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

   Project the prompt and give students three minutes to write.

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "A company announces: 'Our new filter removes 99 percent of lead from tap water, as our engineers' tests confirm.' A city lab tests the filter and reports 90 percent. A customer review says it works perfectly. Which source would you use to check the company's claim, and why is the review weaker than the lab even though it agrees with the company?"

   Take four answers. Draw out the three questions students will use all period: Is the second source independent of the first? How close was it to the facts? What interest did its author have? Then add the fourth: does it address the same point, or is it silent? The lab challenges the exact figure but corroborates that the filter works; the review agrees but tests nothing.

2. Direct Instruction20 minutes

   Part 1: The test. Show the table. Students keep it beside them as a checklist for every comparison.

   Corroborating or challenging one statement

   Step	Question	Possible results
   1. Classify	Is the statement a premise, a claim or a piece of evidence?	Premise (built on), claim (concluded), evidence (offered as proof)
   2. Find other information	Which other source speaks to exactly this point?	Corroborates, challenges, qualifies, or is silent
   3. Weigh the other source	How close to events, how independent, and with what interest?	Strong, weak or dependent corroboration or challenge
   4. Decide	Does the premise, claim or evidence still stand?	Stands, stands with limits, or falls

   Part 2: The camps. Read T1, McKinley's account of reconcentration, and underline each number and its source. Then read T2, from Johnson's 1920 history, and mark every place where it speaks to the same point. Diagram 1 shows the dates of the texts; Diagram 2 records the results of the examples.

   1The efforts of Spain were increased, both by the dispatch of fresh levies to Cuba and by the addition to the horrors of the strife of a new and inhuman phase happily unprecedented in the modern history of civilized Christian peoples. The policy of devastation and concentration, inaugurated by the Captain-General's bando of October 21, 1896, in the Province of Pinar del Rio was thence extended to embrace all of the island to which the power of the Spanish arms was able to reach by occupation or by military operations. The peasantry, including all dwelling in the open agricultural interior, were driven into the garrison towns or isolated places held by the troops.

   2The raising and movement of provisions of all kinds were interdicted. The fields were laid waste, dwellings unroofed and fired, mills destroyed, and, in short, everything that could desolate the land and render it unfit for human habitation or support was commanded by one or the other of the contending parties and executed by all the powers at their disposal.

   3By the time the present Administration took office, a year ago, reconcentration (so called) had been made effective over the better part of the four central and western provinces--Santa Clara, Matanzas, Havana, and Pinar del Rio.

   4The agricultural population to the estimated number of 300,000 or more was herded within the towns and their immediate vicinage, deprived of the means of support, rendered destitute of shelter, left poorly clad, and exposed to the most unsanitary conditions. As the scarcity of food increased with the devastation of the depopulated areas of production, destitution and want became misery and starvation. Month by month the death rate increased in an alarming ratio. By March, 1897, according to conservative estimates from official Spanish sources, the mortality among the reconcentrados from starvation and the diseases thereto incident exceeded 50 per cent of their total number.

   5No practical relief was accorded to the destitute. The overburdened towns, already suffering from the general dearth, could give no aid. So-called "zones of cultivation" established within the immediate areas of effective military control about the cities and fortified camps proved illusory as a remedy for the suffering. The unfortunates, being for the most part women and children, with aged and helpless men, enfeebled by disease and hunger, could not have tilled the soil without tools, seed, or shelter for their own support or for the supply of the cities. Reconcentration, adopted avowedly as a war measure in order to cut off the resources of the insurgents, worked its predestined result. As I said in my message of last December, it was not civilized warfare; it was extermination. The only peace it could beget was that of the wilderness and the grave.

   1This demand was made not merely by the "yellow press," which was inspired by sordid and sinister motives, but also by the most thoughtful, disinterested and upright men of America. Fitzhugh Lee, the highly competent and trustworthy consul-general at Havana, officially reported in December, 1897, that in the Province of Havana alone there had been 101,000 of the "reconcentrados," of which more than half had died. About 400,000 innocent and unoffending persons, chiefly women and children, had been transformed into imprisoned paupers, to be sustained by charity or to die of disease and famine. Senator Proctor, of Vermont, one of the foremost members of the United States Senate, made a personal tour of investigation in such parts of the island as were accessible, and reported to his colleagues that "It is not peace, nor is it war; it is desolation and distress, misery and starvation." The people of the United States thus came to the conclusion that the Spanish were unable to subdue the Cubans, and that the Cubans were unable to expel the Spanish, and that the war was therefore nothing but a campaign of destruction and extermination, which would end only when one side was exhausted or extirpated. It was impossible that a civilized and humane nation should regard such a spectacle at its very doors with indifference. [...]

   [...]

   2Blanco arrived at Havana on November 1, 1897, with the purpose, as he had announced before sailing, of putting sincerely into effect the reforms which Sagasta had outlined, reforms which would, he believed, be acceptable to the Cuban people. He found the condition of affairs in the island to be far worse than it had been reported, or than he had expected. The "reconcentrados" had been dying and were still dying by tens of thousands. The soldiers had not been paid for months and in consequence were disaffected and mutinous, and were looting to obtain food which they had no money to buy. Both the Spanish and the Cuban Autonomists were profoundly dissatisfied; while the Revolutionists, though making no progress, were as implacable as ever. He at once ordered the concentration camps to be abolished, saying that he would not make war upon women and children, and he secured a credit of $100,000 from the Spanish government to assist the Cuban peasantry in the rehabilitation of their ruined farms. All American citizens were released from prison, as were also many Cubans who were under sentence of death. Cuban refugees and exiles were invited to return home, and every facility possible was afforded for the resumption of sugar making and agriculture. He then undertook to put into effect a system of home rule which he fondly hoped would satisfy the Autonomists and would bring the masses of the Cuban people over to the side of that party.

   • A number challenged by other information (T1 paragraph 4, T2 paragraph 1)

     McKinley: "The agricultural population to the estimated number of 300,000 or more was herded within the towns." Johnson: "About 400,000 innocent and unoffending persons, chiefly women and children, had been transformed into imprisoned paupers."

     Result: The premise is the scale of the suffering. Johnson's figure is a third larger (400,000 is 300,000 plus 100,000), so it challenges McKinley's number while corroborating his point that the camps held hundreds of thousands. McKinley's "or more" leaves room for the larger figure. Johnson names no source for his 400,000, so the challenge is weaker than it looks: the premise stands, with its exact size uncertain.

   • Corroboration that fits in part (T1 paragraphs 3-4, T2 paragraph 1)

     McKinley: "By March, 1897, according to conservative estimates from official Spanish sources, the mortality among the reconcentrados [...] exceeded 50 per cent of their total number." Johnson: Fitzhugh Lee "officially reported in December, 1897, that in the Province of Havana alone there had been 101,000 of the 'reconcentrados,' of which more than half had died."

     Result: Lee's report corroborates the scale (more than half of 101,000 is more than 50,500 deaths), and it comes from an official on the spot. But it is dated nine months later and covers one province, so it cannot confirm McKinley's date. McKinley's own text raises doubt about that date: the order he names for Pinar del Rio dates from October 21, 1896 (paragraph 1), about five months before March 1897, and "Month by month the death rate increased" suggests the worst came later. Over half dead so soon would need strong evidence, and McKinley cites only unnamed "official Spanish sources." The claim stands for late 1897; for March 1897 it is not corroborated.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Now the Maine. T3 is McKinley's message of March 28, which summarized the finding of the naval court of inquiry; T4 is what he said about the same finding two weeks later in the war message. Read both. Pairs test the two statements in the examples, then find one more statement in T4 to test against T3.

   1At forty minutes past 9 in the evening of the 15th of February the Maine was destroyed by an explosion, by which the entire forward part of the ship was utterly wrecked. In this catastrophe 2 officers and 264 of her crew perished, those who were not killed outright by her explosion being penned between decks by the tangle of wreckage and drowned by the immediate sinking of the hull.

   [...]

   2The usual procedure was followed, as in all cases of casualty or disaster to national vessels of any maritime state. A naval court of inquiry was at once organized, composed of officers well qualified by rank and practical experience to discharge the onerous duty imposed upon them. Aided by a strong force of wreckers and divers, the court proceeded to make a thorough investigation on the spot, employing every available means for the impartial and exact determination of the causes of the explosion. Its operations have been conducted with the utmost deliberation and judgment, and, while independently pursued, no attainable source of information was neglected, and the fullest opportunity was allowed for a simultaneous investigation by the Spanish authorities.

   [...]

   3There were two distinct explosions, with a brief interval between them. The first lifted the forward part of the ship very perceptibly; the second, which was more open, prolonged, and of greater volume, is attributed by the court to the partial explosion of two or more of the forward magazines.

   4The evidence of the divers establishes that the after part of the ship was practically intact and sank in that condition a very few moments after the explosion. The forward part was completely demolished.

   5Upon the evidence of a concurrent external cause the finding of the court is as follows:

   6At frame 17 the outer shell of the ship, from a point 11-1/2 feet from the middle line of the ship and 6 feet above the keel when in its normal position, has been forced up so as to be now about 4 feet above the surface of the water, therefore about 34 feet above where it would be had the ship sunk uninjured.

   7The outside bottom plating is bent into a reversed V shape (*A), the after wing of which, about 15 feet broad and 32 feet in length (from frame 17 to frame 25), is doubled back upon itself against the continuation of the same plating, extending forward.

   8At frame 18 the vertical keel is broken in two and the flat keel bent into an angle similar to the angle formed by the outside bottom plates. This break is now about 6 feet below the surface of the water and about 30 feet above its normal position.

   9In the opinion of the court this effect could have been produced only by the explosion of a mine situated under the bottom of the ship at about frame 18 and somewhat on the port side of the ship.

   10The conclusions of the court are:

   11That the loss of the Maine was not in any respect due to fault or negligence on the part of any of the officers or members of her crew;

   12That the ship was destroyed by the explosion of a submarine mine, which caused the partial explosion of two or more of her forward magazines; and

   13That no evidence has been obtainable fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons.

   1These elements of danger and disorder already pointed out have been strikingly illustrated by a tragic event which has deeply and justly moved the American people. I have already transmitted to Congress the report of the naval court of inquiry on the destruction of the battle ship Maine in the harbor of Havana during the night of the 15th of February. The destruction of that noble vessel has filled the national heart with inexpressible horror. Two hundred and fifty-eight brave sailors and marines and two officers of our Navy, reposing in the fancied security of a friendly harbor, have been hurled to death, grief and want brought to their homes and sorrow to the nation.

   2The naval court of inquiry, which, it is needless to say, commands the unqualified confidence of the Government, was unanimous in its conclusion that the destruction of the Maine was caused by an exterior explosion--that of a submarine mine. It did not assume to place the responsibility. That remains to be fixed.

   3In any event, the destruction of the Maine, by whatever exterior cause, is a patent and impressive proof of a state of things in Cuba that is intolerable. That condition is thus shown to be such that the Spanish Government can not assure safety and security to a vessel of the American Navy in the harbor of Havana on a mission of peace, and rightfully there.

   4Further referring in this connection to recent diplomatic correspondence, a dispatch from our minister to Spain of the 26th ultimo contained the statement that the Spanish minister for foreign affairs assured him positively that Spain will do all that the highest honor and justice require in the matter of the Maine. The reply above referred to, of the 31st ultimo, also contained an expression of the readiness of Spain to submit to an arbitration all the differences which can arise in this matter, which is subsequently explained by the note of the Spanish minister at Washington of the 10th instant, as follows:

   5As to the question of fact which springs from the diversity of views between the reports of the American and Spanish boards, Spain proposes that the facts be ascertained by an impartial investigation by experts, whose decision Spain accepts in advance.

   6To this I have made no reply.

   • A claim corroborated by the evidence behind it (T4 paragraph 2, T3 paragraphs 6-9)

     T4: the court concluded "that the destruction of the Maine was caused by an exterior explosion--that of a submarine mine." T3 gives the court's evidence: at frame 17 the outer shell was "forced up" about 34 feet above where it would lie, the keel at frame 18 was "broken in two," and "this effect could have been produced only by the explosion of a mine."

     Result: T3 corroborates that the court said this, and it shows physical evidence gathered by divers, which is strong evidence for its time. It is not independent corroboration of the cause: both texts report the same court. The word "only" is the court's inference from bent plates, not an observation, so a second investigation could test it.

   • A premise built to stand without a finding of guilt (T4 paragraph 3, T3 paragraph 13)

     T4: "the destruction of the Maine, by whatever exterior cause, is a patent and impressive proof of a state of things in Cuba that is intolerable," because "the Spanish Government can not assure safety and security" to an American ship. T3: "no evidence has been obtainable fixing the responsibility for the destruction of the Maine upon any person or persons."

     Result: T3 explains why McKinley wrote "by whatever exterior cause": the court could not say who set off the mine, so his premise does not depend on Spanish guilt. The court's finding therefore qualifies the premise rather than proving it. It stands only if an outside explosion in a Spanish-held harbor is itself proof that Spain could not keep order, an assumption that no finding in T3 tests.

4. Independent Practice15-20 minutes

   Students read T5, Johnson's account of the explosion and the two inquiries, and T6, McKinley's four grounds for intervention. For each of the four grounds, they write the premise it rests on and look for other information on the page that corroborates or challenges it. Then they take the quiz, which uses T5 and T6 with T1-T4.

   1There next occurred the greatest and most mysterious tragedy of the entire revolutionary period. On the evening of February 15, at twenty minutes before ten o'clock, a violent explosion occurred under or in the forward portion of the Maine as she lay in Havana harbor, sufficient to lift the hull some distance above its normal level. A few seconds later another and more violent explosion followed, which so completely destroyed the forward part of the ship that most of it could never be found. The remainder of the vessel almost immediately sank, in about six fathoms of water. Of the complement of 360, two officers and 264 men were killed, and of the remainder 60 were wounded. Captain Sigsbee, commander of the Maine, telegraphed to Washington that all judgment upon the matter should be suspended until after full investigation. Blanco telegraphed to Madrid that the catastrophe was doubtless due to an accident within the ship, and the Madrid government promptly expressed regret and sympathy.

   2In the United States there was a great outburst of grief and rage. Even the most restrained and conservative could not help a degree of suspicion of foul play, though of course not on the part of the Spanish government. A semi-criminal faction, in the "yellow" press, clamored furiously for war, charging Spaniards, even the Spanish government, with direct and malicious responsibility for the tragedy, and even publishing the grossest of falsehoods for the sake of inflaming popular sentiment. Too large a proportion of the nation was swayed by these latter sordid and sinister influences. But at least the government kept its head, and acted with admirable discretion; though for so doing the President incurred the virulent animosity of the chief clamorer for war, an animosity which was persistently maintained until it culminated in the incitement of a criminal Anarchist to assassinate the President.

   [...]

   3The Spanish government proposed a joint investigation into the disaster, but the United States government declined and conducted a thorough investigation of its own, through a board of eminent official experts. The report was that the loss of the ship was not due to any accident or to any negligence on the part of the officers and crew. The first explosion was external to the hull, as if caused by a torpedo or mine, and it caused the second explosion, which was that of the ship's magazines. The Spanish government then conducted an investigation of its own, resulting in a report that both explosions were within the ship and were presumably purely accidental. It may be added that a final examination in after years, when a cofferdam was built about the hulk and it was floated and then taken out to sea and sunk in deep water, fully confirmed the report of the American investigating board.

   [...]

   4The findings of the American board of investigation were reported officially to the Spanish government, and the President in a message to Congress expressed confidence that Spain would act in the matter according to the dictates of justice, honor and friendship. The Spanish government replied that it would certainly do so, and it presently proposed to submit the whole subject to investigation by impartial experts, and to determination by arbitration. But this proposal was not made until April 10, when so much else had occurred to strain relations between the two countries that it could not be entertained by the United States.

   1The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral to stop the war, according to the large dictates of humanity and following many historical precedents where neighboring states have interfered to check the hopeless sacrifices of life by internecine conflicts beyond their borders, is justifiable on rational grounds. It involves, however, hostile constraint upon both the parties to the contest, as well to enforce a truce as to guide the eventual settlement.

   2The grounds for such intervention may be briefly summarized as follows:

   3First. In the cause of humanity and to put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed, starvation, and horrible miseries now existing there, and which the parties to the conflict are either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate. It is no answer to say this is all in another country, belonging to another nation, and is therefore none of our business. It is specially our duty, for it is right at our door.

   4Second. We owe it to our citizens in Cuba to afford them that protection and indemnity for life and property which no government there can or will afford, and to that end to terminate the conditions that deprive them of legal protection.

   5Third. The right to intervene may be justified by the very serious injury to the commerce, trade, and business of our people and by the wanton destruction of property and devastation of the island.

   6Fourth, and which is of the utmost importance. The present condition of affairs in Cuba is a constant menace to our peace and entails upon this Government an enormous expense. With such a conflict waged for years in an island so near us and with which our people have such trade and business relations; when the lives and liberty of our citizens are in constant danger and their property destroyed and themselves ruined; where our trading vessels are liable to seizure and are seized at our very door by war ships of a foreign nation; the expeditions of filibustering that we are powerless to prevent altogether, and the irritating questions and entanglements thus arising--all these and others that I need not mention, with the resulting strained relations, are a constant menace to our peace and compel us to keep on a semi war footing with a nation with which we are at peace.

5. Closure5-10 minutes

   Exit ticket: On an index card, write one of McKinley's premises that survives the test of other sources and one that is weakened, each with the source that decided it: "The premise that ___ is (corroborated / challenged) by ___, which is (strong / weak) because ___."

   Teacher note on the sources and later findings: The passages are quoted exactly as printed in 1902 and 1920. Johnson writes as a supporter of the intervention; his language about the "yellow" press, about Spanish officers ("some malignant Spanish officer") and about Spain in general is partisan, and students should weigh it as such. His charge that the "chief clamorer for war" (he means the publisher William Randolph Hearst) incited the anarchist who assassinated McKinley in 1901 is his own accusation; no such link was ever proved. Findings from outside the texts help with the Maine. The 1898 court (often called the Sampson board, after its president, Captain William T. Sampson) found an external mine, as T3 reports. When the wreck was exposed and examined in 1911, a second naval board (the Vreeland board) also concluded that an outside explosion set off the magazines, but it placed that explosion farther aft than the 1898 court had and found that the bending at frame 18 was caused by the magazines, so Johnson's "fully confirmed" overstates the agreement. In 1976 a study directed by Admiral Hyman Rickover concluded that the cause was probably internal, a fire in a coal bunker next to a magazine, which was close to the Spanish finding; a 1998 computer study for National Geographic was inconclusive, and the cause is still debated. Counts of the dead differ from source to source (modern references give figures from 260 to 268), partly because some men died of their injuries after the explosion. Modern estimates of the number of Cubans who died under reconcentration also vary widely, from under 200,000 to as many as 400,000 in different accounts, and the policy's deaths are hard to separate from those of the war as a whole. Use these facts after students have worked from the 1898 and 1920 texts, as a lesson in how new information can challenge a premise that once looked settled.

   Homework passages. The relief and armistice paragraphs and the close of the war message (T7) and Johnson's account of the Williams warning and the last negotiations (T8), used for the homework problems.

   1Thousands of lives have already been saved. The necessity for a change in the condition of the reconcentrados is recognized by the Spanish Government. Within a few days past the orders of General Weyler have been revoked. The reconcentrados, it is said, are to be permitted to return to their homes and aided to resume the self-supporting pursuits of peace. Public works have been ordered to give them employment and a sum of $600,000 has been appropriated for their relief.

   [...]

   2Realizing this, it appeared to be my duty, in a spirit of true friendliness, no less to Spain than to the Cubans, who have so much to lose by the prolongation of the struggle, to seek to bring about an immediate termination of the war. To this end I submitted on the 27th ultimo, as a result of much representation and correspondence, through the United States minister at Madrid, propositions to the Spanish Government looking to an armistice until October 1 for the negotiation of peace with the good offices of the President.

   3In addition I asked the immediate revocation of the order of reconcentration, so as to permit the people to return to their farms and the needy to be relieved with provisions and supplies from the United States, cooperating with the Spanish authorities, so as to afford full relief.

   4The reply of the Spanish cabinet was received on the night of the 31st ultimo. It offered, as the means to bring about peace in Cuba, to confide the preparation thereof to the insular parliament, inasmuch as the concurrence of that body would be necessary to reach a final result, it being, however, understood that the powers reserved by the constitution to the central Government are not lessened or diminished. As the Cuban parliament does not meet until the 4th of May next, the Spanish Government would not object for its part to accept at once a suspension of hostilities if asked for by the insurgents from the general in chief, to whom it would pertain in such case to determine the duration and conditions of the armistice.

   [...]

   5The issue is now with the Congress. It is a solemn responsibility. I have exhausted every effort to relieve the intolerable condition of affairs which is at our doors. Prepared to execute every obligation imposed upon me by the Constitution and the law, I await your action.

   6Yesterday, and since the preparation of the foregoing message, official information was received by me that the latest decree of the Queen Regent of Spain directs General Blanco, in order to prepare and facilitate peace, to proclaim a suspension of hostilities, the duration and details of which have not yet been communicated to me.

   7This fact, with every other pertinent consideration, will, I am sure, have your just and careful attention in the solemn deliberations upon which you are about to enter. If this measure attains a successful result, then our aspirations as a Christian, peace-loving people will be realized. If it fails, it will be only another justification for our contemplated action.

   1It is to be recalled that Ramon O. Williams, who had only a little while before retired from the office of American Consul-General at Havana, and was particularly well informed and judicious, earnestly warned the United States government against sending a ship to Havana, because the harbor was very elaborately mined, and there was a bitter and truculent feeling among the Spaniards against the United States; wherefore the danger of some untoward occurrence was too great to be incurred without a more pressing necessity than was then apparent. But despite his warning the Maine was sent. She was conducted by a Spanish official pilot to her anchorage at a buoy between Regla and the old custom house. Whether a mine was attached to that buoy or not is unknown, though Mr. Williams was confident that one was. His theory was that some malignant Spanish officer, who had access to the keyboard of the mines, perhaps through connivance with some other fanatic, watched to see the tide swing the ship directly over the mine and then touched the key and caused the explosion. That would account for the enormous hole which was blown in the side of the ship, and which could not have been caused by any little mine or torpedo which might have been floated to the side of the ship, but must have been produced by a very large mine planted deep beneath the hull.

   [...]

   2There could be no greater mistake than that which has been too often and too persistently made, in regarding the destruction of the Maine as the cause of American, intervention in Cuba. The declarations of policy which we have already quoted from the messages of President Cleveland and President McKinley, the former fourteen months and the latter two months before that vessel went to Havana, are ample indications of the purpose of the American government to intervene unless there were a satisfactory amelioration of Cuban affairs. But there was no such amelioration, and therefore war was declared. It unquestionably would have been declared just the same, perhaps at a later and perhaps at an earlier date, if there had been no Maine at all.

   3Beginning before the destruction of the Maine, and accelerated after that event, both sides were preparing for war. Nevertheless diplomatic negotiations continued, chiefly conducted by the American Minister, Stewart L. Woodford, at Madrid. In order to facilitate such negotiations, President McKinley withheld the report on the Maine from Congress for a time. Spain asked that the pacification of Cuba, which the United States was urging, be left to the Autonomist Legislature, which was to meet on May 4. The United States, declaring that it did not want Cuba but did want peace in Cuba, proposed an armistice to begin at once and to last until October 1, itself meantime to act as mediator between the Cubans and Spain. Spain replied that an armistice would be granted, to last at the pleasure of the Spanish commander, if the Cubans would ask for it themselves; and that already General Blanco had abandoned the "concentration" system. This was of course regarded as entirely unsatisfactory to the United States, but the peace-loving President McKinley hesitated to report to Congress his dissatisfaction with it.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Johnson reports that the Spanish investigation found "both explosions were within the ship and were presumably purely accidental" (T5 paragraph 3). How does this information bear on McKinley's claim in T4 that the Maine was destroyed by an "exterior explosion"?

   AIt corroborates the claim, since both boards found explosions BIt has no bearing, since the Spanish board studied a different ship CIt challenges the claim: a second inquiry found an internal cause DIt proves the claim false, since only Spain's board had experts

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Johnson summarizes the American board's report: "The first explosion was external to the hull, as if caused by a torpedo or mine" (T5 paragraph 3). Compared with the court's words in T3 paragraph 9, what does his summary do?

   AIt softens the court's words: "only ... a mine" becomes "as if" a torpedo or mine BIt adds evidence the court never had, taken from the later raising of the hull CIt reverses the court's finding by calling the first explosion an internal one DIt repeats the court's words exactly, and so adds independent support

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   T3, T4 and T5 each give the number of the Maine's dead. Which statement about them is accurate?

   AAll three agree on 266 dead, two of them officers BAll three agree on 260 dead, two of them officers CT3 and T4 agree, and Johnson's T5 gives another count DT3 and T5 give 266 dead, while T4 gives 260 dead

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Johnson writes that "Blanco telegraphed to Madrid that the catastrophe was doubtless due to an accident within the ship" (T5 paragraph 1). How much weight does this telegram carry as a challenge to the naval court's finding?

   AGreat: Blanco had seen the wreck far more closely than any diver had BLittle: an interested official's reaction, sent before any inquiry CNone: Johnson says the telegram was never actually sent DFull: Madrid confirmed it in writing on the very same day

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Johnson says that Spain's proposal to submit the question to impartial experts and arbitration "was not made until April 10" (T5 paragraph 4). What does T4 show about this claim?

   AT4 corroborates it: McKinley first heard of arbitration on April 10 BT4 cannot test it, because McKinley never mentions arbitration CT4 challenges it: Spain's reply of March 31 already offered arbitration DT4 proves that Spain never offered arbitration before the war

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Johnson writes that Blanco "found the condition of affairs in the island to be far worse than it had been reported, or than he had expected" (T2 paragraph 2). As other information for testing T1, what does this statement do?

   AIt corroborates T1 from the Spanish side, though its source is unstated BIt challenges T1, since it shows that conditions were better than reported CIt is silent on T1, since it concerns only the pay of Spanish soldiers DIt proves T1 exactly, since Blanco confirms the figure of 300,000

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   McKinley's first ground rests on the premise that the parties are "either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate" the suffering (T6 paragraph 3). Which information on the page most directly challenges that premise?

   AProctor's report of "desolation and distress, misery and starvation" BLee's report that more than half of the Havana reconcentrados had died CThe court's finding that a submarine mine destroyed the ship DJohnson's report that Blanco ordered the camps abolished and aided farms

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   McKinley's second ground says that American citizens in Cuba need protection "which no government there can or will afford" (T6 paragraph 4). Which information in T2 bears most directly on this premise?

   ABlanco found that the Spanish soldiers had not been paid in months BAll American citizens had been released from prison under Blanco CCuban refugees and exiles had been invited to return to the island DBoth the Spanish and the Autonomists were deeply dissatisfied

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   McKinley says intervention would follow "many historical precedents where neighboring states have interfered" (T6 paragraph 1). What information would best corroborate this premise?

   ANamed cases of states that stepped into a neighbor's civil war BA complete list of the wars the United States had fought since 1776 CFigures on American trade with Cuba in the years before 1895 DStatements by Americans who favored intervention in 1898

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Among the menaces to American peace, McKinley lists "the expeditions of filibustering that we are powerless to prevent altogether" (T6 paragraph 6). Filibustering expeditions were private armed expeditions from the United States to help the Cuban rebels. How does this detail affect his premise that Cuba's condition is a menace to American peace?

    AIt strengthens the premise, since it proves Spain sent the expeditions BIt has no bearing, since the expeditions had nothing to do with Cuba CIt qualifies the premise: part of the danger came from Americans' own acts DIt disproves the premise, since the expeditions had ended by 1898

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    McKinley says the court "was unanimous in its conclusion" (T4 paragraph 2). What does the summary of the court's findings in T3 show about this detail?

    AIt corroborates the detail: T3 lists each member's vote on the cause BIt challenges the detail: T3 records a minority view on the cause CIt corroborates the detail: T3 says the finding was unanimous DIt neither confirms nor challenges it: T3 says nothing of the votes

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Johnson says the United States "declined" Spain's proposal of a joint investigation (T5 paragraph 3). McKinley says the court's work was "independently pursued" while "the fullest opportunity was allowed for a simultaneous investigation by the Spanish authorities" (T3 paragraph 2). How do the two accounts relate?

    AThey contradict each other: McKinley says the inquiry was joint BThey agree: two separate inquiries, described in different words CThey contradict each other: Johnson says Spain held no inquiry DThey agree that Spain refused to investigate the explosion at all

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    "It is specially our duty, for it is right at our door" (T6 paragraph 3). What kind of statement is this, and how can other information bear on it?

    AA fact about distance that a map alone can settle BA piece of evidence drawn from the court of inquiry CA value premise: sources show the need, not the duty DA quotation from an earlier President's message

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Johnson quotes Senator Proctor, who toured "such parts of the island as were accessible" (T2 paragraph 1). What does this phrase suggest about Proctor's report as corroboration of T1?

    AIt is firsthand, but limited to the places he could reach BIt is secondhand, since Proctor never went to Cuba himself CIt covers every province, so it confirms everything in T1 DIt comes from Spanish officials, so it is independent of America

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Choose one of the four grounds for intervention in T6. State the premise it depends on, then corroborate or challenge that premise with one piece of information from another text on this page. Explain how much the information changes your evaluation.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Captain Sigsbee telegraphed "that all judgment upon the matter should be suspended until after full investigation" (T5 paragraph 1). Use this detail, T3 and T4 to evaluate how McKinley handled the question of the Maine's cause.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    McKinley writes that the devastation "was commanded by one or the other of the contending parties" (T1 paragraph 2) and that intervention would involve "hostile constraint upon both the parties" (T6 paragraph 1). Evaluate whether this premise fits his case for intervention, using Johnson's description of the war in T2.

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Identify two features of Johnson's writing in T2 and T5 that affect how much his corroboration of McKinley should count, and judge how much it counts overall.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    After quoting Spain's proposal that "the facts be ascertained by an impartial investigation by experts, whose decision Spain accepts in advance," McKinley writes, "To this I have made no reply" (T4 paragraphs 5-6). How does this choice bear on his premise that the Maine proves "a state of things in Cuba that is intolerable"? Use Johnson's explanation in T5 paragraph 4.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Write a paragraph evaluating McKinley's case for intervention in T6. Corroborate or challenge at least two of its premises with information from T1-T5, and weigh the sources you use.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to RH.11-12.8: 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.