Document 1

Read this primary source document to answer the following questions below. Consider who the author is, the context (time and place), and the intended audience. Identify the author’s argument and the significance of the document. Answer in complete sentences.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

From Justice Robert A. Jackson, Dissent in Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Korematsu was born on our soil, of parents born in Japan. The Constitution makes him a citizen of the United States by nativity, and a citizen of California by residence. No claim is made that he is not loyal to this country…. 

Now, if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable. Even if all of one’s antecedents had been convicted of treason, the Constitution forbids its penalties to be visited upon him… But here is an attempt to make an otherwise innocent act a crime merely because this prisoner is the son of parents as to whom he had no choice, and belongs to a race from which there is no way to resign…

In the very nature of things, military decisions are not susceptible of intelligent judicial appraisal… Courts can never have any real alternative to accepting the mere declaration of the authority that issued the order that it was reasonably necessary from a military viewpoint.

Much is said of the danger to liberty from the Army program for deporting and detaining these citizens of Japanese extraction. But a judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty than the promulgation of the order itself. A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.

Analyze and interpret Document 1. Why does Justice Jackson believe that even though military authorities have the power to violate constitutional protections in time of war, the courts should not approve their actions? Who is his intended audience? What does he mean by comparing the Court’s decision to “a loaded weapon”?

Remember to consider who the author is, the context (time and place), and the intended audience. Identify the author’s argument and the significance of the document.

Document 2

Read this primary source document to answer the following questions below. Consider who the author is, the context (time and place), and the intended audience. Identify the author’s argument and the significance of the document. Answer in complete sentences.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

From Margaret Chase Smith, Speech in the Senate (1950)

The United States Senate has long enjoyed worldwide respect as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But recently that deliberative character has too often been debased to the level of a forum of hate and character assassination sheltered by the shield of congressional immunity…

I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some soul searching— for us to weigh our consciences—on the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America—on the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges… I think that it is high time that we remembered; that the Constitution, as amended, speaks not only of the freedom of speech but also of trial by jury instead of trial by accusation.

Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism in making character assassinations are all too frequently those who, by our own words and acts, ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism—

The right to criticize; The right to hold unpopular beliefs; The right to protest; The right of independent thought.

The exercise of these rights should not cost one single American citizen his reputation or his right to a livelihood nor should he be in danger of losing his reputation or livelihood merely because he happens to know someone who holds unpopular beliefs. Who of us doesn’t? Otherwise none of us could call our souls our own. Otherwise thought control would have set in.

The American people are sick and tired of being afraid to speak their minds lest they be politically smeared as “Communists” or “Fascists” by their opponents. Freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America. It has been so abused by some that it is not exercised by others. The American people are sick and tired of seeing innocent people smeared and guilty people whitewashed.

The nation sorely needs a Republican victory. But I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry and Smear…

As a United States Senator, I am not proud of the way in which the Senate has been made a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism… I don’t like the way the Senate has been made a rendezvous for vilification, for selfish political gain at the sacrifice of individual reputations and national unity.

Analyze and interpret Document 2. What does Smith believe is the essence of freedom of speech? Who is the intended audience? What is the intention/purpose behind this speech? What does this document suggest about how the Cold War affected discussions of freedom in the early 1950s?

Remember to consider who the author is, the context (time and place), and the intended audience. Identify the author’s argument and the significance of the document.