Untitled Document
Standards
CCE (9-12): IC2; IIA2; IIC1; IIIA1; IIID2
NCHS (5-12): Era III, Standard 3: A, C
Recommended Time: One 45-minute class period. Additional time as needed for homework and extensions.
Objectives:
Students will be able to:
- comprehend the Constitution’s definition of treason
- distinguish between a conspiracy to commit treason and overt treason
- analyze John Marshall’s interpretation of the Constitution’s definition of treason
- apply Marshall’s definition of treason to the case of John Walker Lindh
Materials:
Required:
To view PDF files, download Abode's free Acrobat Reader by clicking on the icon below. Scroll to the bottom of the Adobe page and click on "Get Acrobat Reader Free!"
Lesson Plan:
-
Background/Homework
- Ask students to read Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution and answer the question below:
“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open-court.”
Question: Explain the meaning of each of the following words/phrases:
- “levying war”
--Answers will vary. Possibilities include: waging war; engaging in armed conflict; committing violent acts against the government
- “adhering to their enemies”
--Answers will vary. Possibilities include: supporting, encouraging, allying with groups/individuals opposed to the United States
- “aid and comfort”
--Answers will vary. Possibilities include: providing food, shelter, money, arms, or other types of assistance
- “overt Act”
--An “overt Act” is an action which is obvious, explicit, open
- Warm-Up [5 – 10 minutes]
- Review answers to homework questions.
- If students did not read the Founder of the Month essay, briefly explain to them the circumstances surrounding Burr’s indictment and trial for treason.
Aaron Burr was a colonel in the American Revolution, a prominent politician in New York, the third Vice-President of the United States, the man who killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and the alleged leader of a plot to make the Southwestern United States secede from the Union and establish themselves as a confederacy under his leadership. While the exact details of his actions in 1804-1806 are still somewhat unresolved, Burr was indicted and tried for treason in 1807. He was acquitted due in large part to Chief Justice John Marshall’s narrow interpretation of the Constitutional meaning of treason. Marshall’s rulings ensured that treason would be a legal rather than a political concept and have limited the number of treason indictments and trials in this country.
- Document Analysis [15 – 25 minutes]
- Divide the students into groups of 4-5 and distribute:
- Handout A - Excerpts from Aaron Burr’s Indictment
- Handout B - Excerpts from Marshall’s Rulings
- Students should read the excerpts and answer the questions. (Depending upon the size of the class and the reading ability of students, you may want to have ½ of the class read only one of the documents and then share their answers with each other.)
- Reconvene the entire class and review responses.
- Contemporary Application [10 - 15 minutes]
- Distribute the article about John Walker Lindh (or other relevant articles) to read as homework . Recommended source: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/walker/profile.html
- Students should then write a 1-2 page, thoughtful answer to this question:
Keeping in mind the Constitutional definition of treason and John Marshall’s interpretation of that definition, should John Walker Lindh be indicted for treason?
- Remind students to focus on the Constitutional question (as opposed to political questions). They should also be reminded that the evidence required for an indictment is much less than that required for conviction.
Extensions
- Research and write about other significant treason cases in American history. Possibilities include:
- Whiskey Rebellion Trial (1795)
- U.S. v. Hoxie (1808)
- Haupt v U.S. (1943)
- Cramer v. U.S. (1945)
- Kawakita v. U.S. (1950)
- Thomas Dorr (treason against the state of Rhode Island, 1844)
- Joseph Smith (treason against the state of Illinois, 1844)
- John Brown (treason against the state of Virginia, 1859)
- Jefferson Davis (possible treason against the United States of America)
- Analyze the de-ciphered Cipher Letter and its code to answer this question:
Historians now know that the letter was not written or dictated by Burr but instead by one of his colleagues. If the events described in the letter were true, would that be sufficient grounds to indict or convict Burr for treason? Why or why not?
Recommended web site:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/burr/burrletter.html
Sources
