DOCSLIB.ORG

606 Part 337—Oath of Allegiance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
606 Part 337—Oath of Allegiance § 337.1 8 CFR Ch. I (1±1±97 Edition) shall be made upon the Attorney Gen- which the applicant shall affix his or eral of the United States, and upon the her signature: official in charge of the Service office where the hearing was held pursuant to I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all alle- § 336.2. giance and fidelity to any foreign prince, po- (c) Standard of review. The review will tentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or be de novo, and the court will make its which I have heretofore been a subject or cit- own findings of fact and conclusions of izen; that I will support and defend the Con- law. The court may also conduct, at stitution and laws of the United States of the request of the petitioner, a hearing America against all enemies, foreign and do- de novo on the application for natu- mestic; that I will bear true faith and alle- ralization. giance to the same; that I will bear arms on (d) Exhaustion of remedies. A Service behalf of the United States when required by determination denying an application the law; that I will perform noncombatant for naturalization under section 335(a) service in the Armed Forces of the United of the Act shall not be subject to judi- States when required by the law; that I will cial review until the applicant has ex- perform work of national importance under hausted those administrative remedies civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, with- available to the applicant under sec- out any mental reservation or purpose of tion 336 of the Act. Every petition for evasion; so help me God. judicial review shall state whether the validity of the final determination to (b) Alteration of form of oath; affirma- deny an application for naturalization tion in lieu of oath. In those cases in has been upheld in any prior adminis- which a petitioner or applicant for nat- trative proceeding and, if so, the na- uralization is exempt from taking the ture and date of such proceeding and oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this the forum in which such proceeding section in its entirety, the inapplicable took place. clauses shall be deleted and the oath shall be taken in such altered form. PART 337ÐOATH OF ALLEGIANCE When a petitioner or applicant for nat- uralization, by reason of religious Sec. training and belief (or individual inter- 337.1 Oath of allegiance. pretation thereof), or for other reasons 337.2 Oath administered by the Immigration of good conscience, cannot take the and Naturalization Service or an Immi- gration Judge. oath prescribed in paragraph (a) of this 337.3 Expedited administration of oath of section with the words ``on oath'' and allegiance. ``so help me God'' included, the words 337.4 When requests for change of name ``and solemnly affirm'' shall be sub- granted. stituted for the words ``on oath,'' the 337.5Ð337.6 [Reserved] 337.7 Information and assignment of indi- words ``so help me God'' shall be de- viduals under exclusive jurisdiction. leted, and the oath shall be taken in 337.8 Oath administered by the courts. such modified form. Any reference to 337.9 Effective date of naturalization. `oath of allegiance' in this chapter is 337.10 Failure to appear for oath adminis- understood to mean equally `affirma- tration ceremony. tion of allegiance' as described in this AUTHORITY: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443, 1448. paragraph. (c) Obligations of oath. A petitioner or § 337.1 Oath of allegiance. applicant for naturalization shall, be- (a) Form of oath. Except as otherwise fore being naturalized, establish that it provided in the Act and after receiving is his or her intention, in good faith, to notice from the district director that assume and discharge the obligations such applicant is eligible for natu- of the oath of allegiance, and that his ralization pursuant to § 335.3 of this or her attitude toward the Constitu- chapter, an applicant for naturaliza- tion and laws of the United States ren- tion shall, before being admitted to ders him or her capable of fulfilling the citizenship, take in a public ceremony obligations of such oath. held within the United States the fol- lowing oath of allegiance, to a copy of 606 VerDate 21-FEB-97 13:41 Feb 21, 1997 Jkt 174022 PO 00000 Frm 00606 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 E:\CFR\174022.098 174022 Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice § 337.3 (d) Renunciation of title or order of no- ally involved in activities surrounding bility. A petitioner or applicant for nat- the ceremony should be encouraged to uralization who has borne any heredi- participate in Service-administered tary title or has been of any of the or- ceremonies by local arrangement. ders of nobility in any foreign state (b) Authority to administer oath of alle- shall, in addition to taking the oath of giance. The authority of the Attorney allegiance prescribed in paragraph (a) General to administer the oath of alle- of this section, make under oath or af- giance shall be delegated to Immigra- firmation in public an express renunci- tion Judges and to the following offi- ation of such title or order of nobility, cers of the Service: The Commissioner; in the following form: district directors; deputy district di- (1) I further renounce the title of rectors; officers-in-charge; assistant of- (give title or titles) which I have here- ficers-in-charge; or persons acting in tofore held; or behalf of such officers due to their ab- (2) I further renounce the order of no- sence or because their positions are va- bility (give the order of nobility) to cant. In exceptional cases where the which I have heretofore belonged. district director or officer-in-charge determines that it is appropriate for [22 FR 9824, Dec. 6, 1957, as amended at 24 FR employees of a different rank to con- 2584, Apr. 3, 1959; 32 FR 13756, Oct. 3, 1967; 56 FR 50499, Oct. 7, 1991] duct ceremonies, the district director or officer-in-charge may make a re- § 337.2 Oath administered by the Im- quest through the Commissioner to the migration and Naturalization Serv- Assistant Commissioner, Adjudica- ice or an Immigration Judge. tions, for permission to delegate such (a) Public ceremony. An applicant for authority. The request shall furnish naturalization who has elected to have the reasons for seeking exemption from his or her oath of allegiance adminis- the requirements of this paragraph. tered by the Service or an Immigration The Commissioner may delegate such Judge and is not subject to the exclu- authority to such other officers of the sive oath administration authority of Service or the Department of Justice an eligible court pursuant to section as he or she may deem appropriate. 310(b) of the Act shall appear in person (c) Execution of questionnaire. Imme- in a public ceremony, unless such ap- diately prior to being administered the pearance is specifically excused under oath of allegiance, each applicant shall the terms and conditions set forth in complete the questionnaire on Form N± this part. Such ceremony shall be held 445. Each completed Form N±445 shall at a time and place designated by the be reviewed by an officer of the Service Service or the Executive Office for Im- who may question the applicant re- migration Review within the United garding the information thereon. If de- States and within the jurisdiction rogatory information is revealed, the where the application for naturaliza- applicant's name shall be removed tion was filed, or into which the appli- from the list of eligible persons as pro- cation for naturalization was trans- vided in § 335.5 of this chapter and he or ferred pursuant to § 335.9 of this chap- she shall not be administered the oath. ter. Such ceremonies shall be con- [60 FR 37803, July 24, 1995] ducted at regular intervals as fre- quently as necessary to ensure timely § 337.3 Expedited administration of naturalization, but in all events at oath of allegiance. least once monthly where it is required (a) An applicant may be granted an to minimize unreasonable delays. Such expedited oath administration cere- ceremonies shall be presented in such a mony by either the court or the Serv- manner as to preserve the dignity and ice upon demonstrating sufficient significance of the occasion. District cause. In determining whether to grant directors shall ensure that ceremonies an expedited oath administration cere- conducted by the Service in their dis- mony, the court or the district director tricts, inclusive of those held by sub- shall consider special circumstances of office managers, are in keeping with a compelling or humanitarian nature. the Model Plan for Naturalization Special circumstances may include but Ceremonies. Organizations tradition- are not limited to: 607 VerDate 21-FEB-97 13:41 Feb 21, 1997 Jkt 174022 PO 00000 Frm 00607 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 E:\CFR\174022.099 174022.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MODIFICATIONS and WAIVERS to TAKING the OATH of ALLEGIANCE Practice Advisory
    Practice Advisory | May 2018 MODIFICATIONS AND WAIVERS TO TAKING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE Practice Advisory By Sharon Hing I. Introduction The final step in the naturalization process is the oath of allegiance to the United States. The oath demonstrates loyalty to the United States and the Constitution. All applicants must demonstrate that they are “attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.”1 The oath also includes statements that the applicant is willing to “bear arms on behalf of the United States,” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces” when required by law.2 Although the text of the oath is included in the naturalization application form, and a United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer reviews the text of the oath with the applicant at the naturalization interview, a person is not a United States citizen until they have taken the oath. Applicants may request modifications to the oath of allegiance in select circumstances. In other instances, applicants may request to waive taking the oath altogether. In this practice advisory, we outline the requirements for each. A. Waivers to the Oath Requirement USCIS may waive taking the oath of allegiance in two instances: (1) when the applicant is a child; or (2) when the applicant has a physical or development disability or mental impairment. 1. Children In the main, a person cannot naturalize unless they are 18 years of age or older. However, there are several ways that a child can become a U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • I Pledge Allegiance: the Naturalization Oath and Dual Citizenship
    The Insightful Immigration Blog Commentaries on Immigration Policy, Cases and Trends http://blog.cyrusmehta.com I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE: THE NATURALIZATION OATH AND DUAL CITIZENSHIP Author : Cyrus Mehta By Gary Endelman and Cyrus D. Mehta The oath ceremony is often one of the most significant and profound in an immigrant’s journey towards American citizenship. It signifies the end of the immigrant experience and is the final threshold before one’s acceptance as a citizen. It is also a happy moment, and the ceremony is generally accompanied by a stirring speech from a judge or well-known public official. Still, the oath, as prescribed by section 337 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), requires a serious commitment from the immigrant to forever renounce former allegiances, and also insists that the naturalization applicant take the oath without mental reservation or evasion. People may still wish to keep their former citizenship even while becoming American citizens for a number of reasons, such as ease of travel to the country to conduct business or to continue to access the country’s social security and healthcare system. Our blog examines the impact of the oath on the immigrant’s desire to retain his or her citizenship of the former country. At journey’s end, we suggest that, contrary to popular assumption or common understanding, American law is much more tolerant towards and accepting of dual citizenship than most of us, lay and lawyer alike, have ever believed. The current format of the oath of allegiance is as follows: “I hereby
    [Show full text]
  • NEW! Lesson Plan: Naturalization & Citizenship
    LESSON PLAN: NATURALIZATION AND CITIZENSHIP This page intentionally left blank 1 INTRODUCTION The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana is pleased to present this educational lesson plan on naturalization and citizenship. The lesson plan is designed to help teachers engage students in learning about the naturalization process in the United States and the role of the federal courts in that process. Students will also participate in meaningful conversation about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Teaching students about citizenship gives them the foundation to understand and participate in this country's democratic society. Democracies require engaged, informed, and responsible citizens in order to thrive. Teaching students about naturalization helps them to value their status as citizens and involves them in critical thinking about the benefits and duties that come with citizenship. GRADE LEVELS: This lesson plan can be adapted for middle school or high school use. INDIANA ACADEMIC STANDARDS: Middle School 8.2 Civics and Government High School United States Government (USG) Standard 2: Foundations of Government in the United States United States Government (USG) Standard 3: Purposes, Principles and Institutions of Government in the United States United States Government (USG) Standard 5: Roles of Citizens in the United States OBJECTIVES: After completing this lesson, a student should be able to: Discuss the rights and responsibilities of citizenship Know the meaning of key vocabulary terms Understand
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Manuscripts
    CIVIL WAR MANUSCRIPTS CIVIL WAR MANUSCRIPTS MANUSCRIPT READING ROW '•'" -"•••-' -'- J+l. MANUSCRIPT READING ROOM CIVIL WAR MANUSCRIPTS A Guide to Collections in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress Compiled by John R. Sellers LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON 1986 Cover: Ulysses S. Grant Title page: Benjamin F. Butler, Montgomery C. Meigs, Joseph Hooker, and David D. Porter Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Library of Congress. Manuscript Division. Civil War manuscripts. Includes index. Supt. of Docs, no.: LC 42:C49 1. United States—History—Civil War, 1861-1865— Manuscripts—Catalogs. 2. United States—History— Civil War, 1861-1865—Sources—Bibliography—Catalogs. 3. Library of Congress. Manuscript Division—Catalogs. I. Sellers, John R. II. Title. Z1242.L48 1986 [E468] 016.9737 81-607105 ISBN 0-8444-0381-4 The portraits in this guide were reproduced from a photograph album in the James Wadsworth family papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. The album contains nearly 200 original photographs (numbered sequentially at the top), most of which were autographed by their subjects. The photo- graphs were collected by John Hay, an author and statesman who was Lin- coln's private secretary from 1860 to 1865. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. PREFACE To Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War was essentially a people's contest over the maintenance of a government dedi- cated to the elevation of man and the right of every citizen to an unfettered start in the race of life. President Lincoln believed that most Americans understood this, for he liked to boast that while large numbers of Army and Navy officers had resigned their commissions to take up arms against the government, not one common soldier or sailor was known to have deserted his post to fight for the Confederacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Media and Military Relations During the Mexican War
    MEDIA AND MILITARY RELATIONS DURING THE MEXICAN WAR A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Military History by MAJ MATTHEW N. METZEL, MAJ, U.S. ARMY M.A., University of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona, 2004 Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 2010-01 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 11-06-2010 Master’s Thesis AUG 2009 – JUN 2010 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Media and Military Relations During the Mexican War 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Flegenheimer Case—Decision No
    REPORTS OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS RECUEIL DES SENTENCES ARBITRALES Flegenheimer Case—Decision No. 182 20 September 1958 VOLUME XIV pp. 327-390 NATIONS UNIES - UNITED NATIONS Copyright (c) 2006 ITALIAN-UNITED STATES CONCILIATION COMMISSION 327 claimants to establish that fact and then come forth with the best evidence in lieu thereof. The claimants have not produced any official real property records nor have they given any explanation for their absence. The Italian Ministry of the Treasury rejected the claim because the official records show that the property belonged to persons other than the claimants. Thereafter the claimants were given 90 days within which to submit additional evidence of title but after the expiration of that time they did not come forth with any new evidence nor did they make any statement to refute the findings of the Italian Ministry of the Treasury. Their inaction, when combined with the complete inadequacy of the evidence already submitted, leaves the Com- mission no alternative but to reject their claim for failure of proof. Therefore, the Commission DECIDES : 1. The Petition submitted by the Agent of the United States of America in behalf of Federico and Beniamino d'Annolfo is rejected. 2. This Decision is final and binding. Rome, June 25, 1957. The Representative of the The Representative of the United States of America Italian Republic Alexander J. MATTURRI Antonio SORRENTINO FLEGENHEIMER CASE—DECISION No. 182 OF 20 SEPTEMBER 1958 1 Claim under Article 78 of Peace Treaty—Exception of inadmissibility—National-
    [Show full text]
  • Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Fulton Lectures Law School Lectures and Events 2008 Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/fulton_lectures Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerhard Casper, "Forswearing Allegiance" (Fulton Lectures 2008). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Lectures and Events at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fulton Lectures by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Maurice and Muriel Fulton Lecture Series Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper May 1, 2008 The Law School The University of Chicago Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1311584 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1311584 Forswearing Allegiance Gerhard Casper* My subject is the requirement that new citizens abjure prior allegianc- es. It was introduced into federal naturalization law in 1795 and it is still the law of the land.1 A seemingly small historical topic, it pro- vides cause to reflect about changes in the concept of citizenship that have taken place over time, especially in recent decades. The 1795 “Act to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization”2 provided that an alien, in order to become a citizen, had to have been a resident of the United States for at least five years and had to declare, in court, three years before his admission, on oath or affirmation, that “it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States,3 and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any for- eign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at the time, be a citizen or subject.” The actual forswearance of allegiance took place at the time of naturalization and was to be recorded by the clerk of the court that admitted the applicant to citizenship.
    [Show full text]
  • Expatriation in the United States: Precept and Practice Today and Yesterday
    Expatriation in the United States: Precept and Practice Today and Yesterday ALAN G. JAMES* Holmes wrote that in order to know what the law is, we must know what it has been, and what it tends to become. 1990 is a felici- tous occasion to cast a backward glance and reflect on the profound changes that have occurred in the precept and practice of expatria- tion in the United States. Ten years have passed since the Supreme Court delivered its landmark decision of Vance v. Terrazas. The Na- tionality Act of 1940, the first all embracing compilation of statutory and common law provisions on nationality and expatriation became law half a century ago. And seventy-five years ago this past summer, Henry James, foremost American novelist of his time, forfeited United States citizenship by obtaining naturalization in Britain.' James' transfer of allegiance to the King of England in the second year of the Great War, unquestionably a voluntary act done with the intention of relinquishing United States citizenship, aroused lively interest in both Britain and the United States; enthusiastic approval in the former, censure in the latter. The event is an evocative episode in the annals of expatriation in America, not only because of the illustrious personage involved but also because of the reasons that led James to elect British nationality. American citizens who have * B.A. 1943, Williams College; LL.B. 1947 Yale Law School. Mr. James retired from the Foreign Service in 1980 and in February 1982 was appointed Chairman of the Board of Appellate Review. The opinions expressed in this Article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of State or members of the Board.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    Oaths and Affirmations of Public Office ENID CAMPBELL* INTRODUCTION Traditionally, many persons appointed or elected to public office have been required by law to take some oath or affirmation before or shortly after they enter upon the office. Sometimes more than one oath or affirmation is required of them. The form of the required oath or affirmation is usually prescribed by statute and is promissory and affirmative in character.' A person who takes the prescribed oath concludes with the words "So help me God". A person who, instead, takes an affirmation will solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that he or she commits himself or herself to some obligation. What is promised by the taker of a promissory oath or affirmation often relates to the duties of a particular public office, for example that of a judge of a particular court. The person taking such an oath or affirmation may also be required to take an oath or affirmation of allegiance. In Australia this oath or affirmation is one by which a person pledges to be faithful to the Queen, her heirs and successors. Sometimes the law requires no more than the taking of an oath or affirmation of this kind. For example, in most Australian jurisdictions those elected as members of parliament are required to take only the oath or affirmation of allegiance. Should Australian voters decide that they no longer want an hereditary monarch to be their head of state, the forms of the prescribed oaths and affirmations of alle- giance would obviously need to be revised. There could even be a question about whether there is any need to retain oaths and affirmations of this kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship the Limits of Afroyim V Rusk Alan M
    Cornell Law Review Volume 54 Article 7 Issue 4 April 1969 Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship the Limits of Afroyim v Rusk Alan M. Gunn Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alan M. Gunn, Acquisition of Foreign Citizenship the Limits of Afroyim v Rusk, 54 Cornell L. Rev. 624 (1969) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol54/iss4/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ACQUISITION OF FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP: THE LIMITS OF AFROYIM v. RUSK In Afroyim v. Rusk' the Supreme Court abandoned its section-by- section attack on the expatriation provisions of the Nationality Act of 19402 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 3 and stated flatly that an American citizen4 has "a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship." 5 Commentators have suggested that the impact of Afroyim may be restricted by a broad definition of "voluntary relin- quishment." 6 In particular, it has been suggested that one who volun- tarily obtains naturalization in a foreign country should be expatriated,7 and that such result can be considered a "voluntary" renunciation under Afroyim.8 Congress could not so define "voluntary relinquish- ment" because Afroyim requires intent to relinquish citizenship in 1 387 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Expatriation: Afroyim V
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 25 Number 2 Article 5 1-1-1976 Expatriation: Afroyim v. Rusk and Its Progeny Jonathan D. Factor Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Jonathan D. Factor, Expatriation: Afroyim v. Rusk and Its Progeny, 25 Buff. L. Rev. 453 (1976). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol25/iss2/5 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXPATRIATION: AFROYIM V. RUSK AND ITS PROGENY INTRODUCTION Notwithstanding nearly 200 years of experience under the Con- stitution and the conceded importance of the citizenship tie,1 Ameri- cans have not yet arrived at a clear understanding of the law of expa- triation. Confusion has arisen primarily because of the lack of termi- nological clarity in this area of inquiry. "The word 'expatriation' tends to be used indiscriminately, in both judicial discussion and popu- lar speech, as comprehending all losses of national status, however brought about."2 The most widely accepted definition of expatriation is that it is the voluntary renunciation or relinquishment of citizen- ship.8
    [Show full text]
  • Inventing a Foundation Myth: Upper Canada in the War of 1812 Jeffrey Wasson Clark University, [email protected]
    Clark University Clark Digital Commons Student Works Scholarly Collections & Academic Work Summer 7-10-2014 Inventing a Foundation Myth: Upper Canada in the War of 1812 Jeffrey Wasson Clark University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.clarku.edu/studentworks Part of the Political History Commons Recommended Citation Wasson, Jeffrey, "Inventing a Foundation Myth: Upper Canada in the War of 1812" (2014). Student Works. 6. https://commons.clarku.edu/studentworks/6 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Scholarly Collections & Academic Work at Clark Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Works by an authorized administrator of Clark Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Wasson | 1 Inventing a Foundation Myth: Upper Canada in the War of 1812 Jeffrey Wasson 4-14-2014 AN HONORS THESIS Submitted to the History Department of Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree with Honors in History. And accepted on the recommendation of Drew McCoy Wasson | 2 Abstract Using the Canadian Government’s War of 1812 bicentennial commemoration campaign as a springboard this thesis will explore the events and effects of the War of 1812 on Canada by focusing on three of this campaign’s main assertions. These three areas are the Canadian population’s role in the defense of Upper Canada during the conflict, the role of Native Americans in the conflict and its long term effects on them as a group, and finally the War’s effects on the development of Canadian nationalism and nationhood.
    [Show full text]