DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Interpretation and Nation Building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional Interpretation and Nation Building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900 University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 1-1-2002 Constitutional interpretation and nation building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900. Charles R. Venator Santiago University of Massachusetts Amherst Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1 Recommended Citation Venator Santiago, Charles R., "Constitutional interpretation and nation building : the Territorial Clause and the Foraker Act, 1787-1900." (2002). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2347. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2347 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND NATION BUILDING: THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE AND THE FORAKER ACT, 1787-1900 A Dissertation Presented by CHARLES R. VENATOR SANTIAGO Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2002 Department of Political Science ©Copyright by Charles R. Venator Santiago 2002 All Rights Reserved CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND NATION BUILDING: THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE AND THE FORAKER ACT, 1787-1900 A Dissertation Presented by CHARLES R. VENATOR SANTIAGO Approved as to style and content by: 1 Roberto AlejandrcCv hair Peter D'Errico, Member Dean Robinson, Member >me Milleur, Department Head Apartment of Political Science DEDICATION For Hiza and Ric Townes, victims of this institution’s corporate greed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project began as a paper presented at a Law and Society Association meeting several years ago. Taunya L. Banks invited me to present my paper at a Lat Crit conference, and it eventually evolved into what you are about to read. I am also indebted to a legal community of scholars that have nurtured this project in more ways than I can describe here. They include Tanya K. Hernandez, Robert Cottrol, Pedro Malavet, Ediberto Roman, Silvia Lazos, Frank Valdes, and Neil Gotanda. During uncertain times my committee, composed of Roberto Alejandro, Peter D’Errico, and Dean Robinson, gave me unconditional support to finish this project. I will always be grateful. Of course without Nicholas Xenos commitment graduate students like myself, I would not have completed this project at this institution. I am also indebted to the support and intellectual stimulation of Antonio Y Vasquez Arroyo, Alex Betancourt, Gabriel de la Luz, and Alan Gaitenby. Without the support of the faculty and staff of the Department of Legal Studies I would not have been able to complete this project. I am forever grateful. Ric Townes made it possible for me to participate, publish, and become an active member in a number of academic communities throughout the World. I also want to recognize the support of my immediate and extended family, Lily Santiago, Katia Venator Santiago, Ginetta E.B. Candelario, Christian, Marlena, Kaleb Santana, my father Bob Venator, Michelle and Anna, and all of the rest. This is their project as much as it is mine. v ABSTRACT CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION AND NATION BUILDING: THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE AND THE FORAKER ACT, 1787-1900 SEPTEMBER 2002 CHARLES R. VENATOR SANTIAGO, B.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST M.A., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Ph.D., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by: Professor Roberto Alejandro This project explores the relationship between constitutional interpretation and acquisition and governance of territories during the nineteenth century. This project explores how Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive branch constructed the constitution in order to justify various imperialist nation-building endeavors. In the process, this project explores questions of citizenship, race, constitutional interpretation, and nation building. vi CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v ABSTRACT vi LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. COLONIAL ANTECEDENTS 15 2.1 Legal Conceptions of Space in Colonial North America 16 2.2 The Indian Boundary Lines 21 2.3 The Articles of Confederation and Western Expansionism 25 3. CONGRESS AND THE ORGANIC ACTS 42 3.1 Congress and the Constitution 45 3.2 The Southwest Territories 49 3.3 The Louisiana Purchase 50 3.4 The Florida Territory 59 3.5 The Texas Republic 60 3.6 The Oregon Territory 61 3.7 The Mexican Territories and the Doctrine of Ex Propio Vigore 64 3.8 The Civil War and its Aftermath 68 3.9 The Indian Territories and Oklahoma 75 3.10 The Hawaiian Islands 78 4. THE SUPREME COURT AND THE TERRITORIAL CLAUSE 81 4.1 Marshall and the Foundations of U.S. Imperialism 85 4.2 Taney’s Colonies 102 4.3 The Gilded Age of the Supreme Court 113 5. RACE, IMPERIALISM AND THE IVORY TOWERS 121 5.1 The Splendid Little War of 1998 123 5.2 The Treaty of Paris of 1898 131 5.3 The Anti-Imperialists 138 5.4 The Imperialists 152 vii 6. THE FORAKER ACT OF 1900 AND THE COLONIAL DEPENDENCY 165 6. 1 Law and the Military Regime 165 6.1.1 The Constitutional Basis for the Military Government 168 6.1.2 Davis’ Colonial Dependency 172 6. 1 .3 The Military’s Colonial Policy 1 §5 6.2 Race and the Foraker Act 1900 189 6.2.1 Trade and the Uniformity Clause 192 6.2.2 The Puerto Rican Citizen 1 94 6.2.3 The Civilized Government 199 6.2.4 Did the Constitution Follow the Flag? 201 7. CONCLUDING REMARKS 203 7.1 Notes for Further Research, The Insular Cases: 1901-1922 204 7.2 Territories, Colonial Dependencies, and Unincorporated Territories 215 NOTES 218 BIBLIOGRAPHY 257 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Racial prerequisites for suffrage rights in the territories 73 IX CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Legal texts like the Constitution can be understood as a source of authority and structure that participate in shaping the contours of a nation’s boundaries. The Constitution has played an important role in defining the ways in which the boundaries of the United States have expanded as the result of the acquisition and integration of new territories after initial formation of the nation. One way in which the Constitution has participated in the nation building process, has been by providing a source of authority for the governance of acquired territories and their subsequent admission as States on an equal footing with that of the original thirteen. This dissertation seeks to understand the ways in which the Constitution has been constructed or interpreted to legitimate the United States imperialist nation-building project. I am especially interested in a discussion of the interpretations that were adopted between 1789 and 1900 to legitimate the acquisition of new territories and their governance during the period anteceding their formal annexation as States of the Union. There have been at least two prevailing interpretations of the relationship between the Constitution and the nation building history of the United States. This relationship can be understood as a result of the impact of macro-historical events like the Revolutionary War, the War with Mexico, the Civil War, and the Spanish American War, on the nation-building process. Proponents of this view, such as Bruce Ackerman, suggest that American constitutional history can be understood within jurisgenerative 1 these eras. Between the embrace of popular opinion and the aid of the legal community, constitutional moments could potentially give birth to 2 constitutional regimes . This argument also suggests that each constitutional moment can be understood as a re- founding of the nation and the re-conceptualization of a new national identity. Alternatively, this relationship can be understood as a result of the interaction between individuals and the nation. This interpretation suggests that the Bill of Rights has been a site for contestation and social struggles that has ultimately resulted in the re- conceptualization of a national identity. To be sure, scholars like Rogers M. Smith suggest that struggles over the ascription of citizenship can provide important insights about the nature of the relationship 3 between the Constitution and nation building . Other legal scholars who identify with the Critical Race Theory tradition in the legal academy further contend that the rights and entitlements mediate relations of power and 4 membership between the individual and the nation . Presumably, the recognition and implementation of equal rights would result in a more democratic and egalitarian nation. I will label this approach as “micro-historical” to the extent that its concern is mostly with the relationship of individual or group identities to the nation and the State. My contention is that while the “macro” approach has a tendency to ignore the centrality of citizenship and membership in constituting the nation, the “micro” alternative generally assumes that the citizen can have a reciprocal and direct relationship with the nation. In this project, however, I will argue that the citizen’s relationship to the nation has been mediated by the status of the space in which she has resided. Drawing on the important insights and scholarship provided by the latter interpretive traditions, I will suggest an alternative understanding that considers the constitutional status of the territory in which the individual resides as a way to understand the historical relationship 2 between constitutional interpretation and U.S. nation 5 building . Rather than simply focusing on “national” events or on the relationship between individuals and the nation, this approach focuses on the ways in which the acquisition and governance of territories mediated the constitutional relationship between citizens and the nation. My contention is that both macro and micro approaches to the study of U.S. nation building have a tendency to obscure important instances of subordination and oppression that cannot be understood within these paradigms, but that simultaneously result from these types of events and relationships of power.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tribal-State Relations
    ISSUE BRIEF August 2012 Tribal-State Relations What’s Inside: • Key factors affecting The United States Congress and Tribal governments Tribal-State relations in have articulated the importance of protecting the safety, child welfare permanency, and well-being of American Indian and Alaska • Components of Native children. Through the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) successful Tribal-State of 1978, Congress stated that there is “no resource that is relations more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children” (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901). • Promising practices in Tribal-State relations This brief is intended to help States, Tribes, and related from across the country jurisdictions find ways to work together more effectively to • Conclusion meet the goals of ICWA. • Resources Child Welfare Information Gateway Children’s Bureau/ACYF 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 800.394.3366 Email: [email protected] Use your smartphone to http://www.childwelfare.gov access this issue brief online. Tribal-State Relations http://www.childwelfare.gov • State jurisdiction over Tribal affairs, for Key Factors Affecting Tribal- instance, through Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), initially enacted in 1953 in six “mandatory” State Relations in Child Welfare States and other “optional” States in 1968 that elected to assume full or partial State jurisdiction on Indian reservations, and Tribal child welfare has had a particularly eliminating Federal jurisdiction for Indian poignant history in the past century. Country (Gardner & Melton, n.d.) Thousands of Indian children were forcibly removed from their homes, families, and • Tribal-State disagreements, especially those Tribes and placed in boarding schools where that end up in court and result in a “winner” a policy of assimilation left them unable to and a “loser” speak their Native language or participate • Availability of funding for child welfare in their Native culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Columbia Law Review
    COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW VOL. 99 DECEMBER 1999 NO. 8 GLOBALISM AND THE CONSTITUTION: TREATIES, NON-SELF-EXECUTION, AND THE ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING John C. Yoo* As the globalization of society and the economy accelerates, treaties will come to assume a significant role in the regulation of domestic affairs. This Article considers whether the Constitution, as originally understood, permits treaties to directly regulate the conduct of private parties without legislative implementation. It examines the relationship between the treaty power and the legislative power during the colonial, revolutionary, Framing, and early nationalperiods to reconstruct the Framers' understandings. It concludes that the Framers believed that treaties could not exercise domestic legislative power without the consent of Congress, because of the Constitution'screation of a nationallegislature that could independently execute treaty obligations. The Framers also anticipatedthat Congress's control over treaty implementa- tion through legislation would constitute an importantcheck on the executive branch'spower in foreign affairs. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 1956 I. Treaties, Non-Self-Execution, and the Internationalist View ..................................................... 1962 A. The Constitutional Text ................................ 1962 B. Globalization and the PoliticalBranches: Non-Self- Execution ............................................. 1967 C. Self-Execution: The InternationalistView ................
    [Show full text]
  • The Soul of America by Jon Meacham
    The Soul of America By Jon Meacham Answer the following: Chapter 1 (pg. 23-47) 1. What is the difference between The First Charter of Virginia (1606) and A Model of Christian Charity (1630)? How do each represent a contradiction? Pg. 23-24 2. How is Abraham Lincoln an example of “…birth mattered less than it ever had before…” when it came to the American dream of wealth & happiness. Pg. 24 3. Starting on page 24 and continuing through page 27, Meacham explains why the American presidency is important to the American experience. Give an example of why this is so. Also explain how the competing views of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and practical experience of the Revolutionary War and Confederation period shaped thoughts on government. 4. What fundamental role did president Lyndon Johnson want to accomplish as President? Pg. 27 5. How did Alexander Hamilton curtail his enthusiasm over the role of the President in two of his Federalist essays? Pg. 27-28 6. What began to change in regard to political power by the time of Andrew Jackson’s presidency? Give some examples of how Jackson was “the most contradictory of men”. Pg. 29-31 7. Give examples of how Abraham Lincoln further changed the role of the president by expanded on the ideals of both Jefferson & Jackson, especially after is Gettysburg Address. Pg. 31-32 8. How does Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt begin to further define the role of the presidency? Pg. 35-40 Chapter 2 (pg. 51-69) 9. After the Civil War, how did the South try to reimagine the purpose of the war in their terms? Why is this a false narrative of the events? Pg.
    [Show full text]
  • Puerto Rico, Colonialism In
    University at Albany, State University of New York Scholars Archive Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship Studies 2005 Puerto Rico, Colonialism In Pedro Caban University at Albany, State Univeristy of New York, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/lacs_fac_scholar Part of the Latin American Studies Commons Recommended Citation Caban, Pedro, "Puerto Rico, Colonialism In" (2005). Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship. 19. https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/lacs_fac_scholar/19 This Encyclopedia Entry is brought to you for free and open access by the Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies at Scholars Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Latin American, Caribbean, and U.S. Latino Studies Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholars Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 516 PUERTO RICO, COLONIALISM IN PUERTO RICO, COLONIALISM IN. Puerto Rico They automatically became subjects of the United States has been a colonial possession of the United States since without any constitutionally protected rights. Despite the 1898. What makes Puerto Rico a colony? The simple an­ humiliation of being denied any involvement in fateful swer is that its people lack sovereignty and are denied the decisions in Paris, most Puerto Ricans welcomed U.S. fundamental right to freely govern themselves. The U.S. sovereignty, believing that under the presumed enlight­ Congress exercises unrestricted and unilateral powers over ened tutelage of the United States their long history of Puerto Rico, although the residents of Puerto Rico do not colonial rule would soon come to an end.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy Or Inching Toward Commonwealth?*
    The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth?* On June 7, 1776, Richard Henry Lee proposed to the Second Con- tinental Congress "[t]hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States," and "[t]hat a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their con- sideration and approbation."' Lee's resolution reflected the linkage between independence and confederation in the public mind.2 The result was the Articles of Confederation, drafted in 1776-1777 and fi- nally ratified on March 1, 1781, which remained in effect until 1789 and represented the first American experiment with a written na- tional charter.3 The conventional view of this period is that it was dominated by deep factional conflict concerning the amount of power that should be vested in the national government. 4 The text of the Articles, ac- cording to this view, represented a victory for the group favoring minimal national authority, 5 and as a result the Articles government * The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistancc of Professor William E. Nelson of the Yale Law School in providing critical guidance and granting permission to make use of unpublished research materials. 1. 5 JOURNALS OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 425 (W. Ford ed. 1906) [hereinafter cited without cross-reference as JOURNALS]. 2. See NEw JERSEY IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, 1763-1783: A DOCUMENT.ARY HISTORY 402 (L. Gerlach ed. 1975) (issues of independence and confederation were inseparable) [hereinafter cited as DOCUIENTARY HISTORY]; cf. Jensen, The Articles of Confederation, in FUNDAMENTAL TESTAMENTS OF TilE AMERICAN RLvoI.UTIoN 62 (Library of Congress Sym- posium on the American Revolution 1973) (politicians who opposed confederation did so because they saw it as step toward independence) [hereinafter cited as Jensen, TESTA ENTS].
    [Show full text]
  • Luis Muñoz Rivera 1859–1916
    H former members 1898–1945 H Luis Muñoz Rivera 1859–1916 RESIDENT COMMISSIONER 1911–1916 UNIONIST FROM PUERTO RICO he leading voice for Puerto Rican autonomy in a proponent of home rule. Muñoz Rivera attended the the late 19th century and the early 20th century, local common (public) school between ages 6 and 10, Luis Muñoz Rivera struggled against the waning and then his parents hired a private tutor to instruct him. TSpanish empire and incipient U.S. colonialism to carve According to several accounts, Muñoz Rivera was largely out a measure of autonomy for his island nation. Though self-taught and read the classics in Spanish and French. As a devoted and eloquent nationalist, Muñoz Rivera had a young man, he wrote poetry about his nationalist ideals, acquired a sense of political pragmatism, and his realistic eventually becoming a leading literary figure on the island appraisal of Puerto Rico’s slim chances for complete and publishing two collections of verse: Retamas (1891) sovereignty in his lifetime led him to focus on securing and Tropicales (1902). To make a living, Muñoz Rivera a system of home rule within the framework of the initially turned to cigar manufacturing and opened a American empire. To that end, he sought as the island’s general mercantile store with a boyhood friend. His father Resident Commissioner to shape the provisions of the had taught him accounting, and he became, according to Second Jones Act, which established a system of territorial one biographer, a “moderately successful businessman.”3 rule in Puerto Rico for much of the first half of the 20th Muñoz Rivera married Amalia Marín Castillo in 1893.4 century.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Moments: the Role of Direct Popular Power in the American Constitutional Order
    University of Pennsylvania Law Review FOUNDED 1852 Formerly American Law Register VOL. 139 DECEMBER 1990 No. 2 ARTICLES REPUBLICAN MOMENTS: THE ROLE OF DIRECT POPULAR POWER IN THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER James Gray Popet INTRODUCTION .................................. 289 I. POPULAR VS. ELITIST REPUBLICANISM ON DIRECT POPULAR PARTICIPATION ............................... 295 A. Background: The Republican Revival ............. 296 t Associate Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, Newark, New Jersey. A.B. 1974,J.D. 1983 Harvard University. Earlier versions of this paper were presented to the Boston University Legal History Group and the Rutgers Law Faculty Colloquium. The final product benefitted greatly from critical comments by Akhil Reed Amar, C. Edwin Baker, CathieJo Martin, Eric Neisser, Richard Davies Parker, and John M. Payne. I am especially indebted to Vicki Been, Richard Revesz, and Aviam Soifer, who provided detailed critiques on short notice. James C.N. Paul gave guidance and encouragement throughout. Able research assistance was provided by Lisa Buckley, John Cioffi, Angela DiLeo, Nancy Gage, Sandra Levy, Mary Uva, Rosalind Westlake, and David Zuckerbrot. The S.I. Newhouse Research Fund supplied much-needed financial support. (287) 288 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 139:287 B. Direct PopularParticipation and the Problem of Size .... 297 C. The Elitist Solution .......................... 299 D. Back to Square One .......................... 301 E. A PopularRepublican Dilemma .................... 302 II. REPUBLICAN MOMENTS .......................... 304 A. Ackerman's ConstitutionalMoments ................ 304 B. Public Purpose and Creedal Passion ................ 306 C. Republican Moments ......................... 310 D. PopularRepublican Pathologies? ................... 313 III. REPUBLICAN MOMENTS AS A PARTIAL ANTIDOTE TO INTEREST GROUP POLITICS .............................. 315 A. From Narrow Self-Interest to Public Virtue ...........
    [Show full text]
  • The Other Madison Problem
    THE OTHER MADISON PROBLEM David S. Schwartz* & John Mikhail** The conventional view of legal scholars and historians is that James Madison was the “father” or “major architect” of the Constitution, whose unrivaled authority entitles his interpretations of the Constitution to special weight and consideration. This view greatly exaggerates Madison’s contribution to the framing of the Constitution and the quality of his insight into the main problem of federalism that the Framers tried to solve. Perhaps most significantly, it obstructs our view of alternative interpretations of the original Constitution with which Madison disagreed. Examining Madison’s writings and speeches between the spring and fall of 1787, we argue, first, that Madison’s reputation as the father of the Constitution is unwarranted. Madison’s supposedly unparalleled preparation for the Constitutional Convention and his purported authorship of the Virginia plan are unsupported by the historical record. The ideas Madison expressed in his surprisingly limited pre-Convention writings were either widely shared or, where more peculiar to him, rejected by the Convention. Moreover, virtually all of the actual drafting of the Constitution was done by other delegates, principally James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris. Second, we argue that Madison’s recorded thought in this critical 1787 period fails to establish him as a particularly keen or authoritative interpreter of the Constitution. Focused myopically on the supposed imperative of blocking bad state laws, Madison failed to diagnose the central problem of federalism that was clear to many of his peers: the need to empower the national government to regulate the people directly. Whereas Madison clung to the idea of a national government controlling the states through a national legislative veto, the Convention settled on a decidedly non-Madisonian approach of bypassing the states by directly regulating the people and controlling bad state laws indirectly through the combination of federal supremacy and preemption.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment: a Narrow Construction of an Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction Rather Than a Prohibition Against Jurisdiction
    A Historical Interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment: A Narrow Construction of an Affirmative Grant of Jurisdiction Rather than a Prohibition Against Jurisdiction William A. Fletcher* INTRODUCTION The eleventh amendment is one of the Constitution's most baf- fling provisions and, for its importance, one of the least analyzed. Its full text provides, The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any foreign state. In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court has treated the amend- ment as prohibiting federal courts from taking jurisdiction over suits brought in federal court against a state by private citizens.2 The * Acting Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berke- ley. B.A. 1968, Harvard College; B.A. 1970, Oxford University; J.D. 1975, Yale Law School. I wish to thank the Boalt Hall School of Law for its generous financial assistance through the Walter Perry Johnson Fund. I also wish to thank my colleagues and friends Stephen R. Barnett, John E. Coons, Ronan E. Degnan, David E. Feller, Dennis J. Hutchinson, Thomas M. Jorde, James H. Kettner, Jean C. Love, Paul J. Mishkin, Stefan A. Riesenfeld, David B. Roe, Harry N. Scheiber, Martin Shapiro, Michael E. Smith, Therese M. Stewart, Preble Stolz, and Jan Vetter, and my father, Robert L. Fletcher, for their valuable criticism and suggestions. Finally, I wish to thank Kevin James for his excellent research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • William Rainey Harper College Business and Social Science Division General Course Outline
    WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER COLLEGE BUSINESS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE DIVISION GENERAL COURSE OUTLINE HST 111 The American Experience to 1877 (3-0) 3 Course Course Course Title Lec-Lab Credit Prefix Number Hours COURSE DESCRIPTION Survey of the American experience through the pre-revolutionary period, the expansion westward and the Civil War. Special stress is placed upon the social, economic, cultural, political, and constitutional development of the United States. TOPICAL OUTLINE I. Introduction: America and the Expansion of Europe II. The Colonial South, the Colonial System, and New England Puritanism III. The Anglo-French Conflict, British Politics, and the American Revolution IV. The Growth of American Unity; the Revolution as a Social Movement, and Nationalism and the American Revolution V. The Confederation Period VI. The Motives of the Founding Fathers VII. The Federalist Period VIII. Thomas Jefferson: Ideas and Reality, Politics and Neutrality IX. The Causes of the War of 1812 X. Nationalism and Sectionalism XI. The Jacksonian Era XII. American Society During the First Half of the 19th Century XIII. “Manifest Destiny” XIV. The South and the Expansive North XV. Civil War XVI. Reconstruction METHOD OF PRESENTATION 1. Lecture 2. Discussion 3. Films 4. Overhead transparencies (Discussions will include both primary and secondary materials. Pretest will be given to students to determine degree of accomplishment in the course.) STUDENT OUTCOMES (The student should…) 1. comprehend the American experience through the pre-revolutionary period, the expansion westward, and the Civil War. 2. reason effectively and evaluate factual material in their true perspectives through the interpretative analysis of the American past. 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fourteenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals June 2015 The ourF teenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession Daniel A. Farber Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A. (2012) "The ourF teenth Amendment and the Unconstitutionality of Secession," Akron Law Review: Vol. 45 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol45/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Farber: The Fourteenth Amendment 12- FARBER_MACRO.DOCM 6/13/2012 3:42 PM THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECESSION Daniel A. Farber∗ I. Introduction ...................................................................... 479 II. Antebellum Conceptions of Citizenship and the Nature of the Union ...................................................................... 484 A. Secession and the Nature of the Union ...................... 485 B. Federalism
    [Show full text]
  • Muñoz Rivera and Karl Rove
    Muñoz Rivera and Karl Rove By : RAFAEL HERNANDEZ COLON Volume: 34 | No: 27 Page : 24 Issued : 07/13/2006 We celebrate this week the birthday of Luis Muñoz Rivera, Puerto Rico’s most eminent statesman of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Muñoz Rivera obtained the Autonomic Charter from Spain in 1897, which provided a wide measure of self-government for Puerto Rico. Under U.S. rule, he fought against the Foraker Act, the first organic act for the government of Puerto Rico passed by Congress. The Foraker Act, approved in 1900, profoundly disappointed Puerto Ricans because it represented a marked retrocession in self-government. At the end of the 19th century, the United States was the most progressive country in the world. The freedoms enshrined in the U. S. Constitution were broadly admired. Upon landing in Ponce July 27, 1898, Gen. Miles, the commander of the invading forces, proclaimed to our people that the purpose of the invasion was to bring the liberties of American institutions to Puerto Rico. Hope sprung throughout the island and the invading forces were joyously received by the majority of the population. These hopes were shattered when the Foraker Act was enacted depriving us even of the rights of self-government, which we had under the Spanish Crown. Muñoz Rivera organized a party called Union de Puerto Rico, which encompassed Puerto Ricans of all political persuasions. The party was swept into power and he was elected resident commissioner, a post he held until his death in 1916. At that time, he had negotiated the Jones Act in Congress, which gave us a wider measure of self-government and granted us American citizenship.
    [Show full text]