D2.Civ.3.9-12: How Constitutions, Laws and Treaties Maintain National and International Order

Overview

Lesson Procedure

60-75 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure5-10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Two neighbors argue over a fence. In one town there is a written property line, a court and a sheriff. In another there is only a handshake from years ago. In which town is the argument more likely to end peacefully? Name exactly what makes the difference."

   Collect answers and name the parts students found: a rule that both sides accept, someone with the authority to decide, a fair procedure, a way to settle disputes, and a way to enforce the result. Define the lesson's key term: order is a condition in which conflicts are settled by accepted rules rather than by force. National order is that condition inside a country; international order is that condition among countries. Today's question: how much do written documents, constitutions, laws, treaties and international agreements, actually help keep order, and why do some work better than others?

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   Part 1: A constitution and international order. In late 1787, while New York debated whether to ratify the new Constitution, John Jay published The Federalist No. 3. Jay was then the Confederation's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the official in charge of relations with Britain, so he wrote from experience and also as a strong supporter of ratification. His claim is a prediction about impact: a single national government will keep peace with other nations better than thirteen states. Read Source 1 and mark every "because" Jay gives.

   1The just causes of war for the most part arise either from violation of treaties, or from direct violence. America has already formed treaties with no less than six foreign nations, and all of them, except Prussia, are maritime, and therefore able to annoy and injure us: She has also extensive commerce with Portugal, Spain, and Britain, and, with respect to the two latter, has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to.

   2It is of high importance to the peace of America, that she observe the laws of nations towards all these Powers, and to me it appears evident that this will be more perfectly and punctually done by one national Government than it could be either by thirteen separate States, or by three or four distinct confederacies.

   [...]

   3Because, under the national Government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense, and executed in the same manner,—whereas, adjudications on the same points and questions, in thirteen States, or in three or four confederacies, will not always accord or be consistent; and that, as well from the variety of independent courts and judges appointed by different and independent Governments, as from the different local laws and interests which may affect and influence them. The wisdom of the Convention, in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by, and responsible only to, one national Government, cannot be too much commended.

   4Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national Government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved. The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning.

   [...]

   5So far therefore as either designed or accidental violations of treaties and the laws of nations afford just causes of war, they are less to be apprehended under one general Government than under several lesser ones, and in that respect, the former most favors the safety of the people.

   [...]

   6But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national Government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of States, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national Government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.

   Show Diagram 1. Each of its four mechanisms is a way a document can keep order. Model the analysis with Source 1.

   • Mechanism: dispute settlement through one court system (Source 1, paragraph 3)

     How, according to Jay, would the Constitution reduce the "just causes of war" that come from broken treaties?

     Result: Jay's chain of cause and effect: violations of treaties are a main cause of war (paragraph 1); under one national government, treaties "will always be expounded in one sense, and executed in the same manner" because the questions go to "courts appointed by, and responsible only to, one national Government" (paragraph 3); so fewer violations, fewer causes of war. The Constitution built this in: Article III gives federal courts cases arising under treaties, and Article VI makes treaties part of "the supreme Law of the Land."

   • Evidence for a claim of impact (Source 1, paragraph 4)

     Jay writes that "The case of the treaty of peace with Britain adds great weight to this reasoning." What case does he mean, and is it good evidence?

     Result: Under the Articles of Confederation several states passed laws that blocked British creditors from collecting prewar debts, against Article 4 of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, and ignored Congress's recommendation, promised in Article 5, that they restore confiscated Loyalist property. Britain answered by keeping its forts in the Northwest. Jay uses this as evidence that thirteen governments cannot keep one treaty. It is strong evidence that the old system failed; it is weaker evidence that the new one would succeed, since in 1787 that was still a prediction.

   • Testing the prediction against later events

     What later evidence could show whether Jay's predicted impact came true?

     Result: We need evidence from after 1789. One test is peace with Britain itself. In 1794, with war feared, Washington sent Jay to London; Jay's Treaty got British troops out of the northwestern forts in 1796 and set up joint commissions to settle debts and boundaries. Peace then held for eighteen years, until the War of 1812. That supports Jay's claim that one national government could settle quarrels "amicably," but the War of 1812 shows the limit: a national government can also choose war.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Part 2: A law and national order. In 1791 Congress taxed whiskey and stills to help pay the national debt. In western Pennsylvania, where many farmers turned grain into whiskey to ship it over the mountains, the tax was hated, and in July 1794 armed men attacked the home of the federal tax inspector, John Neville. Washington acted under the Militia Act of 1792, a law that set out when the President could call out state militias. Small groups read Source 2 (the proclamation) and Source 3 (Washington's report to Congress) and complete the four-mechanism chart. Gloss: "combinations" (organized groups), "marshal" (federal officer who carries out court orders), "insurgents" (people in armed revolt), "excise" (a tax on goods made inside the country).

   1Whereas combinations to defeat the execution of the laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States and upon stills have from the time of the commencement of those laws existed in some of the western parts of Pennsylvania; and

   [...]

   2Whereas by a law of the United States entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," it is enacted "that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed in any State by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshals by that act, the same being notified by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a State where such combinations may happen shall refuse or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the Legislature of the United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other State or States most convenient thereto as may be necessary; and the use of the militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session: Provided always, That whenever it may be necessary in the judgment of the President to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time;" and

   3Whereas James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district;" and

   4Whereas it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of Government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit:

   5Wherefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I, George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons being insurgents as aforesaid, and all others whom it may concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. [...]

   1During the session of the year 1790 it was expedient to exercise the legislative power granted by the Constitution of the United States "to lay and collect excises." In a majority of the States scarcely an objection was heard to this mode of taxation. In some, indeed, alarms were at first conceived, until they were banished by reason and patriotism. In the four western counties of Pennsylvania a prejudice, fostered and imbittered by the artifice of men who labored for an ascendency over the will of others by the guidance of their passions, produced symptoms of riot and violence. It is well known that Congress did not hesitate to examine the complaints which were presented, and to relieve them as far as justice dictated or general convenience would permit. But the impression which this moderation made on the discontented did not correspond with what it deserved. The arts of delusion were no longer confined to the efforts of designing individuals. The very forbearance to press prosecutions was misinterpreted into a fear of urging the execution of the laws, and associations of men began to denounce threats against the officers employed. From a belief that by a more formal concert their operation might be defeated, certain self-created societies assumed the tone of condemnation. Hence, while the greater part of Pennsylvania itself were conforming themselves to the acts of excise, a few counties were resolved to frustrate them.

   [...]

   2On this call, momentous in the extreme, I sought and weighed what might best subdue the crisis. On the one hand the judiciary was pronounced to be stripped of its capacity to enforce the laws; crimes which reached the very existence of social order were perpetrated without control; the friends of Government were insulted, abused, and overawed into silence or an apparent acquiescence; and to yield to the treasonable fury of so small a portion of the United States would be to violate the fundamental principle of our Constitution, which enjoins that the will of the majority shall prevail. On the other, to array citizen against citizen, to publish the dishonor of such excesses, to encounter the expense and other embarrassments of so distant an expedition, were steps too delicate, too closely interwoven with many affecting considerations, to be lightly adopted.

   [...]

   3In this uncertainty, therefore, I put into motion 15,000 men, as being an army which, according to all human calculation, would be prompt and adequate in every view, and might, perhaps, by rendering resistance desperate, prevent the effusion of blood.

   [...]

   4But succeeding intelligence has tended to manifest the necessity of what has been done, it being now confessed by those who were not inclined to exaggerate the ill conduct of the insurgents that their malevolence was not pointed merely to a particular law, but that a spirit inimical to all order has actuated many of the offenders.

   • Mechanism: procedure before force (Source 2, paragraphs 2-3)

     What two steps did the Militia Act require before the President could use the militia, and how did Washington carry them out?

     Result: First, the obstruction had to be "notified by an associate justice or the district judge": Justice James Wilson did this "on the 4th instant," August 4 (paragraph 3). Second, under the proviso the President had to issue a proclamation commanding the insurgents "to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time" (paragraph 2). Source 2 itself is that proclamation. The law tied military force to a judge's finding and a public warning, so order was kept in a way that limited the President's power.

   • Measuring impact (Source 3, paragraph 3)

     Washington "put into motion 15,000 men." What impact did he hope this size would have, and what happened?

     Result: He hoped that "by rendering resistance desperate" the force would "prevent the effusion of blood," that is, an army too large to fight would make fighting pointless. That is what happened: when the militia arrived in the fall of 1794 the resistance broke up without a battle. About twenty men were taken to Philadelphia for trial; two were convicted of treason, and Washington pardoned both.

   Two readings to put side by side. Many historians treat the episode as the first proof that the new Constitution could enforce federal law inside a state. Critics then and since have argued that the government exaggerated the danger to show its strength; Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote privately that an insurrection had been proclaimed but could never be found. Students should weigh both readings against the sources, and note that Source 3 is Washington defending his own decision to Congress.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Part 3: A treaty, an international agreement and international order. Students read Sources 4-6 and take the quiz. Source 4 is a State Department history of a dispute that followed the Civil War. Gloss: "commerce raiders" (warships that attack merchant ships), "neutrality laws" (laws forbidding a country's people to help either side in a war), "arbitration" (settling a dispute by giving it to judges both sides accept). Source 5 is part of a treaty signed in Paris in 1928 by fifteen nations, which most of the world later joined; Source 6 is the State Department's history of it. Gloss: "renunciation" (giving something up formally), "pacific means" (peaceful methods), "instrument of national policy" (a tool a government uses to get what it wants).

   1The Alabama claims were a diplomatic dispute between the United States and Great Britain that arose out of the U.S. Civil War. The peaceful resolution of these claims seven years after the war ended set an important precedent for solving serious international disputes through arbitration, and laid the foundation for greatly improved relations between Britain and the United States.

   2The controversy began when Confederate agents contracted for warships from British boatyards. Disguised as merchant vessels during their construction in order to circumvent British neutrality laws, the craft were actually intended as commerce raiders. The most successful of these cruisers was the Alabama, which was launched on July 29, 1862. It captured 58 Northern merchant ships before it was sunk in June 1864 by a U.S. warship off the coast of France. In addition to the Alabama, other British-built ships in the Confederate Navy included the Florida, Georgia, Rappahannock, and Shenandoah. Together, they sank more than 150 Northern ships and impelled much of the U.S. merchant marine to adopt foreign registry. [...]

   3The United States demanded compensation from Britain for the damage wrought by the British-built, Southern-operated commerce raiders, based upon the argument that the British Government, by aiding the creation of a Confederate Navy, had inadequately followed its neutrality laws. The damages discussed were enormous. Charles Sumner, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that British aid to the Confederacy had prolonged the Civil War by 2 years, and indirectly cost the United States hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars (the figure Sumner suggested was $2.125 billion). Some Americans adopted this argument and suggested that Britain should offer Canada to the United States in compensation. Such proposals were not taken seriously by British statesmen, but they convey the passion with which some Americans viewed the issue.

   4After years of unsuccessful U.S. diplomatic initiatives, a Joint High Commission meeting in Washington, D.C. during the early part of 1871 arrived at the basis for a settlement. The British Government expressed regret for its contribution to the success of Confederate commerce raiders. This agreement, dated May 8, 1871, and known as the Treaty of Washington, also established an arbitration commission to evaluate the merit of U.S. financial claims on Britain. In addition, the treaty addressed Anglo-American disputes over boundaries and fishing rights. The arbitration commission, which issued its decision in September 1872, rejected American claims for indirect damages, but did order Britain to pay the United States $15.5 million as compensation for the Alabama claims.

   1Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind;

   2Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated;

   3Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty;

   [...]

   4Article I

   5The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

   6Article II

   7The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

   [...]

   1The Kellogg-Briand Pact was an agreement to outlaw war signed on August 27, 1928. Sometimes called the Pact of Paris for the city in which it was signed, the pact was one of many international efforts to prevent another World War, but it had little effect in stopping the rising militarism of the 1930s or preventing World War II.

   [...]

   2The extension of the pact to include other nations was well-received internationally. After the severe losses of the First World War, the idea of declaring war to be illegal was immensely popular in international public opinion. Because the language of the pact established the important point that only wars of aggression – not military acts of self-defense – would be covered under the pact, many nations had no objections to signing it. If the pact served to limit conflicts, then everyone would benefit; if it did not, there were no legal consequences. In early 1928, negotiations over the agreement expanded to include all of the initial signatories. In the final version of the pact, they agreed upon two clauses: the first outlawed war as an instrument of national policy and the second called upon signatories to settle their disputes by peaceful means.

   [...]

   3The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement by a vote of 85–1, though it did so only after making reservations to note that U.S. participation did not limit its right to self-defense or require it to act against signatories breaking the agreement.

   4The first major test of the pact came just a few years later in 1931, when the Mukden Incident led to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Though Japan had signed the pact, the combination of the worldwide depression and a limited desire to go to war to preserve China prevented the League of Nations or the United States from taking any action to enforce it. [...] It soon became clear that there was no way to enforce the pact or sanction those who broke it; it also never fully defined what constituted “self-defense,” so there were many ways around its terms. In the end, the Kellogg-Briand Pact did little to prevent World War II or any of the conflicts that followed. Its legacy remains as a statement of the idealism expressed by advocates for peace in the interwar period.

   What happened next (use with Question 13): After World War II, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (judgment of 1946) pointed to the Kellogg-Briand Pact as one basis for treating the planning and waging of a war of aggression as a crime, one of the "crimes against peace" named in the tribunal's charter. The United Nations Charter (1945) went further: Article 2(4) requires members to refrain from "the threat or use of force" against other states, and the Charter created a Security Council with power to act against a breach of the peace.

5. Closure5-10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "A written document keeps order only when ___." Finish the sentence with one of the four mechanisms in Diagram 1, and support it with one source from today and one source that points the other way.

   Teacher notes: All passages are quoted exactly, including Dawson's spelling "Fœderal" and Richardson's "Allegany." Washington's address dates the excise to "the session of the year 1790"; the act was passed in that session and signed on March 3, 1791. Source 1 is advocacy written to win ratification, and Sources 2 and 3 are a president explaining his own use of force: ask students to weigh each as evidence of intent, not as neutral proof of impact. Comparing Source 4 with Sources 5-6 is the lesson's main analytic task; let students find the differences in Question 12 before you name them.

   Neutral framing: Questions about whether force was justified in 1794 or whether the 1928 pact was worthwhile have defensible answers on more than one side. The rubric scores evidence and reasoning, not the position a student takes.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 4, paragraph 3, on what argument did the United States base its demand for compensation?

   ABritain had declared war on the United States in 1862 BBritish ships had blockaded Northern ports during the war CBritain had not properly enforced its own neutrality laws DBritain had refused to recognize the Confederate government

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What did the Treaty of Washington (1871) set up to decide the American money claims?

   AA joint British and American naval patrol of the Atlantic BA vote of the U.S. Senate on the amount CA transfer of Canada to the United States DAn arbitration commission to judge the claims

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Sumner suggested damages of $2.125 billion; the commission awarded $15.5 million. About what share of Sumner's figure was awarded?

   AAbout 7.3 percent BAbout 73 percent CLess than 1 percent DAbout 0.073 percent

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 4, paragraph 4, what did the commission decide about "indirect damages," such as the claim that British help had made the war last longer?

   AIt doubled them as a penalty BIt rejected them CIt sent them to the U.S. Supreme Court DIt paid them in Canadian land

5. Question 5 of 20 · Short Answer

   Using Source 4, analyze how the Treaty of Washington helped keep international order between the United States and Britain. Name the mechanism from Diagram 1 it relied on and give two pieces of evidence.

   Show model answer

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Article I of Source 5, what do the parties "renounce"?

   AAll of their armies, navies and air forces BWar as a tool of national policy toward one another CEvery treaty that any of them had signed before 1928 DTheir seats and votes in the League of Nations

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What does Article II of Source 5 commit the parties to do?

   ASeek to settle all their disputes only by peaceful means BSubmit every one of their disputes to the World Court at The Hague CDefend any signer that is attacked DReduce their navies by one half

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to the third clause of the preamble (Source 5), what should happen to a signer that "shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war"?

   AIt should be expelled by a vote of the other signers BIt should pay damages to the nation it attacks CIt should be denied the benefits of the treaty DIt should be invaded by an army of the signers

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 6, paragraph 2, why did "many nations" have "no objections to signing" the pact?

   AIt covered only aggression, and breaking it had no legal cost BIt promised them loans from the United States CIt required every signer to cut its army DIt set up an international court to judge and punish aggressors

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    According to Source 6, what reservations did the U.S. Senate make when it ratified the pact by a vote of 85-1?

    AThat Congress could still declare war on any country whenever it chose to do so BThat the pact did not limit self-defense or require action against violators CThat the pact would end on its own after ten years unless renewed by all DThat Japan and Germany could not join

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    What was the first major test of the pact, according to Source 6?

    AGermany's invasion of Poland and the start of World War II in 1939 BThe Mukden Incident and Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 CThe worldwide depression that began in 1929 DThe League of Nations' vote to expel Italy

12. Question 12 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare the Treaty of Washington (Source 4) with the Kellogg-Briand Pact (Sources 5-6). Explain why one helped keep international order and the other did little to prevent war, using at least two mechanisms from Diagram 1.

    Show model answer

13. Question 13 of 20 · Short Answer

    Source 6 concludes that the pact "did little to prevent World War II." Using the "What happened next" note in Independent Practice, make the strongest case that the pact still had a lasting impact on international order, and then say how far you agree with Source 6.

    Show model answer

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 1, paragraph 1, Jay says that with Spain and Britain America "has, in addition, the circumstance of neighborhood to attend to." What does he mean?

    ABoth had been America's closest allies in the Revolution BBoth had refused to sign any treaty with Congress CBoth held territory bordering the United States DBoth owed large war debts to the thirteen states

15. Question 15 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In the last paragraph of Source 1, why does Jay expect a national government to settle disputes with other nations more peacefully than a state would?

    AIt would have a larger army to back up its demands BIt would be less moved by pride and local passions CIt would let each state decide its own foreign policy DIt would pay any foreign nation that complained

16. Question 16 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Under the Militia Act quoted in Source 2, when could the President call out the militia of other states?

    AWhenever any state's governor wrote to ask him for help BOnly after both houses of Congress had formally declared war COnly after the Supreme Court had ruled on the case DIf the state's militia failed and Congress was not in session

17. Question 17 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Under the same act, how long could militia called from other states stay in service?

    AUntil the insurgents had all been tried BFor no more than thirty days in all CUntil thirty days after the next session of Congress began DFor as long as the President alone judged it to be necessary

18. Question 18 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 3, paragraph 4, what does Washington say that later information ("succeeding intelligence") showed about the insurgents?

    ATheir anger was aimed at all order, not only one law BThey had been paid by agents of a foreign power CThey had already paid the whiskey tax in full DThey wanted Pennsylvania to leave the Union

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    In Source 2, paragraph 4, Washington says he acts "feeling the deepest regret for the occasion" and that "the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon." Why would a president put such words in a proclamation meant to restore order? Analyze their purpose.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Of the documents in today's sources (the Constitution as Jay describes it, the Militia Act, the Treaty of Washington and the Kellogg-Briand Pact), which did the most to maintain order? Make a claim, support it with two sources, and answer one counterclaim.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.Civ.3.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.