MC practice 8- due tomorrow!

Multiple Choice Practice 8

1. One type of early colony in America was a charter colony, in which colonists were members of a corporation. One settlement that began as a charter colony was
A. Virginia
B. North Carolina
C. Georgia
D. Rhode Island
E. Pennsylvania

2. This Protestant reformer greatly influenced the Puritans.
A. Martin Luther
B. Jan Hus
C. John Calvin
D. Jacob Arminius
E. Ignatius of Loyola

3. This English courtier selected Roanoke Island as the site for the first English settlement.
A. John Winthrop
B. Roger Williams
C. John Smith
D. Lord De La Warr
E. Sir Walter Raleigh

4. Match each colony on the left with its associated item.
X. Plymouth            1. General Court
Y. Connecticut        2. Mayflower Compact
Z. Massachusetts Bay        3. Fundamental Orders
4. patroonships
A. X-3, Y-2, Z-4
B. X-2, Y-3, Z-1
C. X-4, Y-1, Z-2
D. X-1, Y-4, Z-3
E. X-3, Y-2, Z-1

5. The first permanent European settlement in what would later become the United States was at
A. Albuquerque, NM
B. Roanoke, VA
C. Montreal, Canada
D. St. Augustine, FL
E. Jamestown, VA

6. The “headright” system, which made some people very wealthy, entailed
A. using Indians as forced labor.
B. giving land to indentured servants to get them to come to the New World.
C. giving the right to acquire fifty acres of land to the person paying the passage of a laborer to America.
D. discouraging the importation of indentured servants to America.
E. giving a father’s wealth to the oldest son.

7. Napoleon chose to sell Louisiana to the US because
A. he had suffered setbacks in Santo Domingo.
B. he hoped that America would use the territory to thwart the British.
C. he did not want to drive the US into the arms of the British.
D. yellow fever killed many French troops.
E. all of the above.

8. Jefferson saw navies as less dangerous than armies because
A. they were generally smaller in numbers.
B. they had little chance of starting a war.
C. they were less in contact with foreign powers.
D. they could not march inland and endanger liberties.
E.  all of the above.

9. The immediate goal of the Hartford Convention was to
A. seek financial aid from Britain.
B. allow New England militias to fight for the Americans.
C. secure financial assistance from the US government.
D. expand the activities of the “Blue Lights.”
E. create a new nation separate from the rest of the US.

10. The “Burned Over District” in New York was so named due to
A. the many forest fires that started there.
B. the many uprisings among immigrant Irish who lived there.
C. the repeated outbreaks slave uprisings.
D. the ruined soil from cash-crop agriculture.
E. the repeated religious revivals that seared souls.

Excerpt: The Brown Decision

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.    [347 U.S. 483, 487]
In each of the cases, minors of the Negro race, through their legal representatives, seek the aid of the courts in obtaining admission to the public schools of their community on a nonsegregated basis. In each instance, [347 U.S. 483, 488]   they had been denied admission to schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to race. This segregation was alleged to deprive the plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment. In each of the cases other than the Delaware case, a three-judge federal district court denied relief to the plaintiffs on the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine announced by this Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 .

Under that doctrine, equality of treatment is accorded when the races are provided substantially equal facilities, even though these facilities be separate. In the Delaware case, the Supreme Court of Delaware adhered to that doctrine, but ordered that the plaintiffs be admitted to the white schools because of their superiority to the Negro schools.
The plaintiffs contend that segregated public schools are not “equal” and cannot be made “equal,” and that hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws. Because of the obvious importance of the question presented, the Court took jurisdiction. 2 Argument was heard in the 1952 Term, and reargument was heard this Term on certain questions propounded by the Court.   [347 U.S. 483, 489]
Reargument was largely devoted to the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It covered exhaustively consideration of the Amendment in Congress, ratification by the states, then existing practices in racial segregation, and the views of proponents and opponents of the Amendment. This discussion and our own investigation convince us that, although these sources cast some light, it is not enough to resolve the problem with which we are faced. At best, they are inconclusive. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” Their opponents, just as certainly, were antagonistic to both the letter and the spirit of the Amendments and wished them to have the most limited effect. What others in Congress and the state legislatures had in mind cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

An additional reason for the inconclusive nature of the Amendment’s history, with respect to segregated schools, is the status of public education at that time. 4 In the South, the movement toward free common schools, supported [347 U.S. 483, 490] by general taxation, had not yet taken hold. Education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states; and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education.
In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. 5 The doctrine of [347 U.S. 483, 491] “separate but equal” did not make its appearance in this Court until 1896 in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, involving not education but transportation. 6 American courts have since labored with the doctrine for over half a century. In this Court, there have been six cases involving the “separate but equal” doctrine in the field of public education. 7 In Cumming v. County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 , and Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 , the validity of the doctrine itself was not challenged. 8 In more recent cases, all on the graduate school [347 U.S. 483, 492]   level, inequality was found in that specific benefits enjoyed by white students were denied to Negro students of the same educational qualifications. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 ; Sipuel v. Oklahoma, 332 U.S. 631 ; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 ; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 . In none of these cases was it necessary to re-examine the doctrine to grant relief to the Negro plaintiff. And in Sweatt v. Painter, supra, the Court expressly reserved decision on the question whether Plessy v. Ferguson should be held inapplicable to public education.
In the instant cases, that question is directly presented. Here, unlike Sweatt v. Painter, there are findings below that the Negro and white schools involved have been equalized, or are being equalized, with respect to buildings, curricula, qualifications and salaries of teachers, and other “tangible” factors. Our decision, therefore, cannot turn on merely a comparison of these tangible factors in the Negro and white schools involved in each of the cases. We must look instead to the effect of segregation itself on public education.
In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout [347 U.S. 483, 493]   the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.
Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.
In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school.” In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: “. . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.” [347 U.S. 483, 494]   Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools. To separate them from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. The effect of this separation on their educational opportunities was well stated by a finding in the Kansas case by a court which nevertheless felt compelled to rule against the Negro plaintiffs:
“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law; for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.”
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. 11 Any language [347 U.S. 483, 495]   in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment….

The issue of civil rights in the 1948 Democratic convention

Address on Civil Rights to the Democratic National Convention (1948)
Humbert Humphrey

It was not popular to be a Liberal in 1948.  Hubert Humphrey, a Liberal Senator from Minnesota, along with a small handful of other Liberals, submitted the following minority report on Civil Right to the 1948 Democratic Convention. The following speech given by Humphrey to that convention is widely considered to be the inaugural moment which ushered in the modern Civil Rights Movement into the forefront of American politics.

Humphrey’s speech now seems rather innocuous, but it must be remembered that this speech was given at a time when much of America was still segregated; Blacks were not allowed to drink out of the same water fountains or eat in the same restaurants as Whites, poll taxes prevented millions of Blacks from voting, and lynchings were common.

All throughout the following speech, boos could be heard emanating from the floor of the convention, and toward the end of his speech several Southern delegations walked out.  Although it would be almost twenty years before any meaningful Civil Rights legislation was passed, this speech was truly a defining moment both for the Democratic Party and the nation itself.  Neither would be the same again.  And since that day, Liberalism remains the soul and conscience of not just the Democratic Party, but also of America.

As it was in 1948, Liberalism again is not that popular today, but it remains a powerful force in American politics despite the efforts of those who seek to discredit, demean, and slur it.  There are powerful Conservative forces in this country, not unlike those same forces in 1948, which continue to preach a doctrine of elitism and privilege.  But they will not win because Liberalism, although not perfect, appeals to the decent instincts of man.

Fellow Democrats, fellow Americans:
I realize that in speaking in behalf of the minority report on civil rights as presented by Congressman DeMiller of Wisconsin that I am dealing with a charged issue–with an issue which has been confused by emotionalism on all sides of the fence. I realize that there are here today friends and colleagues of mine, many of them–who feel just as deeply and keenly as I do about this issue and who are yet in complete disagreement with me.
My respect and admiration for these men and their views was great when I came to this convention. It is now far greater because of the sincerity, the courtesy, and the forthrightness with which many of them have argued in our prolonged discussions in the platform committee.
Because of this very great respect–and because of my profound belief that we have a challenging task to do here–because good conscience, decent morality, demands it–I feel I must rise at this time to support a report–the minority report–a report that spells out our democracy, a report that the people of this country can and will understand and a report that they will enthusiastically acclaim on the great issue of civil rights!
Now let me say at the outset that this proposal is made with no single region. Our proposal is made for no single class, for no single racial or religious groups in mind.
All of the regions of this country, all of the states have shared in the precious heritage of American freedom. All the states and all the regions have seen at least some infringements of that freedom–all people–get this–all people, white and black, all groups, all racial groups have been the victims at times in this nation of–let me say–vicious discrimination.
The masterly statement of our keynote speaker, the distinguished United States Senator from Kentucky, Alben Barkley, made that point with great force. Speaking of the founder of our party, Thomas Jefferson, he said this, and I quote from Alben Barkley:
He did not proclaim that all the white, or the black, or the red, or the yellow men are equal; that all Christian or Jewish men are equal; that all Protestant and all Catholic men are equal; that all rich or poor men are equal; that all good and bad men are equal.
What he declared was that all men are equal; and the equality which he proclaimed was the equality in the right to enjoy the blessings of free government in which they may participate and to which they have given their support.
Now these words of Senator Barkley’s are appropriate to this convention–appropriate to this convention of the oldest, the most truly progressive political party in America. From the time of Thomas Jefferson, the time of that immortal American doctrine of individual rights, under just and fairly administered laws, the Democratic party has tried hard to secure expanding freedoms for all citizens. Oh, yes, I know, other political parties may have talked more about civil rights, but the Democratic party has securely done more civil rights.
We have made progress, we have made great progress, in every part of this country. We’ve made great progress in the South, we’ve made it in the West, in the North, and in the East, but we must now focus the direction of that progress toward the realization of a full program of civil rights for all. This convention must set out more specifically the direction in which our party efforts are to go.
We can be proud that we can be guided by the courageous trail blazing of two great Democratic presidents. We can be proud of the fact that our great and beloved immortal leader Franklin Roosevelt gave us guidance. And we be proud of the fact–we can be proud of the fact–that Harry Truman has had the courage to give to the people of America the new emancipation proclamation!
It seems to me, it seems to me, that the Democratic party needs to make definite pledges of the kinds suggested in the confidence placed in it by the people of all races and all sections of this country.
Sure, we’re here as Democrats. But my good friends, we’re here as Americans–we’re here as the believers in the principal and the ideology of democracy, and I firmly believe that as men concerned with our country’s future, we must specify in our platform guarantees which we have mentioned in the minority report.
Yes, this is far more than a party matter. Every citizen has a stake in the emergence of the United States as a leader in a free world. That world is being challenged by the world of slavery. For us to play our part effectively, we must be in a morally sound position.
We can’t use a double standard–there’s no room for double standards in American politics–for measuring our own and other people’s policies. Our demands for democratic practices in other lands will be no more effective than the guarantees of those practiced in our own country.
Friends, delegates, I do not believe that there can be any compromise on the guarantee of civil rights which I have mentioned in the minority report.
In spite of my desire for unanimous agreement on the entire platform, in spite of my desire to see everybody her in honest and unanimous agreement, there are some matters which I think must be stated clearly and without qualification. There can be no hedging–the newspaper headlines are wrong! There will be no hedging, and there will be no watering down–if you please–of the instruments and the principals of the civil-rights program!
To those who say, my friends, to those who say, that we are rushing this issue of civil rights. I say to them we are 172 years late! To those who say, to those who say this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: the time has arrived in America for the Democratic party to get out of the shadow of state’s rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!
People, people–human beings–this is the issue of the 20th century. People of al kinds, all sorts of people, and these people are looking to America for leadership, and they’re looking to America for precept and example.
My good friends–my fellow–Democrats–I ask you for calm consideration of our historic opportunity.
Let us not forget–let us do forget–the evil passions, the blindness of the past. In these times of world economic, political, and spiritual–crisis, we cannot–we must not–turn from the path so plainly before us. That path has already lead us through many valleys of the shadow of death. Now is the time to recall those who were left on that path of American freedom.
For all of us here, for the millions who have sent us, for the whole two-billion members of the human family–our land is now, more than ever before, the last best hope on earth. I know that we can–I know that w shall–begging here the fuller and richer realization of that hope–that promise of a land where all men are truly free and equal, and each man uses his freedom and equality wisely and well.
My good friends, I ask my party, I ask the Democratic party, to march down the high road of progressive democracy. I ask this convention, I ask this convention, to say in unmistakable terms that we proudly hail, and we courageously support, our President and leader Harry Truman in his great fight for civil-rights in America!

(Delivered July 14, 1948, Philadelphia, PA)

Make sure you read the Iron Curtain speech!

Tonight– we’ll be going this on Friday– possible quiz.

Here are some nice review questions:

1. What does Churchill say that the Russians respect?

2. What does Churchill mean when he says that the US stands “at the pinnacle of world power?” What by implication is he saying about Britain?

3. Where exactly does he state the location of the iron curtain?

4. What is a “fifth column?”

5. Where is particular does Churchill talk about the Communist threat immediately being the greatest?

6. What two adjectives does Churchill use when talking about the next war, if one were to break out with the Soviets?

7. What common characteristics does he note that both the US and Britain share that make us suitable to protect Western civilization?

Obituary: Dr. John Hope Franklin

Dr. John Hope Franklin, eminent historian and pioneer in creating the field of African American history, passed away yesterday at the age of 94. Among his many awards and honors he accrued during his life, he is one of the few historians I have ever heard of who had their own PBS special. Notice too his impact on a seminal court case in civil rights history.

From the Associated Press’s Martha Waggoner:

John Hope Franklin, a towering scholar and pioneer of African-American studies who wrote the seminal text on the black experience in the U.S. and worked on the landmark Supreme Court case that outlawed public school segregation, died Wednesday. He was 94.

David Jarmul, a spokesman at Duke University, where Franklin taught for a decade and was professor emeritus of history, said he died of congestive heart failure at the school’s hospital in Durham.

Born and raised in an all-black community in Oklahoma where he was often subjected to humiliating racism, Franklin was later instrumental in bringing down the legal and historical validations of such a world.

As an author, his book “From Slavery to Freedom” was a landmark integration of black history into American history that remains relevant more than 60 years after being published. As a scholar, his research helped Thurgood Marshall and his team at the NAACP win Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 case that barred the doctrine of “separate but equal” in the nation’s public schools.

“It was evident how much the lawyers appreciated what the historians could offer,” Franklin later wrote. “For me, and I suspect the same was true for the others, it was exhilarating.”

Franklin himself broke numerous color barriers. He was the first black department chair at a predominantly white institution, Brooklyn College; the first black professor to hold an endowed chair at Duke; and the first black president of the American Historical Association.

He often regarded his country like an exasperated relative, frustrated by racism’s stubborn power, yet refusing to give up. “I want to be out there on the firing line, helping, directing or doing something to try to make this a better world, a better place to live,” Franklin told The Associated Press in 2005.

In November, after Barack Obama broke the ultimate racial barrier in American politics, Franklin called his ascension to the White House “one of the most historic moments, if not the most historic moment, in the history of this country.”

“Because of the life John Hope Franklin lived, the public service he rendered, and the scholarship that was the mark of his distinguished career, we all have a richer understanding of who we are as Americans and our journey as a people,” Obama said in a statement. “Dr. Franklin will be deeply missed, but his legacy is one that will surely endure.”

Obama’s achievement fit with Franklin’s mission as a historian, to document how blacks lived and served alongside whites from the nation’s birth. Black patriots fought at Lexington and Concord, Franklin pointed out in “From Slavery to Freedom,” published in 1947. They crossed the Delaware with Washington and explored with Lewis and Clark.

The book sold more than 3.5 million copies and remains required reading in college classrooms. It was based on research Franklin conducted in libraries and archives that didn’t allow him to eat lunch or use the bathroom because he was black.

“He was working in a profession that more or less banned him at the outset and ended up its leading practitioner,” said Tim Tyson, a history professor at Duke. “And yet, he always managed to keep his grace and his sense of humor.”

Late in life, Franklin received more than 130 honorary degrees and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s Spingarn Award. In 1993, President Bill Clinton honored Franklin with the Charles Frankel Prize, recognizing scholarly contributions that give “eloquence and meaning … to our ideas, hopes and dreams as American citizens.”

Clinton awarded Franklin the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian prize, two years later, and gave him the role for which he was perhaps best known outside academia, as chairman of Clinton’s Initiative on Race. It was a job of which Franklin said, “I am not sure this is an honor. It may be a burden.”

“John Hope Franklin was one of the most important American historians of the 20th century and one of the people I most admired,” Clinton said in a statement. “He graced our country with his life, his scholarship, and his citizenship.”

As he aged, Franklin spent more time in the greenhouse behind his home, where he nursed orchids, than in libraries. He fell in love with the flowers because “they’re full of challenges, mystery” — the same reasons he fell in love with history.

In June, Franklin had a small role in the movie based on the book “Blood Done Signed My Name,” about the public slaying of black man in Oxford in 1970. Tyson, the book’s author, said at the time he wanted Franklin in the movie “because of his dignity and his shining intelligence.”

Franklin attended historically black Fisk University, where he met Aurelia Whittington, who would be his wife, editor, helpmate and rock for 58 years, until her death in 1999. He planned to follow his father into law, but the lively lectures of a white professor, Ted Currier, convinced him history was his field. Currier borrowed $500 to send Franklin to Harvard University for graduate studies.

Franklin’s doctoral thesis was on free blacks in antebellum North Carolina. His wife spent part of their honeymoon in Washington, D.C., at the Census Bureau, helping him finish. The resulting work, “The Free Negro in North Carolina, 1790-1860,” earned Franklin his doctorate and, in 1943, became his first published book. Four years later, he took a job at Howard University. It was the same year “From Slavery to Freedom” was published.

Some of his greatest moments of triumph were marred by bigotry.

His joy at being offered the chair of the Brooklyn College history department in 1956 was tempered by his difficulty getting a loan to buy a house in a “white” neighborhood.

When he was to receive the freedom medal, Franklin hosted a party for some friends at Washington’s Cosmos Club, of which he had long been a member. A white woman walked up to him, handed him a slip of paper and demanded that he get her coat. He politely told the woman that any of the uniformed attendants, “and they were all in uniform,” would be happy to assist her.

Franklin was born Jan. 2, 1915, in the all-black town of Rentiesville, Okla., where his parents moved in the mistaken belief that separation from whites would mean a better life for their young family. But his father’s law office was burned in the race riots in Tulsa, Okla., in 1921, along with the rest of the black section of town.

His mother, Mollie, a teacher, began taking him to school with her when he was 3. He could read and write by 5; by 6, he first became aware of the “racial divide separating me from white America.”

Franklin, his mother and sister Anne were ejected from a train when his mother refused the conductor’s orders to move to the overcrowded “Negro” coach. As they trudged through the woods back to Rentiesville, young John Hope began to cry.

His mother pulled him aside and told him, “There was not a white person on that train or anywhere else who was any better than I was. She admonished me not to waste my energy by fretting but to save it in order to prove that I was as good as any of them.”

The fact that he became a light of the Duke University history department is even more a testament to his gifts, transcending barriers which he had confronted throughout his life in the former Jim Crow South. From the Duke Library’s biography of Dr. Franklin:

John Hope Franklin was the James B. Duke Professor Emeritus of History, and for seven years was Professor of Legal History in the Law School at Duke University. He was a native of Oklahoma and a graduate of Fisk University. He received the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in history from Harvard University. He has taught at a number of institutions, including Fisk University, St. Augustine’s College, North Carolina Central University, and Howard University. In 1956 he went to Brooklyn College as Chairman of the Department of History; and in 1964, he joined the faculty of the University of Chicago, serving as Chairman of the Department of History from 1967 to 1970. At Chicago, he was the John Matthews Manly Distinguished Service Professor from 1969 to 1982, when he became Professor Emeritus.

Professor Franklin’s numerous publications include The Emancipation Proclamation, The Militant South, The Free Negro in North Carolina, Reconstruction After the Civil War, and A Southern Odyssey: Travelers in the Ante-bellum North. Perhaps his best known book is From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African-Americans, now in its seventh edition. His Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities for 1976 was published in 1985 and received the Clarence L. Holte Literary Prize for that year. In 1990, a collection of essays covering a teaching and writing career of fifty years, was published under the title, Race and History: Selected Essays, 1938-1988. In 1993, he published The Color Line: Legacy for the Twenty-first Century. Professor Franklin’s most recent book, My Life and an Era: The Autobiography of Buck Colbert Franklin, is an autobiography of his father that he edited with his son, John Whittington Franklin. His current research deals with “Dissidents on the Plantation: Runaway Slaves.”

Professor Franklin was active in numerous professional and education organizations. For many years he served on the editorial board of the Journal of Negro History. He also served as President of the following organizations: The American Studies Association (1967), the Southern Historical Association (1970), the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa (1973-76), the Organization of American Historians (1975), and the American Historical Association (1979). He has been a member of the Board of Trustees of Fisk University, the Chicago Public Library, and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Association.

Professor Franklin served on many national commissions and delegations, including the National Council on the Humanities, from which he resigned in 1979, when the President appointed him to the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy. He also served on the President’s Advisory Commission on Ambassadorial Appointments. In September and October of 1980, he was a United States delegate to the 21st General Conference of UNESCO. Among many other foreign assignments, Dr. Franklin served as Pitt Professor of American History and Institutions at Cambridge University, Consultant on American Education in the Soviet Union, Fulbright Professor in Australia, and Lecturer in American History in the People’s Republic of China.

Professor Franklin was  the recipient of many honors. In 1978, Who’s Who in America selected Dr. Franklin as one of eight Americans who has made significant contributions to society. In the same year, he was elected to the Oklahoma Hall of Fame. He also received the Jefferson Medal for 1984, awarded by the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education. In 1989, he was the first recipient of the Cleanth Brooks Medal of the Fellowship of Southern Writers, and in 1990 received the Encyclopedia Britannica Gold Medal for the Dissemination of Knowledge. In 1993, Dr. Franklin received the Charles Frankel Prize for contributions to the humanities, and in 1994, the Cosmos Club Award and the Trumpet Award from Turner Broadcasting Corporation. In 1995, he received the first W.E.B. DuBois Award from the Fisk University Alumni Association, the Organization of American Historians’ Award for Outstanding Achievement, the Alpha Phi Alpha Award of Merit, the NAACP’s Spingarn Medal, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. In 1996, Professor Franklin was elected to the Oklahoma Historians Hall of Frame and in 1997 he received the Peggy V. Helmerich Distinguished Author Award. In addition to his many awards, Dr. Franklin has received honorary degrees from more than one hundred colleges and universities.

Professor Franklin has been extensively written about in various articles and books. Most recently he was the subject of the film First Person Singular: John Hope Franklin. Produced by Lives and Legacies Films, the documentary was featured on PBS in June 1997.

Professor Franklin died of congestive heart failure at Duke Hospital on the morning of March 25th, 2009. He is survived by his son, John Whittington Franklin, daughter-in-law Karen Roberts Franklin, sister-in-law Bertha W. Gibbs, cousin Grant Franklin Sr., a host of nieces, nephews, great-nieces and great-nephews, other family members, many generations of students and friends. There will be a celebration of his life and of his late wife Aurelia Franklin at 11 a.m. June 11 in Duke Chapel in honor of their 69th wedding anniversary. For more information on John Hope Franklin, please visit his memorial web site.

FRQ practice 1

Due Tuesday, March 24 at the start of class.

Short answer: Worth 10 points.
What would be your thesis statement for the following FRQ prompt, as well as 5 pieces of supporting information?

Analyze the influence of TWO of the following on American-Soviet relations in the decade following the Second World War.
Yalta Conference
Communist revolution in China
Korean War
McCarthyism

And don’t forget to work on your outlines and thesis statements for the DBQ and FRQs from 2006– which are due Wednesday!!!!! Remember to include OI!

MC practice 7

Congress’s first response to the unexpected fall of France in 1940 was to
A. revoke all neutrality laws.
B. expand naval patrols in the Atlantic.
C. enact a neutrality law enabling the Allies to buy American war materials on a cash-and-carry basis.
D. pass a conscription law.
E. call for the quarantining of aggressor nations.

After the Greer was fired upon, the Kearny crippled, and the Reuben James sunk,
A. Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act.
B. the US Navy began escorting merchant vessels carrying lend-lease shipments.
C. Congress allowed the arming of merchant marine vessels.
D. Congress forbade US ships to enter combat zones.
E. Roosevelt told the public that war was imminent.

The Allies postponed opening a second front in Europe until 1944 because
A. of British reluctance and lack of adequate shipping.
B. men and material were more urgently needed in the Pacific.
C. the USSR requested a delay until they could join the campaign.
D. they hoped that Germany and the USSR would cripple each other.
E. they believed that North Africa was more strategically vital.
Roosevelt’s recognition of the Soviet Union was undertaken partly
A. in order to win support from American Catholics.
B. because the Soviet leadership seemed to be modifying its harsher communist policies.
C. in hopes of developing  a diplomatic counterweight to the rising power of Japan and Germany.
D. to win favor with American liberals and leftists.
E. to open opportunities for American investment in Siberian oil fields.

The real impact of the Italian front on World War II may have been that it
A. delayed the D-day invasion and allowed the Soviets to advance further into Eastern Europe.
B. prevented the rise of fascism or communism in Italy after the war.
C. enabled the Americans to appease both the British and Soviet strategic demands.
D. enabled the US to prevent Austria and Greece from falling into Soviet hands.
E. destroyed the monastery of Monte Cassino and other Italian artistic treasures.
Which of the following was NOT conquered by Germany between September 1939 and June 1940?
A. Norway               D. Poland
B. Finland               E. the Netherlands
C. France

The Office of Scientific Research and Development
A. orchestrated the transition of economic production from a wartime to a peacetime footing.
B. sought a more reliable source of energy than petroleum.
C. was home to the secret “S-1 section,” otherwise known as the Manhattan Project.
D. was blasted as an example of wasteful government spending by Wendell Wilkie.
E. was headed by Vice President Harry Truman.
The major consequence of the Allied conquest of Sicily in August 1943 was
A. a modification of the demand for the unconditional surrender of Italy.
B. the overthrow of Mussolini and Italy’s unconditional surrender.
C. the swift Allied conquest of the Italian peninsula.
D. a conflict between Churchill and General Eisenhower over the invasion of the Italian mainland.
E. the threat of a Communist takeover of the Italian government.

The Potsdam Conference question

Today, first hour class had a question about attendance at the Potsdam conference. As we discussed, at the Potsdam Conference, two of the Allied Powers had had a change in leadership. Franklin Roosevelt had died in the spring of 1945, elevating Truman to the presidency.

In England, elections had been suspended in 1935 as a wartime measure, but in July 1945 an election was held, pitting the Labour candidate Clement Attlee, against Conservative Winston Churchill. Attlee had been serving as deputy prime minister in a wartime unity or coalition government that was an attempt to put aside partisan politics at a time when Britain’s very survival was at stake. Surprisingly however, once the election was held, the voters overwhelmingly backed Attlee and the Labour Party, trusting them more than the Conservatives to rebuild after the war.

The election was held as the Potsdam Conference was underway, and the results were not finalized until July 25. Therefore, both Churchill and Attlee were at the Potsdam Conference, and the change in power happened midway through the conference.

Now we know.

AP money is due!

Absolute deadline for turning in money is March 11!!!! That is next Wednesday!

Let me be clear– that means you have only three more class meetings with me to turn in your checks, made out to PHS, for $86.

AP Review Book

The review book that is a companion for your textbook is Fast Track to a 5: Preparing for the AP United States History Examination by Mark Epstein.

It can be purchased at amazon.com– this is the link (http://www.amazon.com/Preparing-United-States-History-Examination/dp/0618863656/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236210940&sr=1-1)