YOUR PRESENTATION

Designing and Delivering Instruction From a Textbook: [Or Developing Your Own Materials]

This format is for one or more class sessions. If you do more than that, the doc will be cumbersome.

Type or paste into this document the information you will teach and the scripts (or at least an outline of scripts) for teaching the information.

Use this document to organize your presentation in a logical sequence.For example,

Review New pre-skills needed Chunks of New information Test each chunk Some kind of integration at the end (review, project, essay, discussion).

Make a shorter version for your students to use as Guided Notes. THEY take notes while YOU use this doc for the presentation. For example,

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/GuidedNotesonBlakeforenglishlitcourse.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Guided%20Notes%20Organized%20With%20the%20Cornell%20Noteblank.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/guidednotesforcivicscourse.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/guidednoteshistorycourse.doc

Guided notes for Declaration of Independence

What I say to myself is in blue.

PART 1. PREPARATION

1. Examine the section of text you’ll be teaching; for example, chapters on the American Revolution, or English 18th century poetry, or types of rocks.

a. Now look at the standard course of study. http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/

Copy and paste relevant standards.

Here are courses I might teach. Let’s see what the standard course of study says I have to include.…

1. Social Studies :: 2006 :: Eighth Grade North Carolina: Creation And Development Of The State http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/2003-04/050eighthgrade

Competency Goal 2 The learner will trace the causes and effects of the Revolutionary War, and assess the impact of major events, problems, and personalities during the Constitutional Period in North Carolina and the new nation.  

Objectives

2.01 Trace the events leading up to the Revolutionary War and evaluate their relative significance in the onset of hostilities.

Uh oh! VAGUE! What does ‘trace’ mean? What does ‘evaluate their relative significance’ mean?

Let’s see. Sugar Act (1764). Stamp Act (1765). Townshend Acts 1767. Boston Massacre (1770). Attack on Lexington and Concord (1775). These events imposed taxes on the colonists (hurt business), tried to hamper colonists’ trade, required colonists to house British soldiers, involved British army in Massachusetts, involved killing of colonists.

http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/revolutionarywartimeline.htm

So, students will make a timeline (‘trace’) that identifies each event, states what it involved, and how it could be seen as coercive force and as a violation of colonists’ trust in the British government.

2.02 Describe the contributions of key North Carolina and national personalities from the Revolutionary War era and assess their influence on the outcome of the war.

2.03 Examine the role of North Carolina in the Revolutionary War.

2.04 Examine the reasons for the colonists' victory over the British, and evaluate the impact of military successes and failures, the role of foreign interventions, and on-going political and economic domestic issues.

2.05 Describe the impact of documents such as the Mecklenburg Resolves, the Halifax Resolves, the Albany Plan of Union, the Declaration of Independence, the State Constitution of 1776, the Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights on the formation of the state and national governments.

VAGUE!! What does it mean to ‘describe the impact’? Here are objectives that are clear and concrete---what students will DO.

The class will examine each document and identify (say or write): (1) principles of government espoused, such as consent of the governed, unalienable rights, branches of government and how these check and balance each other, the argument for separation from Britain; (2) the specific recommendations for the organization and powers of the states and federal government; and (3) how these principles and recommendations were included in the state and federal constitutions.

These objectives seem to cover ‘describe the impact.’

Social Studies :: 2006 :: Tenth Grade Civics And Economics

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/2003-04/062tenthgrade

Competency Goal 1 The learner will investigate the foundations of the American political system and explore basic values and principles of American democracy.  

Objectives

1.01 Describe how geographic diversity influenced economic, social, and political life in colonial North America.

1.02 Trace and analyze the development of ideas about self-government in British North America.

1.03 Examine the causes of the American Revolution.

1.04 Elaborate on the emergence of an American identity.

1.05 Identify the major domestic problems of the nation under the Articles of Confederation and assess the extent to which they were resolved by the new Constitution.

1.06 Compare viewpoints about government in the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

1.07 Evaluate the extent to which the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution.

1.08 Compare the American system of government to other forms of government.

Social Studies :: 2006 :: Fifth Grade United States History, Canada, Mexico, And Central America

http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/2003-04/033fifthgrade

Competency Goal 2 The learner will analyze political and social institutions in North America and examine how these institutions respond to human needs, structure society, and influence behavior.  

Objectives

2.01 Analyze major documents that formed the foundations of the American idea of constitutional government.

Vague. What does “analyze” mean? Which documents?

I need to make objectives that are clear and concrete. Like this…

Students will analyze the following documents. Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights.

Clear and Concrete Objectives

Declaration of Independence. Students will:

1. State who wrote the Declaration of Independence, when it was written, and when it was signed and by whom? Facts and lists.

2. Define the following concepts: unalienable rights, pursuit of happiness, People, monarchy, consent of the governed, just powers, principles and organization, abuses. Concepts.

3. State in propositional form the theory of representative government in paragraph 2. Rules (propositions) and routine (stating the whole theory—a series of propositions, like steps)

4. State the three parts of the deductive argument by which the Declaration is organized. First premise (When a government no longer secures the unalienable rights of the People, the People have the right to alter or abolish it.) Second premise (The British government does not secure the unalienable rights of the People). Conclusion (Therefore, the People have the right to alter or to abolish their relationship with the British government.) List.

5. Identify rhetorical devices used in the Declaration. Concepts.

Do the same for the other documents.

Now I know exactly what to teach on the Declaration, and exactly what and how to test to see if students learned what the objectives state.

Does your textbook cover all that the standard course of study says you have to teach? If not, what’s missing from your textbook?

No. It does not contain historical documents. It says little about events leading up to them and how they were designed.

So, I will add the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

b. Also examine research and expert opinion, and your own knowledge of the topic.

Skim some of the docs, below; copy and paste useful ideas. These ideas will guide making objectives, selecting content, how you present information, and assignments/assessments.

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/ Lots of resources.

Chester E. Finn, Jr., Diane Ravitch. The mad mad world of textbook adoption.

Sandra Stotsky. The stealth curriculum. Manipulating America’s history teachers. Forham Foundation, 2004.

Diane Ravitch. A consumer’s guide to high school history textbooks. The Fordham Institute, 2004.

Walter Russell Mead. The state of word history standards. Fordham Institute, 2006.

Finn, Julian, and Petrilli. The state of state standards. Fordham Foundation, 2006.

David Klein et al. The state of state of state math standards. Fordham Foundation, 2005. http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/

http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/math/math.html

Sandra Stotsky. The state of state English standards. Fordham Foundation, 2005. Paul R. Goodman et al. The State of State Science Standards Fordham Institute, 2005.

2. Do the standard course of study, experts, and your own background knowledge suggest strands of knowledge to weave together to help your students to GET and to retell the story (in a history course, for example) or to learn a comprehensive sample? Knowledge strands might include:

Timeline of events PersonsGroups (families, political parties)Social institutions Culture (values, beliefs), religionTechnologyGeography Big ideas that organize the content.

Design instruction so that information from all of the strands is covered. For example, include knowledge from all the strands when presenting the Constitution. Who wrote it? What groups

were involved? What big ideas do the writing process and the final document reveal? How did the geography of the colonies affect the writing (large and small states. agricultural vs. nonagricultutral states).

3. What “big ideas” will you use to introduce and organize the

presentation?

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Curriculum%20%20%20Big%20Ideas.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/big%20ideas%20in%20social%20scie

nce.doc

Here’s a model of political conflict between government and the people. I will teach this EARLY. This will help students to organize all the content. I got it from Peter Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life.

Proposition 1. The relationship between the government and The People involves exchange. The government makes demands (in the form of taxes, service in time of war, obedience to law) and the government provides rewards (for example, protection from invasion; protection against violation of rights; certain services such as postal, highways, emergencies).

Proposition 2. When The People judge the exchange to be fair (not too much is demanded by the government; not too little is given in return by the government), The People see the government and its demands as legitimate, reasonable, right.

Proposition 3. The People develop norms of fairness which become part of their commonsense knowledge. “That’s not asking too much” vs. “Now they’ve gone too far!!”

Proposition 4. When The People judge that the government is acting according to the norms of fairness, The People socialize their children and encourage other persons to support the government.

Proposition 5. When the People judge that the government is NOT acting according to norms of fairness, The People begin to oppose the government through opposition organizations (Sons of Liberty, the Tea Party Movement). The People also develop opposition ideologies that justify rebellion. “The government’s actions are unconstitutional. These guys are nothing but fascists! We must not obey. Resistance is our DUTY!”

Proposition 6. The government responds to opposition with threats, coercion, bribery, and force.

Proposition 7. The People judge the government’s response to be further evidence of the government’s illegitimacy, and The People escalate their opposition (they tar and feathering government officials, dump tea into the harbor, form militias, attend huge rallies, refuse to pay taxes, don’t send their children to government schools).

Proposition 8. The cycle of increasing conflict continues until either the government reduces it coercive force, the government increases it rewards (which suckers The People back into a coercive relationship), is changed by legal means (e.g., election, impeachment), the government is overthrown by force (e.g., armed rebellion, military coup), or the government eliminates its opposition and installs dictatorship.

4. Do the resources (above) say that you need additional content?

For example, original documents, biography, definitions of vocabulary, more details on events, maps? Identify what’s needed based on standard course of study, experts, and your own knowledge.

1. So, do a Google search. 2. Find more resources. 3. Extract quotations, concepts, rules, facts, lists, explanations, theories that you want to teach.4. Find images that you can turn into Powerpoint presentations.

Here are some resources I can use.

ON-LINE BOOKS AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ [A million documents—political, historical]

http://www.constitution.org/

http://www.usconstitution.net/

http://www.readbookonline.net/authors/

http://www.xdrive.com/partners/?p=pfebooks&gcid=C10757x028

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/

http://books.mirror.org/gb.home.html [The Great Books]

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/collections/languages/english/

http://www.bartleby.com/

http://www.grtbooks.com/ [The Great Books.]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ [Religion and philosophy]

http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ [Religion and philosophy]

http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/

http://www.bartleby.com/hc/

HISTORY AND LITERATURE

http://www.luminarium.org/ [Anthology of English Lit]

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html [Library of Congress]

http://www.archives.gov/ [The National Archives]

http://www.roman-empire.net/

http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/980 [A billion pictures--PPTs]

http://www.history.org/research/?CFID=1447647&CFTOKEN=68723016 [A trillion links]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/index.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

http://www.greektexts.com/index.html

http://www.ancientsites.com/

http://www.emints.org/webquest/index.shtml

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/maplinks [A million maps]

http://www.in2greece.com/english/

http://www.usconstitution.net/

http://www.livius.org/

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/mideastindex.htm

I need additional content.

Here’s what I will do…I will only put in the urls here. But I will download the docs and I will cut out what I don’t need. When I plan how to PRESENT the information (Part 2), I will paste in what I saved in each doc so I have all my materials right here in one place.

Here’s the additional content.

A. Writings that influenced Founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 4--15, 54, 119--22, 163, 1689http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s1.html

Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 2, CH. 21748http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s3.html

B. Texts and supplementary materials for the Founding documents.

1. Declaration of Independence. (1) Document http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm (2) Rhetorical analysis of the document. I’ll use the docs below to show students the design features of the Declaration, to explain how it was so persuasive. Later, we’ll use a list of these rhetorical/design features to analyze other documents (generalization)

A rhetorical analysis of The Declaration of Independence: persuasive appeals and language http://mail.baylorschool.org/~jstover/technology/techfair04/DecofIndrhetanalysis.htm

The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independenceby Stephen E. Lucashttp://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_style.html

2. Articles of Confederation (1) Document. http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

(2) Analysis.

An analysis of THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION as a model for the Institutions of Freedom. Bobby Yates Emory

http://libertariannation.org/a/ppe1.html

Students list main advantages and deficiencies.

Deficiencies of the Confederation http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch5I.html

Students list main advantages and deficiencies.

5. Examine the materials---both in the textbook and the NEW supplementary materials (above). Identify what you want students to learn. What will they DO to show that they have learned? These are your objectives.

Facts: For example, dates for different Acts, names of persons who did one thing and another. Places where events happened.

Lists: of persons, events, groups, places.

Concepts/vocabulary: For example, unalienable rights, democracy, tyranny, oligarchy…

Rules: statements of how things are related, connected, caused.

Models (diagrams) and theories (a set of rules in a sequence) that explain something.

Remember: there is a procedure for teaching each kind of knowledge.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/summaryinstrdesign.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Overview%20for%20301.ppt

Underline the information (facts, concepts, etc.) in the materials, or take notes, or copy and paste smaller chunks into this doc in Part 2.

Label the type of knowledge, so that you know HOW to teach each one.

How do you teach concepts? Okay, oligarchy is an abstract concept. How do you teach it? You: (1) give the definition; (2) test to ensure that students got the definition; (3) give examples and show how they fit the definition; (4) give nonexamples and show how they don’t fit the definition; (5) present all the examples and nonexamples (acquisition set) and have students identify each and state how they know (using the definition); and (6) give new examples to teach and test generalization.

Boys and girls. [Gain attention]

New kind of political system. Oligarchy. [Frame]

Spell oligarchy… What’s our new political system?... Okay, get ready to write the definition in your Guided Notes….

Oligarchy is a political system (that’s the genus), in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious domination …(that’s the difference between oligarchy as a political system, and other political systems. I’ll say the definition again…. [Model]

You say the definition…. [Test]

Okay, here are examples. In ancient Greece…..

In Rome…

Now, here are systems that LOOK like oligarchy, but are not. They are missing something…. [nonexamples]

Now, let’s check the examples. [Delayed acquisition test.] I’ll give an example, and you tell me if is it or isn’t an oligarchy. Use the definition to decide….

Now, here’s a new one. You tell me if it is or isn’t oligarchy. [Generalization]

6. Arrange all the materials in a logical sequence of

learnable chunks (not too much new information). With objectives.

Think of what you want students to do at the END (the terminal objective). And then work backwards----What prior knowledge is needed to learn the last chunk, the second to last chunk, the third to last chunk? Then ask, What is a good way to START the unit? BIG IDEAS!

You don’t have to follow the sequence in a textbook. Some sections might be better if they came earlier or later.

Nor do you have to cover everything. Cover DEEPLY, thoroughly.

Think of objectives for the information in each chunk. What do you want students to DO after the information is presented?

a. Repeat information.

b. Define concepts/vocabulary: accurately (acquisition), accurately and fast (fluency), students apply to or invent new examples (generalization), after time has gone by (retention.

c. State three problems of ……

d. Compare and contrast….

e. Summarize the…. [Could be a list.]

f. Explain… Use a set of rules (If,…then…) backed up by facts (“And X did happen.”).

Okay, here’s MY outline for the presentation. It will also be Guided Notes for students._________________________________________________________________Chunk 1. Review.

Objectives and Test.

1. Students will define concepts taught last week:

a. Democracy

b. Mass democracy

c. Representative democracy

d. Monarchy

e. Aristocracy.

f. Timocracy

g. Oligarchy

h. Tyranny

2. Student will discuss the five political systems identified by Plato.

(a) What are the five forms discussed by Plato?

(b) What is the cycle by which one form becomes another?

(c) How does aristocracy become timocracy?

(d) How does timocracy become oligarchy?

(e) How does oligarchy become democracy?

(f) How does democracy become tyranny?

3. Students will state the main propositions in Blau’s theory of conflict.

___________________________________________________________________Chunk 2. Hell on Earth. Nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian

systems

Show PPT on Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Objectives and test.

Students will answer the following questions.

1. About how many millions of persons were killed by their own governments

in the 20th century?

2. What are some of the things that nondemocratic regimes do to get,

expand, and keep their power?

3. What are some consequences of weakening the power of documents, such as the Constitution, that state the limits of government power and provide for selection of our government?

____________________________________________________________________Chunk 3. Big ideas on representative government.

Objective 1. Students read quotations and state dangers to democratic systems.

Objective 2. Students read quotations and state what must be done to preserve democratic systems.

3. After reading all of the quotations, students list dangers and protections in table form.

Dangers Protections

___________________________________________________________________Chunk 4. New vocabulary.

Objectives and test.

1. Teacher states a concept. Students define it.

2. Teacher gives examples and nonexamples. Students identify them and state the definition to justify their answer.

1. Unalienable rights.

2. Abuses

3. Consent of the governed

4. Tyranny

_______________________________________________________________Chunk 5. Deductive argument.

Objectives and test.

1. Students state the three parts of a deductive argument: first premise, or rule; second premise, or fact; conclusion deduced from the first and second premises.

2. Students are given two premises and deduce the conclusion.

Examples of deductive arguments

Three parts of deductive arguments

Check to see if you got it.

_________________________________________________________________

Chunk 6. Analysis of the Declaration of Independence.

Objectives and test.

1. Students will state the theory of representative government as a series of propositions.

2. Students will define

a. Monarchy.

b. Colony.

c. Unalienable rights.

d. Pursuit if happiness.

e. Principles

f. Organization.

3. Students will identify rhetorical devices.

4. Students will state the three parts of deductive argument by which the Declaration is organized.

5. Students will list five abuses cited.

_____________________________________________________________

Again, remember that there are four phases of mastery. First they have to “get it” (acquisition). Then teach them to generalize or apply knowledge (respond to, identify, solve, explain) new examples (generalization). Then teach them to go faster (define a list of vocabulary words; solve problems).

And each lesson, review a sample of what was taught earlier (retention). Correct all errors and if needed reteach weak knowledge.

7. Add scaffolding.

Check this…http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/How%20to%20Use%20These%20Documents.htm

a. Make a syllabus for the whole course. Week/topic/tests

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/wholecoursesyllabusUSHistory.doc

b. Make weekly chart, with column for each day: topic, vocabulary/big ideas with objectives, activities/projects, tests. Review each day to prepare class.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CivicsTimelineFal07.xls

c. Make glossary that accompanies weekly chart. Hand out right before use; e.g., when reading chart for the day or week.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Glossary%20for%20D%20o%20I.doc

d. Make guided notes that accompany daily column on weekly chart.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Guided%20Notes%20Declaration%20of%20Independence.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/guidednoteshistorycourse.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Guided%20Notes%20on%20Revolutionary%20America.doc

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/GuidedNotesonBlakeforenglishlitcourse.doc

e. Make handouts that list what to review. State WHAT to know for each item; that is, objectives.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Testreviewnotes2.doc

f. Teach students to make the format for, and to use Cornell note taking. Guided Notes with the Cornell Note-Taking Method

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CornellNoteSystem.pdf

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CornelNotesPlain.pdf

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CornellNotesGraph.pdf

g. Powerpoint presentations http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/persian1.ppt

PART 2. PRESENTATION

General Procedure

1. Introduce each section by having students read the guided notes with you. Call on individuals to read SOME of the chunks/objectives to get the class involved. [This does not apply as much to math texts with naïve students.]

2. Teach students HOW to comprehend text---using, model-lead-test/check/verification.

a. YOU read an objective from the guided notes or your outline and show students how to find the relevant chunk of information in the text or on a PPT slide.

“Okay, open your copy of the PPT and scroll to slide 14, on democide.”

b. Help students to extract the information: facts, lists, concept/definitions; rules/propositions; routines (e.g.,

a whole theory). HOW?

In general,

(1) Model how to read a small part, and then extract the information.

(2) Then have students do the same thing, one part at a time. Test.

(3) Then have students read the whole thing. Test in such as way that they give all of the information.

For example, objectives might be to: (1) restate the theory of representative government (paragraph 2) in the Declaration of Independence as a series of propositions; (2) define concepts.

(1) Have students locate the information. “Find the second paragraph. Put your finger on the first word, which is

WE.”

(2) You read a small part (e.g., the first sentence) and show students how to restate PART of it as a

proposition.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. The proposition is All human beings are created equal. All human beings are equal at birth.”

Things that are born equal.Human beings.

(3) Repeat with more small portions of the text.

(4) Have students reread the same portions and have them restate the propositions one at a time. [Each proposition is part of the theory---it is a step in a routine leading to a conclusion.]

Example 1.

T. “Everybody, read the sentence that starts with ‘That to secure these rights…’ There are two propositions in that sentence.

What are the two propositions?”

S. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

One proposition is that people institute governments to secure their rights.

T. “Excellent. That is the first proposition in that sentence. Class, what rights?” [Follow up.]

S. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

T. “Correct. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By ‘happiness’, does it mean having a good time?”

[Follow up.]

S. “No, it means self-interest.”

T. “Correct again. Now read that sentence again and tell me the second proposition.”

S. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The propositio is, Government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed.”

T. Yes, government gets its just powers from the consent of the governed. ALL powers?” [Follow up.]

S. “No. JUST powers.”

T. “You mean, its legitimate powers. The government doesn’t get power from the people to do anything it wants. It

only has the power to do what the people consider just. This principle became part of the Constitution, which enumerated the powers of the government, and also asserted that all powers not given

to the government are reserved to the states. WHY?” [Follow up.]

Example 2. T. “Gordon. Read the quotation from John Locke, please.”

S. “Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority,

may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.” [Chapter XVIII. On tyranny. Two treatises on

government. 1689] [Notice how this maps onto the theory of political conflict.]

T. “When he says, ‘Wherever law ends’ he means whenever the limits of law are exceeded. So, what is the state of politics when the government exceeds its lawful power? Read the first line again, and then answer.”

S. “Tyranny.”

T. “Yes, then you have tyranny. And does this mean that the government acts without authority?”

S. “Yes.”

T. “And if the government acts without lawful authority, must it still be obeyed because it is the government?”

S. “No.”

T. “Then it may be disobeyed. Why?”

S. “Because it is no longer good for the people. It is their enemy.”

T. “What do we in the United States have that states the lawful limits of government power?”

S. “The Constitution?”

T. “Correct. And if, according to Locke, our government exceeds it lawful authority, what may we do?”

S. “Oppose it.”

T. “Yes, that IS what Locke says. As we’ll see, the core idea in the Declaration of Independence is exactly that.”

(5) Now have students organize all of the information for storage, review, and future use. For instance, a. Students write out the whole theory, with a glossary.

b. Students make a diagram showing the events leading up to the Declaration; e.g., British philosophers, formation of the

Colonies and the implicit contract with England, perceived

abuses, formation of opposition groups (Sons of Liberty,

Committees of Correspondence) and preparations for war (militias, weapons caches), Lexington and Concord.

c. Students compare documents to find similarities and differences. For example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the English Magna Carta.

3. Later, students read, ask questions, and do Powerpoint presentations more on their own. At this point, the format is more like a group discussion.

4. Make sure to cover acquisition of new knowledge, AND fluency, generalization, and retention.

a. Fluency. Fast question and answer on facts and definitions. Fast worksheets. Teacher-class, peers.

b. Generalization. Have students apply concepts and rules and theories/models to other situations.

“How are the Spartans like the Marines?”

“How does the Greek panoply compare with the modern infantry panoply?”

“Compare the reaction of many Americans to the attack on 9/11 to the invasion of Greece by Darius I.”

c. Retention. Cumulative review (weekly at least) of what was covered earlier, with emphasis on more recent information.

5. Make sure to have discussion and to develop assignments that strategically integrate the information learned.

Okay, now let’s teach.

____________________________________________________________________

Chunk 1. Review.

Objectives and Test.

1. Students will define concepts taught last week: a. Democracy

b. Mass democracy

c. Representative democracy

d. Monarchy

e. Aristocracy.

f. Timocracy

g. Oligarchy

h. Tyranny

Script.

“Okay, let’s review. Take out your Guided Notes for last week….. Got ‘em?...Okay. I’ll say a word and you tell me the definition. Read from your notes if you need to, but I want you to TRY to do it by heart. I want the knowledge to belong to YOU.

“Timocracy….Go!”

2. Students will state the cycle of governments found in Plato’s Republic, Book VIII. Aristocracy Timocracy Oligarchy Democracy Tyranny.

Script.

“These forms of government don’t happen at random. Human beings find that one form doesn’t suit them, and they dissolve it---through assassination, civil war, or popular acclaim (“We want Peisistratus as tyrant!!!” Athens, 560 BC.), and this brings another form. Plato thought that each form naturally transformed into the next, given the kind of character and social institutions forged in the past form. Read your Notes….

(1) What are the five forms?

(2) What is the cycle?

(3) How does aristocracy become timocracy?

(4) How does timocracy become oligarchy?

(5) How does oligarchy become democracy?

(6) How does democracy become tyranny?

3. Students will state the main propositions in Blau’s theory of conflict.

Script.

“Okay, check your Notes for Monday…. Go ‘em?... Read your notes on Blau’s theory of conflict. Then I will ask questions….

“What do you call the relationship between government and the people?” Exchange.

“What are the two parts of the exchange.” People obey demands. Government rewards obedience.

“Give me examples of demands and rewards.”

“What happens if the people judge the exchange to be fair?”

“What happens if the people judge the exchange to be exploitive?”

“Use these propositions to describe the events leading to the Revolutionary War.”

Etc.

“Now the Declaration is an example of part of Blau’s theory. The exchange relationship with Britain is perceived as intolerable. Too much is demanded; too little is given as reward. After a series of coercive events---back and forth escalating conflict---the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, the Intolerable Acts, The Boston Massacre, the British attacking Lexington and Concord---the leaders of the rebellion write the document that finalizes an end to the relationship.”

____________________________________________________________________

Chunk 2. Hell on Earth. Nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems

Objectives and test.

Objectives.1. Students define nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems.

2. Students identify examples of nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems.

3. Students compare and contrast democide in democratic vs. nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems.

4. Students describe a scenario that leads from liberty to tyranny.

Script.

“Plato did not foresee how far tyranny can go. Let’s see what nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems are like. It’s bad when the People take their liberty for granted. They assume that good times will just keep on rolling. They become uninvolved in politics, and ignorant of what protects their liberties; namely, constant vigilance and protection of the documents that limit government power. And so, rulers who are sure they are right and therefore need not be bound by the consent of the People, do what they want.

[Show PPT. Nondemocratic Governments.ppt]

Have students take notes.

When finished with the PPT, ask:

(1) About how many millions of persons were killed by their own governments

in the 20th century?

(2) What are some of the things that nondemocratic regimes do to get, expand, and keep their power?

(3) What are some consequences of weakening the power of documents, such as the Constitution, that state the limits of government power and provide for selection of our government?

____________________________________________________________________

Chunk 3. Big ideas on representative government.

Script.

“Okay, Patriots. You’ve seen how bad it can get. Don’t think it can’t happen here. No one thinks it can happen to them. But it does.

Here’s a big idea. Pound it into your brain!! A democratic system is no guarantee of liberty or of continued liberty. Why not? ‘It’s

democratic after all,’ you say. And I say, So what. What if states vote to amend the Constitution to remove the right to vote from anyone but white males? That is perfectly Constitutional. Precisely because democracies vote.

Here’s another big idea. Make sure you never forget it! Just because we vote does not mean we make decisions that are good for the individual, for all groups, or for the nation as a whole.

Now, the Founders of this republic anticipated the fundamental problems of democracies. What are those two problems? I just told you. Look at your Notes.

A democratic system is no guarantee of liberty or of continued liberty.

Just because we vote does not mean we make decisions that are good for the individual, for all groups, or for the nation as a whole.

Right! And so the Founders made sure that (1) we did not become a MASS democracy, or a mob; and (2) there were protections against tyranny from government and from majorities. For instance, instead of mob voting (which can be based on raging passions stirred by demagogues), we have elected representatives. And we have a Bill of Rights and a means of removing tyrants through impeachment.

Let’s look at some ideas about democracy that the Founders knew.[These could be on a PPT.]

Here are our objectives.

1. We will read a bunch of quotations and you will tell me the dangers to democracy that are expressed.

2. We will read other quotations and you will tell me what it says about safeguarding liberty.

3. Then we will summarize it all with a table of dangers vs. safeguards.

Ready?

First quotation. I’ll show you how to figure out what it says….

Thomas JeffersonA democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. In other words, a danger to democracy is that even a tiny majority are empowered to vote away the rights of a large minority. Voting does not ensure justice.

Now, your turn.”

Objective 1. Students read each quotation and state dangers to democratic systems.

C. S. Lewis:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive…. (t)hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. This means, Beware of leaders who claim to want to do good for the people. Their aims and actions will be self-legitimating.

George Orwell: In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.Truth is deviance in a corrupt system.

H. L. Mencken: As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920Democracies can elect morons.

Hermann Goering (under Hitler, he created the Gestapo---secret police):But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a

democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. The People can be convinced to support a destructive policy through propaganda that creates a fearful enemy and that demonizes opposition to the leaders.

Lord Acton: The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.Democracy is corrupted through fraud or force by the elected party. [So, elections are no safeguard of wise and beneficial governance.]

Thomas JeffersonA democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. Voting does not ensure justice. Factions (special interest groups) can vote for their interests and against the interests of others and of the nation.

Voltaire: So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.Involvement of the People is a necessary condition for preserving their liberty.

John Adams“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”Democracy is fragile and short-lived.

John Adams

... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... Groups with special interests can vote in policies than harm minorities. This is less likely in monarchies, where the monarch is not interested in the special interests of factions.

Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 2, CH. 21748http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s3.html

The misfortune of a republic is when intrigues are at an end; which happens when the people are gained by bribery and corruption: in this case they grow indifferent to public affairs, and avarice becomes their predominant passion. Unconcerned about the government and everything belonging to it, they quietly wait for their hire.The Founders anticipated this danger. The government was organized so that each branch could check the others.

Objective 2. Students read each quotation and state what must be done to preserve democratic systems.

John Locke, Two Treatises of Government. 1689. New York: Mentor Books, New American Library, 1965.

To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man.Human beings are naturally free. Human beings are not dependent upon the will or permission of other persons.

…Every Man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any Earthly Power, but only his own Consent; ..Human beings may be subject to the authority of others only with their consent.

Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 2, CH. 2 1748http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s3.html

When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the people, it is then an aristocracy. [Definitions of concepts.]In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others the subject. There can be no exercise of sovereignty but by their suffrages, which are their own will; now, the sovereign's will is the sovereign himself. The laws, therefore, which establish the right of suffrage are fundamental to this government. And indeed it is as important to regulate in a republic, in what manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what suffrages are to be given, as it is in a monarchy to know who is the prince, and after what manner he ought to govern.

The people, in whom the supreme power resides, ought to have the management of everything within their reach: that which exceeds their abilities must be conducted by their ministers.But they cannot properly be said to have their ministers, without the power of nominating them: it is, therefore, a fundamental maxim in this government, that the people should choose their ministers--that is, their magistrates.The founders therefore provided for the election of “magistrates” (representatives and president). They also limited the power of the central government.

Demosthenes: There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.The People must always be suspicious of their leaders.

Thomas Jefferson: I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.Education may be a way to prevent the People from being fooled.

John Adams

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...Therefore, some sort of bill of rights is needed to protect minorities against majority power.

Objective 3. After reading all of the quotations, students list dangers and protections in table form.

Dangers Protections

____________________________________________________________________Chunk 4. New vocabulary.Objectives and test.

1. Teacher states a concept. Students define it.

2. Teacher gives examples and nonexamples. Students identify them and state the definition to justify their answer.

Script.

“Okay, new concepts. Look at your Guided Notes, section 4…”

1. Unalienable rights.

“First concept—unalienable rights. Rights are something that is part of a person, group, or people. Some rights are bestowed by persons in

power. Other rights are in the nature of things. These are natural rights.

Unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away. This notion usually applies to natural rights. It would like trying to remove the notion of language from the definition of human beings. Language is part of what it IS to BE a human being. So, if rulers try to remove unalienable or natural rights, it is a diminution of humanity itself.

2. Abuses

3. Consent of the governed

4. Tyranny

“Now, let’s review all our concepts. I’ll say a word and you define it.”

____________________________________________________________________

Chunk 5. Deductive argument.

Objectives and test.

1. Students state the three parts of a deductive argument: first premise, or rule; second premise, or fact; conclusion deduced from the first and second premises.

2. Students are given two premises and deduce the conclusion.

Script.

“Listen. (1) All dogs have fleas. (2) Max is a dog. (3) Therefore, we know something about Max even if we haven’t seen him. What do we know? He has fleas. How do we know? Because he is a dog and all dogs have fleas.

[List the three parts.]

“Listen. (1) No sharks can be trusted. (2) Hammerheads are sharks. (3) What do we know about Hammerheads? They can’t be trusted. How do we know? Because Hammerheads are in the class of sharks and nothing in the class of sharks can be trusted.”

[List the three parts.]

“Listen. (1) If the demand for a product increases (like cars, or ipods), the price of the product will go up. (2) Well, the demand for Ipods increased. (3) What do we know about the price of Ipods? It will increase. How do we know? Because the demand for Ipods increased, and when demand increases, price increases.

[List the three parts.]

These are called arguments. Why? Because they have a conclusion, and because the conclusion is based on two kinds of evidence.

These are called deductive arguments. What’s a deductive argument? Well, what do the three arguments have in common?

Look at the list of statements in each example. The first statement is always a rule. A statement of a general relationship. All dogs have fleas. No sharks can be trusted. When the demand for product increases, the prince of products increases. General.

The second statement is specific. It’s a fact that connects something specific with the general relationship. Hammerheads are in the class of sharks. Max is a dog. The demand for Ipods (a product) increased.

Then we draw a conclusion from the general relationship and from the specific fact.

[TEST] Your turn. What are the three features of a deductive argument?

Yes, those are the three features. First premise is a general rule. Second premise is a fact. And the third statement is a conclusion deduced from the two premises.

[GENERALIZATION] Okay, show yourselves how smart you are. I’ll give you the general statement---first premise---and the fact---second premise. YOU draw the conclusion in each deductive argument.

a. All democracies are fragile. Greece’s government is a democracy. Therefore…

b. No Pythagoreans eat beans. There is a group of Pythagoreans. Therefore…

c. Whenever your resistance decreases, the chances of illness increase. Melvin’s resistance has decreased. Therefore….

[RETENTION] So, what kind of argument has a general statement for a first premise, a fact for a second premise, and a conclusion drawn for the two premises?

Let me ask you something. Given the first two premises in these deductive arguments, are the conclusions inevitable. I mean, it can’t be other than it says?...

Yes, the conclusion of a deductive argument IS inevitable.

Why is this important? Because the Declaration of Independence is organized as a deductive argument. This means that its conclusion seems inevitable.

____________________________________________________________________

Chunk 6. Analysis of the Declaration of Independence.

Integration. Review? Diagram? List? Summarize? Project? What if?

The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence

by Stephen E. Lucas

The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the most masterfully written state paper of Western civilization….

The text of the Declaration can be divided into five sections--the introduction, the preamble, the indictment of George III, the denunciation of the British people, and the conclusion. Because space does not permit us to explicate each section in full detail, we shall select features from each that illustrate the stylistic artistry of the Declaration as a whole.(3)

The introduction consists of the first paragraph--a single, lengthy, periodic sentence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.(4)

Taken out of context, this sentence is so general it could be used as the introduction to a declaration by any "oppressed" people. Seen within its original context, however, it is a model of subtlety, nuance, and implication that works on several levels of meaning and allusion to orient readers toward a favorable view of America and to prepare them for the rest of the Declaration. From its magisterial opening phrase, which sets the American Revolution within the whole "course of human events," to its assertion that "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle America to a "separate and equal station among the powers of the earth," to its quest for sanction from "the opinions of mankind," the introduction elevates the quarrel with England from a petty political dispute to a major event in the grand sweep of history. It dignifies the Revolution as a contest of principle and implies that the American cause has a special claim to moral legitimacy--all without mentioning England or America by name.

Rather than defining the Declaration's task as one of persuasion, which would doubtless raise the defenses of readers as well as imply that there was more than one publicly credible view of the British-American conflict, the introduction identifies the purpose of the Declaration as simply to "declare"--to announce publicly in explicit terms--the "causes" impelling America to leave the British empire. This gives the Declaration, at the outset, an aura of philosophical (in the eighteenth-century sense of the term) objectivity that it will seek to maintain throughout. Rather than presenting one side in a public controversy on which good and decent people could differ, the Declaration purports to do no more than a natural philosopher would do in reporting the causes of any physical event. The issue, it implies, is not one of interpretation but of observation.

The most important word in the introduction is "necessary," which in the eighteenth century carried strongly deterministic overtones. To say an act was necessary implied that it was impelled by fate or determined by the operation of inextricable natural laws and was beyond the control of human agents. …

Characterizing the Revolution as necessary suggested that it resulted from constraints that operated with lawlike force throughout the material universe and within the sphere of human action. The Revolution was not merely preferable, defensible, or justifiable. It was as inescapable, as inevitable, as unavoidable within the course of human events as the motions of the tides or the changing of the seasons within the course of natural events.(5)

Investing the Revolution with connotations of necessity was particularly important because, according to the law of nations, recourse to war was lawful only when it became "necessary"--only when amicable negotiation had failed and all other

alternatives for settling the differences between two states had been exhausted. Nor was the burden of necessity limited to monarchs and established nations…

Labeling the Americans "one people" and the British "another" was also laden with implication and performed several important strategic functions within the Declaration. First, because two alien peoples cannot be made one, it reinforced the notion that breaking the "political bands" with England was a necessary step in the course of human events. America and England were already separated by the more basic fact that they had become two different peoples. The gulf between them was much more than political; it was intellectual, social, moral, cultural and, according to the principles of nature, could no more be repaired, as Thomas Paine said, than one could "restore to us the time that is past" or "give to prostitution its former innocence." To try to perpetuate a purely political connection would be "forced and unnatural," "repugnant to reason, to the universal order of things."(8)

Second, once it is granted that Americans and Englishmen are two distinct peoples, the conflict between them is less likely to be seen as a civil war. The Continental Congress knew America could not withstand Britain's military might without foreign assistance. But they also knew America could not receive assistance as long as the colonies were fighting a civil war as part of the British empire. … The crucial factor in opening the way for foreign aid was the act of declaring independence. But by defining America and England as two separate peoples, the Declaration reinforced the perception that the conflict was not a civil war, thereby, as Congress noted in its debates on independence, making it more "consistent with European delicacy for European powers to treat with us, or even to receive an Ambassador."(9)

Third, defining the Americans as a separate people in the introduction eased the task of invoking the right of revolution in the preamble. That right, according to eighteenth-century revolutionary principles, could be invoked only in the most dire of circumstances--when "resistance was absolutely necessary in order to preserve the nation from slavery, misery, and ruin"--and then only by "the Body of the People." If America and Great Britain were seen as one people, Congress could not justify revolution against the British government for the simple reason that the body of the people (of which the Americans would be only one part) did not support the American cause. For America to move against the government in such circumstances would not be a justifiable act of resistance but "a sort of Sedition, Tumult, and War . . . aiming only at the satisfaction of private Lust, without regard to the public Good." By defining the Americans as a separate people, Congress could more readily satisfy the requirement for invoking the right of revolution that "the whole Body of Subjects" rise up against the government "to rescue themselves from the most violent and illegal oppressions."(10)

Like the introduction, the next section of the Declaration--usually referred to as the preamble--is universal in tone and scope. It contains no explicit reference to the British- American conflict, but outlines a general philosophy of government that makes revolution justifiable, even meritorious:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Like the rest of the Declaration, the preamble is "brief, free of verbiage, a model of clear, concise, simple statement."(11) It capsulizes in five sentences--202--words what it took John Locke thousands of words to explain in his Second Treatise of Government. Each word is chosen and placed to achieve maximum impact. Each clause is indispensable to the progression of thought. Each sentence is carefully constructed internally and in relation to what precedes and follows. In its ability to compress complex ideas into a brief, clear statement, the preamble is a paradigm of eighteenth-century Enlightenment prose style, in which purity, simplicity, directness, precision, and, above all, perspicuity were the highest rhetorical and literary virtues. One word follows another with complete inevitability of sound and meaning. Not one word can be moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire preamble.

… The gravity and dignity of the preamble were reinforced by its conformance with the rhetorical precept that "when we aim at dignity or elevation, the sound [of each sentence] should be made to grow to the last; the longest members of the period, and the fullest and most sonorous words, should be reserved to the conclusion." None of the sentences of the preamble end on a single-syllable word; only one, the second (and least euphonious), ends on a two-syllable word. Of the other four, one ends with a four-syllable word ("security"), while three end with three-syllable words. Moreover, in each of the three-syllable words the closing syllable is at least a medium- length four-letter syllable, which helps bring the sentences to "a full and harmonious close."(12)

It is unlikely that any of this was accidental. Thoroughly versed in classical oratory and rhetorical theory as well as in the belletristic treatises of his own time, Thomas Jefferson, draftsman of the Declaration, was a diligent student of rhythm, accent, timing, and cadence in discourse. This can be seen most clearly in his "Thoughts on English Prosody," a remarkable twenty-eight-page unpublished essay written in Paris during the fall of 1786. … Using roughly the same system of diacritical notation he had employed in 1776 in his reading draft of the Declaration, Jefferson systematically analyzed the

patterns of accentuation in a wide range of English writers, including Milton, Pope, Shakespeare, Addison, Gray, and Garth. Although "Thoughts on English Prosody" deals with poetry, it displays Jefferson's keen sense of the interplay between sound and sense in language. There can be little doubt that, like many accomplished writers, he consciously composed for the ear as well as for the eye--a trait that is nowhere better illustrated than in the eloquent cadences of the preamble in the Declaration of Independence.(13)

The preamble also has a powerful sense of structural unity. This is achieved partly by the latent chronological progression of thought, in which the reader is moved from the creation of mankind, to the institution of government, to the throwing off of government when it fails to protect the people's unalienable rights, to the creation of new government that will better secure the people's safety and happiness. This dramatic scenario, with its first act implicitly set in the Garden of Eden (where man was "created equal"), may, for some readers, have contained mythic overtones of humanity's fall from divine grace. At the very least, it gives an almost archetypal quality to the ideas of the preamble and continues the notion, broached in the introduction, that the American Revolution is a major development in "the course of human events."

Because of their concern with the philosophy of the Declaration, many modern scholars have dealt with the opening sentence of the preamble out of context, as if Jefferson and the Continental Congress intended it to stand alone. Seen in context, however, it is part of a series of five propositions that build upon one another through the first three sentences of the preamble to establish the right of revolution against tyrannical authority:

Proposition 1: All men are created equal.Proposition 2:   They [all men, from proposition 1] are

endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights

Proposition 3:   Among these [man's unalienable rights, from proposition 2] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Proposition 4:   To secure these rights [man's unalienable rights, from propositions 2 and 3] governments are instituted among men

Proposition 5:   Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [securing man's unalienable rights, from propositions 2-4], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

When we look at all five propositions, we see they are meant to be read together and have been meticulously written to achieve a specific rhetorical purpose. The first three lead into the fourth, which in turn leads into the fifth. And it is the fifth, proclaiming the right of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the

people's unalienable rights, that is most crucial in the overall argument of the Declaration. The first four propositions are merely preliminary steps designed to give philosophical grounding to the fifth.

At first glance, these propositions appear to comprise what was known in the eighteenth century as a sorites--"a Way of Argument in which a great Number of Propositions are so linked together, that the Predicate of one becomes continually the Subject of the next following, until at last a Conclusion is formed by bringing together the Subject of the First Proposition and the Predicate of the last." In his Elements of Logick, William Duncan provided the following example of a sorites:

God is omnipotent. An omnipotent Being can do every thing possible. He that can do every thing possible, can do whatever      involves not a Contradiction. Therefore God can do whatever involves not a      Contradiction.(14)

Although the section of the preamble we have been considering is not a sorites (because it does not bring together the subject of the first proposition and the predicate of the last), its propositions are written in such a way as to take on the appearance of a logical demonstration. They are so tightly interwoven linguistically that they seem to make up a sequence in which the final proposition--asserting the right of revolution--is logically derived from the first four propositions. … There is also a steplike progression from proposition to proposition, a progression that is accentuated by the skillful use of demonstrative pronouns to make each succeeding proposition appear to be an inevitable consequence of the preceding proposition. … As Jefferson explained years later, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."(15)

Far from being a weakness of the preamble, the lack of new ideas was perhaps its greatest strength. If one overlooks the introductory first paragraph, the Declaration as a whole is structured along the lines of a deductive argument that can easily be put in syllogistic form:

Major premise: When government deliberately seeks to reduce the people under absolute despotism, the people have a right, indeed a duty, to alter or abolish that form of government and to create new guards for their future security.

Minor premise:   The government of Great Britain has deliberately sought to reduce the American people under absolute

despotism.Conclusion:   Therefore the American people have a

right, indeed a duty, to abolish their present form of government and to create new guards for their future security.

As the major premise in this argument, the preamble allowed Jefferson and the Congress to reason from self-evident principles of government accepted by almost all eighteenth-century readers of the Declaration.(16)

The indictment of George III begins with a transitional sentence immediately following the preamble:

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Now, 273 words into the Declaration, appears the first explicit reference to the British-American conflict. The parallel structure of the sentence reinforces the parallel movement of ideas from the preamble to the indictment of the king, while the next sentence states that indictment with the force of a legal accusation:

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these states.

Unlike the preamble, however, which most eighteenth-century readers could readily accept as self-evident, the indictment of the king required proof. In keeping with the rhetorical conventions Englishmen had followed for centuries when dethroning a "tyrannical" monarch, the Declaration contains a bill of particulars documenting the king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties. The bill of particulars lists twenty-eight specific grievances and is introduced with the shortest sentence of the Declaration:

To prove this [the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

This sentence is so innocuous one can easily overlook its artistry and importance. The opening phrase--"To prove this"--indicates the "facts" to follow will indeed prove that George III is a tyrant. But prove to whom? To a "candid world"--that is, to readers who are free from bias or malice, who are fair, impartial, and just. The implication is that any such reader will see the "facts" as demonstrating beyond doubt that the king has sought to establish an absolute tyranny in America. If a reader is not convinced, it is not because the "facts" are untrue or are insufficient to prove the king's villainy; it is because the reader is not "candid."

To some extent, of course, the emotional intensity of the war grievances was a natural outgrowth of their subject. It is hard to write about warfare without using strong language. Moreover, as Jefferson explained a decade later in his famous "Head and Heart" letter to Maria Cosway, for many of the revolutionaries independence was, at bottom, an emotional--or sentimental--issue. But the emotional pitch of the war grievances was also part of a rhetorical strategy designed to solidify support for independence in those parts of America that had yet to suffer the physical and economic hardships of war. As late as May 1776 John Adams lamented that while independence had strong support in New England and the South, it was less secure in the middle colonies, which "have never tasted the bitter Cup; they have never Smarted--and are therefore a little cooler." … the Declaration of Independence used images of terror to magnify the wickedness of George III, to arouse "the passions and feelings" of readers, and to awaken "from fatal and unmanly slumbers" those Americans who had yet to be directly touched by the ravages of war.(25)…

The fifth sentence--"They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity"--contains one of the few metaphors in the Declaration and acquires added force by its simplicity and brevity, which contrast with the greater length and complexity of the preceding sentence. …

The British brethren section essentially finished the case for independence. Congress had set forth the conditions that justified revolution and had shown, as best it could, that those conditions existed in Great Britain's thirteen North American colonies. All that remained was for Congress to conclude the Declaration:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

This final section of the Declaration is highly formulaic and has attracted attention primarily because of its closing sentence. Carl Becker deemed this sentence "perfection itself":…

By pledging "our sacred Honor" in support of the Declaration, Congress made a particularly solemn vow. The pledge also carried a latent message that the revolutionaries, contrary to the claims of their detractors, were men of honor whose motives and actions could not only withstand the closest scrutiny by contemporary

persons of quality and merit but would also deserve the approbation of posterity. … in this way, "our sacred Honor" lifts the motives of Congress above the more immediate concerns of "our Lives" and "our Fortunes" and places the revolutionaries in the footsteps of history's most honorable figures. As a result it also unifies the whole text by subtly playing out the notion that the Revolution is a major turn in the broad "course of human events."(29)

At the same time, the final sentence completes a crucial metamorphosis in the text. Although the Declaration begins in an impersonal, even philosophical voice, it gradually becomes a kind of drama, with its tensions expressed more and more in personal terms. This transformation begins with the appearance of the villain, "the present King of Great Britain," who dominates the stage through the first nine grievances, all of which note what "He has" done without identifying the victim of his evil deeds. Beginning with grievance 10 the king is joined on stage by the American colonists, who are identified as the victim by some form of first person plural reference: The king has sent "swarms of officers to harass our people," has quartered "armed troops among us," has imposed "taxes on us without our consent," "has taken away our charters, abolished our most valuable laws," and altered "the Forms of our Governments." He has "plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, . . . destroyed the lives of our people," and "excited domestic insurrections amongst us." The word "our" is used twenty-six times from its first appearance in grievance 10 through the last sentence of the Declaration, while "us" occurs eleven times from its first appearance in grievance 11 through the rest of the grievances.(30)

Throughout the grievances action is instigated by the king, as the colonists passively accept blow after blow without wavering in their loyalty. His villainy complete, George III leaves the stage and it is occupied next by the colonists and their "British brethren." The heavy use of personal pronouns continues, but by now the colonists have become the instigators of action as they actively seek redress of their grievances. This is marked by a shift in idiom from "He has" to "We have": "We have petitioned for redress . . . ," "We have reminded them . . . ," "We have appealed to their . . . ," and "We have conjured them." But "they have been deaf" to all pleas, so "We must . . . hold them" as enemies. By the conclusion, only the colonists remain on stage to pronounce their dramatic closing lines: "We . . . solemnly publish and declare . . ." And to support this declaration, "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

The persistent use of "he" and "them," "us" and "our," "we" and "they" personalizes the British-American conflict and transfigures it from a complex struggle of multifarious origins and diverse motives to a simple moral drama in which a patiently suffering people courageously defend their liberty against a cruel and vicious tyrant. It also reduces the psychic distance between the reader and the text and coaxes the reader into seeing the dispute with Great Britain through the eyes of the revolutionaries. …

an analysis of

THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

as a model for the Institutions of Freedom

a presentation byBobby Yates Emory

     

Useful?

Can the Articles of Confederation be useful in the search for the institutions necessary for the implementation of freedom? It survived two practical tests. It allowed a large number of people of divergent backgrounds and circumstances to live together with a minimum of internal strife for eleven years of transition from being subjects of a monarch to becoming self-governing free men. It allowed a less industrialized, poorer nation to defeat the strongest military force in the world.

The Articles contained many innovative features we should consider for future institutions.

The basic structure was for the member states to remain sovereign and to delegate only limited powers to the federal level. All powers not explicitly delegated were retained by the states. This structure was, in comparison to the most modern nations, one of strong states within a weak federal union.

The more important issues before the Congress required a supermajority for action. Going into debt, for instance, required approval of nine of the thirteen states. This made action slower and more difficult but made it harder for Congress to trample citizens' rights.

A Council of States was available to run the government when Congress was not in session. This allowed members of Congress to return home part of the year and thereby remain citizen legislators rather than becoming professional politicians.

A citizen legislature was further insured by requiring rotation in office. No one could serve in Congress more than three years in six.

Several sections were directed to maintaining a Congressional delegation that answered to the States. Members of Congress served at the pleasure of their State Legislature. The members' expenses were met by their State, not at the federal level.

Each state was allocated one vote in Congress, even though it could have from two to seven members.

Members of Congress were not allowed to hold other offices in the government. This was probably intended to prevent the emergence of one form of special interest.

To prevent the Federal Government from becoming independently powerful, it was not allowed to tax directly. Federal taxes were apportioned on the basis of real estate valuation of each state. But taxes were levied on citizens by the States.

A compromise was reached to continue State involvement in defense forces, but also recognize that the benefits accrued to all. Defense forces were raised and provisioned by States. The costs were reimbursed from the Federal treasury.

Surprising Omissions

To our eyes today, there are some omissions from the Articles that could not be allowed if we were to closely model a constitution on the Articles.

There was no Bill of Rights - regular feature of most every constitution since. (Indeed, many people argued that no Bill of Rights was needed for our current Constitution.)

Slavery was not prohibited and, in fact, continued to flourish during the life of the Articles.

Indian rights were not recognized. Explicitly, the States were give great latitude to deal with native Americans as enemies.

Women's rights were not recognized. The States were allowed to set their own qualification for voting and other rights and most treated women as second class citizens.

No mechanism was provided to guarantee individual rights.

(back to outline)

Lessons to be Learned

Several lessons can be learned from the Founding Fathers' experience with the Articles.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to guarantee perpetuity or we would not be needing to consider these issues. Even though the Articles were battle tested, people who wanted a government to help the rich get richer were able to replace the original USA with a more powerful Federal system. The proposal prompted Samuel Adams to suggest the people wanting the change were selling out the Revolution.

Opponents to a structure like this may not understand the benefits of slow deliberations. The Congress was widely criticized for being slow to act. Sometimes it was impossible to act on an issue because neither side could marshal the required supermajority. Although we know that taking no action can be better than taking the wrong action, many people believe the government should "do something, even if it is wrong."

The Articles helped bring about perhaps the largest single advance ever in human freedom. Even though we cannot say that because of the Articles alone, freedom advanced, certainly the Articles were part of the process. While the freedom obtained under the Articles was not complete and was not for everyone, it was a dramatic break with past governmental systems.

The Articles were a very useful governmental tool in a time of dire need. Whatever failings an observer may note, the Articles set the stage for the next evolution in self- government. The Federal republic that followed was modeled on the Articles of Confederation.

Pitfalls and Cautions

From the practical experience with the Articles, we can note several problems that could arise in trying to use the Articles as a model.

If more than minimal governmental actions are required for defense (or other purposes), the implementation of a government based on the Articles would require strong states. If we could assume peaceful, weak, or no competing governments, there would be little need for rapid governmental action and the states would not be tested. In most real circumstances, as exemplified by Lebanon, Bosnia, and Somalia, we are more likely to have too many competing governments than to have none.

Any structure we design will probably have this same need, but the experience with the articles proved the Articles needed continuing defense from its supporters. As mentioned above, the Articles were not automatically perpetual. It would have required a majority in at least one state to have maintained the Articles in effect. Unfortunately, not even one state could muster a majority in defense of the Articles. Even more difficult, continuing defense of all the principles will be forever needed.

Part of the genius of the Articles, may have been that it made no guarantees of individual rights. The government was weak enough to not be much of a threat to individual rights. Maybe the rights area is analogous to the economic area. Any government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to steal

everything you have. Perhaps we can postulate: Any government strong enough to guarantee individual rights may be strong enough to destroy individual rights.

Conclusions

The Articles of Confederation provide us with a useful model that has been tested in the real world.

The Articles of Confederation were an integral part of the greatest single increase in freedom in human history.

The Articles of Confederation were superseded.

CHAPTER 5

Introduction

Prominent among the problems of postrevolutionary America were the deficiencies of its fundamental charter, the Articles of Confederation. And yet, many of the problems of the day would have been acute no matter what the government, given the situation of the United States: a new nation, possessed of a vast but sparsely populated territory, burdened with foreign and domestic debt, its commerce disrupted by a protracted war. The population stretched over a long, thin littoral, surrounded on three sides by resentful neighbors or suspicious powers, separated within its borders by physical barriers to travel and easy communication as well as by long-standing feelings of localism and deeply different ways of life. All this boded weakness and disunion. Some might dream of America cutting a figure in world affairs, but the immediate realities pointed in quite another direction.

Beyond these difficulties inherent in the situation loomed a further range of problems attributable to, or at least exacerbated by, the government of the Confederation. There seemed to be no prospect of coping with the war debts that were overwhelming both nation and states; the British could not be compelled to honor their agreement under the Treaty of Paris to vacate the western forts; the western settlers increasingly felt they owed little to a government that could guarantee the security neither of their person nor of their trade routes. Ultimately a new government, formed on different principles than those of the Articles of Confederation, would come to cope with these problems.

In stressing the defects of the Confederation and in ignoring its substantial achievements (carrying the war for independence through to victory, forming a diplomatic corps of genuine distinction, providing for the orderly organization and incorporation of a vast public domain), we notice those sources of discontent that

contemporaries traced to the Articles themselves. The movement to amend and finally to replace the Articles grew out of a clear conviction that the fault lay not in the stars but in themselves. The political undertaking consisted in making that realization prevalent and, above all, in not letting people evade the imperatives for action implicit in it. The managers of the movement for a new government thus had to contend with every passion and cause that might make men loath to overturn existing structures: familiarity, caution, timidity, indifference, mistaken confidence, present interest, future hope. Further, they had both to convince a nationally distributed majority that the distempers of the time were indeed systemic disorders and to keep that majority energized with the bracing thought that they were living through not merely awkward or bad times but critical ones. The pressing question, they argued, concerned not the daily balance sheet--how good or bad are things at the moment?--but rather the whole movement or tendency of political affairs. There is a cumulative momentum in bad governance: things go from bad to worse to worst, from Shaysite disorders and the disregard of Congressional requisitions to recourse ultimately to antirepublican measures and disunion. The proper remedy, once adopted, would develop its own cumulative momentum, restoring tranquility and prosperity at home and honor to the republican cause….

Meanwhile, Congress wrestled with contending anxieties, its sense of urgency quickened by the audible stirrings of an armed, unpaid, and under-occupied officer corps. (See the Newburgh Resolves and the matters leading up to them in Journals 24:295--314.) How far ought the federal principles underlying the Confederation to be altered to secure a more adequate and reliable revenue? Could it be done without subverting "the fundamental principles of liberty" (nos. 5, 6)? Congress's inability to cope with large matters and small persuaded nationalists that change was overdue, and even those with the deepest misgivings concerning nationalist intentions acknowledged something should be done.