D2.His.4.9-12: Complex and Interacting Factors Behind Perspectives on Indian Removal and the Philippines

Overview

Lesson Procedure

80-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Think of a decision you made that had more than one reason behind it (choosing a class, a team, a job). Did your reasons all point the same way, or did some pull against each other? Did one reason change how you saw the others?"

   Collect two or three examples and sketch them as arrows on the board: arrows pointing the same way, arrows pulling apart, and one arrow bending another. Tell students these are the interactions they will look for in historical perspectives today.

2. Direct Instruction25 minutes

   Part 1: Four ways factors interact. Show Diagram 1 and the table. Stress that the labels are tools for explaining, not boxes to fill: one perspective may show several interactions at once.

   Four ways factors interact (an SVHS teaching tool)

   Interaction	What it means	A question to ask
   Reinforcing	Two or more factors push a person the same way, so the view becomes very hard to change.	Which factors point in the same direction here?
   Competing	Factors pull one person in different directions, and the person has to choose.	Where does this person admit a tension or a cost?
   Split	People share a factor (a belief, a law, a goal) but it leads them to opposite conclusions.	What do these opponents agree on, and why does it divide them?
   Filtering	One factor, often a belief, shapes how a person reads the information in front of them.	What does this person see, or fail to see, because of what they already believe?

   Part 2: The 1830s. Read Source 1 for background, then Source 2, Jackson's annual message of December 1830, sent after Congress had passed the removal law at its previous session, and Source 3, the Cherokee memorial as printed by Charles C. Royce of the Bureau of Ethnology in 1887. Note that Source 3 has two layers: Royce's 1887 introduction and the Cherokee Nation's words of 1834. Work the first two examples.

   1As the 19th century began, land-hungry Americans poured into the backcountry of the coastal South and began moving toward and into what would later become the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Since Indian tribes living there appeared to be the main obstacle to westward expansion, white settlers petitioned the federal government to remove them. Although Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe argued that the Indian tribes in the Southeast should exchange their land for lands west of the Mississippi River, they did not take steps to make this happen. Indeed, the first major transfer of land occurred only as the result of war.

   [...]

   2The Cherokee Nation resisted, however, challenging in court the Georgia laws that restricted their freedoms on tribal lands. In his 1831 ruling on Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “the Indian territory is admitted to compose a part of the United States,” and affirmed that the tribes were “domestic dependent nations” and “their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian.” However, the following year the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled that Indian tribes were indeed sovereign and immune from Georgia laws. President Jackson nonetheless refused to heed the Court’s decision. He obtained the signature of a Cherokee chief agreeing to relocation in the Treaty of New Echota, which Congress ratified against the protests of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay in 1835. The Cherokee signing party represented only a faction of the Cherokee, and the majority followed Principal Chief John Ross in a desperate attempt to hold onto their land. This attempt faltered in 1838, when, under the guns of federal troops and Georgia state militia, the Cherokee tribe were forced to the dry plains across the Mississippi. The best evidence indicates that between three and four thousand out of the fifteen to sixteen thousand Cherokees died en route from the brutal conditions of the “Trail of Tears.”

   1It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages.

   2The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves. The pecuniary advantages which it promises to the Government are the least of its recommendations. It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. By opening the whole territory between Tennessee on the north and Louisiana on the south to the settlement of the whites it will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier and render the adjacent States strong enough to repel future invasions without remote aid. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community. These consequences, some of them so certain and the rest so probable, make the complete execution of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude.

   3Toward the aborigines of the country no one can indulge a more friendly feeling than myself, or would go further in attempting to reclaim them from their wandering habits and make them a happy, prosperous people. I have endeavored to impress upon them my own solemn convictions of the duties and powers of the General Government in relation to the State authorities. For the justice of the laws passed by the States within the scope of their reserved powers they are not responsible to this Government. As individuals we may entertain and express our opinions of their acts, but as a Government we have as little right to control them as we have to prescribe laws for other nations.

   1While the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of this treaty were in progress John Ross and his delegation, finding no disposition on the part of the executive authority to enter into a discussion of Cherokee affairs predicated upon any other basis than an abandonment by them of their homes and country east of the Mississippi, presented a memorial to Congress complaining of the injuries done them and praying for redress. Without affecting to pass judgment on the merits of the controversy, the writer thinks this memorial well deserving of reproduction here as evidencing the devoted and pathetic attachment with which the Cherokees clung to the land of their fathers, and, remembering the wrongs and humiliations of the past, refused to be convinced that justice, prosperity, and happiness awaited them beyond the Mississippi.

   2The memorial of the Cherokee Nation respectfully showeth, that they approach your honorable bodies as the representatives of the people of the United States, intrusted by them under the Constitution with the exercise of their sovereign power, to ask for protection of the rights of your memorialists and redress of their grievances.

   [...]

   3The public faith of the United States, solemnly pledged to them, was duly kept in form and substance. Happy under the parental guardianship of the United States, they applied themselves assiduously and successfully to learn the lessons of civilization and peace, which, in the prosecution of a humane and Christian policy, the United States caused to be taught them. [...] They could have pointed with pleasure to the houses they had built, the improvements they had made, the fields they were cultivating; [...]

   4But now each of these blessings has been made to them an instrument of the keenest torture. Cupidity has fastened its eye upon their lands and their homes, and is seeking by force and by every variety of oppression and wrong to expel them from their lands and their homes and to tear them from all that has become endeared to them. [...] In this their distress they have appealed to the judiciary of the United States, where their rights have been solemnly established. They have appealed to the Executive of the United States to protect these rights according to the obligations of treaties and the injunctions of the laws. But this appeal to the Executive has been made in vain. [...]

   5The State of Georgia has assumed jurisdiction over them, has invaded their territory, has claimed the right to dispose of their lands, and has actually proceeded to dispose of them, reserving only a small portion to individuals, and even these portions are threatened and will no doubt, soon be taken from them. Thus the nation is stripped of its territory and individuals of their property without the least color of right, and in open violation of the guarantee of treaties. At the same time the Cherokees, deprived of the protection of their own government and laws, are left without the protection of any other laws, outlawed as it were and exposed to indignities, imprisonment, persecution, and even to death, though they have committed no offense whatever, save and except that of seeking to enjoy what belongs to them, and refusing to yield it up to those who have no pretense of title to it. [...]

   Part 3: Around 1900. Read Source 4 for background and Source 7, Senator Hoar's account written after the war. Work the third and fourth examples.

   1The decision by U.S. policymakers to annex the Philippines was not without domestic controversy. Americans who advocated annexation evinced a variety of motivations: desire for commercial opportunities in Asia, concern that the Filipinos were incapable of self-rule, and fear that if the United States did not take control of the islands, another power (such as Germany or Japan) might do so. Meanwhile, American opposition to U.S. colonial rule of the Philippines came in many forms, ranging from those who thought it morally wrong for the United States to be engaged in colonialism, to those who feared that annexation might eventually permit the non-white Filipinos to have a role in American national government. Others were wholly unconcerned about the moral or racial implications of imperialism and sought only to oppose the policies of President William McKinley’s administration.

   2After the Spanish-American War, while the American public and politicians debated the annexation question, Filipino revolutionaries under Aguinaldo seized control of most of the Philippines’ main island of Luzon and proclaimed the establishment of the independent Philippine Republic. When it became clear that U.S. forces were intent on imposing American colonial control over the islands, the early clashes between the two sides in 1899 swelled into an all-out war. Americans tended to refer to the ensuing conflict as an “insurrection” rather than acknowledge the Filipinos’ contention that they were fighting to ward off a foreign invader.

   1It has been my singular ill fortune that I have been compelled to differ from the Republican Party, and from a good many of my political associates, upon many important matters.

   2It has been my singular good fortune that, so far, they have all come to my way of thinking, as have the majority of the American people, in regard to every one, with perhaps one exception. That is the dealing of the American people with the people of the Philippine Islands, by the Treaty with Spain. The war that followed it crushed the Republic that the Philippine people had set up for themselves, deprived them of their independence, and established there, by American power, a Government in which the people have no part, against their will. No man, I think, will seriously question that that action was contrary to the Declaration of Independence, the fundamental principles declared in many State constitutions, the principles avowed by the founders of the Republic and by our statesmen of all parties down to a time long after the death of Lincoln.

   3If the question were, whether I am myself right, or whether my friends and companions in the Republican Party be right, I should submit to their better judgment. But I feel quite confident, though of that no man can be certain, that if the judgment of the American people, even in this generation, could be taken on that question alone, I should find myself in the majority. If it be not so, the issue is between the opinion of the American people for more than a century, and the opinion that the American people has expressed for one or two Presidential terms.

   4Surely I do not need to argue the question; at any rate, I will not here undertake to argue the question, that our dealing with the Philippine people is a violation of the principles to which our people adhered from 1776 to 1893. If the maintenance of slavery were inconsistent with them, it was admitted that in that particular we were violating them, or were unable from circumstances to carry them into effect. Mr. Jefferson thought so himself.

   5But the accomplishment by this Republic of its purpose to subjugate the Philippine people to its will, under the claim that it, and not they, had the right to judge of their fitness for self-government, is a rejection of the old American doctrine as applicable to any race we may judge to be our inferior.

   • Reinforcing: Jackson, 1830 (Source 2, paragraph 2)

     Which factors point the same way in Jackson's case for removal?

     Result: Jackson lists federal-state relations ("It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments"), land and growth (the Southern states will "advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power"), and security (removal "will incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier"). Constitutional politics, settlers' demand for land and military security all point toward removal, which helps explain why Jackson presents it as obvious. The paragraph also shows a fourth factor, his view of Native peoples, discussed in the next example.

   • Split: "civilization" in 1830 and 1834 (Source 2, paragraph 2, and Source 3, paragraph 3)

     Jackson and the Cherokee memorial both value "civilization." Why does that shared value divide them?

     Result: Jackson hopes removal will lead Native peoples "to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community" (Source 2, paragraph 2). The memorial answers that the Cherokee already "applied themselves assiduously and successfully to learn the lessons of civilization and peace" and points to "the houses they had built, the improvements they had made, the fields they were cultivating" (Source 3, paragraph 3). For Jackson the ideal justifies removal; for the Cherokee, meeting it is the reason they should stay. The same belief, held from opposite positions, deepens the conflict.

   • Competing: Hoar, 1903 (Source 7, paragraphs 1 and 3)

     Which factors pulled Senator Hoar in different directions?

     Result: Hoar writes that he was "compelled to differ from the Republican Party, and from a good many of my political associates" (paragraph 1), and admits that if the question were only whether he or "my friends and companions in the Republican Party be right, I should submit to their better judgment" (paragraph 3). Party loyalty pulled one way and his reading of the nation's founding principles pulled the other; in his account, principle won. Party is a real factor, but not a fixed one.

   • Reinforcing and filtering: the case for annexation (Source 4, paragraph 1)

     How did different motives combine among Americans who favored annexation?

     Result: The Office of the Historian lists "desire for commercial opportunities in Asia, concern that the Filipinos were incapable of self-rule, and fear that if the United States did not take control of the islands, another power (such as Germany or Japan) might do so" (paragraph 1). Commerce and strategy reinforced each other, and the belief that Filipinos were "incapable of self-rule" acted as a filter: it made the Philippine Republic easy to dismiss as a real government.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Sources 5 and 6, McKinley's and Aguinaldo's accounts from the same year, 1899. On an interaction map, they list at least three factors for each man and draw arrows between factors that interact, labeling each arrow with one of the four interaction types and a quotation.

   1In this manner the Philippines came to the United States. The islands were ceded by the Government of Spain, which had been in undisputed possession of them for centuries. They were accepted not merely by our authorized commissioners in Paris, under the direction of the Executive, but by the constitutional and well-considered action of the representatives of the people of the United States in both Houses of Congress. I had every reason to believe, and I still believe that this transfer of sovereignty was in accordance with the wishes and the aspirations of the great mass of the Filipino people.

   2From the earliest moment no opportunity was lost of assuring the people of the islands of our ardent desire for their welfare and of the intention of this Government to do everything possible to advance their interests. In my order of the 19th of May, 1898, the commander of the military expedition dispatched to the Philippines was instructed to declare that we came not to make war upon the people of that country, "nor upon any party or faction among them, but to protect them in their homes, in their employments, and in their personal and religious rights." That there should be no doubt as to the paramount authority there, on the 17th of August it was directed that "there must be no joint occupation with the insurgents"; that the United States must preserve the peace and protect persons and property within the territory occupied by their military and naval forces; that the insurgents and all others must recognize the military occupation and authority of the United States. As early as December 4, before the cession, and in anticipation of that event, the commander in Manila was urged to restore peace and tranquillity and to undertake the establishment of a beneficent government, which should afford the fullest security for life and property.

   3On the 21st of December, after the treaty was signed, the commander of the forces of occupation was instructed "to announce and proclaim in the most public manner that we come, not as invaders and conquerors, but as friends to protect the natives in their homes, in their employments, and in their personal and religious rights." On the same day, while ordering General Otis to see that the peace should be preserved in Iloilo, he was admonished that: "It is most important that there should be no conflict with the insurgents." On the 1st day of January, 1899, urgent orders were reiterated that the kindly intentions of this Government should be in every possible way communicated to the insurgents.

   1TO ALL CIVILIZED NATIONS AND ESPECIALLY TO THE GREAT NORTH AMERICAN REPUBLIC.

   2I dedicate to you this modest work with a view to informing you respecting the international events which have occurred during the past three years and are still going on in the Philippines, in order that you may be fully acquainted with the facts and be thereby placed in a position to pronounce judgment upon the issue and be satisfied and assured of the Justice which forms the basis and is in fact the foundation of our Cause. I place the simple truth respectfully before and dedicate it to you as an act of homage and as testimony of my admiration for and recognition of the wide knowledge, the brilliant achievements and the great power of other nations, whom I salute, in the name the Philippine nation, with every effusion of my soul.

   [...]

   3Between 10 or 12 in the forenoon of the next day the conference was renewed and Mr. Pratt then informed me that the Admiral had sent him a telegram in reply to the wish I had expressed for an agreement in writing. He said the Admiral's reply was--That the United States would at least recognize the Independence of the Philippines under the protection of the United States Navy. The Consul added that there was no necessity for entering into a formal written agreement because the word of the Admiral and of the United States Consul were in fact equivalent to the most solemn pledge that their verbal promises and assurance would be fulfilled to the letter and were not to be classed with Spanish promises or Spanish ideas of a man's word of honour. In conclusion the Consul said, "The Government of North America, is a very honest, just, and powerful government."

   Teacher check-in: ask each pair what information each man relied on and what each man's beliefs led him to expect. Push pairs past "they disagreed" to "here is the factor that made the same events look different to each of them." Remind students that Source 6 is Aguinaldo's own account of verbal promises; the page has no source from Consul Pratt or Admiral Dewey, so students should treat the reported promise as Aguinaldo's claim.

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Each student writes an analytical paragraph (8-10 sentences) on this question: "Which interaction of factors best explains the gap between the U.S. government's perspective and that of the people it governed or removed, in one of the two eras?" The paragraph must name at least three factors, label at least two interactions, and quote at least three sources. The quiz uses Sources 1-7.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one interaction that appears in both eras. Give one example from the 1830s and one from around 1900."

   Teacher notes. (1) The removal of the Cherokee is a documented injustice: Source 1 reports that the Cherokee were "forced to the dry plains across the Mississippi" and that "between three and four thousand" died on the "Trail of Tears." State it plainly. The Office of the Historian page from which Source 4 comes adds that "The war was brutal on both sides." (2) Jackson's and others' words about Native peoples and Filipinos ("savage," "rude institutions," "incapable of self-rule") are kept exactly as evidence of the beliefs being analyzed; discuss them as such. (3) Source 7 names the Republican Party and quotes no current politics; the party labels of 1900 should not be read as statements about today's parties. (4) Source 1 simplifies some events, so correct them in discussion. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) the Court said it could not hear the case because the Cherokee Nation was not a foreign state; in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) it held that Georgia's laws had no force in Cherokee territory, and Jackson did not act to enforce that ruling. The Treaty of New Echota was signed in December 1835 by a small group of Cherokee leaders, including Major Ridge and Elias Boudinot, without the approval of the Cherokee government. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate, not by Congress as a whole, in May 1836, with one vote more than the two-thirds needed. (5) The Office of the Historian page for Source 4 also reports "the death of over 4,200 American and over 20,000 Filipino combatants" and that "As many as 200,000 Filipino civilians died from violence, famine, and disease." Fighting began on February 4, 1899, and the Senate approved the treaty with Spain two days later. McKinley's "both Houses of Congress" refers to that Senate vote and to the House's vote for the payment to Spain. (6) Source 6 is Aguinaldo's own account, published while he was fighting the United States. Pratt and Dewey later denied that they had promised independence, and Dewey said so to a Senate committee in 1902. Present the promise as Aguinaldo's claim, not as an established fact. (7) Royce's word "pathetic" meant "moving, deserving pity" in 1887, not "weak." The memorial's own words ("parental guardianship," "lessons of civilization") are the Cherokee Nation's way of addressing Congress in the terms of its time. "Insurgents" is McKinley's word for the forces of the Philippine Republic. (8) Grading rewards analysis of interacting factors, not agreement with any side.

   For the homework: Source 8 (below) gives two sample analyses to evaluate and revise.

   Analysis A (an SVHS-written sample analysis)

   President Jackson supported removal for one reason: white Americans wanted Cherokee land. Everything else in his message is an excuse. The Cherokee opposed removal because they did not want to move. The two sides simply wanted different things.

   Analysis B (an SVHS-written sample analysis)

   Jackson's support for removal rested on several factors that strengthened one another: his view that the federal government could not overrule a state's laws, the demand of settlers for land, and a belief that Native peoples should adopt white American ways. The Cherokee memorial shared that last belief in part, since it points to the farms and homes the nation had built, but drew the opposite conclusion from it. The same idea, held in different positions, pushed the two sides apart rather than together.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which statement analyzes interacting factors rather than simply listing them?

   AJackson's reasons were land, security, state power and his view of Native peoples BSince Jackson held that states ruled the tribes, settlers' claims looked lawful CJackson supported removal only because settlers wanted the land DJackson sent his annual message to Congress in December 1830

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which example best shows a "competing" interaction?

   AA President cites land, security and state power, all pointing toward one policy BTwo opponents both appeal to the Constitution and reach opposite conclusions CA governor wants a factory's jobs but has vowed to protect the river DA leader's belief about a people makes him doubt their own government is real

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 1, paragraph 1, what did Presidents Jefferson and Monroe do about the Southeastern tribes?

   AThey favored a land exchange but took no steps toward it BThey signed the first removal treaties and moved the tribes west CThey promised the tribes that no state would ever claim their lands DThey asked the Supreme Court to decide who owned the land

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 1, paragraph 2, who signed the Treaty of New Echota for the Cherokee?

   APrincipal Chief John Ross, after a vote of the whole nation BA chief of one faction; most Cherokee followed Ross CThe Cherokee delegation that wrote the memorial of 1834 DNo Cherokee at all; the treaty was signed only by Georgia officials

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 2, paragraph 1, how does Jackson present the removal policy to Congress?

   AAs a new and risky experiment that might fail BAs a policy forced on him by a ruling of the Supreme Court CAs a temporary measure until the war ended DAs a long-standing "benevolent policy"

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 2, paragraph 3, what does Jackson say about the federal government's power over state laws affecting the tribes?

   AThe federal government must strike down any unjust state law BIt has no more right to control them than to make laws for other nations CThe states must ask the federal government for approval before passing such laws DThe tribes may appeal state laws directly to the President

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 3, paragraph 1, Royce says he reprints the memorial "Without affecting to pass judgment on the merits," yet he describes the Cherokees' "devoted and pathetic attachment" to their land. What does this suggest about Royce's 1887 perspective?

   AHe wanted readers to support removal in his own time BHe knew nothing about the dispute and copied the memorial at random CHe claims neutrality but shows sympathy for the Cherokee DHe believed the memorial was a forgery written by others

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 3, paragraph 4, to which two branches of the U.S. government had the Cherokee appealed, and with what result?

   ATo Congress and the President, and both promised to protect them BTo the courts, which upheld them, and to the Executive, in vain CTo the Senate and the Supreme Court, and both refused to hear them DOnly to the governor of Georgia, who ignored their appeal entirely

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   According to Source 3, paragraph 5, what had the State of Georgia done?

   AClaimed authority over the Cherokee and begun selling off their lands BOffered to buy Cherokee land at a fair price set by Congress CAsked the federal government to send troops to protect the Cherokee from settlers DAgreed to let the Cherokee keep their own laws

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 4, paragraph 2, says Americans tended to call the conflict an "insurrection." What does this word choice reveal?

    AThat Americans and Filipinos agreed on what the war was about BThat Americans saw Filipino resistance as rebellion CThat the Filipinos had started the war against Spain DThat the war was fought mostly at sea by the two navies

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 5, paragraph 1, what does McKinley say he believed about the wishes of the Filipino people?

    AThat they wanted Spain to keep the islands BThat they had voted in an election to join the United States CThat most of them wanted the transfer DThat they were divided evenly for and against American rule

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 5, paragraph 2, what instruction of August 17, 1898, does McKinley quote?

    AThat there must be no joint occupation with the insurgents BThat Filipino leaders should be invited to share in governing Manila CThat American troops should leave once Spain surrendered DThat the Philippine Republic should be recognized at once

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 6, paragraph 3, what does Aguinaldo say Consul Pratt reported as Admiral Dewey's reply?

    AThat the United States would buy the islands from Spain BThat the U.S. would recognize independence under its navy's protection CThat Aguinaldo should return to Hong Kong and wait there for further orders DThat the Philippines would become a U.S. state within ten years

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    In Source 7, paragraph 2, what does Hoar say the war in the Philippines did?

    AIt crushed the Filipinos' republic, against the Declaration BIt brought the Filipinos the independence they had asked for CIt was approved by every member of his party, including Hoar himself DIt made the Philippines a state with a vote in Congress

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Using paragraphs 1 and 3 of Source 2 (not paragraph 2), name two factors behind Jackson's perspective and explain how they reinforce each other.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Jackson (Source 2) and the Cherokee memorial (Source 3) both appeal to law and government. Explain this "split": how does the same appeal lead to opposite conclusions?

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    McKinley (Source 5) and Aguinaldo (Source 6) wrote about the same events in the same year. Explain how information and belief interact differently for each man.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Source 4, paragraph 1, says American opponents of annexation acted from very different factors. Explain how such different factors could produce the same position, and use Hoar (Source 7, paragraph 5) as one example.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Name one interaction type that appears in both eras, and give an example from the 1830s and one from around 1900.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Choose a perspective the sources leave out (for example, a Georgia settler in the 1830s or an American soldier in the Philippines). Write two questions that would help you analyze the interacting factors behind it, and name a kind of source that could answer each.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.4.9-12: 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.