D2.His.16.9-12: Integrating Sources and Interpretations on Napoleon's Retreat from Russia, 1812

Overview

Lesson Procedure

65-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up5-10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Three people explain why a marathon runner collapsed at mile 24. A spectator says, 'It was the heat.' The team doctor says, 'She was dehydrated from mile 5.' The coach says, 'She started too fast.' How would you combine their explanations into one account, and what would you want to know about each speaker?"

   Collect answers. Point out that each speaker saw something different and had a different job. Combining them is integration: checking what each saw, when it happened, and which explanation fits all the evidence.

2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes

   Give the frame in three minutes. In June 1812 Napoleon led an enormous army into the Russian Empire. The Russian army withdrew rather than fight at once (Source 4). Napoleon reached and occupied Moscow, then retreated west, and by the last days of December his army had been almost destroyed (Foord, chapters VIII, X and XIV; Rose, preface). The losses table gives the scale. Stress that the figures come from two historians who counted in different ways.

   Numbers for the campaign of 1812 as two historians give them (Foord, 1914, chapter XIV; Rose, 1913, preface)

   Measure	Figure	Source
   Combatants who crossed the Vistula against Russia	some 674,000	Foord, chapter XIV
   Of these, took part in military operations	about 640,000	Foord, chapter XIV
   Men who crossed the Niemen in June 1812	600 thousand	Rose, preface
   Left as organised troops at the end of the campaign	perhaps 68,000	Foord, chapter XIV
   Disorganised and generally disarmed men of the other corps	about 25,000	Foord, chapter XIV
   Soldiers who perished, not counting camp-followers and other non-combatants	more than 350,000	Foord, chapter XIV
   Trained horses lost	more than 200,000	Foord, chapter XIV
   Guns that entered Russia / that returned	over 1300 / some 250	Foord, chapter XIV

   Five integration moves (an SVHS teaching tool)

   Move	Question to ask	Signal words
   Corroborate	Do two independent sources agree on a fact?	"Both ... and ... report that ..."
   Complicate	Does one source add a detail that makes another's explanation incomplete?	"However, ... shows that ..."
   Sequence	When did each cause act, and does the timing fit the explanation?	"Before ..., already ..."
   Weigh the interpretation	What evidence and purpose stand behind a historian's view?	"Writing in ..., ... emphasizes ... because ..."
   Synthesize	What single claim accounts for most of the evidence?	"Taken together, the sources suggest ..."

   Read Source 1. Ségur was a general on Napoleon's staff (Bourgogne's editor notes that he "was on the staff"). This is the second edition of the English translation, published in London in 1825. Ask: what does Ségur say the storm did, and how does he say it?

   1But on the 6th of November, the heavens declared against us. Their azure disappeared. The army marched enveloped in cold fogs. These fogs became thicker, and presently an immense cloud descended upon it in large flakes of snow. It seemed as if the very sky was falling, and joining the earth and our enemies to complete our destruction. All objects changed their appearance, and became confounded, and not to be recognised again; we proceeded, without knowing where we were, without perceiving the point to which we were bound; every thing was transformed into an obstacle. While the soldier was struggling with the tempest of wind and snow, the flakes, driven by the storm, lodged and accumulated in every hollow; their surfaces concealed unknown abysses, which perfidiously opened beneath our feet. There the men were engulphed, and the weakest, resigning themselves to their fate, found a grave in these snow-pits.

   2Those who followed turned aside, but the storm drove into their faces both the snow that was descending from the sky, and that which it raised from the ground: it seemed bent on opposing their progress. The Russian winter, under this new form, attacked them on all sides: it penetrated through their light garments and their torn shoes and boots. Their wet clothes froze upon their bodies; an icy envelope encased them and stiffened all their limbs. A keen and violent wind interrupted respiration: it seized their breath at the moment when they exhaled it, and converted it into icicles, which hung from their beards all round their mouths.

   3The unfortunate creatures still crawled on, shivering, till the snow, gathering like balls under their feet, or the fragment of some broken article, a branch of a tree, or the body of one of their comrades, caused them to stumble and fall. There they groaned in vain; the snow soon covered them; slight hillocks marked the spot where they lay: such was their only grave! The road was studded with these undulations, like a cemetery: the most intrepid and the most indifferent were affected; they passed on quickly with averted looks. But before them, around them, there was nothing but snow: this immense and dreary uniformity extended farther than the eye could reach; the imagination was astounded; it was like a vast winding-sheet which Nature had thrown over the army. The only objects not enveloped by it, were some gloomy pines, trees of the tombs, with their funeral verdure, the motionless aspect of their gigantic black trunks and their dismal look, which completed the doleful appearance of a general mourning, and of an army dying amidst a nature already dead.

   Read Source 2, from the memoirs of Adrien Bourgogne, a sergeant in the Imperial Guard. His editor explains that Bourgogne built the memoirs from notes made as a prisoner of war and from letters to his mother. Ask students to mark every date.

   1Early the next morning we set out (November 5th). Before leaving, a distribution of hand-mills was made in every regiment of the Guard, in case of finding any corn to grind; but as we found none, and the mills were very heavy, we got rid of them before twenty-four hours were over. This was a sad day--so many of our sick and wounded died. Up till now they had made superhuman efforts in the hope of reaching Smolensk and finding food and shelter.

   [...]

   2There was a dense fog that day, November 6th, and more than twenty-two degrees of frost. Our lips were frozen, our brains too; the whole atmosphere was icy. There was a fearful wind, and the snow fell in enormous flakes. We lost sight not only of the sky, but of the men in front of us. As we approached a wretched village, [...] a horseman came at full speed, asking for the Emperor. We heard afterwards that it was a General bringing news of Malet's conspiracy in Paris.

   [...]

   3During this half-hour several men had lain down and died; many more had fallen in the column while marching. Our ranks were getting thinned already, and this was only the very beginning of our troubles. [...]

   Model the integration moves with the worked examples.

   • Corroborate: two eyewitnesses on one day (Sources 1 and 2)

     Ségur writes that on "the 6th of November, the heavens declared against us" and that "an immense cloud descended upon it in large flakes of snow." Bourgogne dates his entry "November 6th" and reports that "the snow fell in enormous flakes."

     Result: Two men in the army, one on the staff and one in the ranks, independently date a heavy snowstorm to November 6, 1812. The storm itself is a well-corroborated fact; what it caused is still a question for interpretation.

   • Sequence: the army was shrinking before the snow (Source 2, paragraph 1)

     On November 5, the day before the storm, Bourgogne writes that "so many of our sick and wounded died" and that they had hoped to reach Smolensk, "finding food and shelter."

     Result: Men were already dying of sickness, wounds and lack of food before the storm of November 6. That timing means a claim that the snow alone destroyed the army does not fit all the evidence; the storm struck an army that was already failing.

   • Weigh the interpretation: what kind of evidence is Ségur's? (Source 1, paragraph 3)

     Ségur describes "a vast winding-sheet which Nature had thrown over the army" and "an army dying amidst a nature already dead." The editor of Bourgogne's memoirs notes that Ségur "was on the staff, and had not to endure such sufferings as the private soldiers."

     Result: Ségur's account is powerful evidence of what the snow looked like and how it felt to remember, written in 1825 in literary language. It is weaker as proof of cause, because it describes effects without measuring them, and its author saw the march from the staff.

   • Using numbers with care (the losses table)

     Foord counts about 640,000 men who took part in operations, of whom perhaps 68,000 organised troops and about 25,000 disorganised men remained. Rose speaks of 600 thousand who crossed the Niemen.

     Result: 68,000 + 25,000 = 93,000 left, which is about 14.5 percent of 640,000 (93,000 / 640,000 = 0.145). The two historians count differently (the Vistula or the Niemen, all combatants or one crossing), so an argument should name whose figure it uses rather than mix them.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Read Sources 3 and 4, two interpretations written about a century after the campaign. Rose was a physician; Foord was a military historian. In pairs, students fill the first rows of the Activity 1 matrix for these two sources, then answer: (a) In which months do Rose and Foord place the start of the army's losses? (b) Which of the explanations on the matrix does each source support? Discuss as a class.

   1The forced march continued day and night over the sandy soil of Poland. The tropical heat during the day and the low temperature at night, the frequent rainstorms from the north, the camping on bare and often wet ground, the ever increasing want of pure water and fresh provisions, the immense masses of dust, which, cloudlike, hung over the marching columns—all these difficulties put together had sapped the strength of the soldiers already at the beginning of the campaign. Many were taken sick before they reached the Niemen.

   2The march through Lithuania was hastened as much as the march through Poland. Provisions became scarcer all the time, meat from cattle that had suffered from starvation and exhaustion was for a long time the soldiers’ only food. The great heat, and the inhalation of sand and dust, dried the tissues of the body, and the thirsty soldiers longed in vain for a drink of water. Often there was no other opportunity to quench the thirst than the water afforded by the swamps. The officers were powerless to prevent the soldiers from kneeling down at stagnant pools and drinking the foul water without stint.

   3Thus the army, tired to the utmost from overexertion and privation, and disposed to sickness, entered the land of the enemy. The forced marches were continued during the day, through sand and dust, until stormy weather set in with rain, followed by cold winds.

   4With the appearance of bad weather, dysentery, which had already been observed at the time of the crossing of the Niemen, showed itself with greater severity. The route the army had taken from camp to camp was marked by offensive evacuations. The number of the sick became so great that they could not all be attended to, and medical treatment became illusory when the supply of medicaments was exhausted.

   5The greater part of the army fought in vain, however courageously, against the extending evil. As everything was wanting of which the sick were in need, there was no barrier against the spread of the disease, while at the same time the privations and hardships which had caused it continued and reached their climax.

   1Napoleon had, in fact, little reason for satisfaction. He had, as he hoped, debouched suddenly into the midst of his opponent’s line of defence; he had collected enormous forces upon his chosen point of attack, and had carefully concealed it until the last moment. His troops had made tremendous exertions to carry out his strategy. And yet hardly anything had in reality been achieved. He was in possession of his enemy’s empty head-quarters, and that was all. His army had suffered severely in the impetuous rush upon Vilna, while that of Russia had quietly withdrawn out of his reach. The carefully planned blow, which was to have been crushing, had been wasted upon the empty air.

   2On the 29th there was a violent thunderstorm, followed by five days of continuous rain. The results were most disastrous. Movements of troops, though much impeded, were not absolutely checked; but the vast trains on the Vilna-Kovno road were entirely disorganised. The bad roads and tracks became little better than quagmires. The horses broke down completely under the additional strain, especially since the country could supply very little fodder to replace that left behind in abandoned vehicles. The defects of the transport became evident. The waggons were too heavy for the bad Polish roads, and in order to forward any supplies at all they had to be replaced by country carts, which were only capable of carrying much smaller loads. The natural consequences were a shortage of food supplies, and much marauding in quest of them. The Lithuanians, whom the French were supposed to be freeing from the Russian yoke, were maltreated and plundered everywhere by their so-called deliverers. Requisitions, however unsparing, entirely failed to re-establish the wrecked transport. The army was so huge, its encumbrances so enormous, that the poverty-stricken country could not supply the number of draft animals needed. The artillery alone left 120 guns or more and hundreds of waggons at Vilna owing to lack of horses. The number of the latter lost may be conservatively estimated at 10,000; and some 30,000 soldiers were straggling about the country, marauding for food and committing every kind of outrage.

   Key. (a) Both place the start of the losses in the summer, long before the snow. Rose says that "Many were taken sick before they reached the Niemen" (Source 3, paragraph 1). Foord describes a violent thunderstorm on "the 29th" (June 29 in his chapter, a few days after the army crossed the Niemen), followed by five days of rain, and estimates 10,000 horses lost (Source 4, paragraph 2). (b) Rose supports disease and hardship, made worse by "the ever increasing want of pure water and fresh provisions"; Foord supports transport and supply, and the size of the army, "so huge" that the country could not supply its draft animals. Foord's paragraph 1 also shows the Russian army withdrawing "out of his reach," which made Napoleon's plan fail.

   Then read Source 7, a third passage from Foord, on the people of Smolensk and Moscow in August and September 1812. The sources so far describe the invading army's suffering; this one shows the cost of the invasion to the people whose towns it passed through. Source 7 is numbered last because it does not enter the matrix of explanations for the army's collapse.

   Words for Source 7. Magazines: supply depots. Artificers: skilled workmen. Apologists: defenders. Gun-waddings: cloth or paper packed into guns with the charge. Rostopchin: the Russian Governor-General of Moscow. Incendiaries: people who set fires on purpose. Conflagration: a huge fire. Licence: lawless freedom.

   1Orders were given to construct bakeries at Smolensk, and to form magazines and hospitals. The city, however, was little better than a heap of ruins. Nearly all the inhabitants had fled, and artificers and materials were lacking to carry out the works ordered by Napoleon. It is a favourite saying of the Emperor’s apologists that his orders were neglected. The truth is that they were too frequently impracticable. The hospitals, choked with some 15,000 sick and wounded, were in a frightful condition. So great was the dearth of supplies that the parchment of the city archives and gun-waddings were utilised for bandages.

   [...]

   2The French believed that the fire was caused by Rostopchin’s incendiaries, and hundreds or thousands of the Muscovites remaining in the city were hanged, bayoneted, or shot as such. [...]

   3It is probable that four-fifths of Moscow vanished in the conflagration, but it is doubtful if the material injury inflicted upon the invaders was very serious. [...]

   4With Napoleon’s departure pillage became universal. [...] Murder and outrage went hand in hand with pillage. Many inhabitants were massacred by the soldiery, maddened with licence and intoxicating liquor; many others perished in the flames of their homes, or in attempting to escape from them. [...]

   Discussion: the people in the army's path. Ask: Who suffered in Smolensk and Moscow besides the soldiers, and what does Foord say caused it (Source 7)? Read with Source 4, paragraph 2, where Foord says the Lithuanians, "whom the French were supposed to be freeing from the Russian yoke, were maltreated and plundered everywhere by their so-called deliverers." Lithuania was then part of the Russian Empire. What does this evidence add to an account of 1812 that looks only at the Grand Army? Remind students that Foord is a British historian of the campaign, not a Russian witness, so even this evidence about Russian civilians comes from outside Russia.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Run Activity 3. Students read Source 6, two sample thesis statements written by SVHS. Thesis B is weak on purpose. Each student explains in writing why Thesis A integrates the sources and Thesis B does not, and then writes a thesis of their own that uses at least three of Sources 1-4.

   Thesis A: The Grand Army was badly weakened long before the snowstorm of November 6, 1812. Rose's medical history shows heat, foul water and dysentery thinning the ranks in the summer, and Foord shows the transport and the horses failing in the first weeks; the cold that Ségur and Bourgogne describe struck an army that was already short of food, and Napoleon's own decisions made the losses worse.

   Thesis B (weak on purpose): The Grand Army was destroyed by the Russian winter. As Ségur writes, "The Russian winter, under this new form, attacked them on all sides." This proves that the cold was the cause of the disaster.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one place where two sources agree and one place where a source complicates another. Then write one sentence that integrates them." Hand out Source 5 for the homework.

   1Upon the whole, it cannot be doubted that the Grande Armée of 1812 was too heterogeneous, and that its quality was not of the best. Much of it had been hastily raised; and its enormous numbers merely added to the difficulty of provisioning it and, in consequence, to its misery and losses. General Bonnal thinks that Napoleon, when he collected the gigantic force, was more or less suffering from megalomania; and that he would have achieved more had he depended upon a Franco-Polish first line of about 250,000 troops, perfectly organised, disciplined and supplied. The point is certainly worthy of consideration.

   [...]

   2Napoleon’s natural impatience, and his rage at being unable to strike a crushing blow, will probably explain the fatal rush in August past Smolensk on to Moscow. Bodily suffering appears to the author to account satisfactorily for his undoubted lack of energy at Borodino. The fatal delay at Moscow may fairly be attributed to a combination of political circumstances and not entirely unfounded optimism as regards the future.

   3For some of Napoleon’s amazing blunders on the retreat reasons such as these will hardly account. The fatal dispersion of the marching columns along 60 miles of road, even after passing Smolensk, when the army was already worn down to a mere remnant; the unnecessarily slow pace of the march, the burning of the pontoon train previous to the passage of the Berezina, are cases in point; and can hardly be attributed to anything save declining intellectual powers.

   4On the whole, it seems difficult to deny that Napoleon, in 1812, had definitely entered upon his decline; that his perception was less clear than of old; that his bodily energy had decayed; that his genius, though still capable of burning brightly, now only blazed forth fitfully. Certainly there were times during the Moscow campaign when it appeared to be almost extinct.

   Teacher notes. (1) The sources describe the deaths of very many soldiers in hunger, illness and cold; keep the discussion on how evidence is weighed, and use Activity 2 rather than any re-enactment. (2) All the authors wrote from the invading army's side or about it: Ségur and Bourgogne served in it, Rose says that apart from one English translation he drew on French and German writings only, and Foord's history was published in London. No Russian source is printed here: the Russian army, Russian civilians and the people of Lithuania appear only through these authors. Say so plainly when students weigh the evidence, and treat it as a limit of the source set. Source 7 and Source 4, paragraph 2, are the page's evidence on civilians: Foord reports Smolensk in ruins and nearly deserted, Muscovites killed by the French as suspected fire-raisers, about four-fifths of Moscow burned, and inhabitants killed in the looting. (3) Source 4, paragraph 2, is printed in full, including Foord's sentence that the Lithuanians, whom the French claimed to be freeing from Russian rule, "were maltreated and plundered everywhere by their so-called deliverers," and his estimate that some 30,000 soldiers were straggling and "marauding for food and committing every kind of outrage." Source 7 omits a sentence in which Foord generalizes about the French national character; treat any such generalization as the author's opinion, not as evidence. (4) Bourgogne's editor writes that Ségur's account lacks "the personal accent of the experience that has been lived"; students should treat it as one account shaped by the author's position, memory and literary style, not as a neutral record.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why is Source 3, by Achilles Rose, best treated as an interpretation rather than a primary source?

   ARose served as an army doctor with the Grand Army in Russia in 1812 BRose wrote in 1913, explaining events from other writings CRose was a Russian officer who opposed Napoleon DRose's chapter gives no facts about the march at all

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Ségur writes that the cold "penetrated through their light garments and their torn shoes and boots" (Source 1, paragraph 2). How does this detail complicate the claim that the winter alone destroyed the army?

   AIt shows that the storm was milder than Bourgogne says BIt shows that Ségur had never seen the snow himself CIt proves that the Russian army had taken the soldiers' warm clothing DIt shows the men lacked proper clothing and boots, a supply problem

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Bourgogne reports "more than twenty-two degrees of frost" on November 6 (Source 2, paragraph 2). What does this detail add when it is set beside Ségur's account of the same day?

   AA rough measure of the cold that Ségur's description does not give BProof that the two men must have been describing two different days CEvidence that the cold did no harm to the soldiers DA figure that Ségur also gives, in the same words

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   After describing men dying during a half-hour halt, Bourgogne writes that "this was only the very beginning of our troubles" (Source 2, paragraph 3). What does this suggest for an argument about the causes?

   AThat nothing important happened after November 6 BThat Bourgogne had not yet joined the army CThat much of the dying still lay ahead, after the snow began DThat the summer losses were greater than any losses that came later

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Bourgogne notes that on November 6 "a General bringing news of Malet's conspiracy in Paris" rode up asking for the Emperor (Source 2, paragraph 2). Which part of an argument about the collapse could this detail support?

   AThe weather on the morning of the storm BPressures on Napoleon as ruler of France CThe diseases spread by foul water DThe number of horses lost at Vilna

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Rose lists "The tropical heat during the day and the low temperature at night, the frequent rainstorms from the north, the camping on bare and often wet ground" (Source 3, paragraph 1). What is the point of the list?

   AMany hardships combined to weaken the soldiers early BThe weather in Poland was pleasant for marching CThe army had too many doctors and not enough food DThe soldiers were sick only after they reached Moscow

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Rose writes that "the privations and hardships which had caused it continued and reached their climax" (Source 3, paragraph 5). What causal claim is he making about dysentery?

   ADysentery was brought into the army by the Russians BDysentery ended as soon as the army reached Lithuania CThe hardships of the march caused the disease to spread DDysentery was the only cause of the army's losses

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Foord writes that "The waggons were too heavy for the bad Polish roads" (Source 4, paragraph 2). What does this detail show?

   AThe roads had been destroyed by Russian troops BThe June weather was the main cause of the whole army's collapse CThe army had more wagons than it could ever use DThe army's equipment did not suit the country it crossed

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Foord reports that "The artillery alone left 120 guns or more and hundreds of waggons at Vilna owing to lack of horses" (Source 4, paragraph 2). What link between causes does this evidence show?

   AThe cold weather at Vilna froze the guns in place BA shortage of horses cost the army weapons and wagons CThe Russians captured the guns in a battle at Vilna DThe army had brought too few guns into Russia

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Rose was a physician writing a medical history; Foord was a military historian. How does this difference help explain their two passages?

    AEach notices the causes his own field studies most BEach copied his account from the other's book CEach wrote before the campaign took place DEach blames only the Russian winter for the losses

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    The losses table says that over 1300 guns entered Russia and some 250 returned. About what share of the guns came back?

    AAbout one in two BAbout one in ten CAbout one in five DAbout four in five

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Foord estimates 10,000 horses lost by the point Source 4 describes, and the losses table gives "more than 200,000" trained horses lost in the whole campaign. What share of the total had been lost in the first weeks?

    AAbout half of the total BMore than a quarter of the total number CAbout 20 percent of the total DAbout 5 percent, on these two figures

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which sentence best integrates an interpretation with a primary source?

    A"Rose was a physician in New York, and Bourgogne was a sergeant in Napoleon's Imperial Guard." B"Rose's summer dysentery (Source 3) explains why Bourgogne saw sick men dying before the snow (Source 2)." C"Ségur and Bourgogne both wrote about the snowstorm of November 6, 1812." D"Foord's history of the campaign was published in London in 1914, a century after the events."

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which source is the best evidence for what ordinary soldiers in the ranks experienced on the retreat?

    ASource 2, by a sergeant of the Guard BSource 1, by a general on the staff CSource 4, by a military historian in 1914 DSource 3, by a physician in 1913

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write two sentences that integrate Source 1 and Source 3: one that shows how they agree on something, and one that shows how Source 3 complicates Source 1's picture of why the army suffered.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Use the dates in Sources 2 and 4 and in Diagram 1 to write a short argument (three to five sentences) about the order in which causes acted on the army.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Foord gives two kinds of explanation: the Russians "had quietly withdrawn out of his reach" (Source 4, paragraph 1), and Napoleon felt "rage at being unable to strike a crushing blow" (Source 5, paragraph 2). Explain in three to five sentences how these two causes worked together.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Ségur's history is dedicated "TO THE VETERANS OF THE GRAND ARMY" and speaks to men whom "the ices of the North have disarmed." How might this audience and purpose shape the way Source 1 explains the disaster, and how should an argument use it?

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Answer this counterclaim in four to six sentences, integrating at least three sources: "The Grand Army was destroyed by the Russian winter."

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a thesis (two or three sentences) about why the Grand Army collapsed in 1812, and list which source you would use for each part of it.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.16.9-12: 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.