Download Designing and delivering instruction from

YOUR PRESENTATION
Designing and Delivering Instruction From a Textbook:
[Or Developing Your Own Materials]
This format is for one or more class sessions. If you do more than that, the doc
will be cumbersome.
Type or paste into this document the information you will teach and the scripts
(or at least an outline of scripts) for teaching the information.
Use this document to organize your presentation in a logical sequence.
For example,
Review  New pre-skills needed  Chunks of New information  Test each
chunk Some kind of integration at the end (review, project, essay,
discussion).
Make a shorter version for your students to use as Guided Notes. THEY take
notes while YOU use this doc for the presentation. For example,
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/GuidedNotesonBlakeforenglishlitcourse.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Guided%20Notes%20Organized%20With%20th
e%20Cornell%20Noteblank.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/guidednotesforcivicscourse.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/guidednoteshistorycourse.doc
Guided notes for Declaration of Independence
What I say to myself is in blue.
PART 1. PREPARATION
1.
Examine the section of text you’ll be teaching; for example, chapters
on the American Revolution, or English 18th century poetry, or types
of rocks.
a.
Now look at the standard course of study.
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/
Copy and paste relevant standards.
Here are courses I might teach.
Let’s see what the standard course of
study says I have to include.…
1. Social Studies :: 2006 :: Eighth Grade North Carolina: Creation And
Development Of The State
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/2003-04/050eighthgrade
Competency Goal 2 The learner will trace the causes and effects of the Revolutionary
War, and assess the impact of major events, problems, and personalities during the
Constitutional Period in North Carolina and the new nation.
Objectives
2.01 Trace the events leading up to the Revolutionary War and evaluate their relative
significance in the onset of hostilities.

Uh oh! VAGUE! What does ‘trace’ mean? What does ‘evaluate their
relative significance’ mean?
Let’s see. Sugar Act (1764). Stamp Act (1765). Townshend Acts 1767.
Boston Massacre (1770). Attack on Lexington and Concord (1775). These
events imposed taxes on the colonists (hurt business), tried to hamper
colonists’ trade, required colonists to house British soldiers, involved British
army in Massachusetts, involved killing of colonists.
http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/ushistory/revolutionarywartimel
ine.htm
So, students will make a timeline (‘trace’) that identifies each event, states
what it involved, and how it could be seen as coercive force and as a
violation of colonists’ trust in the British government.
2.02 Describe the contributions of key North Carolina and national personalities from the
Revolutionary War era and assess their influence on the outcome of the war.
2.03 Examine the role of North Carolina in the Revolutionary War.
2.04 Examine the reasons for the colonists' victory over the British, and evaluate the
impact of military successes and failures, the role of foreign interventions, and on-going
political and economic domestic issues.
2.05 Describe the impact of documents such as the Mecklenburg Resolves, the Halifax
Resolves, the Albany Plan of Union, the Declaration of Independence, the State
Constitution of 1776, the Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution, and
the Bill of Rights on the formation of the state and national governments.

VAGUE!! What does it mean to ‘describe the impact’? Here are
objectives that are clear and concrete---what students will DO.
The class will examine each document and identify (say or write):
(1) principles of government espoused, such as consent of the governed,
unalienable rights, branches of government and how these check and
balance each other, the argument for separation from Britain; (2) the
specific recommendations for the organization and powers of the states and
federal government; and (3) how these principles and recommendations
were included in the state and federal constitutions.
These objectives seem to cover ‘describe the impact.’
Social Studies :: 2006 :: Tenth Grade Civics And Economics
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/2003-04/062tenthgrade
Competency Goal 1 The learner will investigate the foundations of the American political
system and explore basic values and principles of American democracy.
Objectives
1.01 Describe how geographic diversity influenced economic, social, and political life in
colonial North America.
1.02 Trace and analyze the development of ideas about self-government in British North
America.
1.03 Examine the causes of the American Revolution.
1.04 Elaborate on the emergence of an American identity.
1.05 Identify the major domestic problems of the nation under the Articles of
Confederation and assess the extent to which they were resolved by the new Constitution.
1.06 Compare viewpoints about government in the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist
Papers.
1.07 Evaluate the extent to which the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution.
1.08 Compare the American system of government to other forms of government.
Social Studies :: 2006 :: Fifth Grade United States History, Canada, Mexico, And
Central America
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/curriculum/socialstudies/scos/2003-04/033fifthgrade
Competency Goal 2 The learner will analyze political and social institutions in North
America and examine how these institutions respond to human needs, structure society,
and influence behavior.
Objectives
2.01 Analyze major documents that formed the foundations of the American idea of
constitutional government.
Vague.
What does “analyze” mean? Which documents?
 I need to make objectives that are clear and concrete.
Like this…
Students will analyze the following documents. Declaration of
Independence, Articles of Confederation, the United States Constitution,
the Bill of Rights.
Clear and Concrete Objectives
Declaration of Independence. Students will:
1. State who wrote the Declaration of Independence, when it was written, and
when it was signed and by whom? Facts and lists.
2. Define the following concepts: unalienable rights, pursuit of happiness,
People, monarchy, consent of the governed, just powers, principles and
organization, abuses. Concepts.
3. State in propositional form the theory of representative government in
paragraph 2. Rules (propositions) and routine (stating the whole theory—a
series of propositions, like steps)
4. State the three parts of the deductive argument by which the Declaration is
organized. First premise (When a government no longer secures the
unalienable rights of the People, the People have the right to alter or abolish
it.) Second premise (The British government does not secure the unalienable
rights of the People). Conclusion (Therefore, the People have the right to alter
or to abolish their relationship with the British government.) List.
5. Identify rhetorical devices used in the Declaration. Concepts.
Do the same for the other documents.

Now I know exactly what to teach on the Declaration, and exactly what
and how to test to see if students learned what the objectives state.
Does your textbook cover all that the standard course of study says you
have to teach? If not, what’s missing from your textbook?
 No.
It does not contain historical documents. It says little about events
leading up to them and how they were designed.
So, I will add the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation,
the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
b.
Also examine research and expert opinion, and your own knowledge
of the topic.
Skim some of the docs, below; copy and paste useful ideas. These ideas
will guide making objectives, selecting content, how you present
information, and assignments/assessments.
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/ Lots of resources.
Chester E. Finn, Jr., Diane Ravitch. The mad mad world of textbook
adoption.
Sandra Stotsky. The stealth curriculum. Manipulating America’s history
teachers. Forham Foundation, 2004.
Diane Ravitch. A consumer’s guide to high school history textbooks. The
Fordham Institute, 2004.
Walter Russell Mead. The state of word history standards. Fordham
Institute, 2006.
Finn, Julian, and Petrilli. The state of state standards. Fordham
Foundation, 2006.
David Klein et al. The state of state of state math standards. Fordham
Foundation, 2005.
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/
http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/math/math.html
Sandra Stotsky. The state of state English standards. Fordham
Foundation, 2005.
Paul R. Goodman et al. The State of State Science Standards Fordham
Institute, 2005.
2.
Do the standard course of study, experts, and your own background
knowledge suggest strands of knowledge to weave together to help
your students to GET and to retell the story (in a history course, for
example) or to learn a comprehensive sample? Knowledge strands
might include:
Timeline of events
Persons
Groups (families, political parties)
Social institutions
Culture (values, beliefs), religion
Technology
Geography
Big ideas that organize the content.
Design instruction so that information from all of the strands is covered.
For example, include knowledge from all the strands when presenting
the Constitution. Who wrote it? What groups were involved? What big
ideas do the writing process and the final document reveal? How did the
geography of the colonies affect the writing (large and small states.
agricultural vs. nonagricultutral states).
3.
What “big ideas” will you use to introduce and organize the
presentation?
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Curriculum%20%20%20Big%20Ideas.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/big%20ideas%20in%20social%20scie
nce.doc

Here’s a model of political conflict between government and the
people. I will teach this EARLY. This will help students to organize all the
content. I got it from Peter Blau, Exchange and Power in Social Life.
Proposition 1. The relationship between the government and The People
involves exchange. The government makes demands (in the form of taxes,
service in time of war, obedience to law) and the government provides
rewards (for example, protection from invasion; protection against violation of
rights; certain services such as postal, highways, emergencies).
Proposition 2. When The People judge the exchange to be fair (not too much is
demanded by the government; not too little is given in return by the
government), The People see the government and its demands as legitimate,
reasonable, right.
Proposition 3. The People develop norms of fairness which become part of
their commonsense knowledge. “That’s not asking too much” vs. “Now they’ve
gone too far!!”
Proposition 4. When The People judge that the government is acting according
to the norms of fairness, The People socialize their children and encourage
other persons to support the government.
Proposition 5. When the People judge that the government is NOT acting
according to norms of fairness, The People begin to oppose the government
through opposition organizations (Sons of Liberty, the Tea Party Movement).
The People also develop opposition ideologies that justify rebellion. “The
government’s actions are unconstitutional. These guys are nothing but fascists!
We must not obey. Resistance is our DUTY!”
Proposition 6. The government responds to opposition with threats, coercion,
bribery, and force.
Proposition 7. The People judge the government’s response to be further
evidence of the government’s illegitimacy, and The People escalate their
opposition (they tar and feathering government officials, dump tea into the
harbor, form militias, attend huge rallies, refuse to pay taxes, don’t send their
children to government schools).
Proposition 8. The cycle of increasing conflict continues until either the
government reduces it coercive force, the government increases it rewards
(which suckers The People back into a coercive relationship), is changed by
legal means (e.g., election, impeachment), the government is overthrown by
force (e.g., armed rebellion, military coup), or the government eliminates its
opposition and installs dictatorship.
4.
Do the resources (above) say that you need additional content?
For example, original documents, biography, definitions of vocabulary,
more details on events, maps? Identify what’s needed based on
standard course of study, experts, and your own knowledge.
1. So, do a Google search.
2. Find more resources.
3. Extract quotations, concepts, rules, facts, lists, explanations,
theories that you want to teach.
4. Find images that you can turn into Powerpoint presentations.
Here are some resources I can use.
ON-LINE BOOKS AND HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ [A million documents—political,
historical]
http://www.constitution.org/
http://www.usconstitution.net/
http://www.readbookonline.net/authors/
http://www.xdrive.com/partners/?p=pfebooks&gcid=C10757x028
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/
http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/
http://books.mirror.org/gb.home.html [The Great Books]
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/collections/languages/english/
http://www.bartleby.com/
http://www.grtbooks.com/ [The Great Books.]
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ [Religion and philosophy]
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ [Religion and philosophy]
http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/
http://www.bartleby.com/hc/
HISTORY AND LITERATURE
http://www.luminarium.org/ [Anthology of English Lit]
http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html [Library of Congress]
http://www.archives.gov/ [The National Archives]
http://www.roman-empire.net/
http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/980 [A billion pictures--PPTs]
http://www.history.org/research/?CFID=1447647&CFTOKEN=68723016 [A
trillion links]
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/index.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
http://www.greektexts.com/index.html
http://www.ancientsites.com/
http://www.emints.org/webquest/index.shtml
http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/
http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/home
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/maplinks [A million maps]
http://www.in2greece.com/english/
http://www.usconstitution.net/
http://www.livius.org/
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/mehistorydatabase/mideastindex.htm
 I need additional content.
 Here’s what I will do…I will only put in the urls here.
But I will download
the docs and I will cut out what I don’t need. When I plan how to PRESENT
the information (Part 2), I will paste in what I saved in each doc so I have all
my materials right here in one place.
Here’s the additional content.
A. Writings that influenced Founding documents such as the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution.
John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 4--15, 54, 119--22, 163, 1689
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s1.html
Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 2, CH. 2
1748
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s3.html
B. Texts and supplementary materials for the Founding documents.
1. Declaration of Independence.
(1) Document
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
(2) Rhetorical analysis of the document. I’ll use the docs below to show
students the design features of the Declaration, to explain how it
was so persuasive. Later, we’ll use a list of these rhetorical/design
features to analyze other documents (generalization)
A rhetorical analysis of The Declaration of Independence: persuasive
appeals and language
http://mail.baylorschool.org/~jstover/technology/techfair04/DecofIndrhet
analysis.htm
The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence
by Stephen E.
Lucashttp://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_style.html
2. Articles of Confederation
(1) Document. http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html
(2) Analysis.
An analysis of THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION as a model for the
Institutions of Freedom. Bobby Yates Emory
http://libertariannation.org/a/ppe1.html

Students list main advantages and deficiencies.
Deficiencies of the Confederation http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch5I.html

5.
Students list main advantages and deficiencies.
Examine the materials---both in the textbook and the NEW
supplementary materials (above). Identify what you want students
to learn. What will they DO to show that they have learned? These
are your objectives.
Facts: For example, dates for different Acts, names of persons who did
one thing and another. Places where events happened.
Lists: of persons, events, groups, places.
Concepts/vocabulary: For example, unalienable rights, democracy,
tyranny, oligarchy…
Rules: statements of how things are related, connected, caused.
Models (diagrams) and theories (a set of rules in a sequence) that
explain something.
Remember: there is a procedure for teaching each kind of knowledge.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/summaryinstrdesign.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Overview%20for%20301.ppt
Underline the information (facts, concepts, etc.) in the materials, or
take notes, or copy and paste smaller chunks into this doc in Part 2.
Label the type of knowledge, so that you know HOW to teach each one.

How do you teach concepts? Okay, oligarchy is an abstract
concept. How do you teach it? You: (1) give the definition; (2) test to
ensure that students got the definition; (3) give examples and show how
they fit the definition; (4) give nonexamples and show how they don’t fit
the definition; (5) present all the examples and nonexamples
(acquisition set) and have students identify each and state how they
know (using the definition); and (6) give new examples to teach and test
generalization.
Boys and girls. [Gain attention]
New kind of political system. Oligarchy. [Frame]
Spell oligarchy… What’s our new political system?... Okay, get ready to
write the definition in your Guided Notes….
Oligarchy is a political system (that’s the genus), in which power
effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by
royalty, wealth, family ties, military might, or religious domination
…(that’s the difference between oligarchy as a political system, and
other political systems. I’ll say the definition again…. [Model]
You say the definition…. [Test]
Okay, here are examples. In ancient Greece…..
In Rome…
Now, here are systems that LOOK like oligarchy, but are not. They are
missing something…. [nonexamples]
Now, let’s check the examples. [Delayed acquisition test.] I’ll give an
example, and you tell me if is it or isn’t an oligarchy. Use the definition
to decide….
Now, here’s a new one. You tell me if it is or isn’t oligarchy.
[Generalization]
6.
Arrange all the materials in a logical sequence of learnable chunks
(not too much new information). With objectives.
Think of what you want students to do at the END (the terminal
objective). And then work backwards----What prior knowledge is needed
to learn the last chunk, the second to last chunk, the third to last chunk?
Then ask, What is a good way to START the unit? BIG IDEAS!
You don’t have to follow the sequence in a textbook. Some sections
might be better if they came earlier or later.
Nor do you have to cover everything. Cover DEEPLY, thoroughly.
Think of objectives for the information in each chunk. What do you
want students to DO after the information is presented?
a. Repeat information.
b. Define concepts/vocabulary: accurately (acquisition), accurately
and fast (fluency), students apply to or invent new examples
(generalization), after time has gone by (retention.
c. State three problems of ……
d. Compare and contrast….
e. Summarize the…. [Could be a list.]
f.
Explain… Use a set of rules (If,…then…) backed up by facts (“And X
did happen.”).

Okay, here’s MY outline for the presentation. It will also be Guided
Notes for students.
_________________________________________________________________
Chunk 1. Review.
Objectives and Test.
1. Students will define concepts taught last week:
a. Democracy
b. Mass democracy
c. Representative democracy
d. Monarchy
e. Aristocracy.
f. Timocracy
g. Oligarchy
h. Tyranny
2. Student will discuss the five political systems identified by Plato.
(a) What are the five forms discussed by Plato?
(b) What is the cycle by which one form becomes another?
(c) How does aristocracy become timocracy?
(d) How does timocracy become oligarchy?
(e) How does oligarchy become democracy?
(f) How does democracy become tyranny?
3. Students will state the main propositions in Blau’s theory of conflict.
___________________________________________________________________
Chunk 2. Hell on Earth. Nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems
Show PPT on Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Objectives and test.
Students will answer the following questions.
1. About how many millions of persons were killed by their own governments
in the 20th century?
2. What are some of the things that nondemocratic regimes do to get,
expand, and keep their power?
3.
What are some consequences of weakening the power of documents, such
as the Constitution, that state the limits of government power and provide
for selection of our government?
____________________________________________________________________
Chunk 3. Big ideas on representative government.
Objective 1. Students read quotations and state dangers to democratic
systems.
Objective 2. Students read quotations and state what must be done to
preserve democratic systems.
3. After reading all of the quotations, students list dangers and protections in
table form.
Dangers
Protections
___________________________________________________________________
Chunk 4. New vocabulary.
Objectives and test.
1. Teacher states a concept. Students define it.
2. Teacher gives examples and nonexamples. Students identify them and state
the definition to justify their answer.
1. Unalienable rights.
2. Abuses
3. Consent of the governed
4. Tyranny
_______________________________________________________________
Chunk 5. Deductive argument.
Objectives and test.
1. Students state the three parts of a deductive argument: first premise, or
rule; second premise, or fact; conclusion deduced from the first and second
premises.
2. Students are given two premises and deduce the conclusion.
Examples of deductive arguments
Three parts of deductive arguments
Check to see if you got it.
_________________________________________________________________
Chunk 6. Analysis of the Declaration of Independence.
Objectives and test.
1. Students will state the theory of representative government as a series of
propositions.
2. Students will define
a. Monarchy.
b. Colony.
c. Unalienable rights.
d. Pursuit if happiness.
e. Principles
f. Organization.
3. Students will identify rhetorical devices.
4. Students will state the three parts of deductive argument by which the
Declaration is organized.
5. Students will list five abuses cited.
_____________________________________________________________
Again, remember that there are four phases of mastery. First they
have to “get it” (acquisition). Then teach them to generalize or apply
knowledge (respond to, identify, solve, explain) new examples
(generalization). Then teach them to go faster (define a list of
vocabulary words; solve problems).
And each lesson, review a sample of what was taught earlier
(retention). Correct all errors and if needed reteach weak knowledge.
7.
Add scaffolding.
Check this…
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/How%20to%20Use%20These%20Docum
ents.htm
a. Make a syllabus for the whole course.
Week/topic/tests
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/wholecoursesyllabusUSHistory.doc
b. Make weekly chart, with column for each day: topic, vocabulary/big
ideas with objectives, activities/projects, tests. Review each day to
prepare class.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CivicsTimelineFal07.xls
c. Make glossary that accompanies weekly chart. Hand out right before
use; e.g., when reading chart for the day or week.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Glossary%20for%20D%20o%20I.doc
d. Make guided notes that accompany daily column on weekly chart.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Guided%20Notes%20Declaration%2
0of%20Independence.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/guidednoteshistorycourse.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Guided%20Notes%20on%20Revoluti
onary%20America.doc
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/GuidedNotesonBlakeforenglishlitc
ourse.doc
e. Make handouts that list what to review. State WHAT to know for
each item; that is, objectives.
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/Testreviewnotes2.doc
f. Teach students to make the format for, and to use Cornell note
taking. Guided Notes with the Cornell Note-Taking Method
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CornellNoteSystem.pdf
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CornelNotesPlain.pdf
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/CornellNotesGraph.pdf
g. Powerpoint presentations
http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/persian1.ppt
PART 2. PRESENTATION
General Procedure
1.
Introduce each section by having students read the guided notes with
you. Call on individuals to read SOME of the chunks/objectives to get
the class involved. [This does not apply as much to math texts with
naïve students.]
2.
Teach students HOW to comprehend text---using, model-leadtest/check/verification.
a.
YOU read an objective from the guided notes or your outline and
show students how to find the relevant chunk of information in
the text or on a PPT slide.
“Okay, open your copy of the PPT and scroll to slide 14, on
democide.”
b.
Help students to extract the information: facts, lists,
concept/definitions; rules/propositions; routines (e.g., a whole
theory). HOW?
In general,
(1) Model how to read a small part, and then extract the
information.
(2) Then have students do the same thing, one part at a time.
Test.
(3) Then have students read the whole thing. Test in such as way
that they give all of the information.
For example, objectives might be to: (1) restate the theory of
representative government (paragraph 2) in the Declaration of
Independence as a series of propositions; (2) define concepts.
(1) Have students locate the information. “Find the second
paragraph. Put your finger on the first word, which is
WE.”
(2) You read a small part (e.g., the first sentence) and show
students how to restate PART of it as a proposition.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal. The proposition is All human beings are created equal. All
human beings are equal at birth.”
Things that are born equal.
Human beings.
(3) Repeat with more small portions of the text.
(4) Have students reread the same portions and have them restate
the propositions one at a time. [Each proposition is part of the
theory---it is a step in a routine leading to a conclusion.]

Example 1.
T. “Everybody, read the sentence that starts with ‘That to secure these
rights…’ There are two propositions in that sentence.
What are the two propositions?”
S. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. One
proposition is that people institute governments to secure their rights.
T. “Excellent. That is the first proposition in that sentence. Class,
what rights?” [Follow up.]
S. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
T. “Correct. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. By
‘happiness’, does it mean having a good time?” [Follow up.]
S. “No, it means self-interest.”
T. “Correct again. Now read that sentence again and tell me the second
proposition.”
S. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. The
propositio is, Government gets its just powers from the consent of the
governed.”
T. Yes, government gets its just powers from the consent of the
governed. ALL powers?” [Follow up.]
S. “No. JUST powers.”
T. “You mean, its legitimate powers. The government doesn’t
get power from the people to do anything it wants. It only has
the power to do what the people consider just. This principle
became part of the Constitution, which enumerated the powers
of the government, and also asserted that all powers not given
to the government are reserved to the states. WHY?” [Follow
up.]

Example 2.
T. “Gordon. Read the quotation from John Locke, please.”
S. “Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to
another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given
him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his
command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows
not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority,
may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right
of another.” [Chapter XVIII. On tyranny. Two treatises on
government. 1689] [Notice how this maps onto the theory of political
conflict.]
T. “When he says, ‘Wherever law ends’ he means whenever the limits
of law are exceeded. So, what is the state of politics when the
government exceeds its lawful power? Read the first line again, and
then answer.”
S. “Tyranny.”
T. “Yes, then you have tyranny. And does this mean that the
government acts without authority?”
S. “Yes.”
T. “And if the government acts without lawful authority, must it still be
obeyed because it is the government?”
S. “No.”
T. “Then it may be disobeyed. Why?”
S. “Because it is no longer good for the people. It is their enemy.”
T. “What do we in the United States have that states the lawful limits
of government power?”
S. “The Constitution?”
T. “Correct. And if, according to Locke, our government exceeds it
lawful authority, what may we do?”
S. “Oppose it.”
T. “Yes, that IS what Locke says. As we’ll see, the core idea in the
Declaration of Independence is exactly that.”
(5) Now have students organize all of the information for storage, review, and
future use. For instance,
a. Students write out the whole theory, with a glossary.
b. Students make a diagram showing the events leading up to the
Declaration; e.g., British philosophers, formation of the
Colonies and the implicit contract with England, perceived
abuses, formation of opposition groups (Sons of Liberty,
Committees of Correspondence) and preparations for war (militias,
weapons caches), Lexington and Concord.
c. Students compare documents to find similarities and differences. For
example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, the English Magna
Carta.
3.
Later, students read, ask questions, and do Powerpoint presentations
more on their own. At this point, the format is more like a group
discussion.
4.
Make sure to cover acquisition of new knowledge, AND fluency,
generalization, and retention.
a.
Fluency. Fast question and answer on facts and definitions.
Fast worksheets. Teacher-class, peers.
b.
Generalization. Have students apply concepts and rules and
theories/models to other situations.
“How are the Spartans like the Marines?”
“How does the Greek panoply compare with the modern infantry
panoply?”
“Compare the reaction of many Americans to the attack on 9/11
to the invasion of Greece by Darius I.”
c.
5.
Retention. Cumulative review (weekly at least) of what was
covered earlier, with emphasis on more recent information.
Make sure to have discussion and to develop assignments that
strategically integrate the information learned.
 Okay, now let’s teach.
____________________________________________________________________
Chunk 1. Review.
Objectives and Test.
1. Students will define concepts taught last week:
a. Democracy
b. Mass democracy
c. Representative democracy
d. Monarchy
e. Aristocracy.
f. Timocracy
g. Oligarchy
h. Tyranny
 Script.
“Okay, let’s review. Take out your Guided Notes for last week….. Got
‘em?...Okay. I’ll say a word and you tell me the definition. Read from your
notes if you need to, but I want you to TRY to do it by heart. I want the
knowledge to belong to YOU.
“Timocracy….Go!”
2. Students will state the cycle of governments found in Plato’s Republic, Book
VIII. Aristocracy  Timocracy  Oligarchy  Democracy Tyranny.
 Script.
“These forms of government don’t happen at random. Human beings find that
one form doesn’t suit them, and they dissolve it---through assassination, civil
war, or popular acclaim (“We want Peisistratus as tyrant!!!” Athens, 560 BC.),
and this brings another form. Plato thought that each form naturally
transformed into the next, given the kind of character and social institutions
forged in the past form. Read your Notes….
(1) What are the five forms?
(2) What is the cycle?
(3) How does aristocracy become timocracy?
(4) How does timocracy become oligarchy?
(5) How does oligarchy become democracy?
(6) How does democracy become tyranny?
3. Students will state the main propositions in Blau’s theory of conflict.

Script.
“Okay, check your Notes for Monday…. Go ‘em?... Read your notes on Blau’s
theory of conflict. Then I will ask questions….
“What do you call the relationship between government and the people?”
Exchange.
“What are the two parts of the exchange.” People obey demands.
Government rewards obedience.
“Give me examples of demands and rewards.”
“What happens if the people judge the exchange to be fair?”
“What happens if the people judge the exchange to be exploitive?”
“Use these propositions to describe the events leading to the Revolutionary
War.”
Etc.
“Now the Declaration is an example of part of Blau’s theory. The exchange
relationship with Britain is perceived as intolerable. Too much is demanded;
too little is given as reward. After a series of coercive events---back and forth
escalating conflict---the Stamp Act, the Boston Tea Party, the Intolerable Acts,
The Boston Massacre, the British attacking Lexington and Concord---the leaders
of the rebellion write the document that finalizes an end to the relationship.”
____________________________________________________________________
Chunk 2. Hell on Earth. Nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems
Objectives and test.
Objectives.
1. Students define nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian systems.
2. Students identify examples of nondemocratic, statist, authoritarian
systems.
3. Students compare and contrast democide in democratic vs. nondemocratic,
statist, authoritarian systems.
4. Students describe a scenario that leads from liberty to tyranny.
 Script.
“Plato did not foresee how far tyranny can go. Let’s see what nondemocratic,
statist, authoritarian systems are like. It’s bad when the People take their
liberty for granted. They assume that good times will just keep on rolling.
They become uninvolved in politics, and ignorant of what protects their
liberties; namely, constant vigilance and protection of the documents that
limit government power. And so, rulers who are sure they are right and
therefore need not be bound by the consent of the People, do what they want.
[Show PPT. Nondemocratic Governments.ppt]
Have students take notes.
When finished with the PPT, ask:
(1) About how many millions of persons were killed by their own governments
in the 20th century?
(2) What are some of the things that nondemocratic regimes do to get, expand,
and keep their power?
(3) What are some consequences of weakening the power of documents, such
as the Constitution, that state the limits of government power and provide
for selection of our government?
____________________________________________________________________
Chunk 3. Big ideas on representative government.
 Script.
“Okay, Patriots. You’ve seen how bad it can get. Don’t think it can’t happen
here. No one thinks it can happen to them. But it does.
Here’s a big idea. Pound it into your brain!! A democratic system is no
guarantee of liberty or of continued liberty. Why not? ‘It’s democratic after
all,’ you say. And I say, So what. What if states vote to amend the
Constitution to remove the right to vote from anyone but white males? That is
perfectly Constitutional. Precisely because democracies vote.
Here’s another big idea. Make sure you never forget it! Just because we vote
does not mean we make decisions that are good for the individual, for all
groups, or for the nation as a whole.
Now, the Founders of this republic anticipated the fundamental problems of
democracies. What are those two problems? I just told you. Look at your
Notes.
A democratic system is no guarantee of liberty or of continued liberty.
Just because we vote does not mean we make decisions that are good for
the individual, for all groups, or for the nation as a whole.
Right! And so the Founders made sure that (1) we did not become a MASS
democracy, or a mob; and (2) there were protections against tyranny from
government and from majorities. For instance, instead of mob voting (which
can be based on raging passions stirred by demagogues), we have elected
representatives. And we have a Bill of Rights and a means of removing tyrants
through impeachment.
Let’s look at some ideas about democracy that the Founders knew.
[These could be on a PPT.]
Here are our objectives.
1. We will read a bunch of quotations and you will tell me the dangers to
democracy that are expressed.
2. We will read other quotations and you will tell me what it says about
safeguarding liberty.
3. Then we will summarize it all with a table of dangers vs. safeguards.
Ready?
First quotation. I’ll show you how to figure out what it says….
Thomas Jefferson
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
In other words, a danger to democracy is that even a tiny majority are
empowered to vote away the rights of a large minority. Voting does not
ensure justice.
Now, your turn.”
Objective 1. Students read each quotation and state dangers to democratic
systems.
C. S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the
most oppressive…. (t)hose who torment us for our own good will torment us
without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
This means, Beware of leaders who claim to want to do good for the people.
Their aims and actions will be self-legitimating.
George Orwell:
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Truth is deviance in a corrupt system.
H. L. Mencken:
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and
glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last,
and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
Democracies can elect morons.
Hermann Goering (under Hitler, he created the Gestapo---secret police):
But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is
always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or
a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same in any country.
The People can be convinced to support a destructive policy through
propaganda that creates a fearful enemy and that demonizes opposition to
the leaders.
Lord Acton:
The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the party that succeeds,
by force or fraud, in carrying elections.
Democracy is corrupted through fraud or force by the elected party. [So,
elections are no safeguard of wise and beneficial governance.]
Thomas Jefferson
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Voting does not ensure justice. Factions (special interest groups) can vote
for their interests and against the interests of others and of the nation.
Voltaire:
So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to
tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote
themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put
shackles upon sleeping men.
Involvement of the People is a necessary condition for preserving their
liberty.
John Adams
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or
monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts,
and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
Democracy is fragile and short-lived.
John Adams
... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly
run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute
monarchies...
Groups with special interests can vote in policies than harm minorities. This
is less likely in monarchies, where the monarch is not interested in the
special interests of factions.
Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 2, CH. 2
1748
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s3.html
The misfortune of a republic is when intrigues are at an end; which happens
when the people are gained by bribery and corruption: in this case they grow
indifferent to public affairs, and avarice becomes their predominant passion.
Unconcerned about the government and everything belonging to it, they
quietly wait for their hire.
The Founders anticipated this danger. The government was organized so
that each branch could check the others.
Objective 2. Students read each quotation and state what must be done to
preserve democratic systems.
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government. 1689. New York: Mentor Books,
New American Library, 1965.
To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must
consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect
Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons
as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave,
or depending upon the Will of any other Man.
Human beings are naturally free. Human beings are not dependent upon
the will or permission of other persons.
…Every Man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able
to put him into subjection to any Earthly Power, but only his own Consent; ..
Human beings may be subject to the authority of others only with their
consent.
Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, bk. 2, CH. 2 1748
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch2s3.html
When the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power, it is called a
democracy. When the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a part of the
people, it is then an aristocracy. [Definitions of concepts.]
In a democracy the people are in some respects the sovereign, and in others
the subject.
There can be no exercise of sovereignty but by their suffrages, which are their
own will; now, the sovereign's will is the sovereign himself. The laws,
therefore, which establish the right of suffrage are fundamental to this
government. And indeed it is as important to regulate in a republic, in what
manner, by whom, to whom, and concerning what suffrages are to be given, as
it is in a monarchy to know who is the prince, and after what manner he ought
to govern.
The people, in whom the supreme power resides, ought to have the
management of everything within their reach: that which exceeds their
abilities must be conducted by their ministers.
But they cannot properly be said to have their ministers, without the power of
nominating them: it is, therefore, a fundamental maxim in this government,
that the people should choose their ministers--that is, their magistrates.
The founders therefore provided for the election of “magistrates”
(representatives and president). They also limited the power of the central
government.
Demosthenes:
There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and
security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it?
Distrust.
The People must always be suspicious of their leaders.
Thomas Jefferson:
I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if
we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power
from them, but to inform them by education.
Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own
government.
Education may be a way to prevent the People from being fooled.
John Adams
If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of
their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some
provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all
to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference
to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority
of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is
demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant
upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail
without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to
excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular
governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much
greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies...
Therefore, some sort of bill of rights is needed to protect minorities against
majority power.
Objective 3. After reading all of the quotations, students list dangers and
protections in table form.
Dangers
Protections
____________________________________________________________________
Chunk 4. New vocabulary.
Objectives and test.
1. Teacher states a concept. Students define it.
2. Teacher gives examples and nonexamples. Students identify them and state
the definition to justify their answer.
Script.

“Okay, new concepts. Look at your Guided Notes, section 4…”
1. Unalienable rights.
“First concept—unalienable rights. Rights are something that is part of a
person, group, or people. Some rights are bestowed by persons in power.
Other rights are in the nature of things. These are natural rights.
Unalienable rights are rights that cannot be taken away. This notion usually
applies to natural rights. It would like trying to remove the notion of language
from the definition of human beings. Language is part of what it IS to BE a
human being. So, if rulers try to remove unalienable or natural rights, it is a
diminution of humanity itself.
2. Abuses
3. Consent of the governed
4. Tyranny
“Now, let’s review all our concepts. I’ll say a word and you define it.”
____________________________________________________________________
Chunk 5. Deductive argument.
Objectives and test.
1. Students state the three parts of a deductive argument: first premise, or
rule; second premise, or fact; conclusion deduced from the first and second
premises.
2. Students are given two premises and deduce the conclusion.

Script.
“Listen. (1) All dogs have fleas. (2) Max is a dog. (3) Therefore, we know
something about Max even if we haven’t seen him. What do we know? He has
fleas. How do we know? Because he is a dog and all dogs have fleas.
[List the three parts.]
“Listen. (1) No sharks can be trusted. (2) Hammerheads are sharks. (3) What
do we know about Hammerheads? They can’t be trusted. How do we know?
Because Hammerheads are in the class of sharks and nothing in the class of
sharks can be trusted.”
[List the three parts.]
“Listen. (1) If the demand for a product increases (like cars, or ipods), the
price of the product will go up. (2) Well, the demand for Ipods increased. (3)
What do we know about the price of Ipods? It will increase. How do we know?
Because the demand for Ipods increased, and when demand increases, price
increases.
[List the three parts.]
These are called arguments. Why? Because they have a conclusion, and
because the conclusion is based on two kinds of evidence.
These are called deductive arguments. What’s a deductive argument? Well,
what do the three arguments have in common?
Look at the list of statements in each example. The first statement is always a
rule. A statement of a general relationship. All dogs have fleas. No sharks can
be trusted. When the demand for product increases, the prince of products
increases. General.
The second statement is specific. It’s a fact that connects something specific
with the general relationship. Hammerheads are in the class of sharks. Max is
a dog. The demand for Ipods (a product) increased.
Then we draw a conclusion from the general relationship and from the specific
fact.
[TEST] Your turn. What are the three features of a deductive argument?
Yes, those are the three features. First premise is a general rule. Second
premise is a fact. And the third statement is a conclusion deduced from the
two premises.
[GENERALIZATION] Okay, show yourselves how smart you are. I’ll give you the
general statement---first premise---and the fact---second premise. YOU draw
the conclusion in each deductive argument.
a. All democracies are fragile. Greece’s government is a democracy.
Therefore…
b. No Pythagoreans eat beans. There is a group of Pythagoreans. Therefore…
c. Whenever your resistance decreases, the chances of illness increase.
Melvin’s resistance has decreased. Therefore….
[RETENTION] So, what kind of argument has a general statement for a first
premise, a fact for a second premise, and a conclusion drawn for the two
premises?
Let me ask you something. Given the first two premises in these deductive
arguments, are the conclusions inevitable. I mean, it can’t be other than it
says?...
Yes, the conclusion of a deductive argument IS inevitable.
Why is this important? Because the Declaration of Independence is organized
as a deductive argument. This means that its conclusion seems inevitable.
____________________________________________________________________
Chunk 6. Analysis of the Declaration of Independence.
Integration. Review? Diagram? List? Summarize? Project? What if?
The Stylistic Artistry of the Declaration of Independence
by Stephen E. Lucas
The Declaration of Independence is perhaps the most masterfully written state paper of
Western civilization….
The text of the Declaration can be divided into five sections--the introduction, the
preamble, the indictment of George III, the denunciation of the British people, and the
conclusion. Because space does not permit us to explicate each section in full detail, we
shall select features from each that illustrate the stylistic artistry of the Declaration as a
whole.(3)
The introduction consists of the first paragraph--a single, lengthy, periodic sentence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.(4)
Taken out of context, this sentence is so general it could be used as the introduction to a
declaration by any "oppressed" people. Seen within its original context, however, it is a
model of subtlety, nuance, and implication that works on several levels of meaning
and allusion to orient readers toward a favorable view of America and to prepare
them for the rest of the Declaration. From its magisterial opening phrase, which sets
the American Revolution within the whole "course of human events," to its assertion that
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" entitle America to a "separate and equal station
among the powers of the earth," to its quest for sanction from "the opinions of mankind,"
the introduction elevates the quarrel with England from a petty political dispute to a
major event in the grand sweep of history. It dignifies the Revolution as a contest of
principle and implies that the American cause has a special claim to moral
legitimacy--all without mentioning England or America by name.
Rather than defining the Declaration's task as one of persuasion, which would doubtless
raise the defenses of readers as well as imply that there was more than one publicly
credible view of the British-American conflict, the introduction identifies the purpose of
the Declaration as simply to "declare"--to announce publicly in explicit terms--the
"causes" impelling America to leave the British empire. This gives the Declaration, at
the outset, an aura of philosophical (in the eighteenth-century sense of the term)
objectivity that it will seek to maintain throughout. Rather than presenting one side in
a public controversy on which good and decent people could differ, the Declaration
purports to do no more than a natural philosopher would do in reporting the causes of any
physical event. The issue, it implies, is not one of interpretation but of observation.
The most important word in the introduction is "necessary," which in the
eighteenth century carried strongly deterministic overtones. To say an act was
necessary implied that it was impelled by fate or determined by the operation of
inextricable natural laws and was beyond the control of human agents. …
Characterizing the Revolution as necessary suggested that it resulted from
constraints that operated with lawlike force throughout the material universe and
within the sphere of human action. The Revolution was not merely preferable,
defensible, or justifiable. It was as inescapable, as inevitable, as unavoidable within the
course of human events as the motions of the tides or the changing of the seasons within
the course of natural events.(5)
Investing the Revolution with connotations of necessity was particularly important
because, according to the law of nations, recourse to war was lawful only when it
became "necessary"--only when amicable negotiation had failed and all other
alternatives for settling the differences between two states had been exhausted. Nor was
the burden of necessity limited to monarchs and established nations…
Labeling the Americans "one people" and the British "another" was also laden with
implication and performed several important strategic functions within the
Declaration. First, because two alien peoples cannot be made one, it reinforced the
notion that breaking the "political bands" with England was a necessary step in the
course of human events. America and England were already separated by the more basic
fact that they had become two different peoples. The gulf between them was much more
than political; it was intellectual, social, moral, cultural and, according to the principles of
nature, could no more be repaired, as Thomas Paine said, than one could "restore to us
the time that is past" or "give to prostitution its former innocence." To try to perpetuate a
purely political connection would be "forced and unnatural," "repugnant to reason, to the
universal order of things."(8)
Second, once it is granted that Americans and Englishmen are two distinct peoples,
the conflict between them is less likely to be seen as a civil war. The Continental
Congress knew America could not withstand Britain's military might without foreign
assistance. But they also knew America could not receive assistance as long as the
colonies were fighting a civil war as part of the British empire. … The crucial factor in
opening the way for foreign aid was the act of declaring independence. But by defining
America and England as two separate peoples, the Declaration reinforced the perception
that the conflict was not a civil war, thereby, as Congress noted in its debates on
independence, making it more "consistent with European delicacy for European powers
to treat with us, or even to receive an Ambassador."(9)
Third, defining the Americans as a separate people in the introduction eased the
task of invoking the right of revolution in the preamble. That right, according to
eighteenth-century revolutionary principles, could be invoked only in the most dire of
circumstances--when "resistance was absolutely necessary in order to preserve the nation
from slavery, misery, and ruin"--and then only by "the Body of the People." If America
and Great Britain were seen as one people, Congress could not justify revolution against
the British government for the simple reason that the body of the people (of which the
Americans would be only one part) did not support the American cause. For America to
move against the government in such circumstances would not be a justifiable act of
resistance but "a sort of Sedition, Tumult, and War . . . aiming only at the satisfaction of
private Lust, without regard to the public Good." By defining the Americans as a
separate people, Congress could more readily satisfy the requirement for invoking
the right of revolution that "the whole Body of Subjects" rise up against the
government "to rescue themselves from the most violent and illegal
oppressions."(10)
Like the introduction, the next section of the Declaration--usually referred to as the
preamble--is universal in tone and scope. It contains no explicit reference to the British-
American conflict, but outlines a general philosophy of government that makes
revolution justifiable, even meritorious:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that
Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while
evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it
is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.
Like the rest of the Declaration, the preamble is "brief, free of verbiage, a model of
clear, concise, simple statement."(11) It capsulizes in five sentences--202--words what
it took John Locke thousands of words to explain in his Second Treatise of Government.
Each word is chosen and placed to achieve maximum impact. Each clause is
indispensable to the progression of thought. Each sentence is carefully constructed
internally and in relation to what precedes and follows. In its ability to compress
complex ideas into a brief, clear statement, the preamble is a paradigm of eighteenthcentury Enlightenment prose style, in which purity, simplicity, directness, precision, and,
above all, perspicuity were the highest rhetorical and literary virtues. One word follows
another with complete inevitability of sound and meaning. Not one word can be
moved or replaced without disrupting the balance and harmony of the entire
preamble.
… The gravity and dignity of the preamble were reinforced by its conformance with the
rhetorical precept that "when we aim at dignity or elevation, the sound [of each sentence]
should be made to grow to the last; the longest members of the period, and the fullest and
most sonorous words, should be reserved to the conclusion." None of the sentences of the
preamble end on a single-syllable word; only one, the second (and least euphonious),
ends on a two-syllable word. Of the other four, one ends with a four-syllable word
("security"), while three end with three-syllable words. Moreover, in each of the threesyllable words the closing syllable is at least a medium- length four-letter syllable, which
helps bring the sentences to "a full and harmonious close."(12)
It is unlikely that any of this was accidental. Thoroughly versed in classical oratory and
rhetorical theory as well as in the belletristic treatises of his own time, Thomas Jefferson,
draftsman of the Declaration, was a diligent student of rhythm, accent, timing, and
cadence in discourse. This can be seen most clearly in his "Thoughts on English
Prosody," a remarkable twenty-eight-page unpublished essay written in Paris during the
fall of 1786. … Using roughly the same system of diacritical notation he had employed in
1776 in his reading draft of the Declaration, Jefferson systematically analyzed the
patterns of accentuation in a wide range of English writers, including Milton, Pope,
Shakespeare, Addison, Gray, and Garth. Although "Thoughts on English Prosody" deals
with poetry, it displays Jefferson's keen sense of the interplay between sound and
sense in language. There can be little doubt that, like many accomplished writers, he
consciously composed for the ear as well as for the eye--a trait that is nowhere better
illustrated than in the eloquent cadences of the preamble in the Declaration of
Independence.(13)
The preamble also has a powerful sense of structural unity. This is achieved partly by
the latent chronological progression of thought, in which the reader is moved from the
creation of mankind, to the institution of government, to the throwing off of government
when it fails to protect the people's unalienable rights, to the creation of new government
that will better secure the people's safety and happiness. This dramatic scenario, with its
first act implicitly set in the Garden of Eden (where man was "created equal"), may, for
some readers, have contained mythic overtones of humanity's fall from divine grace. At
the very least, it gives an almost archetypal quality to the ideas of the preamble and
continues the notion, broached in the introduction, that the American Revolution is
a major development in "the course of human events."
Because of their concern with the philosophy of the Declaration, many modern scholars
have dealt with the opening sentence of the preamble out of context, as if Jefferson and
the Continental Congress intended it to stand alone. Seen in context, however, it is part of
a series of five propositions that build upon one another through the first three sentences
of the preamble to establish the right of revolution against tyrannical authority:
Proposition 1:
All men are created equal.
Proposition 2:
They [all men, from proposition 1]
are endowed by their creator with
certain unalienable rights
Proposition 3:
Among these [man's unalienable
rights, from proposition 2] are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
Proposition 4:
To secure these rights [man's
unalienable rights, from propositions
2 and 3] governments are instituted
among men
Proposition 5:
Whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends
[securing man's unalienable rights,
from propositions 2-4], it is the right
of the people to alter or to abolish it.
When we look at all five propositions, we see they are meant to be read together and
have been meticulously written to achieve a specific rhetorical purpose. The first
three lead into the fourth, which in turn leads into the fifth. And it is the fifth,
proclaiming the right of revolution when a government becomes destructive of the
people's unalienable rights, that is most crucial in the overall argument of the
Declaration. The first four propositions are merely preliminary steps designed to give
philosophical grounding to the fifth.
At first glance, these propositions appear to comprise what was known in the eighteenth
century as a sorites--"a Way of Argument in which a great Number of Propositions are so
linked together, that the Predicate of one becomes continually the Subject of the next
following, until at last a Conclusion is formed by bringing together the Subject of the
First Proposition and the Predicate of the last." In his Elements of Logick, William
Duncan provided the following example of a sorites:
God is omnipotent.
An omnipotent Being can do every thing possible.
He that can do every thing possible, can do whatever
involves not a Contradiction.
Therefore God can do whatever involves not a
Contradiction.(14)
Although the section of the preamble we have been considering is not a sorites (because
it does not bring together the subject of the first proposition and the predicate of the last),
its propositions are written in such a way as to take on the appearance of a logical
demonstration. They are so tightly interwoven linguistically that they seem to make up a
sequence in which the final proposition--asserting the right of revolution--is logically
derived from the first four propositions. … There is also a steplike progression from
proposition to proposition, a progression that is accentuated by the skillful use of
demonstrative pronouns to make each succeeding proposition appear to be an inevitable
consequence of the preceding proposition. … As Jefferson explained years later, the
purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never
before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in
terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the
independent stand we are compelled to take."(15)
Far from being a weakness of the preamble, the lack of new ideas was perhaps its greatest
strength. If one overlooks the introductory first paragraph, the Declaration as a
whole is structured along the lines of a deductive argument that can easily be put in
syllogistic form:
Major premise:
When government deliberately
seeks to reduce the people under
absolute despotism, the people have
a right, indeed a duty, to alter or
abolish that form of government
and to create new guards for their
future security.
Minor premise:
The government of Great Britain
has deliberately sought to reduce
the American people under
absolute despotism.
Conclusion:
Therefore the American people
have a right, indeed a duty, to
abolish their present form of
government and to create new
guards for their future security.
As the major premise in this argument, the preamble allowed Jefferson and the Congress
to reason from self-evident principles of government accepted by almost all eighteenthcentury readers of the Declaration.(16)
The indictment of George III begins with a transitional sentence immediately
following the preamble:
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity
which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Now, 273 words into the Declaration, appears the first explicit reference to the BritishAmerican conflict. The parallel structure of the sentence reinforces the parallel movement
of ideas from the preamble to the indictment of the king, while the next sentence states
that indictment with the force of a legal accusation:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over
these states.
Unlike the preamble, however, which most eighteenth-century readers could readily
accept as self-evident, the indictment of the king required proof. In keeping with the
rhetorical conventions Englishmen had followed for centuries when dethroning a
"tyrannical" monarch, the Declaration contains a bill of particulars documenting the
king's "repeated injuries and usurpations" of the Americans' rights and liberties.
The bill of particulars lists twenty-eight specific grievances and is introduced with the
shortest sentence of the Declaration:
To prove this [the king's tyranny], let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
This sentence is so innocuous one can easily overlook its artistry and importance. The
opening phrase--"To prove this"--indicates the "facts" to follow will indeed prove that
George III is a tyrant. But prove to whom? To a "candid world"--that is, to readers who
are free from bias or malice, who are fair, impartial, and just. The implication is that
any such reader will see the "facts" as demonstrating beyond doubt that the king has
sought to establish an absolute tyranny in America. If a reader is not convinced, it is not
because the "facts" are untrue or are insufficient to prove the king's villainy; it is because
the reader is not "candid."
To some extent, of course, the emotional intensity of the war grievances was a natural
outgrowth of their subject. It is hard to write about warfare without using strong
language. Moreover, as Jefferson explained a decade later in his famous "Head and
Heart" letter to Maria Cosway, for many of the revolutionaries independence was, at
bottom, an emotional--or sentimental--issue. But the emotional pitch of the war
grievances was also part of a rhetorical strategy designed to solidify support for
independence in those parts of America that had yet to suffer the physical and
economic hardships of war. As late as May 1776 John Adams lamented that while
independence had strong support in New England and the South, it was less secure in the
middle colonies, which "have never tasted the bitter Cup; they have never Smarted--and
are therefore a little cooler." … the Declaration of Independence used images of terror
to magnify the wickedness of George III, to arouse "the passions and feelings" of
readers, and to awaken "from fatal and unmanly slumbers" those Americans who
had yet to be directly touched by the ravages of war.(25)…
The fifth sentence--"They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of
consanguinity"--contains one of the few metaphors in the Declaration and acquires
added force by its simplicity and brevity, which contrast with the greater length and
complexity of the preceding sentence. …
The British brethren section essentially finished the case for independence. Congress had
set forth the conditions that justified revolution and had shown, as best it could, that those
conditions existed in Great Britain's thirteen North American colonies. All that
remained was for Congress to conclude the Declaration:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General
Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these
Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right
ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to
the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they
have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,
and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for
the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine
Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred
Honor.
This final section of the Declaration is highly formulaic and has attracted attention
primarily because of its closing sentence. Carl Becker deemed this sentence "perfection
itself":…
By pledging "our sacred Honor" in support of the Declaration, Congress made a
particularly solemn vow. The pledge also carried a latent message that the
revolutionaries, contrary to the claims of their detractors, were men of honor whose
motives and actions could not only withstand the closest scrutiny by contemporary
persons of quality and merit but would also deserve the approbation of posterity. …
in this way, "our sacred Honor" lifts the motives of Congress above the more immediate
concerns of "our Lives" and "our Fortunes" and places the revolutionaries in the footsteps
of history's most honorable figures. As a result it also unifies the whole text by subtly
playing out the notion that the Revolution is a major turn in the broad "course of
human events."(29)
At the same time, the final sentence completes a crucial metamorphosis in the text.
Although the Declaration begins in an impersonal, even philosophical voice, it gradually
becomes a kind of drama, with its tensions expressed more and more in personal terms.
This transformation begins with the appearance of the villain, "the present King of Great
Britain," who dominates the stage through the first nine grievances, all of which note
what "He has" done without identifying the victim of his evil deeds. Beginning with
grievance 10 the king is joined on stage by the American colonists, who are identified as
the victim by some form of first person plural reference: The king has sent "swarms of
officers to harass our people," has quartered "armed troops among us," has imposed
"taxes on us without our consent," "has taken away our charters, abolished our most
valuable laws," and altered "the Forms of our Governments." He has "plundered our seas,
ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, . . . destroyed the lives of our people," and "excited
domestic insurrections amongst us." The word "our" is used twenty-six times from its
first appearance in grievance 10 through the last sentence of the Declaration, while "us"
occurs eleven times from its first appearance in grievance 11 through the rest of the
grievances.(30)
Throughout the grievances action is instigated by the king, as the colonists passively
accept blow after blow without wavering in their loyalty. His villainy complete, George
III leaves the stage and it is occupied next by the colonists and their "British brethren."
The heavy use of personal pronouns continues, but by now the colonists have become the
instigators of action as they actively seek redress of their grievances. This is marked by a
shift in idiom from "He has" to "We have": "We have petitioned for redress . . . ," "We
have reminded them . . . ," "We have appealed to their . . . ," and "We have conjured
them." But "they have been deaf" to all pleas, so "We must . . . hold them" as enemies. By
the conclusion, only the colonists remain on stage to pronounce their dramatic closing
lines: "We . . . solemnly publish and declare . . ." And to support this declaration, "we
mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The persistent use of "he" and "them," "us" and "our," "we" and "they"
personalizes the British-American conflict and transfigures it from a complex
struggle of multifarious origins and diverse motives to a simple moral drama in
which a patiently suffering people courageously defend their liberty against a cruel
and vicious tyrant. It also reduces the psychic distance between the reader and the
text and coaxes the reader into seeing the dispute with Great Britain through the
eyes of the revolutionaries. …
an analysis of
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
as a model for the Institutions of Freedom
a presentation by
Bobby Yates Emory
Useful?
Can the Articles of Confederation be useful in the search for the institutions necessary for
the implementation of freedom? It survived two practical tests. It allowed a large
number of people of divergent backgrounds and circumstances to live together with
a minimum of internal strife for eleven years of transition from being subjects of a
monarch to becoming self-governing free men. It allowed a less industrialized, poorer
nation to defeat the strongest military force in the world.
The Articles contained many innovative features we should consider for future
institutions.
The basic structure was for the member states to remain sovereign and to delegate
only limited powers to the federal level. All powers not explicitly delegated were
retained by the states. This structure was, in comparison to the most modern nations,
one of strong states within a weak federal union.
The more important issues before the Congress required a supermajority for action.
Going into debt, for instance, required approval of nine of the thirteen states. This
made action slower and more difficult but made it harder for Congress to trample
citizens' rights.
A Council of States was available to run the government when Congress was not in
session. This allowed members of Congress to return home part of the year and thereby
remain citizen legislators rather than becoming professional politicians.
A citizen legislature was further insured by requiring rotation in office. No one could
serve in Congress more than three years in six.
Several sections were directed to maintaining a Congressional delegation that answered
to the States. Members of Congress served at the pleasure of their State Legislature. The
members' expenses were met by their State, not at the federal level.
Each state was allocated one vote in Congress, even though it could have from two to
seven members.
Members of Congress were not allowed to hold other offices in the government. This was
probably intended to prevent the emergence of one form of special interest.
To prevent the Federal Government from becoming independently powerful, it was
not allowed to tax directly. Federal taxes were apportioned on the basis of real estate
valuation of each state. But taxes were levied on citizens by the States.
A compromise was reached to continue State involvement in defense forces, but also
recognize that the benefits accrued to all. Defense forces were raised and provisioned by
States. The costs were reimbursed from the Federal treasury.
Surprising Omissions
To our eyes today, there are some omissions from the Articles that could not be allowed
if we were to closely model a constitution on the Articles.
There was no Bill of Rights - regular feature of most every constitution since. (Indeed,
many people argued that no Bill of Rights was needed for our current Constitution.)
Slavery was not prohibited and, in fact, continued to flourish during the life of the
Articles.
Indian rights were not recognized. Explicitly, the States were give great latitude to deal
with native Americans as enemies.
Women's rights were not recognized. The States were allowed to set their own
qualification for voting and other rights and most treated women as second class citizens.
No mechanism was provided to guarantee individual rights.
(back to outline)
Lessons to be Learned
Several lessons can be learned from the Founding Fathers' experience with the Articles.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to guarantee perpetuity or we would not be needing to
consider these issues. Even though the Articles were battle tested, people who wanted
a government to help the rich get richer were able to replace the original USA with
a more powerful Federal system. The proposal prompted Samuel Adams to suggest the
people wanting the change were selling out the Revolution.
Opponents to a structure like this may not understand the benefits of slow deliberations.
The Congress was widely criticized for being slow to act. Sometimes it was impossible to
act on an issue because neither side could marshal the required supermajority. Although
we know that taking no action can be better than taking the wrong action, many people
believe the government should "do something, even if it is wrong."
The Articles helped bring about perhaps the largest single advance ever in human
freedom. Even though we cannot say that because of the Articles alone, freedom
advanced, certainly the Articles were part of the process. While the freedom obtained
under the Articles was not complete and was not for everyone, it was a dramatic break
with past governmental systems.
The Articles were a very useful governmental tool in a time of dire need. Whatever
failings an observer may note, the Articles set the stage for the next evolution in selfgovernment. The Federal republic that followed was modeled on the Articles of
Confederation.
Pitfalls and Cautions
From the practical experience with the Articles, we can note several problems that
could arise in trying to use the Articles as a model.
If more than minimal governmental actions are required for defense (or other
purposes), the implementation of a government based on the Articles would require
strong states. If we could assume peaceful, weak, or no competing governments, there
would be little need for rapid governmental action and the states would not be tested. In
most real circumstances, as exemplified by Lebanon, Bosnia, and Somalia, we are more
likely to have too many competing governments than to have none.
Any structure we design will probably have this same need, but the experience with the
articles proved the Articles needed continuing defense from its supporters. As mentioned
above, the Articles were not automatically perpetual. It would have required a
majority in at least one state to have maintained the Articles in effect.
Unfortunately, not even one state could muster a majority in defense of the Articles.
Even more difficult, continuing defense of all the principles will be forever needed.
Part of the genius of the Articles, may have been that it made no guarantees of
individual rights. The government was weak enough to not be much of a threat to
individual rights. Maybe the rights area is analogous to the economic area. Any
government strong enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to steal
everything you have. Perhaps we can postulate: Any government strong enough to
guarantee individual rights may be strong enough to destroy individual rights.
Conclusions
The Articles of Confederation provide us with a useful model that has been tested in
the real world.
The Articles of Confederation were an integral part of the greatest single increase in
freedom in human history.
The Articles of Confederation were superseded.
CHAPTER 5
Introduction
Prominent among the problems of postrevolutionary America were the deficiencies of its
fundamental charter, the Articles of Confederation. And yet, many of the problems of
the day would have been acute no matter what the government, given the situation of the
United States: a new nation, possessed of a vast but sparsely populated territory,
burdened with foreign and domestic debt, its commerce disrupted by a protracted war.
The population stretched over a long, thin littoral, surrounded on three sides by resentful
neighbors or suspicious powers, separated within its borders by physical barriers to travel
and easy communication as well as by long-standing feelings of localism and deeply
different ways of life. All this boded weakness and disunion. Some might dream of
America cutting a figure in world affairs, but the immediate realities pointed in quite
another direction.
Beyond these difficulties inherent in the situation loomed a further range of problems
attributable to, or at least exacerbated by, the government of the Confederation. There
seemed to be no prospect of coping with the war debts that were overwhelming both
nation and states; the British could not be compelled to honor their agreement under the
Treaty of Paris to vacate the western forts; the western settlers increasingly felt they owed
little to a government that could guarantee the security neither of their person nor of their
trade routes. Ultimately a new government, formed on different principles than those of
the Articles of Confederation, would come to cope with these problems.
In stressing the defects of the Confederation and in ignoring its substantial
achievements (carrying the war for independence through to victory, forming a
diplomatic corps of genuine distinction, providing for the orderly organization and
incorporation of a vast public domain), we notice those sources of discontent that
contemporaries traced to the Articles themselves. The movement to amend and finally to
replace the Articles grew out of a clear conviction that the fault lay not in the stars but in
themselves. The political undertaking consisted in making that realization prevalent and,
above all, in not letting people evade the imperatives for action implicit in it. The
managers of the movement for a new government thus had to contend with every passion
and cause that might make men loath to overturn existing structures: familiarity, caution,
timidity, indifference, mistaken confidence, present interest, future hope. Further, they
had both to convince a nationally distributed majority that the distempers of the time
were indeed systemic disorders and to keep that majority energized with the bracing
thought that they were living through not merely awkward or bad times but critical ones.
The pressing question, they argued, concerned not the daily balance sheet--how good or
bad are things at the moment?--but rather the whole movement or tendency of political
affairs. There is a cumulative momentum in bad governance: things go from bad to worse
to worst, from Shaysite disorders and the disregard of Congressional requisitions to
recourse ultimately to antirepublican measures and disunion. The proper remedy, once
adopted, would develop its own cumulative momentum, restoring tranquility and
prosperity at home and honor to the republican cause….
Meanwhile, Congress wrestled with contending anxieties, its sense of urgency quickened
by the audible stirrings of an armed, unpaid, and under-occupied officer corps. (See the
Newburgh Resolves and the matters leading up to them in Journals 24:295--314.) How
far ought the federal principles underlying the Confederation to be altered to secure
a more adequate and reliable revenue? Could it be done without subverting "the
fundamental principles of liberty" (nos. 5, 6)? Congress's inability to cope with large
matters and small persuaded nationalists that change was overdue, and even those with
the deepest misgivings concerning nationalist intentions acknowledged something should
be done.