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

   Read the prompt aloud and give students three minutes to write.

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A district announces that it will send its own security officers to a school dance. The principal objects: 'We have eight trained chaperones, nobody here asked for help, and your officers can do nothing ours cannot.' The district replies: 'District property and district buses are involved, and our rules let us protect them without anyone's request.' What is each side's claim? Which argument is about need and which is about authority? What evidence would settle each one?"

   Collect answers. Students usually notice that the two sides are partly talking past each other: the principal argues that help is not needed, the district that it has the right to act. Name the skill: to evaluate differing points of view, a reader separates each author's claims, tests the reasoning that connects them to evidence or principles, and weighs the evidence itself. RH.11-12.6 asks students to reach a judgment this way, not by choosing the side they like. The lesson's two authors disagreed in almost exactly these terms in July 1894.

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   Part 1: The audit. Show the table. Students copy the three parts and their test questions onto their audit sheet, one column per author.

   A three-part audit for evaluating an author's point of view

   Part	Questions to ask	Warning signs
   Claim	What exactly is asserted? How strong is it ("entirely," "probably")? Is it about facts, law or motives?	A claim that shifts between facts and principle; a claim about motives with no support
   Reasoning	What connects the evidence or principle to the claim? Would the conclusion follow if the evidence were true?	Arguing from an absence ("no one asked"); dismissing the other side instead of answering it
   Evidence	Who supplied it, and what stake did they have? Is it specific and checkable? When was it gathered? Does it answer the other side's evidence?	Unnamed places and people; "abundant proof" with no details; evidence gathered after the decision it defends

   Part 2: The two letters. Read T1, the first six paragraphs of Altgeld's telegram-letter of July 5 as the labor historian W. F. Burns printed it in 1894, then T2, Cleveland's account of the same letter and his reply, from an essay he published in 1904. A "marshall" (Burns's spelling) is a United States marshal, the officer who carries out the orders of a federal court; Illinois had two federal court districts, northern (Chicago) and southern. Students mark claims in one color, reasoning in a second and evidence in a third. Work the three examples, then show Diagram 2.

   1"Dear Sir:—I am advised that you have ordered federal troops to go into service in the state of Illinois. Surely the facts have not been correctly presented to you in this case or you would not have taken this step, for it is entirely unnecessary and as it seems to me unjustifiable. Waiving all question of courtesy I will say that the state of Illinois is not only able to take care of itself, but it stands ready to-day to furnish the federal government any assistance it may need elsewhere.

   2"Our military force is ample and consists of as good soldiers as can be found in the country. They have been ordered promptly, whenever and wherever they were needed. We have stationed in Chicago alone three regiments of infantry, one battery and one troop of cavalry, and no better soldiers can be found. They have been ready every moment to go on duty and have been and are now eager to go into service.

   3"But they have not been ordered out because nobody in Cook county, whether official or private citizen, asked to have their assistance or even intimated in any way that their assistance was desired or necessary.

   4"So far as I have been advised the local officials have been able to handle the situation, but if any assistance were needed the state stood ready to furnish 100 men for every one man required, and stood ready to do so at a moment's notice. Notwithstanding these facts the federal government has been applied to by men who had political and selfish motives for wanting to ignore the state government.

   5"We have just gone through a long coal strike more extensive here than in any other state because our soft coal fields are larger than that of any other state. We have now had ten days of the railroad strike, and we have promptly furnished military aid wherever the local officials needed it. In two instances the United States marshall for the southern district of Illinois applied for assistance to enable him to enforce the processes of the United States court and troops were promptly furnished him, and he was assisted in every way he desired. The law has been thoroughly executed and every man guilty of violating it during the strike has been brought to justice.

   6"If the marshall of the northern district of Illinois or the authorities of Cook county needed military assistance they had but to ask for it in order to get it from the state.

   1I must not fail to mention here as part of the history of this perplexing affair, a contribution made by the governor of Illinois to its annoyances. This official not only refused to regard the riotous disturbances within the borders of his State as a sufficient cause for an application to the Federal Government for its protection “against domestic violence” under the mandate of the Constitution, but he actually protested against the presence of Federal troops sent into the State upon the general Government’s own initiative and for the purpose of defending itself in the exercise of its well-defined legitimate functions.

   2On the fifth day of July, twenty-four hours after our soldiers had been brought to the city of Chicago, pursuant to the order of July 3d, I received a long despatch from Governor Altgeld, beginning as follows:

   3I am advised that you have ordered Federal troops to go into service in the State of Illinois. Surely the facts have not been correctly presented to you in this case or you would not have taken the step; for it is entirely unnecessary and, as it seems to me, unjustifiable. Waiving all question of courtesy, I will say that the State of Illinois is not only able to take care of itself, but it stands ready to-day to furnish the Federal Government any assistance it may need elsewhere.

   4This opening sentence was followed by a lengthy statement which so far missed actual conditions as to appear irrelevant and, in some parts, absolutely frivolous.

   5This remarkable despatch closed with the following words:

   6As Governor of the State of Illinois, I protest against this and ask the immediate withdrawal of Federal troops from active duty in this State. Should the situation at any time get so serious that we cannot control it with the State forces, we will promptly and freely ask for Federal assistance; but until such time I protest with all due deference against this uncalled-for reflection upon our people, and again ask for the immediate withdrawal of these troops.

   7Immediately upon the receipt of this communication, I sent to Governor Altgeld the following reply:

   8Federal troops were sent to Chicago in strict accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States, upon the demand of the Post-Office Department that obstructions of the mails should be removed, and upon the representation of the judicial officers of the United States that process of the Federal courts could not be executed through the ordinary means, and upon abundant proof that conspiracies existed against commerce between the States. To meet these conditions, which are clearly within the province of Federal authority, the presence of Federal troops in the city of Chicago was deemed not only proper but necessary; and there has been no intention of thereby interfering with the plain duty of the local authorities to preserve the peace of the city.

   • Two claims that answer different questions (T1 paragraph 1, T2 paragraph 8)

     Altgeld: the order "is entirely unnecessary and as it seems to me unjustifiable." Cleveland: "Federal troops were sent to Chicago in strict accordance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States" and "the presence of Federal troops in the city of Chicago was deemed not only proper but necessary."

     Result: Altgeld's main claim is about need, and he hedges the legal part ("as it seems to me unjustifiable"). Cleveland's main claim is about legal authority, stated without a hedge, and he adds need in a passive phrase ("was deemed ... necessary") that does not say who judged. Evaluation starts by splitting the issue: on authority, the question is whose reading of the law is stronger; on need, the question is whose evidence is stronger. A student who writes "Altgeld is right" or "Cleveland is right" without saying about what has not yet evaluated anything.

   • Reasoning from an absence (T1 paragraphs 3 and 6)

     Altgeld: the state troops "have not been ordered out because nobody in Cook county, whether official or private citizen, asked to have their assistance"; and "If the marshall of the northern district of Illinois or the authorities of Cook county needed military assistance they had but to ask for it."

     Result: The evidence (no one asked the state) is probably accurate, but the reasoning is weak: it shows that no one asked the governor, not that no help was needed. The marshal of the northern district, the Chicago district, did ask for help; he asked Washington instead (T4). Altgeld's reasoning is stronger where he uses his own record: twice the state promptly sent troops to the marshal of the southern district (paragraph 5), which is specific evidence that the state would help a federal officer who asked.

   • Evidence named but not given, and an opponent dismissed (T2 paragraphs 4 and 8)

     Cleveland's reply cites "the demand of the Post-Office Department," "the representation of the judicial officers of the United States" and "abundant proof that conspiracies existed against commerce between the States." In 1904 he calls the middle of Altgeld's letter "a lengthy statement which so far missed actual conditions as to appear irrelevant and, in some parts, absolutely frivolous."

     Result: The reply names three sources, which lets a reader judge who stood behind the decision, but it gives none of their facts, so in July 1894 Altgeld could not test them. The 1904 essay quotes only the opening and the close of Altgeld's letter and labels the rest instead of answering it; T1 shows that the skipped paragraphs contain his most specific evidence (the regiments in Chicago, the coal strike, the southern-district marshal). Dismissal is a reasoning move, not a rebuttal, and it lowers the weight of Cleveland's judgment of Altgeld, though not necessarily of his decision.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Now test the evidence on the ground. T3 is the next part of Altgeld's letter, with his two examples. T4 is the evidence Cleveland published in 1904: the letter of Edwin Walker, the special counsel appointed by Attorney-General Richard Olney to help the district attorney; Olney's reply; and the telegram of J. W. Arnold, the United States marshal at Chicago, endorsed by Judge P. S. Grosscup and the government's attorneys. To ditch a train is to run it off the track. Pairs fill a second audit sheet for T3 and T4 before the class works the examples.

   1"At present some of our railroads are paralyzed, not by reason of obstruction but because they cannot get men to operate their trains. For some reason they are anxious to keep this fact from the public and for this purpose are making an outcry about obstructions in order to avert attention. Now, I will cite to you two examples which illustrate the situation: Some days ago I was advised that the business of one of our railroads was obstructed at two railroad centers, that there was a condition bordering on anarchy there—and I was asked to furnish protection so as to enable the employees of the road to operate the trains. Troops were promptly ordered to both points. Then it transpired that the company had not sufficient men on its line to operate one train. All the old hands were orderly but refused to go. The company had large shops in which worked a number of men who did not belong to the railway union and who could run an engine. They were appealed to to run the train but flatly refused to do so. We were obliged to hunt up soldiers who could run an engine and operate a train.

   2"Again two days ago appeals which were almost frantic came from officials of another road stating that at an important point on their line trains were forcibly obstructed and that there was a reign of anarchy at that place and they asked for protection so that they could move their trains. Troops were put on the ground in a few hours' time, when the officer in command telegraphed me that there was no trouble and had been none at that point, but the road seemed to have no men to run the trains and the sheriff wired that he did not need troops, but would himself move every train if the company would only furnish an engineer. The result was that the troops were there over twelve hours before a single train was moved although there was no attempt at interference by anyone. It is true that in several instances a road made an effort to work a few green men and a crowd standing around insulted them and tried to drive them away, and in a few other instances they cut off Pullman sleepers from trains. But all these troubles were local in character and could easily be handled by the state authorities. Illinois has more railroad men than any state in the Union, but as a rule they are orderly and well behaved. This is shown by the fact that so very little actual violence has been committed. Only a very small per cent of these men have been guilty of any infractions of the law. The newspaper accounts have in many cases been pure fabrications and in others wild exaggerations.

   1On the morning of the next day, July 3, the Attorney-General received a letter from Mr. Walker, the special counsel, in which, after referring to the issuance of the injunctions and setting forth that the marshal was engaged in serving them, he wrote:

   2I do not believe that the marshal and his deputies can protect the railroad companies in moving their trains, either freight or passenger, including, of course, the trains carrying United States mails. Possibly, however, the service of the writ of injunction will have a restraining influence upon Debs and other officers of the association. If it does not, from present appearances, I think it is the opinion of all that the orders of the court cannot be enforced except by the aid of the regular army.

   3Thereupon the Attorney-General immediately sent this despatch to the district attorney:

   4I trust use of United States troops will not be necessary. If it becomes necessary, they will be used promptly and decisively upon the justifying facts being certified to me. In such case, if practicable, let Walker and the marshal and United States judge join in statement as to the exigency.

   5A few hours afterward the following urgent and decisive despatch from the marshal, endorsed by a judge of the United States court and the district attorney and special counsel, was received by the Attorney-General.

   6CHICAGO, ILL., July 3, 1894.

   7Hon. RICHARD OLNEY, Attorney-General, Washington, D. C.:

   8When the injunction was granted yesterday, a mob of from two to three thousand held possession of a point in the city near the crossing of the Rock Island by other roads, where they had already ditched a mail-train, and prevented the passing of any trains, whether mail or otherwise. I read the injunction writ to this mob and commanded them to disperse. The reading of the writ met with no response except jeers and hoots. Shortly after, the mob threw a number of baggage-cars across the track, since when no mail-train has been able to move. I am unable to disperse the mob, clear the tracks, or arrest the men who were engaged in the acts named, and believe that no force less than the regular troops of the United States can procure the passage of the mail-trains, or enforce the orders of the courts. I believe people engaged in trades are quitting employment to-day, and in my opinion will be joining the mob to-night and especially to-morrow; and it is my judgment that the troops should be here at the earliest moment. An emergency has arisen for their presence in this city.

   9J. W. ARNOLD, United States Marshal.

   10We have read the foregoing, and from that information, and other information that has come to us, believe that an emergency exists for the immediate presence of United States troops.

   11P. S. GROSSCUP, Judge. EDWIN WALKER, THOMAS E. MILCHIST, Attys.

   • Two kinds of firsthand evidence (T3 paragraphs 1-2, T4 paragraph 8)

     Altgeld: "one of our railroads was obstructed at two railroad centers"; at "another road," "the officer in command telegraphed me that there was no trouble and had been none at that point." Arnold: "a mob of from two to three thousand held possession of a point in the city near the crossing of the Rock Island by other roads, where they had already ditched a mail-train"; "I am unable to disperse the mob."

     Result: Both authors rely on officials' reports, but they differ in specificity. Altgeld never names the railroads, the places or the officer, so a reader cannot check his examples, and they are not said to be in Chicago. Arnold names the place, gives a number and describes acts (a ditched mail train, baggage cars thrown across the track), and a federal judge endorsed his report. His evidence is stronger on the narrow question of Chicago on July 3. Its limit is its source: the marshal and the endorsing attorneys were the officials asking for troops, and the estimate "from two to three thousand" was his own.

   • Timing and hindsight (T4 paragraphs 1-5, Diagram 1)

     Walker, July 3: "Possibly, however, the service of the writ of injunction will have a restraining influence upon Debs." Olney: "I trust use of United States troops will not be necessary." The marshal's telegram arrived "A few hours afterward," and the order for troops followed on the same day.

     Result: Evidence gathered before a decision can justify it; evidence gathered after cannot, though it can show whether the decision proved wise. T4 was in Washington's hands before the order, so it is fair evidence for the decision, and Walker's and Olney's doubts make the record look cautious rather than eager. But Cleveland chose these documents in 1904, after the courts had ruled for the government, so the selection itself is part of his argument.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Students read T5 and T6 and complete an audit sheet for each, then take the quiz, which uses T5 and T6 with T1-T4. T5 is from Cleveland's essay: a sentence from General John M. Schofield, commander of the army, and the report of General Nelson A. Miles, who commanded the troops in Chicago, on July 6. T6 is from W. F. Burns's history of the strike, published in 1894: "the managers" are the General Managers' Association of the railroads centering in Chicago; "Milchrist" is the United States district attorney; "Bissel" is Postmaster-General Wilson S. Bissell; and "Fuller of the supreme bench" is Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller.

   1In view of the situation as reported by General Miles, a despatch was sent to him by General Schofield directing him to concentrate his troops in order that they might act more effectively in the execution of orders theretofore given, and in the protection of United States property. This despatch concluded as follows:

   2The mere preservation of peace and good order in the city is, of course, the province of the city and state authorities.

   3The situation on the sixth day of July was thus described in a despatch sent in the afternoon of that day by General Miles to the Secretary of War:

   4In answer to your telegram, I report the following: Mayor Hopkins last night issued a proclamation prohibiting riotous assemblies and directing the police to stop people from molesting railway communication. Governor Altgeld has ordered General Wheeler’s brigade on duty in Chicago to support the Mayor’s authority. So far, there have been no large mobs like the one of yesterday, which moved from 51st Street to 18th Street before it dispersed. The lawlessness has been along the line of the railways, destroying and burning more than one hundred cars and railway buildings, and obstructing transportation in various ways, even to the extent of cutting telegraph lines. United States troops have dispersed mobs at 51st Street, Kensington, and a company of infantry is moving along the Rock Island to support a body of United States marshals in making arrests for violating the injunction of the United States court. Of the twenty-three roads centering in Chicago, only six are unobstructed in freight, passenger, and mail transportation. Thirteen are at present entirely obstructed, and ten are running only mail- and passenger-trains. Large numbers of trains moving in and out of the city have been stoned and fired upon by mobs, and one engineer killed. There was a secret meeting to-day of Debs and the representatives of labor unions considering the advisability of a general strike of all labor unions. About one hundred men were present at that meeting. The result is not yet known. United States troops are at the stock-yards, Kensington, Blue Island, crossing of 51st Street, and have been moving along some of the lines: the balance, eight companies of infantry, battery of artillery, and one troop of cavalry, are camped on Lake Front Park, ready for any emergency and to protect Government buildings and property. It is learned from the Fire Department, City Hall, that a party of strikers has been going through the vicinity from 14th to 41st streets and Stewart Avenue freight-yards, throwing gasoline on freight-cars all through that section. Captain Ford, of the Fire Department, was badly stoned this morning. Troops have just dispersed a mob of incendiaries on Fort Wayne tracks, near 51st Street, and fires that were started have been suppressed. Mob just captured mail-train at 47th Street, and troops sent to disperse them.

   1The managers wired Olney to name Edwin Walker, who is attorney for the Milwaukee road as special solicitor for the government, to take measures against the strikers as they had no confidence in Milchrist.

   2He seemed weak, his term was soon to expire and he seemed inclined to avoid harsh measures ablest with the men. They wanted Walker, he was the corporation attorney in the country; he had been cradled by, and grown up at the knee of corporations; he was their body and soul in the life and death struggle with their employes.

   3They urged Olney to clothe Walker with the special United States authority to better protect them and overthrow the strike. By thus making the railway attorney Walker solicitor for the United States, the control of government power could be placed in the hands of the corporations to wield against the men. Walker was appointed by Olney and placed in control over Milchrist in the affairs of the strike. Mr. Walker was known personally by Olney, and Olney is at the present time one of the counsels of the Santa Fe and Chicago, Burlington and Quincy, and said to be a director of the latter road. He has been for years intimate with Mr. Walker, who, by the way, is a hot favorite of Fuller of the supreme bench. There was, therefore a dozen good reasons for this selection, which addressed themselves to Mr. Olney, who is in this not as a cabinet officer, but as a friend and director of railway corporations, and he therefore precipitately granted the request of the general managers. Bissel, also a railroad director, shows Olney's anxiety to come to the back of the roads. (The truth of the above correspondence could not be denied.) In this way the entire available force of troops at Ft. Sheridan, including infantry, cavalry and artillery was ordered out by the President of the United States to assist the railroad managers against the people. Such was the attitude of this government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" against the people.

5. Closure5-10 minutes

   Exit ticket: On an index card, finish two sentences: "On whether the President had the legal authority, the better-supported view is ___ because ___." "On whether the troops were needed on July 3, the better-supported view is ___ because ___." Each blank after "because" must name a claim, a piece of reasoning or a piece of evidence.

   Teacher note on the sources and their language: The passages are quoted exactly as printed in 1894 and 1904. Burns wrote as a partisan of the strikers and says so in his introduction; T6 contains sharp language about the railroad "corporations" and their lawyers but no slurs, and no passage on this page contains a slur. In T7, Altgeld's letter dates the statute to "1881," and the year is the same in Burns's printing and in Altgeld's own collection, Live Questions (1899), so it is not Burns's misprint. The provision Altgeld means (Section 5298, quoted in T8, today 10 U.S.C. 252) comes from an act of Congress of July 29, 1861, at the start of the Civil War, which fits his phrase "in reality a war measure"; "1881" appears to be a slip for 1861 in the letter itself. On the outcome: the troops left Chicago on July 20, 1894, and in 1895 the Supreme Court upheld the contempt conviction of Debs in In re Debs, the case Cleveland describes at the end of his essay. Burns's charge that Olney and Walker were railroad men is partly confirmed by other records: Olney had been a railroad lawyer and director before joining the cabinet, and Walker was a railroad attorney. Students should still judge T6 by the evidence Burns himself gives.

   Homework passages. The legal argument of Altgeld's letter (T7) and Cleveland's statement of the law (T8), used for the homework problems.

   1"I have gone thus into details to show that it is not soldiers that the railroads need so much as it is men to operate trains, and that the conditions do not exist here which bring the cause within the federal statutes, a statute that was passed in 1881, and was in reality a war measure. This statute authorizes the use of federal troops in a state where ever it is impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States within such states by the ordinary judicial proceedings. Such a condition does not exist in the state of Illinois. There have been a few local disturbances but nothing that seriously interfered with the administration of justice or that could not easily be controlled by the local or state authorities for the federal troops can do nothing that the state troops cannot do.

   2"I repeat that you have been imposed upon in this matter, but even if by a forced construction it were held that the condition here came within the letter of the statute, then I submit that local self government is a fundamental principle of our constitution. Each community shall govern itself so long as it can and is ready and able to enforce the law, and it is in harmony with this fundamental principle that the statute authorizing the president to send troops into states must be construed. Especially is this so in matters relating to the exercise of the police power and the preservation of law and order. To absolutely ignore a local government in matters of this kind, when the local government is ready to furnish assistance needed and is amply able to enforce the law, not only insults the people of this state by imputing to them an inability to govern themselves or an unwillingness to enforce the law, but is in violation of a basic principle of our institutions.

   3"The question of federal supremacy is in no way involved; no one disputes it for a moment but under our constitution federal supremacy and local self government must go hand in hand and to ignore the latter is to do violence to the constitution.

   1The Constitution requires that the United States shall protect each of the States against invasion, “and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.” There was plenty of domestic violence in the city of Chicago and in the State of Illinois during the early days of July, 1894; but no application was made to the Federal Government for assistance. It was probably a very fortunate circumstance that the presence of United States soldiers in Chicago at that time did not depend upon the request or desire of Governor Altgeld.

   2Section 5298 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides: “Whenever, by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations or assemblages of persons, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, it shall become impracticable in the judgment of the President to enforce, by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the laws of the United States within any State or Territory, it shall be lawful for the President to call forth the militia of any or all of the States, and to employ such parts of the land or naval forces of the United States as he may deem necessary to enforce the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, or to suppress such rebellion, in whatever State or Territory thereof the laws of the United States may be forcibly opposed, or the execution thereof be forcibly obstructed”; and Section 5299 provides: “Whenever any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combinations or conspiracies in any State ... opposes or obstructs the laws of the United States, or the due execution thereof, or impedes or obstructs the due course of justice under the same, it shall be lawful for the President, and it shall be his duty, to take such measures, by the employment of the militia, or the land and naval forces of the United States, or of either, or by other means as he may deem necessary, for the suppression of such insurrection, domestic violence or combinations.”

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   General Schofield's despatch (T5 paragraph 2) says: "The mere preservation of peace and good order in the city is, of course, the province of the city and state authorities." How does this sentence bear on the dispute between Altgeld and Cleveland?

   AIt proves that the federal troops were not needed anywhere in Chicago BIt grants Altgeld's point on local peace but keeps federal duties CIt shows that Schofield refused to carry out the President's order DIt repeats a sentence from Altgeld's letter of July 5

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Who supplied the evidence in T5 paragraph 4, and what does that suggest about how to weigh it?

   AA newspaper reporter; it should be checked against official records BGovernor Altgeld's officers; it should count for Altgeld's side CDebs and the union's leaders; it gives the strikers' view DThe troops' general; firsthand, but from an interested party

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Miles reports that "Governor Altgeld has ordered General Wheeler's brigade on duty in Chicago to support the Mayor's authority" (T5 paragraph 4). How does this detail affect Altgeld's claim in T1 that the state "stands ready"?

   AIt supports the claim: state troops went on duty in Chicago BIt disproves the claim, because Wheeler's brigade came from another state CIt has no bearing, because Wheeler's brigade was part of the federal army DIt shows that Altgeld had withdrawn his protest by July 6

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Miles writes: "Of the twenty-three roads centering in Chicago, only six are unobstructed in freight, passenger, and mail transportation. Thirteen are at present entirely obstructed, and ten are running only mail- and passenger-trains." What should a careful reader notice about these figures?

   AThey show that more than half the roads were running normally BThey show that no mail trains were running on any road CThey add up to 29, not 23, so they cannot all be right DThey match the figures in the marshal's telegram of July 3

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which sentence in Miles's report says openly that it passes on information from a source outside his command?

   A"Troops have just dispersed a mob of incendiaries on Fort Wayne tracks, near 51st Street" B"United States troops are at the stock-yards, Kensington, Blue Island, crossing of 51st Street" C"It is learned from the Fire Department, City Hall, that a party of strikers" D"a company of infantry is moving along the Rock Island to support a body of United States marshals"

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Miles reports "a secret meeting to-day of Debs and the representatives of labor unions considering the advisability of a general strike" and adds "The result is not yet known." What does this detail add to the case for troops, and what is its limit?

   AIt proves that Debs ordered the burning of the railroad cars himself BIt shows that the strike had already ended by July 6 CIt shows that the union leaders had asked for federal troops DIt warns the trouble may spread, but a meeting is not a crime

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In T6 paragraph 1, Burns claims that "The managers wired Olney to name Edwin Walker." What evidence for this claim does T6 give?

   AA copy of the managers' telegram, with its date BNone: only the remark that its truth "could not be denied" CA statement by Olney admitting that he took the managers' advice DA report of the Senate committee that looked into the appointment

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   "By thus making the railway attorney Walker solicitor for the United States, the control of government power could be placed in the hands of the corporations" (T6 paragraph 3). What kind of reasoning is this?

   AAn inference from Walker's ties to what could happen, not proof of acts BA report of what Walker did in court on July 2, 1894, from the court record CA comparison of Walker with the district attorney, based on their past cases DA legal argument that the appointment broke a law passed by Congress

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which words in T6 paragraph 3 show that Burns is repeating a report rather than stating something he has confirmed?

   A"Walker was appointed by Olney" B"a hot favorite of Fuller of the supreme bench" C"said to be a director of the latter road" D"including infantry, cavalry and artillery"

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which claim in Altgeld's letter (T1) does Burns's T6 most directly try to support?

    AThat the state had "three regiments of infantry" stationed in Chicago BThat the federal government was applied to by men with "political and selfish motives" CThat the local officials "have been able to handle the situation" DThat the United States marshal for the southern district received state troops when he asked

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Burns ends T6: "In this way the entire available force of troops at Ft. Sheridan ... was ordered out by the President." Compare this with Cleveland's account of the same order (T4). What does Burns's causal claim leave out?

    AThe marshal's telegram and the judge's endorsement before the order BThe name of the fort from which the troops were sent CThe kinds of troops (infantry, cavalry and artillery) that were ordered out DThe fact that the President himself gave the order

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does Burns quote the phrase "of the people, by the people, and for the people" (T6 paragraph 3)?

    ATo give evidence that Lincoln himself would have opposed sending the troops BTo show that Cleveland used the phrase in his reply to Altgeld CTo appeal to a shared ideal and set the government's conduct against it DTo prove that the troops were ordered out illegally

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which piece of evidence, if Burns had included it, would most strengthen his claim that the railroad managers chose Walker?

    AMore detail about Walker's long career as a railroad lawyer BA second newspaper editorial that criticized the appointment CA list of the railroads whose trains the strikers refused to run in 1894 DThe text of the managers' telegram to Olney, with its date and signers

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which statement best evaluates T5 and T6 as evidence in the dispute?

    AT5: specific, dated reports from an interested official; T6: ties and motives, little proof BT5 and T6 are equally strong, since both were printed in books by well-known public men CT6 is stronger because Burns saw the strike firsthand as a railroad worker DT5 is useless because Cleveland chose which reports to print

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Altgeld wrote on July 5 that "the local officials have been able to handle the situation" (T1 paragraph 4). Evaluate how well Miles's report of July 6 (T5) answers that claim. Consider timing, specificity and the detail about Wheeler's brigade.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    In T6, separate what Burns states as fact from what he infers. Give one example of each and assess the support for each.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Cleveland printed the marshal's telegram (T4) and Miles's report (T5) in full. What does printing these official reports do for his argument, and what kinds of evidence are missing from his selection?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Altgeld (T1 paragraph 4) and Burns (T6) both claim that others acted from selfish motives. Compare how each supports the claim, and judge which is better supported.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    The marshal (T4) and General Miles (T5) both use the word "mob." Explain how the word reflects a point of view, and whether it should change the weight you give their reports.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    The lesson weighed T1-T4 on whether federal troops were needed in Chicago on July 3, 1894. Now add T5 and T6. Does either one change that judgment? Assess one claim, piece of reasoning or piece of evidence from each, and say whether it strengthens or weakens the case for need.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to RH.11-12.6: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy. © Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.