The Common Core and Historical

Investigations: Reading History and The Panama Canal

Bruce A. LeshFranklin High School

Reisterstown, Maryland

Myths about Primary Sources

• Primary sources are more reliable than secondary• Primary sources can be read as arguments about the

past• Historians use a “sourcing heuristic to evaluate bias

and reliability• Using primary sources engages students in authentic

historical inquiry• Students can build up an understanding of the past

through primary sources• Sources can be classified as primary or secondary

Keith Barton. Primary Sources in History: Breaking Through the Myths. 2005

Uses for historical sources

• To motivate historical inquiry• To supply evidence for historical accounts• To convey information about the past• To provide insight into the thoughts and

experiences of people in the past

Keith Barton. Primary Sources in History: Breaking Through the Myths. 2005

“As every teacher knows, few students have the skills necessary to conduct inquiry on their own. Although inquiry is essential to education, simply assigning such tasks won’t guarantee meaningful results. Most students need direct help to make

the most of their experiences, and teachers’ most important responsibilities is to provide them with

the structure they need to learn—a process known as scaffolding.”

Linda Levstik and Keith Barton Doing History (2005)

USING APPARTS TO ANALYZE DOCUMENTSAUTHOR

Who created the source? What do you know about the author? What is the author's point of view?

PLACE AND TIMEWhere and when was the source produced? How might this affect the meaning of the source?

PRIOR KNOWLEDGEBeyond information about the author and the context of its creation, what do you know that would help you further understand the primary source? For example, do you recognize any symbols and recall what they represent?

AUDIENCEFor whom was the source created and how might this affect the reliability of the source?

REASONWhy was this source produced at the time it was produced?

THE MAIN IDEAWhat main point is the source trying to convey? What is the central message of the document?

SIGNIFICANCEWhy is this source important? What inferences can you draw from this document? Ask yourself, "So what?" What should a student of history or politics take away from the analysis of this document?

Defining First/Second/and Third-Order Documents

• First-Order - The most essential primary source for the teacher on a particular topic in history.

• Second-Order - Three to five primary or secondary sources that challenge or corroborate the central idea in the First-Order document. These documents, selected by the teacher, provide a nuanced understanding of the topic by offering multiple perspectives.

• Third-Order - Additional primary or secondary sources that students find to challenge or corroborate the First-Order document. Ultimately, students should select a Third-Order document to serve as their First-Order document.

Fred Drake and Sarah Drake Brown. A Systemic Approach to Improve Students’ Historical Thinking

SCIM-C Strategy

A tool to help students develop skills to analyze primary sources

Goal- to help students have a more “precise, recursive, and thoughtful approach to historical

inquiry”

                                                                                                         

Summary • Quick examination of the source–What type of document is the source?–What specific information, details

and/or perspectives does the source provide?–What is the subject area and/or

purpose of the source?–Who was the author and/or audience of

the source?

                                                                                                         

Contextualizing • Locating the source within time and

space–When and where was the source

produced?–Why was the source produced?–What was happening within the

immediate broader context at the time the source was produced?–What summarizing information can

place the source in time and place?

                                                                                                         

Inferring

• Revisiting initial facts to begin reading the subtexts and developing an understand of the context–What is suggested by the source?–What interpretations may be drawn?–What perspectives or points of view

are indicated?–What interferences may be drawn from

absences or omissions in the source?

                                                                                                         

Monitoring • Reflect upon what has been discovered based upon

the historical question–What additional evidence beyond the source is

necessary to answer the historical question?–What ideas, images, or terms need further defining?–How useful or significant is the source for its

intended purpose in answering the historical question?

–What question from the previous stages need to be revisited in order to analyze the source satisfactorily?

Corroborating • Once a series of sources have been analyzed

students can now begin to determine similarities and differences between the interpretations – What similarities and differences between the

sources exist?– What factors could account for these similarities

and differences?– What conclusions can be drawn from the

accumulated interpretations?– What additional information or sources are

necessary to answer more fully the guiding historical questions?

                                                                                                         

SourcingBefore reading the document ask yourself:• Who wrote this?• What is the author’s point of view?• Why was it written?• When was it written? (A long time or short

time after the event?)• Is this source believable? Why?• Why not?

Contextualizing• What else was going on at the time this was

written?• What was it like to be alive at this time?• What things were different back then? What

things were the same?• What would it look like to see this event through

the eyes of someone who lived back then?

Close Reading• What claims does the author make?• What evidence does the author use to support

those claims?• How is this document supposed to make me

feel?• What words or phrases does the author use to

convince me that he/she is right?• What information does the author leave out?

Corroboration

• What do other pieces of evidence say?• Am I finding the same information everywhere?• Am I finding different versions of the story? (If yes, why might that be?)• Where else could I look to find out about this?• What pieces of evidence are most believable?

• Text: What is visible/readable--what information is provided by the source?

• Context: What was going on during the time period? What background information do you have that helps explain the information found in the source?

• Subtext: What is between the lines? Must ask questions about: – Author: Who created the source and what do we

know about that person? – Audience: For whom was the source created? – Reason: Why was this source produced at the time

it was produced?– Style: How does the author use language and

rhetorical devices to convey meaning?

Source work terms

“As every teacher knows, few students have the skills necessary to conduct inquiry on their own. Although inquiry is essential to education, simply assigning such tasks won’t guarantee meaningful results. Most students need direct help to make

the most of their experiences, and teachers’ most important responsibilities is to provide them with

the structure they need to learn—a process known as scaffolding.”

Linda Levstik and Keith Barton Doing History (2005)

The truth

A lie

A half-truth

An exaggeration

Obfuscation(hiding the truth)

What are the differences?

1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty : The United States and Britain agree to seek an independent canal.

1898 20-year French effort to build a canal fails after 300

million dollars and thousands of lives are lost 1901 Hay-Poncefote Treaty: British relinquish their rights to

construct a canal 1903 : Convinced by French construction manager, Philippe Bunau-Varilla, the United States agrees to construct a

Colombian canal rather than one in Nicaragua. 1903 Hay-Herran Treaty: United States and Columbia

agree to lease the United States a strip of land for 100 years for $40 Million.

1903 Rejected by the Colombian Parliament.

1904 Canal construction begins

Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla

What happens between the treaties rejection and the construction of the canal?

President Theodore Roosevelt

“No one connected with the American Government had any part in preparing, inciting, or encouraging the revolution,

and except for the reports of our military and naval officers, which I forwarded to Congress, no one connected

with the American government had any previous knowledge concerning the proposed revolution…”

“From the beginning to the end our course was straightforward and in absolute accord with the highest of

standards of international morality…I did not lift my finger to incite the revolutionists…I simply ceased to stamp out the different revolutionary fuses that were

already burning…”

What is Theodore Roosevelt doing in his autobiography

• Truth• A lie• A half-truth• An exaggeration• Obfuscation(hiding the truth)

• Examine your evidence and determine if it provides support for President

Roosevelt's argument or challenges it.

• Be sure to consider the context and subtext of your

source

Source Type of SourceThe Man

Who Invented Panama –

Interview of Bunau Varilla

The interview was given to an investigative journalist 37 years after the events.Bunau-Varilla was almost 90 years old at the time of the interview.

Private Letter to

Hay

This was a private letter (not intended for public consumption) between the former President and his former Secretary of State. The letter was written in 1912, after Roosevelt failed in his bid to win the presidency as a Progressive.

What does I took

Panama Mean

Written after Roosevelt’s deathby former French engineer and first Panamanian Minister to America. Written as a personal narrative of what happened in Panama, and was the second book written by Bunau-Varilla about the Panamanian Revolution.

“The Man Behind the

Egg”: Cartoon

Published in the New York Times investigative story on the events in PanamaMuckraking attempt to investigate the president.

Letter by Jose

Marroquin

Written in protest of the presence of United States Navy and Marines in Panama at the outset of the Panamanian Revolution. Marroquin supported the Hay-Herran Treaty but felt mistreated by the United States after the revolution as worried that the loss of Panama might lead to his loss of power in Columbia.

“Panama or Bust”

Cartoon

The New York Times attempted to counter the yellow journalism of other New York newspapers. The paper was not supportive of American imperial efforts.

"Panama or Bust," The New York Times, 1903Artist unknown

Philippe Bunau-Varilla in a 1940 interview with reporter Eric Sevareid of CBS News

“I called on Mr. Roosevelt and asked him point blank if, when the revolt broke out, an

American warship would be sent to Panama to “protect American lives and interest.” The

President looked at me; he said nothing. Of course a President of the United States could not give such a commitment, especially to a foreigner and private citizen like me. But his look was enough for me. I took the gamble.”

WHAT DOES "I TOOK PANAMA" MEAN?The only straw at which their drowning calumny could clutch was the celebrated

phrase: "I took Panama," which Theodore Roosevelt pronounced in California.When the sentence was reported by the papers I understood that it meant: "I took

Panama because Panama offered herself in order to be protected against Colombia's tyranny and greed."

Recently in speaking to a distinguished visitor to Oyster Bay---William Morton Fullerton, the eminent writer on international problems---Theodore Roosevelt

explained the sentence in this familiar way: "I took Panama because Bunau-Varilla brought it to me on a silver platter."

It is obvious that Theodore Roosevelt's own interpretation of his sentence harmonizes entirely with mine.

It does not mean as the advocates of Colombia say: "I took Panama away from her mother country Colombia because the interests of the United States wanted it." It means: "I protected Panama, at her pressing request, from the tyrannical greed of

Colombia, because her preservation and the world's interests wanted it."Philippe Bunau-Varilla. The Great Adventure of Panama: Wherein Are Exposed Its

Relation to the Great War and also the Luminous Traces of The German Conspiracies Against France and the United States. Doubleday, Page & Company:

Garden City, New York, 1920.

Chicago TribuneNovember 6, 1903

“Panama Revolt Sets back Canal”

Apparently the creation of a new republic on the Isthmus of Panama by means of a successful revolution was the only means of circumventing the greedy officials of Bogotá, who were always willing to sell themselves out

to the highest bidder. It has been freely alleged that the United States officials on the Isthmus, while they did not actually participate in the

revolution, allowed it to be understood that the United States would be friendly to a revolutionary move and would preserve the neutrality of

Panama railroad so completely as to prevent the Columbian government from forwarding troops and munitions of war along that line. Such a

charge is a serious thing from an international standpoint, and President Roosevelt’s administration will not be anxious to pose as a receiver of

stolen property or as have having aided and abetted a revolution to secure to itself personal advantages.

Philippe-Jean Bunau-Varilla

Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty

“Go Away Little Man and Don’t

Bother Me”

New York World

“Uncle Sam has Already Collected the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii and it Looks Like Panama is his Next Victim: The Anneser’ll Get You ef You Don’t Watch Out.” New York

Times, 12/1903

PANAMA CANAL CARTOON, 1903. President Theodore Roosevelt, assisted by Secretary of State John Hay, 'taking' Panama: American cartoon, 1903, by Charles G. Bush

Reading Standards for History/Social Studies

Knowledge of domain-specific vocabulary

Analyze, evaluate, and differentiate primary and secondary sources

Synthesize quantitative and technical information, including facts presented in maps, timelines, flowcharts, or diagrams

Intentional and explicit instruction for students as they interact with discipline-specific text

Text: What is visible/readable--what information is provided by the source?

 Context: What was going on during the time

period? What background information do you have that helps explain the information found in the source?

 Subtext: What is between the lines? Must ask

questions about: • Author: Who created the source and what do we know

about that person? • Audience: For whom was the source created? • Reason: Why was this source produced at the time it

was produced?

Source Work/Historical Literacy

Sourcing: When a reader thinks about a document’s author and why the document was created.Contextualizing: When a reader situates a document and its content in place and time.Corroborating: When a reader asks questions about important details across multiple source to determine points of agreement and disagreement.

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why.php

Reading Strategies and Historical Sources

Writing Standards for History/Social Studies

Write arguments on discipline-specific content and informative/explanatory texts

Make arguments or claims and support those with the use of data, evidence, and reason

Apply domain-specific vocabulary through writing exercises unique to each discipline

Expect students to compose arguments and opinions, informative/explanatory pieces, and narrative texts

Focus on the use of reason and evidence to substantiate an argument or claim

Emphasize ability to conduct research – short projects and sustained inquiry

Source Type of SourceThe Man

Who Invented Panama –

Interview of Bunau Varilla

The interview was given to an investigative journalist 37 years after the events.Bunau-Varilla was almost 90 years old at the time of the interview.

Private Letter to

Hay

This was a private letter (not intended for public consumption) between the former President and his former Secretary of State. The letter was written in 1912, after Roosevelt failed in his bid to win the presidency as a Progressive.

What does I took

Panama Mean

Written after Roosevelt’s deathby former French engineer and first Panamanian Minister to America. Written as a personal narrative of what happened in Panama, and was the second book written by Bunau-Varilla about the Panamanian Revolution.

“The Man Behind the

Egg”: Cartoon

Published in the New York Times investigative story on the events in PanamaMuckraking attempt to investigate the president.

Letter by Jose

Marroquin

Written in protest of the presence of United States Navy and Marines in Panama at the outset of the Panamanian Revolution. Marroquin supported the Hay-Herran Treaty but felt mistreated by the United States after the revolution as worried that the loss of Panama might lead to his loss of power in Columbia.

“Panama or Bust”

Cartoon

The New York Times was developed to counter the yellow journalism of other New York newspapers. The paper was not supportive of American imperial efforts.

"Panama or Bust," The New York Times, 1903Artist unknown

Philippe Bunau-Varilla in a 1940 interview with reporter Eric Sevareid of CBS News

“I called on Mr. Roosevelt and asked him point blank if, when the revolt broke out, an

American warship would be sent to Panama to “protect American lives and interest.” The

President looked at me; he said nothing. Of course a President of the United States could not give such a commitment, especially to a foreigner and private citizen like me. But his look was enough for me. I took the gamble.”

WHAT DOES "I TOOK PANAMA" MEAN?The only straw at which their drowning calumny could clutch was the celebrated

phrase: "I took Panama," which Theodore Roosevelt pronounced in California.When the sentence was reported by the papers I understood that it meant: "I took

Panama because Panama offered herself in order to be protected against Colombia's tyranny and greed."

Recently in speaking to a distinguished visitor to Oyster Bay---William Morton Fullerton, the eminent writer on international problems---Theodore Roosevelt

explained the sentence in this familiar way: "I took Panama because Bunau-Varilla brought it to me on a silver platter."

It is obvious that Theodore Roosevelt's own interpretation of his sentence harmonizes entirely with mine.

It does not mean as the advocates of Colombia say: "I took Panama away from her mother country Colombia because the interests of the United States wanted it." It means: "I protected Panama, at her pressing request, from the tyrannical greed of

Colombia, because her preservation and the world's interests wanted it."Philippe Bunau-Varilla. The Great Adventure of Panama: Wherein Are Exposed Its

Relation to the Great War and also the Luminous Traces of The German Conspiracies Against France and the United States. Doubleday, Page & Company:

Garden City, New York, 1920.

Chicago TribuneNovember 6, 1903

“Panama Revolt Sets back Canal”

Apparently the creation of a new republic on the Isthmus of Panama by means of a successful revolution was the only means of circumventing the greedy officials of Bogotá, who were always willing to sell themselves out

to the highest bidder. It has been freely alleged that the United States officials on the Isthmus, while they did not actually participate in the

revolution, allowed it to be understood that the United States would be friendly to a revolutionary move and would preserve the neutrality of

Panama railroad so completely as to prevent the Columbian government from forwarding troops and munitions of war along that line. Such a

charge is a serious thing from an international standpoint, and President Roosevelt’s administration will not be anxious to pose as a receiver of

stolen property or as have having aided and abetted a revolution to secure to itself personal advantages.

Subtext, the students argue:

• “explains why they wrote the given document…”• “was important to know who created the source, for when the source

was created, and why it was made. Each author had different opinions on the Panama Canal.”

• “Everyone had an agenda on what they wanted to try to fulfill, making them point out what they thought was important.”

• “showed who actually wrote the document and where the document came from.”

• “It was important to consider subtext of the documents because the subtext determined whether the source was reliable enough to base our opinion on.”

• “reading between the lines gives you a much better insite [sic] on what people were really thinking and the true intentions of the character of the source.”

• “was important to see the background and views of the authors.”• “we took the sources a different way before we saw the subtext and

they helped us find the real story.”• “if you only look at the document itself you will not be able to see if

the truth is being covered in the subtext, so your document could be false.”

• “subtext tells us why and for whom the text was written so we can establish bias.”

• “For who [sic] it was written and why it was written can vouch for the validity behind a source.”

One student responded that:

“The whole ordeal was complicated by the various motives. The most helpful source was the letter

between Roosevelt and Hay because there were no facades. In his autobiography, Roosevelt was

obfuscating in order to make himself look better.” Complementing this was the comment that “cartoons may show a skewed opinion only to sell newspapers. Letters are more reliable. Roosevelt’s autobiography

was hiding the truth. He did this to protect his legacy.” Here students are making connections between

subtext (author, audience, purpose) and the sources and then employing this in their interpretation of the past. In addition, they consider both the sources and

their connection to the broader investigation. Instead of compartmentalizing their thinking on each separate

source, students are instead linking them into a narrative interpretation of the lesson’s focus question.

Student responses about historical investigations included:

• “to know the context and subtext in order to prevent lies, half truths, exaggerations, and obfuscations.”

• “research the documents to find out who wrote them, why, and during what time period.”• Look at all of the sources, where they came from, and the bias. Most importantly, their intent on

sharing the information should be looked at.”• “examine the source by looking at the sequence, the writer, time period, the intention of the

document and putting it all together.” • “obtain data that has two sides of the argument.”• “find out who sources are, or are coming from, and consider why they may be telling an event in a

certain manner.”• “identify key people in the event, determine the main idea and what is happening, and see how the

time period effects [sic] it.”• “look at all the sources and know where they are coming from.”• “Look at the context, subtext, and text and all the reasoning behind it and multiple sources.” • “Think about the message of the source.”• “look at the date of the source, the author of the source, and the situation it was written about to

understand why it was written.”• “Leave my options open, and look up as many sources as possible and compare the information

given.”• “Look to see who wrote the source and where the source came from. When reading a source about

a man, you should look to see if the man wrote the source himself.”• “You need to evaluate the context and subtext, meaning why documents were written and for

whom. People are unreliable so a variety of sources need to be considered.”

This approach is encapsulated in the following student reflections:

• “review all sources and take out the biased.”• “not be biased, and try to piece all of the

puzzle together to try and find the truth.”• “Use a single strong evidence to eliminate

source that are contradicting each other.” • “Gather many sources, primary and

secondary, and pick out the most common things.”

• “look at different sources and pick out information that you know is true. You must pull out only the facts and leave out information that you know could be biased or unreliable.”

• “analyze all different sources and have a background on the time period and events going on.”

• “Also, the political cartoons are biased against him, so they are going to exaggerate the bad things Teddy did. The interviews with Philippe B-V [sic] is [sic] also against him, and it was taken long after the issue of the Panama Canal.”

• “I believe Roosevelt knew about the events in order to protect his own reputation. In a letter he wrote, he said he was tired of those Columbians; his intentions were there.”

• “However, other sources such as political cartoons depict that Roosevelt took Panama over and broke laws, but also helped Panama to get free from Columbia… Even though the source may have biased opinions based on the point of view that is presenting evidence on whether or not he did nothing or he really did something no source completely agree [sic] with Roosevelt’s point of view.”

• “In one of Roosevelt’s private letters [letter from Roosevelt to Secretary of State John Hay]…he writes that he is fed up with Columbia and is going to focus on Panama now…”

• “The cartoons were biased but all of the events included in them, including Roosevelt breaking laws, could not have all been made up…The Muckrakers [creators of the cartoons or the newspapers/magazines in which they were published?] might also be exaggerating Roosevelt’s involvement b/c [sic] they didn’t support Roosevelt…”

• “However, others, like the Columbians and the Muckrakers, while not the most honorable sources, believe Roosevelt did play a role…”

“The various types of sources used to determine the purpose of Roosevelt’s autobiography created problems because…”:

• “each source had different subtexts. Different authors created each source which created biased information. Some authors agreed w/ President Roosevelt, and some did not.”

• “Everyone had their own opinion about what they believe. Some were for and others against.”

• “Few of them challenged President Roosevelt’s contentions while other [sic] supported the contention. Most of them were biased because news articles and cartoons usually only try to show their own viewpoint through untrue stories.”

• “They were US sources. Some of them were created by Panamanians. They all had different views.”

• “The truth was twisted in order to make Roosevelt look bad or good. The creaters [sic] of the documents had a purpose in writing or making the source, so they gave what information they wanted.”

• “We didn’t know what the reasons were behind each sources telling of the events. There was a whole lot of bias from the President [Roosevelt] and Philippe [Bunau-Varilla] who wanted to cast themselves in a good light…”

• “Letters and Articles can’t be changed because they are primary sources. Plus they are not written by the president of him just the people and the press.”

• “They were all different sources saying different things. Some were letters from Roosevelt which meant they were lies. Others were newspaper articles and political cartoons which were biased. It was hard to know which one to believe.”

• “they all varied in opinions of whether they agreed with what Roosevelt said in his autobiography.”

• “They were from many different views and we could not determine the real story without the subtext.”

• “some were credible and some were not based on the subtext of the texts.”

http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/why.html