Tag: civil-rights

1879: Standing Bear v. Crook

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

Analyze one of the first cases to establish Native American rights in the US.

CONTEXT:

Standing Bear (c.1829-1908) was born on Ponca land in what is now Nebraska near the Niobrara River. By the 1860s he was a tribal leader of the Ponca Tribe, and they faced a desperate situation. In 1858 the Ponca had given up their lands except a small section where they tried to change from buffalo hunters to farmers. By 1868 this property was included in a treaty giving lands to the Sioux; the Sioux began to raid the Ponca lands. The US government then removed the Ponca to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) in 1877.

The Ponca resisted this move, and many Ponca died in the process. Standing Bear and several followers left the Indian Territory to return to their homeland and were arrested. General George Crook arrested them under orders, even though he sympathized with Standing Bear. They were jailed at Fort Omaha, Nebraska.

In 1879 newspaper editor Thomas Henry Tibbles interviewed Standing Bear and published his story. It went viral quickly. Standing Bear petitioned for his right to return to his home; lawyers volunteered their services and moved to help prevent Standing Bear and his people from being returned against their will to Indian Territory. Federal Judge Elmer Dundy ruled in Standing Bear’s favor.

Standing Bear returned to Nebraska. He later traveled to the eastern states and spoke about Indian rights. He won the support of many prominent Americans, and died at his home of cancer in 1908.

This text is from Judge Dundy’s decision.

TEXT: (NOTE: the term, “Indian” is used as in the original document.)

…The reasoning advanced in support of my views, leads me to conclude:

  1. That an Indian is a “person” within the meaning of the laws of the United States, and has, therefore, the right to sue out a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, or before a federal judge, in all cases where he may be confined or in custody under color of authority of the United States, or where he is restrained of liberty in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States.
  2. That General George Crook, the respondent, being commander of the military department of the Platte, has the custody of the relators, under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof.
  3. That no rightful authority exists for removal by force any of the relators to the Indian Territory, as the respondent has been directed to do.
  4. That the Indians possess the inherent right of expatriation, as well as the more fortunate white race, and have the inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” so long as they obey the laws and do not trespass on forbidden ground. And,
  5. Being restrained of liberty under color of authority of the United States, and in violation of the laws thereof, the relators must be discharged from custody, and it is so ordered...

INQUIRY:

  1. What did the Judge mean when he said, “an Indian is a person under the law”?
  2. In Standing Bear v. Crook, for the first time a Native American was recognized as a person with legal standing in a US federal court. The US government could not hold Native Americans without their consent without legal cause. What part of the US Constitution was addressed by this ruling?
  3. Before this case Native Americans were considered “wards of the government.” What did that mean? How did this case change that status?
  4. What is expatriation?
  5. What is habeas corpus? How was Standing Bear being denied this when he was imprisoned? What part of the US Constitution addresses this right?
  6. Where did the Judge reference the Declaration of Independence? What was the significance of the use of the term, “inalienable”?
  7. Investigate the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. How did the Standing Bear case relate to the 1924 case?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.nps.gov/mnrr/learn/historyculture/standingbear.htm

https://plainshistory.org/items/show/49

2015: Obama at Selma

ESSENTIAL QUESTION:

How does the First March on Selma reflect the strength of the Civil Rights Movement?

CONTEXT:

On March 7, 1965, the first of a series of three protest marches demanding voting rights for African Americans took place in Selma, Alabama. The three marches were to go from Selma to Montgomery (the capital of Alabama), a 54 miles trek. The marches were organized by non-violent groups and were part of the larger civil rights movement to guarantee voting rights for African Americans, who had been denied voting rights through various means for decades.

On March 7, 1965, the marchers were ordered by local authorities not to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. The non-violent march continued and police rushed the crowd with batons and tear gas. The march was televised and led to a national call for voting rights legislation. On August 6, 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

On the 50th anniversary of the March, in 2015, President Obama and his family joined many at the same bridge to commemorate the March of 1965. This text is taken from his speech on that occasion.

TEXT:

It is a rare honor in this life to follow one of your heroes.  And John Lewis is one of my heroes.

Now, I have to imagine that when a younger John Lewis woke up that morning 50 years ago and made his way to Brown Chapel, heroics were not on his mind.  A day like this was not on his mind.  Young folks with bedrolls and backpacks were milling about.  Veterans of the movement trained newcomers in the tactics of non-violence; the right way to protect yourself when attacked.  A doctor described what tear gas does to the body, while marchers scribbled down instructions for contacting their loved ones.  The air was thick with doubt, anticipation and fear…

As John noted, there are places and moments in America where this nation’s destiny has been decided.  Many are sites of war — Concord and Lexington, Appomattox, Gettysburg.  Others are sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character — Independence Hall and Seneca Falls, Kitty Hawk and Cape Canaveral.

Selma is such a place.  In one afternoon 50 years ago, so much of our turbulent history — the stain of slavery and anguish of civil war; the yoke of segregation and tyranny of Jim Crow; the death of four little girls in Birmingham; and the dream of a Baptist preacher — all that history met on this bridge. 

It was not a clash of armies, but a clash of wills; a contest to determine the true meaning of America…

INQUIRY:

  1. Obama uses the word “hero” in the first sentence. How does this image bring the speech to a personal level?
  2. In the next paragraph, Obama includes both “veterans of the movement” and “young folks.” How does this contribute to the description of the original march? Why is it important to know what types of people were part of the original march?
  3. What is the effect of a doctor describing what tear gas does to the body?
  4. Why were some marchers writing instructions for contracting their loved ones? What does this say about their expectations of the march?
  5. In the next paragraph Obama lists times when “the nation’s destiny has been decided” and “sites that symbolize the daring of America’s character”. How does this contribute to the importance of his subject and how does he connect these events to Selma?
  6. In the second sentence of the fourth paragraph Obama lists elements of American history. What are these elements? Why does he list them this way? How does this explain the significance of the events on the Pettus Bridge?
  7. In the last paragraph Obama deemphasizes the military response but instead emphasizes “a clash of wills.” How does this characterize and emphasize the importance of the Selma March?
  8. For what would you be willing to protest if you believed it could result in physical harm? What are other ways of protesting?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/vote/selma-marches

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/07/remarks-president-50th-anniversary-selma-montgomery-marches

https://www.history.com/articles/selma-montgomery-march

1968: RFK on King’s Assassination

ESSENTIAL QUESTION

What rhetorical devices did Robert Kennedy use to convey his grief and contextualize the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.?

CONTEXT

On April 4, 1968, Robert F. Kennedy was campaigning in Indiana for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. After making two speeches and before he boarded a plane for Indianapolis, he learned that Martin Luther King, Jr., had been shot in Memphis, Tennessee. When he landed in Indianapolis he learned that King had died of his wounds. He proceeded to a campaign rally site where a crowd was waiting to hear him speak. While local police stated that they could not protect Kennedy should the crowd decide to riot, he decided to speak anyway. Standing on the back of a flat-bed truck, he spoke for less that five minutes.

As you consider his remarks remember that Robert Kennedy’s brother, President John Kennedy, had been assassinated five years earlier, on November 22, 1963. As soon as RFK announced King’s death the crowd shouted and wailed. Note how Kennedy focused his remarks. Robert Kennedy was himself assassinated two months later, on June 6, 1968, while on a campaign trip in California.

TEXT

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I’m only going to talk to you just for a minute or so this evening, because I have some–some very sad new for all of you–Could you lower those signs, please?- I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think, sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world; and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

Martin Luther King dedicated his life to love and to justice between fellow human beings. He died in the cause of that effort. In this difficult day, in this difficult time for the United States, it’s perhaps well to ask what kind of a nation we are and what direction we want to move in. For those of you who are black–considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible–you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge.

We can move in that direction as a country. In greater polarization-black people amongst blacks, and white amongst whites, filled with hatred toward one another. Or we can make an effort, as Martin Luther King did, to understand, and to comprehend, and replace that violence, that stain of bloodshed that has spread across our land, with an effort to understand, compassion, and love.

For those of you who are black and are tempted to fill with–be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. But we have to make an effort in the United States. We have to make an effort to understand, to get beyond, or go beyond those rather difficult times.

My favorite poem, my-my favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote, “Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God. “

What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black…

But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land. And let’s dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people…

INQUIRY

  1. How did Kennedy get his audience’s attention immediately and let them know this would not be a regular campaign speech? What was the effect of him asking the audience to lower the campaign signs? What words did he use?
  2. How did Kennedy describe Martin Luther King? How did Kennedy describe how black members of his audience might react to King’s assassination? Contrast these two descriptions. What is the effect of this contrast?
  3. How and why did Kennedy attempt to make a personal connection with his audience?
  4. What lesson did Kennedy ask his audience to take from the assassination?
  5. Interpret the Aeschylus quote.
  6. Why did Kennedy quote Aeschylus? What type of appeal is this, and what is the effect?
  7. As Kennedy listed what we do not need in the United States he uses anaphora, repetition of beginning clauses. What is the effect?
  8. Identify examples of appeals to logic, emotion, ethics, and authority in Kennedy’s speech. What are the effects of each?
  9. What lessons from Kennedy’s speech can apply to the United States today?

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Speech_on_the_Assassination_of_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-speeches/statement-on-assassination-of-martin-luther-king-jr-indianapolis-indiana-april-4-1968