Day 3 Documents
Warmup:
Task: After the Civil War, the US Congress passed three amendments, or additions, to the US
Constitution, thus changing the way the US government works. Read the excerpts below, and use it to
discuss and answer the questions that follow.
Document 7-Civil War Amendments
Sections 1 of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1864)
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime when the person shall have
been convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge {take away} the privileges of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal
protection of the laws.
Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1870)
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged {taken away} by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Questions:
1. According to the Thirteenth Amendment, what institutions or practices are no longer allowed
to exist within the United States?
2. What rights are granted to people based on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments?
3. Which groups of people would these amendments impact the most? Explain your answer.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Did the Civil War represent a turning point for race in the United
States?
Background: The U.S. had survived its worst war, but the end of the
Civil War left Americans to deal with many issues. One of the major
issues was the status of freedmen. Enslavement for Africans was
abolished at the end of the Civil War in the former Confederacy with
the Emancipation Proclamation, and all over the country with the 13th
Amendment. With the freedom came a lot of questions and concerns
about the future of the former enslaved. Whose responsibility were
the freedmen? What rights are they entitled to? How can those rights
be guaranteed and protected? The Civil War signified a major change
in the United States for blacks, but which way would the pendulum
swing?
Task: You be analyzing and evaluating the impact the Civil War had on
African-Americans, freed and enslaved, and their status as citizens. In
your student teams:
 Examine each of the documents you are assigned.
o A-Answer the guiding questions that follow.
o B-Discuss how Africans were treated after the Civil War
o C-Prepare an argument, defending your opinion on the
following question-How did the Civil War impact African
Americans in the United States?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Document 8-“Forty Acres and a Mule” Orders. As Union soldiers advanced through the
South, tens of thousands of freed slaves left their plantations to follow Union general William
Tecumseh Sherman's army. To solve problems caused by the mass of refugees, Sherman
issued Special Field Orders, No. 15, a temporary plan granting each freed family forty acres of
tillable land on islands and the coast of Georgia. News of "forty acres and a mule" spread
quickly; freed slaves welcomed it as proof that emancipation would finally give them a stake
in the land they had worked as slaves for so long.
Source: Special Field Orders, No. 15, Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, 16 Jan. 1865. Orders & Circulars, ser. 44, Adjutant
General's Office, Record Group 94, National Archives.
“In the Field, Savannah, Georgia, January 16th, 1865. Special Field Orders, No. 15.
I. The islands from Charleston, south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles
back from the sea, and the country bordering the St. Johns River, Florida, are reserved and set
apart for the settlement of the negroes now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation
of the President of the United States.
II. …..By the laws of war, and orders of the President of the United States, the negro is free and
must be dealt with as such.
III. Whenever three respectable negroes, heads of families desire to settle on land ….{they} shall
have a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground.”
Questions:
1. When was this order given?
2. What was promised to “respectable negroes” by the US army?
3. Explain the following quote: “The negro is free and must be dealt with as such.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Document 9- “The First Vote” Political Cartoon,-the cartoon below shows blacks,
freed and former enslaved, of all occupations voting in their first election.
Source: Harper’s Weekly, November 16, 1867, p 721
Questions:
1. What date is the political cartoon? What is the title of the cartoon?
2. What action are the figures in the cartoon taking?
3. How would the people in the cartoon feel after taking this action?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Document 10-Henry Adams describes life in the South after the Civil War.
Freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1865, former slave Henry Adams
testified before the U.S. Senate fifteen years later about the early days of his
freedom, describing white planters' unfair labor practices and the violent,
intimidating atmosphere in which ex-slaves felt compelled to work for their
former masters.
Source: Senate Report 693, 46th Congress, 2nd Session (1880). Reprinted in Dorothy Sterling, editor, The Trouble They Seen: The Story of
Reconstruction in the Words of African Americans. New York: Da Capo Press, 1994.
A. The white men read a paper to all of us colored people telling us that we were free and could go
where we pleased and work for who we pleased. The man I belonged to told me it was best to stay with
him…..He said, stay where we are living and we could get protection from our old masters. I told him I
thought that every man, when he was free, could have his rights and protect themselves. He said, "The
colored people could never protect themselves among the white people. So you had all better stay with
the white people who raised you and make contracts with them to work by the year for one-fifth of all
you make. And next year you can get one-third, and the next you maybe work for one-half you make." I
told him I would not sign anything. "
B. In September I asked the boss to let me go to Shreveport. He said, "You had better carry a pass." I
said, "I will see whether I am free by going without a pass." I met four white men. One of them asked
me who I belonged to. I told him no one. So him and two others struck me with a stick and told me they
were going to kill me and every other Negro who told them that they did not belong to anyone. They left
me and I then went on to Shreveport. I seen over twelve colored men and women, beat, shot and hung
between there and Shreveport.
C. After they told us we were free -- even then they would not let us live as man and wife together. And
when we would run away to be free, the white people would not let us come on their places to see our
mothers, wives, sisters, or fathers. We was made to leave or go back and live as slaves. To my own
knowledge there was over two thousand colored people killed trying to get away after the white people
told us we were free in 1865. This was between Shreveport and Logansport.
Questions:
1. What answer did Henry Adam give to his former master when asked if he would stay?
2. What happened to Henry when he went to Shreveport?
3. How free would you consider blacks like Henry Adam after the Civil War? Explain your
answer.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Document 11- Plessy V Ferguson Court Case
After the Civil War, there were a large number of “Jim Crow” laws promoting
racial segregation that were passed in the South at the end of Reconstruction. In
New Orleans in 1892, a thirty-year-old African American man named Homer
Plessy challenged the law and insisted on riding in a car designated for “White”
passengers. The case was eventually appealed to the United States Supreme
Court, which by a vote of 7 to 1, sided with the Louisiana law. The lone
dissenting vote was cast by Associate Justice John Harlan. Associate Justice
Henry Brown delivered the majority opinion.
Associate Justice John Harlan Dissents in Plessy v. Ferguson
a. Any law, such as the one here in question, not only goes against
the equality of rights which pertains to citizenship, National and
State, but with the personal liberty enjoyed by everyone within the
United States. . . . [I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the
law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of
citizens. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among citizens. All citizens are equal before the
law. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his
surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guaranteed by
the supreme law of the land are involved.
b. The law of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of
citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the
spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States. If similar
laws should be enacted in the several States of the Union, the
effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery, as an
institution tolerated by law would . . . have disappeared from our
country, but there would remain a power in the States to interfere
with the full enjoyment of the blessings of freedom…
Associate Justice Henry Brown delivered the majority opinion
for the Court.
a. Laws permitting, and even requiring, the separation of races in
places where they are likely to be brought into contact do not
necessarily imply that one race is inferior to the other. The most
common instance of this is connected with the creation of
separate schools for white and colored children. We cannot say
that a law which authorizes or even requires the separation of
the two races in public places is unreasonable…
b. Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial discrimination or to
abolish distinctions based upon physical differences. If the civil
and political rights of both races be equal one cannot be inferior
to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the
other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put
them upon the same plane. . . .
Questions:
1. Which state law does Justice Harlan describe in his decision?
2. Why would Justice Harlan believe that a law goes against “the spirit and letter of the
Constitution” in the second paragraph? What would happen if similar laws were passed in
other states?
3. What is Justice Brown’s opinion about laws requiring the separation of races? What example
of separate but equal public places does he give in the first paragraph?
4. According to Brown, can laws eradicate, or get rid of, racial discrimination?
______________________________________________________________________________
Document 12-“One Vote Less” Political Cartoon-the cartoon
below shows a black man beaten and killed for voting.
Source: Harper’s Weekly, August 8, 1868, page 512
Questions:
1. What date is the political cartoon? What is the title of the cartoon?
2. What happened to the figure in this cartoon?
3. Why wouldn’t many whites want the figure above to vote?
HW#____________
Not All Caucasians Are White: The Supreme Court Rejects Citizenship for Asian Indians
Background: By the 1920’s, the US Congress passed laws ending immigration from most parts of the world,
including Asia. But what about the rights of immigrants from Asia in the US? Around the same time, an
immigrant from India sued for his right to become a citizen of the US; the case reached the Supreme Court.
The Indian demanded citizenship based on the idea that Indians were not colored but Caucasian. In its
decision in the case of U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), the Supreme Court ruled Asian Indians ineligible for
citizenship because U.S. law allowed only free whites to become naturalized citizens. The court conceded
that Indians were “Caucasians” and considered them to be of the same race as white Americans, but argued,
“the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences.” Justice
Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.
Task: Below is an excerpt from the U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind. After examining the excerpt you must answer
the questions that follow and write a “quick write” reaction to the decision; include in your answer the
following points:
 How are Indians (from India) treated at this time?
 How does the idea of “All men are created equal” connect to the decision Bhagat Singh Thind?
 What will be the impact or result of this decision on the status of Indians (from India)?
______________________________________________________________________________
Document 13- U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind Decision
Source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076
A. “The Circuit Court of Appeals requests the instruction of this Supreme Court in the following questions:
1. Is a Hindu of full Indian blood, born at AmritSar, Punjab, India, a white person?
2. Does the act of February 5, 1917, disqualify from naturalization Hindus who had lawfully entered the
United States prior to the passage of said act?”
B. In order to understand the meaning of the law, we must not fail to keep in mind that it does not use the
word “Caucasian” but the words “white persons,” and these are words of common speech and not of
scientific origin. The word “Caucasian” not only was not used in the law but was probably wholly unfamiliar in
1790. The words of the law are to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man.
C. Congresshas now excluded from entering into this country all natives of Asia, including India. This includes
citizenship as well, since it is not likely that Congress would be willing to accept as citizens a class of persons
whom it rejects as immigrants. Therefore, the Supreme Court does not consider an Indian as a white person
and therefore not a citizen.”
Questions:
1. What right did Bhagat Singh Thind sue for? Why did he claim he was entitled to this right?
2. What word does the law use: Caucasian or white person? What are the difference between
the words?
3. Why wouldn’t Congress be willing to accept Indians as citizens?
HW#____________
Not All Caucasians Are White: The Supreme Court Rejects Citizenship for Asian Indians
Background: By the 1920’s, the US Congress passed laws ending immigration from most parts of the world,
including Asia. But what about the rights of immigrants from Asia in the US? Around the same time, an
immigrant from India sued for his right to become a citizen of the US; the case reached the Supreme Court.
The Indian demanded citizenship based on the idea that Indians were not colored but Caucasian. In its
decision in the case of U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind (1923), the Supreme Court ruled Asian Indians ineligible for
citizenship because U.S. law allowed only free whites to become naturalized citizens. The court conceded
that Indians were “Caucasians” and considered them to be of the same race as white Americans, but argued,
“the average man knows perfectly well that there are unmistakable and profound differences.” Justice
Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.
Task: Below is an excerpt from the U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind. After examining the excerpt you must answer
the questions that follow and write a “quick write” reaction to the decision; include in your answer the
following points:
 How are Indians (from India) treated at this time?
 How does the idea of “All men are created equal” connect to the decision Bhagat Singh Thind?
 What will be the impact or result of this decision on the status of Indians (from India)?
______________________________________________________________________________
Document 13- U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind Decision
Source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5076
A. “The Circuit Court of Appeals of California asks for advice from the Supreme Court in the following
questions:
1. Is a Hindu of full Indian blood, born at AmritSar, Punjab, India, a white person?
2. Does the act of February 5, 1917, forbid giving citizenship of Hindus who had lawfully entered the United
States before the law was passed?”
B. In order to understand the meaning of the law, we must not fail to keep in mind that it does not use the
word “Caucasian” but the words “white persons,” and these are words of common speech and not of
scientific origin. The word “Caucasian” not only was not used in the law but was probably wholly unfamiliar in
1790. The words of the law are to be interpreted in accordance with the understanding of the common man
AND NOT scientific origins
C. Congress has now excluded from entering into this country all natives of Asia, including India. This includes
citizenship as well, since it is not likely that Congress would be willing to accept as citizens a class of persons
whom it rejects as immigrants. Therefore, the Supreme Court does not consider an Indian as a white person
and therefore not a citizen.”
Questions:
1. What right did Bhagat Singh Thind sue for? Why did he claim he was entitled to this right?
2. What word does the law use: Caucasian or white person? What are the difference
between the words?
3. Why wouldn’t Congress be willing to accept Indians as citizens?