we know that getting all the details about what happened in u.s. history (let alone explaining the significance of those events) can be hard. that’s why we have created this series of posts that gives you a brief overview of one theme at a time, along with tips to help you think about patterns of change and continuity. ready to dive in? let’s go!

a brief overview of political parties

before we dive into the theme for this post, it’s important for me to point out two things.

1. this is not ap us government, and this blog post will be looking at the development of political parties in the united states as a historical phenomenon.
2. because of #1, this blog post will not get into the nuances of each political party.

now that we have gotten those two things out of the way, let me try to orient you to what this blog post will be doing. in order to look at the development of political parties in the united states as a historical phenomenon, we will be examining three historical periods.

1. the early republic
2. the age of jacksonian democracy
3. political machines
4. the civil rights movement

the astute student (which i am sure you are!) likely noticed that there are several events missing; in any survey of history, there likely will be!

however, i want you to think about how the four themes above might change if i chose different events to highlight for the development of political parties. furthermore, as always, keep a close eye on multiple themes that might be important in the events that i do highlight.

apush themes: party politics

1. the early republic

portrait of james madison, writer of the federalist 10 (source)

if you’ve read any of the federalist papers, you likely know that there were a lot of conflicting opinions about how to run the country once the united states actually became a country. this sentiment is, perhaps, best articulated by james madison in federalist 10. here, he writes:

“among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction…by a faction, i understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”

madison goes on to explain that the goal of a country is to control factions where they exist. eliminating them altogether would require tyranny and, even then, human nature would bend people towards factioning off.

and how did madison propose controlling the effects of factions? see if you can parse it out here:

“the smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens…”

essentially, madison is saying that the only way to protect against an overwhelming majority faction to stomp on the rights of the minority factions is to have so many options to choose from that no one faction gains too much power. this is totally in line with a classical liberal ideology, and it’s totally not what we have today. so what gives?

well, political parties are really good at organizing people and, in a republic where individuals vote on their representatives, organizing people is key to gaining political power. perhaps no one knew that better than our seventh president, andrew jackson.

2. the age of jacksonian democracy

the era of jacksonian democracy would dramatically change the political landscape in america. how? three words: expand. the. base.

andrew jackson’s election to president in 1828 would give him the title (often debated) of “the people’s president.” and it’s easy to see why that happened. let’s examine the changing voter qualifications in one state: new jersey.

source: edsitement lesson on andrew jackson

i mean, the expansion isn’t perfect, but going from owning 50 pounds in 1776 (the equivalent in 2018 of nearly $8,000, as a low estimation) to just being a (white, male, at least 21-year-old) citizen is a big step.

how did this happen?

a lot of things had to go right, including the expansion of newspapers and the increased political maneuvering of many individual actors. but the basic idea is that, through practices such as campaigning—which included what we would consider grassroots organizing, like door-to-door canvassing and meet-and-greets with the politicians—presidential elections became national news. and, with this expanded voter base, political parties became even more important in assisting the effort to get individuals elected.

3. political machines

it can be argued that the strength of political parties would reach their zenith in what came to be known as “political machines.” broadly speaking, political machines were controlled by bosses or a small group of individuals who directed the party’s members to get votes for the favored candidate; the members were, in turn, rewarded for their loyalty through the spoils system.

one of the most infamous political party bosses was william “boss” tweed. political machines had their detractors, of course. take, for instance, the work of political cartoonist thomas nast below.

tweed depicted in harper’s weekly, october 21, 1871 (source)

4. the civil rights movement

but how does any of this help explain the striking differences that we see over time in the sway certain political parties have in different parts of the country?

source: 270 to win

the historical maps above are, from top to bottom, the results of the 2016, 2008, and 1960 elections.

some individuals look to the legislation of the civil rights movement to explain the dramatic switch and then dramatic consistency. i say, check out this excellent video to help you get a sense of how the civil rights movement influenced the switch we see in the maps above.

so what should i do with all this history on apush themes: party politics?

well, there are several things you can do with it! if you were to write a change over time essay based on the information presented here, you might highlight:

1. the ways in which factions were present from the country’s founding;
2. how broadening the base of who was allowed to vote shifted the importance of political parties as organizational tools; and
3. the changing power of political parties over time.

there are so many themes you can use to help you make sense of this important topic. do you have any other ideas? reply in the comment section below!

the post themes across apush: party politics appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

as you are reading, you should be thinking about:

1. what patterns of continuity and change to you recognize over time?
2. how can you connect this theme to other themes across u.s. history?
3. what argument would you make about this theme on the apush exam?

the goal for these blogs is not to give you an exhaustive view of this topic; believe me, people much smarter than i am have written books and books on the subject. instead, we want you to be able to think about patterns in u.s. history so that you can organize your own studying efficiently. ready? let’s go!

source: government map created in mid-20th century

a brief overview: expansion in u.s. history

the story of u.s. history generally goes east to west; that is, some people (a mix of europeans and africans) arrived in the east and headed, slowly but surely, west. the people these europeans—history textbooks tend to leave out the africans at this point—encountered as they marched west were generally indigenous people, sometimes different europeans, but were always considered “others” that had to be integrated into the america that existed back east.

with this blog post, i hope to disrupt that “east to west” narrative. in order to do that, i will go in depth about one particular type of expansion: that of the original colonies. in this section, i will make connections between the “mainland” colonies and the west indies/caribbean colonies and argue that the framework of “middle grounds” or “native grounds” between settlers and indigenous populations can help you make sense of changes and continuities over time.

at the end of the post, i will give you three sample documents to help you make sense of other aspects of territorial expansion in united states history (and one of these is likely to come up in the apush exam!). i will highlight some potential ways you could make sense of these documents if you were to write an essay that had to attend to changes as well as continuities over time.

of course, this story i am presenting leaves out quite a bit. but think, as you continue to read, how the story might change if you added, say, the annexation of texas or the floridas to this story. in essence, by leaving out some types of territorial expansion, i am hoping that you will continue the process of thinking about change and continuity over time in u.s. history.

apush themes: expansion and the original colonies

at this point, it’s not news to you that the thirteen “original” colonies had disparate ideologies and charters. many wonderful historians have done the work of demonstrating how improbable a “united” anything was at the eve of revolution. this is not the argument i will take up here. instead, i want you to think about the connections between the west indies/caribbean and the “original” colonies in order to ask the question:

in what ways was the success of the original colonies dependent upon expansion elsewhere?

in the groundbreaking work titled new england bound, historian wendy warren makes the provocative argument that it was only through the expansion of the slave trade in places like barbados that the colonists in new england were able to create a successful new world settlement. although new england is often thought of as separate from the horrors of slavery, professor warren shows how the colonies were intimately connected.

you can listen to her explanation of this relationship in more detail here:

middle grounds and native grounds: how colonists interacted with indigenous populations

in addition to thinking outside of the geographic boundaries of the current united states, it will be important that you think about how colonists interacted with indigenous populations based on location.

in the middle ground: indians, empires, and republics in the great lakes region, 1650-1815, historian richard white looks at the relationship of indigenous peoples and european settlers in the great lakes region. instead of the common narrative that europeans dictated the terms of the relationship between settlers and indigenous people, white shows how these relationships were constantly negotiated.

historian kathleen duval challenges this notion of a “middle ground” by arguing that “it was indians rather than european would-be colonizers who were more often able to determine the form and content of the relations between the two groups. along the banks of the arkansas and mississippi rivers, far from paris, madrid, and london, european colonialism met neither accommodation nor resistance but incorporation. rather than being colonized, indians drew european empires into local patterns of land and resource allocation, sustenance, goods exchange, gender relations, diplomacy, and warfare” (source: university of pennsylvania press).

but why does any of this matter when you are thinking about territorial expansion in the united states?

here’s one potential reason: you should always be asking yourself who occupied a territory before the united states expanded into it and what happened to those original occupants as a result. this question will not only make your analysis more complete, it will also likely make your argument stronger.

document analysis for apush themes: expansion

in this section, i will be presenting you with three documents that address the issue of territorial expansion in united states history. i want you to identify some of the changes over time that are present in the documents, as well as the continuities. you should also be thinking about how the story would change if the documents i presented here were different.

document a

eric foner, historian, on western expansion in united states history

slavery was intimately related to the major trends [and] developments that we associate with american history in the first half of the 19th century. for example, territorial expansion, the westward movement, the frontier. the country grew tremendously in this period until, by the 1840’s, it reached the pacific ocean. frederick jackson turner, the great historian of the late 19th century, said it was on the frontier that democracy was born, that american ideas of equality were born, individualism.

but the frontier also carried with it the expansion of slavery. the westward expansion of slavery was one of the most dynamic economic and social processes going on in this country. the westward expansion carried slavery down into the southwest, into mississippi, alabama, crossing the mississippi river into louisiana. finally, by the 1840’s, it was pouring into texas. so the expansion of slavery, which became the major political question of the 1850’s, was not just a political issue. it was a fact of life that every american had experienced during this period.

americans in the 19th century thought of or spoke of their country as in jefferson phrase — an “empire of liberty.” and the history of the united states was conceived of as part of the progress of mankind and the spread of liberty throughout the world. and you can see this in graphic illustrations of the period — of liberty leading people westward. and progress was the essence of the american story.

now, in the south, southern slaveowners insisted that slavery was absolutely essential to that story of progress. without slavery, you could not have civilization, they said. slavery freed the upper class from the need to do manual labor, to worry about economic day-to-day realities, and therefore gave them the time and the intellectual ability to devote themselves to the arts and literature and mechanical advantages and inventions of all kinds. so that it was slavery itself which made the progress of civilization possible.

now, northerners by this period wouldn’t have put it exactly that way, because they lived in a non-slave area. but i think in the north, the connection of slavery and american growth was really sort of ignored. in other words, people would talk about the expansion of the “empire of liberty” and never quite mention that millions of people in this “empire of liberty” were slaves.

document b

map of “louisiana,” edged on the west by the rocky mountains, c. 1804 (source)

matthew karp, historian, interview discussing his book, this vast southern empire

interviewer: when americans talked about a “vast southern empire” before the civil war, what did they have in mind?
matthew karp: the short answer is that they weren’t talking about an independent southern republic, but the entire united states.

it’s easy to find sectionalism in southern politics before the civil war, but the most powerful antebellum southerners—from andrew jackson to jefferson davis—were nationalists, not separatists. what john c. calhoun really wanted, as richard hofstadter wrote long ago, was not for southerners to leave the union but to dominate it, which they more or less did in the thirty years before the civil war. southerners imagined—and worked to build—an american republic whose foundation was slavery. in their minds, this was a powerful state, continental in scope and hemispheric in influence, which put the preservation of slaveholding property at the center of u.s. politics and u.s. foreign policy. that’s what they meant by “this vast southern empire”…

what themes did you identify throughout these sources?

some possibilities could include:

1. the role of slavery in early territorial expansion and capitalism in later expansion
2. the impact of expansion on who was included as american
3. the relationship between expansion and democratic ideals

there are many more themes you could include! if you have any good ideas, write them in the comments section below. and happy studying!

the post themes across apush: expansion appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

the purpose of these “themes across apush” blog posts are for you to see how to practice the skill of change over time that will be necessary for the apush exam. it is also important to note that this is not an exhaustive list of social movements in the united states; that is, i won’t be detailing each and every event that could be classified as a social movement. however, i will be giving you enough of an overview for you to feel comfortable approaching the topic on the apush exam. ready to dive in? let’s go!

a brief history of social movements

in many ways, you can view the history of the united states through the lens of social movements. the country had a decidedly “anti-establishment” start, even as it developed its own institutions and governments later on.

so, for this post, we will be starting with the ways in which colonists had to form a social movement – although inextricably tied to economic and political interests, as most social movements are – in order to form a collective surrounding a single idea: that the thirteen colonies, who had more in common with england than with each other, should become a nation. we will close with the suffragist movement.

of course, this blog post could have ended with the civil rights movement or the women’s rights movement or the lgbtq rights movement (all of which are continuing into the present day). however, by closing off with the suffragist movement and the passage of the 19th amendment, you will have a solid grounding to incorporate other movements as you see fit.

apush themes: social movements

1. revolutionary war

it’s hard to recognize how unlikely the revolutionary war actually was sitting from the vantage point of 2018; the united states has been a thing for some time now. perhaps john adams summed it up most eloquently when he said in 1818 that the revolution was, “perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. thirteen clocks had been made to strike together – a perfection of mechanism, which no artist had ever before effected.”

why did these diverse colonies decide to rebel against their common source? what did they gain by going out on their own? if you’ve ever seen the musical hamilton, it’ll seem like the revolution was an inevitable outcome. but this is not so.

historian thomas breen has argued that it was only through the boycotts and popular pressure leading up to the revolution that the events were even possible. it was through the non consumption of imported british tea and the supporting of patriot businesses that colonists became americans. of course, as breen also shows us, there is sometimes a downside to social movements: all that peer pressure can lead us to situations where tarring and feathering seems like a good idea.

to get more of an understanding about who the various parties were in the revolution, see this open course video from yale university.

2. abolition movement

1787 medallion by josiah wedgewood (source)

the movement to end slavery – the abolitionist movement – is often touted as one of the earliest and most successful social movements in the united states. abolitionists had varying views: some advocated for equality among the races, while others still believed in white supremacy as the ruling doctrine of the united states. but what they shared was the belief that slavery should be abolished. by the dawn of the civil war, most abolitionists (again, not all) believed that slavery was a moral failure for the country.

examine the following quote from abolitionist william lloyd garrison. it is important to recognize that black individuals (both enslaved and free) were some of the most ardent abolitionists, even though the quote i am presenting here is from a white individual. notice how garrison makes his argument in the same language as the declaration of independence, a common move for social activists who wanted to petition that the ideas of equality be expanded.

“i am a believer in that portion of the declaration of american independence in which it is set forth, as among self-evident truths, “that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” hence, i am an abolitionist.”

william lloyd garrison, 1854, “no compromise with the evil of slavery”

3. progressivism

as industrialization was becoming more common in major urban centers in the north, and especially after the civil war, the social ills that accompanied rampant capitalist growth were becoming more acute. jacob riis, a danish photographer, was influential in showing the downsides of industrialization through his work in the book how the other half lives. the street in the photo below was considered the most crime-ridden and dangerous street in new york city at the time.

jacob riis, bandit’s roost, 1888 (source)

progressivists were those individuals who wanted to help ameliorate some of the suffering in urban centers by advocating for clean cities, public schooling for immigrants, and even “moral decency” through the short-lived prohibition movement.

of course, we know there were insidious practices within the progressive social movement as well. attempts to make individuals more “american” were a bedrock of the public schooling system, and immigrants came up with innovative forms of resisting the “help” of some progressives (like through the advent of catholic schools). in examining the progressive movement, we can see the limits of paternalistic policies.

4. suffrage movement

suffragists parade down fifth avenue, 1917 (source)

last for this blog post, but certainly not least, is the suffragist movement. even though the 15th amendment declared unconstitutional any attempts to limit voting on the basis of race, it took the 19th amendment to strike down voting restrictions based on a person’s sex.

the women’s suffrage movement was the social movement that made the 19th amendment possible. however, much like the abolitionist movement, the suffrage movement had all different types of individuals supporting it; in fact, not all women believed women should have the right to vote!

let’s examine the following two excerpts about women’s suffrage. both of these excerpts come from lessons curated by the stanford history education group.

it has often been pointed out that women should not pass laws on matters of war and peace, since no woman can do military duty. but this point applies to other issues, too. no woman can have any
practical knowledge of shipping and navigation, of the work of trainmen on railways, of mining, or of many other subjects of the highest importance. their legislation, therefore, would not be intelligent, and the laws they devised to help sailors, trainmen, miners, etc., might be highly offensive to the very people they tried to help. if sailors and miners refused to obey the laws, who would have to enforce them?

the men! the entire execution of the law would be in the hands of men, backed up by irresponsible voters (women) who could not lift a finger to catch or punish a criminal. and if all the dangers and difficulties of executing the law lay upon men, what right have women to make the law?

excerpt from molly elliot seawell, an anti-suffragist from virginia who published the anti-suffrage book, the ladies’ battle, in 1911.

we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . . whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance (loyalty) to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government. . . . the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations (taking away power) on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

declaration of sentiments, written in 1848 by elizabeth cady stanton.

women had complex views for supporting suffrage and for opposing it. like most social movements in united states history, there is no one story to tell.

putting it all together

as always, i have given you a lot of history to digest. but here’s a way to start identifying some areas that you could use on your apush exam!

1. social movements often intersect with politics and economics.
    
2. it was a common tool to invoke the declaration of independence for future social movements.
    
3. individuals who partook in social movements had mixed motives.

these are just a few of the ideas that you could start to use to analyze the large swath of history i have provided here. do you have any more good themes? add them to the comments below!

further resources for apush themes: social movements

other 19th century reform movements (including utopian societies)

source: crash course

anti-lynching campaigns

source: ida b. wells biography

the post themes across apush: social movements appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

one of the skills that is super important for you to master for the apush exam is thinking across time periods. it’s not enough that you know when the war of 1812 was (hah! a little history humor for you) or why it happened. you need to know how that event is similar to, but also differs from, events that came before it (like the war of independence) and those that came after (like the mexican-american war).

this means you need to be able to recognize change and continuity throughout us history. ready to dive in? let’s go!

a brief history of voting rights

with reports of u.s. citizens turning out to vote at depressing lows, it can be hard for present day apush students to recognize that:

• voting was not considered a right until the ideas of representative government took hold, and individuals were not seen as subjects of a monarch, but citizens of a state;
   
• the notion of citizenship had to be negotiated (and sometimes, violently negotiated) in order for us to have a more expansive idea of who can vote; and
   
• even today, many individuals within the united states do not have the right to vote.

 
with these three concepts in mind, i will take you on a whirlwind history that highlights the following four periods:

1. expansion of the right to vote for white, male property owners at the founding of the country
2. the establishment of the 15th amendment, and the voting rights act of 1965 that made the 15th amendment protections real
3. the establishment of the 19th amendment

apush themes: voting rights

1. initial expansion of the right to vote

as i mentioned earlier, voting, citizenship, and individual rights were coming into vogue when the united states was founded (you can thank the enlightenment philosophers, in large part, for those ideas). the idea that individuals had the right to choose their government was a key part of the declaration of independence. but there was just one problem with all of these individual rights: who would count as an individual?

prior to the enlightenment, the unit of measurement that mattered for purposes of government administration was much larger than an individual; generally, a town, village, or community would be taxed, not an individual. so, we see a shift towards thinking about representative government, and a need for individual voices to be heard. but the cacophony of every individual voice was, perhaps, untenable to most lawmakers. see this excerpt from federalist 10, written by james madison, regarding the dangers of too many individual voices to a well-functioning government:

from this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which i mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention…a republic, by which i mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.

(source: university of groningen)

and so, as the fledgling united states gained its footing, voting rights applied only to heads of household recognized by the government: white, male, property-owning individuals.

2. the establishment of the 15th amendment

source: “the first vote” by a.r. ward (1867). library of congress.

we know, however, that this republican government could not solve all problems among factions. there was one issue that was too great, too central to the very idea of the united states that a war broke out between opposing sides: that is, of course, the issue of slavery.

when the union won the civil war, the reconstruction amendments (amendments 13-15) were proposed (and ratified). they were a means of establishing rights of citizenship to formerly enslaved individuals, and voting rights to the men (not women; not yet).

the first section of the 15th amendment reads as follows:

the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

source: the library of congress

however, the amendment was not enough to guarantee black americans the right to vote. the onslaught of jim crow era laws and policies, grandfather clauses, poll taxes and tests, and outright intimidation and violence kept black people away. it was only through civil rights era legislation – and the voting rights act of 1965 in particular – that the 15th amendment was actually put into effect.

3. the establishment of the 19th amendment

as i have hopefully made clear, the founding of the united states – and even the 15th amendment that was meant to expand voting rights – included men, and men only.

we have the 19th amendment, and the suffragettes who made that amendment possible, to thank.

many suffragettes (suffrage means the right to vote, so a suffragette was a woman seeking the right to vote for herself and others of her sex) got their activist start during the abolition movement prior to and during the civil war. in 1848, at the seneca falls convention, a group of mostly women declared the following:

we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a 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.

source: declaration of sentiments

in a not so subtle dig at the declaration of independence, these women called out the hypocrisy of patriarchy. however, women would not receive the right to vote until 1920 with the passage of the 19th amendment.

recognizing change and continuity

there are plenty of ways to recognize change and continuity throughout these events. the following table provides some starting points for you to think about.

and there are many other ways to think about change and continuity with voting rights throughout united states history! want to talk through your ideas? start a thread in the comment section below!

what other resources can i use to learn about apush themes: voting rights?

books

give us the ballot, by ari berman.

videos

crash course

history channel

the post themes across apush: voting rights appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

we know that getting all the details about what happened when in u.s. history (let alone explaining the significance of those events) can be hard. that’s why we have created this series of posts, “themes across apush,” that gives you a brief overview of one theme at a time, along with tips to help you think about patterns of change and continuity. ready to dive in? let’s go!

a brief history of immigration in the united states

if you’ve been paying even a little bit of attention to recent news, you will have seen the current debates about immigration in the united states.

“the united states is a nation of immigrants,” these politicians and pundits will declare. but what does that even mean?

this blog post will explore the theme of immigration for the apush test by outlining the following events:

1. the naturalization act of 1790
2. the official end of the slave trade in the united states in 1808
3. mass immigration of the mid-1800s
4. the transcontinental railroad and the chinese exclusion act of 1882
5. the settlement house movement and progressivism
6. the spanish american war
7. the dillingham commission

we have a lot of ground to cover, so as you continue reading, i want you to be thinking about what has changed in u.s. immigration policy, and what has continued.

i also want you to be thinking about what i have left out of this post. for example, this overview will stop in 1907; a lot of immigration stories have happened since then! how would you incorporate those events into this story about immigration in u.s. history? furthermore, i am separating immigration from migration; therefore, i am not including forced movements of indigenous people further west. (for that, you should check out my post on the indian removal act, as well as explorations of the themes of imperialism and expansion in this series.) you should ask yourself questions like: should the forced and violent movement of indigenous peoples be a part of the immigration theme? why or why not?

in short, as you are reading this post, you should be doing a lot of thinking, too!

apush themes: immigration

1. the naturalization act of 1790

for purposes of a blog post about immigration, it is important that you understand what naturalization means. here’s a quick definition:

naturalization (noun): the process by which a non-citizen of a country becomes a legal citizen of that country

with that definition in mind, it becomes clear that the naturalization act of 1790 was meant to determine who could become a citizen. according to the following passage (which is an excerpt from the act), who could become a citizen in 1790?

be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the united states of america, in congress assembled, that any alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the united states for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court that he is a person of good character…

source: naturalization act of 1790

the legal language can be a little hard to follow, but the idea is that only a “free white” man of “good character” can become a citizen, provided that he has lived in the united states for two years. however, as we well know, more than just white men were immigrating to the united states. therefore, all women and non-white (non-white, of course, was a very loose definition) men were considered noncitizens.

2. end of slave trade in 1808

one of the biggest forms of immigration was forced; that is, the movement of africans to the western hemisphere for the purposes of enslavement.

of course, slavery continued within the united states until 1865, and the internal slave trade continued long after 1808. any full exploration of immigration in the united states has to account for the fact that immigration occurred on a spectrum from violent and forced to peaceful and non-coercive. another example of the paradox of immigration black americans faced would be the great migration.

3. mass immigration of the mid-1800s

in the early to middle part of the 19th century, the united states saw a decisive uptick in immigrants from the following places:

• germany. because of crop failures and the consequences of rapid industrialization, many german individuals sought out opportunities in the united states.
• ireland. the infamous irish potato famine drove immigrants to the united states in droves.
• mexico. as a result of the mexican-american war, mexicans living in texas, california, and other areas in the southwest became citizens through the treaty of guadalupe hidalgo; however, the influx of mexicans into the united states was not necessarily the result of individual movement, but rather, the movement of national boundaries.

4. the transcontinental railroad and the chinese exclusion act of 1882

chinese workers immigrated to the united states in order to complete the transcontinental railroad. the chinese exclusion act was an outgrowth of their presence in the united states; however, individuals had mixed feelings about this exclusion.

see the political cartoon from thomas nast as an example of one point of view about the exclusion of chinese immigrants. what is his view on these immigrants? how is he making his point?

5. the settlement house movement and progressivism

as a result of rapid industrialization in the northeast and midwest of the united states, many individuals from all over the world immigrated to the united states for economic opportunities. they were not always welcomed in cities, however.

progressive era reformers (that is, individuals who wanted to ameliorate society from the excesses of the gilded age) began what came to be known as the settlement house movement in order to assist new immigrants in their process of assimilation to the united states.

one of the most famous of these progressives was jane addams, who published detailed maps about the neighborhoods she lived in and the immigrants she met there.

5. the spanish american war of 1898

i am highlighting the spanish american war as an important piece of the immigration story because it is often left out. one of the implications of this war was that the united states “won” the philippines, puerto rico, and guam from the spanish empire. the philippines would be recognized as an independent nation after world war ii, but puerto rico and guam remain territories of the united states and the individuals who are born on these two islands are citizens.

6. the dillingham commission of 1907

the dillingham commission was formed in 1907 when u.s. lawmakers were concerned about increased immigration from southern and eastern europe. the work of this commission would have the following consequences:

1. providing the justification for restrictive immigration policies through the 1920s, including the emergency quota act of 1921
2. lead to the eventual national origins formula of 1929

how should i make sense of all this history?

while this was an overview, there are lots of ways to think about change and continuity based on these events. the following is a list to get you started:

1. the changing definition of what it meant to be a u.s. citizen;
2. the spectrum of causes motivating immigration; and
3. reactions to immigrants from within the united states.

i am sure that you can think of many more ways to make sense of this important theme for apush. check out the additional resources below for more ideas. happy studying!

videos

historian nell irvin painter on race and immigration

podcasts

the melting pot: listen as several historians debate the meaning of assimilation at various points in u.s. history.

the post themes across apush: immigration appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

in this blog post, i will outline what apush scorers are looking for from past tests and give student examples. all of this information is available on the college board website, which i encourage you to use as a resource for your studying.

the format of this blog will be as follows: i will give you one example question and break down three student responses. i will then present a new question, and provide a link to the information so you can score yourself on your short answer responses. sound good? let’s get started!

apush short answer questions: question 1

the first of our apush short answer questions is taken from the 2016 exam. again, all of the content presented on this blog is available at the college board website.

the question asks you to answer parts (a), (b), and (c):

a) briefly explain one important similarity between the goals of the spanish and the english in establishing colonies in the americas prior to 1700.

b) briefly explain one important difference between the goals of the spanish and the english in establishing colonies in the americas prior to 1700.

c) briefly explain one way in which the difference you indicated in (b) contributed to a difference in the development of spanish and english colonial societies.

now, before you walk off and throw your hands up in the air because this seems impossible, let’s walk through what the question is asking you to do.

1. first, identify the time period of interest. for this question, you should only be looking at the colonies prior to 1700. we are talking early, early u.s. history here.
    
2. next, identify the region of interest. again, we are talking about the colonies that would eventually become the united states (not necessarily the thirteen original colonies). notice, though, that the question is not asking about the colonists themselves but the goals of the empires the colonists came from: spain and england.
    
3. finally, identify the type of response requested. in parts a and b, you are being asked to compare and contrast by identifying similarities and differences. this is a completely different question than a cause/effect or change over time type question, so you should be answering the question in a way that makes it clear that you can compare and contrast. notice, though, that in part c, you are to explain how the difference in part b caused a difference in the development of the two societies (a cause/effect question).

let’s see how other students responded to the question.

example student response #1

let’s look at our first student example from the college board website.

what score do you think this student received? well, let’s break it down some more.

part a
part a asks you to explain one similarity in the goals of the spanish and the english in the american colonies prior to the 1700s. this student identifies one similarity here: power. although it’s not very specific (the fact that “each wanted to expand their empire and become more powerful through the cultivation of the resources found in the americas” could apply to just about any colonial relationship), it does outline a similarity. student: 1 point.

part b
part b is asking you to do the opposite of part a: that is, explain one difference. here, the student becomes more specific in highlighting different settlement patterns. the spanish used the encomienda system, which enslaved indigenous peoples, whereas the english forced indigenous peoples off the land. (notice, too, that this could have been a similarity as well: the mistreatment and oppression of indigenous peoples.) the student gets a point here, too.

part c
here is where an important shift occurs. you are no longer answering a compare/contrast question and, instead, are looking at a historical causation question. no problem; you got this.

in the student example above, the student does give a difference in the development of the labor force in the two societies. it is a simplistic response that does not get into very many specifics, but it answers the question that was being asked. and guess what? the student got a point here too.

reflection
so what can we learn from looking at this response? here’s what you should keep in mind when answering apush short answer questions:

1. identify what it is you need to answer.
2. answer the question being asked.
3. for short answers only: be specific when necessary. after all, you only have a limited number of space and time to demonstrate your understanding.

example student response #2

let’s see if you can apply what you have learned to the following student response.

the student response above lost a point. can you guess where?

it’s actually on part b!

the student did not frame the response in terms of goals, something that was explicit in the question. as noted above, answer the question you are being asked.

example student response #3

let’s try one more student response on this question.

what score would you have given the above student response?

the apush scorers gave this student 1 point, for accurately identifying a similarity between the english and the spanish (“new riches”), but the student did not receive any credit for parts b and c.

why not?

first, for part b, this is an inaccurate claim about the goals between the english and the spanish. it goes without saying that if you make a statement not supported by the facts of history, you will not get credit. finally, part c continues making what the apush scorers called “erroneous claims” because it was based on the inaccurate statements of part b.

as the first example showed, you don’t have to be super specific to get full credit. but you do have to be correct. so, instead of making lofty-sounding statements about motivations, make simple statements that you can be specific about, should you need to be. that’s the difference between scoring a 3 and a 5 on the apush exam.

scoring notes

it’s always super helpful to look at the scoring notes for apush short answer questions. these notes tell you all the acceptable answers that are possible.

a) briefly explain one important similarity between the goals of the spanish and the english in establishing colonies prior to 1700.

examples of responses to (a) that would earn the point:

• to acquire wealth
• to increase power, pride, prestige of the spanish or englishs crowns
• to promote religion
• to find access to asia

 
b) briefly explain one important difference between the goals of the spanish and the english in establishing colonies.

examples of responses to (b) that would earn the point:

spanish:

• more intent on religious proselytizing (spread catholicism)
• more interested in glory (power of spanish crown)
• more openly interested in achieving individual fame and glory of conquistadores
• more interested in establishing and protecting trade networks and routes
• colonization more directed by central government

english:

• pursued a wider range of goals, including religious settlement and economic gain (e.g., extractive industries and farming/fishing/forests/fur)
• more willing to allow bases for privateers
• more motivated by imperial competition with spain and other nations
• more likely to be fleeing from political and religious conflicts

 
c) briefly explain one way in which the difference indicated in (b) contributed to a difference in the development of spanish and english colonial societies.

examples of responses to (c) that would earn the point:

• england more likely to allow private individuals and joint stock companies to colonize in the name of england.
• spanish developed extractive industries in precious metals, whereas english were more likely to establish economies based on trade.
• more royal control over spanish colonies than english because english were settled to escape political and religious persecution.
• many english colonists tended to establish more permanent settlements than the conquistadores. however, the spanish eventually established permanent settlements.
• because spaniards were more concerned with conversion, they eventually integrated indigenous peoples into their culture, albeit not equally.
• english were more concerned with excluding indigenous peoples from colonial society so they were more likely to dislocate them from their lands.
• english were more willing to embrace diverse labor systems (indentured servants, enslaved african americans).
• the encomienda system developed as a spanish labor system, which also reinforced efforts to instill catholic religious practices in native americans.
• the english developed diverse labor systems (indentured servants, enslaved african americans).

apush short answer questions: question 2

now, it’s your turn. take your time to go through the steps of figuring out what you are supposed to answer before you tackle this question.

after you have written your response, check your response against the student responses and score notes that are listed on the college board website. this short answer is taken from the 2016 exam and is listed as short answer question 1. good luck!

the question asks you to answer parts (a), (b), and (c):

a) briefly explain how one major historical factor contributed to the change depicted on the graph.

b) briefly explain one specific historical effect that resulted from the change depicted on the graph.

c) briefly explain another specific historical effect that resulted from the change depicted on the graph.

the post apush short answer questions and responses: a study guide appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

what is the gospel of wealth?

if you’ve ever been to a christian church service, you may have heard the term “gospel” before. the word doesn’t necessarily have to be connected with religion, though.

gospel come from two words in old english: gød, which means good, and spel, which means story or news. so, gospel means “good news”. it can also refer to a set of principles or beliefs an individual may have.

both definitions apply in this case.

the gospel of wealth was an idea made popular by industrialist andrew carnegie in 1889. in an article he wrote titled “wealth”, carnegie described his belief that it was the moral responsibility of the rich (especially the self-made rich) to tackle wealth inequality by giving their surplus wealth to those who were less fortunate. carnegie argued that the rich should give to any number of public institutions, including libraries, museums, and concert halls.

andrew carnegie, c. 1905 (source)

as he wrote in his article, carnegie’s purpose in spreading the gospel of wealth was

“…to present some of the best methods of performing this duty of administering surplus wealth for the good of the people. the first requisite for a really good use of wealth by the millionaire who has accepted the gospel which proclaims him only a trustee of the surplus that comes to him, is to take care that the purposes for which he spends it shall not have a degrading pauperizing tendency upon its recipients, but that his trust shall be so administered as to stimulate the best and most aspiring poor of the community to further efforts for their own improvement….it is ever to be remembered that one of the chief obstacles which the philanthropist meets in his efforts to do real and permanent good in this world, is the practice of indiscriminate giving and the duty of the millionaire is to resolve to cease giving to objects that are not clearly proved to his satisfaction to be deserving….greater good for the race is to be achieved by inducing them to cease impulsive and injurious giving.”
source: university of virginia

 
there’s a lot of words in there, but what it means, in more plain language, is that rich people shouldn’t just give their money to the poor all willy-nilly. instead, the rich should give their money to institutions or ideas that promote the poor to cultivate “better” habits. the rich should not give money that has a “pauperizing tendency upon its recipients” – meaning that the rich shouldn’t just give the poor money that the poor don’t have to work for.

carnegie believed that his wealth was given to him by divine intervention, and that it was the responsibility of rich people to use their money to encourage good habits among the poor. furthermore, carnegie is asking something huge here: he’s trying to convince a bunch of rich dudes to give most of their money to charity, rather than giving their families receive an enormous inheritance (although the inheritance would likely still be huge).

interestingly enough, there is a modern version of this gospel of wealth in the form of bill and melinda gates and warren buffet’s giving pledge. it’s not exactly the same, but there are some interesting parallels that you might want to look into.

cool idea. but why does the gospel of wealth matter?

carnegie is an interesting figure who provides a nice link between the gilded age and the progressive era. he came to america as an immigrant from scotland. he made his money in the steel industry and became a tycoon of industry. this is a standard gilded age narrative. but carnegie also was a progressive in that he believed the wealth inequality was a problem that he, as a rich man, had a duty to try and solve (likely because he grew up poor). however, like many other progressive era reforms, there was a note of condescension in his philanthropy.

carnegie believed he knew what poor people needed. instead of paying employees a living wage, why not build libraries? to be fair, that line of questioning is a much more radical critique of carnegie than was popular at that time. even the famous photographer of the urban poor, jacob riis, would work with industrialists to get money. however, it is important to understand how carnegie’s gospel of wealth reinforced, instead of dramatically transformed, the wealth inequality he was seeking to ameliorate.

what are some example gospel of wealth apush questions?

while you may not be asked explicitly about the gospel of wealth on its own, you are likely to be asked about progressive era policies. you can use the gospel of wealth as an example of a line of thinking that was a complex, messy example of the benefits and constraints of progressivism.

the following gospel of wealth apush questions come from the 2017 apush practice exam. the photo has been changed to ensure that all images posted on this website are in the public domain.

the questions below refer to the following photograph taken by jacob riis in 1890.

(source)

1. conditions like those shown in the image contributed most directly to which of the following?
a. the passage of laws restricting immigration to the united states
b. an increase in progressive reform activity
c. a decline in efforts to americanize immigrants
d. the weakening of labor unions such as the american federation of labor

2. the conditions shown in the image depict which of the following trends in the late nineteenth century?
a. the growing gap between wealthy people and people living in poverty
b. the rise of the settlement house and populist movements
c. the increased corruption in urban politics
d. the migration of african americans to the north

3. advocates for individuals such as those shown in the image would have most likely agreed with which of the following perspectives?
a. the supreme court’s decision in plessy v. ferguson was justified.
b. capitalism, free of government regulation, would improve social conditions.
c. both wealth and poverty are the products of natural selection.
d. government should act to eliminate the worst abuses of industrial society.

bonus gospel of wealth apush question (not from the apush practice exam):

4. how would an individual who subscribed to the beliefs of the gospel of wealth interpret the following photograph?
a. the government should get involved to provide more homes for homeless children.
b. the rich should provide funds to institutions that help homeless children.
c. industrialists should pay individuals more so that they can afford to live in decent homes.
d. the nature of capitalism makes it so that there will be poor people, and there is nothing to be done about it.

answers

the correct answers to these example gospel of wealth apush questions are:

1. b
2. a
3. d; if you got tripped up on this one, notice that the question does not ask how carnegie would respond to this picture. instead, it asks how anyone who advocates for the individuals in that photograph (think jane addams) would respond. as always, multiple choice questions require you to choose the one best answer out of the answer choices given.
4. bonus question: b

the post gospel of wealth: apush topics to study for test day appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

so who’s jim crow?

jim crow wasn’t an actual person, but an understanding of who he was will help you make sense of the laws his name inspired.

during the antebellum period of the united states, minstrel shows were extremely popular. white actors in blackface would perform as exaggerated stereotypes of black people for entertainment’s sake. thomas rice was a famous minstrel performer; among his most popular acts was titled “jump jim crow”. in the mid-1830s, jim crow became synonymous with black people broadly, but still in that caricatured form. with this in mind, it may be easier for you to remember the goal of jim crow laws: to make black americans feel inferior, to represent these individuals as less than human, and, most importantly, to keep the vestiges of slavery’s social order intact.

what were jim crow laws?

for a brief period of time following the end of the civil war, it seemed as though the united states was serious about making emancipation mean something real for freedmen and women. the formerly enslaved now had voting power. as a result, blacks were elected to congress during this period of radical reconstruction.

however, this would not last long; after the compromise of 1877, any hopes of black equality were swiftly squashed. as a result of this compromise, it was clear that there would be no federal oversight to make sure that the formerly enslaved in the south had any rights. jim crow laws were established during this time period and were in effect until the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

each southern state established its own set of laws restricting the political, economic, and social rights of african americans. there were, of course, the larger issues that you likely know about, such as “separate but equal” schools and employment discrimination. but jim crow laws got much more specific than just that. in georgia, black barbers couldn’t cut white hair; mississippi made it illegal to print and distribute literature regarding equality between the races; and north carolina made it illegal for blacks and whites to share school books. jim crow laws were meant to be humiliating and made sure that the minutia of everyday life was racialized and oppressive.

in “the rise and fall of jim crow,” pbs outlines how jim crow laws permeated every aspect of life in the south. you can watch episode 1 below:

did jim crow laws exist just in the south?

no.

due to the work of social scientists like richard rothstein, it is becoming more and more clear that the north had its own de jure (or government sanctioned) policies of racial discrimination. in cities in the north, like chicago, local and state governments made sure that blacks and whites lived in separated areas (and severely underfunded the black neighborhoods). the federal government made sure that blacks were denied the same opportunities as whites through policies that denied blacks mortgages or refused to give blacks protections during the great depression through new deal policies.

the fact that jim crow laws were not concentrated in the south is what made the civil rights movement effective. black people from detroit, mi to selma, al protested their treatment in ways that made the johnson administration pay attention; this was not a regional issue, but a national crisis.

does the fact that these laws were called jim crow laws mean that they only affected men?

no.

in fact, activist pauli murray argued that jim crow policies, and the patriarchal nature of civil rights organizations, made it so that women of color were fighting jane crow. (“jane crow” was pauli’s short hand for racial discrimination and sexism all at once.)

how did jim crow laws end?

a string of civil rights legislation effectively ended jim crow laws (although, as many historians and social critics observe, jim crow-era policies are on the rise again). some of the most important legislation of the era include:

• civil rights act of 1964, which prohibits employment and public access discrimination
• voting rights act of 1965, which prohibits states from enacting legislation that systematically limits the rights of one group to vote. (in 2013, however, this law was effectively gutted by the supreme court.)
• fair housing act of 1968, which prohibited restrictive covenants and other discriminatory practices

what are some example jim crow laws apush questions?

the following questions are taken from the 2017 apush practice exam. although it is unlikely that the apush exam will ask you expressly about jim crow laws, you will likely be asked to think about the context of the time period. when studying, you should use jim crow laws as a framework for organizing the time period between reconstruction and the civil rights movement.

questions 1-3 refer to the excerpt below.

“we conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
chief justice earl warren, writing the unanimous opinion of the united states supreme court in brown v. board of education of topeka, 1954

1. which of the following was the most immediate result of the decision excerpted?
a. radicals critiqued government actions as doing too little to transform the racial status quo.
b. education advocates raised awareness of the effect of poverty on students’ opportunities.
c. civil rights activists became increasingly divided over tactical and philosophical issues.
d. segregationists in southern states temporarily closed many public schools in an effort to resist the decision.

2. the decision excerpted most directly reflected a growing belief after the second world war that the power of the federal government should be used to
a. promote greater racial justice
b. revitalize cities
c. foster economic opportunity
d. defend traditional visions of morality

3. the brown decision reversed which of the following earlier decisions?
a. marbury v. madison, which established the principle of judicial review
b. worcester v. georgia, which established that the federal government rather than individual states had authority in american indian affairs
c. dred scott v. sandford, which proclaimed that slaves could not be citizens
d. plessy v. ferguson, which endorsed racial segregation laws

correct answers

the answers to these example jim crow laws apush questions are:

1. d. think about the context within which public school separation happened. one ruling, no matter how well-intentioned, changed those social policies overnight.
2. a. this question is putting brown v. board in context of the second world war. with the racial discrimination of the nazis in full view, many believed the federal government of the united states needed to do more to promote equality.
3. d. in 1896, plessy established the idea of “separate but equal.”

the post jim crow laws: apush topics to study for test day appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

what was the issue being debated in mcculloch v. maryland?

promissory note issued by the second bank of the united states (source)

the summary of this case is not as important as the implications of it. however, to understand the implications, you gotta know what’s going on. this will be a short and sweet summary, but i suggest consulting the video below from the bill of rights institute for more detail.

the story starts in 1816, when congress passed a law chartering the second bank of the united states. in 1817, the second bank opened its second location in baltimore, maryland (its first was in philadelphia). seems pretty simple, right?

wrong.

the state of maryland was like, “whoa, guys. what do you think you’re doing? the federal government has no authority to establish a bank in our state.” and the state of maryland sort of had a point here. i mean, the constitution says that congress has certain expressed powers, like taxing and coining money. but does that mean establishing a bank in a city that’s not the district of columbia, without a state’s permission?

in february of 1818, the state of maryland decided to get tough on the federal government. the state legislature passed an act that would impose a tax on all banks and their branches that were not chartered by the state legislature; yup, that means the second bank of the united states.

the baltimore branch head, james william mcculloch, refused to pay any taxes and daniel webster, representing the branch, sued the state of maryland. at first, the maryland court argued that the constitution didn’t say anything about banks; therefore, the action of taxing the second bank of the united states was totally legit. the supreme court, however, had a different point of view.

what was the supreme court’s decision in mcculloch v. maryland?

in 1819, the supreme court unanimously overruled the state of maryland’s decision. as is the case with most legal issues, there’s a lot of jargon in the decision. but i do want you to read the following excerpt from the constitution, as it forms the foundation of the decision chief justice john marshall wrote:

“the congress shall have power … to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof.” (source)

of course, that excerpt is the necessary and proper clause of the constitution. and that necessary and proper clause, marshall argued, meant that the constitution implied powers for congress; establishing a bank was one of them.

as establishing a bank was necessary (and proper!) for the federal government to do in order to collect taxes and so on, the second bank of the united states was allowed to set up shop in baltimore. marshall also decided that it was the people of the united states, not the states themselves, that were sovereign. if you read my blog post on marbury v. madison, you would know that marshall had a knack of doing these jedi mind tricks in interpreting the constitution that kept the federal government at the top of the power hierarchy, and the supreme court as the final arbiter of constitutionality.

why does mcculloch v. maryland matter so much?

i believe that, in this case, it’s best to let john marshall speak for himself.

first, marshall wrote, “although, among the enumerated powers of government, we do not find the word ‘bank,’…we find the great powers to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce…let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” this means, in short, that the federal government can claim that a process is constitutional if it leads to an expressed power (even though the process itself might not be outlined in the constitution).

finally, marshall ruled, “that the power to tax involves the power to destroy…. if the states may tax one instrument, employed by the [federal] government in the execution of its powers, they may tax any and every other instrument…. this was not intended by the american people. they did not design to make their government dependent on the states.” the states did not have the right to tax the federal government, plain and simple.

can you tell that marshall was a federalist?

what is an example mcculloch v. maryland apush question?

this question comes from the 1999 ap u.s. government and politics exam.

in mcculloch v. maryland, the supreme court established which of the following principles?
a. states cannot interfere with or tax the legitimate activities of the federal government.
b. the judicial branch cannot intervene in political disputes between the president and congress.
c. the federal bill of rights places no limitations on the states.
d. it is within the judiciary’s authority to interpret the constitution.

correct answer:

the answer to this mcculloch v maryland apush question is a. this was established through the necessary and proper clause of the constitution and put implied powers as a part of the powers of the federal government. if you got tripped up and selected d, note that although the supreme court interpreted the constitution in mcculloch v. maryland, this case did not establish that principle: marbury v. madison did.

the post mcculloch v maryland: apush topics to study for test day appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.

what is marbury v. madison all about?

it’s an old tale of political rivalries and backstabbing (if you’ve seen or heard hamilton – or even watched the news recently – you know what i’m talking about).

as you know as a student of u.s. history, john adams was not a particularly popular president. he served one term and was pretty unaccomplished at that (with alexander hamilton as your rival, it’s no small surprise he wasn’t able to get much done!).

but as he left the presidential office – an apocryphal story says that it was literally as he was leaving the office and thomas jefferson, the third president of the united states, was coming in – adams made many political appointments, trying to secure his own party’s place in the bureaucratic offices. one of these appointments included william marbury, who was supposed to serve as a justice of the peace for the district of columbia.

adams thought he had stuck it to jefferson. “sure, dude,” adams probably thought to himself, “go ahead and take my office. but i’m going to make your job so hard with all of my political appointees in important roles.” but jefferson’s secretary of state, james madison, refused to deliver marbury’s commission papers. (remember, at that time, someone had to literally hand you your papers to give your claims to a government position any credibility.)

jefferson’s administration just didn’t do this with marbury’s commission papers; they were refusing to deliver commission papers all over the place. so, marbury and three other scorned political appointees sued madison for the commissions; this case would be known as marbury v. madison.

ok, so what happened in marbury v. madison?

things get complicated here. i thoroughly recommend that you listen to the podcast episode called “kittens kick the giggly blue robot all summer” from radiolab’s more perfect podcast.

public domain painting of john marshall (source)

the big idea here is that, in 1803, chief justice john marshall refused to decide the issue. according to the court’s reasoning (written in a majority opinion by marshall), the constitution did not give the supreme court authority to solve this issue.

it was really quite an elegant decision. in the short term, marshall was saying that the supreme court was limited in its decision-making ability. (after all, their decision in this case was basically that they couldn’t make a decision in this case, because they didn’t have the authority.) but the long-term effects were that the court had the authority to interpret whether or not something was constitutional.

(source)

did your brain just explode?! because that is incredible.

the supreme court has the ability to determine whether or not something is constitutional.

marshall, supreme court: 1
adams, marbury, & co: 0

ok, ok. why does marbury v. madison matter so much?!

i thought you’d never ask. first check out this concept of judicial review, as explained by history illustrated:

the concept that the supreme court can determine whether or not a law is constitutional is called judicial review, and it has huge implications for u.s. history. the supreme court is an ultimate check on power.

furthermore, it is one of those sweet pieces of historical irony that brings judicial review into being. it’s only through a political move—marshall, a federalist, wanted jefferson to know that his party did not have unfettered control to do as they wished—that the supreme court came to be seen as apolitical for most of its history.

jefferson recognized the importance of marshall’s move when he stated that the court could make the constitution “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

what is an example marbury v. madison apush question?

the following marbury v. madison apush question comes from this quiz source.

“so if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. this is of the very essence of judicial duty.”

which of the following statements accurately summarizes the concept of judicial review, as established by marbury v. madison?

a. the supreme court should review laws that conflict with the constitution but cannot declare a law is unconstitutional.
b. when the law and constitution conflict, it is impossible to know which takes precedent.
c. when the law and constitution conflict, the supreme court will always rule in favor of the law.
d. the supreme court should review laws that conflict with the constitution and can strike down a law as unconstitutional.

answer:

the correct answer to this marbury v madison apush question is d. this is the process of judicial review.

the post marbury v. madison: apush topics to study for test day appeared first on magoosh blog | high school.