HISTORY 102 ESSAYS ON HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS You will be required to submit two (2) minimum four page typewritten essays (double- spaced) during the semester, based on your reading and interpretation of historic primary and secondary source documents. Essays less than the minimum four pages will receive a lower grade. The first involves analyzing and comparing and contrasting primary source documents and placing them within an historical context, using both the textbook and class lectures to support your work. The second requires you to support a thesis based on relevant primary and secondary source documents, including the textbook and class lectures. You may also consult other sources beside the textbook and class lectures if you feel it necessary. If you do, please be sure and cite them in the body of your essay. Essays will be submitted to turnitin.com (Please read syllabus for more detailed information). Your essays should be written clearly and concisely, and developed logically. Assistance with the mechanics of writing your essay may be found on a drop-in basis at the Writing Center (Humanities 122). Bring this handout to the Writing Center and your work in progress. 1 ESSAY #1 COMPARE AND CONTRAST Immigrant groups have faced discrimination since the establishment of the thirteen English colonies. In the 18th century German and French immigrants found themselves unwelcome and the subject of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. In the 19th century the Irish, the Italians, Poles, and Jews suffered severe discrimination as they came to the United States in large numbers. Asian-Americans did not come to the United States in significant numbers until the California Gold Rush, when there was a large immigration of Chinese. This immigration was followed by an influx of Japanese and Indians from the Subcontinent. In recent decades the United States has also seen large waves of immigration` from the Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere in Asia and the South Pacific. In 1882 anti-Asian animus was made manifest by the Chinese Exclusion Act and in 1907 the United States and Japan agreed to a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” to discourage Japanese citizens from emigrating to the United States. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japanese-born residents and American-born citizens of Japanese descent found themselves under suspicion as possible enemies and traitors. Hysteria and fear of a Japanese invasion of the Pacific Coast led President Franklin D. Roosevelt to issue Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942 giving the Secretary of War and the armed forces the authority to remove people of Japanese ancestry from what they designated as military areas and surrounding communities in the United States. These areas were legally off limits to Japanese aliens and Japanese- American citizens. Military Order 34, promulgated in April and May, 1942, under the authority of Executive Order 9066, set in motion the mass transportation and forced relocation of more than 120,000 Japanese people to sites the government called detention camps that were set up and occupied in about 14 weeks. Most of the people who were relocated lived on the West Coast and two-thirds were American citizens. In accordance with the order, the military transported these people to some 26 sites in seven western states, including remote locations in Washington, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona. Fred Toyasaburo Korematsu, 23, was born in the United States and did not comply with the order to leave his home and job, despite the fact that his parents had abandoned their home and their flower-nursery business in preparation for reporting to a camp. Korematsu decided to stay behind. He had plastic surgery on his eyes to alter his appearance; changed his name to Clyde Sarah; and claimed that he was of Spanish and Hawaiian descent. On May 30, 1942, the FBI arrested Korematsu for failure to report to a relocation center. After his arrest, while waiting in jail, he decided to allow the American Civil Liberties Union to represent him and make his case a test case to challenge the constitutionality of 2 the government’s order. Korematsu was tried in federal court in San Francisco, convicted of violating military orders issued under Executive Order 9066, given five years on probation, and sent to an Assembly Center in San Bruno, CA. Korematsu’s attorneys appealed the trial court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which agreed with the trial court that he had violated military orders. Korematsu asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear his case. On December 18, 1944, a divided Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that the detention was a “military necessity” not based on race. In 1983, a pro bono legal team with new evidence re-opened the 40- year-old case in a federal district court on the basis of government misconduct. They showed that the government’s legal team had intentionally suppressed or destroyed evidence from government intelligence agencies reporting that Japanese Americans posed no military threat to the U.S. The official reports, including those from the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, were not presented in court. On November 10, 1983, a federal judge overturned Korematsu’s conviction in the same San Francisco courthouse where he had been convicted as a young man. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act to compensate more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent who were incarcerated in internment camps during World War II. In 1991 President George H.W. Bush signed a letter of formal apology accompanied by a check in the amount of $20,000 as compensation to each surviving victim. Below you will find the following documents: 1) Executive Order #9066, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, authorizing the military to establish exclusion zones as it deemed necessary. 2) Military Order 34 (Evacuation Order) for Alameda County, CA, signed by General J. L. Dewitt 3) Excerpts from the Majority Report of the United States Supreme Court, authored by Justice Hugo Black, in Korematsu vs United States, December 18, 1944. 4) Excerpts from the Dissenting Report of the United States Supreme Court, authored by Justice Robert H. Jackson, in Korematsu vs United States, December 18, 1944. PLEASE READ THESE DOCUMENTS AND COMPARE AND CONTRAST THE ARGUMENTS OF JUSTICES BLACK AND JACKSON. Some QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER as you read these decisions: 1) Did Black argue that it was appropriate to remove Korematsu because he was deemed disloyal to the United States? What did Jackson say about Korematsu’s presumed loyalty? 3 2) What did Black say about the constitutionality of implementing a law aimed at a specific racial group? When would such a law be supportable? Did Black accept at all that the government’s actions were racially based? What did Jackson have to say about the constitutionality of a law aimed at a specific racial group , and whether a law can be aimed at a group, rather than individuals? 3) What previous decision did Black use to support the Court’s ruling in Korematsu and on what grounds, and why did Jackson reject Black’s argument? 4) What linkage did Black argue existed between removal and national security? What did Jackson say on such a linkage? 5) What did Jackson say about the Court uniformly approving military decisions even in time of war? What did he fear would occur if the Court blindly declares military decisions as being constitutional rather than short-term expedient measures? 6) What issues did Black refuse to rule on the Court’s narrow decision? What other issues besides failure to comply with Military Order 34 did Jackson say had to be considered by the Court? 7) What did Jackson have to say about the disparate treatment of those of Japanese descent as opposed to those whose descent was that of other belligerent nations at war with the United States at the time? 8) What did Jackson argue was the responsibility of the judiciary when there is a conflict between the military and the Constitution? 9) Can you think of any other examples of government animus towards a racial, ethnic, or religious group that have existed since World War II and what, if any, constitutional questions did/do they raise? ****************************************************************** PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT EXECUTIVE ORDER 9066 FEBRUARY 19, 1942 Executive Order Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104); Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, I hereby authorize and direct the Secretary of War, and the Military Commanders whom he may from time to time designate, whenever he or any designated Commander deems such action necessary or desirable, to prescribe military areas in such places and of such extent as he or the appropriate Military Commander may determine, from which any or all persons may be excluded, and with respect to which, the right of any person to enter, remain in, or leave 4 shall be subject to whatever restrictions the Secretary of War or the appropriate Military Commander may impose in his discretion. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized to provide for residents of any such area who are excluded therefrom, such transportation, food, shelter, and other accommodations as may be necessary, in the judgment of the Secretary of War or the said Military Commander, and until other arrangements are made, to accomplish the purpose of this order.