Six: upon completion of the Land Patent process, the allotment holder will become a United States citizen
Section Seven: water rights on irrigated land.
Section Eight: exempts the Five Civilized Tribes and several others from the act.
Section Nine: appropriates the funds to carry out the act.
Section Ten: Power of Eminent Domain of the Congress over the allotments.
Section Eleven: provision for the Southern Ute Native Americans.
This act authorized the President of the United States to survey Native American tribal land and divide the area into allotments for the individual Native American. SUMMARY OF SECTIONS:
Section One: it says that the head of any household will receive 160 acres and each single individual above the age of 18 and each orphan will receive 80 acres and each minor will receive 40 acres.
Section Two: each Native American will choose his or her own allotment and the family will choose for each minor child. The Native American agent will choose for orphan children.
Section Three: Native American agent to certify each allotment and provide two copies of the certification to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Section Four: Native Americans not residing on their reservation and Native Americans without reservations will receive the equal allotment.
Section Five: Secretary of the Interior will hold the allotments in trust for 25 yrs
Section Six: upon completion of the Land Patent process, the allotment holder will become a United States citizen
Section Seven: water rights on irrigated land.
Section Eight: exempts the Five Civilized Tribes and several others from the act.
Section Nine: appropriates the funds to carry out the act.
Section Ten: Power of Eminent Domain of the Congress over the allotments.
Section Eleven: provision for the Southern Ute Native Americans.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
LAD #18: President McKinley's War Message
Public indignation brought pressure upon the President for war. Unable to restrain Congress or the American people, McKinley delivered his message of neutral intervention in April 1898. Congress thereupon voted three resolutions tantamount to a declaration of war for the liberation and independence of Cuba. The intention behind the nation's actions were unselfish, and honest, and had noble reasoning: peace and prosperity. The differences between Spain and the United States had nothing to do with this, and our nation was completely unselfish in this process. The forcible intervention, he stated, was only used as a neutral to stop the war. He explains the grounds for the intervention, naming four key points in his message: (1)the U.S. will fight for the people starving and injured in Cuba, (2)the U.S. will fight for a government in Cuba that will grant the people their natural rights, (3)the right to intervene may be justified by injury in trade or business, and finally, (4)he explains that the present condition of affairs in Cuba are a menace to the people, and it relationships must remain peaceful. He ends on this note: "If this measure attains a successful result, then our aspirations as a Christian, peace-loving people will be realized. If it fails, it will be only another justification for our contemplated action."
Public indignation brought pressure upon the President for war. Unable to restrain Congress or the American people, McKinley delivered his message of neutral intervention in April 1898. Congress thereupon voted three resolutions tantamount to a declaration of war for the liberation and independence of Cuba. The intention behind the nation's actions were unselfish, and honest, and had noble reasoning: peace and prosperity. The differences between Spain and the United States had nothing to do with this, and our nation was completely unselfish in this process. The forcible intervention, he stated, was only used as a neutral to stop the war. He explains the grounds for the intervention, naming four key points in his message: (1)the U.S. will fight for the people starving and injured in Cuba, (2)the U.S. will fight for a government in Cuba that will grant the people their natural rights, (3)the right to intervene may be justified by injury in trade or business, and finally, (4)he explains that the present condition of affairs in Cuba are a menace to the people, and it relationships must remain peaceful. He ends on this note: "If this measure attains a successful result, then our aspirations as a Christian, peace-loving people will be realized. If it fails, it will be only another justification for our contemplated action."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)