Research Project Plan: The Dawn of Nuclear Threat

Aaron Elfering

History 381


The Dawn of Nuclear Threat

Sixty years ago the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese government surrendered to the United States and its allies. The nuclear age had begun with a literal ‘bang’ as the first military use of atomic weapons was demonstrated. With the material that follows, the National Security Archive has released the most comprehensive collection to date of declassified U.S. government documents on the atomic bomb and the end of World War II in the Pacific. Besides material from the files of the Manhattan Project, this compilation includes formerly top secret summaries and translations of Japanese communication intercepted under military programs. In addition, the collection includes translations from Japanese high level meetings and discussions in Tokyo, including the conferences when Emperor Hirohito gave the final decision to surrender to allied forces. The decision made by the U.S. to display its military superiority via the Atom bomb is painted with controversy, however, given the extensive intelligence that the U.S. Government had gathered about Japan at the time, following through with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the correct choice.

  • Description of weapon capability as well as potential drawbacks as discussed by President Truman and high ranking military officers.

A. Memorandum discussed with the President, April 25, 1945
Source: Henry Stimson Diary, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library, Henry Lewis Stimson Papers (microfilm at Library of Congress).

President Truman learns about the Manhattan project and is brought up to speed by scientists and military strategists about its capabilities for ending conflict with Japan.

B.Untitled memorandum by General L.R. Groves, April 25, 1945
Source: Record Group 200, Papers of General Leslie R. Groves, Correspondence 1941-1970, box 3, “F”.

It is determined that President Truman favors the project and has become very intrigued by its possibility. Trusting the men in charge of the project, Truman gives the Manhattan Project his approval.

  • As it quickly became clear that Japan would be the established target, these documents, meeting minutes and briefings detail proposed delivery targets, delivery methods, command and other logistics (potential aftereffects are detailed as well).


 A. Notes on Initial Meeting of Target Committee, May 2, 1945, Top Secret
Source: RG 77, MED Records, Top Secret Documents, File no. 5d (copy from microfilm).

Military officers and nuclear scientists had met to discuss bombing techniques, selection of targets , and mission requirements.  The discussion of available targets included Hiroshima, the “largest untouched targets not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list.”


B. Memorandum from J. R. Oppenheimer to Brigadier General Farrell, May 11, 1945
Source: RG 77, MED Records, Top Secret Documents, File no. 5g (copy from microfilm)

Discussing the radiological dangers of a nuclear detonation, Oppenheimer explained the need for precaution to U.S. Generals.

C. Memorandum from Major J. A. Derry and Dr. N.F. Ramsey to General L.R. Groves, “Summary of Target Committee Meetings on 10 and 11 May 1945,” May 12, 1945, Top Secret
Source: RG 77, MED Records, Top Secret Documents, File no. 5d (copy from microfilm).

Scientists and officers held further breifings of mission requirements, detailing height of detonation, weather, possibilities for aborting the mission, target selection, including priority cities (“a large urban area of more than three miles diameter”) and psychological effect.

D.“Notes of the Interim Committee Meeting Thursday, 31 May 1945, 10:00 A.M. to 1:15 P.M. – 2:15 P.M. to 4:15 P.M.,” n.d., Top Secret
Source: RG 77, MED Records, H-B files, folder no. 100 (copy from microfilm) .

Discussion of several key Manhattan Project issues ranging from stages of development,  problems of secrecy, cooperation with “like-minded” powers, to the military impact of the bomb on Japan.  Interested in producing the “greatest possible psychological effect,” panel members agreed that the “most desirable target would be a vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers’ houses.”  Arguments are made  “that this target choice represented an uneasy endorsement of “terror bombing”–the target was not exclusively military or civilian; nevertheless, workers’ housing would include noncombatant men, women, and children”.

  • Alternative methods of resolution; Russia had poised itself to begin the invasion of Japan and the U.S. had managed to establish themselves in the south pacific to prepare for occupation. The United States had found themselves ready to use the bomb but unsure of how to go about first demonstrations after many members involved put forth their fears of creating a nuclear arms race. Ultimately deciding that using this new technology for the first time would have a resounding psychological effect on the rest of the world including the Russian government, with whom relations had grown more and more tense. By this time Japanese authority had still not shown any interest in peacemaking and only methods which would provide the quickest end to the conflict were being considered.

A. Memorandum from Arthur B. Compton to the Secretary of War, enclosing “Memorandum on ‘Political and Social Problems,’ from Members of the ‘Metallurgical Laboratory’ of the University of Chicago,” June 12, 1945, Secret
Source: RG 77, MED Records, H-B files, folder no. 76 (copy from microfilm).

Concerned with the long-run implications of the bomb, physicists had produced a report rejecting a surprise attack on Japan and recommended instead a demonstration of the bomb on the “desert or a barren island.”  Claiming that a nuclear arms race “will be on in earnest not later than the morning after our first demonstration of the existence of nuclear weapons,” the group saw international control as the alternative.  Ultimately it was decided that “atomic attack against Japan would ‘shock’ the Russians”, an effect that was becoming more and more desireable.

B. Memorandum from Acting Secretary of State Joseph Grew to the President, “Analysis of Memorandum Presented by Mr. Hoover,” June 13, 1945
Source: Record Group 107, Office of the Secretary of War, Formerly Top Secret Correspondence of Secretary of War Stimson (“Safe File”), July 1940-September 1945, box 8, Japan (After December 7/41).

An ambassador to Japan weighed in on the conditions of possible Japanese surrender, he stressed that it was extremely important that the United States declare its intention to preserve the current form of government headed by the emperor.  As he argued to President Truman, “failure on our part to clarify our intentions on the status of the emperor will insure prolongation of the war and cost a large number of human lives.”

C. Memorandum from Chief of Staff Marshall to the Secretary of War, 15 June 1945, enclosing “Memorandum of Comments on ‘Ending the Japanese War,'” June 14, 1945
Source: Record Group 107, Office of the Secretary of War, Formerly Top Secret Correspondence of Secretary of War Stimson (“Safe File”), July 1940-September 1945, box 8, Japan (After December 7/41)

The goals of ending the conflict are discussed, possible outcomes of alternative solutions and face-saving proposals for Japan, and the nature of the proposed declaration to the Japanese government, including the problem of defining terms of surrender. The author argued against “modifying the concept of unconditional surrender: if it is “phrased so as to invite negotiation” he saw risks of prolonging the war or a “compromise peace.””

D. Memorandum, “Timing of Proposed Demand for Japanese Surrender,” June 29, 1945, Top Secret
Source: Record Group 107, Office of the Secretary of War, Formerly Top Secret Correspondence of Secretary of War Stimson (“Safe File”), July 1940-September 1945, box 8, Japan (After December 7/41).

The decision to commit to the airstrike is now in effect providing the Japanese continue to refuse surrender. The weight of the impending Russian invasion is being felt by Japanese government.

  • The first nuclear strike and the beginning of the end to World War II. Detailings of the Atomic strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as some of the immediate aftermath felt in both cities. Japan’s course of action and ultimate surrender under the pressure of the threat of Soviet Invasion as well as the devastating effects delivered by the nuclear strikes.

A. Memorandum from General L. R. Groves to the Chief of Staff, August 6, 1945, Top Secret
Source: RG 77, MED Records, Top Secret Documents, File no. 5b (copy from microfilm).

The day after the world’s first nuclear strike had been made, effects of the bomb are being measured and felt around the world. Early casualty counts report over 70,000 killed in the initial blast with aftermath numbers unknown. The desired psychological shock among other nations has been achieved. Still the weight of potential Soviet attack is brought to light.

B. Translation of intercepted Japanese messages, circa 10 August 10, 1945, Top Secret Ultra
Source: Record Group 457, Records of the National Security Agency/Central Security Service, “Magic” Diplomatic Summaries 1942-1945, box 18.

Five days and one more Atom bomb later, “the first Japanese surrender offer was intercepted shortly before Tokyo broadcast it.” Previous terms of surrender were agreed to with previously refuted terms involving the resignation of the Japanese emperor now no longer an issue.

Ultimately, the U.S. was able to avoid a full scale invasion of Japan which would have resulted in massive casualties. Despite powerful allies, top notch intelligence and military superiority, taking Japan would have proved virtually impossible. Time and time again attempts to negotiate peace with the Japanese empire proved futile ultimately leaving the U.S. with few options. In the end, the United States would demonstrate its technological power through one of the most aggressive and devastating attacks in world history, a regrettable but necessary action.


            After what seems like more reading than I’ve done in my entire life, I will admit, I’m very glad to have come to the end of this assignment; however, in retrospect I realize that was part of the point. The study of history on any level can be a daunting task and certainly not one for the book shy. Fortunately, I had the luxury of the internet at my fingertips for this project, as digging through the library of congress for declassified documents and excerpts from President Truman’s Journal was in no way an option for me. Ultimately I have the digital humanities field to thank for these digitized records, without the thankless, tedious work of some poor, bespectacled individual transcribing all of these notes and documents, this knowledge would be shamefully limited. Pouring through resources and attempting to find documentation about events that I knew had occurred/existed proved to be much more difficult than I had ever thought it would be despite concerning one of the best documented regiments in the world, the U.S. Government.

While the tremendous amounts of information available regarding WWII is helpful, I can’t help but feel that at the same time, the sheer volume of information is the biggest hurdle when researching topics like this. Big data can be a historian’s best friend or their worst enemy; I consider myself fairly adept at being able to find information that I need, especially when I know it exists, but in a library of congress situation where this information  can literally surround a person where does one start? Organization of big data is no small task and in a project such as this it becomes almost entirely necessary to find a few sources where this tremendous amount of information has been consolidated for you.

Relying on primary sources becomes a major issue at times, even when researching a relatively modern topic in history such as WWII. The further back in history and the more obscure the topic, the more difficult it is to dig up a firsthand account or documentation from official meetings. The allure of jumping to an article or website covering a topic as a secondary source is almost too sweet at times. Fortunately I had picked a tremendously well documented topic that was tied to a tremendously well documented organization. Without much of the digitization done by/of the Library of Congress/National Security Archive, it’s safe to say I wouldn’t know where to start with my research for this topic.

Archives for The Cuban Missile Crisis

Fifty years ago, south of our nation’s boarder a conflict had occurred. A United States’ U-2 spy plane was traveling miles above the earth’s western hemisphere only to come across a frightening discovery; a Soviet nuclear warhead. For 13 days, President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev exchanged a multitude of face-to-face and more informal conferences about the situation and the potential dangers that came along with this move. A nuclear missile during that timeframe could cripple the American country and kill over an estimated 100 million Americans. What was discussed in these conferences and why would anyone want to move nuclear warheads around the world in a strategic manner? There is no need to move weapons around the world to embrace in the thought of Armageddon.
1. Soviet Union-United States Original Conflicts and facts
i. Reported in October 40 launchers and 80 missiles found
ii. Air strikes were possible but unsure about if all the missiles and launchers would be destroyed
iii. CIA reported that about a dozen missiles were operational at that time
iv. Attorney general didn’t agree with attack
1. Pearl Harbor effect
2. Lead to unpredictable military responses from the Soviets (McNamara, 1962)
a. Possibly nuclear
v. Missiles designed specifically in Moscow for incoming ICBM as a defensive system
vi. Other launchers and missiles designed against aircraft
vii. Radars found on the island
1. Unaware of their dependability
viii. Hundreds of missiles detected moved into cuba in September
1. Not all thermonuclear (Helms, 1993)
ix. Aug 22 CIA game infomratino concerning the number of Soviet and Chinese personael who had entered Cuba (Central Intelligence Agency, 1962)
x. 38 ships arrived since Aug 5
1. 5 were personnel
a. 4000 to 6000 Soviet personel (Central Intelligence Agency, 1962)
xi. President Kennedy asked for further information and analysis on situation from others before taking any further action
2. The Soviet Union-United States Military threats
i. Soviet Union had moved numerous amounts of long and short range missiles to Cuba
1. 22 IL-28 jet bombers
2. 29 MIG-21 jet fighters
3. 24 SA-2 sites
4. 3 cruise missile sites for coastal defense
5. 12 cruise missile patrol boats
ii. Purpose of Soviet military buildup was “to demonstrate that the world balance of forces has shifted so far in their favor that the US can no longer prevent the advance of Soviet offensive power into its own hemisphere (Centeral Intelligence Agency, 1962).”
iii. 16 MRBMs
1. Short range missiles reaching 1100 nm
2. Considered operational at time of notice
iv. 2 IRBMs
1. Long range missiles reaching nm
2. “Able to reach Washington DC and Mountain Home AFB, Idaho (Regis, 2010)”
v. U-2 spy plane shot down

Centeral Intelligence Agency. (1962, Ooctober 20). Major Consequences of Certain US Courses of Action on Cuba. Retrieved from The National Security Archive:
Central Intelligence Agency. (1962, October). Cuban Missile Crisis. Retrieved from CIA Documents on the Cuban Missile Crisis:
Helms, R. (1993, September 22). Intelligence in American Society. Retrieved from Central Intelligence Agency:
McNamara, R. S. (1962, October 21). Notes on Meeting with the President. Retrieved from Cuban Missile Crisis Key Documents:
Regis, M. D. (2010). Retired Air Force Speical Ops. (R. Regis, Interviewer)

Cities of the Forgotten: Japanese-American Resistance in WWII Internment Camps

Eric Schooley
Digital History (HIST-381)
Dr. Leslie Madsen-Brooks

8 October, 2012

Cities of the Forgotten:
Japanese-American Resistance in WWII Internment Camps
A Research Project Plan

During World War Two, America committed one of the most heinous acts in our history: the practice of our government interring Japanese-American citizens at relocation camps for the duration of the war. While many of the internees in these camps volunteered for military service or accepted their fates, several did not, and maintained a vocal resistance during their incarceration.

1: The newsletters printed by the internees were a critical connection to a sense of community that is necessary for any type of resistance to be effective. Social gatherings, sporting activities, religious services played major roles in developing this sense of belonging, and the grassroots newsletters produced by the internees were the only available sources of news in the camps.

The Tule Lake Bulletin is a prime example of the types of stories published by these newsletters. I’ve included a later issue, in total, as an example. Here we will explore the same things we can see in newspapers from small communities across America: local sports, church meeting times, honorable mention for students, and police reports involving residents. Citation: Tule Lake Bulletin, March 2, 1944. http:/ (accessed September 21, 2012).

A classified ad from an early edition of The Manzanar Free Press advertising lessons in the traditional Japanese instrument: Shakuhachi. This shows a desire to maintain cultural traditions. Citation “Shakuhachi Lessons,” Manzanar Free Press, June 20, 1942, page 4, http:/ (accessed October 6, 2012).

An article written by an administrator of the Gila Flats Camp urging internees to do their part to beautify the “city.” Although this article is not written by an internee, it gives a good sense of the attempts made at community building. Citation: Fryer, “Residents Urged to Beautify City.” Gila News-Courier Vol. 1 No. 4, September 23, 1942, page 1. http:/, (accessed September 23, 2012).

2: There was an underground rumor-mill that, while not always accurate, was incredibly active.

Interview with Mr. Kenge Kobayashi, in which he relates the proclivity of rumors in his particular camp. Citation: Kenge Kobayashi interview by Alice Ito, July 4, 1998, http:/, (accessed October 1, 2012).

Interview with Mr. Jim Akutsu, where he relates a story of himself and three other internees petitioning camp administration for better food and living conditions. Citation: Jim Akutsu interview by Art Hansen, June 9 & 12, 1997, http:/, (accessed October 1, 2012).

Interview with Mr. Cedrick Shimo, a Nisei soldier, recalling an “angry bull-session” among soldiers about the plight of their interred families. Citation: Cedrick Shimo interview by Tom Ikeda & Martha Nakagawa, September 22, 2009, http:/, (accessed September 22, 2012).

3. Resistance, in fact, took many creative forms. Including, refusal to sign the infamous “Loyalty Questionnaire,” draft resistance, and hunger strikes.
Interview with Mr. Jim Tanimoto, in which he relates his interviews regarding his refusal to sign the “Loyalty Questionnaire” and the consequences. Citation: Jim Tanimoto interview by Tom Ikeda & Barbara Takei, December 10, 2009, http:/ (accessed October 6, 2012).

Another interview with Mr. Jim Akutsu about the beginnings of unrest concerning the draft laws of 1944.Citation: Jim Akutsu interview by Art Hansen, June 9 & 12, 1997, http:/, (accessed October 1, 2012).

Interview with Mr. Gene Akutsu, brother of Jim, describes his arrest and time in jail for resisting the draft. Citation: Gene Akutsu interview by Tom Ikeda, April 17, 2008, http:/, (accessed October 1, 2012).

Interview with Mr. Fred Tadashi Shingu where he tells a story of a hunger strike at the Tule Lake facility in 1943. Citation: Fred Tadashi Shingu interview by Tom Ikeda & Martha Nakagawa, July 29, 2010, http:/ (accessed September 23, 2010).

Concluding Paragraph:
The experiences of Japanese-American inmates at these internment camps was unfair, unjust and completely deplorable. However, the people in these camps insisted on maintaining their dignity and their identities. Through grassroots organization, they not only kept alive cultural practices, they invented new communities and support networks in some of the worst conditions. It would be a mistake to imagine these people, these American citizens, going quietly into these horrible camps, they fought their internment every step of the way, sacrificing their reputations, their health, and even their lives to improve conditions and get free of the camps.
Annotated Bibliography of Secondary Sources:
1. “A More Perfect Union, Japanese Americans & The U.S. Constitution,” The Smithsonian Institute, accessed September, 2012, http:/American union/experience/index.html
This interactive website designed by the Smithsonian Institute is a very good overview of the entire debacle. This source would mainly serve my project by helping me to establish an emotional connection to these events for my readers.
2. Daniels, Roger. Prisoners Without Trial: Japanese Americans in World War II. New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.
This book examines the internment of Japanese Americans in several camps and is incredibly useful for basic background information on topics including: the “Loyalty Questionnaire,” group identification through ethnicity, age and gender, and the treatment of long-term internees.
Like all research projects, the hardest problem to surmount with this project was simply choosing a topic to study. Unlike any other project I have worked on, this problem was multiplied tenfold. When one goes to research any topic in a more traditional, analog method, one’s choices are limited by the materials at hand, or the money/time budgeted for research. With the advent of digitization, these restrictions have effectively been lifted. This leaves us with an interesting problem: in the past, our fields would have been winnowed to a more manageable level before we were ever involved, but now that process is left undone and we are responsible for sifting through many more sources, and therefore many more researchable topics, than ever before. This means more time is required to research and choose a topic in the digital world than in the analog world. Of course, once I found a researchable topic, and then threw it and the next five out in favor of the final topic, I was faced with new problems.
An unforeseen obstacle I encountered was my unfamiliarity with the organization systems in various databases. At first, I thought my skills were lacking and I might need some remedial help, but after perusing several sites and databases, I realized the problem wasn’t my perceived misunderstanding of organizational structure, but more likely the fact that no two databases seem to work the same way. Get one figured out pretty well, and be ready to start the learning curve all over for the next.
Another interesting fact I found, I’d hesitate top call it a problem, is this: anyone who’s gone to the trouble of digitizing all the sources will have necessarily spent some time analyzing them. This means that in order to find an original, high-quality research topic, I had to dig deeper than I had planned to. Why even write a paper if there’s nothing new to say on a topic? There seems to be a fine line in digital research. If a topic is largely digitized, it follows that there will be a good deal written on it. The inverse of this is: if there is still a good deal to be said on a topic, there is probably not much in the way of digitized sources. Similarly, it seems that if you were interested in a particular topic, there might not be a large variety of organizations that have digitized their content. So, as seen in my project plan, many sources can come from one organization. While this might make research simpler, it certainly does not make for an attractive bibliography.
The project I exclusively worked with is the Densho Online Archive. These wonderful humanists have collected hundreds of hours of interviews, miles of documents, and official government papers concerning the Japanese-American experience, specifically focusing on the internment of citizens of Asian descent by our own government during World War Two. This collection of primary sources has remarkably little in the way of interpretation. That’s where I come into it. The archive is divided by topic, or camp, or time period, but all paths lead to the same sources. This allows for a historian to see connections the previous researchers have made, but more importantly, it leaves pathways for new intellectual connections to emerge.
In the end, I suppose it might be foolish to say, “the digital revolution is making it easier than ever to do research.” While the sheer amount of sources online can be beneficial, the tools used don’t really change the job to be done. There will always be a line between “research” and “good research.”

Jon Agnew History Project Plan

On September 27th the Prime Minister of Israel gave a poignant speech to the UN General Assembly regarding the history of Iran and its recent pursuit of nuclear technology. Benjamin Netanyahu – the PM of Israel – asked some rhetorical questions that shed light into the Israeli lens of foreign policy. Netanyahu enquires: “so I ask you: given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long ranged missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bonds. Who among you with feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America?” (Netanyahu, Sept 27 2012). These questions articulate that the pursuits of Iranian nuclear technology have major geopolitical consequences that individuals should be cognizant about. Thus, given such an intimate insight with Israeli political calculus and foreign policy one can ask the question: does the historical experience of Israel regarding nuclear technology in the Middle East determine future action? In this paper I will survey the local, regional, and global historical experiences regarding the foreign policy of the state of Israel and argue that the future of Israeli action can be understood best by a background of its history. More specifically, the precarious position the state of Israel is in, can be understood best by first, examining the birth of the nation, second, historical regional relationships, and lastly, looking at the global institutions the state of Israel depends upon.

KEY: Motivational Link

            Research Question



Section 1. Local [Israel was born into a foreign policy emergency room which has made it hypersensitive and a realist]


  • UNGA Resolution 181 opened up the international political space for the state of Israel. This international accord required Britain to evacuate the area we now know as Israel. Additionally, this required the formation of two states – Jewish and Arab. The commission formed by the resolution was to be used to create these two states as quickly as possible. The Israeli state was the quickest to petition for statehood. The US also recognized the state of Israel under the premises of the UNGA Resolution 181. Due to the lack of an Arab state and the quick formation of the state of Israel, this resolution became an international political hot potato. Which caused the state of Israel to reflect on its birth.

à Knesset, “UN General Assembly Resolution 181.” Last modified 1947. Accessed October 6, 2012.

  • Israel starts an army. This picture shows a man joining the conscripted Israeli military. Two main arguments would be made from this artifact. First, an acknowledgement that the previous Israeli military was fractured into insurgent groups. Second, that the nation of Israel now has one of the most powerful and capable militaries in the region. First, the previous military the Israelis had was made up of different insurgent groups from various geographical regions. Because the state of Israel did not exists, paramilitary organizations formed with common characteristics – Jewish, under threat, and the Hebrew Language. After the formulation of the state, the forces united. Second, the Israeli military is now one of the most capable. It has mandatory conscription – which means all citizens are eligible for military service. It poses a threat to other regional militaries which has had major effects on the history of Israel.

à Ilani, Efrayim. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, “In the regular army of Israel now.” Last modified 1948. Accessed October 5, 2012. .

  • Formation of the state of Israel was problematic. This primary source comes from Iran’s president’s words on December 8, 2005. This quotation would be made sense of by Slavoj Zizek’s book Violence. The argument I would make is: the formation of the state of Israel can be examined from multiple viewpoints. Many of those opposed to the nation of Israel regard its formulation as illegal. That the UNGA resolution 181 was not followed. Additionally, the idea that because the holocaust happened the state of Israel was justified. The guilt of European policymakers made the formation of this state that much easier. This argument would be used to reaffirm the idea that the Israel was born into a foreign policy emergency room from the eyes of onlookers.

à Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud. Anti-Defamation League, “Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words.” Last modified 2005. Accessed October 4, 2012.

  • Arab-Israeli War. These four pictures would be used to tease out the link between a foreign policy emergency room and hypersensitivity and realism. The war occurred after Arab allies – Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria – united against the state of Israel. The Israeli government viewed the conflict as imminent and struck first… preemptively. This conflict has tainted relationships in the region. Israel has repeatedly pre-emptively struck its Arab neighbors provoking escalation in conflict. Moreover, the Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem has changed Israel’s views of defense to this day. For example, the three occupied territories – Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip – have been occupied to thwart the ability to shell artillery into Jerusalem.

à Wikipedia, “Egyptian Plane TA 1948.” Last modified 1948. Accessed October 7, 2012.

à Wikipedia, “1948-Jordanian artillery shelling Jerusalem.” Last modified 1948. Accessed October 3, 2012.

à Wikipedia, “Ramla prisoners of war, July 12-13, 1948.” Last modified 1948. Accessed October 7, 2012.,_July_12-13,_1948.png

à The State of Israel Government Press Office, . Encyclopedia Britannica, “Six-Day War .” Last modified June 10, 1967. Accessed October 2, 2012.



  • Israel builds homes for immigrants in Palestine lands. As noted earlier regarding the UNGA Resolution 181 the specifics of an Arab and Jewish state never occurred. In being such, the Israelis have begun colonizing settlements in private and Palestinian land. This has been a very controversial decision for Israeli politics especially when juxtaposing the policy against Arab attitudes. For example, the nation of Iran is supposedly investing and financing terrorist organization such as Hamas, and Hezbollah against the state of Israel. Hamas which can be literally translated into the “Islamic Resistance Movement” governs the politics of the Gaza strip. This controversial settlement policy into Palestinian land has had major negative repercussions about the perceived legitimacy of the state of Israel.

à Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, “Israel builds homes for immigrants.” Last modified [195-?]. Accessed October 5, 2012.

  • Israel terrorizes refugee camps. This artifact, a poster, declaring a stop to Israeli terror against Palestine would be used to further my argument regarding settlements and the international attitudes of observers. Many outside nations have seen belligerence and militancy by Israel against the Palestinian refugee camps. This has caused countries to call Israel human rights abusers. These claims and the documented belligerence against the Palestinian refugee camps would be used to argue that Israel is not popular internationally now, and has very few allies.

à Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, “Stop Israeli terror against our refugee camps and villages.” Last modified [between 1967 and 1980]. Accessed October 6, 2012.

  • CIA and Israeli government know of illegal settlement or construction build on private lands. This document from Wikileaks, show that Israeli and American governments acknowledge the illegality of the settlements yet still no action has been taken to stop the illegality. The document shows Harut and Adora settlements being illegal. The infrastructure from the settlements being on private land. This document shows the incriminating history of Israel in the region of Palestine. This acknowledge illegality has shown that Israel is a realist, and that the state is a state of hypersensitivity.

à Wikileaks, “CIA OSC: Secret Israeli database shows full extent of illegal settlements.” Last modified 2009. Accessed October 7, 2012.,_Apr_2009


Section 2. Regional [Israel history with regional threats has been marked by preemption and US led mediation]

6 days war – 1967 conflict

  • Israel occupied territories after 1967 skirmish. In 1967 the surrounding Arab states unified against Israel. These states gave authority of their militaries to Egypt who then moved armored columns into the Sinai Peninsula. This conflict would be made sense of by the secondary source Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer. The conflict resulted in a unilateral preemptive strike against these Arab states. This preemptive strike resulted in a successful military campaign and a defeat of the Arab neighbors. However, by winning this conflict the Israeli’s occupied three disputed regions – denoted by the map. The Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza Strip would become a source of contention even up to present day.

à Central Intelligence Agency, . Library of Congress Geography and Maps Division, “Israel..” Last modified 2001. Accessed October 4, 2012.

  • Egypt and Israel resolve problems. The US led mediation of Israel and her enemies would be carried out by the Americans. The US realized that Israel is America’s best ally in the region. After the 6 day war, the US has supported Israel with military expenditures, financing, and diplomacy. This conflict solidified the relationship between these two states. Moreover, this also led to the US becoming the sole mediator for the state of Israel. The 6 day war ended with Arab states angry at the existence of the state of Israel, and now shared anger on the US for maintaining Israel’s legitimacy.

à Warren, Leffler. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, “Egypt Israel peace treaty.” Last modified 1979. Accessed October 4, 2012.


  • US military fears a unilateral strike on Iran from Israel. Due to the historical significance of the Israel preemptively striking targets the US is afraid of the future of Iran. Additionally I would draw upon the secondary source The Global Future to examine two other preemptive strikes. One carried out against Iraq in the late 1980’s preemptively striking a nuclear enrichment facility. The second carried out against Syria in the early 1990’s. The Israeli use of preemptive strike is known to the whole world. When looking to this document I would make the argument that US knows and fears the use of a preemptive strike against Iran. On page 70, we list Israel as a potential wildcard.

à Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, . Wikileaks, “US Marines Midrange Threat Estimate 2005-2015.” Last modified 2005. Accessed October 7, 2012.

  • US Aid to Iran. This film was rather intriguing to me. It shows the US giving aid to the Shah. We instituted the Shah and helped to bolster the regime. I would make the argument here that the US has mollified the chance of an Israeli first strike by providing aide to Israeli enemies/aggressors. For example, the bolstering of the Mubarak regime by the US was done to check back regional strife from Egypt against Israel. We maintained the same policy in Iran where we pumped aid into the nation hoping for its support. However, after the Iranian revolution the anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment leaked out. This leaking has put Israel in a troublesome place because now its greatest ally – the US – is almost hated and perceived as illegitimate as the Israeli state.

à Department of Defense. Department of the Army. Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. U.S. Army Audiovisual Center.. “US aid to Iran.” Motion Picture Films from the Army Library Copy Collection. Recorded 1960?. 05 15 1984. Web,

  • Israel has nukes. This argument is a necessary one to make in order to understand the attitudes of regional states. Israel gained nuclear weapons to check back conflicts in the region. However, just like nuclear proliferation trends historically, when one neighbor gets a nuclear weapon it increases the intention of other competing nations to acquire a nuclear weapon. And this is exactly what has happened. Iran – as Netanyahu explained – is attempting to gain a nuclear weapon. But, the way in which Iran is attempting to gain a nuclear weapon and sell its ability to gain a nuclear weapon to the international community parallels the way Israel went about it. Iran says it has access to nuclear technology because it signed the NPT or Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Moreover, it also says it wants a reciprocal right to nuclear technology because Israel has a nuclear weapon but denies it. This primary source comes directly from Israeli intellectuals, politicians, civil society members, and educators arguing that Israel possesses nuclear technology.

à Xrmagedon, “About us.” Accessed October 4, 2012.


Section 3. Global [Israel has long been a US ally but recent events have changed the relationship between Israel and the US making predictions of Israeli activity difficult]


  • American Legislation. The United States Congress. I found these four pieces of legislation that are all strongly worded for Israel and against Iran. These legislators and the legislation they produce embolden the nation of Israel. In analyzing these four pieces of legislation I would hope to make the argument that the relationship between our congress and Israeli foreign policy are intertwined. Additionally, these House Resolutions – such as the Gohmert Resolution – affirm Israel’s use of force against the Republic of Iran. These affirmations coming from a foreign congress from a world superpower send mixed signals to that nation of Israel.

à Gohmert, Louie. Library of Congress Bill Summary & Status, “Bill Summary & Status – 111th Congress (2009-2010) H.RES.1553.” Last modified 2010. Accessed October 7, 2012.

à Garrett, Scott. Library of Congress Bill Summary & Status, “Bill Summary & Status – 109th Congress (2005-2006) H.RES.707.” Last modified 2006. Accessed October 7, 2012.

à Hyde, Henry. Library of Congress Bill Summary & Status, “Bill Summary & Status – 109th Congress (2005-2006) H.RES.523.” Last modified 2005. Accessed October 7, 2012.

à Cole, Tom. Library of Congress Bill Summary & Status, “Bill Summary & Status – 109th Congress (2005-2006) H.RES.601.” Last modified 2005. Accessed October 7, 2012.

  • Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and Henry Kissinger. American presidential leadership has had a special relationship with Israel for quite some time. The five sources here are four American presidents, former Secretary of State, and one presidential candidate. The argument I would make is that historically the US has always had a good relationship with the leadership of Israel. Carter, Ford, Nixon, even Clinton extended and furthered are relationship with Israel. However, Barak Obama has been percieved as soft. Even Mitt Romney has been endorsed by Netanyahu – showing the perceived ‘softness’ of Obama. Lastly, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has had a major impact on the relationship with the nation of Israel. Kissinger has persuaded/been persuaded with tenets of Israeli realism.

à Marion, Trikosko. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, “President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House, Washington, D.C..” Last modified 1977. Accessed October 3, 2012.

à Thomas, O’Halloran. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, “President Gerald Ford (center) sitting in chair in front of fireplace, with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (left) and others including Henry Kissinger (right), at the White House.” Last modified 1976. Accessed October 6, 2012.

à Marion, Trikosko. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, “Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir standing with president Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, outside the White House.” Last modified 1973. Accessed October 2, 2012.

à White House Photograph Office, . Flickr, “Photograph of President William J. Clinton and Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin Walking Along the Colonnade of the White House, 11/12/1993.” Last modified 1993. Accessed October 5, 2012.

à Ohayun, Avi. Flickr, “PM Netanyahu meets President Obama at the White House, 20.5.11.” Last modified 2011. Accessed October 8, 2012.

à McZyrba, . Flickr, “romney looking longingly at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” Last modified 2012. Accessed October 7, 2012.


  • UNSC Resolution 242. This resolution put Israel in a precarious position. This resolution has been a thorny issue for Israeli foreign policy. It calls for certain actions from multiple states in the region, none of which has occurred. The first clause of the resolution expresses “concern with the grave situation in the Middle East”. This resolution calls for withdrawal of “Israeli armed forced from territories occupied in the recent conflict”. These territories are the three occupied territories mentioned prior – Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, West Bank. It lastly “affirms further the necessity” of “navigation through international waterways in the areas”, and “ just settlement of the refugee problem”. These two issues have not and likely will not be solved in the near future. This makes Israel look like a international relations agitator.

à Knesset,. “U.N. Security Council Resolution 242.” Last modified November 22, 1967. Accessed October 7, 2012.

à Knesset, “The Camp David Accords.” Last modified 1978. Accessed October 7, 2012.


In conclusion, foreign policy experts have articulated a definition of rational choice. A rational choice is the decision making procedures guided by careful definition of problems, specification of goals, weighing the costs, risks, and benefits of all alternatives, and selection of the optimal alternative. Israeli leaders must navigate in the near future the costs and benefits of acting against the nation of Iran. The  implications of such unilateral action is suspended against a historical background of previous action. Today we examined the hypersensitive and realist state Israel has been in since its conception. We examined the regional conflicts and the anti-American/anti-Israeli sentiments plaguing the region that make decision making even more difficult. Lastly, we looked at the historical relationship between the U.S. and Israel and noted the recent changes between Netanyahu and Obama. One can only hope, that world leaders choose a path that prefers peace in the region and removes the threat of preemptive military strikes and nuclear war.

  • Kegley, Charles, and Gregory Raymond. The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010.

à This secondary source is my International Relations textbook. I use it in two ways. First, it is where I get my definition for rational choice. I acquired this on page 59. This is a term used by foreign policy experts to articulate the difficult choices nation-states pursue when it comes to international relations. I also use the textbooks look at the Israeli preemptive strikes on Iraq and Syria.

à  This is I believe a primary source I used in my introduction. I use the part starting at around 26:00 minutes. This is a primary source because it comes directly from Israeli foreign policy leadership. This source and the Nina Paley source inspired me to pursue this topic.

à I found this on the Internet when looking for a topic. I’m not sure if this qualifies as a source. I don’t use it specifically in my project plan, though it is the inspiration and helps illuminate the problem. I really enjoyed this cartoon/clip. It shows the history of these disputed lands, in the context of who has or is claiming ownership of them. Some would say its probably distasteful, but I think it does a great job noting the problem.

  • Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 2006.

à  This is another secondary source I read for a class. Michael Walzer’s book is great for this research project plan. The first great reason, is its use of historical illustrations to tackle difficult international relations topics – such as preemptive military strikes. It also was used to help make sense of the 6 day war and Arab-Israel War. As many parallels run through both conflicts. I also used this source to discuss the relationship between Israel and the U.S.

  • Zizek, Slavoj. Violence: six sideways reflections. New York: Picador, 2008.

à I used this secondary source for two reasons. One I enjoy reading  Zizek. Two, Zizek – on Pg. 111 – looks at the conception of the state of Israel from the view of the Ahmadinejad. Zizek notes first the disgusting idea of holocaust denial. Then notes the problem with European hypocrisy, by viewing the conception of the state from a different viewpoint.



The first thing I would like to reflect on is the difficulty of doing primary source research in another language. One topic I was interested in is the Senkaku/Diayou island disputes. A lot of the primary source research I found I could not read. Or, if I found the location to do primary source research, I could not navigate the website due to the language barrier. Even the topic I settled on – Israel – had a lot of information in Hebrew. One of the primary sources I used in this essay was the Armageddon group. It originally was in Hebrew until I found the English translation link. Doing primary resource research in another language is troublesome. A question that I thought of regarding primary sources in another language is: does a translated primary source qualify as a primary source? This question may seem superficial, but I wonder if a translation still qualifies as a primary source. Especially with all of the troubles of translation disputes and words not translating directly to English.

Another thing I found intriguing about this assignment was the number of primary sources that have been digitized. I found it difficult to settle on a topic I could feel comfortable about finding enough primary sources. I was surprised at all of the information digitized on and the Library of Congress. For example, most of the Grateful Dead’s performances are online, old foreign policy cables, and pictures from multiple world organizations. The problem I found was navigating the research. The Library of Congress would explain they have “x amount of articles in their digital collections”. When first seeing the size of the digital archives I felt I could find anything. However, once I began searching for information I either found it to be non-existent or of poor quality. Some pictures, photographs, and posters I stumbled upon were of poor quality. I also was not certain of which words to use to search for primary sources. If I should only rely on key word searches or if I should pursue a collection. Nonetheless, this was a great activity to get accustomed to primary sources online.

I also found this assignment nerve-racking. I have never annotated a bibliography let alone a whole research paper. I was not sure of the best way to start this project because I could not conceive of its end result. I’m still nervous finishing this and turning it in. A reason I found this assignment difficult was trying to implicate an argument from historical artifacts. I found this troublesome or unauthentic. I wasn’t sure of the best way to construct an argument from the outside and force/lay it upon real historical experience. I also found this difficult because I could not envision what I assumed the end goal ought look like. The lack of a finished project to use as a reference was nerve-racking. Although, if anything the freedom and lack of a concrete “this is what you’ll turn in” opened up a space to be creative and attempt to meet the requirements of the assignment in a different ways. The last reason I found this difficult is my exposure to Chicago citations. Citations were nuisance for two reasons. First, Chicago style lacked specific citation guides for unique sources. MLA for example, has a specific way to cite diverse sources. Whereas, Chicago seemed to only have five ways to source things. Which becomes difficult and open to interpretation when you only have a few options to select from. I source cited a lot of my information as nonprint – web page or other online posting.

The last thing I would like to reflect on is the idea of a thesis for different types of research essays. A good thesis for a philosophy or political science paper is not necessarily a good thesis for a history paper. This may seem obvious, but in thinking about it and writing down my thoughts, it was not as obvious as I thought. I assumed that because philosophy, political science, and history seem intertwined and inter-sectional that the content and thesis are also interchangeable. This is not true. The purpose or intention of the paper are different and thus the intricacies like a thesis and content are different. However, I noticed how engaging and rich a political science or philosophy essay would be with primary sources. It seems like examining the historical background via primary sources would give a philosophy or political science paper an authentic background from which to build an argument.



The Nature of Water and Politics in the Arid West.

Jim Duran

In the harsh semi-arid desert landscape of the American West, or Arid West as John Wesley Powell described it, farming is a constant struggle between floods and droughts. From Central California to Colorado, settling the sagebrush country required massive irrigation projects to guarantee water for the farmers. The cold winters and hot summers made only the toughest crops acceptable to grow. As settlements grew, and the cities and states expanded their agricultural reaches, politicians promised more and more water for prospective farmers and cattle ranchers. The promise of water has been a theme of Arid West history. In the Arid West, the promise of water was synonymous with progress; politicians often used water rights and water projects as bargaining chips for growth. By surveying various campaign literature, and water project correspondence between politicians, this paper will show the nature of water and politics in the Arid West.

Introduction (See Above)
Statement 1: Politicians associate water projects with progress, often claiming they (the politician) is the only person who will bring progress to their area, and guarantee safety and security for the voter’s children.
Source (1a): Jim Sperry and Steve Thorson Campaign Advertisement, Aberdeen American News url:,174

In this advertisement Sperry and Steve imply that a vote for them is a vote for water projects. At the bottom of the document, the author explicitly states the voter’s children’s future is at stake.
(Source 1b): Mike McHugh advertisement, Aberdeen American News. url:,102

McHugh argued he can get projects passed the gridlock of bureaucracy. McHugh implied farmers cannot last another drought, and water projects MUST be approved or else the community faces dire consequences, and he is the person to get things done.

Statement 2: The major rivalry for water projects is almost always environmental conservation. Those arguing against irrigation projects often point to the irreparable change (or damage) to the landscape, while those arguing for the projects typically argue that the economic gains outweigh any value in an untouched wilderness.

(Source 2a): Envirotech Publications: “The Water Report – A critical habitat, bull trout and politics.” April 15, 2005. URL:
This environmental report argues against water projects that do not consider the impact of dams on the population of bull trout. The author indicates those who oppose fish protection are not thinking scientifically:
“The political currents are strong with the decisions clouded by factors other than science and the law.” (p. 18)

(Source 2b): D.G. Lorenzi. “Protest Emergency Water Ordinance 247” Las Vegas Review-Journal. July 26, 1939. URL:,563

This author is concerned that conservationists warning of water shortages in Las Vegas will ultimately harm property values and impede new growth to the city. Lorenzi believes the water conservation ordinance is unwarranted and should be ignored by Las Vegas citizens.

Statement 3: As a counter to statement 2, sometimes the conservation advocates will also use an economic argument against water projects. Typically, these arguments include a calculation of taxes raised versus perceived value added.

(Source 3a): Letter from Las Vegas Land and Water Co. General Manager to C. W. Shelley (Las Vegas), July 7, 1950.,497
This letter documents efforts taken by the Las Vegas officials enforcing the water conservation law. As a counter to Lorenzi, in source 2b, this author claims water conservation will save the tax payers money.

Statement 4: Claiming ownership of water is an important part of negotiating the creation and support of water projects. Politicians might use an argument of water ownership. Either water rightfully belongs to his or her party, or it is wasted or squandered by undeserving outsiders, to sway an audience that their plan for the water is best.

(Source 4a): Letter from Ernie W. Cragin (Las Vegas) to George F. Ashby (Omaha), October 8, 1948.,721

Craigin was concerned that Las Vegas water might be sold or taken out of city limits. Craigin also mentions that water could be drawn from lake Mead, without any mention of ownership of that water.

(Source 4b)John Sieh Campaign Advertisement November 1978.,186

John Sieh believed he knew what the people of Oahe Conservancy subdistrict wanted, and it was not another big water project. In this advertisement, Sieh argues for smaller water projects to divert the Missouri River to his constituents. “The Oahe Sub-district holds a permit right now for 80,000 acre feet of Missouri River water…”

As with most ideas associated with Manifest Destiny, coast-to-coast farmland was a pipedream. The Arid West was, and in most places still is, not suitable for sustainable farming. The history of civil development in states like Utah, Idaho, and Nevada often is attributed to the determination and work ethic of the pioneer men and women. These legends of conquering nature are prominent in early 20th century history books. This simplified view of the past overlooks the conflict between the modern pioneers – especially with irrigation. These dry states look the way they do today because of tenacious men and women who fought for their view of proper water distribution. The people had to fight each other as much as they fought nature to control the limited water supply.
Annotated Bibliography
Brooks, Karl Boyd. 2006. Public Power Private Dams, The Hell’s Canyon High Dam Controversy. Washington: University of Washington Press.
Brooks documents the social and political agents involved with the choice of a public or private hydropower system on the Snake River. Brooks successfully picks up on the anti-federal sentiment in local political struggles, which contributes to my argument about ownership of water, and its role in arguments for water projects.
Lovin, Hugh T. (Spring 1981) “’Duty of Water’ in Idaho: A ‘New West’ Irrigation Controversy 1890-1920.” Arizona and the West, Vole 23, No. 1. pp. 5-28. accessed 10/7/2012. url:

Lovin argues Idaho politicians forced farmers to use less water in order to irrigate more land. In this article, Lovin documents failed promises of a bountiful New West, and the controversial actions of lawmakers to compensate for actual water yields compared to promised ones.

Lovin, Hugh T. (Fall 1998) “The Fight for an Irrigation Empire in the Yellowstone River Valley” The Pacific Northwest Quarterly , Vol. 89, No. 4, pp. 188-201. Published by: University of Washington. Article Stable URL:

Lovin critiques the various groups fighting for and against an irrigation project near the Yellowstone National Park. Lovin assigns agency to political prowess by demonstrating how relative power between farmers, city and state officials, and federal agents contributed to the outcome of irrigation projects.
Reisner, Marc. 1993. Cadillac desert: the American West and its disappearing water. New York, N.Y., U.S.A.: Penguin Books.
Reisner argues the Arid West is not suitable for the type of settlements that have developed in the past 150 years. He documents the major water construction projects of the past several decades and how they are not sustainable and will ultimately fail to provide long-term solutions for the communities between the Mojave Desert and the Rockies.

Solomon, Steven. 2010. Water: the epic struggle for wealth, power, and civilization. New York: Harper.
This popular history title expands on the importance of water to civilization. While Solomon lacks consistency in this book, his argument about the role of water in the political sphere is valid.
Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Drummond, Willis, jr, Dutton, Clarence E. (Clarence Edward), Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region (U.S.), Gilbert, Grove Karl, Powell, John Wesley, and Thompson, A. H.. 1879. Report on the lands of the arid region of the United States, with a more detailed account of the lands of Utah. With maps. By J. W. Powell. Washington, Govt. Print. Off.,1879.
This document describes the difficulties of agrarian economics in the Arid West.
Stacy, Susan M. 1993. When the river rises: flood control on the Boise River, 1943-1985. Boulder, Colo: Boise, Idaho.
In this book, Stacy argues that politics impacted water projects on the Boise River, just as much as environmental concerns. This book shows how projects are built when politicians and constituents agree on fixing a perceived problem.

It may seem easy to just look online for historic primary sources, but this exercise showed the limits of only using digital objects. Digitized resources can be easy to select from an online repository, and viewing each item side-by-side can help the research come to some conclusions. There is, however, a problem with quantity, and quality of online resources. If a researcher never visits an archive or library, they might miss out on lots of paper-only resources. In this way, the argument made by only citing online resources will always have the caveat of not being entirely researched. For the time being, a historian should always consult some analog resources before coming to any conclusion.
As more and more historical documents appear online, the researcher becomes less reliant on the local library and archive – even if the only way to access these online resources is through a library subscription. For this project, I used the Western Waters Digital Library (WWDL), This consortium of digital collections focuses on issues relating to hydro-power and agricultural irrigation. It seemed like an obvious choice, since my historical emphasis is the history of irrigation and water projects. This was the first time I actually tried researching the WWDL, all other visits were simply for browsing photos. With the WWDL I was able to quickly find a multitude of newspaper clippings, reports, and finding aids relating to water and politics. The WWDL did not, however, contain as much campaign literature as I had hoped for – most of the items I found were not substantial in content. I had seen several interesting two-fold pamphlets on water projects in Idaho at the Boise Public Library, and I hoped to see some other examples online.
Exclusively using online resources creates a challenge of selection. A researcher only has a small amount of time to find evidence for their argument. With an online search, whether using Google or a small niche digital collection, it is often difficult to create a query that both limits the results to a manageable size and includes items that will help with the argument. Often the search results will include thousands of items, or if it’s only a small selection, few are useful to the researcher. When looking in a physical location for historical documents, it is easier to sense what is useful, and the appropriate amount of time required attaining valuable resources. It is easier to manually shuffle through papers to gain a sense of what is available.
A researcher is also completely reliant upon the repository for selection of historical items. The researcher only sees what the presenter has chosen to display. Therefore, the researcher must not only consider their own biases, but also the bias of the digital repository. State and federal institutions, like universities and government departments, are often the owners of the digital repositories used by historians. These institutions may not have as many subjective motivations as other sources for historical documents (like a corporate archives for example), but the institutions still have agendas when creating a digital repository. This bias could be as innocent as the selector not choosing visually appealing resources, like a folder of meeting minutes of a water district conference. Decisions like this are made all the time. There is simply too much paper, and not enough time and money to scan everything. It is up to the archivist or curator to choose which documents are available online. For a researcher wanting to know the whole truth, the archivist’s selection could throw the researcher off track.
For these reasons, it is still a good idea to visit a physical location for additional research. As more and more institutions make their collections available online, the researcher may not need to actually visit a library, but perhaps a historical site, or surviving witness. The key to writing good history is uncovering new evidence that few have ever seen or heard. It is difficult to do so with the limited primary source paper items available online – at least for the near future.

Japanese American Internment

Japanese American Internment during World War II

Introduction: December 7th, 1941 will always be one of the most remembered days in US history. Before Pearl Harbor was attacked there were over a hundred thousand Japanese Americans in the United States. Once Pearl Harbor was, most of the Japanese Americans in the US were taken away and judged as if they were a part of the attack. But do we really know how many were taken away and what happened when they were taken? Through this research project I will go over how many Japanese Americans were incarcerated and why they were, how they were treated while in the camps and how long they were in the camps, and then end with the closure of the camps and what happened years after they were free.
First Primary Source: The number of Japanese Americans incarcerated and the reasons why they were held in camps. A couple months into World War II president Franklin D Roosevelt signed executive order 9066 on February 9th, 1942. Executive order 9066 was an order that was to relocate Japanese Americans into internment camps. Over the next twelve-twenty four months there was an estimated 120,000 Japanese Americans located in the internment camps for the duration of World War II. Of the 120,000 Japanese Americans an estimated 60 percent were American-born children of immigrants from Japan, or were Japanese children that were born in the US and were American citizens, the remaining 40 percent were Japanese immigrants.

• More than 110,000 innocent people based on their ancestry were in what Roosevelt called “concentration camps.” Although two-thirds were U.S. citizens, they were targeted because of their ancestry and the way they looked.
o “What does an American look like?”
• Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, dated February 19, 1942, this order gave the military the power to relocate any citizen to an internment camp. What some people didn’t realize is that Executive Order 9066 was also applied to smaller numbers of residents of the United States who were of Italian or German descent.
o “Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation”
• The majority (60 percent) of the Japanese people in the internment camps were US citizens of Japanese ancestry. The other 40 percent of them interned were Japanese “resident aliens”, although many had lived in the United States for decades.
o “Captured: The Japanese internment of American civilians in the Philippines, 1941-1945”
Second Primary Source: How the Japanese Americans were treated in the internment camps and how long they were there. The U.S. internment camps were overcrowded and were in very poor living conditions. Japanese Americans slept under as many blankets as they were given. Food was rationed out and was served by fellow internees in a mess hall of 250-300 people. Eventually the government allowed internees to leave the concentration camps if they enlisted in the U.S. Army. This offer was not well received. Only 1,200 internees chose to do so. There were ten internment camps in the US. The Japanese Americans were in the internment camps for a little over two years.
• The ten camps were located in Amache, Colorado, Gila River, Arizona, Heart Mountain, Wyoming, Jerome, Arkansas, Manzanar, California, Minidoka, Idaho, Poston, Arizona, Topaz, Utah, Tula Lake California, and San Francisco, California. All the camps besides San Francisco were located in smaller areas and the Japanese Americans were treated very poorly throughout their time there.
o Japanese Internment
• The food was barely eatable and was rationed out between all the internees throughout the camp. The food was served by fellow internees in a room with around 300 people.
o “Captured: The Japanese internment of American civilians in the Philippines, 1941-1945”
• There was one way to get out on the internment camps and that was to enlist in the U.S Army. Not a lot of Japanese Americans chose to enlist but the ones that did enlist were apart of 442nd Infantry Regimental Combat Team.
o “Fighting for Democracy”

Third Primary Source: The closure of the Japanese American internment camps and many years after. In 1944 about two years after signing Executive Order 9066, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the closure of the internment camps. The last internment camp was closed by the end of 1945. After the Japanese Americans got out of the internment camps, around 5,766 Nisei ultimately renounced their American citizenship. Over forty years later in 1987 U.S. House of Representatives formally apologized to the former evacuees and provided $1.2 billion as compensation.
• Two years after signing Executive Order 9066, Japanese Americans were finally becoming free. The last camp was closed in 1945.
o “Japanese American Internment Camps”
• It wasn’t until 1976 when our president Gerald Ford said the evacuation and internment camps was the wrong thing to do. It was no surprise that around 6,000 renounced their American citizenship after the way they were treated.
o “Japanese American Internment Camps”
• Later on in the late 1980’s the U.S House of Representatives formally apologized. They provided 1.2 billion dollars in compensation, but money doesn’t buy back two plus years of being in internment camps.
o “Japanese American Internment Camps”

Conclusion: Even though the U.S apologized and compensated 1.2 billion dollars to the Japanese Americans I still don’t know if I would accept their apology. Two years in internment camps with 300 plus people and poor conditions doesn’t seem like a great two years to live your life. Like I said money is nice but it doesn’t get two years of your life back. And the worst part of this whole period of time is that they were incarcerated by the way that they looked. Back then it probably was the right thing to do because of the affect that Pearl Harbor had on us Americans, but Japanese Americans were incarcerated for two years just based on how they were born. They couldn’t help it and they were judged right away and their rights were taken from them.
Primary Sources:
• This had a lot of information throughout about the three topics I talked about. Especially the after effects of the internment camps and the compensation given to the Japanese Americans after the camps were out.
o “Japanese American Internment Camps”

• This was a book that I used a lot to talk about the conditions of the of the camps and how many people and how long they were there.
o “Captured: The Japanese internment of American civilians in the Philippines, 1941-1945”

• This also had a lot of information about the three topics in my research project. It was very long and informational and went over a lot of things for the Japanese Americans and for people to be put in their shoes when reading everything they had to do.
o “Fighting for Democracy”
Secondary Sources:
• This was used as a source to find some information on what the internment camps were like and how the Japanese Americans were treated.
o Japanese Internment
• This was used to figure out what exactly the Executive Order 9066 was and what it exactly did. It was pretty useful and well explained.
o “Executive Order 9066: The President Authorizes Japanese Relocation”
• This had a lot of insight as to why the Japanese Americans were locked up for the way that they looked. It was a Japanese source and it really put it into perspective as to what the Japanese Americans went through during the camps.
o What does an American look like?”
Digital Reflection: When I first started this project I was kind of worried about researching Japanese Americans because whenever I watched the movie “Pearl Harbor” or read anything about Pearl Harbor I would always get angry with Japan. I did a lot of research on the Japanese Americans and what they all went through and during a two year period.
I learned quite a bit about the Japanese Americans and in the end it really made me feel bad for them. Like I said in my project before I do understand why us Americans put the Japanese in camps because we were trying to protect our country, but at the same time it was awful how we did it. We just took people based off of looks and we didn’t give them a chance. So in the end I gained a lot of respect for the Japanese Americans that went through the internment camps. I do think that they did deserve compensation but in the end it doesn’t fix what they had to go through and I think that we at least did the right thing and apologized and gave them compensation.
The fact that I picked this topic based off of me knowing a lot about Pearl Harbor turned out to be completely different than I thought it was going to be. I thought this topic would have a little to do with World War II but it really didn’t have much to do with that besides that Roosevelt said that one way to get out of camps was to serve in the U.S. Army. I learned a lot about the Japanese American culture and in the end it was good to learn about something that I initially had zero interest and never thought I would learn anything about.
Overall I liked this project but it was tough trying to find a lot of sources. Honestly I don’t know if I would be able to write fifteen to twenty pages on this topic. Using books instead of websites is a lot tougher because I am used to finding everything on the internet. So that limited me quite a bit when trying to find a lot of the information I was looking for. The nice thing about books though is that there usually isn’t too many liabilities like there are when using internet sources, so in a way I understand why we were supposed to find a lot of book sources. In the end it was a pretty good project having to use both books and other sources. Both have their limitations and liabilities but put them together and it should turn out to be a pretty reliable project with a lot of useful information.

Native American Voting Rights

Elizabeth Couchum

Research Project Plan

October 8, 2012

Native American voting rights in New Mexico, Arizona vs. Nevada…..what was going on in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah for Native Americans vs. the State of Nevada?


With the current political climate, the right to vote has been challenged in many swing states.  With many in arms about their right to vote in this very important election year, many are standing their ground to have their voices be heard, while some are working very hard to suppress the vote for those who may vote for the right candidate.  While many think that this is something very new, to have many votes challenged, sadly this has happened before.  Native Americans were not allowed to vote in this country based on their race.  It was not until the 19th Amendment that Native Americans were given the right to vote.  However, many states did not agree with this amendment and did not allow Native Americans to vote for many reasons.  There were three states in particular that fought the Native Americans who were determined to vote. Even though the Indian Citizenship Act was signed into law, when it came to voting, Native Americans did not get the right to vote in many states due to various reasons.  The last states to hold out were Arizona and New Mexico and Utah.  What was going on with these states that they took so long to grant the right to vote to Native Americans? When did Nevada’s Native Americans get the right to vote?  Compared to the State of Nevada, what was the political climate in Arizona and New Mexico and Utah?

Section 1: 

The 19th Amendment and the Native Americans got the right to vote.  How and when did the 19th Amendment came about?  What influences did the 19th Amendment have in the United Sates?

1.  The Nineteenth to the United States Constitution, Wikipedia, (Modified on September 25, 2012) (accessed website September 29, 2012)

a. In August 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified to allow women the right to vote.  According to the United States Constitution the 19th Amendment states that, 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 sex.”

2.  “Native American Citizenship 1924, Indian Citizenship Act,”, 1900-1924, (Accessed website September 29, 2012)

            a. Native Americans who are indigenous to the United States did not get the right to vote until much later than women.  In 1924, Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act.  This Act proclaims, “BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property. (Approved June 2, 1924)”

 3. Daniel McCool, Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights to Act, and the Right to Vote, University of Utah 2007.

a. United States Constitution gives the states “the power to prescribe rules for the times, places, and manner of holding elections.”  However, Congress has the power to “alter regulations”.  This has led to conflict between the Federal Government and states.  pg. ix

b. There were major efforts to “define” the Native Americans and their place in the United States and whether or not they were a part of the country’s landscape.  Also, who had sovereignty?  Was it the Native Americans or “Indians”?  No. So since they were not considered citizens, they were not allowed to vote.  According to the U.S. attorney general, Caleb Cushing, in 1856:

“The simple truth is plain that the Indians are the subjects of the United States, and therefore are not, in mere right of home-birth, citizens of the United States…This distinction between citizens proper, that is, the constituent members of the political sovereignty, who are not therefore citizens, are recognized in the best authorities of public law.  (Official Opinions of the Attorneys General 1856, 749-50)” pg. 2

3.  The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865.  Congress began putting together the 14th Amendment in 1866.

a.  “That all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” (Civil Rights Act of 1866) pg. 3

i.  Note:  Wisconsin’s Senator James Doolittle, while debating on the senate floor, proposed to add “Indians not taxed”.  He made two arguments regarding the Native Americans.  One was that they were an “inferior race, and therefore were simply not good enough to hold the title of citizen.”  Doolittle’s second argument was that, “if granted citizenship, and implicitly the right to vote, they could vote in sufficient numbers to change the power structure and overwhelm their white neighbors.” pg. 3-4

ii.  Note:  Another senator made the argument that “Indians were not under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore were excluded from the provisions of the proposed amendments.”  pg. 4

4.  Solving the “Indian Problem” in the Nineteenth Century.

a.  Genocide.  As stated by Senator Doolittle, “put…out of the way.”  In other words, “all Indians should be exterminated.”  pg. 5

b. Another solution was to put the “Indians” away until they became “civilized” and were able to socialize with the white people.  So reservations were “set aside for Indians” until they were ready to be with white people. pg. 5

i. Treaties were worked out with Native American tribes to create reservations in 1868.

ii. The treaties came with provisions so that Native Americans can gain “citizenship by receiving a patent for land….. and be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of such citizens, and shall, at the same time retain all rights to benefits accruing to Indians under this treaty,” (Treaty of Fort Laramie 1868, Article 6). pg. 5

iii. Note:  Policymakers also wanted Native Americans to give up citizenship if they could not give up their tribal affiliations and culture.  “Citizenship and the right to vote would be contingent upon abandoning one culture and adopting another.”  pg. 5

iv. The Native Americans needed another statute to obtain citizenship.

5.  The Dawes Act

a. The Dawes Act is a statute that passed in 1887.  It divides up reservation land into individual holdings for members of the tribe.  Later, the remainder of the land was sold to white settlers.

“And every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States to whom allotments shall have been made provisions of this act, or under any law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up, within said limits, his residence separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States….(Dawes Act 1887, 390). pg. 6

6.  Office of Indian Affairs, citizenship to Indians, 1922

a. In a letter to Congress, Office of Indian Affairs identified eight legal procedures or conditions of what will enable the Native Americans to become citizens of the United States.  This will be known as the “Universal Indian Citizenship” or the Indian Citizenship Act, June 24, 1924. pg. 7

i. The letter states, “legitimate children born of an Indian woman and a white citizen father are born to citizenship,” (Office of Indian Affairs 1922). pg. 7

ii. “Indians would not have to give up being an Indian in exchange for citizenship.”

iii. “An Indian could be an enrolled member of a tribe.”

iv. “Live on a federally recognized reservation.”

v. “Practice his or her own culture, and still be a U.S. citizen.” pg. 7

7.  Judith Nies, Native American History, A Chronology of the Vast Achievements of a Culture and their Links to World Events, Ballantine Books, 1996 (e-book)

a. Native Americans were excluded from the economy and the political system because they were “segregated within reservations”.  Native Americans were not allowed to vote in the United States.  pg. 224

b. Religion and education among Native Americans were “outlawed”.  “Indian children were compelled to attend white run boarding school, cut their hair, wear citizen clothing, learn English, and adopt Christianity.”  pg. 224

Section 2:

Did the 19th Amendment Change anything in the United States?  If not, why?  What happened in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, compared to Nevada?

1.  Daniel McCool, Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights to Act, and the Right to Vote, Daniel McCool, Cambridge University Press, University of Utah 2007.

a. The Department of the Interior had no idea that the western states would have “opposition” to Native Americans voting. pg. 8

b. A statement was made in 1928 in regards to the Indian voting because there were so many that interpreted the Indian Citizenship Act differently.  pg. 8

c. In 1936, attorney general of Colorado stated that the Native Americans had no right to vote due to the fact that they were “not citizens of the state.”

d. During World War II, Chief Choctaw wrote to the President in the United States.  “Our white friends here say we are not allowed to vote.  If we are not citizens, will it be right for the Choctaws go to war?”  Simply put, yes.  They were expected to fight for their country even if they are not allowed to vote.  pg. 10

e. Fifteenth Amendment 1870 states “limiting voting on account of race.”  States found other ways to “limit Indian voting.” pg. 10

f. There were six ways to limit voting:

i. Residency

ii. Self-Termination

iii. Taxation

iv. Guardianship

v. Literacy

vi. Protecting the Status Quo

2.  “Chavers:  No Voting Right in Indian Country,”, Native American Times, Today’s Independent Indian News, Dr. Dean Chavers, May 17, 2010, (accessed September 30, 2012)

The author writes about conspiracies of why Native Americans did not have the right to vote.  There were many involved in keeping Native Americans from voting and there were also quite a few schemes involved.  The Native Americans who fought in World War II were faced with many problems.

a. Native American veterans still were not allowed to vote, buy a home, get a job, or buy a car.

b. Native Americans faced opponents of the Voting Rights 1965.  Example:  Former governor from South Dakota made comments, wanted to keep Native Americans on the reservation and also raped girls.  He never faced prosecution.

c. Other states to stop Native Americans from voting and were discriminatory against Native Americans were Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington.

3.  “Voting Rights History, Two Centuries of Struggle,”, Civil Rights Movement Veterans, copyright 2004, 2010 (Labor Donated) (accessed September 30, 2012)

a. This website gives a timeline in regards to voting rights.  There were two dates that were important to Native Americans.

i. 1924 – All American aboriginal people (Native Americans) were given the right to vote by US Congress.

ii. 1948: State laws denying the vote to Native-Americans are overturned.  In one of the post-war period’s few successful legal challenges, the Federal courts overturn the last state laws (Maine, Arizona, New Mexico) that explicitly prevent Indians from voting. Violence, economic retaliation, and different kinds of legal tricks continue to be used to prevent Native-Americans from voting.

4.  “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, Wikipedia, modified October 3, 2012, (accessed September 30, 2012)

a. “According to a survey by the Department of Interior, seven states still refused to grant

Indians voting rights in 1938. Discrepancies between federal and state control provided loopholes in the Act’s enforcement. States justified discrimination based on state statutes and constitutions. Three main arguments for Indian voting exclusion were Indian exemption from real estate taxes, maintenance of tribal affiliation and the mistaken notion that Indians were under guardianship, or lived on lands controlled by federal trusteeship (Peterson 121). By 1947 all states with large Indian populations, except Arizona and New Mexico, had extended voting rights to Native Americans who qualified under the 1924 Act. Finally, in 1948 these states withdrew their prohibition on Indian voting because of a judicial decision (Bruyneel). ”


4.  Schusky, Ernest, Political Organization of Native North Americans, Washington D.C., University Press of America, 1980.

a. President John F. Kennedy had a task force for Indian Affairs, three objectives.

i. Maximum Indian economic self-sufficiency

ii. Full participation in American life

iii. Equal citizenship privileges and responsibilities.  pg. 286

5.  Nies, Judith,  Native American History, A Chronology of the Vast Achievements of a Culture and their Links to World Events, Ballantine Books, Random House Publishing Group, 1996 (e-book)

a. President Kennedy in 1961 recommends the head of Phillips Petroleum Company,

W. Keeler, who recommended the policy of termination.  Under Keeler, there were many others who were
appointed and the “responsiveness to the needs of energy companies continued to be the overriding policy of the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs).” pg. 276.


6.  “Arizona Native American Voting Rights History,” Gonzales, September 30, 2010 (accessed September 29, 2012)

a. In 1928, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Native Americans did not have

the right to vote because they were under federal Guardianship.


b. World War II veteran, Frank Harrison, appealed that decision.  He believed

Native Americans had the right to vote and on July 15, 1948, court ruled in his favor.  Native Americans were able to vote in Arizona.


7.  “One Man, Many Votes, Native Americans struggle with the first freedom,”, Santa Ana Star Center, Jes Abeita, v. 17 no. 27, July 3 – 9, 2008

a. A century ago, Native Americans living in New Mexico were not allowed to vote.

A young marine, Miguel Trujillo, in 1948 brought about a case, Trujillo vs. Garley to decide whether or not Native Americans in New Mexico could vote.

b. “He was a person who always felt that Indian people should be recognized,”

said his daughter, Josephine Waconda.


c. August 3, 1948, a panel of three federal judges ruled that Native Americans

living in New Mexico are allowed to vote.  They also ruled that New Mexico violated Amendments 14 and 15.


8.  Chronological History of Nevada,, 2012 (accessed September 29, 2012)

a. By the looks of this website, Native Americans were allowed to vote in the State

of Nevada when the United States Congress passed the law that all “aboriginal” people, meaning Native Americans, are allowed to vote.


9.  Daniel McCool, Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights to Act, and the Right to Vote, University of Utah 2007.

a. Case in Utah, Allen vs. Merrell, 1956.  The case was brought to the Utah Supreme

Court that had proved a method of stopping Native Americans in voting.  The Native Americans had to choose to either give up their heritage and being able to vote.  If Native Americans were unable to give up their affiliations with the tribe, they were unable to have their voices heard in the elections.  pg. 11

10.  Judith Nies, Native American History, A Chronology of the Vast Achievements of a Culture and their Links to World Events, Random House Publishing Group, Ballantine Books, 1996 (e-book)

a. After World War II, it was discovered that the land that was given to the Native

Americans had mineral resources though the Native Americans did not realize this. pg. 234


b. There was an effort to “dismantle” the reservations.  According to Nies, “Senator

Watkins from Utah argued in 1950 that while America was spending billions of dollars to fight communism, it was fostering socialist environments on Indian reservations.”  This point was brought back up during the Reagan administration.  pg. 234


11.  “Voting Rights Act of 1965,”, Wikipedia, modified September 25, 2012, (accessed October 7, 1965)

a. The Act states, “voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice,

or procedure … to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”


b. Outlawed discriminatory voting practices against African Americans.

Section 3:

Where are we now in the Right to Vote for Native Americans and as Native Americans as a whole in the United States?

1.    “Chavers:  No Voting Rights in Indian Country,”, Native American Times, Today’s Independent Indian News, Dr. Dean Chavers, May 17, 2010, (accessed September 30, 2012)

a.  Native Americans are now hold office including state legislature in states such as Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

b. Even though there have been huge steps in Native American voting, there are still problems with voter discrimination.

2.  “Voting Rights in Arizona 1982- 2006,”, Protect Voting Rights: Renew the, Dr. James Thomas Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, March 2006

a.  This report shows that the State of Arizona has a long way to go when it comes to the Voting Rights Act for Native American Indians  as well as the Latino community.  The State of Arizona still has signs of discriminatory effects toward those who have been fighting for their right to vote.

b.  This report is a 92 page report that takes you through the history of voting not only in Arizona, but throughout the country to the representation in Arizona and where the state stands today.

3.  Judith Nies, Native American History, A Chronology of the Vast Achievements of a Culture and their Links to World Events, Ballantine Books, The Random House Publishing Group,1996 (e-book)


a.  During the 1960s and 1970s all the way through the 1990s, a “new national Indian resistance” came about. pgs. 234 – 235

b. Native Americans created their own programs to deal with their own problems such as “alcoholism on the reservation and prison rehabilitation.” pg. 235

c. Councils were also created for young Native Americans. pg. 235

4. Judith Nies, Native American History, A Chronology of the Vast Achievements of a Culture and their Links to World Events, Ballantine Books, The Random Publishing Group, 1996 (e-book)

a.  From 1995- 2005, United Nations declared that this decade was “The Decade of Indigenous Peoples”.  The United Nations announced that this was declared because in part, “Allowing Native languages, cultures, and different traditions to perish through ‘nonassistance’ to endangered cultures must henceforth be considered a basic violation of human rights.” pg. 302

5.  “Tea party groups work to remove names from Ohio voter rolls,”, Los Angeles Times, Michael Finnegan, September 26, 2012 (accessed October 8, 2012)

a. Activists say they’re challenging some names to ensure ‘election integrity.’ Others say it’s an effort to suppress the votes of likely Obama supporters.

b. A citizen in Ohio received notification that her right to vote “was challenged by a stranger.”

c. A Tea Party organization in Ohio is challenging 2,100 voters in Ohio to “remove their names from voter rosters.”

6.  “Ohio Challenges Legitimate Student Voters,”, Project Voting Matters, September 28, 2012, (accessed October 8, 2012)

a.   “Ohio Voter Integrity Project, the state arm of the Tea Party-affiliated True the Vote group, submitted the challenges, according to the Columbus Dispatch. Most of the challenged voters were Ohio State University students who she said should be removed from the rolls ‘because they did not provide address details such as apartment or dorm room numbers’.”


The Native Americans or “Indians” as they were called for many decades, faced countless obstacles regarding their life, heritage, religion, education, home, land, and the right to be seen as   human beings in their native land.  Native Americans were given the option to give up their cultural for the chance to vote.  Native Americans were told that they had to fight in World War II, but when they returned to the United States, they still faced obstacles, including the right to vote.  Thanks to the United States Congress, the 19th Amendment, the Indian Citizenship Act, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, made it possible for Native Americans to vote.  However, many states opposed Native Americans to vote and came up with many schemes to stop them.  With many cases and points that were brought by the Native Americans, the courts sided with them stating that the states’ voting rights for Native Americans were, in fact, illegal.

Now, with many Native Americans in the legislature and on many boards in their own towns and cities, there is still discrimination in many states.  Now with the political climate, there has not only been discrimination against Native Americans, but for others such as African Americans, Latinos, students, and the poor, by those who are challenging their vote by many schemes.  The Right to Vote in this country is a privilege that many have fought for in court cases, demonstrations, and war, and looks like that we, as a country, will continue to fight for, because nothing is more important that to have your voice heard.


Initially, I thought that the search online for this topic would be daunting.  However, once I started to do the search and figuring out the proper “search words”, I was able to find articles regarding this topic.  The problem though was that many articles repeated each other.  There was no new real information.  The challenge was to do a different “word search” to find articles that presented the information in a different and engaging way.   Another problem that I found was trying to find narratives online of those whose votes were challenged.  I was able to find one article about a daughter who discussed her father and his fight not only for him to vote, but to allow all Native Americans to vote in Arizona.


I had much better luck with books that unfortunately are not online nor in e-books.  There have been several authors who did extensive research in this topic and many others that have plagued Native Americans throughout history.  One of the best online research I was able to do what a chronological history of the states that I was particularly interested in to see the timeline of what was going on in the history of the state and when Native Americans were allowed to vote.  The western states as well as the southern states in the United States had issues with voting rights.  In the south, it was all about the African Americans, but in the west, it was about Native Americans.  With the exception of Nevada who allowed Native Americans to vote as soon as the 1924 Voting Rights was passed, the surrounding states opposed the Native Americans with every turn.  Though I did not look at the State of California, I did find that the state had allowed Mexicans the right to vote before Native Americans.   In New Mexico, some women were given the right to vote before Native Americans as well.  In all of my research, I found that the main reason all states, with the exception of Nevada, many lawmakers were afraid of the same thing, by giving Native Americans the right to vote will cause a shift in the power of balance for these states.  Then there was the land, which has always been a major source of entitlement in the United States.  When it was found that the reservations had source of minerals, such as water and gas, the fight for land was on even though it was the Federal Government gave that land to the Native Americans.  Even today, water rights are still being fought for between the government and Native Americans.


While researching this topic and reading up on the voting rights in the United States, I have been watching the political race of 2012.  I could not help noticing when it came out that many voter rights in Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina were being challenged.  Many citizens, like the Native Americans, are angry.  The right to vote in this country is a guaranteed right.  The voting According to the 19th Amendment, 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 sex.”  With organizations such as the Tea Party and their affiliations, voter rights are being challenged today without any regard to the 19th Amendment or the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  All of this challenging of votes are done to get the person that these organizations want into the White House.  It seems that history is repeating itself.  I felt that I should add to this paper a little of where we are as a nation when it came to voting rights.  I wanted to show that when Native Americans were fighting for the right to vote, how politicians in many states made it almost impossible even though the Native Americans had the Federal Government to back them up.  Now in 2012, many organizations and a few politicians in certain swing states are making it hard for anyone who may vote for the “wrong” candidate to vote in the general election this November.    My reflections are that as we make progress for equality, down the road there will continue to be obstacles for everyone and anyone who may challenge the beliefs of a group who still believe that this country should be seen as a certain way.



Primary Sources

 “Arizona Native American Voting Rights History,” Gonzales, September 30, 2010 (accessed September 29, 2012)

 “Chavers:  No Voting Right in Indian Country,”, Native American Times, Today’s Independent Indian News, Dr. Dean Chavers, May 17, 2010, (accessed September 30, 2012)

 Chronological History of Nevada,, 2012 (accessed on September 29, 2012)

 “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924”, Wikipedia, modified October 3, 2012, (accessed September 30, 2012)

Nies, Judith, Native American History, A Chronology of the Vast Achievements of a Culture and their Links to World Events, Random House Publishing Group, Ballantine Books, 1996 (e-book on Nook)

 “Native American Citizenship 1924, Indian Citizenship Act,”, 1900-1924, (accessed website September 29, 2012)

 The Nineteenth to the United States Constitution, Wikipedia, (Modified on September 25, 2012) (accessed website September 29, 2012)

“Ohio Challenges Legitimate Student Voters,”, Project Voting Matters, September 28, 2012, (accessed October 8, 2012)

“Tea party groups work to remove names from Ohio voter rolls,”, Los Angeles Times, Michael Finnegan, September 26, 2012 (accessed October 8, 2012)

“Voting Rights Act of 1965,”, Wikipedia, modified September 25, 2012, (accessed October 7, 1965)

“Voting Rights History, Two Centuries of Struggle,”, Civil Rights Movement Veterans, copyright 2004, 2010 (Labor Donated) (accessed September 30, 2012)

“Voting Rights in Arizona 1982- 2006,”, Protect Voting Rights: Renew the, Dr. James Thomas Tucker and Dr. Rodolfo Espino, March 2006

Secondary Sources

 McCool, Daniel, Native Vote: American Indians, the Voting Rights to Act, and the Right to Vote, Cambridge University Press, University of Utah 2007.

Schusky, Ernest L, Political Organization of Native North Americans, Washington D.C. University Press of America, 1980.

Humanity and Science: The Paradox of Progress

I.         Title: Humanity and Science: The Paradox of Progress

II.         Introduction: Progress is often construed as an ambiguous concept that beckons a movement for the greater good. People seek progress in personal lives, in communities, in nations, but few can fully describe or define the parameters of this concept. Who decides then? Who determines the claims and arguments of progress? And upon discovering the intentions, who polices the boundaries between what can be accomplished in the name of this belief and what should not be done? It is within these uncertainties that the worst travesties in the world have occurred. Such was the case in Macon County, Alabama, where 600 African American men were selected to undergo an experimental study where the United States Public Health Service monitored the spread and effects of latent syphilis in medicine deprived men. These individuals endured forty years of placebos, metal and arsenic injections, and spinal taps with the understanding that they were receiving treatment for their “bad blood.” Instead, medical professionals manipulated the men of Tuskegee, withheld treatment, and misinformed their condition, with the hopes of unraveling the mystery of syphilis in the African American man, all in the name of scientific progress.

III.         Macon County, Alabama was the perfect setting for the study to take place.

a.    Individuals who lived in Tuskegee were poor, illiterate, and believed they were being offered treatment for their ailments. They had no reason not to believe the doctors and nurses who were overseeing their care. Eunice Rivers, the nurse who befriended the men, convinced the men to stay within the program if they ever chose to leave. Some men thought they were even a part of a social club by participating in the treatments.

a.i.     “Syphilis Study Went on After its Apparent Success.” New York Times, September 13, 1972, p. 30.

b.     The Tuskegee men were told they had “bad blood,” and not knowing what that meant, allowed themselves to be treated as the doctors and nurses saw fit. Charles Pollard, a victim of the study, claimed he was never told he had a STD and did not know that “bad blood” was synonymous with syphilis.

b.i.     Wooten, James T. “Survivor of ’32 Syphilis Study Recalls a Diagnosis.” New York Times, July 27, 1972, p. 18.

IV.         Public Health Services, Centers for Disease Control, as well as other medical professionals treated the men of Tuskegee as little more than test subjects. They knew these men were not receiving treatment. As the years progressed and penicillin became available, they still did not treat the infected individuals.

a.     While the PHS claims the life of the individual is more important than the study of a disease, they continue to discuss the rate of morbidity with men infected with latent syphilis. The report attempts to create justification of the “necessary” study.

a.i.     Shafer, J.K., Lida J. Usilton, and Geraldine A. Gleeson. “Untreated Syphilis in the Male Negro: A Prospective Study of the Effect on Life Expectancy.” Public Health Reports 69, no. 7 (1954): 684-690.

b.     Selection of the individuals was dependent on one factor, whether the men involved had syphilis or not. This created a study group of 399 infected men and 201 uninfected men. This report discusses the socioeconomic class of the men as “poor” and they were chosen for their low-economic standing. Perhaps chosen because they could not afford education and were thus illiterate.

b.i.     Olansky, Sidney, Lloyd Simpson, and Stanley H. Schuman. “Environmental Factors in the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis.” Public Health Reports 69, no. 7 (1954): 691-698.

c.     This report discussed the variety of tests used to determine the effects of syphilis in its various stages. It is more statistically written, but discussed the Tuskegee Study subjects after 30 years of infection. Although the earlier reports introduced the idea of treatment, it is evident that these men are still being subjugated.

c.i.     Moore, M. Brittain Jr., and John M. Knox. “Sensitivity and Specificity in Syphilis Serology: Clinical Implications.” Southern Medical Journal 58, no. 8 (1965): 963-968.

d.     Even though the 399 men were never treated for the syphilis, Dr. John R. Heller claimed the entire study was never unethical or unscientific, even though all the subjects were African American. He believed that the men were receiving treatment from their local doctors, even though he had no confirmation. In contrast to what Dr. Heller claims, a local doctor interviewed by the New York Times claimed that he was told not to treat the men who were specifically involved with the Tuskegee Study. Coercion or persuasion was influential in keeping the men in the study and from receiving the medical attention they desperately needed.

d.i.     “Ex-Chief Defends Syphilis Project.” New York Times, July 28, 1972, p. 29.

d.ii.     Doctor Says He was Told Not to Treat Men in V.D. Experiment.” New York Times, August 8, 1972, p. 16.

V.     The Tuskegee Syphilis Study has left a horrible taint in the minds of the public, medical practitioners, and the African American community. Although the study was being documented through Public Health Reports, it was not until the media became aware of the situation that ethical questions and concerns became evident.

a.     Jean Heller, a member of the Associated Press, received information regarding the study. Her research and initial report opened the doors for media criticism and public awareness. It also explained the study to many of the victims who did not know they were involved in the Tuskegee Syphilis Study.

a.i.     Heller, Jean. “Syphilis Victims in U.S. Study Went Untreated for 40 Years.” New York Times, July 26, 1972, p. 1.

b.     Jane Brody wrote an article discussing the lack of medical and humanistic ethics within the study.  She emphasizes how the study is morally wrong, but even more so because the victims were of one race. This evolved from one horrible tragedy to involving race issues after the Civil Rights movement.

b.i.     Brody, Jane E. “All in the Name of Science.” New York Times, July 30, 1972, sec. E2, p. 1.

c.     Reaction from the public, spurred by the media, halted the Tuskegee Study and brought medical attention to the men who survived the 40 years of malpractice. In Pollard vs. United States, monetary compensation was given to the survivors and the families of the victims. Medical ethics became scrutinized and clinical research trials were revolutionized to avoid the stigma that was associated with the Tuskegee Study.

c.i.     Kampmeier, R.H. “Final Report on the “Tuskegee Syphilis Study”.” Southern Medical Journal 67, no. 11 (1974): 1349-1353.

c.ii.     Dawson, George. “Last Survivor of Infamous Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Dies.” Journal of the National Medical Association 96, no. 3 (2004)

VI.        Conclusion: The pursuit of scientific progress can lead to ethical dilemmas if humanistic perspective is not taken into account. In the case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, racial prejudices were evident. Lack of medical treatment for the victims during the forty years of study only worsened the stigma that would be associated with the PHS and government aid after its exposure. While the intent of the study was aimed at the progression of syphilis, the objectification of the victims has left a taint within the minds of the African American community and the general public. The pursuit of scientific progress that started the study became a racial and ethical battleground.

VII.         Secondary Sources

a.     Curing Cancer: Clinical Research Trials. Films Media Group, 2003. Films On Demand. H.264,

a.i.     This small segment discusses clinical research trials in the 21st century. Although these studies have become more ethically aware and are patient oriented, the fear among African Americans is evident. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is embedded in their fear, which is as pervasive now as it was in the 1970s. This source would be useful in looking at the long-term societal effects resulting from the study as well as noting that the intended scientific progress did much more harm.

b.     Diianni, Denisce, and George Strait. The Deadly Deception. DVD. Boston: WGBH Boston Video, 1993.

b.i.     The documentary interviews survivors and families of survivors after the exposure of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. It would make for a great source in understanding what the victims understood of the study and their reactions upon discovering the true intentions.

c.     Jones, James H. 1981. Bad blood: the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. New York: Free Press.

c.i.     Jones explains the severity of syphilis, as well as terms and brands associated with the STD in conjunction with the study. It would be useful to use this material in regards to fully understanding the disease and cultural implications.

d.     Reverby, Susan. 2009. Examining Tuskegee the infamous syphilis study and its legacy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

d.i.     Reverby uses interviews with the survivors as well as discussions with journalists in writing this book. She approaches the interpretation with multiple perspectives, which is useful in understanding why the debacle is still prominent in the minds of physicians and the study-aware public.

e.     Lambardo, Paul A., and Gregory M. Dorr. “Eugenics, Medical Education, and the Public Health Service: Another Perspective on the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 80, no. 2 (2006): 291-316.

e.i.     This perspective is unique in that is discusses the intentions of the Tuskegee Study in relation to eugenics in medicine. The authors claim that the original instigators of the study were eugenics students and used this background in forming the foundation of the study. It portrays the Tuskegee Syphilis Study on the same horrific grounds as the Nuremberg Trials.

f.      White, Robert M. “Challenges in a Narrative About the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis.” Journal of Transcultural Nursing 19, no. 2 (2008): 105-106.

f.i.     This perspective attacks the sensationalism news reports and claims thirty years after the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. This article is important because it ensures that as time occurs, dramatizations should not distort the truth of the events. While it is important that everyone should know and remember the horrors of this study, exaggerations and fallacies will not help the push for ethical concerns in research and trials.



            There are many good reasons why primary sources should be digitized and available for the general public. Readily accessible information brings knowledge and awareness to certain topics. In this case, I was able to garner information directly from the Public Health Reports in regards to the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. While the majority of digitized sources were unavailable through online portals, the few I found were able to provide insight from very unique perspectives, even if I did not agree with them. I was able to find articles from digitized versions of the New York Times, which provided the foundation for this paper.

Majority of my challenges occurred early on, as I attempted to use online databases. Many of the databases provided articles, books, and film, but unfortunately they were all secondary sources. As I delved further into my research, I attempted to use big data sites, hoping an aggregation of sources would award me with a plethora of information. Unfortunately, every database I used was unable to provide me with information concerning this specific study, instead providing information about the Tuskegee Airmen. Oddly enough, it was the Boise State Library database that awarded me the most as I found journal subscriptions with the Southern Medical Journal, Public Health Reports, and historic newspapers.

I picked a topic from the 20th century, which greatly helped in the acquisition of digitized primary sources. And while I did find sources that were beneficial to my paper, more than I thought I would find, the majority of the sources came from the 1970s newspaper articles. Having the restriction of only using digitized primary sources limited my abilities in gaining insight into the origins of the Tuskegee Study. The study began in 1932, but the earliest primary source came from the 1950s, that is twenty years of primary sources I am unable to interpret. I would have to rely on physical primary sources (i.e. health reports, coronary reports, oral histories) or secondary sources if I wanted to truly stabilize my arguments and claims.

I truly believe that digitizing sources is beneficial for researchers, regardless of education experience. It was easier to find information, analyze findings, and interpret the story without having to do the legwork of finding each individual source through books, archives, or oral histories. However, researchers should also be aware that relying solely on digitized primary sources could be very dangerous. Limitations on sources can create misinterpretations, and it is important that all aspects of a history be told as accurate as possible. Writing historical research papers is difficult, and until all sources (both primary and secondary) are digitized and available through online sites or databases, physical legwork will always be required.

Research Project

Research Project Plan
“December 7, 1941-a date which will live in infamy- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” President Roosevelt said to Congress on 8 Dec 1941.
This sudden and deliberate attack is construed as very clear for many, but there are still those which choose to believe that it was a government conspiracy to pull the United States into the war. The United States did every action possible considering that they believed the Japanese were too weak for such a devastation attack. The American Government and the Armed Forces, had no clear definable information that would have given Pearl Harbor any warning for the attack that would have prepared the defenses with enough time to save the countless lives lost on 7 December 1941. The United States Government hid nothing from the congressional panels and are harboring nothing but regret about the incident on Oahu. The Government received plenty of warning, but conditions and chance provided a perfect environment for a sudden and deliberate surprise attack which left the United States Military completely exposed and vulnerable.

US did not know the attacks would happen before 7 December 1941.

– The US warned other nations of emanate attack and deployed aerial survalence of Hawaii. “Consider this dispatch a war warning. The negotiations with Japan in an effort to stabilize conditions in the Pacific have ended. Japan is expected to make an aggressive move within the next few days. An amphibious expedition against either the Philippines, Thai, or Kra Peninsula or possibly Borneo is indicated by the number and equipment of Japanese troops and the organization of their naval task forces.” However they did not expect Pearl Harbor.

– Although the attack has shocked the American people there is little doubt that it had been brewing for some years. Japan’s fury over the embargoes and allied support for China prompted a declaration of war.

– The secretary of war stated, “”Negotiations with Japan appear to be terminated to all practical purpose with only the barest possibilities that the Japanese Government might come back and offer to continue. Japanese future action is unpredictable but hostile action possible at any moment.” Stark to Kimmel, November 27, 1941, Pearl Harbor Attack, 2301. Smith, Jean Edward, FDR, Random House, (New York, 2007).

– However, when Secretary of the Navy arrived in Hawaii a few days after December 7, following the Japanese attack, Admiral Pye testified his (Secretary Knox) first remark was: “No one in Washington expected an Attack [on Pearl Harbor] even Kelly Turner.” Admiral Kelly Turner was in the War Plans Division of the Navy and was the most aggressive-minded of all.

– “To be sure it is observed that the “hope * * * to preserve and promote the peace of the Pacific through cooperation with the American Government has finally been lost” and “in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.” But these facts had already been known for several days and the only paramount considerations at this time were *when* and *where* Japan would strike. A thorough consideration of the fourteen-part message, when viewed in the light of all other intelligence already available in Washington, reflects no added information, particularly of a military character, which would serve further to alert outpost commanders who had already been supplied a “war warning” and informed that “hostile action possible at any moment.” This conclusion is partially modified to the extent that actual delivery of the fourteen part message to the American Government might be construed as removing the last
diplomatic obstacle, in the minds of the Japanese, to launching an attack.”

– On Dec 6 1941, the president sent a message to the Japanese Emperor
The Southeastern and Allied Nations cannot “sit either indefinitely or permanently on a keg of dynamite.”

– “The Government of the United States most earnestly desires to contribute to the promotion and maintenance of peace and stability in the Pacific area”

– Naval dispatch from the Commander in Chief Pacific (CINCPAC) announcing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941.,mharendt,rbpebib,cwband,cwnyhs,gmd,mreynoldsbib,mtaft,cwar,fsaall,mfdipbib,mff,scsmbib,mal,mcc,ncpm,pan,afcpearl,lhbprbib,afc911bib,papr,runyon,detr,mgw,nfor,sgp,sgproto,ww2map

The Carrier fleet which was the intended target for the Japanese was not at Pearl Harbor
– Admiral Kimmel states that “the arrangements I had made for handling material for planes and ground crews at Wake and Midway and of the fact that I was sending the Enterprise and the Lexington to Midway.

– “Admiral Halsey: A great deal depends, sir. We might have had a very much worse catastrophe here if these vessels had been in the process of sortieing when this happened. For instance, my ship, my task force had planned to be off Pearl Harbor about seven o’clock in the morning, and by the grace of God we had bad weather out there that held us up and I could not have gotten in until about four o’clock in the afternoon.”

– Carrier Locations

– The Fleet at Pearl Harbor was not prepared for attack, and the ship present were prepared for quick action in the Philippines.

– The total destruction of the fleet by the numbers.

– Oral History“So we cruised around out there and I had the watch at about four or four-thirty in the morning, five o’clock just as dawn was breaking, and all of a sudden I see a big shape of a carrier through my goggles, sort of off Barbers Point, and I immediately go to general quarters, man the guns, man the torpedo tubes, get ready to fire torpedoes, and about that time the carrier puts a searchlight up and shows the American flag flying. That was the Enterprise just as I was about to launch torpedoes. It had been delivering planes to Wake Island and on its way home the cruiser with it had had propeller problems. They had to send a diving team down to sort of fix the propeller; otherwise the Enterprise would have been at its dock there and would have been sunk by the Japanese. Because they came in and I think they had, was it the [USS] Utah [AG-16] or some training ship was there and they splintered it to smithereens, just because they were diving at a target location without wondering just what it was. And then, of course, the Enterprise launched her planes and about a third of them got shot down, because by then our gunners were shooting at anything that moved in the air without identifying it. Nobody knew how to identify airplanes, especially not people who just were bombed unexpectedly. I think, you know it was strange, for a couple of days before Pearl Harbor we’d been getting submarine contacts out there when we were out there cruising around. Reported them, but nobody paid much attention.”

The radar picked up the aircraft for nearly 1 hour, but they ignored the warning purposefully.
– Among the records are a 31 ½” by 21 ¾” radar plotting chart on which Privates Joseph L. Lockard and George E. Elliot recorded some unusual activity.

– Lockard and Elliot were on duty for training at the recently opened Opana Mobile Radar Station located on the northern tip of Oahu. At 7:02 a.m., they noticed radar signals that indicated a large number of aircraft approaching the island from the north at a distance of 132 miles. They continued to track the approach of the aircraft until 7:39 when the radar signals were disrupted by back waves bouncing off nearby mountains. Their last sighting placed the approaching airplanes at 20 miles distance. Lockard and Elliot phoned the Information Center at Fort Shafter, located several miles east of Pearl Harbor, to report “a flight of some sort.” The control officer on duty concluded that the signals they reported were either a naval patrol flight or American B-17s from California that were scheduled to arrive on the same day. Within minutes, they would all learn that the Japanese had mounted a surprise attack.

– It could be clearly stated that America was brought into WWII on 7 December 1941, when the Japanese deliberately bombed Pearl Harbor. Two signalmen, Pvt. Joseph L. Lockhart and Pvt. George A. Elliott, were stationed at the north shore of Oahu, operating their radio aircraft-detection device, called RADAR, (Radio Direction and Ranging). They were operating a SCR-170, which was very new and very secret. At 0702, Lockard and Elliott spotted an echo on the oscilloscope such as neither of them had ever seen before. By their calculations, a large flight of airplanes was 132 miles off Kahuku Point and approaching at a speed of three miles a minute. At 0720, Lockard and Elliott made a call to the information center at Fort Shafter where Lieutenant Kermit Tyler took the call. Lieutenant Tyler told the signalmen to “forget it”. The Japanese air attack on Pearl Harbor began at 0755.

The solutions did not only answer questions, they also created more questions. The American Government and the Armed Forces, had no clear definable information that would have given Pearl Harbor any warning for the attack. They knew that Japan was preparing for war and made many actions to deter them from provocation. Circumstances and coincidence provided that the carriers were out to sea, and the Army personnel ignored the incoming radar signals of the Japanese airplanes. The event was indeed a complete and utter surprise which in turn left the United States Army and Navy completely exposed and vulnerable.

Annotated bibliography of secondary sources
Borg, Dorothy, and Shumpei Okamoto. 1973. Pearl Harbor as history: Japanese-American relations, 1931-1941. New York: Columbia University Press.
Feis, Herbert. 1950. The road to Pearl Harbor; the coming of the war between the United States and Japan. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Goldstein, Donald M., Katherine V. Dillon, and J. Michael Wenger. 1991. The way it was: Pearl Harbor, the original photographs. Washington: Brassey’s (US).
Keegan, John. 1996. The battle for history: re-fighting World War II. New York: Vintage Books.
Prange, Gordon W., Donald M. Goldstein, and Katherine V. Dillon. 1981. At dawn we slept: the untold story of Pearl Harbor. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wagner, Margaret E., David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, and Susan Reyburn. 2007. The Library of Congress World War II companion. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wohlstetter, Roberta. 1962. Pearl Harbor; warning and decision. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

The great thing about digital media is how easily searchable and readable most of it is. I was able to search general terms such as Pearl Harbor, World War II, and Japan Attacks. I found a plethora of primary sources from Congressional documents, newspapers, Navy and Army records, to oral histories online. The vast amount of information lead me to adapt from a general idea to a thesis rather quickly after reading resources from non-scholarly sites and comparing them to what the primary sources actually say. The planted myths in our culture changed the story. I uncovered investigative hearings and primary documents which allowed me to create my own hypothesis as if I was around in 1941.
However, there were several issues with online media. Validation of documents, of website official capacity, verification of sources, and historical contradiction were some of the issues that plague my research. The primary problem I had was validating the documents as transcribed as truth. The author of the webpage could easily miscalculate or misrepresent the original document in his rendering to digital from the source. There are few ways to verify quality, most which include visiting Washington or other cities to physically view original documents. The other issue, I had been to ensure the documents were in a source that had official or scholarly representation that operated to preserve history. The site was difficult to review because it is formulated on a tumblr site, but after reviewing multiple pages on this site and comparing to official sites, the photographs matched the data. I used a primary source from this page, because it was a picture of the original document which is held in the National Archives.
Lastly, I had problems with contradictions of sources. I did not include the Japanese miniature submarine that was reported sank off the coast of Oahu an hour before the Pearl Harbor attack because the official records contradicted each other. The Navy claims they sunk it, while the army claims the Navy only attacked it, and the Congressional hearings spoke little about it or the transmission they claimed to have sent. I was confused with all of the contradictions and discrepancies. I chose to leave it out because I could not confirm which website is more official as they were all published by their departments within the same entity, the Department of Defense. However whether or not the submarine was sunk, the message sent to the Deptarment of the Navy was encrypted and took over an hour to decode and would not have helped in the defense of Oahu anyway.
Overall, this exercise helped me research sites not only for my paper but also for myself. I had to search on each site for the authenticity and scholarly representation. The efforts to investigate each source were timely and effective. Using the majority of sources was simple and easy, however had to be thoroughly examined for historical accuracy.

Research Project Plan-Lucas Sprouse

The Democratization of Chile in the Twentieth Century

Introduction: The people of Chile experienced political, social and economic upheaval during the twentieth century.  In the latter half of the century, World War II, globalization, and the Cold War affected the nation of Chile in spite of her distance from the world powers.  Chile experienced autocratic rule as well as democratic rule following World War II.  Nonetheless, as evidenced by the expanding freedoms and rights seen in Chilean constitutions, Chile became more democratic in the latter half of the twentieth century.  Despite the many trials and tribulations Chilean democracy experienced in the fifty year post-war period, the Chilean people gained rights and freedoms.  The increased rights and freedoms guaranteed by Chilean constitutions, the opening of political channels, and increased stability contributed to the democratization of Chile.

First Primary Source: 1925 Constitution of Chile: The Chilean Constitution of 1925 granted numerous rights to their citizens that served to meet the needs of an increasingly diversified Chile, while maintaining a traditional democratic structure.  This Constitution was created by centrists and rightists, along with the assent of military dictator General Ibanez, to ensure Marxist-leaning reform candidates like Fortunato Alessandri Palma would never be elected again.  While this Constitution does create a rather centralized, executive-dependent government, the numerous rights and freedoms granted to the Chilean people are important nonetheless.

Democracy Disrupted by Allende: In 1970, Salvador Allende, a far-left-leaning communist who espoused socialist values for political practicality, headed the leftist Popular Unity coalition and won with 36 percent of the vote.  Allende failed to create consensus or support for his socialist program; nonetheless, he began implementing widespread change in Chilean society.  Allende suspended constitutional guarantees to ensure that socialist economic policies would indeed supplant capitalism which fomented violent uprisings throughout the nation.

Democracy Denied by Pinochet: In response to Allende’s liberal policies degrading Chilean society, staunch conservative General Augusto Pinochet Ugarte led a military coup d’état in September 1973.  He dissolved political parties, proscribed unions, established strict censorship, and strived to establish an unrestrained free market economy whereby import duties were slashed, price controls lifted, businesses privatized, foreign investment courted, and government spending significantly cut.  Most significantly, Pinochet suspended the Constitution, opting instead to rule solely by decree.  With no constitution in place, Pinochet literally crushed the Chilean left by creating the National Intelligence Directorate Administration which exiled, imprisoned, tortured, and killed thousands of left-leaning Chileans.

Second Primary Source: 1980 Constitution of Chile: After Pinochet effectively purged Chilean society of leftist thought, he legitimized his dictatorial rule by creating the 1980 Constitution of Chile, formally retiring from the Army, and “allowing” the junta to appoint him as President.  All of these democratic changes were confirmed in a national plebiscite, a balloted referendum.

Third Primary Source: 1989 Constitution of Chile: In October 1988, Pinochet gave the Chilean people an opportunity to vote on the unconditional prolongation of his term by plebiscite.  Those voting “no” to the reelection and subsequent unconditional prolongation of Pinochet’s presidential term won by less than ten percent and presidential elections were held in December 1989.  After the election, Pinochet reformed his 1980 Constitution in order to maintain the changes he had instituted in Chilean society while ensuring its viability as well as his personal safety.

  • This 1989 Constitution of Chile was nearly identical to its 1980 predecessor.
  • Pinochet reclaimed his position as the leader of the Army and initially succeeded in making it impossible to try any member of the armed forces for human rights abuses.
  • The civil government and the military became independent once again.
  • An autonomous judiciary and an empowered legislative branch now checked the president’s powers.
  • Dissident opinions were no longer outlawed, and representation was increased.
  • Full fledge democracy had returned to Chile.

Democracy Ensured: With a vote paralleling the plebiscite results, Patricio Aylwin, backed by the Concentration of Parties for Democracy coalition, assumed the presidency in 1990 as full democracy was again established in Chile.  The fact that Pinochet allowed Aylwin to assume the presidency serves to demonstrate the depth of Chile’s democratic roots.  Aylwin reestablished constitutional democracy in Chile, and all Chileans began to enjoy the fruits of democracy once again.

Conclusion: Despite the social, political, and economic turmoil Chileans experienced after World War II, democratic liberties guaranteed by Chileans constitutions ensured that the Chilean people enjoy expanded rights and freedoms.  Chile encountered dictatorial autocrats, military coup d’états, and oppressive regimes in the fifty year post-war period.  Chileans have overcome seemingly insurmountable odds to gain expanded freedoms and rights.  Augusto Pinochet institutionally oppressed the left during his dictatorial rule.  Despite this overt breach of democracy, the 1988 plebiscite reestablished constitutional democracy.  Once the constitution was amended to permit dissident opinions and ensure democratic rights and freedoms, all Chileans gained democratic liberties.  A shift from autocracy to democracy most definitely occurred in Chile.  Chileans no longer live under repressive, dictatorial autocrats who ignore and suspend constitutions as they see fit; democratic rights and freedoms now exist in Chile.  Increased economic, political, and social stability allowed democracy to take root in Chile.  As evidenced by the increased rights and freedoms guaranteed by Chilean constitutions, democracy indeed strengthened in the late twentieth century.  The citizens of Chile overcame oppressive dictatorial regimes led by repressive autocrats in order to enjoy democratic liberties and a better life; democracy has taken hold of Chile.


Primary Sources

Constitucion Politica de la Republica de Chile 1925.” 1925 Chilean Constitution. Universidad de Chile, Fuentes Documentales y Bibliograficas para el Estudio de la Historia,,1389,SCID%253D10741%2526ISID%253D417%2526PRT%253D10717%2526JNID%253D12,00.html, Accessed Oct. 7, 2012.

Constitucion Politica de la Republica de Chile 1980.” 1980 Chilean Constitution. Universidad de Chile, Fuentes Documentales y Bibliograficas para el Estudio de la Historia,1389,SCID%253D10741%2526ISID%253D417%2526PRT%253D10717%2526JNID%253D12,00.html, Accessed Oct. 7, 2012.

Constitucion Politica de la Republica de Chile 1989.” 1989 Chilean Constitution. Political Database of the Americas. Georgetown University, Center for Latin American Studies. Accessed Oct. 7, 2012.

Secondary Sources with Annotations

Angell, Alan. Democracy After Pinochet: Politics, Parties and Elections in Chile. London: Institute for the Study of the Americas, 2007.

This book explains the implications of Pinochet’s autocratic rule in Chile and the landmark plebiscite of 1988.  The book also explains how Pinochet maintained some control of Chile even after the plebiscite.  The book further illustrates how the left and right counteract each other through the use of broad based coalitions.

Brands, Hal. Latin America’s Cold War. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2010.

This book explains the overall atmosphere in Latin America following World War II, the impact of globalization in Latin America, and the fight between socialism/communism and democracy throughout the world.  The book also explains that the region was suffering from social and economic instability that allowed political upheaval to occur.  The insights regarding Chilean economics and politics shed light on how Ibanez and Pinochet were able to gain control.

Calvert, Peter and Susan. Latin America in the Twentieth Century. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

This book highlights individual Latin American countries, including Chile, attempting to explain how Latin America changed throughout the twentieth century.  The book has extensive sections on Allende and Pinochet, explaining how both men impacted Chile as a whole.  The book also explains the implications of Chile’s constitutions for the Chilean people.

Garreton, Manuel Antonio. Incomplete Democracy: Political Democratization in Chile and Latin
. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2003

This book helps to provide a historical and political context with which to view Chile.  The book really stresses the importance of social movements and political coalitions in Chile.  This book also helps to explain how Chile can be viewed in relation to Latin America as a whole.

Smith, Peter H. Democracy in Latin America: Political Change in Comparative Perspective.  London: Oxford University Press, 2005.

This book explains the many factors influencing political change in Latin America, including Chile.  The book illustrates the importance of stability, economics, the Catholic Church, political parties, and other social movements in Latin America.

Digital Reflection: Before I began researching for this project, I had great aspirations about studying the democratization of Latin America as a whole.  I searched around the internet and found a few databases that looked promising.  After sifting through the unorganized databases that kept switching between English and Spanish, I realized that I needed to narrow in on a specific nation if I ever wanted to find worthwhile documents.  I tried searching for Argentina and I was able to find three of their constitutions from the twentieth century, but I could not find the other two.  I looked into Venezuela and could only locate a couple of their constitutions!  Most Latin American countries have had around ten constitutions throughout the twentieth century.  I kept being directed to excerpts instead of full fledge constitutions; this truly became annoying!  The biggest problem with solely using digitized primary sources is the limitations that exist.  Excerpts, usually the part deemed important by the digitizer, are readily available; however, finding full text historical documents are few and far between.

After searching for constitutions from a few more countries, I decided to choose a country that had relatively few constitutions in the twentieth century, in hopes of being able to actually locate them all.  I then found a hyperlink to a university website claiming to house important Chilean documents in a digital format.  This website was very hard to navigate and placed one constitution in the historical documents section, but placed another constitution in the founding texts section.  I could not find the current constitution through the website, but that might have been because the website was so disorganized.  Luckily, one of the first databases I searched through contained the constitution that I still needed.  I searched around for additional primary documents to aid in my research, but I could not find anything besides excerpts of speeches that failed to directly correlate with my research.

If I ever wanted to research the democratization of other Latin American countries, I would have to spend countless hours trying to locate the countries’ constitutions.  I know that most Latin American countries have national archives that would have paper copies of the constitutions; however, I do not have the means to travel and read through all of these papers.  The fact that I was able to locate some Latin American constitutions, and all the Chilean constitutions, while sitting in Boise, Idaho exemplifies the benefits of having digitized primary sources on the internet.  While many primary sources have yet to be digitized, those that have been are available to anyone with internet access.  The opportunities are endless!  Historians of all types can benefit from the digitized sources already available.  With time, one can only hope that the amount of digitized sources will increase.  As for now, historical researchers should not confine themselves to only utilizing digitized primary sources; the fact remains that the internet only houses a minute percentage of the primary sources in existence.