Category: HISTORY

Lutiant LaVoye volunteered to serve as a substitute nurse during World War I with little to no training or nursing experience. As a recent graduate of Haskell Institute, an off-reservation vocational boarding school in Kansas modeled after Carlisle, she responded to the wartime labor demand and took the train to Washington D.C. in October 1918. A letter Lutiant wrote to a friend back home gives us a glimpse into life on the homefront at the height of the war and at the peak of the global flu epidemic.

“Really, they are certainly ‘hard up’ for nurses – even me can volunteer as a nurse in a camp or in Washington.”

-Lutiant LaVoye

The Context of Lutiant’s Letter

Dated October 17, 1918, Lutiant’s letter home to Kansas was written at a pivotal time in the war. The German offensive had stalled on the Western Front; peace negotiations were underway in Paris; and the armistice that would bring an end to the war would be signed less than a month later. The second wave of the worldwide flu epidemic was also reaching its zenith. This epidemic would take more lives than all of the battles of the Great War itself.

The Flu’s impact

An estimated 10 million soldiers died due to combat-related causes during World War I. Estimates of the number of soldiers and civilians who died due to the flu vary, but they range from 17 to 50 million.

“Really, Louise, Orderlies carried the dead soldiers out on stretchers at the rate of two every three hours for the first two days [we] were there.”

Lutiant LaVoye

Wartime government efforts to manipulate public information, in addition to the absence of a central data-reporting clearinghouse, help to explain the wide variation in mortality numbers. What is clear is that the H1N1 influenza virus claimed many more lives than even the conflict notorious for mass slaughter. 

The Experience of the Flu

The first wave of the virus struck in the spring of 1918. As in previous experiences of influenza, most deaths occurred among infants and the elderly. However, that fall the virus mutated and struck with uncharacteristic virulence. The strain of influenza infecting the soldiers Lutiant cared for that October was unlike any other. The ‘W’ curve of the age distribution of deaths suggests that the healthiest of the U.S. population, men and women aged 15-35, became its frequent victims.

It struck quickly and without warning. Most victims died a horrible death within days. 

“It was sure pitiful to see them die.”

Lutiant LaVoye

What began like any other influenza case, with a fever, sore throat and cough, abruptly turned deadly as the virus attacked its victims’ lungs. After contracting pneumonia, many eventually drowned in their own fluids.

Lutiant’s account spares us the gruesome details but leaves the reader with a vivid impression of the impact of the disease on its victims and those who cared for them. She tells her friend that after losing the first of her patients, she had to leave the ward and “cry it out.” 

How Civilians Connected the Threat of War and the Epidemic 

World War I and the flu epidemic do not simply occupy the same space on the timeline. They are undoubtedly intertwined. The degree to which each impacted the other is still being studied. Major world leaders—including Woodrow Wilson, George Clemenceau, and David Lloyd George—all contracted the virus while attending the peace conference. The letter from Lutiant alludes to rumors on the American home front that linked the war to the flu.

Lutiant mentions having seen silver screen celebrities Douglas Fairbanks and Geraldine Farrar during the Fourth Liberty Loan campaign. She writes of rumors that the flu was hampering the effort to sell war bonds to finance America’s military expenditures.

“All the schools, churches, theaters, dancing halls, etc. are closed here also.”

Lutiant LaVoye

She devotes a paragraph to the possibility that Congress might furlough war-related workers until the flu subsides. She laments that she wasn’t able to climb up inside the Washington Monument for a view of the capital, as it was closed due to the flu. Although she doesn’t make a direct connection to the public closures and the reduced war bond sales, students of history who analyze this primary account are sure to bring the question to mind. 

Another rumor Lutiant relayed to her friend in Kansas shows one perhaps dubious connection civilians drew between World War I and the flu epidemic. 

“Two German spies, posing as doctors were caught giving these Influenza germs to the soldiers and they were shot last Saturday morning at sunrise.”

Lutiant LaVoye

Claims of enemy espionage were common on the homefront. Whether there is any truth to this particular accusation or not, Lutiant’s belief that Germans were purposefully engaging in biological warfare on the homefront demonstrates that ordinary Americans saw the threat of the flu as connected to the threat the Germans posed. All sides in the war used the epidemic to boost public resolve to defeat the enemy. The nomenclature used in contemporary publications aligned the flu with the antagonists. Depending on which side you were on, you might have called it Spanish Flu, Flanders Fever, the Grippe, Bolshevik disease, Kirghiz disease, White Man’s Sickness, Kaffersiekte (Blacks’ Disease), Chinese Flu, Purple Death or Sand Fly Fever. 

The Value of a Personal Account

Thankfully, Haskell Institute was affiliated with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, so Lutiant LaVoye’s letter has been preserved. Personal primary accounts like hers provide such rich insight into the lives of the people who walked through the things we study. Lutiant writes of her everyday life. She is aware that many are dying, but unaware that she is witnessing one of the largest epidemics in recorded human history, second only to the Bubonic Plague. The weather is cold, and Lutiant asks her friend to send her a sweater. She is intrigued by the novelty of a nearby airfield. She is interested in spending time with a fella. In fact, she devotes nearly two pages to the guy. 

Her letter helps humanize the war and prompts many questions about Lutiant’s earlier and later life. Did she herself ever contract the flu? Did she survive the war?  Who were Miss Keck and Mrs. McK? Why does Lutiant say of them, at the beginning of her letter, that she wishes that they would contract the flu and die? Lots of questions come to mind after we read that remark. Just how bad were Lutiant’s experiences at the Indian boarding school in Kansas? Were those experiences shared by many students, or unique to her? Does she come off as flippant and unkind because her experiences at the school and at the hospital have traumatized her? And of course, did she continue seeing the charming soldier she met at the train station?

Vince Bradburn, the 2015 James Madison Fellow from Indiana and a 2020 graduate of the Master of Arts in American History and Government, teaches social studies at Shelbyville High School.

For the past year, staff and faculty members at Teaching American History have heard from our teacher partners that they want election materials!  

We know you want to help your students better understand today’s political environment by providing them with sources that illustrate the history of contentious elections.  You want a deeper understanding of the institutions and rules surrounding the presidential process so that you feel more comfortable tackling our country’s current controversies within the walls of your classroom.  And finally, you want all of this from a trusted and nonpartisan source.  

2024 marks the 60^th time that Americans have gone to the polls to elect a new president.  To better prepare and support our teacher audience through the process that many voters now describe as “divisive,” “corrupt,” and “messy,” Teaching American History created our Spring 2024 Saturday webinar series: Every Four Years. Designed for the working educator, our webinars meet monthly on select Saturday mornings from 10.45am – 12pm ET. Participants will have access to advanced readings and can submit questions several days in advance.  Those who remain digitally present for the duration of the conversation will receive an attendance letter from Teaching American History for 1.25 hours of professional development.

Register now for this free professional development by clicking on the links below!

Saturday, Jan. 6^th – Electoral Reform & Contentious Elections

Saturday, Feb. 3^rd – Contested Elections

March 9^th – Realigning Elections

April 6^th – The Electoral College

May 11^th – Presidential Transitions

John Dinan is the editor of our latest CDC volume, Federalism. He sat down with Ellen Tucker to discuss how teachers can use the volume in their government or civics classrooms.

If a teacher were to say to you, I’ve got time to use only two or three documents from your collection in my one-semester government class, which documents would you suggest the teacher select? 

It depends on what your goals are for the course. I studied federalism under Professor Martha Derthick at the University of Virginia. She said federalism is a very large elephant, and it’s hard for a lone observer to grasp the properties of the whole beast. If you want to study federalism, you have to look at what the Supreme Court is doing. Then you have to look at what the presidents are doing. Then, what Congress is doing. You must study political party platforms, and you have to look at policy.

But first of all, if you want to understand the intention of the framers of the Constitution in setting up a federal system, and their expectations for how it would work, I would select Federalist 39 (Document 4). Here, Publius—Madison in this case—sets out his expectations for the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Then I would choose an Antifederalist selection, most likely Patrick Henry’s speech in the Virginia ratifying convention (Document 7), in which he explains why he fears that under the new Constitution, all power would eventually flow to the federal government. 

Suppose I really want to focus on whether federalism has been seen as beneficial to the United States. I would likely pick Louis Brandeis’ dissenting opinion in the 1932 Supreme Court case, New State Ice Company v. Liebmann(Document 31). I would consider assigning the Kestnbaum Commission Report from the 1950s (Document 34). And I would also consider assigning Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion in the Gregory v. Ashcroft decision in 1991 (Document 41), where she concisely summarizes advantages of the American federal system that she believes are still operating. 

In any course taking up the role of the Supreme Court, students will want to understand how the Supreme Court has shaped the balance between federal and state powers. There are a number of court decisions excerpted in the volume. One can easily locate them by consulting the thematic table of contents, Appendix B in the volume, under the heading “The US Supreme Court and Federalism.” I would consider assigning the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision (Document 45). Although it’s very much about abortion, it’s also very much about federalism. The whole question was, should abortion policy be determined at the state or federal level? One might also consider the Supreme Court opinion on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Document 43), President Obama’s signature health care policy. It’s a wide-ranging decision, and it gets technical, but for the most part the ruling dissects what aspects of health care are the responsibility of the federal government and which are the responsibilitiy of the states.

We often—probably too often today—think about American politics through the lens of the presidency. Nine of the documents in this collection illustrate presidential thinking about federalism. Several show presidents vetoing acts of Congress that they maintained violated the American understanding of federalism. President James K. Polk vetoed an act of Congress (Document 19) providing funding to make navigation improvements to rivers and harbors in some of the states. He objected that Congress had no right to fund projects that were “local in character.” President James Buchanan in the 1850s vetoed a bill that would have allowed the federal government to donate land to states for use as college sites (Document 20). Buchanan thought the federal government had no business supporting state educational facilities. These instances show a view on the part of some of our earlier presidents that it was their duty to superintend the federal system. 

When teaching political science and government, we tend to teach federalism and the separation of powers as one issue, and to teach civil rights and liberties as a separate issue. Yet the two issues are very often intertwined. A number of the readings in the document book center on the question whether civil liberties are better protected when the states wield certain powers or when the federal government wields them.  Do we do need a uniform national understanding of our rights as citizens? That’s been the case in various understandings of what it means to  get a fair trial in the United States. For many years, states were allowed to decide whether or not they would exclude evidence if it was improperly seized by police. Some states excluded such evidence, while other states said, “Well, the damage is already done. We don’t want to prevent the jury from hearing about that.” It was not until the 1960s that the US Supreme Court imposed one uniform understanding of that. They decided that evidence improperly seized cannot be used in a trial. 

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote a famous Harvard Law Review article in 1977 (excerpted in the volume as Document 38). He said, we tend to think of our rights as being protected by the US Constitution, with the constitutional oversight of the US Supreme Court. Yet all 50 states have their own constitutions, which are interpreted by state courts. Through these means, states may in fact provide greater protection for rights than is guaranteed by the federal Constitution. And in fact, today we see some state constitutions being amended or interpreted to explicitly protect abortion rights. Even though the US Supreme Court said they didn’t see a right to abortion guaranteed in the US Constitution, Justice Brennan makes clear that this is not the end of the story. In some cases, state constitutions and state courts provide a higher level of rights protection than might be granted uniformly.

In general, I hope teachers use this document book to open up the question of whether or not American citizens benefit from our federal system. The study questions at the end of the volume should help teachers and students reflect on this: whether, in the circumstances we face today, our federal system still protects our liberties and promotes good government.

At Teaching American History, we know teachers are hungry for resources that help their students understand the nuances of American civic behavior.  For secondary and post-secondary government and political science educators, we are proud to recommend our CDC volume, Religious Liberty: Core Court Cases.  Edited by Ken Masugi, Religious Liberty presents Supreme Court jurisprudence on the first guarantee of the Bill of Rights: freedom of religion, “the key element of republican citizenship.”

Download your free copy here. Below, we reprint an edited version of our 2019 interview with Professor Masugi. After describing his aims for the collection, he gives an historical account of the Supreme Court’s changing understanding of religious liberty.

How does this core document collection differ from other anthologies of Supreme Court cases?

What we have tried to do is not simply collect the most important opinions, as a law school “casebook” might, but to excerpt key cases reflecting important arguments that high school students—young citizens—ought to reflect on. That means developing a skill that is hard to come by for many students of government and politics: namely, seeing that strong arguments exist on both sides of controversial issues. And that there are often more than just two sides.

The first Supreme Court ruling excerpted in your collection was written in 1879. The second was written in 1943. You write that the Court did not begin applying the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses “to state and local laws until the mid-twentieth century.” Why did such cases not arise sooner?

We should keep in mind that the Court examined these issues only after religious pluralism became the accepted reality for the country as a whole. It’s important to recall the language of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As Justice Thomas notes in many of his 14^th amendment opinions, the Bill of Rights was originally intended to restrict actions of the federal government only. It was not intended to limit state support of religion, even taxation in support of particular sects. Such state laws would disappear by the 1830s due to the widespread belief in “equal protection” for all religions. As Federalist #51 argued, political freedom in the new republic would parallel religious freedom. And each would mutually reinforce the other.

Indeed, from the beginning of the republic the founding principles of equality and liberty promoted a generous understanding of religious freedom, as we see in Washington’s notable letter to the Hebrew congregation in Newport. Most religious groups, from the Jews of Rhode Island to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut to the Moravians of Salem, North Carolina were able to worship and even organize faith-based communities without interference.

Still, many Americans regarded at least one group, the Mormons, with suspicion and hostility, even directing violence against them. Their practice of plural marriage affronted Judeo-Christian morality and violated State and federal laws prohibiting bigamy. This led to the Court’s earliest ruling on the first amendment guarantee of free exercise. It tested whether Mormon polygamy was permitted under federal regulations on marriage in the territories. In 1879 the Court stood by the centuries-old understanding of marriage, ruling that religious freedom was bounded by basic legal traditions embodied in the common law. 

The next cases that arose concerned religious practices that conflicted with the social customs of the larger community in the workplace, in commerce, or in schools—in particular, Sabbath observance on days other than Sunday. In these cases, the Court tended to grant minority claims. After 1938, the Court, citing the 14^th amendment, acted to protect what it would identify as “discrete and insular minorities” who allegedly were being oppressed by democratic majorities and unable to defend their rights at the ballot box. Race was one obvious category, but the Court wanted to defend religious minorities as well. Religious minorities successfully sued against certain employment, Sunday closing, and school attendance laws.

Later the Court ruled against common practices such as the Pledge of Allegiance and voluntary prayer and even moments of silence, and not only in the classroom but in commencement exercises, in meetings held in classrooms after school hours, and pep rallies before high school football games. These practices were said to be establishments of religion. Dissenters on religion came to have a veto over community practices. Of course, prayers continue in many public high schools, as the dissenting justices predicted they would. 

Beginning in the late 1940s and continuing through the early 2000s, the Court, led by Justices Black, Brennan, Stevens, and Souter, declared that the establishment clause was designed not just to guarantee equal protection of all religions but to prohibit preference for religion in general. Policies or institutions deemed religious could not be supported by taxpayer funds, for that would mean an establishment of religion. So, religious schools could not receive federal aid to supplement salaries—but might receive it to construct buildings or buy textbooks. The Court began making specious distinctions between various uses of federal or state dollars. 

Free exercise of religion became restricted to freedom to worship—that is, to religion only as practiced within a place of worship. This understanding of religion is far narrower than that of the founders, who acknowledged a public square full of Christians (not to mention Jews) openly professing a range of sectarian beliefs and organizing their lives in accordance with those beliefs.

Those who have objected to the currently ascendant constitutional argument, most notably former Justice Scalia, base their viewpoint on tradition and practice. Free exercise cannot extend to establishing an official church via the ballot box, but no religion is being imposed on anyone by Christmas decorations in a city hall. Justice Thomas argues there is no right to be shielded from encounters with others’ religious beliefs. Only if state coercion comes into play is there a constitutional case against a state practice concerning religion.

Justice Kagan has argued eloquently for the importance of opposing official endorsements of religion in civic practices and memorials such as public architecture. Her arguments leave certain questions unanswered. Does a cross commemorating fallen veterans violate the first amendment? Does the constitutionality of such a memorial rest on when it was built, whether just after World War I or just last year? 

Your account brings to mind Washington’s comment in his Farewell Address that religion and morality are “indispensable supports” of self-government. How might the precedents on religious liberty differ if justices took Washington’s views into account?

The Justices are generally not great historians. I believe Washington’s views were held by the Court until the 1920s, when the Progressive view of American history began denigrating the founders as more concerned with their personal economic interests than with the public good.

Justice Stevens ignored history when he argued that the founders could not imagine Quakers, Jews, or Catholics enjoying the same religious freedom enjoyed by Protestants. Religious liberty extended to Catholics. Chief Justice Taney was Catholic, and there were politically prominent Catholics at the time of the founding, such as the Carroll family. 

Over the years, justices have attempted to elaborate guidelines for determining violations of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Do you find any particular guideline or approach more workable than others?

The best guideline is for all our government and civic institutions to respect the capacity of American citizens for freedom—our ability, whether in religion, the economy or in other human endeavors, to exercise our rights sensibly. 

Just as we who live in the bureaucratic age should be more skeptical of governance by executive regulation, so should we be more skeptical of judicial rulings. Reading the justices’ words [carefully and critically may help] students become more vigilant citizens.

Finally, reflecting more calmly and deeply, cannot we Americans acknowledge that being human entails some kind of spiritual experience? Can we not then find in the holidays of Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, Martin Luther King Day—and yes, in the spirit of Christmas and Hanukkah—the rational basis for community, liberality, charity, and conscience that define the best in common citizenship?

Amy Livingston never expected to find a vocation in teaching America’s story. She never expected to teach at all. She was in her late twenties before she discovered her own intellectual gifts. Grade school had bewildered her. Born deaf in one ear and hard of hearing in the other, she had difficulty learning to read and struggled to keep up in class. Her third-grade teacher, unaware of her hearing deficit, got tired of explaining the lessons to her. “She kicked me out of class,” Livingston recalled. Exiled to the cloakroom, Livingston spent the rest of the day looking up the dictionary meanings of words in the assignment other students had sped through. 

By the next day, Livingston had been reassigned to a special education class. She had also internalized her teacher’s opinion. (Only years later did she explain what had happened to her mother, a single parent struggling to keep her children housed and fed. A perceptive child, Livingston sensed her mother had enough to worry about.) School administrators and teachers never picked up on Livingston’s hearing problem, and she remained in special ed until she graduated from high school. 

A Path to Education Opens

Fortunately, Livingston next enrolled in the local community college, where she discovered a well-developed program for students with hearing disabilities. She learned American Sign Language, and found a community among other hard-of-hearing students. After completing 60 credits, she worked for several years as a nanny, traveling around the country. 

She was 26 years old and working in Massachusetts when she fell in love with a college student—a chemistry major at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. He proposed not only marriage, but that she pursue her BA degree. Somewhat jokingly, Livingston agreed to try college if he would write the application essay. He did, and Livingston soon found herself sitting in an introductory college course in US history. The professor’s lecture fascinated her. The next semester, she took two more US history classes, then realized she’d found her major. “For the first time in my education, I felt super successful,” Livingston said.

Teaching As the Practical Option

Livingston finished her bachelor’s degree in UMASS’s online program, the same month that her husband, who had transferred to the University of South Florida to get a degree chemical engineering, finished his. By then, the couple had three small children, the youngest a newborn. Student loans had ended and they had no savings. They would have been homeless had Livingston’s sister not offered them room in her own home. While her husband applied for jobs, Livingston took temporary work as a teacher’s aide. When a position teaching geography to ninth graders at a private high school opened, she took it.

“This was December. I was already the fifth teacher those students had had that year. I knew absolutely nothing about what I was doing.” She had taken no education courses. She was provided no textbook. She was simply told, “Write the final.”   

“I spent the first nine weeks building a relationship with my students,” Livingston said. She greeted every student entering her classroom with a handshake; she learned what she could about their interests and extracurriculars. She found interesting geography lessons online. Joining social studies teacher groups on Facebook, she built her own professional learning community (PLC). “I found other people who were good at what they did, and learned from them.” The next school year, she was asked to teach not only the regular-level geography course but also AP Human Geography and World History. 

Finding an Unexpected Vocation

As Livingston wondered whether to continue with teaching, her husband found the job he sought, and the family moved from Daytona to Tampa. The next fall, Livingston took a job teaching civics and government at a public middle school. “Middle schoolers are still young enough to want the occasional hug, but old enough to have interesting conversations with. And they appreciate my silly jokes.” As they warmed to her,  “I fell in love with teaching,” Livingston  remembers. 

Now she wondered how to earn a teaching credential. A colleague in her online PLC suggested she go straight for a Masters in her content area. He told her about the Master of Arts in American History and Government (MAHG) at Ashland University. To fund her degree, he said, she might apply for a James Madison Foundation Fellowship in constitutional studies. 

Taking on MAHG Studies

Livingston applied for the fellowship. She did not win it, but was named a strong finalist. Her husband was promoted to a new position in Tennessee, where Livingston began teaching fifth through eighth grade social studies and, later, eighth grade US history. When she queried her online colleagues about making another Madison application, MAHG Director Chris Pascarella read her post and contacted her. Why not register for a couple of courses in the MAHG program, he asked? He could arrange for a Buchwald tuition fellowship to cover the cost. Completing the courses successfully would demonstrate to the Madison Foundation her aptitude for graduate work.

“Here’s this girl who was too dumb to sit with the third-grade class, who now is thinking about earning a Masters,” Livingston chuckles. “But I figured that if I could complete my undergraduate degree while having three kids, I could get through one or two 8-week online graduate courses.” She began the program. Applying again for the Madison Fellowship, she was awarded it. 

Meanwhile, the MAHG program was increasing Livingston’s commitment to teaching America’s story. “My love and respect for our country’s history, for our founding, and for the American spirit grew so much. I became more passionate in my teaching.” 

Our Perfectible Union

“The Constitution is just so beautiful,” she says. She quotes the motto of the Florida Supreme Court, “Sat Cito Si Recte,” a Latin phrase meaning “Soon enough, if correct.” In the context of the judiciary, the phrase means that correct rulings arise from long and careful deliberations. Applying the motto to the federal Constitution, Livingston points to the many debates that have shaped it. 

“The founders knew that the Constitution wasn’t perfect. They designed an amendment process, to help us keep working toward a ‘more perfect union,’” she tells students. She adds that the founders believed constitutional government would work only if citizens understood their governing framework and the principles it is based on. When her middle school students asked, “Why do we need to learn about American government in the seventh grade?” she replied, “Statistically, here where we live, 15% of you won’t make it to your 12th grade government class. If you do choose to drop out—which if you do, I’m gonna take my shoes and throw them at you!—you will at least have a basic understanding of how constitutional government works.”

She throws a party on Constitution Day—September 17. She decorates her classroom with red, white and blue crepe paper and hands out pocket Constitutions, telling her government students that “this will be your textbook for the rest of the year.” 

A Teacher’s Influence

“Because of MAHG, I’ve begun using way more primary sources,” Livingston says. “They give you history straight from the horse’s mouth, not somebody’s interpretation. I can say to students, ‘Here is what Lincoln said; what do you think about that?’ I don’t want to hear what Amy Livingston thinks—what do you think?”

“Teachers wield so much influence,” Livingston muses. “My seventh-grade science teacher said, ‘You can’t believe in God and science at the same time.’” Livingston widens her eyes and laughs at the memory. “Too many students think, ‘That’s what my teacher said, so it must be true.’” Livingston uses her own influence carefully.

Teaching America’s story with thoroughness, but without bias, is simpler with primary documents. MAHG gave Livingston binders full of sources and helped her understand their context. It also helped her trace persistent themes. For example, “in every single course I took in the program, we talked about race—although never about ‘critical race theory.’ We just covered the facts. I grew up in Connecticut, not realizing that during the earliest years of our history, slavery existed there, and in all the colonies—not only in the South. Students appreciate the honest story.”

Livingston finished her MAHG degree in August 2023. Because of her husband’s latest career move, she is now teaching 11^th grade US history and 12^th grade government at Chancellor High School in Fredericksburg, Virginia. About 36% of the student body identifies as Hispanic, 33% as Caucasian, 21% as African American, and the remaining tenth as Asian or of mixed-race ancestry. At least 11% are English language learners, and over 14% struggle with disabilities. Livingston is responsible for 180 students, divided into six sections. She wants to help them all, but there is no time for individualized instruction. Still, she cultivates their trust. When a student forgot her name and called her “Ms. Bro,” Livingston laughed, chipping away some older adolescent wariness. 

She plans provocative lessons. For a unit on voting and media literacy, she presented students with a list of ten unnamed historical leaders, differentiated only by cherry-picked biographical facts. Hitler was described as a poor youth who dreamed of attending art school, earned his way to wealth and authority, received a medal for bravery in war, and was devoted to the advancement of his country. Lincoln was described as having suffered a nervous breakdown, lost 62% of the elections in which he ran, and presided over a violently divided country, aware that half its citizens despised him. “Asked, ‘would you vote for this candidate?’ most students choose Hitler and never Lincoln,” Livingston said. “When they learn the identities of the leaders, they’re shocked—but then we have a great discussion about researching candidates carefully.”

Teaching America’s story, Livingston will do what it takes. If her students realize that they are each “a part of the American story, and that they have a responsibility to make sure that this story continues,” she’ll count her work a success.

Young citizens need civics education to understand their constitutionally guaranteed rights. The best civics teachers also help students learn the skills they need to protect their rights. Two graduates of the Master of Arts in American History and Government (MAHG) program submitted essays on how they teach these skills to the Bill of Rights Institute’s 2023 National Civics Teacher of the Year Award, placing among the top ten finalists. Both Kymberli Wregglesworth of Onaway, Michigan and Amanda Peters of Frisco, Texas urge students to stay wary of encroachments on their personal rights. Yet both go further. They teach self-government as a cooperative activity. They encourage students to listen to other citizens’ perspectives. Pushing students to learn about local government, they teach habits of civil conversation about issues close to home.

Our Apprenticeship in Liberty Begins at the Local Level

“Civics class should give students an apprenticeship in liberty,” Wregglesworth argued. “It should give them not only an  understanding of our founding, our Constitutional system, and the practical process of lawmaking. It should point them to windows of access to involvement in government, even before they are voters.” She spoke of local government processes—schoolboard, city, and county government meetings—that her own students observe and report on. These give students a sense of how self-government works, and may even give students opportunities to participate by commenting at such meetings.

Peters agreed. “Civic engagement involves more than just showing up to vote. Even before they are eligible to vote, students become civically engaged as they practice the skills of good citizens.” Students do not need to be of voting age to “block walk” for local government candidates. They do not even need to be naturalized citizens to write letters to the lawmakers who represent the districts they live in. In the rapidly growing northern suburb of Dallas where Peters teaches, many students are immigrants from Southeast Asia, and Peters encourages them to learn about the American constitutional system by following politics at the state and local level. “Laws made at the local level affect students every day, often even more than laws made at the national level.”

But the apprenticeship in liberty young citizens need should occur primarily in civics class itself, both Peters and Wregglesworth said. One of the he saysmost important skills students need to master, both said, is the art of productive dialogue with fellow community members.

The Small Republic of the Civics Classroom

Peters’ and Wreggleworth’s experience in the MAHG program convinced them that carefully facilitated seminar discussions give students practice in such dialogue. As the “Statement of Principles” given to teachers who participate in Teaching American History programs explains, teachers gather in these seminars to discuss primary documents of American history, aware of the central importance to Americans of:

equality and freedom, which we understand to be not only fundamental political principles but fundamental educational principles. We engage with our students as equals with us in devotion to the truth and to understanding the documents we study as their authors understood them.  We talk with students, rather than at them, because that is how free and equal individuals converse with one another.  Our manner implies, in brief, that our classrooms are small republics.

“The small republic” of the civics classroom can have a powerful effect on civic life in America as a whole, Wregglesworth believes. “The civics classroom is perhaps the one place in America today where citizens of all groups and backgrounds come together,” she said. “You have students from a variety of racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. You have students from economically advantaged and disadvantaged families. It’s a microcosm of the larger society. If we can help students function together as a deliberative body as they discuss the issues we face in government, perhaps they’ll learn skills they’ll carry into their lives as adults. Perhaps they’ll learn to build consensus, or at least to compromise with those who disagree with them.”

Americans Need More Practice in Civil Conversation

Watching current American political discussion devolve into arguments over contending claims of rights, Wregglesworth notes that Americans simply need more practice in friendly political dialogue. “We were told, ‘You shouldn’t talk about politics.’ But we absolutely should talk about it! If we don’t talk about it on a low stakes level, around the dinner table or with colleagues and friends, we aren’t going to be able to talk about it at a high stakes level when it really matters.”

Peters noted that the increasing media emphasis on national rather than local and state government has inhibited productive dialogue.  “Local TV stations lack the time, money and talent to adequately cover local news. People aren’t sufficiently aware of the issues facing local government,” so they don’t know how to discuss them. While citizens are often afraid of voicing opinions that might offend their neighbors, “they don’t worry about offending people who live a thousand miles away, with whom their only interaction is on social media,” Peters says. No wonder political discussions become contentious.

How to Teach Civil Conversation

Productive discussion of history and government does not occur automatically. Social studies teachers must lay the groundwork by earning students’ trust. Both Wregglesworth and Peters feel fortunate to teach both freshmen and upper classmen. “When I get students for civics, I’ve already had them for world history in 10th grade,” Wregglesworth says. “They know I won’t let them be bullied by other students for having the outlier opinion. Through trial and error, they learn how to question their peers’ ideas without attacking their peers. I tell them, we’re going to debate issues and opinions. We’re not going to debate people. In this classroom, we are all equal to one another.”

She does advise students that their opinions will carry greater weight if they are backed by research. “The person whose opinion is based on one YouTube video cannot be as persuasive as the person who has looked at a range of alternatives and can say, ‘Here’s why I disagree with this option and support this alternative.’”

Primary documents offer starting points for civil conversation. “I often find myself implementing in my own classroom the same type of discussions we had in MAHG,” Peters said. “Like the MAHG faculty, I tell students, ‘These are our focus questions for the document we’re discussing today.’” Then she encourages students to engage in what she calls the “Harkness” discussion method. “It’s based on a practice developed at Philips Exeter Academy, yet it’s very like the discussion method used in MAHG seminars. I throw out a question to begin the discussion, then the students take the lead. A student responds to my question, then calls on another student to comment further. “Each student who comments must respond to what another student has just said, rather than making a point about an idea discussed earlier. They must keep current with where the discussion has gone.” Through this process, students practice careful listening and respectful response. Developing “a kind of camaraderie,” they commit to the rules they have established.

Primary Documents Focus Discussion and Teach Compromise

Since beginning her MAHG studies, Peters has brought into civics class many more historical documents than she previously used. “Now, when I teach the Constitutional Convention, I conclude by asking students to read the speech Benjamin Franklin wrote to be read to delegates on the last day of their work (September 17, 1787).” Franklin, alluding to the fact that none of the delegates emerged from the negotiations having secured every constitutional feature they had hoped for, describes his own feelings:

I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.

“Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, by James Madison, a Member.” Record for Monday, September 17. Edited by Gordon Lloyd. Ashbrook Publishing, 2014.

“Everyone knows Franklin is a smart guy,” Peters says. “Yet he is telling the other delegates, ‘I know that I don’t know everything. So, despite my reservations, I support what we’ve done here. And I hope all of you will leave this place and sell the heck out this Constitution during the ratification process.’”

Wregglesworth teaches habits of civil conversation when students raise questions about certain constitutional features. For example, many students find it hard to understand the Electoral College, especially when a  candidate who wins the popular vote tally loses the election. Wregglesworth directs them to online articles recommending reforms to the presidential electoral system. “Pick one proposal and explain to the class why it is better than the current system,” she says. “If you research the options, and you feel that no one proposal really fixes the problem, make a Frankenstein out of elements of two proposals. Then explain that one to us.”

Students bring such reform ideas to the class as a whole, who critique each idea together, working toward a consensus about the best plan. “If I can get them to cooperate and come up with novel ideas to make the country better, maybe at least a few of them will carry a willingness to work with other citizens into their adult lives,” Wregglesworth said.  

“Democracy is always hard,” Wregglesworth said. “The founders knew it was hard. Still, they trusted themselves, and they trusted posterity, to make democracy work. And for the most part, democracy is still working.”

One-Day seminars are the easiest way to engage with Teaching American History in person. These are free to attend for all social studies teachers and can be in historical locations, school districts, and educational service centers. For a few hours, teachers can dive into the content of primary source documents through a discussion with colleagues facilitated by a scholar. Lunch is provided, and at the end of the day you head home with an attendance letter.  

Although One-Days are designed to fit around a teacher’s busy schedule, it is important to spend some time preparing for the day. Here is some advice from teachers who frequent One Day seminars.

• Complete as much of the readings as possible. Course packs (you can find a sample here) are sent 3-4 weeks ahead to give teachers a chance to carve out some time to read.  This allows participants to prepare their thoughts and questions and join in the conversation to really get the meaning behind the documents.  You have the opportunity to participate in some deep and meaningful conversations and the more reading completed, the more you can jump right to those conversations at the seminar! That can be daunting, however, for a first timer.  “[What I do] is read through the readings that are provided rather slowly,” says Brandon Floro, a teacher in Tontogany, Ohio. “While I read, I highlight or underline answers to the questions provided for each section. I also highlight or underline remarks that I found interesting in the documents that I think would add to the discussions. I also look up words/terms that I know are unfamiliar to me as they help bring context to the documents at hand. Lastly, I will look up maps or visuals that may be of assistance to gain a visual understanding. For example, when reading the Missouri Compromise, it helped to look up a visual of the map where the lines were drawn so I could physically see where it was.” Ron, a teacher in southern Ohio, echoes Brandon’s advice: “I read the packet and highlight things that strike me as important. I then annotate in the margin things about which I may have a question or jot down something that is connected to another reading or to another historical event or concept.”

• Plan your drive and possibly stay the night.  Some of our one-days are in incredible locations! Whether you’re going to be driving to see the beautiful Smoky Mountains in Asheville, North Carolina or the vast fields in Corning, Iowa you want to make sure to plan your trip to include traffic and sudden weather events.  Perhaps staying in a hotel the night before or planning an early morning might be your best bet. Either way, One-Days start at 8:55 am and end at 2:15 pm to allow busy teachers time to travel. If you don’t see a One-Day in your neck of the woods, reach out to TAH staff to get one there! We would love to come to your school – and will do so for free. Check the schedule! We have One-Days on weekdays and on Saturdays.  Book that substitute, and then make sure you come!  TAH staff will typically reach out several weeks prior to the seminar to confirm attendance.  Since materials are printed and sent and lunch is offered at most [all?] seminars, we want to make sure our numbers are correct. TAH wants to ensure that the seminar is as meaningful as possible!

Our hope is you leave a One-Day with a better understanding of content and are ready to take it back with you to your students. Steve Kohler, a social studies teacher in Sandusky, remarks “[One days] have reinvigorated me as a teacher and given me so much to take back to my students….  [They] have made me a better teacher and given me more to share with my students, ” We look forward to seeing you at one! 

Interested in scheduling a One Day at your district? Email us at [email protected]!

Courtney Reiner holds a Bachelor of Arts in Integrated Social Studies degree from Kent State University and a Master’s of American History and Government degree from Ashland University. She taught 14 and a half years in northwest Ohio and is currently TAH’s Teacher Program Manager for Ohio.

Any serious student of history will tell you that pinning down the precise origins of great events is difficult at best, but one can often find important moments that offer a glimpse into their long-term origins. The Tehran Conference, convened eighty years ago at the height of WWII, is such a moment. Code named Operation Eureka, the conference opened on November 28^th, 1943 and brought together the three Allied leaders, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet General Secretary (or as he is referred to in the notes of the meeting – Marshall) Joseph Stalin of the U.S.S.R. A close examination of the notes from this three-day conference gives us important insights into not just plans for the war itself, but possible origins of the Cold War that followed. 

Planning for Victory

By the time the conference opened, the war had turned substantially, but not conclusively, in the Allies’ favor. The Germans were beaten in Africa, Fascism was collapsing in Italy, and the Russians had turned back Hitler’s ill-fated invasion and were slowly but steadily moving west. So, while one purpose of the meeting was to discuss plans for the conclusion of the war, notably the opening of a second front in the West, the status of  Europe after the war, particularly regarding Germany and Eastern Europe, was also important. Drawing on the notes taken during the various meetings and private discussions held between November 28^th and December 1^st, we see the foundation of several of the Cold War’s most critical issues.

Stalin dominated the dinner meeting of November 28^th and along with his animus towards Germany, he clearly didn’t trust France, asserting that their ruling class was “rotten to the core” and now “actively helping our enemies.” Both Churchill and FDR denied any intention to secure more territory for their respective nations, and both supported Stalin with regard to France. FDR suggested that anyone over 40 years old be eliminated from any future French government and that certain territories, like Dakkar and New Caledonia, be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations.

The conversation then turned to Germany and again Marshall Stalin took the lead, although all three were in favor of its dismemberment. How long they expected that status to last is open to speculation, but it’s not hard to imagine Stalin planning for a lengthy Soviet occupation of some part of it. In the process of discussing future borders and the Soviet need for a warm-water port, two other future Cold War issues came up. First, Poland entered the discussion. Its eastern boundaries were to change to allow for a Soviet port on the Baltic, with recompense offered by extending (with Russian assistance) Poland’s western boundaries to the Oder River, which would restore German held territory to Poland. There was also a brief discussion of the status of the Baltic States, perhaps as a result of a translation. FDR suggested some sort of international state near the Kiel Canal to ensure free passage for all and the Soviet translator gave Marshall Stalin the impression the President was talking about the Baltic States themselves. Stalin quickly insisted that they had already voted to join the U.S.S.R. by “an expression of the will of the people” so as far as he was concerned, the subject was closed. 

Personalities, D-Day, and the Future of Poland

After Roosevelt retired to his rooms in the Soviet Embassy (showing a trust in Stalin’s generosity few might have shared at that time) Churchill and Stalin continued the discussion. After attempting to draw a distinction between the German leaders and the German people, firmly rejected by Stalin, Churchill returned to the topic of Poland. Reminding the Marshall that Great Britain had entered the war as a result of its commitments to Poland, the Prime Minister agreed that the U.S.S.R. was entitled to secure its western borders but insisted that a strong and independent  Poland was a “necessary instrument in the European orchestra.” He further proposed that the three leaders craft some fundamental understanding of Poland’s future status that he could take to the Polish government-in-exile in London, but Marshall Stalin was noncommittal. Did he already see the occupation of Poland as a long-term Soviet aim?

Perhaps inspired by Churchill’s strong position regarding Poland, Stalin lost no opportunity to take shots at him at the next dinner meeting on November 29^th. He started off suggesting that the Prime Minister might harbor some “secret affection” for the German people and might be looking for a “soft peace.” The banter (characterized as both “friendly” and “lively”) continued as Churchill objected strenuously to Stalin’s suggestion that up to 100,000 members of the German Command Staff had to be executed to insure her continued weakness post-war. It is likely that Stalin’s comments were really aimed pushing Britain towards his proposed second front in Western Europe as Churchill was still arguing for his plan to hit Germany from the “soft underbelly” of Italy and the Balkans. But since Churchill and FDR had previously discussed the invasion they reassured the Soviet leader in a plenary session on November 30^th that Operation Overlord was scheduled for May of 1944.   

FDR and Stalin – Too Trusting?

At the same time, it is possible that Stalin’s actions and words had another purpose. He may well have been convinced that he could handle FDR more easily than Churchill and hoped to drive a wedge between the two. His conviction could have been inspired by Roosevelt’s own estimation of his relationship with “Uncle Joe.” In a letter to Churchill, FDR said he could “handle Stalin personally better than either your Foreign Office or my State Department. Stalin hates the guts of all your top people. He thinks he likes me better, and I hope he will continue to do so.”  He even went so far as to request a private meeting with Stalin, linking his concerns about Poland with his electoral chances in 1944.  He was concerned that any public suggestion to change Poland’s borders to benefit the U.S.S.R. would offend large portions of his constituency in the U.S. He also spoke in favor of referenda for the Baltic states, but reassured the Marshall that he was “confident the people would vote to join the Soviet Union.” It is difficult not to see FDR’s words as encouragement for Stalin’s expansionist plans.

In the political meeting of December 1^st, the discussion turned again to the status of Poland and the post-war dismantling of Germany. Churchill resumed his argument that Britain entered the war because of Hitler’s invasion of Poland, though he also assured Marshall Stalin that the U.S.S.R. was entitled to secure western borders. Stalin asserted his desire to have friendly relations with Poland but drew a distinction between Poland itself and the Polish government-in-exile in London. He accused them of  “slanderous propaganda” and the killing of partisans but said he could negotiate with them if they changed their behavior. At this point, Churchill suggested taking an offer to the government-in-exile, without telling them it came from the Russians, and told Stalin that if they refused the offer, “Great Britain would be through with them.” They discussed several variations on a specific border but made no firm commitment to one plan. As far as Germany was concerned, several plans were suggested involving larger and smaller collections of the German states. Everyone seemed to agree that Germany had to be broken up but again no definitive solution was reached. 

Opportunities Seized and Missed?

At the end of three days, several important decisions were made, but some were also avoided, helping set the stage for 50 years of Cold War between the East and West. Operation Overlord was in motion, relieving some of Stalin’s fears of facing the Germans without more Allied help. Plans were also laid for Germany’s future, none of them firm and all of them giving considerable power to the Soviet Union, without a specific commitment from Stalin to the eventual freedom of that nation. The Baltic states were delivered up to Stalin on a silver platter and Poland got little if any protection in the conference, despite all of Churchill’s efforts. No one seemed to see the possibility of the U.S.S.R. taking all that territory and keeping it. Some of this failure must be laid at FDR’s feet. Did his belief in his ability to manage the Soviet dictator, combined with his worries about the next election, embolden Stalin to take and hold more than he might have? Three powerful and head-strong leaders gathered in Tehran for three days in 1943. How they each navigated these meetings goes a long way to explaining not just how they came to their final public statements about what happened in Tehran, but how the early seeds of the decades-long Cold War were planted.

Rusty Eder is a Teacher Partner with Teaching American History and the History Chair, Academy Historian and Dean of Faculty at West Nottingham Academy.