What
is similar about how a lawyers makes his case and how a historian makes his
case?
What
can historians do that lawyers cannot or should not do?
How
do historians look at this case differently from lawyers or legal observers?
What
strands of nativism existed in America in the 1920s?
What
historical factors shaped the case inside the courtroom?
What
explains the case’s focus on radicalism rather than the crime?
How
did the prosecution portray this case?
Why
did the “fuss” continue for several years after the trial and the after
contributing factors had disappeared or subsided?
How
did Goddard understand intelligence?
How
did Goddard connect intelligence with morality?
Why
were morons such a threat to society?
What
does he suggest that society do with morons?
How
did this Ellis Island study affect him?
What
might explain his findings?
What
was the relationship between WWI and IQ tests?
What
were the basic findings or “facts’ of the Army tests?
How
did these findings affect the immigration debate?
How
did these findings changed immigration restriction laws between 1921 and 1924?
Who
does it purportedly represent in America?
Who
in particular is the enemy?
What
is Klan’s definition of Americanism? What
do they stand for?
What is missing from their message compared to earlier Klans?
How
does he define a “fundamentalist” and how did those who fall into this
category shape the battle over the teaching of evolution in the schools?
What
impact did WWI have on this debate over evolution?
Why
did the ACLU challenge state laws that restricted teaching of evolution in the
schools?
How
did the case in Tennessee come about?
How
did the author at the end of his article portray this case in terms of its
larger significance?