UPPER SADDLE RIVER, NJ 07458
August 6, 2002
Robert H. Leos
Attn: Formal Responses – July 2002
Division of Textbook Administration
Congress Avenue, Room 3-110
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Dr. Leos:
As instructed in your memorandum to publishers dated July 25, 2002, we
are enclosing on behalf of Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall
 Formal Response to Written Comments, July 17, 2002
 Formal Response to Oral Testimony, July 17, 2002
 Formal Response to the Texas Public Policy Foundation Report
As always, we thank you and if you have any questions please do not
hesitate to call me at (201) 236-5445.
State Adoption Administrator
Formal Response to the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Submitted by Prentice Hall
August 7, 2002
World Explorer: People, Places, and Cultures
1. p. 116. The author states that the U.S. establishes
immigration quotas for various ethnic groups. This isn't the case. The quotas
are established by country or region, not on the basis of ethnicity as such.
SE p. 116, paragraph 1, Revise last two sentences to read as follows:
"Americans began to worry about the large number of immigrants from certain
European countries, too. After World War I, the United States established
quotas, certain numbers allowed, for various countries."
2. p. 220. The Sandinistas lost power in Nicaragua in 1989, not
1999. Further explanation of who the Sandinistas and Contras were would be
SE p. 220, Revise 2 paragraphs under "Economic and Social Changes" as
follows: "From the 1970s to the late 1980s, violent political warfare plunged
Nicaragua into deep economic and social trouble. One group, the Sandinistas,
seized power in 1979 and established a communist-leaning government. Another
group, known as the Contras, fought to overthrow the Sandinistas. Both groups
sometimes used guerilla tactics to get what they wanted. A guerilla is a person
who takes part in undeclared warfare as a member of an independent group. In
1990 the Sandinistas were defeated in elections. Today, Nicaragua is one of
poorest nations in Latin America. The country's main hope is its wealth of
unused natural resources."
3. pp. 332-33. The discussion of the cultural divisions in
Yugoslavia is not well written. The claim of hundreds of thousands of dead is a
common claim but not well-supported in documentary evidence. Casualties were
most probably under 200,000, making tens of thousands a better way to express
the numbers of dead. The peace accords (in Dayton) were mediated and later
enforced by the US and NATO. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro) remained recognized as a member of the UN, until the Kosovo War
period, after which it had to reapply for UN membership, according to a UN
General Assembly Resolution of November 1, 2000.
SE p. 332, Revise paragraph 4 as follows:
"Adding to these challenges were cultural differences. Serbs maintained
control of what remained of Yugoslavia, the country later renamed Serbia and
Montenegro, as shown on the map above. Serbs living in Croatia and
Bosnia-Herzegovina worried about living under non-Serb governments. Likewise,
Croatians living outside of Croatia worried about living under non-Croatian
SE p. 332 (-333), final paragraph, Revise as follows:
"Eventually, these cultural conflicts resulted in bitter warfare. In
Bosnia-Herzegovina, fighting broke out among three main ethnic groups —
Serbs, Croats, and Bosnian Muslims. Tens of thousands of lives were lost, and
the capital city of Sarajevo was destroyed."
SE p. 333, paragraph 2, revise 2nd sentence as follows:
"NATO forces (see page 298) responded quickly by bombing Serbia and
sending in peacekeeping troops."
SE p. 333, Revise first sentence of caption as follows:
"The war in Bosnia claimed thousands of lives and reduced cities to
4. pp. 376-77. West African slave trade with Europe is mentioned,
but the East African slave trade with Arabia is ignored. Why? The slave trade
in the Atlantic was largely reduced by British policy and enforcement in the
early 19th century.
SE p. 378, Revise first paragraph as follows: "The Slave Trade
Even before the arrival of the Europeans, slavery was common in Africa.
Beginning around 1450 Europeans began transporting Africans across the Atlantic
to work on the plantations and mines in North and South America. At the same
time, Swahili traders in East Africa relied heavily on slaves for labor and
exported African slaves to Arabia, the Mediterranean, and to lands bordering
the Indian Ocean. While the British put an end to the Atlantic slave trade by
about 1850, the slave trade in East Africa continued until about 1900. The
effects of slavery for Africans were disastrous."
5. p. 378. The impression left is that the Europeans encountered
massive or 'fierce' resistance in colonizing Africa. The picture was more
complicated. The Somali in the North, for example, made treaties with the
British to protect themselves from Ethiopian incursions. The Berlin Conference
should be explicitly mentioned.
SE p. 378, Revise paragraph 2 as follows: "The Effects of Colonization
Many Europeans wanted to colonize Africa, or settle it and take
over its governments. When the slave trade ended, some Europeans saw Africa's
natural resources as a new way to build wealth and empires. In 1884 fourteen
countries, including Germany, France, Great Britain, and Belgium, met at the
Berlin Conference to divide up Africa among themselves. By 1900, most parts of
Africa were colonized. Though not all were ruled in the same way, in most cases
Africans had little power in the governments that ruled them."
6. p. 362 Farming in Somalia, the author asserts, is done around
oases. This is a misstatement Farming in Somalia is limited largely to the
interriverine area along and between the Webi Shebelle and Juba rivers where
better soils and water are available, thus supporting wider cultivation. Wells
and water holes in the hinterland are used for the herds, which graze on
pastureland that greens with seasonal rains. So Somalia is not principally an
oasis-driven agricultural zone.
SE p. 362. Revise paragraph 3 as follows:
"Somalia, at a lower elevation than Ethiopia, is hot and dry. Farming is
possible only near rivers. Far from the rivers, farmers rely on oases to water
their herds. An oasis is a place where springs and fresh underground water make
it possible to support life in a dry region."
7. p. 55, The treatment on direct democracy and monarchy is too
simplistic. Egalitarian traditional societies could still be patriarchal and
not quite "direct" democracy. At Athens not all men could vote, only free
Athenian adult male citizens could participate. Many monarchies, throughout
European history were limited and constrained by custom, canon law, oath
obligations, and the like.
SE p. 55, Revise paragraphs 1-4 as follows:
"Direct Democracy A democracy is a type of government in which supreme
political authority rests with the people. The people hold power and government
is carried out only with the consent of the people. A democracy can either be
direct or indirect. In a direct democracy, citizens participate directly in
decision-making. One example of a direct democracy is a New England town
meeting. In town meetings, every adult citizen can vote on laws, budget items,
and town officers.
Monarchy Until about 100 years ago, one of the most common forms of
government was a monarchy. In this system, a king or queen rules the
government. The ruler inherits the throne by birth. At one time, many
monarchies were forms of unlimited, or nearly unlimited government. The only
limits that were placed on the monarch were custom, church law, or oaths of
obligation. Citizens had little say in the affairs of their country.
Monarchies still exist today. Sweden, Denmark, Great Britain, Spain, and
Switzerland are examples. However, these monarchies do not have unlimited
power. The power of the rulers and the government is limited. These countries
have constitutions, or sets of laws that define and often limit the
8. pp. 307-08, Coverage of British government is very weak. There
is no mention of the House of Commons or House of Lords. There is no discussion
about the importance of the British parliamentary model for so many countries
of the British Commonwealth in various comers of the globe.
SE p. 308, Add the following side-column note:
Britain's Parliament is
divided into two houses, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
Members of the House of Commons are elected by the country's citizens and they
pass Britain's laws. Members of the House of Lords can delay, but not block, a
House of Commons bill. The House of Lords also serves as the final court of
appeal in the British legal system. Britain's Parliament has served as a model
for legislative bodies throughout the world."
Make the following cuts to the main text to make room for the above
SE p. 308, Paragraph 2, revise second sentence as follows: "The royal
family may participate in national ceremonies and may represent Britain on
trips to other countries."
SE p. 308, Paragraph 3, delete the following sentences: "The laws state
what they can and cannot do. This is very different from the absolute
monarchies of the past."
9. p. 438. Error. The caption to the bust of Plato says that his
book, The Republic, "set out ideas for how to organize a democracy, which means
'government by the people,'" Obviously the author has not read the Republic.
Plato disliked democracy and in his Republic he lays out a scheme for
establishing benign rule by a philosopher king, definitely not a democratic
SE p. 438, Revise second sentence of Plato caption as follows:
"His book, The Republic, set out a plan for an ideal government ruled by
a philosopher king who always seeks to achieve good."
10. p. 422. Peace talks to end the violence in Rwanda by Mandela
and Clinton are mentioned. That's news to me. I've followed the area pretty
closely. The Clinton administration remained largely inert during the height of
the genocide, not acting until it was well over, and then mainly to provide aid
to escaping Hutu refugees who fled into Zaire with the leaders who perpetrated
to massacre of Tutsis. Moreover, Rwanda today is more stable than Burundi.
SE p. 422, Revise first paragraph (under "World Leaders Intervene") as
follows: "Both Rwanda and Burundi have experienced continual military coups,
assassinations, and outbreaks of ethnic violence. In 1994, the rest of the
world began to recognize the desperate situation in these countries. In April
of that year, the presidents of both Rwanda and Burundi died when their
airplane was shot down. In Rwanda, extreme Hutu soldiers soon killed hundreds
of thousands of civilians, most of them Tutsi. Since 1999, world leaders,
including South African President Nelson Mandela and United States President
Bill Clinton, have organized peace talks in hopes of ending the violence in
SE p. 422, Revise last two lines of caption as follows:
Change "conflicts in Rwanda and Burundi?" to "conflict in Burundi?".
11. /12. Information regarding the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) needs to be included in discussion of the economies of the
United States, Mexico, and Canada. This is highly significant to all three
economies and may be a driving force for years to come. The omission of NAFTA
is a glaring one, particularly to Texans who are already dealing squarely with
its ramifications. A lot of details regarding NAFTA may not be necessary, but
it does deserve "the time of day", at least an introduction.
SE p. 128, Add new side column feature as follows:
Since it went into effect in 1994,
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had a big impact on the
economy of the South and the United States as a whole. This agreement between
the United States, Canada, and Mexico has phased out tariffs, or taxes on
trade, and other trade barriers between these countries. The agreement has
sharply increased trade, since each country can now sell goods to its neighbors
more cheaply. NAFTA has had an especially strong impact on Texas and on other
states that border Mexico or Canada. Critical Thinking
How has NAFTA
affected the economies of these countries?"
SE p. 128, Replace existing basal text with the following (for fit):
"New industries are growing all across the South. One is the
high-technology industry, which makes computers and other electronic products.
Some centers of high technology are Raleigh, North Carolina, and Austin, Texas.
In Florida, Texas, and Alabama, people work for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) running the nation's space exploration program.
Transportation and Tourism Some of the South's largest cities
play big roles in the transportation industry. Miami, Florida, is a gateway to
Central and South America. New Orleans, Louisiana, connects the Gulf of Mexico
to the Mississippi River system.
The South is part of the Sun Belt, a broad area of the United
States stretching from the southern Atlantic Coast to the coast of California.
It is known for its warm weather. Some arrivals are older adults who want to
retire to places without cold winters. Others come for both the weather and the
jobs that the Sun Belt offers. Still others come to the South as tourists.
Our Nation's Capital The city of Washington is not in any state.
Instead, it is in the District of Columbia, which lies between the states of
Maryland and Virginia. This area was chosen as the site for the nation's
capital in 1790. Washington, D.C., is home to the nation's leaders and
to hundreds of foreign diplomats."
TE p. 128, Add the following in an "Answers to ... " box:
NAFTA has increased trade between the United States and its
neighbors. Imports are now cheaper in NAFTA countries, and NAFTA countries are
now exporting more. Students might note that increased trade will bring
increased job opportunities or that some jobs might move to a neighboring
country if a product can be produced more cheaply there."
SE p. 147, Replace existing basal text with the following:
"Ottawa is the national capital of Canada. It lies on the south
bank of the Ottawa River, which forms the border between the provinces of
Ontario and Quebec. Canada's three Parliament buildings sit on Parliament Hill
overlooking the Ottawa River. Ottawa's most important employer is the Canadian
government, which employs more than 100,000 of the Ottawa area's residents.
Toronto is Ontario's capital, as well as Canada's largest urban
area. It is the commercial, cultural, and financial center of Canada.
Headquarters for Canada's largest banks and insurance companies are located in
Toronto. Three of the world's 50 tallest buildings are located in downtown
The Golden Horseshoe The sprawling metropolitan area that
includes Toronto is the center of Ontario's richest manufacturing region. The
area, known as the Golden Horseshoe, follows the curve of the western
shore of Lake Ontario. Most of Ontario's automobile plants are located here in
the cities that cluster around the lakeshores. Manufacturing automobiles is
Ontario's major industry, but other important industries include electrical
equipment, meatpacking, chemicals, textiles, industrial machinery, and
Resources and Trade
Ontario is rich in natural resources such as timber, minerals, and
fertile soils. It is also close to large population centers in North America.
This is a great advantage for Ontario's economy because big cities provide
markets for goods and services. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
has greatly expanded trade between Canadian provinces such as Ontario and their
neighbor to the south, the United States."
SE p. 216, Revise paragraph 2 as follows:
"Mexico City is not the only city that is growing. All of Mexico's major
cities are becoming more crowded. This is especially true near Mexico's
northern border, where the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has
greatly expanded trade between Mexico and the United States. People have moved
to these cities for jobs in industries that export products across the
13./14. SE p. 387 "How Culture Spreads", Statement: "One of the
more recent influences on North Africa is Western culture." Due to modern day
transportation, communication, television, and movies, it can be stated that
Western culture universally influences the world. There really is no point in
singling out North Africa as being influenced by Western culture any more than
some other country. Some Middle Easterners, terrorists in particular, object to
the influence of Western cultures on Eastern cultures, and this may be an idea
that needs to be explored. The sentence needs to be revised.
SE p. 387, Revise first sentence under C-head "Contemporary North
African Culture" as follows:
"Like other parts of the world, North Africa has felt the influence of
Western culture in recent decades."
Lone Star: The Story of Texas
1. 56S says the Spanish king and queen paid for [Columbus']
voyage. Actually, Columbus chartered the Santa Maria and supplied more than a
third of the sum contributed by the king and queen. He did so in order to
receive a greater percentage of profits from the voyage. He indebted himself to
do this and thus stood to lose his entire personal fortune such as it was,
Ferdinand and Isabella had everything to gain if he succeeded and almost
nothing to lose.
Change SE p. 56, paragraph 2, lines 3-4 to:
"Columbus sought a new western route to Asia. The Spanish rulers paid
for most of his voyage. He paid for some of it himself. A new, faster route to
Asia would make Spam's trade with India and China even more profitable."
2. 124S states that Lorenzo de Zavala received an empresario
contract but never colonized his grant, 249S says Lorenzo de Zavala built a
colony in early Texas. The two statements are inconsistent. As 124S goes on to
explain, Zavala never settled any families on his contract. He sold it to the
Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company.
Change SE p. 249, paragraph 5, line 1 to:
"Lorenzo de Zavala served in the Consultation and the Convention of
1836. He was the first vice president of the Republic of Texas."
3. The presentation of DeZavala, Vehlein and Burnet's empresarios
(124S) seems negatively biased for no constructive purpose I can think of. It
holds the three out as crooks, who set out to betray the trust of the Mexican
government and defraud colonists, when the unethical business was conducted by
the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company. The implication that Zavala, Vehlien
and Burnet were somehow responsible for the company's conduct because they sold
their contracts to it is unmistakable. The Law of 1830 suspended all
uncompleted contracts, which the text never mentions. Burnet and Zavala are
never mentioned in much greater detail elsewhere in the text. Considering the
involvement of these two in the era of the Texas Revolution and Republic, and
the many positive contributions of Zavala and his family in particular, a more
balanced presentation seems warranted. I am not even sure why the text chose to
make so much of this particular transaction since it is not, in my opinion,
particularly important to an understanding of the history of this era at the 7*
Change SE pages 124-125, paragraphs 7, 8, and 9 to:
"De Zavala, Vehlein, and Burnet The Mexican government wanted
empresarios to personally find good settlers and help their colonies grow.
However, not all land agents could do this.
"Three examples were Lorenzo de Zavala, Joseph Vehlein, and David
Burnet. Each of these men received contracts, but none of them had enough money
or support to attract settlers by themselves. Instead, in 1830 they sold their
contracts to the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company.
"The Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company did not actually buy land from
De Zavala, Vehlein, and Burnet. It bought only the right to bring settlers to
Texas. Yet the company told would-be settlers that it had land in Texas. The
company sold these settlers something called scrip. Scrip supposedly gave the
owner the right to claim a piece of Texas land, but it was worthless. People
who bought scrip thought they owned the land, but in fact, they owned nothing.
"The actions of the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company caused great
confusion. Many scrip holders arrived in Texas and found they owned nothing.
Some never got any land. Despite these problems, the Galveston Bay and Texas
Land Company did bring about 1,000 families to Texas."
4. 124S relates the story of Robertson's Colony with such bias as
to cast Robertson in a negative light unreflective of the facts.
Change SE page 124, paragraphs 5 and 6 to:
"Leftwich sold his contract to a group headed by Sterling C. Robertson.
Robertson brought families to Texas in 1830. However, a Mexican law that
temporarily banned American immigration prevented them from settling. Stephen
Austin and a partner convinced Mexican leaders to give them Robertson's land.
However, Austin did not issue any titles to settlers either.
"Robertson and Austin argued over the land for many years. Robertson
started bringing families to Texas in 1835. He settled 600 of the 800 families
called for in his contract."
5. More detail and background needs to be provided about the
Constitution of 1824 and the subsequent changes need to be emphasized. What,
specifically, were the differences between the Mexican Constitution of 1824 and
the Law of April 6, 1830, and why, specifically, was that law so repugnant to
Texans? This text presents the Anglo-American colonists as having been denied
their rights without really explaining the issues. And what of the Tejanos who
joined Anglos in seeking independence? What were their motivations? Not the
American Revolution or religion or cultural differences. The text does not deal
Add the following text to TE page 142:
Connecting Civics and Government
Constitution of 1824 Ask students to research the provisions of the Mexican
Constitution of 1824. Then have them compare the Mexican Constitution to the
U.S. Constitution. Tell students that both constitutions split power between
executive, legislative, and judicial branches. However, the Mexican
Constitution specified a state religion — Catholicism. Ask students to
discuss further similarities and differences between the two documents. Then,
lead a class discussion on the question: "Given that the Texans supported the
Constitution of 1824, why would they be upset by the Law of April 6, 1830?"
(Possible answers include: they had no say in the decision; it was supported
by military force; it revoked contracts that already existed.)
Also, add the following to SE page 157, end of last paragraph:
"Although Tejanos shared Mexico's culture, some Tejanos, such as Juan
Seguin, opposed Centralists. Others realized that the Anglos outnumbered them,
but did not want to leave their homes. Instead, they joined the fight."
For fit, change p. 157, paragraph 2, lines 3-5, to:
"Were Texans fighting for a separate state within Mexico, or
p. 157, paragraph 5, lines 1-2, to:
"For example, the American Revolution lasted six years."
p. 157, paragraph 5, lines 3-5, to:
"In contrast, the fighting in Texas lasted just seven months and fewer
battles took place.
p. 157, paragraph 6, lines 3-5, to:
"In the American Revolution, both sides had the same basic British
culture." and delete "Most of the colonists were British, just like the people
they were fighting."
p. 158, paragraph 2, lines 2-4, to:
"Four years earlier, Mexican leaders had loaned a small cannon to the
Texans at nearby Gonzales to fight Comanches."
6. 124S-125S, More emphasis is placed on Zavala as an empresario
(failed) than on his contributions to Texas. Since both Zavala and Burnet are
portrayed in a negative light as empresarios (124S), I am confused as to what
point the text is trying to make on 12SS, "Drawing Inferences," when it asks
students, "How might DeZavala and Burnet have profited from their brief
experiences as empresarios? Mention of Zavala otherwise as a leader in Texas is
so slight as to go easily unnoticed. The only other reference to him is a
sentence on 184S saying that he became vice-president of the ad interim
government in 1836, and on 249S saying that he built a colony (addressed
previously). It might be expected, from the information presented about Zavala,
mat students would assume his "significant" role in Texas history to be that of
a crooked empresario, who, by implication, became a crooked government
Change SE p. 125, caption question to:
Drawing Conclusions Why were De Zavala and Burnet
unable to bring settlers to Texas?
Change TE p. 125, caption answer to:
"De Zavala and Burnet lacked the funds and support to raise settlers, so
they signed their grants over to the Galveston Bay and Texas Land Company."
To give a more thorough view of De Zavala, add the following to TE page
Connecting With Civics and Government
de Zavala Lorenzo de Zavala was an important political figure in Mexico
before and after his brief stint as an empresario. A strong federalist, he
played an active role in the Mexican government during the 1820s and 1830s.
When a centralist government took control in 1833, De Zavala resigned his post
and traveled to Texas. There, he became involved in the Texas Revolution and
served as the first vice president of the Republic of Texas."
7. Use of the word "tyrant" to describe Santa Anna (150S, 157S)
is, I think, distracting, It is a prejudicial term, whereas a balanced and
unemotional presentation of Santa Anna's actions would allow students to come
to their own conclusions about him. Enough factual information is provided in
the text that they would, I think, get the picture and practice objective
analysis at the same time.
SE p. 150, paragraph 5, line 2, change "Centralist tyrant" to
SE p. 157, paragraph 3, line 1, change "tyrants" to "unjust rulers."
8. 295S says many white Texans disliked that men from the North
won public office in Texas. It does not say, specifically, who any of these
"Northerners" were. I would argue that this is a misleading, if not inaccurate,
generalization. The men who won public office during Reconstruction were not
from the North but were Texans who had remained loyal to the Union. A. J.
Hamilton had served Texas in Congress 1859-1861; Elisha M. Pease (appointed
during Congressional Reconstruction) had been a popular governor of Texas
1853-1857; E. J, Davis had served as a state district judge in Brownsville
before the war. In the election of Nov. 30-Dec. 3, 1869, the only carpetbagger
to win one of Texas' four Congressional seats was a Democrat The three
Republicans elected were Texans.
SE page 295, paragraph 5, change to:
"Many white Texans resented the actions taken by Congress. They disliked
the fact that Texans who had been Unionists won public office. They resented
Southerners who supported Reconstruction. They called these people "scalawags,"
another word for rascal. Another aggravation was the presence of Northern
outsiders who moved to Texas after the war. They called these outsiders
"carpetbaggers." The name came from the luggage of the day, bags made of
carpet. Many secret societies, such as the Ku Klux Klan, formed. They
terrorized African American voters and kept them away from the polls."
9. 365T, The activity for honors/Pre-AP students has students
read about significant individuals of the new economic era, among them James
Rayner. Rayner's first name was John.
TE page 365, "Customize for" ... activity, line 4, change "James Rayner"
to "John B. Rayner."
10. 367S says James Rayner became a key leader of the Populist
Party. His name was John B. Rayner, not James. This is the second place in the
text that this name has been confused.
SE page 367, last paragraph, line 2, change "James Rayner" to "John B.
11. Page 107T "With this purchase of the Louisiana Territory in
1804." (Authors notes) Louisiana Purchase was made in 1803 not 1804.
TE p. 107, Author's note, line 1:
Change already on error list submitted to TEA. Change to "With the
purchase of the Louisiana Territory in 1803, ... "
12. Page 147T "Santa Anna, the new president, had resigned his
position because of poor health." He was out of Mexico City, but he never
Change SE p. 147, paragraph 5, lines 2-3, to:
"Austin arrived in Mexico City in July 1833. He found a confusing scene.
Santa Anna, the new president, had not assumed his position because of poor
health. Valentin Gomez Farias, the vice president, acted as president in his
place. Santa Anna was not even in the capital."
13. Page 149 T "Cos had many leading Texans arrested, including
Travis." He wanted them arrested, but they were never captured.
Change SE p. 149, paragraphs 10 and 11 to:
"This was not enough to persuade Cós that Texas remained loyal.
Cós called for the arrests of many leading Texans, including Travis. If
captured, these prisoners would face trial in a military court and possibly
The move towards war Even for settlers who favored peace, Cós'
demands went too far. The Texans vowed never to hand over their neighbors to a
military court. Most believed that people had a right to a trial by a jury of
their peers, not by members of the military. Cós never captured any of
14. Page 64T "Luckily the people who lived on San Luis Island,
the Atakapans, were friendly and gave them food and shelter." It was the
Karankawas that lived on Galveston Island.
The Handbook of Texas gives conflicting information about exactly
what group of peoples Cabeza de Vaca met. Some historians believe that Cabeza
de Vaca may have met the Hans people of the Atakapan group, while others
believe that he met Karankawas. Both groups were active in the coastal area of
Texas at that time, although the Karankawas seemed to have had more of a
presence on Galveston Island, near where Cabeza de Vaca is believed to have
landed. Scholars working on a joint project about Cabeza de Vaca at the Center
for the Study of the Southwest at Southwest Texas State University and The
Witte Museum in San Antonio also have not reached a definite decision on what
ethnic group of Native Americans Cabeza de Vaca met (see
Given this uncertainty, change paragraph SE p. 64, paragraph 2, lines
2-3 to: "The original 400 members of the Narváez expedition had dwindled
to about 80 people. The group was in terrible shape. Luckily, they met some
people who lived on San Luis Island, possibly Atakapans or Karankawas, who were
friendly and gave them food and shelter."
and change paragraph 5 to:
"Alone among the Native Americans, Cabeza de Vaca began his incredible
adventure. For a time, he was forced to work. He also carved out a role for
himself as a trader. He traveled widely across coastal Texas, trading shells
and beans for skins and other items."
15. Page 162T "The Mexican army called it Presidio San Antonio de
Bexar. The Texans knew it better by another name – The Alamo." This is
wrong. San Antonio de Valero, the mission, is called The Alamo.
Change SE p. 162, paragraphs 2, to:
"Meanwhile, General Cós reached San Antonio on October 9, 1835.
Cós had about 800 troops under his command. He placed some in the town
and some in a nearby abandoned mission, now used as a fortress. The mission had
been known as San Antonio de Valero. Texans knew it better by another name
— the Alamo.
SE p. 162, paragraph 3, line 2 and paragraph 8, line 2, change
"presidio" to "fortress."
16. Page 18T When Texas joined the United States, government
officials agreed that Texas could divide into four states. Wrong. Texas could
divide into as many as five states or 4 states in addition to what would remain
Change SE p. 18, paragraph 1, lines 3-4, to:
"When Texas joined the United States, government officials agreed that
Texas could divide into as many as five states."
17. Page 216T "Congress also set aside land for a university."
Congress set aside land grants that provided a permanent fund for two
Universities, Texas A & M and Texas University, [note: should be University
Change SE p. 216, paragraph 5, lines 3-4 to:
"Congress also set aside land to be sold to fund a university."
Note: The Permanent University Fund didn't expand to include Texas
A&M until 1931, according to the Handbook of Texas. The sentence to
be changed refers to an action taken by the Congress of the Republic of Texas
in 1839. The Permanent University Fund is discussed more fully on SE p. 389.
18. Page 269T Sorbs should be Serbs.
According to the Handbook of Texas Online, the Wends are "also
known as Sorbs or Lusatian Serbs." Also, Encyclopedia Britannica states
that "The Wends themselves were enserfed and gradually assimilated by the
Germans, with the exception of a minority in the traditional region of Lusatia,
in present-day eastern Germany, who are now known as Sorbs."
Change SE, page 269, paragraph 3, line 2, to:
"These people, also known as Sorbs or Lusatian Serbs, are an ethnic
group whose homeland is in Eastern Germany."
19. Page 313T "Cattle that roamed the plains were called
mavericks." Wrong. Unbranded cattle were called mavericks because Sam Maverick
refused to brand Ms cattle. Therefore any unbranded cow was called a
Change SE p. 313, paragraph 3, lines 8-9, to:
"Samuel Maverick let his cattle roam the plains without branding them.
Unbranded cattle that roamed the plains were soon known as "mavericks.""
20. Page 394T "The same storm had previously struck near New
Orleans, but the weather bureau had received little information....." The Great
Storm of 1900 did not first hit near New Orleans.
Change TE p. 384, Background Note, lines 1-10 to:
"Hurricane Preparedness The limitations of communications
equipment in 1900 caused the people of Galveston to have little advance warning
of the approaching storm. The national Weather Bureau had sent warnings about a
storm in the Gulf of Mexico to Galveston weather officials from September 4
through September 8, when the storm struck. However, details on the nature and
strength of the storm were not available."
The American Nation
1. pp. 144-45 The French and Indian War is treated as a stand-alone
conflict instead of part of an international war. Some mention should be made
of the Seven Years War, the continuing conflict between England and France, and
the contributions and attitudes of colonists during and after the war.
SE p. 142, Revise paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows:
"In 1754, fighting broke out again. English settlers called the conflict
the French and Indian War because it pitted them against France and its
Native American allies. In Europe, the conflict involved many nations and was
called the Seven Year's War. The conflict in America again centered on the Ohio
River Valley. The opening shots were fired by soldiers led by George
A Bold Young Leader Washington was only 22 years old in 1754.
Gifted at mathematics, he was working as a land surveyor by the age of 15. His
job took him to frontier lands in western Virginia."
2. p. 158 "Quebec Act." No mention is made that the land in question
had been given to the affected colonies in their original royal land grants,
making the Act seem like outright theft Further, the colonists viewed the Act
(when viewed alongside the Massachusetts Government Act) as favoring French
settlers over ethnic British subjects, hence "Intolerable."
SE p. 158, Revise paragraph under "Quebec Act" as follows:
"Quebec Act About the same time, Parliament passed the Quebec
Act. It set up a government for Canada and gave complete religious freedom
to French Catholics. The Quebec Act also extended the borders of Quebec to
include the land between the Ohio and Missouri rivers. The act pleased French
Canadians, but it angered American colonists. Some of the colonies claimed
ownership of these lands, based on their original royal land grants."
3. pp. 208-209 An important aspect of both the Great Compromise and
the 3/5 Compromise is that it is not just representation that was being
decided, but taxation also.
SE p. 208, Paragraph 3, Delete last sentence to save space, "Under the
Articles of Confederation, each state regardless of population, only had one
vote in Congress."
SE p. 208, under The New Jersey Plan, second paragraph, add sentence to
the end of the paragraph, as follows:
"The plan also gave the national government the power to tax and
SE p. 208, under The Great Compromise, last paragraph, delete for space
the last sentence, "Each side gave up some demands to achieve unity."
SE p. 208, under Northern and Southern States Compromise, revise last
sentence as follows: "Would slaves be counted as part of a state's population
for figuring taxes and representation?"
SE p. 209, under The Three-fifths Compromise, revise as follows:
"The Three-Fifths Compromise Southerners wanted to include slaves
in the population count for figuring representation but not tax assessments. If
slaves were counted, southern states would have more representatives in the
House of Representatives. Northerners disagreed. They argued that slaves should
be counted for tax assessment but not when assigning representatives.
Once again, the delegates compromised. They agreed that three fifths of
the slaves in any states would be counted for both taxes and representation. In
other words, if a state had 5,000 slaves, 3,000 of them would be included in
the state's population count. This agreement became known as the
4. p. 322, top of page "Hull retreated from Canada." Actually, he
surrendered his force without a fight and the British occupied Detroit.
Hull did invade Canada, and, after the invasion failed, he retreated. It
is also true that in Detroit, to which he retreated, he later surrendered to
the British without a fight. Our decision not to include this information will
not affect student understanding of the key point — that Hull did not help
the Americans reach their goal.
5. p. 388 picture at top of page is incorrectly labeled. Santa Anna
is standing in the center of the picture wearing white pants and a blue
Publisher's response: This correction has already been submitted to the
TEA on the Prentice Hall Editorial Corrections list; the lead line will be
moved to correctly show Santa Anna.
6. Chapter 16 This chapter has virtually no mention of states' rights
as an issue in the upcoming war. Other than a definition of popular
sovereignty, it is not mentioned at all. The Activity box on p. 487T states
"the question of states' rights was a key issue in the Civil War era." This is
only discussed in Chapter 17 as it affected the relations of states in the
Confederacy, not in the pre-war era.
Our presentation of the causes of the Civil War is supported by the
great preponderance of historical scholarship. States' rights, of course, is an
important part of American history. As a part of the U.S. Constitution, states'
rights has provided our political system with a creative tension embodied in
the notion of federalism.
While the South had a long tradition of supporting states' rights, as
reflected in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the Nullification
controversy (which topics the text covers, of course), most recent scholarship
minimizes the role played by the doctrine of states' rights in the breakup of
the Union. The waters of this debate have been muddied because Confederate
leaders like Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens began to stress the
importance of states' rights in their writings many years after the conclusion
of the war. But if one reads the writings of these same men during the crucial
decade of the 1850s, the banner of states' rights is much less prominent.
Professor James McPherson of Princeton, a leading historian of the Civil War,
has even gone so far as to state that "Many observers in the 1850s would have
predicted that if a rebellion in the name of states' rights were to occur, it
would be the North that would rebel." He concluded thus because during this
decade, Southern leaders were, in fact, often vigorous in championing an
extension of federal power in the context of defending the rights of
slave owners. The Fugitive Slave law is the most striking example of this, for
it used federal power to recover escaped slaves in northern states, while the
northern states claimed their rights as sovereign states not to be forced to
carry out that law.
When it came time to secede, the issue of states' rights was mentioned
— by South Carolina, for example, in its declaration of secession. On the
other hand, similar documents issued by Mississippi and Georgia make no
explicit cases about states' rights; rather they build their arguments around
the fact that the North's actions threaten the institution of slavery. Charles
B. Dew's recent book, Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners
and the Causes of the Civil War (2001) further supports this argument.
7. On p. 36(S), the text says: "Another theory claims that people
could have reached the Americas from Europe, Africa, or islands in the South
Pacific." This theory is treated on a par with migration from Asia. Ideas of
migration from Europe, Africa, or the South Pacific should be described as
extremely unlikely, based on the evidence.
While they are in a minority, some anthropologists and paleontologists
do support the theory that the first Americans migrated from such places as
Europe, Africa, or the Pacific Islands. See, for example, NOVA's "Mystery of
the First Americans," a broadcast of February 15, 2000.
Of course, the predominant evidence supports the Asian migration theory,
and this is reflected in our treatment. Much of the text treatment on pages
36-37 describes the creation of the land bridge and the subsequent migrations
across the bridge. By contrast, only one sentence is given to alternative
theories of migration from Europe, Asia, and the South Pacific. Furthermore,
the map on page 37 shows only two routes, both originating from the land
bridge, from the easternmost tip of Siberia into Alaska.
8. On p. 44(S), the text speaks of the institution of potlatches as a
way of competing for social standing. This benign wording misleadingly neglects
the central importance that potlatches and similar customs give to envy in the
society in which they exist Widespread envy has serious corrosive effects on
families, friendships, and trust as well as holding hack economic development
For a discussion of potlatches and envy, see Helmut Schoeck, Envy
The discussion of potlatches is presented in a straightforward, factual
way, with no intention to plumb the sociological roots of the custom. While
envy might conceivably be one reason for potlatches, it was not of "central
importance" as the reviewer indicates. None of the well-reputed sources we
consulted (listed below) describe envy as a primary motivation for the
* Peabody Museum at Harvard (http://www.peabody.harvard.edu/potlatch/contpotl.html)
* Canadian Museum of Civilization (http://www.civilization.ca/aborig/tsimsian/weafe01e.html)
* "Alaskan Tlingit and Tsimshian Customs," University of Washington,
9. On p. 45(s), the text says that among Eastern Woodlands Indians,
"women shared social and political power." On p. 48(S), text says "[Iroquois]
women ... had political power." And on pp. 64-65 (S), text presents a feminist
re-telling of the legend of the founding of the Iroquois confederation. This is
misleading. It is true that Iroquois women had a minor political role, hut
Iroquois politics was overwhelmingly male-dominated, to such a degree that the
text's bland wording masks the reality of the situation. Women possessed a
rarely-wielded veto power and a nominating power that customarily was in tune
with male guidance. Actual tribal leadership was always entirely male.... "
The role of Iroquois women in tribal affairs was significant. According
to W.G. Spittal, the editor of Iroquois Women: An Anthology, Iroquois Social
Dance Songs, and Warfare Practices Among North American Indians.
"One of the most striking aspects of traditional culture was the high
status of women. Through the women passed family names, clan, and nationality.
"Women selected and deposed Confederacy Chiefs and Sub-Chiefs. They
could start and stop wars, adopt or condemn prisoners; they were the custodians
of home, garden, and territory. Atonement for causing the death of a woman was
twice that of a man. Men were renowned diplomats and warriors but Iroquois
women were the center of their society."
The following is testimony from the Whipple Report, published in 1889
and considered by Professor Robert Venables of Cornell to be "the most complete
single source of evidence for (Iroquois) views.... "The counsel for the
committee, Judge O.S. Vreeland, interviewed Luther Jack at the Tuscarora
reservation north of Buffalo, New York.
Judge Vreeland:. How did you get to be a chief?
Well, they choose by my clan, by the women of my clan.
Judge Vreeland: The women choose the chiefs?
Luther Jack: Yes,
the women choose the chiefs; the women of my clan.
The story referred to by the reviewer, "The Mother of Nations," is by
Joseph Bruchac, a scholar and author, who is himself a Native American. It is a
respectful recounting that is fully in accord with Iroquois tradition.
10. On p. 57(S), the text says: "After Caesar's murder [in 44 B.C.],
his nephew Octavian, declared himself emperor in 27 B.C. He received the title
"Caesar Augustus." This is in error. De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online
Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors says "In 38 [B.C.] Octavian replaced his
praenomen Gaius with Imperator, the title by which troops hailed
their leader after military success (ultimately, Imperator developed
into the title Emperor). From this tune Octavian's full title was Imperator
Caesar Divi Fillius, including the reference to him as the son of his
deified father ... The official title decreed to Octavian by the Senate [in 27
B.C.] was Augustus, the name by which he is most widely known, ... "
SE page 57, paragraph 5, revise the paragraph to read as follows:
"As Rome expanded, the republic faced a series of crises that led
military leaders to seize power. Among them was Julius Caesar, who named
himself dictator for life. After Caesar's murder, civil war broke out. Caesar's
nephew, Octavian, seized power. In 27 B.C., the Senate granted him sweeping
powers and the title of Augustus."
11. The text speaks of "an enslaved African named Estevanico." [p.
76(S)]. Calling him "African" is misleading. Readers will think Estevanico was
from sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, he was a Moroccan (a North African).... "
SE p. 76; last paragraph
Since Morocco is part of Africa, our wording is accurate. However, to
further ensure student understanding, we will revise the last paragraph to read
"Cabeza de Vaca, an enslaved North African named Estevanico, and two
others finally escaped their captors in 1533. The four walked across the plains
of Texas, searching for a Spanish settlement. Finally, in 1536, they reached a
town in Mexico. They had walked more than 1,000 miles through the Southwest."
12. On p. 152(S), the text quotes Patrick Henry as saying "If this be
treason, make the most of it." There is a dispute among historians about what
precisely was said by Henry on this occasion, since the sources do not agree.
It would have been better for the text to have said "Henry reportedly replied:
or "According to some reports, Henry replied." ...
SE page 152, 4th paragraph from top, revise the paragraph to read as
"A young lawyer, Patrick Henry, became well known as a vocal critic of
British policies. His speeches in the House of Burgesses moved listeners to
both tears and anger. Once, Henry attacked Britain with such fury that some
listeners cried out, "Treason!" Henry reportedly replied, "If this be treason,
make the most of it!" Henry's words moved a young listener, Thomas Jefferson.
At the time, Jefferson was a 22-year-old law student."
13. On p. 182(T), the teachers' wraparound materials speak of Nathan
Hale's "famous last words" as I "only regret that I have but one life to live
for my country." (Yet the student edition text on the same page more carefully
says that Hale is "said to have declared" these words.) These words were not
attributed to Hale until decades after his execution and are in all likelihood
a rewriting of what he actually said. British officer Captain Frederick
Mackenzie reported in his diaries that Hale's final words were actually: "It is
the duty of every good officer to obey any orders given him by his commander in
chief. An account published six years after Hale's execution has him saying: "I
am so satisfied with the cause in which I have engaged, that my only regret is
that I have not more lives than one to offer in its service." ...
TE page 152, replace existing Background: Connecting With
Cultures with the following: "Dying for His Country Nathan Hale was
21 years old when the British discovered his schoolteacher disguise and hanged
him as a spy. The famous last words that Hale is supposed to have uttered were
not reported until many years after his death. In fact, a British officer,
Frederick Mackenzie, recorded them differently. He wrote in his diaries that
Hale's final words were: "It is the duty of every good officer to obey any
orders given him by his commander in chief."
14. On p. 217(S), the text reads: "Several states had agreed to
ratify the Constitution only on the condition that a bill of rights be added."
This is misleading. It sounds as if several states had said that their
ratification would only go into effect when a bill of rights was added. In fact
these states ratified unconditionally, but recommended that a bill of rights be
Revise SE page 217, last paragraph, last sentence, as follows:
"As you have read, several states had ratified the Constitution while
recommending that a bill of rights be added."
15. p. 288 The text on p. 288(S) quotes Thomas Jefferson as believing
that farmers were the backbone of the new nation and the "most valuable
citizens." The teacher's Background material [p. 288(T)] says that TJ sought to
protect the agrarian Southern economy. A chart in the text [p. 289(S)] says
that Republicans "emphasized agriculture." This was TJ's view in the 1780s. But
following the War of 1812, TJ clearly recognized that agriculture in the United
States should be complemented by commerce and manufacturing to the extent that
it was appropriate under free-market conditions.
All of the citations given by the reviewer are in Chapter 9, Section 3,
"Political Parties Emerge." The dates of the chapter are 1789-1800. As the
reviewer acknowledges, our statements accurately reflect Jefferson's views at
this period in history. The fact that Jefferson later moderated his views (long
after leaving public office) does not invalidate the facts as presented. To
jump ahead chronologically would serve only to confuse students' understanding
of the differences between the Federalist and Democratic Republican parties at
the time they were formed.
16. On pp. 26-27(8), the text discusses the economic institutions of
societies. The discussion is all in terms of the government deciding what
institutions will be permitted instead of free people establishing institutions
and engaging in commerce. There is no sense of what Nobel Laureate economist
Friedrich Hayek called the "spontaneous order" of markets and prices. The
text's premises are collectivist, and the assumption is that a central planner
is designing the economy.
When the text says each "society" must make economic decisions, it is
talking not necessarily about government decisions. In free market societies
which place a high value on individualism, groups of people constantly make
economic decisions about how resources are handled. In socialist or communist
states, of course, the government makes these decisions. But in free market
societies, collective economic decisions are made by individuals, by
partnerships of two or three or a half dozen, by small businesses, by larger
businesses, or by huge corporations. Thus the assumptions in the text on these
pages are not collectivist, in the sense suggested by the comments, merely
descriptive of economic activities in the aggregate.
To make this clearer to students, we will make the following revisions:
Revise page26, under "Three Economic Questions," first paragraph, as
"The study of how people manage their limited resources to satisfy their
wants and needs is called economics. The people of every society must answer
three basic economic questions: ... "
Revise pages 26-27, under "What Goods and Services Should We
Produce?":as follows: "The people in every society have to find ways to fulfill
their basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing. After that, society must
make choices about how to use the rest of its limited resources. Should it
focus on producing consumer goods, such as cars and washing machines? Should it
use its resources for education? Should it concentrate on heavy industry such
as construction or trucking?
Decisions about what to produce vary according to the time and culture.
People in developing nations are less concerned about producing private
automobiles. They are more concerned ... "
17. On page 554(S), the text says that speculative investment was the
cause of the Great Depression. This is a highly contested issue. (See the works
of John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, and Murray N. Rothbard.) The text does
not reflect the debate.
The reviewer is correct in saying that the text does not present the
debate over the causes of the Depression. However, the text describes the
speculative fever, and it notes the economic slide that slowed the economy.
Standard accounts routinely describe the Crash because it had a galvanizing
effect on the mood of large and small investors in the United States.
Please note that this presentation comes in the Epilogue, which
summarizes United States history from 1865 to the present. Because the Grade 8
curriculum focuses on American history prior to 1877, it seems appropriate to
hold off discussion until high school of the various theories about the causes
of the Great Depression.
18. The text says on p. 554(S), "[President Herbert Hoover] did not
believe that the government should become directly involved in the economy."
This incorrectly characterizes the views of Hoover, who in fact favored a
strenuous federal anti-depression program (including public works, which the
text acknowledges; farm subsidies; and the Reconstruction Finance Corp.) Walter
Lippmann, for example, acknowledges that Hoover made the changeover in
principle on national anti-depression action. The only things Hoover held back
from were direct federal relief to the poor and explicitly compulsory
industrial cartels, e.g. the National Recovery Administration. [See Walter
Lippmann, "The Permanent New Deal," Yale Review, June 1935; Joan
Hoff-Wilson, Herbert Hoover; Forgotten Progressive.]
p. 554, Revise paragraph 5 as follows:
"President Herbert Hoover tried to restore confidence in the economy.
Unlike most earlier Presidents, he believed that the government could take
steps to help recharge the economy. Hoover fought the Great Depression with
public works programs and a tax cut. But his programs did not cure the enormous
economic ills. In the end, people blamed him for the hard times."
19. p. 293 On p. 293(S), the test says that the Virginia and Kentucky
Resolutions were passed "with help from Jefferson and Madison." Jefferson and
Madison didn't just help with the passage of these resolutions in the state
legislatures, they actually wrote the resolutions and the wording should
indicate this. This passage on p. 293(S) also relates to the topics in TEKS
Although there is technically no factual error, the reviewer is correct.
Since both resolutions were not written by both men, we will revise the
paragraph as follows:
"In 1798, Kentucky passed a resolution, written by Jefferson. It claimed
that each state "has an equal right to judge for itself whether a law is
constitutional. The following year, Virginia passed a similar resolution,
written by James Madison. If a state decides a law is unconstitutional, said
the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, it has the power to nullify that
law within its borders."
World History: Connections to Today
1. Zen is presented as the dominant sect in Japan. Zen has always
been very much a minority sect in Japanese Buddhism.
SE p. 322, Revise paragraph 5 as follows:
"During Japan's feudal age, a Buddhist sect from China won acceptance
among samurai, a small, elite group in Japanese society. Known in Japan as Zen,
it emphasized meditation and devotion to duty."
2. p. 630 – "In OPEC, oil-producing countries of the Middle East
and other world regions try to maximize their profits through cooperation. They
influence oil prices by controlling how much oil is produced." Cooperation? If
these were American companies there would be charges of conspiracy, cartels and
price-fixing. Some discussion as to whether this "cooperation" is ethical is
This appears to be a question of word choice rather than fact. In the
passage cited, we do not make any ethical claims that OPEC practices are good
or bad, moral or immoral. We simply state the fact that OPEC nations cooperate
to control production.
The statements cited appear in a brief "Connections to Today" sidebar.
There is more detailed discussion of OPEC and its worldwide impact later in the
book. See SE pp. 813 (negative impact of the oil embargo), SE page 890 (OPEC v.
non-OPEC nations), and TE page 549 (discord within OPEC, which is indeed
identified as a cartel).
3. p. 631 — "Exploiting Indian Diversity" also could be titled
"Indians can't unite." Lack of unity is usually blamed on geography and
political differences (e.g. the Greeks). Here though, we see that "India was
home to many peoples and cultures." This diversity is a good thing of which the
ruthless British took advantage. While the British may have been ruthless, it
should be pointed out that this "diversity" has its disadvantages.
The reviewer is correct in saying that "diversity has its
disadvantages." We point this out. On p. 270, we have a "Comparing Viewpoints"
feature titled "Does Diversity Strengthen or Weaken a Society?" This feature
appears within the context of a text discussion of the introduction of Islam to
India. We make it clear that ethnic and religious clashes were a part of Indian
life hundreds of years before the arrival of the British.
On 631, the page cited by the reviewer, we state that "As Mughal power
crumbled, India fragmented" and that "Indians with different traditions and
dozens of different languages were not able to unite against the newcomers." We
make it clear that the British did not introduce ethnic clashes and rivalries
to India, but were able to exploit clashes and rivalries that already existed.
4. p. 632 – "The British flooded India with inexpensive,
machine-made textiles, ruining India's once-prosperous hand-weaving industry."
Yes, the same way Ford's production of cheap cars "ruined" the buggy-whip
industry. You do not have a "right" to a profession, or particularly, to a
method of production. The Indians had the same choice that all human do
in economic situations: "Adapt or die." They could learn to work on the
machines, they could create a niche market for those who value hand-made goods,
In his New History of India, historian Stanley Wolpert states
that British imports "had all but destroyed the rich varieties of Indian
handicrafts and cottage industry." What seems to be at issue here is not a
question of fact but interpretation. The text does not attempt to judge the
rights or wrongs of industrialization. We are merely describing positive and
negative impacts of British rule on Indians.
In fact, the native textile industry in India did not have complete
autonomy to "adapt or die." To give advantage to British industry, the British
government removed duties on cloth imported to India, while at the same time
imposing an excise tax upon cloth manufactured in India by Indian mills.
(Wolpert; Encyclopedia Britannica).
On p. 633 of the textbook, under the subhead "Benefits of British Rule,"
we do state that "Indian landowners and princes, who still ruled their own
territories, grew rich from exporting cash crops." This makes it clear that
some Indians were indeed able to adapt to the new economic conditions and
prospered as a result.
5. p. 665 – " ... modern medicine undermined traditional
herbalists and local healers, who sometimes possessed useful knowledge of the
medicinal value of plants." Medicine cannot "undermine" other medicine. If I
have a "cure" for cancer that involves waving chicken feathers over your
stomach, and you in turn have a pill that makes it disappear, you have not
undermined my "cure." Medicine, perhaps more than any other industry, is about
what works. Indians were still free to practice, but were "undermined" because
Western medicine produced greater results. Again, there is no "right" to
practice a method of weaving or of medicine, expecting advancements in the rest
of the world to avoid yon, so that you don't have to compete. Further, the best
claim that is offered of this "undermining'' is that traditional herbalists and
local healers "sometimes" possessed useful knowledge. While this is true, and
those accomplishments should be listed, what about the massive increase in
quality of life that western medicine brought to India?
SE p. 665 Revise paragraph 5 as follows
"Western medicine brought many benefits. Missionaries introduced medical
breakthroughs such as vaccines and modern methods of hygiene that saved lives.
At the same time, the success of modern medicine drew people away from
traditional herbalists and local healers, who sometimes possessed "useful
knowledge of the medicinal value of plants."
6. p. 512 – The reader is left to believe that Robert Owens was
a success, since it is not mentioned that his experiment foiled after only
three years. Yet industrialists who succeeded and treated people well receive
no mention. Ford who paid $5.00 per day, about twice the going rate, hired the
handicapped and all we get is a picture of an assembly line. Why are his
efforts not worthy of mention? Who lifted more out of poverty, Owen or Ford?
Owen "showed that an employer could offer a decent living and working
conditions and still run a profitable business," except for that it failed! How
is that profitable? Further, there is a false dichotomy at work here, that you
can either treat workers well or be profitable. Owen bought into this fallacy
and therefore, was destined to fail. Ford didn't buy into it He knew that it is
not "either-or," but "both-and." In fact, he said that the "five dollar work
day was the best cost-cutting move we ever made."
SE page 512 Revise paragraph 4 as follows:
"He wanted to show that an employer could offer decent living and
working conditions and still earn a profit. By the 1820s, many people were
visiting New Lanark to study Owen's reforms. Like other Utopian experiments, in
the end, it failed."
The discussion of Owen is in the context of the origins of socialism, as
specified by the TEKS ("historic origins of contemporary economic systems.")
Owen's ideas, and the general feeling that reform was needed, did have a
long-term effect both on the historical development of socialism and on later
19th century reform movements.
A comparison between Owen and Ford would not fit into the historical
context of Chapter 20. (Ford is not introduced until two chapters later.) When
we do discuss Ford, the impact of the assembly line and the transportation
revolution is presented in a positive way.
7. p. 549 – It is implied that great power comes only through
inheritance, which is apparently unfair. To give example of a big business, the
Krupp family of Germany is noted for passing down business advantages through
three generations (no mention is made of how the first Krupp succeeded in his
steel-making business). No mention is made of entrepreneurs who started with
little to nothing, and then built great empires. Examples could be Canadian
James Hill, Scottish immigrant Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, etc.
The text does not state or imply that inheritance is wrong or that it
was the only path with success. Alfred inherited the steel-making business and
then expanded it. We do not say or imply that there was anything wrong in this.
The text does mention John D. Rockefeller in this paragraph. Although
there is no factual error, we will add to our description of Rockefeller for
clarity, as follows:
SE p. 549 Revise Paragraph 4; p. 550 Revise Paragraph 1 as follows:
"Move Toward Monopolies Powerful business leaders created
monopolies and trusts, corporate structures that controlled entire industries
or areas of the economy. In Germany, Alfred Krupp inherited a steelmaking
business from his father. He bought up coal and iron mines as well as
ore-shipping lines that fed the steel business. Later, he and his sons acquired
plants that made tools, railroad cars, and weapons. In the United States, John
D. Rockefeller began selling produce and created a business empire. He bought
an oil refinery and built it into the Standard Oil Company. His ownership of
oil wells, refineries, and pipelines gave him a dominant position in the
American petroleum industry.
Some ruthless business leaders destroyed competing companies. With the
competition gone, there were fewer limits on price increases. Sometimes, a
group of large corporations would form a cartel, an association to fix prices,
set production quotas, or control markets. One cartel fixed prices for 170
German coal mines. An international cartel of British, German, French,
Japanese, and Dutch shippers came close to setting freight rates on the world's
8. p. 550 – "Acquired" is often used instead of the word
"bought." "Acquired" leaves room for doubt as to whether shady methods were
employed. If shady methods were used, says so. If not, use "bought." Similarly,
Rockefeller "gained control." How? That's left to the reader's imagination, but
if it needs help, there is always the picture of the greedy octopus next to the
paragraph. There is no mention made of the tremendous improvements and
innovations that Rockefeller made, which his competitors often refused to
This seems to be a matter of wording. In the sentence prior to the one
cited, we say, "He bought up coal and iron mines as well as ore-shipping lines
that fed the steel business. Later, he and his son acquired plants that made
tools, railroad cars, and weapons." Rather than intending a negative
implication, this wording was an editorial choice to find a synonym to the word
"bought" rather than to repeat it. (Large companies themselves use the term
"mergers and acquisitions" to describe how they expand.)
Starting on page 544, the text shows the many benefits of the growth of
industry. Under the head, New Directions for Business, the first sentence lets
students know that these benefits "required the investment of large amounts of
money." In our discussion of the rise of big business, the text mirrors the
historic debate that went on at the time. The cartoon of the octopus cited by
the reviewer is clearly presented as representing one viewpoint. It is labeled
"One View of Big Business" and the question at the end of the caption makes it
clear that there is a viewpoint behind the cartoon: "Do you think this
cartoonist favored or opposed government regulation of business?"
The text presents both views of big business on page 550. For example,
the text states one argument presented in favor of big business: "capitalists
invested their wealth in worldwide ventures, such as railroad building, that
employed thousands of workers and added to general prosperity." On page 550, we
ask students to draw a cartoon in which the take a stand "for or against"
regulation. On page 566, we ask, "What arguments were made for and against the
of big business?" If students do not understand both, they cannot
understand the debate or the reasons why governments at that time took steps to
regulate business. In later chapters, we discuss the how the new industrial
society led to the rise of the middle class.
9. p. 550 – "Ruthless business owners destroyed competing
companies." Realty? Did they blow them up? If offering lower prices to the
consumer "destroys" another company, the fault lies with the company charging
higher prices. As for predatory pricing, or selling below cost, there are ways
to compete with companies who do so (see Burton Fulsom, Jr.'s The Myth of
the Robber Barons). As for cartels, they are beatable as well (sell
Fulsom's account of Herbert Dow defeating German cartel).
Again, this is a matter of wording and interpretation. The meaning of
the word "destroy" includes "to ruin," "to defeat", or "to put an end to" and
was used accordingly. (See note above regarding presentation of both views of
10. p. 550 – "Any effort to destroy competition, critics argued,
damaged the free-enterprise system." Again, the word "destroy" is used. Were
entrepreneurs dynamiting the competition's factories? If a business can't
compete, their destruction is usually self-caused. Isn't part of the
free-enterprise system failure? Isn't that a possible consequence of going into
business? How is it damaging to the market if an industry leader is more
efficient than his competitors? If competition dries up and he raises prices,
doesn't that encourage others to come in and undercut his price?
This section points out arguments for and against the methods used by
industrial capitalists. The meaning of the word "destroy" includes "to ruin,"
"to defeat", or "to put an end to" and was used accordingly. The whole debate
is one that we would expect the teacher to take up in more detail.
11. p. 710 – Deaths attributed to Stalin "Collectivization took
a horrendous toll ... Between five and eight million people died in the Ukraine
alone." And "Secret police files reveal that at least four million people were
purged during the Stalin years. Some historians estimate the toll to be much
greater." Students are left to think he killed around 9-12 million. While p.
708 does list in a sidebar, "Many historians think this one man was
responsible for the deaths of some 20 million people," deaths of this magnitude
deserve to be treated fully in the main text. We would never relegate Hitler's
six million deaths to a sidebar. Many historians estimate Stalin's death
between 20 and 25 million.
The text presents Stalin as a ruthless dictator whose policies resulted
in millions of deaths. We say that 5-8 million died "in Ukraine alone" plus 4
million in the purge; in the sidebar, we give the estimated total as 20
million. (We do not consider the sidebar to be separate from the text. Note
that the reviewer's comments regarding OPEC, above, also referred to a
The reviewer states that "we would never relegate Hitler's six million
deaths to a sidebar." This is true. However, the treatment of Hitler and Stalin
in the text is equivalent. The "six million deaths" were one fraction of the
total number who died in Hitler's concentration camps and his wars. Similarly,
the 5-8 million who died in the Ukraine during collectivization and the 4
million people who died in Stalin's purges were one fraction of the total
number who died under Stalin. Neither the 6 million, the 5-8 million, nor the 4
million are covered in sidebars.
America: Pathways to the Present
1. p. 269 T,S Describing the Texas cattle boom the book explains:
"During the Civil War, many Texans left their ranches to serve in the
Confederate army. They returned to find up to 5 million cattle roaming wild....
" Most Texans were subsistence farmers prior to 1861, not cattlemen.
Cotton was always a more powerful element of the state's agricultural economy
than beef. The cattle roaming the landscape were something on the order of
pests, and they were plentiful. But they had not miraculously appeared
1861-1865. The Spanish introduced livestock to Texas in a deliberate fashion as
early as 1690, and these wild herds had been part of life in Texas ever
SE p. 269, under the heading "Demand Spurs Growth," revise the first
paragraph as follows: "Several changes launched the West's legendary cattle
industry. Since Spanish colonial times, vast numbers of cattle had roamed wild
on the Texas grasslands. After the Civil War, Texans founded ranches and
rounded up these herds, which provided ample supplies of beef."
2. p. 270 T,S "Cow Towns" claims Texas cattle were first driven
"all the way to their markets," then Abilene offered an alternative. Texas
cattle were not driven to Chicago prior to 1867, they were instead driven to
the nearest railhead — Sedalia, Missouri. The only drives direct to
"market" were early ones to New Orleans prior in the Spanish period up to the
SE, p. 270, under the heading "Cow Towns," revise the first two
sentences as follows: "At first, Texas herds were driven north across the open
range all the way to the nearest railroad. In 1867, J.G. McCoy established the
town of Abilene, Kansas, on the Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad — the
first town built specifically for receiving cattle."
3. p. 274 T,S Book argues that the "Great Plains remained a
region of small family farms well into the 1900s." This is true, but it covers
up the rising trend toward farm tenancy in the Plains, which was reaching into
the 30-40% range by the 1890s and contributed to agrarian radicalism. The
bonanza farms may have tailed, but consolidation of small parcels into larger
ones continued nonetheless.
SE p. 274, revise the first paragraph after the heading "Farmers Prevail
on the Plains" as follows: "Large-scale farms absorbed smaller farms in some
places, and many employed landless tenant farmers. Still, the Great Plains
remained primarily a region of small family farms well into the 1900s. Despite
continual setbacks, the farmer's way of life prevailed in the West, as mines
closed down and the song of the cowboy slowly faded. Farmers triumphed in a
showdown with ranchers that shaped the economy of the West. (See Geography and
History: Settling the Great Plains, on pages 286-287.)"
4. p. 278 T,S In section on "Farmers and Tariffs" the book makes
two serious errors. First, "tariffs helped fanners by protecting them" from
competition. This is simply false. Most farm products had no tariff protection,
the major exception being sugar. Second, the book claims that tariffs "kept
foreigners from earning the US currency they needed to buy American crops."
This is absurd. In feet, it is difficult to understand as well. The tariff's
greatest flaw in foreign trade was that it invited retaliation from US
trading partners, most notably Britain and Europe. Since the US produced little
in the way of manufactures for export, agricultural products represented the
chief source of a favorable balance of trade. America's trading partners
responded to US tariffs on manufactured goods with tariffs on American
agricultural products. They then turned to other sources — Canada,
Argentina, for example — for foodstuffs.
SE p. 278, revise the third paragraph under the heading "Fanners and
Tariffs" as follows: "However, tariffs hurt most farmers in two ways. First,
they raised the prices of manufactured goods, such as farm machinery. Second,
U.S. tariffs on manufactured goods spurred manufacturing nations in Europe to
retaliate with their own tariffs against American crops. Thus, tariffs
indirectly reduced the world market for American farm products."
5. p. 279 T,S Book repeats Cleveland administration dogma that
the government's silver purchase program drained the gold vaults as truth. The
1893 panic brought about the near bankruptcy of the government, not because of
Bland-Allison, but rather because of gold withdrawals by frightened foreign
investors, Cleveland used the panic to do away with a program he had never
SE p. 279, revise the third paragraph under the heading "Silverites" as
follows: "In 1890, Congress passed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act. While not
authorizing the free and unlimited coinage of silver that silverites wanted, it
increased the amount of silver the government was required to purchase every
month. During the early 1890s, the government's gold reserves dwindled, and the
government nearly went bankrupt in the financial panic of 1893 when frightened
foreign investors withdrew gold from the country. President Grover Cleveland
blamed the Silver Purchase Act for the loss of gold and the panic, and he
oversaw the repeal of the act in 1893."
6. p. 281 T,S The book depicts the Populists as drawing away
"some black sharecroppers and tenant farmers" from the GOP. This is an
incorrect depiction of the interplay between the Populists and Republicans in
the South. More often than not, the two parties ran "fusion" tickets whereby
they named the same nominees and pooled their strength. This is true in the
Midwest as well, where the Democrats and Populists often cooperated rather than
competed — i.e., the election of William Jennings Bryan to Congress and
later his elevation to the Senate.
SE p. 281, revise the 6th (last) sentence of the second full
paragraph (not counting the numbered list) under the heading "The Populists" as
"In the South, the party often endorsed a common list of candidates with
the Republican Party to pool the support of poor black fanners."
7. p. 282 T,S Several errors exist in the book's depiction of the
election year 1896. First, it is described without the context of the ongoing
economic depression. The 1894 bailout of the federal treasury by J.P, Morgan
solidified the image of a gold conspiracy in many minds. The Populists hoped to
capitalize upon this in 1896 by being the only party to come out in favor of
inflation of the currency. They expected the sitting president, Grover
Cleveland, to win the Democratic nomination on a gold platform; likewise, they
expected the GOP to nominate a thoroughgoing gold standard candidate as well,
which they got with William McKinley. The book is wrong to portray McKinley as
a "moderate." He was for the gold standard and had authored me outrageously
high McKinley Tariff in 1890. With the two major parties selecting goldbugs,
the Populists hoped to offer the only alternative and carry the election. This
hope was dashed with the Democrats' nomination of Bryan. The "Cross of Gold
Speech" was certainly celebrated in its time, but it was hardly sufficient to
sweep the Populists off their feet for Bryan. When the Democrats adopted a
silver plank in their platform, this undercut the Populists, who decided to
nominate Bryan as well to avoid diluting the strength of the pro-inflation
forces. This represented a serious shift in emphasis from the broad reform
agenda the Populists had put forward in 1890 and 1892.
SE p. 282, revise the first paragraph (under the heading "Bryan's Cross
of Gold") as follows: "An ongoing economic depression colored the 1896
presidential campaign. In an election focused mainly on currency issues, the
Republicans ran Ohio governor William McKinley on a gold-standard platform.
William Jennings Bryan, a former silverite congressman from Nebraska and a
powerful speaker, captured the Democratic nomination with an emotional plea for
8. p. 230-231 T,S From time to time the book attempts to
interject modern historical perspectives into its discussion of the past. This
is a good idea, and certainly innovative for a textbook. However, there are a
number of times in which the book makes errors in trying to do so. "Historians
disagree" about the propriety of government funding for the railroads.
Historians might make judgments about the effectiveness of railroad expansion
or even some of the mistakes made by government and industry, but most
historians do not dispute the notion that some government intervention was
necessary to supplement private investment. The book asserts that the Great
Northern was not built with federal aid, and therefore was more profitable and
efficient. This is not likely. Even if the Great Northern lacked federal aid,
it doubtless had state and local aid. The Great Northern became a powerful
monopoly in the Pacific Northwest, which really accounts more for its ability
to have higher profits than any efficiencies occasioned by a lack of federal
SE p. 230, revise the third paragraph under heading "The
Transcontinental Railroad" (which continues onto p. 231) as follows:
"Scholars disagree as to whether it was a good idea for the government
to provide funds for this project. Many believe that the government gave a much
needed boost to the railroad industry when the private sector was hesitant to
invest. However, others argue that the government should not have gotten
involved. One reason is that railroads built with federal aid did not operate
as efficiently and profitably as some built with little government assistance.
For example, James J. Hill's Great Northern Railroad in the 1880s and 1890s had
both lower rates and higher profits than railroads built with federal aid."
9. p. 239 T,S Describing the theory of evolution, the book says
natural selection was "a process by which only the fittest survived to
reproduce." Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest" This is a
phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, who is responsible for social Darwinism, not
Darwin. Darwin was dead by the time Spencer's misuse of his theories had become
a powerful social philosophy. The book needs to make a point of emphasizing
this distinction and crediting Spencer and American William Graham Sumner with
promoting social Darwinism.
SE p. 239, replace the second and third paragraphs under the heading
"Social Darwinism" with the following:
"After Darwin's death, Herbert Spencer in England and William Graham
Sumner in the United States promoted a philosophy called social
Darwinism that extended Darwin's concept to human society. Social
Darwinists argued that society should interfere with competition as little as
possible, and they opposed government intervention to protect workers. They
believed that if the government would stay out of the affairs of business,
those who were most "fit" would succeed and become rich. Social Darwinists
believed that society as a whole would benefit from the success of the fit and
the weeding out of the unfit. Because many Americans agreed that the government
should not interfere with business, the government did not tax businesses'
10. p. 248-249 T,S The Knights of Labor deserves to be credited
as the first "industrial union" as opposed to the American Railroad Union (p.
251). "By the 1890s, the Knights had largely disappeared," the book explains.
This is true. The why is more important and needs to be mentioned. The Knights
were mistakenly implicated by the press and public in the Haymarket Affair (p.
250-251). This led to their decline. This link is not made clear either here or
in coverage of Haymarket, Therefore, Haymarket is simply presented as an
example of labor violence, but has no significance in and of itself by the
SE p. 252, revise the first full paragraph as follows:
"The press and the public blamed the Knights of Labor for the
Haymarket Riot, although the union's involvement was never proved.
Public disapproval contributed to the decline of the Knights of Labor after
1886. Much of the American public came to associate unions in general with
violence and radical ideas."
Note: The Knights of Labor is not credited as the first
industrial union because the term "industrial union" is defined in this text as
a union that organizes all workers within a single industry, whereas the
Knights of Labor organized workers across industries and even outside the
11. p. 259 T,S Discussing the West in section called "Pull
Factor: Government Incentives," the book lists a battery of reforms —
i.e., the Morrill Land Grant Act — which "opened the way to western
migration." But, the book errs in claiming these reforms were passed "after the
war." All were passed during the war in the absence of Southern
Democrats who had previously been able to block their passage.
SE p. 259, revise the first paragraph after the heading "Pull Factor:
Government Incentives" as follows:
"Before the Civil War, disagreements between the North and South over
the extension of slavery in the West delayed settlement in the region. During
the war, with that issue eliminated, however, the federal government promoted
western migration by giving away public lands — or selling them at
12. p. 260 T,S German immigration to Texas and Missouri
originated prior to "the last half of the 1800s." More specifically, the bulk
of German settlement in these areas ended by the Civil War.
SE p. 260, revise the second paragraph under the B-head "Settlers From
Far and Wide" as follows:
"European immigrants arrived in the middle 1800s, many seeking land to
farm. Some German settlers established farms in the Great Plains. Others
settled in Midwestern cities. They brought the Lutheran religion, with its
strict ethics, and a commitment to hard work and education. Scandinavian
Lutherans settled the northern plains from Iowa to Minnesota to the Dakotas,
many pursuing dairy farming."
13. p. 292 T,S Listing the political parties of the Gilded Age
and their supporters, the book makes two oversights. First, blacks in the South
were reliable Republican voters but are not mentioned. Second, the two parties
— especially the GOP — were rent by factional disputes that influence
SE p. 292, revise the first two paragraphs under the heading "Opposing
Political Parties" as follows:
"During the Gilded Age, the Democratic and Republican parties had
roughly the same number of supporters. They differed greatly, however, in who
those supporters were and in their positions on major issues.
Republicans appealed to industrialists, bankers, and eastern farmers.
The party was strongest in the North and the upper Midwest and was weak to
nonexistent in the South, although it did receive support from southern blacks.
In general, Republicans favored a tight money supply backed by gold, high
tariffs to protect American business, generous pensions for Union soldiers,
government aid to the railroads, strict limits on immigration, and enforcement
of blue laws, regulations that prohibited certain private activities
that some people considered immoral."
Note: factional disputes in the Republican Party and their
influence on politics are covered on pages 293 and 294.
14. p. 292 T,S The Republicans are depicted as gaining support
for "waving the bloody shirt." This was also a tried and true tactic of
Democrats in the South, usually combined with race baiting.
SE page 292, paragraph 6, lines 3-4. Change the last sentence in
paragraph 6 to read: "Southern Democrats had their own "bloody shirt," in this
case a reference to the abuses of Radical Reconstruction."
15. p. 294 T,S Book does not properly record the naming of the
Mugwumps. The term is one of derision because a Mugwump had his "mug on one
side of the fence and Ms wump" on the other. In a time period of strong party
identification and male-only politics, such an uncertainty was considered
unmasculine. The definition "Great Chief" is one adopted by the Mugwumps for
themselves as a flattering term. Whether or not it was really Algonquin is less
Publisher's Response: SE page 294, paragraph 3. Change to:
"Cleveland became the first Democratic president since 1856. He owed at
least some of his success to Republican independents who decided that Blaine
was too corrupt to support. These independents were called "mugwumps," an
Algonquin word for "renegade chief." The term stuck when a newspaper editor
joked that it really meant "unreliable Republicans," men whose "mugs" were on
one side of the fence and "wumps" on the other."
16. p. 295 T,S The spending of the Harrison years is not to blame
for the panic of 1893. Signs of a worldwide economic slowdown appeared in
Europe even before they did in the US.
SE page 295, paragraph 8, lines 2-3. Change second sentence in paragraph
"A worldwide economic slowdown contributed in part to a financial panic
that hit the country in 1893."
17. p. 295 T "Connecting With Government" has Chester Arthur
ending the spoils system. The Pendleton Act did not "end" patronage, it merely
curtailed it slightly.
Publisher's Response: TE page 295, Activity, paragraph 2, line 6.
Change "Arthur ends the spoils system." To "Arthur limits the spoils
18. p. 332-336 T,S The book's coverage of segregation is
generally well done. With respect to voting restrictions there are several
omissions that detract from the overall picture. The effort to restrict voting
by African Americans is taken entirely out of context. First, disfranchisement
needs to be understood as a reaction to Populism, but from this it is
disconnected. Second, disfranchisement was aimed at destroying any possible
coalition of poor whites and blacks, so the book needs to point out that such
restrictions were as much aimed at poorer whites as blacks. The chart provided
contains an error: Mississippi was the originator of disfranchisement beginning
in 1890, and utilized all of the impediments listed. The coverage also
suffers from a critical oversight — it does not discuss the "white
primary" system, which established a one-party Democratic South, all but
destroyed the GOP in the region, and insured that African Americans could not
vote in the one election that mattered.
SE page 333, regarding the chart: the original sources of this chart,
The American Record: Images of the Nation's Past, (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1982, p. 163) and J. Morgan Kousser's The Shaping of Southern
Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South,
1880-1910 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974) does not indicate that
Mississippi used the grandfather clause or the property qualification.
Mississippi did use the "understanding clause," which required voters to
demonstrate an understanding of any section of the constitution by explaining
what the section means, and the secret ballot. The Constitution of Mississippi
indicates that a poll tax and a literacy test were once required, but specifies
no other measures. Other tactics may have been used locally; but the chart
includes only major, state-wide initiatives.
SE page 333, paragraph 2. Change paragraph 2 to read:
"In many southern communities, whites were concerned that African
Americans would gain too much political power if they were allowed to vote.
Also, they feared that black voters would unite with poor white farmers and
elect Populist candidates. As a result, during the 1890s southern states began
using several tactics to deny the vote to blacks. Some states required voters
to own property or pay a poll tax, a special fee that must be paid
before a person was permitted to vote. Most African Americans found both
requirements difficult to meet. Voters also had to pass literacy tests that
showed that they could read, write, and meet minimum standards of knowledge.
But, like the property requirement and poll tax, literacy tests were really
designed to keep African Americans from voting."
Also, SE page 333, paragraph 3, delete the first sentence and replace it
with the following: "Both poll taxes and literacy tests could keep poor whites
from voting as well. In some states, southern Democrats wanted to keep these
voters from supporting Populist candidates. Other states sought to protect
white voting rights by passing special laws with grandfather
To fit these changes, delete the following:
SE page 333, 3rd paragraph, third sentence, delete "and thus
were required to take the literacy tests."
SE page 333, 4th paragraph, delete "and baggy clothes grinned
broadly as he" from the 6th sentence.
Also, add the following Background note to TE page 334, shifting the
current Background note to page 335:
As another way to block African
Americans from political power, some southern states passed laws that excluded
blacks from voting in Democratic primaries. The Democratic Party dominated most
southern states from Reconstruction through the mid-twentieth century. Barring
African Americans from Democratic primaries effectively kept them from
exercising their right to vote in a meaningful way. The so-called white primary
was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court decision Smith v.
Allwright in 1944."
19. p. 239 T,S "Most Americans agreed that the government should
not interfere with private business," the book avers. How are we to know this
of public opinion in the Gilded Age, when mass movements proliferated that
proposed — with varying levels of intensity — just that?
SE p. 239, paragraph 4, change to:
"Americans were divided on the issue of government interference in
private business. The government, however, neither taxed businesses' profits
nor regulated their relations with workers."
20. p. 252 T,S Textbooks are determined to have unalloyed heroes.
This one is no exception, though it is more judicious than some in applying
whitewash. Carnegie's role in the events at Homestead in 1892 is still very
much in dispute. Flick did not act purely on his own initiative, and Carnegie
decided to be out of the country and left Frick in charge when he knew
the contract was coming up. Instead, Carnegie is the Teflon tycoon.
SE page 252, paragraph 3. Change to read:
"In the summer of 1892, while Andrew Carnegie was in Europe, his partner
Henry Frick tried to cut workers' wages at Carnegie Steel. Carnegie knew about
the contract negotiation and had left Frick to handle it. The union at the
Carnegie plant in Homestead, Pennsylvania, called a strike."
And paragraph 5, change the last two sentences to:
"Carnegie claimed that he believed in unions. However, Carnegie Steel
(and its successor, U.S. Steel) remained nonunionized until the late
To fit the first change, delete the phrase "admitted defeat and" from
the first sentence in paragraph 5.
21. p. 321 T,S Book says that more than a "million" students were
in American high schools by 1910. The figure might be misleading without
offering a percentage representation of American children who attended high
SE p. 321, paragraph 3, change last sentence to:
"By 1910, nearly 72 percent of American children attended school. The
percentage of 17-year-olds graduating from high school rose to 8.6 percent."
To fit this change, change the third sentence in paragraph 2 on SE page
"As industries grew after the Civil War, parents realized that their
children needed more skills to advance in life."
22. p. 354 T,S Second full paragraph has Secretary of State
Seward "sen[ding] 50,000 troops to the Mexican border" in reaction to French
intervention in that nation. Secretary Seward did not have the power to
dispatch troops. It was likely Secretary of War Stanton acting on orders of
President Johnson that dispatched the soldiers.
SE page 354, paragraph 3, change 2nd sentence to read:
"Secretary of State William H. Seward advised the president to send
50,000 troops to the Mexican border after France placed an emperor on the
Mexican throne. Faced with this army, the French abandoned their colonial
venture in Mexico."
23. p. 354 T,S Book says Matthew Perry "convinced Japan to open
trade relations with the United States." This is a bit too pretty. Perry sailed
in with a fleet of armed ships, threatened the Japanese, and then they
consented to trade with the US.
Change SE page 354, paragraph 4, 2nd sentence to:
"In 1853, an American fleet led by Commodore Matthew C. Perry sailed
into Tokyo Bay, forcing Japan to start trading with the United States."
24. p. 358 T,S Recapping American success in the Venezuela
crisis, the book asserts that the US had "forced the world's most powerful
nation [ the UK] to bow to its will." This is a crass exaggeration. The British
relented in South America in part because of a desire for good relations with
the US, but also because they had become embroiled in the Boer War and could
not stretch their resources sufficiently to deal with the US.
SE page 358, paragraph 5, first sentence, change to read:
"By the mid-1890s, not only had the Monroe Doctrine been reaffirmed but
the world's most powerful country had bent to it."
25. p. 359 T,S Regarding the explosion of the USS Maine,
it is now pretty clear that the Maine suffered a massive internal
explosion, perhaps coal dust. The mystery is pretty much solved, and any effort
to perpetuate it covers for US overreaction to the accident
SE page 359, paragraph 7, lines 2-4. Change to:
"The blast had probably been caused by an accidental fire that set off
ammunition, but the American public put the blame on Spain."
Delete line 4: "The exact cause of the explosion has never been
26. p. 414. T,S Book incorrectly identifies Gavrilo Princip as a
"Bosnian nationalist." He was not He was a Serbian nationalist who sought
unification of Bosnia with Serbia.
SE p. 414, final paragraph, revise first sentence as follows:
"Princip, a Serbian nationalist, believed that Bosnia should be part of
neighboring Serbia, not Austria-Hungary."
27. p. 416. Book claims that Serbia "shared a language and common
history with Bosnia." This is too simplistic. Then, and now as we have had to
learn recently, Bosnia is multi-ethnic and multi-religious. Catholic Croats,
Orthodox Serbs and Bosnian Muslims share the region. It should also be pointed
out that Austria issued an ultimatum to Serbia regarding that nation's support
of terrorism in Bosnia and gave the Serbs one month to comply before declaring
war, July 28, 1914."
SE, p. 416, "The Conflict Expands," revise first paragraph as follows:
"Bosnia was the focus of a nationalist dispute between Austria-Hungary, which
had recently annexed Bosnia, and Serbia, which shared a common national
identity with one of Bosnia's three major ethnic groups. Austria-Hungary blamed
Serbia for the assassination. On July 23, Austria Hungary demanded that Serbia
cease its support for terrorism in Bosnia within two days or risk war.
Unsatisfied with Serbia's response, Austria-Hungary declared war on July 28."
28. p. 418. Book claims that Kaiser Wilhelm was "an autocrat
— a ruler with unlimited power." This is simply incorrect, Germany had a
parliamentary system of government from 1871. The Kaiser was more powerful than
his British cousin, but was decidedly weaker than his other cousin, the
autocrat, Nicholas II of Russia.
SE, p. 414, delete "autocrat" from Key Terms list; SE, p. 421, add below
SE, p. 418, "The American Response," fourth paragraph, revise second
sentence as follows: "Although Germany had an elected Parliament, the Kaiser,
or Emperor, had strong powers over the government."
SE, p. 424, "Revolution in Russia," Revise paragraph 2 as follows:
"Then, in March 1917, Czar Nicholas II of Russia was forced to give up
the throne to a republican government. The czar had been an autocrat
— a ruler with unlimited power. The Russian Revolution cheered the
pro-war faction in the United States. Concern over being allied with an
autocrat had slowed the nation's move toward entering the war. The fall of the
czar removed a last stumbling block to joining the Allies."
29. p. 435. Book describes a "vigorous revival of natives" in
response to US involvement in World War I. Natives is really ongoing from the
Civil War on into the 1920s. It is a mistake to portray American natives as an
anomaly. It is really a fairly recurrent characteristic of American viewpoints
about immigration across time.
SE, p. 435, first paragraph, revise third sentence as follows: "Still,
the test had set the stage for an increase in natives feelings."
30. p. 439 "Comparing Primary Sources" has an excerpt from
Woodrow Wilson "testifying before the [Senate] Foreign Relations Committee."
While Wilson may have submitted written testimony, it seems highly out of
character for him, and unlikely for any president given separation of powers
concerns, to have personally testified before a congressional committee. This
fact needs to be checked out by someone with a bit more detailed knowledge man
While it is extremely unusual for a President to testify before
Congress, President Wilson did submit to personal questioning by the Senate to
encourage the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles without revisions. His
testimony may be found in Senate Documents, No. 76, 66 Cong., 1 sess.,
XIII, pp. 6, 19.
31. p. 248 The book oversimplifies American socialism and links
it too heavily with Marxism. Marxism never took off in the US as it did in
Europe. American socialism was essentially a transplanted European social
democracy. The government controlled key industries — say rail or
communications, regulated others, and provided comprehensive social services to
its citizens. American socialism never "called for an end to free enterprise"
as the book asserts. In the context of the times, the Socialists were on the
left of the American political spectrum, but were reacting to the abuses of
unregulated capitalism, much as social democrats in Europe were doing.
SE, p. 248, "The Rise of Labor Unions," revise first paragraph as
follows: "A small percentage of American workers became Socialists and called
for greater government intervention in the economy. Far more workers, however,
chose to work within the system by forming labor unions."
32. p. 391 Describing the commission form of government mat arose
in Galveston, no note is made of the anti-democratic nature and intentions of
many of these urban reformers. This was certainly the case in Galveston, where
Progressives grappled with traditional urban politics in a fight over the
future of the city. The commission system, established in a time of emergency,
accomplished greater "efficiency" at the expense of the more democratic and
participatory system that had existed previously. The same motivation underlay
adoption of other systems such as council-manager.
SE, p. 391, "New Forms of Municipal Government," first paragraph, revise
last three sentences as follows:
"To manage the huge relief and rebuilding effort needed, the city
created an emergency commission of five appointed administrators to replace the
mayor and aldermen. The commission worked so efficiently that Galveston
permanently instituted the commission form of government, with later reforms to
make it more democratic. Other cities rapidly adopted the Galveston model,
adapting it to their needs."
33. p. 392 Book discusses state-level Progressive reforms fairly
well, but again there are moments of oversimplification. "More Power to Voters"
is not the unvarnished good that it appears. Progressives were also actively
engaged across the nation in limiting the franchise — this is especially
true in the South and areas with large immigrant populations. Progressives did
not necessarily advocate ballot access for all, but rather for those better
sorts who deserved to vote. The book oversimplifies the spread of the "direct
primary," which as in the case of the white primary, was often a means of
limiting mass influence on politics as much as expanding it. Moreover, it is
not true that 45 states had direct primaries by 1916, and it is also overlooked
by the book that these direct primaries had little to do with the selection of
presidential candidates. Effective direct primaries for president do not become
commonplace until after 1972.
SE, p. 392, second paragraph, Revise first five sentences as follows:
"During the Progressive Era, voters gained somewhat more direct
influence in lawmaking and in choosing candidates. Throughout the country,
party leaders traditionally had handpicked candidates for public office. In
Wisconsin, reform governor Robert M. La Follette instituted a direct primary,
an election in which citizens vote to select nominees for upcoming elections.
Other states later adopted direct primaries for state and local offices.... "
See also pages 401-402.
34. p. 394 T,S The chart on "Progressive Era Legislation" has one
error and one oversight. First, the Sherman Antitrust Act is not Progressive
legislation. While it is arguable that Progressives existed at the state and
local levels as early as 1890, Progressivism does not become a national force
until Theodore Roosevelt becomes president in 1901. Second, the chart leaves
off the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914) which is a major piece of Progressive
SE p. 394, Chart
Delete the entry for the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Add the following entry following the entry for the Federal Reserve
"Clayton Antitrust Act, 1914 Prohibited companies from engaging in
certain specific activities, such as offering some types of rebates."
35. p. 402 T,S First complete sentence on this page claims "some"
Progressives favored literacy tests and immigration limits. This is a much more
generally held Progressive attitude than the book portrays.
SE p. 402, first line Change "Some" to "Many.
36. p. 402 T,S Book errs when it claims Taft began segregation in
federal offices. It was Wilson.
SE p. 402, paragraph 2, line 3. Change sentence to read:
"Wilson allowed his Cabinet officers to extend the Jim Crow practice of
separating the races in federal offices."
37. p. 457 T,S Lindbergh did not receive the Congressional Medal
of Honor for flying across the Atlantic solo.
SE p. 457, paragraph 4, line 4; revise as follows:
"Lindbergh was brought home on a navy cruiser, given the Distinguished
Flying Cross, and celebrated with parades throughout the nation."
Note: According to the U.S. Army Center of Military History,
Lindbergh was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor by act of Congress 14
December 1927 with the following citation: "For displaying heroic courage and
skill as a navigator, at the risk of his life, by his nonstop flight in his
airplane, the Spirit of St. Louis, from New York City to Paris, France, 20-21
May 1927, by which Capt. Lindbergh not only achieved the greatest individual
triumph of any American citizen but demonstrated that travel across the ocean
by aircraft was possible." The medal is sometimes considered controversial
because of deviations in the procedure leading to the award.
38. p. 480 T,S Book claims that after World War I there was a "brief
postwar boom." There was none. The economy lapsed into a serious recession
1919-1921, which arguably is the birth of the Great Depression for the
SE p. 480, paragraph 1, line 3, revise sentence to read: "At the same
time, a harsh economic downturn had begun."
39. p. 482 T,S Describing the Seattle Strike of 1919, book clams
it was only "shipyard workers" who walked off the job. The Seattle Strike was a
"general strike" in which 60,000 workers went oat in all fields of wage labor.
SE p. 482, paragraph 2, line 4, revise as follows:
"In February, thousands of workers went on strike in Seattle, and the
mayor proclaimed them "revolutionists."
40. p. 485 T,S Book incorrectly claims the GOP held majorities in
both houses of Congress, 1921-1933. This is not true. The GOP did not control
the House, 1931-1933; their control over the Senate was slender after the 1930
SE p. 485, paragraph 4, line 6, revise as follows:
"Republicans held the majority in Congress during most of this period."
41. p. 487 T,S Last full paragraph tries to make Harding into a
modem civil rights hero, which he was not. Yes, Harding is the last GOP figure
to speak out in favor of civil rights. However, he was also a member of the KKK
SE p. 487, revise last paragraph as follows:
"During the 1920s, the positions of the Republican Party mirrored those
of its supporters. The party favored restrictions on immigration because its
white supporters were uncomfortable with massive immigration. The party also
had to placate its black supporters. Thus, in 1921, in front of a segregated
audience in Birmingham, Alabama, Harding made a bold speech concerning black
42. p. 500 T "Geography in History" claims the Hoover Dam was
completed in 1936 and then named after Hoover that year. Then, as the book has
it, "after Hoover left office" it was renamed the Boulder Dam. Then, in 1947,
it was re-renamed the Hoover Dam. This is a muddle. The dam was completed in
1936, three years after Hoover left office, and named the Boulder Dam.
In 1947, when the GOP took control of Congress, the dam was renamed "Hoover
TE p. 500, revise "Geography in History" note as follows:
"Hoover Dam, on the Nevada-Arizona border, controls the flow of the
Colorado River. The project was begun while Herbert Hoover was Secretary of
Commerce in the Harding administration, and he is generally credited with
settling many engineering problems and controversies pertaining to the dam
while he was President. A Congressional Act on February 14, 1931 officially
named the dam the Hoover Dam. However, after Hoover left office the Interior
Department used the names "Boulder Canyon Dam" and "Boulder Dam" when referring
to the dam. On April 30, 1947 President Truman signed a resolution "officially"
restoring the structure's name to Hoover Dam."
Note: Source is U.S. Department of the Interior (http://www.hooverdam.usbr.gov/History/naming.htm)
43. p. 500 T,S Third full paragraph describes 1920s taxation
policy as follows: "Mellon's tax plan, however, gave the largest tax cuts to
the wealthiest Americans." This is misleading. Only those couples that made
more than $4000 per year paid any income tax in the 1920s. $4000 is
nearly twice the standard middle-class income of the period. Therefore, the
rich did better under Mellon's tax plan because they were the only ones paying
income tax. The untold story, so far as the book goes, is that most Americans
who did not pay income taxes saw a tax increase under the GOP in the 1920s in
the form of tariffs passed on as consumer taxes on imports or higher prices for
SE p. 500, revise paragraph 4 as follows:
"Government tax policy contributed to this imbalance. Andrew Mellon,
Secretary of the Treasury and one of the richest people in the nation,
successfully pushed Congress to reduce taxes. Because only the wealthy paid
income taxes at the time, they were the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts.
Mellon believed that continued high taxation of the wealthy, imposed during the
war, would hinder business expansion."
44. p. 578 Book asserts that Free France " ... continued the
struggle ... from bases ... in France's colonies in Africa." Vichy French
forces controlled the North African colonies — Morocco, Algeria and
Tunisia — .
SE, p. 578, "The Fall of France," third paragraph, revise first sentence
"Free France, a government-in-exile in London, continued the struggle
against German invaders from bases in Britain and in France's colonies in
central and western Africa."
45. p. 587 Segment titled "Debating the American Role" explains
that "three weeks after the invasion of Poland.... The neutrality legislation
was effectively dead." This is incorrect. Whatever amending and loopholes were
added, there remained the "cash and carry" provisions along with the Johnson
Act (1934) which banned loans to nations in default on previous obligations to
the US — essentially everyone with whom the US sided in World War I. The
book here makes too short work of neutrality legislation.
SE, p. 587, first paragraph, delete final sentence and replace with:
"Neutrality legislation still prevented the United States from lending
money to the Allies."
46. p. 587 "Connecting With Government" sets up a potential
debate for students over "explanations offered by historians as the reasons for
American involvement in World War II."
It then offers "Roosevelt saw the war as a way to end the economic
depression...." as one of these "explanations offered by historians." The book
comes dangerously close to giving credence to conspiracy theory here,
presumably in hopes of making history "interesting" for students. No academic
historian of any reputation seriously believes that Franklin Roosevelt
deliberately arranged America's involvement in WWII for any reason of
economics. This exercise should not be suggested as presented here.
TE, p. 587, delete activity
47. p. 604 "Background Interdisciplinary" is not exactly
interdisciplinary to my reading, but it also has an error within the text. It
claims US deaths in World War II were "about 40,000." 405,000 American
servicemen died of all causes during the war. This is still sufficiently
dwarfed by Soviet casualties to make the book's point, which is not in error.
The following correction has already been submitted to the Texas
TE, p. 604:
"Nearly 18 million Soviets died as a result of the war. The comparable
figure for Americans is about 400,000 lives lost."
48. p. 605 Book claims Stalingrad "proved to be the turning point
of the war in the east." It was the turning point of the war in Europe
and should be presented as such.
SE, p. 605, second paragraph, revise first sentence as follows:
"The Battle of Stalingrad proved to be the turning point of the war in
49. 605 "Connections to History and Conflict" sings the praises
of the Norden Bombsight and its alleged accuracy. While the book claims the
Norden was "less accurate" than believed, it was "still fairly effective," This
is nonsense. According to a postwar US military study only 3% of US bombs
actually hit intended targets,
Teacher's Edition, p. 605, "Connections to History and Conflict." The
text will be deleted.
50. p. 639 T,S "Comparing Historian's Viewpoints" about the
beginning of the Cold War presents Barton Bernstein arguing that "American
policy led to the Cold War." This implies a great deal more deliberate American
aggression that the excerpt from Bernstein does. The excerpt claims " ...
American policy-makers contributed to the Cold War." This is not the same thing
as saying US policy "led to the Cold War." While I don't generally agree with
him myself, in fairness to Bernstein, the book is putting words into his mouth,
based upon the excerpt.
SE p. 639 "Comparing Historians' Viewpoints;" revise sub-heading in left
column as follows: "American Policy Contributed to the Cold War"
51. p. 645 T,S Describing events leading to the Berlin Airlift,
the book asserts that the US, UK, and France "had become convinced that Stalin
was not going to allow the reunification of German." Again, this is unbalanced.
The western Allies had already created a currency union in the west, meaning
they moved first toward division. That is what Stalin reacts against in the
1948 Berlin blockade.
SE p. 645-(646), revise last paragraph as follows:
"The Allies could not agree on what to do with Germany following World
War II. In March 1948, the Western Allies announced plans to make the zones
they controlled in Germany into a single unit. The United States, Britain, and
France prepared to merge their three occupation zones to create a new nation,
the Federal Republic of Germany, or West Germany.
52. p. 659 T,S Some factual errors with respect to early postwar
US policy in Southeast Asia. The US began substantial military aid under Truman
and continued it under Eisenhower. The Geneva Conference described at the end
of the paragraph was sabotaged by the US when it pressed the South Vietnamese
to reject the terms of the peace arrived at in Geneva.
SE p. 659, paragraph 3, line 4, revise as follows:
"Meanwhile, the United States continued to provide substantial military
aid to France, which was trying to retain control of its colony, Vietnam."
53. p. 661 T,S Adlai Stevenson is referred to as a senator from
Illinois. He was not.
SE p. 661, Paragraph 1, line 1; revise as follows:
"Many Americans agreed with the reaction of Democratic leader Adlai
Stevenson: "I am shocked ..."
54. p. 681 Describing Truman's 1946 threat to draft striking
railroad workers into the armed forces, the book says the plan came to naught
because "the Senate refused to go along." It never had to act The mere threat
led the railroad unions to reach an agreement. Truman received a note informing
him of this in the midst of his address to a joint session of Congress asking
for such authority.
SE page 681, paragraph 3, revise the paragraph to read as follows:
"In the spring of 1946, a railroad strike caused a major disruption in
the economy. In response, Truman asked Congress for the power to draft the
striking workers into the army. He would then be able to order them as soldiers
to stay on the job. During his address to Congress, Truman received a note
stating that the strike had ended 'on terms proposed by the President.'"
55. p. 682 Book claims that little came of Truman's civil rights
initiatives in 1947-1948 because "a majority of the members of Congress
disagreed" with the proposals. This really is an exaggeration. Southern
strength in key committee positions, and particularly in the use of the
filibuster prevented serious consideration of these proposals. It was never
clear how a "majority" felt.
SE page 682, paragraph 5, revise the first sentence to read as follows:
"With southerners in control of key congressional committees and
threatening a filibuster, Congress took no action."
56. p. 737 Book exaggerates the closeness of Kennedy-Johnson
victory in Texas claiming Nixon only needed "a few thousand more votes." Texas
was won by the Democrats with a margin of 45,000 votes in 1960. Illinois was
much closer as the book does point out,
SE page 737, paragraph 4, revise the last sentence to read as follows:
"In Illinois, Nixon could have inched by Kennedy with just a few
thousand more votes, and accusations were made that the Democrats had won the
state through fraud."
57. p. 741 Book asserts regarding the Kennedy assassination that
"[t]he whole story will probably never be known," Most academic historians
accept mat Kennedy was killed by Oswald with no conspiracy behind me murder.
This pandering to conspiracy may make good reading for bored high schoolers,
but it is very poor history.
SE page 741, last paragraph, delete the last sentence
58. p. 755 "The Soviets could already inflict serious damage on
the United States from ... within their own country," the book claims of the
1962 Cuban missile crisis. The USSR was significantly behind the US in ICBM
technology and deployment Arguably, their placing of missiles in Cuba was the
only technologically feasible method of countering US missiles close to the
USSR in Turkey. This is why Khruschev sought a linkage between the Turkish and
SE p. 754-755; revise paragraph under "Kennedy's Options" as follows:
"Kennedy's Options The Soviet missiles in Cuba did not radically change
the military balance between the United States and the Soviet Union. Yet
installing missiles so close to the United States seemed to be an effort by the
Soviets to intimidate the Americans. In addition, the Soviets intended their
missiles in Cuba to counter American missiles close to the USSR in Turkey.
Kennedy was convinced that the missiles presented a direct challenge to which
he must respond."
59. p. 795 Book does not properly explain LBJ's initial
skepticism about the value of Vietnam and the process of his being convinced by
McNamara, Rusk, Robert Kennedy and others that it was necessary to fight
SE p. 796, revise first paragraph as follows:
Johnson replied to Lodge: "I am not going to be the President who saw
Southeast Asia go the way China went." Johnson did not want the Southeast Asian
"dominoes" to be set in motion by the fall of Vietnam. At the same time,
conversations between Johnson and his advisors reveal that Johnson was
skeptical about the war. While he did not wish to pursue a full-scale war, he
also did not want to risk damaging the authority of the United States by
pulling out. In the end, Johnson was convinced of the need to escalate the
60. p. 796 Book details the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but gives
the 1964 "official version," which is now known to be false. The Mattox
was in North Vietnamese waters deploying saboteurs when it was "attacked."
Subsequent examination by the Matrox's crew showed no evidence of an
attack. This was ignored by LBJ who took advantage of the situation to ask for
sweeping powers in Southeast Asia.
SE page 796, paragraphs 2 and 3, revise the last sentence of paragraph 2
and the first sentence of paragraph 3 to read as follows:
"This announcement would change the course of the war Although details
were sketchy, it was later shown that the attacks did not occur."
61. p. 803 Book's coverage of the Tet Offensive lacks sufficient
detail to properly depict the event's effect on American morale.
The issue of American morale following the Tet Offensive is addressed on
SE page 804 and 808-809, as well as in the Background Global Connections note
on TE page 808.
62. p. 804 Book describes Nixon's commutation of William Galley's
sentence, but does not explain that Nixon took that action because many more
senior officers responsible for what happened at My Lai went unpunished. This
makes Nixon appear insensitive to basic justice, when a more nuanced view is in
SE page 804, paragraph 1, revise the third and fourth sentences to read
as follows: "Although at first his testimony was covered up, eventually, in
1971, Lieutenant Calley began serving a sentence of life in prison. Many
Americans saw him as a scapegoat, however, because many senior officers went
unpunished. As a result, President Nixon reduced his sentence to 20 years."
63. p. 804 Book greatly errs in claiming after Tet, "a majority
of Americans supported a policy tougher than the one pursued by the
administration." A majority of Americans opposed the war by March, 1968. A
plurality opposed it as early as summer, 1967 when LBJ asked for tax increases
to help pay for the war and prevent inflation. There is no treatment of the
interplay between the Great Society and the war in Vietnam. They both affected
one another as well as issues of taxation and inflation.
SE page 804, paragraph 3, revise the fourth sentence to read as
"In spite of the vocal antiwar protesters, many Americans supported a
policy tougher than the one pursued by the administration."
Note: The last sentence on SE page 749 and the last paragraph on
SE page 750 both address the issue that military spending in Vietnam interfered
with the funding of Great Society programs.
64. p. 807 "American Heritage" archives contain remarks by Martin
Luther King, Jr. that "twice as many Negroes as whites" were fighting in
Vietnam, The book than adds parenthetically, "(this view has been challenged in
recent years.)" What is not arguable is that blacks were drafted and served in
the armed forces in the Vietnam era in proportionally far greater numbers for
their percentage of the American population than were whites. The book appears
to take issue with King, when the point just made is Ms basic grievance. This
same criticism is applicable to the "Recent Scholarship" segment on, p. 810.
The factual nature of overrepresentation of blacks in the armed forces in the
period has been established pretty well.
TE page 807, From the Archives of American Heritage note, revise
the third sentence to read as follows:
"It was Dr. King's strongest statement yet on the war, in which 'twice
as many Negroes as whites' were serving."
TE page 810, Background Recent Scholarship note, Delete the third
65. p. 809 Eugene McCarthy did not "almost beat" LBJ in the 1968
New Hampshire primary. He won 40% of the vote which was a strong showing
against an incumbent and contributed to LBJ's decision not to run.
SE page 809, second paragraph, revise the last sentence of the paragraph
to read as follows: "On March 12, McCarthy made a strong showing against
Johnson in the New Hampshire Democratic primary."
66. p. 896 "American Heritage" archive bit has Clinton's term in
office beginning in 1992. It began in 1993.
TE page 896, "From the Archives of American Heritage" note, revise the
first sentence to read as follows:
"For most of his career Bill Clinton (1993-2001) has been a remarkably
67. p. 900 In light of newer figures the casualty figures for the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 need to be revised downward from 5,000
currently in the text.
SE page 900, seventh paragraph, change has already been submitted to TEA
"The official number of people missing and presumed dead after the
assault was estimated to be around 3,000."
68. p. 625 T,S "Comparing Primary Sources" segment lists W.R,
Poage as a "Texas state representative." Poage was a congressman representing
the 11th District in Central Texas.
Change SE page 625, Comparing Primary Sources, Opposed to
Integration, attribution line, to " — W. R. Poage, Texas Congressman,
69. p. 701 T,S Book says Rosa Parks took a seat "in the middle
section of a bus, where both African Americans and whites were allowed to sit"
No, she sat in the black section of the bus. There was no "middle." When the
white section filled up, black people were expected to give up their seats in
their section to whites. That's what the boycott was about initially.
Change SE page 701, paragraph 2, second sentence and ff, to
"In December, Rosa Parks, a seamstress who had been the secretary of the
Montgomery NAACP for 12 years, took a seat at the front of the "colored"
section of a bus. The front of the bus was reserved for white passengers.
African Americans, however, were expected to give up their seats for white
passengers if no seats were available in the "whites only" section."
70. p. 702 T,S Eisenhower shown as following a policy of
avoidance so far as the civil rights movement is concerned. Eisenhower was in
fact personally hostile to the movement and acted in Little Rock more because
of Faubus's defiance of the federal government than any concern about
SE p. 702, replace the first two sentences of the second paragraph under
the heading "Resistance in Little Rock" (beneath the quote) with the
"Although President Eisenhower was not an ally of the civil rights
movement, Faubus's actions were a direct challenge to the Constitution and to
Eisenhower's authority as President."
71. p. 712 T,S The rather sordid role of the Kennedy brothers in
the Freedom Ride and Ole Miss controversies is completely whitewashed by the
text. The Kennedys were generally hostile to the protests of the movement,
permitted FBI spying on its leaders and avoided any real clash with the South
over civil rights until forced to act. In the Freedom Rides matter, RFK did
authorize federal marshals to accompany the riders to Jackson, Mississippi as
the book tells. However, at Jackson, the Riders were arrested by police and
imprisoned in the state prison at Parchman, one of the nation's worst. This was
done because the Kennedys made a deal with Mississippi governor Ross Barnett
that in exchange for a peaceful arrival in Jackson, the state could prosecute
the Riders for violating segregation laws already declared unconstitutional.
With respect to the Ole Miss crisis, the book does not tell the story properly.
Barnett agreed to assure Meredith's peaceful admission if he could have a
photo-op in Jackson personally refusing to admit him to the University of
Mississippi. Justice Department officials would then overrule Barnett, Meredith
transported for enrollment to the Oxford campus of Ole Miss, and peace would
prevail. Barnett betrayed the Kennedys by making an inflammatory radio address
calling for resistance soon after Meredith and Ms Justice Department protectors
left for Oxford. After a three hour car ride, Meredith and the others found
themselves besieged in the Ole Miss administration building by the mob Barnett
SE p. 712, replace the first two sentences of the third paragraph under
the heading "Integration at 'Ole Miss'" with the following:
"Barnett's defiance of the Supreme Court decision forced a reluctant
President Kennedy to act. Kennedy sent federal marshals to accompany Meredith
to the campus."
Note: The text mentions Attorney General Kennedy's reluctance to
protect the Freedom Riders and their arrest in Jackson earlier on this page
under the C-head "National Reactions." President Kennedy's reluctance to
displease southern Democrats by acting on Civil Rights receives further
coverage on page 716.
72. p. 716 T,S Caption claims "[b]oth Kennedy brothers played key
roles in the civil rights movement." This is excessive, as they spent as much
time frustrating it as helping.
SE p. 716, Delete second sentence of the caption.
73. p. 726 T,S The book claims that RFK was a "crusader" for
civil rights and "opposed the Vietnam war." These are both turnabout
positions for him in 1968.
SE p. 726, replace the first two paragraphs under the heading "Robert F.
Kennedy Is Assassinated" with the following:
"Since the assassination of President Kennedy, his brother, Senator
Robert F. Kennedy, had come to support the civil rights movement and to oppose
the Vietnam War. In 1968, he decided to enter the race for the Democratic
presidential nomination. President Johnson had lost support from many Democrats
because of America's involvement in the Vietnam War. After Senator Eugene
McCarthy lost to Johnson in the New Hampshire primary by only a few percentage
points, Kennedy realized that Johnson was vulnerable. On March 16, Kennedy
entered the campaign. His candidacy received a critical boost on March 31, when
Johnson stunned the nation by announcing that he would not run for a second
term as President.
"In the years since his brother's death, Robert Kennedy had reached out
to many Americans, including Chicanos, Native Americans, African Americans, and
poor white families. He condemned the killing of both Americans and Vietnamese
in the Vietnam War. He criticized the Johnson administration for financing a
war instead of funding the programs needed to help the poor and disadvantaged
74. p. 509 T,S In the "Focus on Economics," the book all but
attributes the Great Depression to the stock market crash. This is not true for
more reasons than can be counted, most of which are in the book itself. The
stock market crash is a good touchstone for the times, and it is also a good
symptom of problems with the economy. It is not the cause of the Depression.
Arguably the business cycle was turning down as early as 1926, it just took the
stock market a while to catchup.
Change SE page 509, Focus on Economics, first sentence of first
paragraph under The Historical Context to:
"The Crash of 1929 signaled the end of the economic expansion of the
1920s and the beginning of a prolonged period of economic contraction known as
the Great Depression."
75. p. 511 T,S Book continues to imply in the segment titled
"Economic Contraction" that the stock market collapse brought on the
Depression. The contraction had begun as early as 1926 with the drop-off in
consumer demand and collapse in real estate markets, especially Florida. The
crash served only to intensify the contraction not to cause it.
Change SE page 511, paragraph 2 to:
"Economic Contraction The results of the Great Crash described above are
symptoms of a contracting economy. A contraction is an economic decline marked
by a falling output of goods and services. A particularly long and severe
contraction is called a depression. The economy had begun to show danger signs
in the late 1920s; the Great Crash triggered even more serious consequences.
The result was the most severe economic downturn in the nation's history —
the Great Depression — which lasted from 1929 until the United States
entered World War II in 1941."
76. p. 516 T,S Book asserts that the Depression lessened the
divorce rate because it was too expensive to maintain separate households.
Since when has that stopped anyone? Divorce and abandonment increased
throughout the Depression. Marriages and births declined.
Change SE page 516, paragraphs 2 and 3, to:
"Stresses on Families Living conditions declined as families moved in
together, crowding into small houses or apartments. People gave up even small
pleasures like an ice cream cone or a movie ticket.
Men who had lost jobs or investments often felt like failures because
they could no longer provide for their families. If their wives or children
were working, men thought their own status had fallen. Many were embarrassed to
be seen at home during normal work hours. They were ashamed to ask friends for
help. Some even abandoned their families."
77. p. 527 Regarding the Bonus March book claims "MacArthur
decided to use force" to disperse the protest. This is true, but it also needs
to be made plain that MacArthur exceeded Hoover's orders in doing so. This is
neither the first nor the last time MacArthur will exceed orders.
SE p. 527, Revise paragraph 1, sentence 2, as follows:
"Although the President ordered General Douglas MacArthur to clear only
Pennsylvania Avenue, MacArthur decided to use force to drive the marchers out
78. p. 542 Sixth full paragraph, book explains that the "AAA had
ignored many of the farm workers who did not own tend." This is not true. Under
the AAA, tenants and sharecroppers were supposed to receive their share of the
subsidies. But, large landowners tended to turn off tenants and mechanize,
while pocketing the funds themselves. This should have been addressed earlier,
as the AAA is presented in such a vague form on p. 540.
SE p. 540, Revise paragraph 5 as follows:
"Many farmers were losing their homes and their land because of the low
prices they received for their products. The Agricultural Adjustment
Administration (AAA), set up in May 1933, tried to raise farm prices by paying
subsidies, or government financial assistance, to farmers who cut production of
certain crops. The AAA hoped that lowering the supply of these farm products
would cause their prices to rise. Proceeds from a new tax on the companies that
processed agricultural produce were used to pay for the subsidies to farmers."
SE p. 542, Revise paragraph 6, sentence 2 and 3 as follows:
"The original AAA had caused hardship to many farm workers who did not
own land. When large commercial farms cut back their production, these workers
often lost their jobs. In the Southwest, Mexican American farm workers
struggled to survive."
79. p. 544 Discussion of NLRB v. Jones Laughlin Steel
claims the case "established the federal government's ability to regulate
interstate commerce." This is not true. That power exists in the Constitution.
Perhaps the book meant labor relations.
The following correction has already been submitted to the TEA:
SE p. 544, revise paragraph 1, second sentence
"The landmark case established the federal government's ability to
regulate labor disputes linked to interstate commerce."
80. p. 550 "Long and Coughlin never seriously threatened FDR ...
," the book is correct so far as Coughlin is concerned, but dead wrong with
respect to Long. Even the "Background Biography" blurb in the teacher's
edition, p. 549, contradicts this sweeping statement.
SE p. 550. Revise paragraph 2 as follows:
"Long and Coughlin's popularity warned Roosevelt that if he failed to
solve the nation's problems, he could lose mass support. Coughlin was never a
serious threat to FDR, but if Long had lived, he might have influenced the 1936
81. p. 554. The book's discussion of the Roosevelt Recession
verges on the absurd. It asserts that social security taxes helped cause the
recession by taking money "out of worker's paychecks." That same money went
right back into someone else's for spending. The real basis of the Roosevelt
Recession is Roosevelt's own fetish for balanced budgets. With certain economic
indicators approaching 1929 levels, FDR decided to cut spending and attempt to
balance the budget in 1937. The book only hints that FDR's own conservatism
caused the recession, focusing instead upon the taxation red herring.
SE p. 554, delete paragraph 2; revise paragraph 3 as follows:
"Americans had less money because FDR had cut way back on government
spending. Many of the biggest cuts targeted programs such as the WPA, which had
provided jobs to many workers. At the same time, FDR had increased taxes. FDR
wanted a balanced budget, in which the government's revenue and expenses are
equal. The President had also become distressed at the rising national debt, or
the total amount of money the federal government borrows and has to pay back.
(See Focus on Economics, page 550.) The government borrows when its revenue, or
income, does not keep up with its expenses. To fund the New Deal, the
government had to borrow massive amounts of money. As a result, the national
debt rose from $21 billion in 1933 to $43 billion by 1940."
82. p. 549 T,S Book actually claims that Huey Long "never used
racial attacks" in his political rise in Louisiana. This is wrong.
Change SE page 549, paragraph 3, sentences 4-6 to
"Unlike many southern Democrats, Long did not build his base of power on
83. p. 549 T,S "Comparing Historians' Viewpoints" on Roosevelt
and the New Deal pairs historian William Leuchtenburg with Robert A. Taft. Taft
was not a historian. He was the leader of the Republican party Old Guard
conservative wing. Not only is his book not a history of the New Deal, but it
is not even close in time to the post-1960 historical debate over the place of
the New Deal. Most debate among academic historians revolves around whether or
not the New Deal was conservative and propped up capitalism or offered real
reform. This makes all the more ridiculous the book's assertion that "some
historians.... say the New Deal programs actually hindered economic
progress.... (550)" If the book is referring to economists or conservative
politicians, it should say so. Historians generally have not argued these
points in this manner.
SE page 549 change title of feature to Comparing Primary
Change introductory sentence to "Historians, politicians, and economists
disagree on the effectiveness of the New Deal in combating the Depression and
improving the lives of Americans."
Change Analyzing Viewpoints question to "Compare the viewpoints
of these two authors." Change page 550, paragraph 4, sentence 1 to "Some
84. p. 672 T,S That is except for this critical oversight. The GI
Bill of Rights, which is the fuel of the postwar boom and modern middle class
lifestyle enjoyed by most Americans gets exactly one sentence of vague
summary. The GI Bill's implications for the future — indeed the present
— are so staggering they merit considerably more than this pittance.
Change SE page 672, text under Moving to the Suburbs to:
"Seeking more room, growing families retreated from aging cities to the
suburbs. World War II veterans expanded their opportunities with the help of
the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, or GI Bill of Rights, which gave
them low-interest mortgages to purchase new homes and provided them with
educational stipends for college or graduate school. This important act
provided fuel for the postwar economic boom and the modern middle class
lifestyle that developed during the 1950s.
With more people able to afford mortgages, developers like William J.
Levitt.... " Add to TE page 672 side-column Background Note:
"In addition, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the G.I. Bill,
then Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley spoke of the profound and lasting
changes the G.I. Bill had on American education: "The G.I. Bill helped forge an
economic renewal and reaffirmed the right of every American to receive an
education, to invest in their own futures and the future of America. Eight
million veterans took advantage of the law, which assisted them in establishing
careers, raising families, and seizing a part of the American dream.""
For fit, delete the following text from Connecting with Culture
activity: "Then conduct ... address the problem."
85. p. 676 T,S Not connected to the Depression, but also not
right either, the book asserts that "during the Depression many teenagers
stayed in school" to avoid the job market. This is nonsense since dropout and
truancy rates rose in the Depression.
Change SE page 676 paragraph 2, sentences 4-5 to
"During the height of the Depression, many teenagers left school.
However, by the 1950s, ... "
86. p. 739 T,S Most reliable numbers indicate the poverty rate in
1960 was nearer 33% than 20%.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Tables, Table 2,
Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin:
1959 to 2000, the overall poverty rate in 1960 was 22.2%. See
87. p. 750 T,S Book claims that the Great Society cut poverty
rates by half. Yes, assuming 20% poverty rate at the beginning. Better figure
might be two-thirds reduction, assuming 33% poverty rate reduced to 11% by
See response to #86 above.
88. p. 828 T,S Book incorrectly claims that John Maynard Keynes
introduced deficit spending as an economic stimulus tool "during the Great
Depression." Keynes had suggested the idea as early as the end of World War I.
Change SE page 828, paragraph 3, sentence 5 to:
"Proposed by British economist John Maynard Keynes, deficit spending had
restored prosperity during World War II."
89, p. 852 T,S Fifth full paragraph, book claims that the Federal
Reserve "increased the money supply" under Carter. This is not true. It raised
interest rates sky-high in an attempt to curb inflation. Nonetheless, inflation
rose as the book correctly claims.
Change SE page 852, paragraph 6, sentence 4, to:
"As deficits grew, the Federal Reserve Board raised interest rates."
90. p. 871 T,S "Focus on Economics" claims that tax reform in
1981-1986 resulted in a reduction of the highest income tax rate from "50
percent to 28 percent without a serious loss of revenue." This is just not
true. Combined with Reagan's borrow-and-spend economics, it actually
contributed mightily to an increase in the deficit and national debt. On p.
873, this increased deficit blamed on defense spending. Tax "reform" and
spending need to be credited for the Reagan boom and deficit. The book
contradicts itself on this point on p. 871. (This is apparently a point on
which the authors and the economist who wrote the "focus" were not sufficiently
coordinated by the publisher.)
Change SE page 871, under "Focus on Economics," last sentence to: "In
1986, however, these loopholes were eliminated."
91. p. 829 T,S Discussion of electricity shortages in California
in the early 2000s claims the problem was simply "low supplies" and "higher
prices." It now seems quite clear that in the deregulated marketplace there was
considerable manipulation of supply and thereby price, viz. Enron.
Change SE page 829, text under Fast Forward to Today, paragraph
2, to: "Interruptions in electricity supply can also cause hardships. When
disruption is minor, an area may experience a brownout, a temporary reduction
in electrical power. Blackouts, complete cuts to power, are more serious.
Recently, "rolling blackouts" in California shut off power to selected areas at
hours of peak usage. Homes and businesses without alternate energy sources,
such as gas-powered generators, could not operate computers or appliances.
Causes of the California energy crisis were threefold: energy deregulation
leading to steeply rising prices, increased demand for electricity, and the
financial instability of the state's major utility companies. Demonstrators
(above) protested high prices by burning their electricity bills."
92. p. 873 T,S While the book praises the prosperity of the
Reagan years, it neglects to mention that poverty increased as dad homelessness
in those years.
SE page 875, paragraph 2, add after last sentence: "Poverty rates and
homelessness, however, remained high."
93. p. 841 T,S Describing the illegal activities of the White
House staff in 1972, the book explains: "Their efforts paid off in the November
presidential election," There is no evidence to imply that Watergate made it
any harder for George McGovern to win the presidency than he and his own
supporters made it themselves. This sentence implies illegitimacy to the 1972
election that is belied by the sheer weight of the Nixon landslide.
Change SE page 841,, paragraph 2, sentence 1 to:
"In the election, Nixon trounced Senator George McGovern of South Dakota
by 520 to 17 electoral votes. McGovern had been unable to unify Democrats
sufficiently to offer an effective campaign and was perceived as too liberal by
much of the country. Nixon had the mandate he wanted, though he did not get a
Republican majority in Congress."
94. p. 969 T,S Otherwise helpful segment on "Key Supreme Court
Cases" makes it appear that the Court intended to ban all prayer in public
schools based on this description. In Engel v. Vitale, the key issue was
a state prescribed prayer to be said at a time designated by the state. It by
no means should be implied that the court meant to move against individual
prayer in school.
Change SE page 969, under Engel v. Vitale, 1962, last
"The Court ruled New York's action unconstitutional, although it made no
ruling against individual prayer in school."
95. The term "automation" – refers to jobs lost because of
new technology, to the 1950s machines took the place of workers and workers and
unions complained. These workers had to retrain to learn new skills. This is an
aspect of capitalism which is never mentioned.
Change SE, page 671, text under heading Changes in the Work Force
to: "In earlier years, most Americans made a living as blue-collar workers,
producing goods or performing services that depended on manual labor. After the
war, however, new machines assumed many of the jobs previously performed by
people. This process is called automation. Some blue-collar workers learned new
skills and found white-collar jobs. Young people, particularly former
servicemen with new college degrees, also chose white-collar jobs as they
joined the work force. Corporate expansion meant that more people were needed
to keep growing organizations running. By 1956, a majority of American workers
held white-collar jobs, managing offices, working in sales, and performing
professional and clerical duties with little manual labor."
Magruder's American Government
1. p. 4 – The discussion of government notes that government
in the United States should "provide for education, guard the public's health,
and protect the environment It must also pave the streets, punish criminals,
protect civil rights, care for the elderly, and do much, much, more." What is
the basis for this assertion? With the exception of civil rights and punishment
of criminals, none of these other elements are listed in the US
Change SE page 4, paragraph 2, column 1 to:
"Government in this country is now focused on the fight against
terrorism at home and abroad. Still, government has many other tasks to
perform. It punishes criminals, protects civil rights, and regulates trade.
Although Americans disagree on government's role in providing services, today's
government also provides for education, guards the public's health, cares for
the elderly, and does much, much more."
2. p. 66T – The Background Note detailing Locke's
influence on Jefferson is of sufficient importance to merit placement in the
student text rather than as background material only in the Teacher's edition.
Furthermore, while the analysis is generally accurate it is too simplistic to
say that Locke encouraged people to "withdraw their support" if governments
failed to protect their natural right to life, liberty, and property. In fact,
Locke advocates armed revolution if all other means of protest fail.
Delete Background Note from TE page 66. On SE page 38, column 1,
paragraph 4, add a new paragraph after paragraph 4:
Jefferson relied heavily on the works of John Locke, who argued that the
legitimacy of government sprang from the individual, or, as Jefferson wrote,
from "the consent of the governed." Locke argued that the individual was born
free and was entitled to the Natural Rights of "life, liberty, and estate"
— a phrase Jefferson refashioned as "certain inalienable rights" among
which were "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If governments failed
to protect these rights, subjects were entitled to withdraw their support and
resort to armed conflict if all other means of protest failed."
For fit delete page 38, column 1, paragraph 2, and change pages 37-38,
beginning on page 37, last paragraph, to the following (run in with page 37,
column 2, paragraph 3): "From July 1776 to March 1781, when the Articles of
Confederation went into effect, it did everything any government would do in
3. p. 11T – In the Focus exercise regarding Locke's
Second Treatise, students are asked to list all the ways in which
governments benefit people on the board. This is a good exercise but should be
balanced with a list of all the dangers or inconveniences governments impose on
people's lives as well. After all, Locke's treatise was not an advocacy of
government as much as a warning of the dangers of governmental power unchecked.
Change TE p. 11 Focus exercise to:
"Before students read the selection, ask them to suggest ways that
governments benefit people. Then ask them to suggest ways in which governments
impose dangers or inconveniences on people's lives. Write all ideas on the
chalkboard. Then ask students how society might be different without a
4. p. 51T – The Background Note in the Teacher's
Edition presents Rakove's book refuting the idea of original intent/strict
construction in interpreting the constitution. To allow students the
opportunity to follow the other side of the debate, scholarship supporting
original intent should also be discussed.
Change TE, p. 51, Background Note to:
"A subject of serious debate in politics today is whether current
interpretations of the Constitution should be based on the Framers' original
intent. Originalists argue that the best way to interpret the Constitution is
to determine how the Framers intended it to be interpreted. In Original
Arguments: Constitutional Interpretation, Textual Meaning, Original Intent and
Judicial Review, Keith E. Whittington buttresses the originalists' argument
by making the case that originalism, or original intent, should be the
preferred method of constitutional interpretation, as it is the method best
suited for a democratic government. On the opposite side of the spectrum, in
Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution,
Jack Rakove argues that there was no single "original intent" among the
Framers. Rakove analyzes the sharply different perspectives of the Framers and
points to how those differences led to dynamic debate and compromise.
5. p. 366T – The "Background Note" in the Teacher's Edition
begins with the line "If Thomas Jefferson was the hand that wrote the
Constitution ... " I think the editor means the Declaration and that this is an
oversight given that Jefferson was absent during the Constitutional
Change TE page 366 "Background Note," first sentence, to:
"If Thomas Jefferson's was the hand that wrote the Declaration of
Independence, ... "
6. p. 497T – The "Make it Relevant" activity provides an
example of students banding together to protest multinational corporations that
sell apparel on campus. Some discussion of the merits of multinational
corporations seems in order before students jump to the conclusion that
free-enterprise on a global scale is bad.
Change TE page 497 "Make It Relevant" activity to:
"Multinational corporations benefit consumers and workers by providing
jobs and products throughout the world. Some multinational clothing
manufacturers, however, have come under scrutiny for allowing clothing to be
produced in overseas sweatshops under unsafe conditions. One group, United
Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), has been working to protest these
conditions. USAS focuses on t-shirts and other apparel sold on their own
campuses. This group wants colleges to pressure their suppliers to end these
practices, and 160 colleges have agreed to try. What's more, one of the biggest
manufacturers in this $2.5 billion industry has disclosed the identity of its
foreign factories, thus allowing better oversight. ASAS has found supporters in
Congress, and its members have been invited to the White House."
7. p. 292 – What is the basis for the statement that the
"American people have generally agreed with a liberal interpretation of the
Constitution?" This seems a fundamental difference between liberals and
conservatives as well as the political parties.
Change SE page 292, second column, fourth paragraph, first sentence to:
"Today, United States politics is marked by a lack of consensus, or
general agreement, over the proper limits of national power. Liberals favor a
liberal construction, while conservatives favor a strict construction. This
fundamental split is reflected in the different points of view of the
Democratic and Republican parties."
8. p. 67T – The answer provided in the Teacher's Edition to
the political cartoon exercise suggests that the two Congressmen in the cartoon
have come to the conclusion that the Constitution is flexible and hence meant
to "change with the times as necessary." The difficulty here is twofold. First,
the answer implies a definitive conclusion that the constitution is an organic
document that can be interpreted differently over time. The publishers should
be aware that there is much debate between constitutional scholars and
theorists as to the manner in which the constitution is to be read. To suggest
as is done on page 67 that the organic approach is the correct one stifles
debate on an important constitutional issue. Perhaps as part of the discussion
of this cartoon students could debate the idea of strict constructionism versus
a more organic approach. Second, its hard to tell from this cartoon if the
artist is serious or if he is using irony and actually supports the notion of
Change TE page 67, answer to "Interpreting Political Cartoons," as
follows. Delete last sentence of Heterogeneous Groups activity for fit.
"Some students may answer that the speaker means that the Constitution
can change with the times as necessary. Others may argue that the speaker is
using irony to support the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted
strictly, according to the Framers' original intent."
9. p. 72T – The wording of the Quick Lesson Plan on
page 72 of the Teacher's Edition implies that the constitution has lasted a
long time because it is easily adapted to modern times. This suggests that the
document itself it meant to be reinterpreted in different ways across the ages.
One could just as easily suggest that the reason it has lasted so long is
because it contains timeless principles that are not open to revisionism.
Change TE page 72 Quick Lesson Plan Focus to:
"Tell students that the Constitution has survived for more than 200
years because it contains timeless principles yet can be amended. Ask students
to discuss what they know about the formal amendment process."
10. p. 82 – The Assessment exercise Take it to the
Net asks students to read about why the constitution is often called the
"Living Constitution." It should be suggested that students also discuss the
importance of maintaining the original intent of the constitution less the
document become meaningless. Perhaps students could draft up 10 rules for good
classroom behavior and then debate the extent to which these rules should
remain fixed over time or be flexible. If fixed, will they become too rigid or
outdated as time passes? If flexible, are they in danger of becoming
meaningless, as students will simply amend them to get away with whatever they
Change SE page 82, Take It to the Net activity to:
"Read about the ways in which the Constitution can be amended. Then
write a "constitution" for your classroom that consists of 10 rules for good
classroom behavior. Debate whether these rules should remain fixed or be
flexible. If fixed, will they become outdated? If flexible will they eventually
become meaningless, as students amend them to get away with whatever behavior
11. p. 321 – Regarding the seating of the political parties
in the House, the Republicans sit on the right side of the chamber and the
Democrats the left, not the other way around as the book conveys. I think the
book presentation on tilts is confusing because it presents the seating
arrangement from the orientation of the Speaker rather than from the
perspective of the members. As is the case with most assemblies in the world,
conservative sit on the right, liberals on the left. The same is true with the
Change SE, page 321, paragraph 2, last sentence, to:
"The Democrats take their seats to the left of the center aisle; the
Republicans, to the right."
12. p. 363 – The discussion regarding whether the president
can fire the Vice-President implies that the Vice-President is independent of
the president. It should be acknowledged that the President is still the VP's
superior and he can essentially be forced off the ticket or asked to resign.
Change SE page 363, second column, paragraph 1, last sentence to:
"No matter what the circumstances, the President cannot fire the Vice
President, although he can force the Vice President off the ticket or ask him
13. p. 380 – The discussion of the presidential election of
2000 notes that the Supreme Court "gave" Bush the electoral votes from Florida.
While the book has done a fairly good job of avoiding partisan rhetoric, an
alternative word choice is need here. For instance, the book could contend that
the US Supreme Court "validated" Bush's victory in Florida. In short, the
outcome of this election was fairly controversial (as the text notes). The
analysis of the election seems slanted given the word choice used to describe
the outcome. A more neutral descriptor is needed.
Change SE page 381, paragraph 1, sentence 1 to:
"It also preserved George W. Bush's 537-vote lead in the Statewide
count, resulting in Bush receiving Florida's 25 electoral votes."
14. p. 381 — The text does a good job of discussing the
weakness of the electoral college as well as proposed reforms. Is no attention
paid to arguments in favor of retaining the current system?
See SE page 384, second column, text under heading "Electoral College
15. p. 391 – When explaining why the presidency has grown in
power since its conception, the book offers the explanation that as the "United
States has become more industrialized and technologically advanced, the people
have demanded that the Federal Government play a larger role.... " The wording
of this statement conveys the impression that increased Federal Power is a
one-way street; that the people demand something and the government responds.
It is just as likely that the Federal Government grew in power by usurping
powers traditionally left to the states and by an increase in bureaucratic size
that simply expanded the government's ability to regulate. This section of the
text might better be phrased as "The Federal Government has played an
increasingly larger role ... " and omit the "demands of the people" part since
that seems rather speculative.
Change SE page 391, paragraph 3, sentence 3 to:
"As the United States has become more industrialized and technologically
advanced, the Federal Government has played an increasingly larger role in
transportation, labor, civil rights, health, welfare, communication, education,
the environment, and a host of other fields."
16. p. 415 – As a contrast to exploring the "benefits" of
bureaucracy, some discussion should be added regarding potential disadvantages
or costs of bureaucracy.
Change SE page 415 heading, "The Benefits of a Bureaucracy," and two
paragraphs following to:
"Costs and Benefits of Bureaucracy
These three features —
hierarchical authority, job specialization, and formalized rules — can
make bureaucracy an effective way to accomplish large and complex tasks. The
hierarchy can speed action by reducing conflicts over who has the power to make
decisions. Job specialization can promote efficiency because each worker
focuses on one particular job and thus gains a set of specialized skills and
knowledge. Formalized rules can mean that workers act with some speed and
precision because decisions are based on a set of known standards. These rules
also enable work to continue even as some workers leave and new workers are
On the other hand, bureaucracy's reputation for waste and inefficiency
is not unfounded. Bureaucracies can be large, unwieldy organizations where
hierarchy, specialization, and rules lead to seemingly endless paperwork and
delays." See also caption on page 414 regarding "red tape."
17. p. 451 – The statement that social insurance taxes are
collected by the IRS and then "credited" to trust accounts maintained by the
Treasury is true but incomplete. Students should be made aware that these funds
are credited but not held in the Treasury. That is, the collected funds are
usually completely spent on an annual basis to help the government meet
expenditures in other areas. This practice has created great concern over the
future viability of the Social Security program as it may lack necessary funds
to meet payments.
Change SE page 451, column 1, paragraph 3 to:
"The IRS collects social insurance taxes. The money is credited to trust
accounts maintained by the Treasury, and Congress appropriates funds for social
insurance programs as needed. These funds are usually completely spent on an
annual basis to help the government meet expenditures in other areas."
For fit, change column 1, paragraph 2 to "Notice that social insurance
taxes are regressive taxes. They are taxes levied at a flat rate,
without regard to a taxpayer's income or ability to pay."
18. p. 534T – the Background Notes section of the Teacher's
Edition notes that the first slate of amendments proposed for the newly adopted
constitution consisted of 12 amendments, of which only 10 were ratified. This
is true but it should be noted that one of those remaining two – the one
dealing with Congressional salaries – was eventually ratified as the
27th amendment, two centuries later.
Delete TE page 534, Background Note, "Constitutional Issues."
19. p. 542T – The Background Note states that "this country
was not founded as a Christian nation" and to think so is a misconception. The
sidebar needs more explanation. First, the writer seems to have confused
differences between denominations and religions. Much of the debate over
religion and the decision to protect religious diversity in the First Amendment
was due to disagreement between Christian denominations – Catholics from
Maryland, Anglicans from Virginia, Puritans from Massachusetts, etc. The
Founders feared that a state religion would in fact lead to tyranny against
these other religions. However, Christianity was the dominate religion of the
day, the intent of the First Amendment was to protect the diversity of
Christian denominations at the state level from the National government Second,
the claim mat Jefferson was not a Christian is subject to some debate.
Change TE page 542, Background Note, to: "The Free Exercise
The intent of the First Amendment was to protect the diversity of
Christian denominations at the State level from the National government. Since
the Framers did not share one denomination, they felt that no single religion
should be dominant in the new nation. When delegates to the Virginia Convention
met in 1776, they drew on John Locke's ideas of religious tolerance, which held
that though an established church might be retained, other faiths would be
tolerated. It was delegate James Madison who drafted the statement that "all
men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the
dictates of conscience." This statement became the model for the Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment and ensured religious freedom for people of all
20. p. 570 – The book should devote more discussion to the
2nd Amendment There is ample scholarship on both side of the issue
to support different interpretations. Discussion of the 2nd
Amendment should also make use of Locke's treatise. Remember Locke, upon
which the Americans base their doctrine of revolution, contends that if
governments become tyrannical the people should attempt to alter that
government first through peaceful means. If all these attempts fail, armed
revolution may be the only recourse. The placement of the 2nd
Amendment immediately after the 1st (our ability to criticize and
protest against the government) implies that the right to bear arms Is
conceived of by the Founders as part of the means of resisting tyrannical
government. To what extent this can be achieved solely through the strength of
the state militia is debatable. Given the increase in Federal power over the
last 200 years, and increased efforts to regulate gun ownership, this topic
merits more discussion man the five small paragraphs devoted to it here. On a
related note, page 772 interprets the 2nd amendment without giving
any consideration to differing interpretations. The text provides a
collectivist interpretation of the 2nd amendment without giving any
consideration to differing interpretations. The 2nd amendment has
taken on a more individualistic definition, particularly in light of recent
circuit court cases and the changes in the presidency, and the strength of the
NRA in terms of membership and influence leads credence to at least exploring
this alternative interpretation.
Add to TE p. 570:
In November 2001,
Attorney General John Ashcroft informed attorneys working for the National
Government of a shift in policy regarding the 2nd Amendment. In the past, U.S.
attorneys had argued that the 2nd Amendment referred primarily to a collective
right based on state militias. Ashcroft wrote that U.S. attorneys were to argue
in weapons-related court cases that the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect
an individual's right to keep and bear arms. The new policy was apparent in a
letter that Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote to the Supreme Court in May
2002 regarding a challenge to a District of Columbia law. Olson wrote, "The
current position of the United States is that the 2nd Amendment more broadly
protects the rights of individuals ... to possess and bear their own firearms,
subject to reasonable restrictions."
Change SE page 571, first column, first two paragraphs to:
"Many argue that the 2nd Amendment also sets out an individual right. In
this view, the amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms just as, for
example, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. This interpretation
rests partly on Locke's Second Treatise on Government, which says that
people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government when peaceful means
fail. Armed individuals may be a more effective deterrent to tyranny than a
The Supreme Court has not accepted this interpretation. In United
States v. Miller, 1939, the Court upheld part of a federal law that
outlawed shipping sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, or silencers between States
unless the shipper had registered them with the Treasury Department and paid a
$200 fee. The Court ruled there was no reasonable link between these weapons
and "the preservation ... of a well-regulated militia."
SE page 772, 2nd Amendment Commentary, has been changed on errors list
submitted to TEA to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms was insured
by the 2nd Amendment."
21. p. 170 – The comment that older voters typically prefer
the Republican party is subject to debate. For the past 10 years, the
Democratic party has seen an increase in support from older voters, mainly on
issues of Social Security and prescription drugs. Your own data in the table on
page 167 supports this claim.
Change SE page 170, paragraph 2, sentence 2 to:
"Traditionally, younger voters have been more likely to be Democrats
than Republicans. Older voters were likely to find the GOP and its candidates
more attractive." [Remainder of paragraph explains how these patterns changed
from 1984 to 2000.]
22. p. 240 – The argument that better organized and
better-financed interest groups have an unfair advantage should be
further explained. How, in a democratic system, can we make the claim that an
organization that is freely funded and more effective is somehow unfair?
Change SE page 240, column 2, paragraph 2 to:
"Some interest groups are more highly organized and better-financed than
others. Critics argue that these groups have an unfair advantage. Others point
out that such groups are freely funded by people who believe in the group's
work. That these groups are highly influential simply means that they have more
popular support, or members who believe more intently in their causes, than
23. p. 209T – The answer to question A regarding the
political spectrum notes mat "Liberals tend to support raising taxes to help
ensure economic fairness." The problem with this statement is that the concept
of "economic fairness" is unclear. In addition, it implies that those who
oppose raising taxes must be against "economic fairness." Some clarification is
needed here. Perhaps the statement could be rephrased to suggest that liberals
tend to support tax increases in order to redistribute wealth or fund social
Change TE page 209 answer to "Interpreting Diagrams" (a) to:
"Liberals tend to support raising taxes in order to redistribute wealth
or fund social programs."
24. p. 234T – If the teacher's edition of this text is going
to advocate that students investigate SAFE (a gun control organization) and
decide whether to start their own campus chapter, perhaps they should also
investigate the NRA and compare and contrast the two.
TE page 234, change "You Can Make a Difference" to:
"The SAFE in SAFE Students stands for "Sane Alternatives to the Firearms
Epidemic," an interest group that supports gun control. NRA stands for the
National Rifle Association, which promotes the right to gun ownership. Point
out that these organizations represent just two of the hundreds of interest
groups in this country. Then direct a committee of students to consult each
group's Web site (www.safestudents.org and www.nra.org) and evaluate SAFE
Students and the NRA. They should compare and contrast each group's purposes
and activities and make a presentation to the class."
25. p. 196T – In the Quick Lesson Plan the publisher
advocates that teachers begin the discussion by telling students mat the high
cost of elections has "created serious problems in the American political
system." On what basis does the publisher make that claim?
Change TE page 196 Focus to:
"Tell students that total campaign spending for the 2000 presidential
election came to at least $1.5 billion. Ask them to list some of the ways in
which candidates might have spent this money, such as staff salaries, travel,
and advertising. Then discuss whether the amount of money candidates spend
should be restricted or whether such high costs are justified in a democratic
system where candidates are expected to reach tens of millions of people."
26. p. 205 – The disposition to see soft-money and the
current campaign financing system as problematic also permeates the learning
activities of the book.
See response to #27 below.
27. p. 205 – The disposition to see soft-money and the
current campaign financing system as problematic also permeates the learning
activities of the book. Question 28 on the Critical Thinking Skill sections
asks students to discuss how Buckley v. Valeo creates a problem for
"closing the loopholes" in current campaign finance laws. My concern here is
three-fold: 1) The question implies that the Supreme Court was wrong or
presents a barrier to reform, 2) the question implies that there is something
wrong with soft-money contributions, even in light of the Supreme Courts ruling
that this is a freedom of speech issue, 3) the question ignores any discussion
of the merits of soft-money as a means of participating in the democratic
process and supporting candidates and causes in which one believes."
Change SE page 205 question #28 to:
"28. Expressing Problems Clearly Should federal law prohibit
candidates from accepting soft money? Write a well-reasoned paragraph
explaining your answer."
Change TE page 205 answer to #28 to:
"28. Yes: Candidates who use soft money for political campaigns are
exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws and have an unfair advantage.
No: soft-money is a means of participating in the democratic process and of
supporting candidates and causes in which one believes."
Formal Response to Oral Testimony, July
Submitted by Prentice Hall
August 7, 2002
Amy LeFore, Transcript pp. 57-64
Responses to Amy LeFore's
testimony on Longman's Government in America.
Thank you for your comments on Chapter 2 of Government in
We greatly appreciate your perspective and the time you took to share
it, and we would like to explain briefly why we wrote the chapter as we
We quote Charles Beard because he is one of the most famous historians
in American history and his assertion about the motivations of the Framers is
widely known. We then provide a response to his assertion, one that puts the
Framers in a more positive light, because we feel his assertion is incorrect.
Our discussion of the signing of the Constitution accurately portrays
the disagreements surrounding it (twenty-nine percent of the 55 delegates to
the Constitutional Convention did not sign the Constitution). In addition, we
do not intend for students to come away thinking the Framers were disgruntled
or excessive drinkers. We mention the tavern only because it adds a light touch
to a solemn occasion and shows that the Framers were human beings, not
demi-gods, making them more approachable to students.
Similarly, our discussion of the anti-Federalists focuses on their
critiques of the document, views that were widely shared at the time. Such
views were why it was necessary to engage in major battles for ratification in
the states. We cast the Federalist papers in a very positive light and
even print Nos. 10 and 51 on pages 698-703 in the appendix.
One of the glories of the Constitution is that it is a living
document. We make very clear that it can only formally be changed by formal
amendment. However, we also show that, the way the constitutional system works,
changes occur as a result of a number of factors. There are many examples. It
was a Supreme Court decision rather than a change in the Constitution that
outlawed segregation in public schools. State laws and political parties, not a
formal amendment, have fundamentally changed the way the Electoral College
works and thus how we select the president.
Informal changes in the constitutional system are quite different from
the issue of how courts should interpret the Constitution (and we provide both
views on interpretation in Chapter 15 on the courts).
The statement regarding abortion on page 56 is designed merely to
illustrate how rights change under the Constitution. It is does not serve as
our discussion of abortion, which appears in Chapter 4. The sentence as it
stands is accurate, and we felt that a more detailed discussion of the issues
surrounding abortion would be inaccurate in this particular context.
Again, we appreciate your thoughtful effort and hope this response will
reassure you and allay your concerns.
George C. Edwards III
Distinguished Professor of Political Science
George and Julia Blucher Jordan Chair in Presidential Studies, Bush School
Department of Political Science
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77845-4348
Jennifer Powell, Transcript pp. 71-72
Responses to Jennifer
Powell's testimony on Prentice Hall The American Nation
"There are inadequate references to the signers and their backgrounds."
Prentice Hall regrets that we cannot cover everything in depth in a
survey text. Individual treatment of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence is beyond the scope of an eighth grade text. However, the note in
the Teacher's Edition does suggest that the teacher may want to extend
information using outside resources. Biographies of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence are readily available using a standard Internet
Eleanor Hutchinson, Transcript pp. 107-118
Responses to Eleanor
Hutcheson's testimony on Prentice Hall Lone Star: The Story of
Transcript page 107, line numbers 17-25, and page 108, line number
"Glencoe and Holt did correctly state the accurate details of the Treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the $15 million United States paid to Mexico for the land
session. They both also mention the additional 3.5 million paid to settle
claims which Prentice and MacDougal did not."
"It would be easier to understand if comment could be made that the time
Texas — at the time Mexico was only 24 years old and badly in need of
debt, welcoming the money."
To include more information about the terms of the Treaty of
Guadalupe-Hidalgo, Prentice Hall agrees to add the following to p. 244,
paragraph 4, line 6:
"It paid Mexico $15 million for this land, and agreed to settle over $3
million of claims made by U.S. citizens against Mexico."
To allow room for this change, make the following changes:
In paragraph 4, lines 2-6, change "The Mexican Cession included much of
the land that today makes up the southwestern part of the United States. The
United States gained all or part of what is now California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado." To "The
Mexican Cession included much of the present-day southwestern United
States — all or part of what is now California, Arizona, New Mexico,
Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado."
Also, paragraph 5, lines 5-6, change "The United States controlled all
the land between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans." To "The United States
expanded to the Pacific Ocean."
Regarding Mexico's welcoming the cash settlement:
The Mexican economy was troubled for much of its first fifty years as a
nation (from 1821-1871) because of the effects of the split with Spain (Ency.
Brittanica, "The History of Mexico"). However, the U.S. military victory and
occupation of Mexico City were the motivating factors for the Mexicans to sign
the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. The loss of so much territory was a national
embarrassment for years to come. To quote the Library of Congress' Country
Study of Mexico, "The territorial losses and the brief but traumatic occupation
of Mexico City by United States troops engendered a deep-seated mistrust of the
United States that still resonates in Mexican popular culture." (see
under Mexico). It would be misleading to represent Mexico as finding the Treaty
of Guadalupe-Hidalgo favorable. The Gadsden Purchase, in 1853, was undertaken
by Santa Anna explicitly to raise money [Ency. Brittanica].
Transcript page 108, lines 2-4
"Again, Glencoe and Holt explain the laws made by the State democratic
party of Texas forbidding the blacks to vote in their primary."
To explain white primaries more fully in Lone Star, Prentice Hall
agrees to change p. 435, paragraph 6, to:
"Texas and some other states in the South did not allow African
Americans and Mexican Americans to vote in Democratic primary elections.
(A primary election is one in which voters choose the candidates.) They could
vote in Republican primaries. However, the Democratic Party dominated Texas
politics for many years."
To allow room for this change, on p. 436, last paragraph, change: "After
the war, these veterans returned home. Many hoped their service to the nation
would lead to greater civil rights." To "After the war, many veterans hoped
their service would lead to greater civil rights."
Transcript page 108, lines 5-14
"At this time, I will quote from Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: "Most
blacks who voted in 1932 were loyal to the Republicans as the party of the
emancipation.["] However, in both MacDougal and Prentice, for many years laws
kept African-Americans from voting or running from office, unquote. Duplicated
with picture, repeating the lie in Prentice. Of course, they voted in the
republican primary. Even now I couldn't vote in the democratic primary because
I am a republican."
Please see above addition to p. 435 re: Republican primaries.
The sentence Ms. Hutcheson quotes is on p. 456, paragraph 6, lines 1-2,
of Lone Star. It reads "For many years, laws kept African Americans from
voting or running for office." The source for the information is the Handbook
of Texas Online, "African Americans and Politics." Pages 2-3 of that article
details how the poll tax, the all-white Democratic primary, restrictive
registration systems, and violence all combined to cause African American
voting and political participation to decline from the 1890s through the first
half of the twentieth century. From Reconstruction to 1897, 42 African
Americans were elected to the Texas legislature. From 1897 until 1966, no
African Americans served in the Texas legislature (page 4 of "African Americans
and Politics", pages 4-5 of "Texas Legislature," also in the Handbook of Texas
Online). This clearly reflects a decline in voting and holding office. However,
some African Americans did remain active in the Republican Party, such as
William Madison McDonald, whom Ms. Hutcheson mentions in her testimony. The
weakness of the Republican Party in Texas, combined with the "Lily White"
faction that took control around 1900, limited the political impact of
remaining African American Republicans (Handbook of Texas Online, "Republican
Party," pages 2-3). As T.R. Fehrenbach says in Lone Star: A History of Texas
and the Texans, "The Democrats, first by de facto practices, then by
written law, denied the [African American] the privilege of voting in the
Democrat primary. In one-party states, this disenfranchised the race" (2000
edition, page 629).
To clarify that this issue is more complicated than the current sentence
("For many years, laws kept African Americans from voting or running for
office.") reflects, Prentice Hall agrees to change the sentence to:
"For many years, African Americans were discouraged from voting and
running for office. Laws, poll taxes, and the white primary hindered their
To fit this change, delete the following sentence: "Within two decades,
a total of 16 women served in the state legislature." From p. 456, paragraph 3,
Prentice Hall also agrees to change the caption question on page 456
from "What kept African Americans from gaining public office in the past?" to
"What helped more African Americans gain public office in the late 1900s?" The
caption answer in the Teacher's Edition would change to: "Court decisions and
amendments removed obstacles that had hindered African American voting."
Transcript page 108, lines 22-25 and page 109, line 1
"There are many sweeping statements on Prentice Page 456 without proof
to support them. This is called bias. Look on Prentice's page 522 of the
definition. That page should be completely corrected before adoption."
Please see below for sources of all facts on page 456.
Line 1: "Despite these gains, the Democrats were still strong." —
proven by next two sentences.
Lines 1-2: "Democrat Ann Richards was governor from 1991 to 1995."
— The Handbook of Texas Online, "Women and Politics," p. 5; also Texas
Almanac, 2000-2001, p. 461-2.
Lines 2-3: "The party held most of the seats in the legislature. The two
parties had about the same number of members statewide." [The party referred to
is the Democratic party.] — The Handbook of Texas Online, "Texas Since
World War II," p. 14, states that in 1994, Democrats held 17 Senate seats and
88 seats in the House of Representatives, while Republicans held 14 Senate
seats and 62 seats in the House of Representative. One-third of voters were
Democrats, one-third Republicans, and one-third Independents.
Lines 1-2 "The people who make up the state government became more
diverse. New laws and court rulings helped women and minorities enter
politics." — Handbook of Texas Online, "African Americans and Politics,"
pp. 4-5, "Mexican Americans," p. 4, and "Women and Politics," pp. 4-5.
Lines 1-2 "In the 1960s, a call for equal rights for women swept the
nation." — Handbook of Texas Online, "Women and Politics," p. 5
Lines 2-3 "More women sought public office. Barbara Jordan became the
first Texas woman elected to Congress." — Handbook of Texas Online, "Women
and Politics," p. 4-5, "Barbara Charline Jordan," p. 1.
Lines 3-4 "Within two decades, a total of 16 women served in the state
legislature." Delete for space for changes to Paragraph 6.
Lines 5-6 "The Texas Women's Political Caucus formed in 1971. It
supported women who ran for office." — Handbook of Texas Online, "Women
and Politics," p. 5
Line 7 "La Raza Unida Party helped Hispanic women." Prentice Hall will
change this sentence to read as follows: "Hispanic women's involvement in
politics also grew." — The Handbook of Texas Online, "Women and Politics,"
p. 5, "Mexican American Business and Professional Women's Association," p. 1,
"Hispanic Women's Network of Texas," p. 1.
Lines 1-3 "Texans elected Ann Richards governor in 1990. This made her
the state' second female governor. (The first was Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, elected
in 1924)." — Handbook of Texas Online, "Women and Politics," pp. 3 and 5;
Texas Almanac, 2000-2001, pp. 431-432, and 434.
Lines 1-2 "Many other female leaders have served the state. Kathy
Whitmire became mayor of Houston in 1981." — David G. McComb, Texas: A
Modern History. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1989, p. 181; Handbook
of Texas Online, "Houston, TX," p. 4
Lines 2-3 "Myra McDaniel became the Secretary of State three years
later. She was the first African American named to a state cabinet post."
— David G. McComb, Texas: A Modern History. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1989, p. 181
Lines 4-5 "Dallas voters elected Annette Straub as mayor in 1987."
— David G. McComb, Texas: A Modern History. Austin: University of
Texas Press, 1989, p. 181
Lines 5-6 "Rose Spector became the first woman to serve on the Texas
Supreme Court." — Handbook of Texas Online, "Women and Politics," p. 6
Lines 6-7 "Voter elected Kay Bailey Hutchinson to the U.S. Senate in
1993." — Handbook of Texas Online, Texas Almanac, 2000-2001 p. 465.
Lines 1-2 "For many years, laws kept African Americans from voting or
running for office."
Change to "For many years, African Americans were discouraged from
voting and running for office. Laws, poll taxes, and the white primary hindered
their participation." Please see previous response for sources on the revision
of this sentence.
Lines 2-5 "In 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that legislative districts
in a state had to have an equal number of voters. This meant that small numbers
of rural whites could no longer control state legislatures." — The New
York Public Library American History Desk Reference. New York: Stonesong
Press, Inc. and The New York Public Library, 1997, p. 201; also Handbook of
Texas Online, "Texas Legislature," p. 5, and "Government," p. 8.
Lines 5-6 "An amendment ended poll taxes in 1964." — The New
York Public Library American History Desk Reference. New York: Stonesong
Press, Inc. and The New York Public Library, 1997, p. 184
Lines 6-7 "The next year, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. It
removed racial barriers to voting." — The New York Public Library
American History Desk Reference. New York: Stonesong Press, Inc. and The
New York Public Library, 1997, p. 191
Lines 7-8 "The number of African Americans who registered to vote
soared. They became a force in Texas politics." — Handbook of Texas
Online, "Texas Since World War II," p. 3
Lines 1-3 "African American leaders have helped the state in many ways.
Barbara Jordan helped to investigate President Richard Nixon during the
Watergate scandal." — Handbook of Texas Online, "Barbara Charline
Lines 3-5. "Mickey Leland used his power in the U.S. Congress to fight
world hunger. He died in an air crash in 1989. His work continues at the Mickey
Leland Center for World Peace and Hunger. — Handbook of Texas Online,
Lines 1-2 "Hispanics also launched a civil rights movement in the
1960s." — Handbook of Texas Online, "Mexican-Americans."
Lines 2-4 "Groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens
(LULAC) and the La Raza Unida Party (RUP) helped them gain more economic,
social, and political power." — Handbook of Texas Online,
"Mexican-Americans," "Raza Unida Party," "League of United Latin American
Lines 1-4 "LULAC formed in 1929. It became the first nationwide Mexican
American civil rights group. It worked to end segregation in schools and
housing. It fought for the right of Hispanics to serve on juries. It also
helped Mexican Americans take part in politics." — Handbook of Texas
Online,"League of United Latin American Citizens."
Lines 1 "La Raza Unida Party formed in 1970." — Documents of
Texas History, ed. Ernest Wallace, David M. Vigness, and George B. Ward.
Austin: State House Press, 1994, p. 301. Lines 1-3 "The RUP's candidate for
governor in 1974, Ramsey Muñiz, won 6 percent of the vote. This kept the
winner, Democrat Dolph Briscoe from winning with a full majority." —
Handbook of Texas Online, "Tejano Politics," and "Raza Unida Party."
Transcript page 110, lines 5-7
"Prentice on 481 has a map that's very confusing as to district lines
for 12 and 30."
The map on page 481 shows district 12 marked in yellow and district 30
marked in red, with arrows indicating their designations. District 12 is
difficult to depict on a map of this scale.
Transcript page 117, lines 17-25 and page 118, lines 1-2
"If you will look on that Page 456 in — on Prentice Hall, the whole
page is wrong because they don't even recognize the balance. They need a
calculator when they figure out how many republicans there were in office in
the last two decades and how many non-republicans if you want to put it that
way, when they list the governors. The total governor, they said there was a
balanced situation. Well, the governors totaled eight years and the republicans
totaled 14. It doesn't — it isn't balanced according to that."
Lone Star does not list the governors of Texas on page 456, or
the preceding page 455. We are uncertain which sentences Ms. Hutcheson refers
to. Under the heading "Republicans gain power" on page 455, the text relates
the gains that Republicans made in the formerly Democrat-dominated state from
1970 to 2000. On page 456, the text asserts that "Despite these gains,
Democrats were still strong," implying a balance of power between Democrats and
Republicans during the time span of the chapter, 1970 to 2000. From January
1969 through January 2001, Democrat Texas governors served 18 years, and
Republican governors served 14 years. While not exactly equal, the relative
years of service indicate a balance that did not exist in the previous 30-year
period, when every governor was a Democrat. Please see above for further
sources for page 456.
Becky Armstrong, Transcript p. 122, lines 20-25
Becky Armstrong's testimony on Prentice Hall World Explorer, People, Places,
"In World Explorer, People, Places, and Cultures, a Prentice Hall
book. On Page 97 under the heading postwar responsibilities. The significance
of the civil rights movement is reduced to only two sentences. Excuse me. No
other mention of the civil rights movement can be found in the rest of the book
if you look in the back of the index."
Because of the scope of this world cultures course, the book only
devotes four pages to twentieth-century American history. The civil rights
movement is included in this four page lesson as a "key term" to emphasize its
importance to students. In addition to the text describing the movement, the
photo and caption on page 97 portray Martin Luther King, Jr., an important
leader in the civil rights movement. The Chapter 5 Review and Assessment on
pages 102-103 provides students with several opportunities to do additional
research on topics covered in the chapter — including the civil rights
There are several additional references to the American civil rights
movement in the text. For example:
• on page 394 of the Teacher's Edition, a Warm-Up Activity allows
students to make comparisons between the United States civil rights movement
and the African National Congress' fight for equality in South Africa. The
photo caption on Student Edition page 394 asks students to identify
similarities between the two civil rights movements.
• on page 474 of the Teacher's Edition a Citizenship note describes
how Martin Luther King, Jr. was influenced by Gandhi's methods of nonviolent
resistance, including boycotts.