Today, we launch our third unit, which will explore on social, economic, and cultural history of early and mid nineteenth-century America. This unit will be anchored by a week-long Cemetery Project, and therefore we will be linking much of the content to local history here in Salisbury.

As we watch this short (25-minute) documentary film, consider:

• One point that surprised you.
• Two questions you might have for local historian, Peter Vermilyea, who will be visiting Hotchkiss during the Consultation Period on Friday 11/4.

Introduction:

Together, we have examined a range of primary and secondary sources related to how the new Constitution actually functioned in the early Republic (Marbury v. Madison and the nullification crisis). We also discussed multiple dimensions of the “democratic” visions presented by Presidents Jefferson and Jackson – including who was partially or fully excluded from those visions. Most recently, we have turned our focus more closely to the question of Indian removal, considering the competing views of President Jackson and the Cherokees.

For our unit assessment, we will join many of these threads as we discuss a key question from the perspective of September 1832 (this is after the Worcester v. Georgia decision and before the 1832 presidential election):

• “Does the federal government have the power to forcibly remove the Cherokee Indians?”

Preparation:

Day 1:

• Introduce simulation.
• Provide time for research. Students are encouraged to explore the 1830 Indian Removal Act, Supreme Court decisions, treaties, and other relevant secondary sources available in your textbook and online.

Homework for day 2:

• Assignment #207

Day 2:

• Consult with your side for 5-8 minutes.
• Engage in open discussion.

Detailed discussion procedure:

• Meeting with your side (5-8 minutes). During this time, you should select one or two people to give a 1-2 minute opening statement on behalf of your group. The statement should cover the main arguments your side will make during the debate.
  
  
• Open discussion (20-25 minutes). During the discussion the two sides will face each other on opposite sides of the table. Each side will have a chance to speak for up to 1 minute at a time, though if you may also choose to “pass” to allow the other side to renew their time.
  
  
• Parting Shots (5-8 minutes). Each person will prepare a 30 second “parting shot” and present it at the end of the discussion. The “parting shot” should hit on the main reason why your side is correct from your character’s point of view.

Please reference this Google Doc for role assignments.

Pair questions

• Briefly define a tariff.
• What did the Tariff of 1828 actually do? (see Foner 299 for a refresher)
• Why might have been controversial in some parts of the country but not in others?

Closer look at the Nullification Crisis

• Class will be divided into three groups.
• Your group will read, discuss, and present on one of the following passages:
  • Group A: South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828)
  • Group B: Excerpt from Daniel Webster’s Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830)
  • Group C: Excerpt from Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation (1832)

Group A: South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828)

• In article 6, the document argues that “the powers to protect manufactures, is no where expressly granted to Congress” and therefore under the tenth amendment to the Constitution should “be expressly reserved to the states.” Can you explain the argument here?
• How do the authors understand the role of the “necessary and proper clause” (Article 1, section 8)? (To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.)
• How do the authors of the document view the power of the national government to regulate commerce?
• What action is being recommended in this document?
• What is the strongest case you could make for defending this point of view?

Group B: Excerpt from Daniel Webster’s Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830)

• “Sovereignty” is often understood as the power to govern. How does Webster believe sovereignty works in the United States?
• How might Webster’s view of sovereignty be different from advocates of “states’ rights” like Vice President John C. Calhoun?
• How does Webster propose to deal with “unjust” laws?
• How, for Webster, is constitutionality determined?
• What is the strongest case you could make for defending this point of view?

Group C: Excerpt from Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation (1832)

• Identify several of the argument against secession. Which of the arguments are most convincing to you?
• Why does President Jackson suggest South Carolina might be guilty of “treason”? What would he do in response?
• If individual states cannot rule on the constitutionality of legislation or actions, what entity do you think President Jackson would look to for an impartial ruling?
• How do you think South Carolina would respond to President Jackson?
• What is the strongest case you could make for defending this point of view?

At the beginning of next class, we will conduct a fishbowl in which one member of each group will report on the document and the rest of us will listen and then respond to the questions below:

Questions to fishbowl audience:

• Which point of view seems most persuasive?
• Was the nullification of the tariffs an appropriate response from those who disagreed with them?
• What can/should people do if they disagree with a law?
• Was President Jackson’s response appropriate?
• What might have happened if South Carolina had not repealed the nullification ordinance?

Homework: #204

Preparation

• Before class, students will have read Marbury v. Madison (1803) (pared down to only sections explaining judicial review) and Foner, page 237, “Judicial Review.”

Opener

• How might the 2016 election impact the Supreme Court? Why (or why not) does this matter to you?

Review homework

• With a partner, review your answers to the questions to consider for homework. Together we will review the first question:
  
  • "What did Chief Justice John Marshall say was the chief purpose of written constitutions in Marbury v. Madison (1803)?"

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

• Review case information (external link) provided by the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
• Working individually or with a partner (whichever you prefer), use “Charting Supreme Court Cases” (Google Doc) to complete the top row of the chart pertaining to New Jersey v. T.L.O.
• Briefly discuss together.

Justice Thomas on judicial review

• The case above is a more recent example of how the Supreme Court conducts judicial review.

• Together, we will watch Justice Clarence Thomas discuss judicial review (external link, 3:17)

Marbury v. Madison

• Complete the second row of the chart using information from Marbury v. Madison (as a primary source document) and Foner (as a secondary source).
• Briefly discuss together.

Justice Ginsburg on the impact of Marbury v. Madison

• Together, we will watch Justice Ginsburg discuss the impact of Marbury v. Madison (external link, 1:27).

Final thoughts

• Concluding comments (as time allows).

Homework: #203.

Pair and share

• Address focus questions from last night’s homework:
  • ​What was the nature of Jefferson’s “democratic vision”? Why – and for whom – was the American nation being constructed?
  • Identify concrete steps taken by Jefferson to promote his vision.

Early Republic Scavenger Hunt

• You will be working with a partner on this exercise.
  
• To begin, make a of this document and placing it in the Shared Folders for both partners (in the Google Docs menu, select File → Make a Copy).
  
• There are no restrictions on how you search the information for this activity. However, please keep a complete list of the tools and sources you use.
  
• When you have completed this activity, indicate you have done so by saying “bazinga!”

Thinking like a historian

• Once you have finished, take a few minutes with a partner to identify at least two potential narratives (stories) you see to organize some or all of the information you have collected.

Homework: #202

Constitution essay due.

Introduction to unit 2

• Focus is on how political machinery of the Constitution wrestled with the demands of the growing nation, especially in relation to westward expansion and the Native American population.
• Shorter unit than #1, and will end with a simulation rather than an essay.

Opening question

• Who, under this new Constitution, counts as an “American”?

Primary source-based reading

(1) Crèvecoeur, “What, then, Is the American?”

• Read a brief selection from Crèvecoeur, “What, then, Is the American?” (Google Doc)
• Consider the following discussion questions:
  • What characteristics of American life does Crèvecoeur emphasize as being different from European society?
  • What aspects of society, and which parts of the people living in the United States, are left out of his description?

(2) Citizenship in the new republic

• In-class reading: Naturalization Act of 1790 (link here to Google Doc; also in Course Reader)
• Consider the following discussion questions:
  • Who was eligible and not eligible for citizenship under the Naturalization Act?
  • Why would the United States, known as the “asylum for mankind,” restrict opportunity for naturalization?

Homework: #201

Only students who have completed the full text of their essay and included appropriate citations may proceed to this level. Students who need additional time may continue drafting in the library.

Introduction

• Sharing comments with your classmates is a useful way to improve your writing. This is a valuable skill that can help you at university and in your future career and creative pursuits.
• Some quick advice on best practices:
  • A note to reviewers: Your main purpose is to help the writer produce a better paper. No paper is beyond criticism. At the same time, there is always a kind way to offer any criticism, and you should choose this way. Everyone who cares about their writing also feels deeply insecure about it. 
  • A note to writers: The natural first reaction to any criticism is defensiveness and sometimes anger at the commentator. It is better not to express this. Use the feedback constructively and assume it was meant in kindness. At the same time, write something that you want to take responsibility for, since in the end it is your name at the top of the page.
• This exercise is worth 5 points. It will be evaluated based on evidence of you having completed the survey and providing meaningful spoken feedback to your peer.

Process

1. Share your essay using Google Docs as "view only."
2. Read your partner's essay once through without commenting.
3. Based on your partner's essay, complete the Google Forms survey (shared by teacher). Most questions on this survey are multiple choice. For questions that are open response, 1-2 sentences should be sufficient for each.
   
4. When you are done, press "submit." A copy of the survey will appear in your inbox. Please forward a copy of this to your partner.
5. Once you and your partner have both completed the survey, take turns using the survey to discuss one another's papers with a focus on how you can both improve your writing.