classical argument

HIST 1302

This assignment has several documents for you to read and view in order

to answer the four required questions. Please follow any formatting

guidelines and minimum length requirements as set by your professor.

Please take your time to analyze these documents and submit thoughtful

arguments supported by the evidence these documents provide.

Documents:

1. Miss Columbia’s School House (1894)

2. Emilio Aguinaldo Criticizes American Imperialism in the Philippines (1899)

3. Eisenhower addressing Little Rock situation (September 24, 1957)

4. Alcatraz Proclamation (November 1969)

5. “The Soiling of Old Glory” by Stanley Forman (April 5, 1976)

6. President Ronald Reagan Defends American Morality (1983)

7. Senator Barack Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” Speech (March 18, 2008)

Document 1: Miss Columbia’s School House (1894)

The caption for this cartoon read “Please, Ma’am, May We Come In?” with the male figure

standing outside the gate representing Hawaii and the female figure representing Canada.

Document 2: Emilio Aguinaldo Criticizes American Imperialism in the

Philippines (1899)

As one of the principal leaders of Filipino independence from Spain, Emilio Aguinaldo railed against

American policies towards his people in this document published in North American Review in September

1899.

We Filipinos have all along believed that if the American nation at large knew exactly, as

we do, what is daily happening in the Philippine Islands, they would rise en masse, and demand

that this barbaric war should stop. There are other methods of securing sovereignty — the true and

lasting sovereignty that has its foundation in the hearts of the people. . . . And, did America

recognize this fact, she would cease to be the laughing stock of other civilized nations, as she

became when she abandoned her traditions and set up a double standard of government —

government by consent in America, government by force in the Philippine Islands. . . .

Politically speaking, we know that we are simply regarded as the means to an end. For the

time being, we are crushed under the wheels of the modern political Juggernaut, but its wheels are

not broad enough to crush us all. Perfidious Albion [Great Britain] is the prime mover in this

dastardly business — she at one side of the lever, America at the other, and the fulcrum in the

Philippines. England has set her heart on the Anglo-American alliance. She is using America as a

cat's-paw. What she cannot obtain by force, she intends to secure by stratagem. Unknown to the

great majority of the American people, she has taken the American government into her

confidence, and shown it "the glorious possibilities of the East." The temptation has proved too

strong. Now, in this, England is playing a double game, on the principle of "heads I win, tails you

lose." If America should win, all is well; England has her ally safely installed in the East, ready at

her beck and call to oppose, hand in hand with her, the other powers in the dismemberment of the

Orient. If America loses, she will be all the more solicitous to join in the Anglo-American alliance.

The other powers stand by and see this political combination effected, while their plenipotentiaries

gravely discuss, at the Hague, the theoretical aspects of universal peace, and are deaf to the wail

of the widows and the orphans, and to the cry of an oppressed race struggling to be free. Such is

"man's inhumanity to man."

You have been deceived all along the line. You have been greatly deceived in the

personality of my countrymen. You went to the Philippines under the impression that their

inhabitants were ignorant savages, whom Spain had kept in subjection at the bayonet's point. The

Filipinos have been described in serious American journals as akin to the hordes of the Khalifa;

and the idea has prevailed that it required only some unknown American Kitchener to march

triumphantly from north to south to make the military occupation complete. We have been

represented by your popular press as if we were Africans or Mohawk Indians. We smile, and

deplore the want of ethnological knowledge on the part of our literary friends. We are none of

these. We are simply Filipinos. You know us now in part: you will know us better, I hope, by and

by.

Some clear-headed men in the United States Senate knew the facts; but, alas, genius and

correct thinking are ever in the minority.

I will not deny that there are savages in the Philippine Islands, if you designate by that

name those who lead a nomad life, who do not pay tribute or acknowledge sovereignty to any one

save their chief. For, let it be remembered, Spain held these islands for three hundred years, but

never conquered more than one-quarter of them, and that only superficially and chiefly by means

of priest-craft. The Spaniards never professed to derive their just powers from the consent of those

whom they attempted to govern. What they took by force, they lost by force at our hands; and you

deceived yourselves when you bought a revolution for twenty million dollars, and entangled

yourselves in international politics. . . . You imagined you had bought the Philippines and the

Filipinos for this mess of pottage. Your imperialism led you, blind-fold, to purchase "sovereignty"

from a third party who had no title to give you — a confidence trick, certainly, very transparent; a

bad bargain, and one we have had sufficient perspicuity and education to see through.

In the struggle for liberty which we have ever waged, the education of the masses has been

slow; but we are not, on that account, an uneducated people, as our records show. Your Senators,

even, admit that our political documents are worthy of a place in the archives of any civilized

nation. It is the fittest and the best of our race who have survived the vile oppression of the Spanish

Government, on the one hand, and of their priests on the other; and, had it not been for their

tyrannous "sovereignty" and their execrable colonial methods, we would have been, ere this time,

a power in the East, as our neighbors, the Japanese, have become by their industry and their modern

educational methods.

You repeat constantly the dictum that we cannot govern ourselves. Macaulay long ago

exposed the fallacy of this statement as regards colonies in general. With equal reason, you might

have said the same thing some fifty or sixty years ago of Japan; and, little over a hundred years

ago, it was extremely questionable, when you, also, were rebels against the English Government,

if you could govern yourselves. You obtained the opportunity, thanks to political combinations

and generous assistance at the critical moment. You passed with credit through the trying period

when you had to make a beginning of governing yourselves, and you eventually succeeded in

establishing a government on a republican basis, which, theoretically, is as good a system of

government as needs be, as it fulfils the just ideals and aspirations of the human race.

Now, the moral of all this obviously is: Give us the chance; treat us exactly as you

demanded to be treated at the hands of England, when you rebelled against her autocratic methods.

Deal only with facts in a rational and consistent way. Leave empiricism alone, and address

yourselves seriously to the work of seeking the solution that shall be honorable to both parties. We

know all the wire-pullers who are at work. We can tell you far more than you know; for we know

our country and our countrymen, their past history, and what is necessary for their future good.

Now, here is an unique spectacle — the Filipinos fighting for liberty, the American people

fighting them to give them liberty. The two peoples are fighting on parallel lines for the same

object. We know that parallel lines never meet. Let us look back to discover the point at which the

lines separated and the causes of the separation, so that we may estimate the possibility of one or

the other or both being turned inwards so that they shall meet again.

You declared war with Spain for the sake of Humanity. You announced to the world that

your programme was to set Cuba free, in conformity with your constitutional principles. One of

your ablest officials gave it as his opinion that the Filipinos were far more competent to govern

themselves than the Cuban people were.

You entered into an alliance with our chiefs at Hong Kong and at Singapore, and you

promised us your aid and protection in our attempt to form a government on the principles and

after the model of the government of the United States. Thereupon you sent a powerful fleet to

Manila and demolished the old Spanish hulks, striking terror into the hearts of the Spanish garrison

in Manila. In combination with our forces, you compelled Spain to surrender, and you proclaimed

that you held the city, port and bay of Manila until such time as you should determine what you

meant by the word "control," as applied to the rest of the islands. By some mysterious process,

heretofore unknown to civilized nations, you resolved "control" into "sovereignty," on the pretense

that what is paid for is "possession," no matter what the quality of the title may be.

Let us go into details. You went to Manila under a distinct understanding with us, fully

recognized by Admiral Dewey, that your object and ours was a common one. We were your

accepted allies; we assisted you at all points. We besieged Manila, and we prevented the Spaniards

from leaving the fortified town. We captured all the provinces of Luzon. We received arms from

you. Our chiefs were in constant touch with your naval authorities. Your consuls vied with each

other in their efforts to arrange matters according to the promise made to us by your officials. We

hailed you as the long-prayed-for Messiah.

Joy abounded in every heart, and all went well, with Admiral George Dewey as our guide

and friend, until the arrival of General Merritt. Either on his own responsibility, or by orders from

the Government at Washington, this general substituted his policy for that of Admiral Dewey,

commencing by ignoring all promises that had been made and ending by ignoring the Philippine

people, their personality and rights, and treating them as a common enemy.

Never has a greater mistake been made in the entire history of the nations. Here you had a

people who placed themselves at your feet, who welcomed you as their savior, who wished you to

govern them and protect them. In combination with the genius of our countrymen and their local

knowledge, you would have transformed the Philippine Islands from a land of despotism, of

vicious governmental methods and priestcraft, into an enlightened republic, with America as its

guide — a happy and contented people — and that in the short space of a few months, without the

sacrifice of a single American life. The means were there, and it only required the magic of a

master-hand to guide them, as your ships were guided into Manila Bay. . . .

You have been deceived from the beginning, and deception is the order of the day. You

continue to deceive yourselves by the thought that once the military power is established in the

Philippines, the rest is a matter for politicians. Verily you are falling into the pit you have dug for

yourselves. Your officials and generals have broken their promises with our countrymen over and

over again. Your atrocious cruelties are equalled only by those of Spain.

You take into your confidence the odious reptiles of Spanish priestcraft. . . In the face of

the world you emblazon Humanity and Liberty upon your standard, while you cast your political

constitution to the winds and attempt to trample down and exterminate a brave people whose only

crime is that they are fighting for their liberty. You ask my countrymen to believe in you, to trust

you, and you assure them that, if they do so, all will be well. But your action is on a plane with the

trick which the vulgar charlatan at a country fair plays upon the unwary with three cards and an

empty box.

You will never conquer the Philippine Islands by force alone. How many soldiers in excess

of the regular army do you mean to leave in every town, in every province? How many will the

climate claim as its victims, apart from those who may fall in actual warfare? What do the

American people, who have thousands of acres yet unfilled, want with the Philippines? Have you

figured up the cost?

The conclusion of the whole matter is this: You were duped at the beginning. You took a

wrong step, and you had not sufficient moral courage to retrace it. You must begin by conquering

the hearts of the Philippine people. Be absolutely just, and you can lead them with a silken cord

where chains of steel will not drag them. We excuse your want of knowledge in the past, for you

have had no experience in treating with our people; but retrieve your mistake now, while there is

time.

The man, next to Gen. Merritt, who has misled you, and who is responsible for the

continuance of this barbarous warfare, is General Otis. Had he allowed the Peace Commission to

act independently, a modus vivendi would probably have been arrived at. But this question of

sovereignty — why, such a transparent farce has never before been flouted before an intelligent

people and the world in general. Can you wonder our people mistrust you and your empirical

methods? They do not even regard you as being serious — a nation which professes to derive its

just power of government from the consent of the governed.

"Lay down your arms," you say. Did you lay down your arms when you, too, were rebels,

and the English under good King George demanded your submission? How in the name of all that

is serious do you demand that we shall do what you, being rebels, refused to do?

Therefore, we Filipinos say: "Recall Gen. Otis, give the Peace Commission a free hand, try

rather methods of fair dealing, make our countrymen believe that you are sincere, and be sincere

and just in your dealings with them. Suspend the order for these rabble volunteers, the scum of

your country, whom you propose to send across the sea to die of the effect of the climate, and you

will find you can do more in a month than you will do by force in twenty years. Your scheme of

military occupation has been a miserable failure. You have gained practically nothing. With

General Otis, or without him, you will have to commence at the beginning again. Our forces are

manufacturing thousands of cartridges and other improved means to continue the struggle, and it

will continue until you are convinced of your error."

Our friend, Admiral Dewey, will undoubtedly have something to say to your President

when he reaches home. He caught the genius of the Philippine people, and if he had been left alone

many valuable lives would have been spared and many millions of treasure saved. Be convinced,

the Philippines are for the Filipinos. We are a virile race. We have never assimilated with our

former oppressors, and we are not likely to assimilate with you.

Document 3: President Eisenhower’s Little Rock Address (September 24,

1957)

Please watch the complete address HERE or at the following url:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?15186-1/eisenhower-speech-little-rock

Printed below are key excerpts from the speech

Good Evening, My Fellow Citizens: — For a few minutes this evening I want to speak to you

about the serious situation that has arisen in Little Rock. To make this talk I have come to the

President's office in the White House. I could have spoken from Rhode Island, where I have been

staying recently, but I felt that, in speaking from the house of Lincoln, of Jackson and of Wilson,

my words would better convey both the sadness I feel in the action I was compelled today to take

and the firmness with which I intend to pursue this course until the orders of the Federal Court at

Little Rock can be executed without unlawful interference.

In that city, under the leadership of demagogic extremists, disorderly mobs have deliberately

prevented the carrying out of proper orders from a Federal Court. Local authorities have not

eliminated that violent opposition and, under the law, I yesterday issued a Proclamation calling

upon the mob to disperse.

This morning the mob again gathered in front of the Central High School of Little Rock,

obviously for the purpose of again preventing the carrying out of the Court's order relating to the

admission of Negro children to that school.

Whenever normal agencies prove inadequate to the task and it becomes necessary for the

Executive Branch of the Federal Government to use its powers and authority to uphold Federal

Courts, the President's responsibility is inescapable. In accordance with that responsibility, I have

today issued an Executive Order directing the use of troops under Federal authority to aid in the

execution of Federal law at Little Rock, Arkansas. This became necessary when my

Proclamation of yesterday was not observed, and the obstruction of justice still continues.

It is important that the reasons for my action be understood by all our citizens. As you know, the

Supreme Court of the United States has decided that separate public educational facilities for the

races are inherently unequal and therefore compulsory school segregation laws are

unconstitutional.

Our personal opinions about the decision have no bearing on the matter of enforcement; the

responsibility and authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution are very clear.

Local Federal Courts were instructed by the Supreme Court to issue such orders and decrees as

might be necessary to achieve admission to public schools without regard to race-and with all

deliberate speed.

During the past several years, many communities in our Southern States have instituted public

school plans for gradual progress in the enrollment and attendance of school children of all races

in order to bring themselves into compliance with the law of the land.

They thus demonstrated to the world that we are a nation in which laws, not men, are supreme.

I regret to say that this truth - the cornerstone of our liberties - was not observed in this instance.

It was my hope that this localized situation would be brought under control by city and State

authorities. If the use of local police powers had been sufficient, our traditional method of

leaving the problems in those hands would have been pursued. But when large gatherings of

obstructionists made it impossible for the decrees of the Court to be carried out, both the law and

the national interest demanded that the President take action . . . .

The very basis of our individual rights and freedoms rests upon the certainty that the President

and the Executive Branch of Government will support and insure the carrying out of the

decisions of the Federal Courts, even, when necessary with all the means at the President's

command.

Unless the President did so, anarchy would result.

There would be no security for any except that which each one of us could provide for himself.

The interest of the nation in the proper fulfillment of the law's requirements cannot yield to

opposition and demonstrations by some few persons.

Mob rule cannot be allowed to override the decisions of our courts . . . .

A foundation of our American way of life is our national respect for law.

In the South, as elsewhere, citizens are keenly aware of the tremendous disservice that has been

done to the people of Arkansas in the eyes of the nation, and that has been done to the nation in

the eyes of the world.

At a time when we face grave situations abroad because of the hatred that Communism bears

toward a system of government based on human rights, it would be difficult to exaggerate the

harm that is being done to the prestige and influence, and indeed to the safety, of our nation and

the world.

Our enemies are gloating over this incident and using it everywhere to misrepresent our whole

nation. We are portrayed as a violator of those standards of conduct which the peoples of the

world united to proclaim in the Charter of the United Nations. There they affirmed "faith in

fundamental human rights" and "in dignity and worth of the human person" and they did so

"without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."

And so, with deep confidence, I call upon the citizens of the State of Arkansas to assist in

bringing to an immediate end all interference with the law and its processes. If resistance to the

Federal Court orders ceases at once, the further presence of Federal troops will be unnecessary

and the City of Little Rock will return to its normal habits of peace and order and a blot upon the

fair name and high honor of our nation in the world will be removed.

Thus will be restored the image of America and of all its parts as one nation, indivisible, with

liberty and justice for all.

Good night, and thank you very much.

Document 4: Alcatraz Proclamation (November 1969)

From November 20, 1969 until June 11, 1971, Alcatraz Island was occupied by a Native American rights

group called Indians of All Tribes. Alcatraz Penitentiary was closed in 1963 and the U.S. Government had

declared the island as surplus federal property. Indians of All Tribes claimed the island by citing the Treaty

of Fort Laramie (1868) between the United States and the Sioux. The treaty returned to Native peoples all

retired, abandoned and out-of use federal lands. Between 1964 and 1969, several small scale attempts were

made to claim Alcatraz on behalf of native peoples. On November 20, 1969, 79 members of Indians of All

Tribes managed to land on Alcatraz despite a Coast Guard blockade and issued the following proclamation:

Proclamation to the Great White Father and All His People

We, the native Americans, re-claim the land known as Alcatraz Island in the name of all

American Indians by right of discovery.

We wish to be fair and honorable in our dealings with the Caucasian inhabitants of this land, and

hereby offer the following treaty:

We will purchase said Alcatraz Island for twenty-four dollars ($24) in glass beads and red cloth,

a precedent set by the white man's purchase of a similar island about 300 years ago. We know

that $24 in trade goods for these 16 acres is more than was paid when Manhattan Island was

sold, but we know that land values have risen over the years. Our offer of $1.24 per acre is

greater than the 47¢ per acre that the white men are now paying the California Indians for their

land. We will give to the inhabitants of this island a portion of that land for their own, to be held

in trust by the American Indian Affairs [sic] and by the bureau of Caucasian Affairs to hold in

perpetuity—for as long as the sun shall rise and the rivers go down to the sea. We will further

guide the inhabitants in the proper way of living. We will offer them our religion, our education,

our life-ways, in order to help them achieve our level of civilization and thus raise them and all

their white brothers up from their savage and unhappy state. We offer this treaty in good faith

and wish to be fair and honorable in our dealings with all white men.

We feel that this so-called Alcatraz Island is more than suitable for an Indian Reservation, as

determined by the white man's own standards. By this we mean that this place resembles most

Indian reservations in that:

1. It is isolated from modern facilities, and without adequate means of transportation.

2. It has no fresh running water.

3. It has inadequate sanitation facilities.

4. There are no oil or mineral rights.

5. There is no industry and so unemployment is very great.

6. There are no health care facilities.

7. The soil is rocky and non-productive; and the land does not support game.

8. There are no educational facilities.

9. The population has always exceeded the land base.

10. The population has always been held as prisoners and kept dependent upon others.

Further, it would be fitting and symbolic that ships from all over the world, entering the Golden

Gate, would first see Indian land, and thus be reminded of the true history of this nation. This

tiny island would be a symbol of the great lands once ruled by free and noble Indians.

Document 5: “The Soiling of Old Glory” by Stanley Forman (April 5, 1976)

In 1965, Massachusetts passed the Racial Imbalance Act that required school districts to desegregate or risk

losing state funding. In 1974, federal judge Wendell A. Garrity Jr. ordered a compulsory busing program in

Boston that required white and black school children to be bused throughout the district to finally bring

about desegregation. While Garrity’s ruling would eventually be upheld by the Supreme Court, racial

tensions immediately boiled over in the streets of Boston. This photograph was taken as Theodore

Landsmark, simply walking to Boston City Hall, was attacked by a group of white anti-busing protesters,

including Joseph Rakes who attempted to assault him with an American flag.

Document 6: President Ronald Reagan Defends American Morality (1983)

Known as “The Great Communicator,” Ronald Reagan addressed a meeting of the National Association of

American Evangelicals in 1983 to articulate his belief in America’s moral righteousness, particularly in

relation to the Cold War.

Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando,

Florida (March 8, 1983)

Reverend clergy all, Senator Hawkins, distinguished members of the Florida congressional

delegation, and all of you:

I can't tell you how you have warmed my heart with your welcome. I'm delighted to be

here today.

Those of you in the National Association of Evangelicals are known for your spiritual and

humanitarian work. And I would be especially remiss if I didn't discharge right now one personal

debt of gratitude. Thank you for your prayers. Nancy and I have felt their presence many times in

many ways. And believe me, for us they've made all the difference. . . .

So, I tell you there are a great many God-fearing, dedicated, noble men and women in

public life, present company included. And, yes, we need your help to keep us ever mindful of the

ideas and the principles that brought us into the public arena in the first place. The basis of those

ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in

the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly

sought and humbly accepted.

The American experiment in democracy rests on this insight. Its discovery was the great

triumph of our Founding Fathers, voiced by William Penn when he said: ``If we will not be

governed by God, we must be governed by tyrants.'' Explaining the inalienable rights of men,

Jefferson said, ``The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time.'' And it was George

Washington who said that ``of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,

religion and morality are indispensable supports.''

And finally, that shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville,

put it eloquently after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius --

and he said: ``Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with

righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. . . . America is good. And

if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.''

Well, I'm pleased to be here today with you who are keeping America great by keeping her

good. Only through your work and prayers and those of millions of others can we hope to survive

this perilous century and keep alive this experiment in liberty, this last, best hope of man.

I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees

the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods,

communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect

for the rule of law under God.

Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with,

a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried

and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned,

their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim

that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of

superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours,

but they are not yet a majority.

An example of that vocal superiority is evident in a controversy now going on in

Washington. And since I'm involved, I've been waiting to hear from the parents of young America.

How far are they willing to go in giving to government their prerogatives as parents?

Let me state the case as briefly and simply as I can. An organization of citizens, sincerely

motivated and deeply concerned about the increase in illegitimate births and abortions involving

girls well below the age of consent, sometime ago established a nationwide network of clinics to

offer help to these girls and, hopefully, alleviate this situation. Now, again, let me say, I do not

fault their intent. However, in their well-intentioned effort, these clinics have decided to provide

advice and birth control drugs and devices to underage girls without the knowledge of their parents.

For some years now, the Federal Government has helped with funds to subsidize these

clinics. In providing for this, the Congress decreed that every effort would be made to maximize

parental participation. Nevertheless, the drugs and devices are prescribed without getting parental

consent or giving notification after they've done so. Girls termed ``sexually active'' -- and that has

replaced the word ``promiscuous'' -- are given this help in order to prevent illegitimate birth or

abortion.

Well, we have ordered clinics receiving Federal funds to notify the parents such help has

been given. One of the Nation's leading newspapers has created the term ``squeal rule'' in

editorializing against us for doing this, and we're being criticized for violating the privacy of young

people. A judge has recently granted an injunction against an enforcement of our rule. I've watched

TV panel shows discuss this issue, seen columnists pontificating on our error, but no one seems to

mention morality as playing a part in the subject of sex.

Is all of Judeo-Christian tradition wrong? Are we to believe that something so sacred can

be looked upon as a purely physical thing with no potential for emotional and psychological harm?

And isn't it the parents' right to give counsel and advice to keep their children from making

mistakes that may affect their entire lives?

Many of us in government would like to know what parents think about this intrusion in

their family by government. We're going to fight in the courts. The right of parents and the rights

of family take precedence over those of Washington-based bureaucrats and social engineers.

But the fight against parental notification is really only one example of many attempts to

water down traditional values and even abrogate the original terms of American democracy.

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged. When

our Founding Fathers passed the first amendment, they sought to protect churches from

government interference. They never intended to construct a wall of hostility between government

and the concept of religious belief itself.

The evidence of this permeates our history and our government. The Declaration of

Independence mentions the Supreme Being no less than four times. ̀ `In God We Trust'' is engraved

on our coinage. The Supreme Court opens its proceedings with a religious invocation. And the

Members of Congress open their sessions with a prayer. I just happen to believe the schoolchildren

of the United States are entitled to the same privileges as Supreme Court Justices and

Congressmen.

Last year, I sent the Congress a constitutional amendment to restore prayer to public

schools. Already this session, there's growing bipartisan support for the amendment, and I am

calling on the Congress to act speedily to pass it and to let our children pray. . . .

More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of 50

States statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives

of up to 1\1/2\ million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will some

day pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven

that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

must be protected. . . .

Now, I'm sure that you must get discouraged at times, but you've done better than you

know, perhaps. There's a great spiritual awakening in America, a renewal of the traditional values

that have been the bedrock of America's goodness and greatness.

One recent survey by a Washington-based research council concluded that Americans were

far more religious than the people of other nations; 95 percent of those surveyed expressed a belief

in God and a huge majority believed the Ten Commandments had real meaning in their lives. And

another study has found that an overwhelming majority of Americans disapprove of adultery,

teenage sex, pornography, abortion, and hard drugs. And this same study showed a deep reverence

for the importance of family ties and religious belief.

I think the items that we've discussed here today must be a key part of the Nation's political

agenda. For the first time the Congress is openly and seriously debating and dealing with the prayer

and abortion issues -- and that's enormous progress right there. I repeat: America is in the midst of

a spiritual awakening and a moral renewal. And with your Biblical keynote, I say today, ``Yes, let

justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream.''

Now, obviously, much of this new political and social consensus I've talked about is based

on a positive view of American history, one that takes pride in our country's accomplishments and

record. But we must never forget that no government schemes are going to perfect man. We know

that living in this world means dealing with what philosophers would call the phenomenology of

evil or, as theologians would put it, the doctrine of sin.

There is sin and evil in the world, and we're enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus to

oppose it with all our might. Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal. The

glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past. For example,

the long struggle of minority citizens for equal rights, once a source of disunity and civil war, is

now a point of pride for all Americans. We must never go back. There is no room for racism, anti-

Semitism, or other forms of ethnic and racial hatred in this country.

I know that you've been horrified, as have I, by the resurgence of some hate groups

preaching bigotry and prejudice. Use the mighty voice of your pulpits and the powerful standing

of your churches to denounce and isolate these hate groups in our midst. The commandment given

us is clear and simple: ``Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.''

But whatever sad episodes exist in our past, any objective observer must hold a positive

view of American history, a history that has been the story of hopes fulfilled and dreams made into

reality. Especially in this century, America has kept alight the torch of freedom, but not just for

ourselves but for millions of others around the world.

And this brings me to my final point today. During my first press conference as President,

in answer to a direct question, I pointed out that, as good Marxist-Leninists, the Soviet leaders

have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is that which will further

their cause, which is world revolution. I think I should point out I was only quoting Lenin, their

guiding spirit, who said in 1920 that they repudiate all morality that proceeds from supernatural

ideas -- that's their name for religion -- or ideas that are outside class conceptions. Morality is

entirely subordinate to the interests of class war. And everything is moral that is necessary for the

annihilation of the old, exploiting social order and for uniting the proletariat.

Well, I think the refusal of many influential people to accept this elementary fact of Soviet

doctrine illustrates an historical reluctance to see totalitarian powers for what they are. We saw

this phenomenon in the 1930's. We see it too often today.

This doesn't mean we should isolate ourselves and refuse to seek an understanding with

them. I intend to do everything I can to persuade them of our peaceful intent, to remind them that

it was the West that refused to use its nuclear monopoly in the forties and fifties for territorial gain

and which now proposes 50-percent cut in strategic ballistic missiles and the elimination of an

entire class of land-based, intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise

our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our

belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of

these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some.

The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the

illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength. . . .

A number of years ago, I heard a young father, a very prominent young man in the

entertainment world, addressing a tremendous gathering in California. It was during the time of

the cold war, and communism and our own way of life were very much on people's minds. And

he was speaking to that subject. And suddenly, though, I heard him saying, ``I love my little girls

more than anything -- -- '' And I said to myself, ``Oh, no, don't. You can't -- don't say that.'' But I

had underestimated him. He went on: ``I would rather see my little girls die now, still believing in

God, than have them grow up under communism and one day die no longer believing in God.''

There were thousands of young people in that audience. They came to their feet with shouts

of joy. They had instantly recognized the profound truth in what he had said, with regard to the

physical and the soul and what was truly important.

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray

they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach

the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual

domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world. . . .

But if history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful

thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our

freedom.

So, I urge you to speak out against those who would place the United States in a position

of military and moral inferiority. . . . I urge you to beware the temptation of pride -- the temptation

of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts

of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant

misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and

good and evil.

I ask you to resist the attempts of those who would have you withhold your support for our

efforts, this administration's efforts, to keep America strong and free, while we negotiate real and

verifiable reductions in the world's nuclear arsenals and one day, with God's help, their total

elimination.

While America's military strength is important, let me add here that I've always maintained

that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies

or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will

and faith. . . .

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I believe that communism is another sad, bizarre

chapter in human history whose last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the

source of our strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And because

it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over those who would enslave their

fellow man. For in the words of Isaiah: ``He giveth power to the faint; and to them that have no

might He increased strength. . . . But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they

shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary. . . .''

Yes, change your world. One of our Founding Fathers, Thomas Paine, said, ``We have it

within our power to begin the world over again.'' We can do it, doing together what no one church

could do by itself.

God bless you, and thank you very much.

Document 7: “A More Perfect Union” Speech by Senator Barack Obama

(March 18, 2008)

In running for President of the United States in 2008, Senator Barack Obama faced severe

criticism over his prior attendance at a church where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary

sermons about America and race stirred anxieties about the presidential candidate’s own feelings

about race in America. Speaking at the National Constitution center in Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania, Barack Obama delivered a campaign defining speech that paved his way to

winning the Democratic Party nomination and ultimately the White House.

Please watch the complete speech HERE or at the following url: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrp-v2tHaDo

A transcript of the speech can be found HERE or at the following url:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/03/18/AR2008031801081.html?sid=ST2008031801183

Realizing one’s “liberties” following the Reconstruction era was no easier for

many Americans than it was prior to the Civil War. Industrialization and

immigration in the late nineteenth century only served to draw deeper and clearer

distinctions on who and what an “American” was or could be. As the United States

became an empire through the Spanish-American War domestic relationships of

inequality transcended across the globe through our foreign policies. Domestic

issues of race, class, and gender found expression throughout America’s foreign

policies in the twentieth century, culminating in the near simultaneous onset of the

Cold War and rise of the modern Civil Rights Movement. As minority groups

found domestic and global audiences for their grievances, America’s moral

authority to lead the world came under intense scrutiny. In many respects,

America’s past continues to profoundly shape America’s view of the world and

their view of us to this very day.

Based upon your reading of these selected primary documents and

incorporating such secondary sources as your textbook and lecture notes, I

would like you to answer the following 4 Questions. Please provide specific

examples from these documents that support your arguments.

1) What perceptions of “others” are reflected attending Miss Columbia’s School House (Document 1)? How does Aguinaldo’s criticism of America’s policies towards the Philippines

(Document 2) echo the 1894 political cartoon? What do these two documents suggest about the

way America perceived conquered peoples and the likelihood that they would ever be fit for

American citizenship and its liberties?

2) What relationship does President Eisenhower draw between events in the modern Civil Rights Movement and the goals of the United States in waging the Cold War (Document 3)? How does

the Alcatraz Proclamation (Document 4) and the “The Soiling of Old Glory” photograph

(Document 5) reflect the increasing radicalization of the Civil Rights Movement by the 1970s as

well as the violent responses it could produce within Anglo American communities? Based upon

Eisenhower’s speech, how do you believe he would respond to Documents 4 and 5 in the context

of the Cold War?

3) According to President Reagan (Document 6), what does “having a positive view of American history” mean and what values does the country stand for? What should modern

Americans think of their country’s past in regards to race relations according Senator Obama

(Document 7)? Do you agree with these documents arguments about America’s past? Why or

why not?

4) Based upon your reading of these documents, to what extent do you believe America’s past continues to influence American society and modern debates about inequality? Does our past and

efforts to confront and resolve issues of inequality empower us with a moral authority to dictate

world affairs today? Why or why not?