# data[].attributes.body
The Salem Witch Trials began in Salem Massachusetts where suffering from fits claimed that several women were inflicting the devil onto them, accusing them of being witches. These accusations soon became very popular to accusing a women who did not fit into social norms and over 150 people mostly women where put to trial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. What Caused the Salem Witch Trials?: Context & Origins

2. Salem Witch Trial Victims: How the Hysteria Spread

3. Salem Witch Trials: Conclusion and Legacy

The infamous Salem witch trials began during the spring of 1692, after a group of young girls in Salem Village, Massachusetts, claimed to be possessed by the devil and accused several local women of witchcraft. As a wave of hysteria spread throughout colonial Massachusetts, a special court convened in Salem to hear the cases; the first convicted witch, Bridget Bishop, was hanged that June. Eighteen others followed Bishop to Salem's Gallows Hill, while some 150 more men, women and children were accused over the next several months.

By September 1692, the hysteria had begun to abate and public opinion turned against the trials. Though the Massachusetts General Court later annulled guilty verdicts against accused witches and granted indemnities to their families, bitterness lingered in the community, and the painful legacy of the Salem witch trials would endure for centuries.

What Caused the Salem Witch Trials?: Context & Origins

Belief in the supernatural-and specifically in the devil's practice of giving certain humans (witches) the power to harm others in return for their loyalty-had emerged in Europe as early as the 14th century, and was widespread in colonial New England. In addition, the harsh realities of life in the rural Puritan community of Salem Village (present-day Danvers, Massachusetts) at the time included the after-effects of a British war with France in the American colonies in 1689, a recent smallpox epidemic, fears of attacks from neighboring Native American tribes and a longstanding rivalry with the more affluent community of Salem Town (present-day Salem).

Amid these simmering tensions, the Salem witch trials would be fueled by residents' suspicions of and resentment toward their neighbors, as well as their fear of outsiders.

Did you know? In an effort to explain by scientific means the strange afflictions suffered by those "bewitched" Salem residents in 1692, a study published in Science magazine in 1976 cited the fungus ergot (found in rye, wheat and other cereals), which toxicologists say can cause symptoms such as delusions, vomiting and muscle spasms.

In January 1692, 9-year-old Elizabeth (Betty) Parris and 11-year-old Abigail Williams (the daughter and niece of Samuel Parris, minister of Salem Village) began having fits, including violent contortions and uncontrollable outbursts of screaming. After a local doctor, William Griggs, diagnosed bewitchment, other young girls in the community began to exhibit similar symptoms, including Ann Putnam Jr., Mercy Lewis, Elizabeth Hubbard, Mary Walcott and Mary Warren.

In late February, arrest warrants were issued for the Parris' Caribbean slave, Tituba, along with two other women-the homeless beggar Sarah Good and the poor, elderly Sarah Osborn-whom the girls accused of bewitching them.

Salem Witch Trial Victims: How the Hysteria Spread

The three accused witches were brought before the magistrates Jonathan Corwin and John Hathorne and questioned, even as their accusers appeared in the courtroom in a grand display of spasms, contortions, screaming and writhing. Though Good and Osborn denied their guilt, Tituba confessed. Likely seeking to save herself from certain conviction by acting as an informer, she claimed there were other witches acting alongside her in service of the devil against the Puritans.

As hysteria spread through the community and beyond into the rest of Massachusetts, a number of others were accused, including Martha Corey and Rebecca Nurse-both regarded as upstanding members of church and community-and the four-year-old daughter of Sarah Good.

Like Tituba, several accused "witches" confessed and named still others, and the trials soon began to overwhelm the local justice system. In May 1692, the newly appointed governor of Massachusetts, William Phips, ordered the establishment of a special Court of Oyer (to hear) and Terminer (to decide) on witchcraft cases for Suffolk, Essex and Middlesex counties.

Presided over by judges including Hathorne, Samuel Sewall and William Stoughton, the court handed down its first conviction, against Bridget Bishop, on June 2; she was hanged eight days later on what would become known as Gallows Hill in Salem Town. Five more people were hanged that July; five in August and eight more in September. In addition, seven other accused witches died in jail, while the elderly Giles Corey (Martha's husband) was pressed to death by stones after he refused to enter a plea at his arraignment.

Salem Witch Trials: Conclusion and Legacy

Though the respected minister Cotton Mather had warned of the dubious value of spectral evidence (or testimony about dreams and visions), his concerns went largely unheeded during the Salem witch trials. Increase Mather, president of Harvard College (and Cotton's father) later joined his son in urging that the standards of evidence for witchcraft must be equal to those for any other crime, concluding that "It would better that ten suspected witches may escape than one innocent person be condemned."

Amid waning public support for the trials, Governor Phips dissolved the Court of Oyer and Terminer in October and mandated that its successor disregard spectral evidence. Trials continued with dwindling intensity until early 1693, and by that May Phips had pardoned and released all those in prison on witchcraft charges.

In January 1697, the Massachusetts General Court declared a day of fasting for the tragedy of the Salem witch trials; the court later deemed the trials unlawful, and the leading justice Samuel Sewall publicly apologized for his role in the process. The damage to the community lingered, however, even after Massachusetts Colony passed legislation restoring the good names of the condemned and providing financial restitution to their heirs in 1711.

Indeed, the vivid and painful legacy of the Salem witch trials endured well into the 20th century, when Arthur Miller dramatized the events of 1692 in his play "The Crucible" (1953), using them as an allegory for the anti-Communist "witch hunts" led by Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. A memorial to the victims of the Salem witch trials was dedicated on August 5, 1992 by author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Salem Witch Trials - Events, Facts & Victims | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The infamous Salem witch trials were a series of prosecutions for witchcraft starting in 1692 in Salem Village, Massachusetts. Learn about what led to the allegations and the hundreds of people who were were accused.

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Allen and Absalom Jones created Free African Society in Philadelphia, a nondenominational national religious society, then later the AME grew from this once both Richard and jones founded churches separate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The AMEC grew out of the Free African Society (FAS) which Richard Allen, Absalom Jones, and others established in Philadelphia in 1787. When officials at St. George's MEC pulled blacks off their knees while praying, FAS members discovered just how far American Methodists would go to enforce racial discrimination against African Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
1790-1850 (1820-1840)

Period of religious revival where church membership increased. Camp meetings in the western parts (new york, Kentucky, places with a less strongly founded church tradition) preachers would convert audiences to the more evangelical form of Christianity. Many movements that come out the this are focused on the apocalypse and doing good to be able to bring heaven to earth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First Great Awakening

In the 1700s, a European philosophical movement known as the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, was making its way across the Atlantic Ocean to the American colonies. Enlightenment thinkers emphasized a scientific and logical view of the world, while downplaying religion.

In many ways, religion was becoming more formal and less personal during this time, which led to lower church attendance. Christians were feeling complacent with their methods of worship, and some were disillusioned with how wealth and rationalism were dominating culture. Many began to crave a return to religious piety.

Around this time, the 13 colonies were religiously divided. Most of New England belonged to congregational churches.

The Middle colonies were made up of Quakers, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Presbyterians, the Dutch Reformed and Congregational followers.

Southern colonies were mostly members of the Anglican Church, but there were also many Baptists, Presbyterians and Quakers.

The stage was set for a renewal of faith, and in the late 1720s, a revival began to take root as preachers altered their messages and reemphasized concepts of Calvinism. (Calvinism is a theology that was introduced by John Calvin in the 16th century that stressed the importance of scripture, faith, predestination and the grace of God.)

Jonathan Edwards

Most historians consider Jonathan Edwards, a Northampton Anglican minister, one of the chief fathers of the Great Awakening.

Edwards' message centered on the idea that humans were sinners, God was an angry judge and individuals needed to ask for forgiveness. He also preached justification by faith alone.

In 1741, Edwards gave an infamous and emotional sermon, entitled "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." News of the message spread quickly throughout the colonies.

Edwards was known for his passion and energy. He generally preached in his home parish, unlike other revival preachers who traveled throughout the colonies.

Edwards is credited for inspiring hundreds of conversions, which he documented in a book, "Narratives of Surprising Conversions."

George Whitefield

George Whitefield, a minister from Britain, had a significant impact during the Great Awakening. Whitefield toured the colonies up and down the Atlantic coast, preaching his message. In one year, Whitefield covered 5,000 miles in America and preached more than 350 times.

His style was charismatic, theatrical and expressive. Whitefield would often shout the word of God and tremble during his sermons. People gathered by the thousands to hear him speak.

Whitefield preached to common people, slaves and Native Americans. No one was out of reach. Even Benjamin Franklin, a religious skeptic, was captivated by Whitefield's sermons, and the two became friends.

Whitefield's success convinced English colonists to join local churches and reenergized a once-waning Christian faith.

Other Leaders

Several other pastors and Christian leaders led the charge during the Great Awakening, including David Brainard, Samuel Davies, Theodore Frelinghuysen, Gilbert Tennent and others.

Although these leaders' backgrounds differed, their messages served the same purpose: to awaken the Christian faith and return to a religion that was relevant to the people of the day.

Basic Themes of the Great Awakening

The Great Awakening brought various philosophies, ideas and doctrines to the forefront of Christian faith.

Some of the major themes included:

All people are born sinners

Sin without salvation will send a person to hell

All people can be saved if they confess their sins to God, seek forgiveness and accept God's grace

All people can have a direct and emotional connection with God

Religion shouldn't be formal and institutionalized, but rather casual and personal

Old Lights vs. New Lights

Not everyone embraced the ideas of the Great Awakening. One of the leading voices of opposition was Charles Chauncy, a minister in Boston. Chauncy was especially critical of Whitefield's preaching and instead supported a more traditional, formal style of religion.

By about 1742, debate over the Great Awakening had split the New England clergy and many colonists into two groups.

Preachers and followers who adopted the new ideas brought forth by the Great Awakening became known as "new lights." Those who embraced the old-fashioned, traditional church ways were called "old lights."

Second Great Awakening

The Great Awakening came to an end sometime during the 1740s.

In the 1790s, another religious revival, which became known as the Second Great Awakening, began in New England. This movement is typically regarded as less emotionally charged than the First Great Awakening. It led to the founding of several colleges, seminaries and mission societies.

A Third Great Awakening was said to span from the late 1850s to the early 20th century. Some scholars, however, disagree that this movement was ever a significant event.

Effects of the Great Awakening

The Great Awakening notably altered the religious climate in the American colonies. Ordinary people were encouraged to make a personal connection with God, instead of relying on a minister.

Newer denominations, such as Methodists and Baptists, grew quickly. While the movement unified the colonies and boosted church growth, experts say it also caused division among those who supported it and those who rejected it.

Many historians claim that the Great Awakening influenced the Revolutionary War by encouraging the notions of nationalism and individual rights.

The revival also led to the establishment of several renowned educational institutions, including Princeton, Rutgers, Brown and Dartmouth universities.

The Great Awakening unquestionably had a significant impact on Christianity. It reinvigorated religion in America at a time when it was steadily declining and introduced ideas that would penetrate into American culture for many years to come.

Sources

The Great Awakening, UShistory.org.
The First Great Awakening, National Humanities Center.
The Great Awakening Timeline, Christianity.com.
The Great Awakening, Khan Academy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Great Awakening - First, Second & Definition | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Awakening was a religious revival in the English colonies of America that emphasized themes of sin and salvation and a personal approach to faith.

# data[].attributes.headline
1816 African Methodist Episcopal Church founded

# data[].attributes.subject
1816 African Methodist Episcopal Church founded

# data[].attributes.body
Richard Allens movement took on a formal and independent character as a number of churches came together to form AME

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The First African Methodist Episcopal Church in America is Founded

On this date in 1816, representatives of five Methodist congregations assembled at the Bethel Church in Philadelphia.

Dissatisfied with the treatment of Blacks in the Methodist Episcopal Church, they organized the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME). Daniel Coker was the church's first elected bishop but declined. Richard Allen then became the first AME bishop. The Black Methodist church in the United States was formally organized in 1816. It developed from a congregation formed by a group of Blacks who withdrew in 1787 from St. George's Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia because of discrimination.

They built Bethel African Methodist Church in Philadelphia, and in 1799 Bishop Francis Asbury of the Methodist Episcopal Church ordained Richard Allen its minister. In 1816, Asbury consecrated Allen, bishop of the newly organized African Methodist Episcopal Church. Confined to the Northern states before the American Civil War, the church spread rapidly in the South after the war. It supports an active home-missions program and has sent missionaries to Africa and the West Indies.

The church is Methodist in doctrine and church government and holds a general conference every four years. It has about 3,500,000 members. The African Methodist Episcopal Church is the largest Black Methodist denomination in America, with about 2.2 million congregants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The First African Methodist Episcopal Church in America is Founded

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On this date in 1816, representatives of five Methodist congregations assembled at the Bethel Church in Philadelphia. Dissatisfied with the treatment of Blacks in the Methodist Episcopal Church, they organized the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME). Daniel Coker was the church's first elected bishop but declined. Richard Allen then became the first AME bishop.

# data[].attributes.body
Joseph Smith the founded and leader of Latter-day Saints was murdered by a mob before awaiting trail in a town jail in Illinois

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Know On June 27, 1844, Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum, were butchered by a mob in Carthage Jail. This was not a spontaneous or unexpected event—Joseph himself anticipated that he went “as a lamb to the slaughter” (Doctrine and Covenants 135:4) and had in fact feared for his life for at leas…

# data[].attributes.body
Later known as the American Party. This political party was founded due to the rise of immigration of catholic immigrants during the 1840s, German Catholics in the west and Irish in the East. They had heavy Nativist beliefs and thought that this immigration was a threat. They also called for restrictions on immigration and exclusion of foreign born from voting or holding office as well as 21 year residency to obtain citizenship

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Know-Nothing party, byname of American Party, U.S. political party that flourished in the 1850s. It was an outgrowth of the strong anti-immigrant and especially anti- Roman Catholic sentiment that started to manifest itself during the 1840s. A rising tide of immigrants, primarily Germans in the Midwest and Irish in the East, seemed to pose a threat to the economic and political security of native-born Protestant Americans. In 1849 the secret Order of the Star-Spangled Banner formed in New York City, and soon after lodges formed in nearly every other major American city.

Members, when asked about their nativist organizations, were supposed to reply that they knew nothing, hence the name. As its membership and importance grew in the 1850s, the group slowly shed its clandestine character and took the official name American Party. As a national political entity, it called for restrictions on immigration, the exclusion of the foreign-born from voting or holding public office in the United States, and for a 21-year residency requirement for citizenship.

By 1852 the Know-Nothing party was achieving phenomenal growth. It did very well that year in state and local elections, and with passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 it won additional adherents from the ranks of conservatives who could support neither the proslavery Democrats nor antislavery Republicans. When Congress assembled on December 3, 1855, 43 representatives were avowed members of the Know-Nothing party.

That, however, was the peak of Know-Nothing power. At the American Party convention in Philadelphia the following year, the party split along sectional lines over the proslavery platform pushed through by Southern delegates. Party presidential candidate Millard Fillmore carried just one state (Maryland) in the 1856 election, and congressional strength dropped to 12 representatives.

Caught in the sectional strife disrupting all national institutions, the American Party fell apart after 1856. Antislavery Know-Nothings joined the Republican Party, while Southern members flocked to the proslavery banner still held aloft by the Democratic Party. By 1859 the American Party's strength was largely confined to the border states. In 1860 remnants of the Know-Nothings joined old-line Whigs to form the Constitutional Union Party and nominated John Bell of Tennessee for president. Bell finished fourth in popular votes in the four-man contest of that year, won by the Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Two other groups that took the name American Party appeared in the 1870s and '80s. One of these, organized in California in 1886, proposed a briefly popular platform calling mainly for the exclusion of Chinese and other Asians from industrial employment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Know-Nothing party | Definition, Platform, & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Know-Nothing party, U.S. political party that flourished in the 1850s and was an outgrowth of the strong anti-immigrant and especially anti-Roman Catholic sentiment that started to manifest itself during the 1840s. Learn more about the Know-Nothing party.

# data[].attributes.body
"Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote."

result from social movements like the temperance movement that followed the industrial revolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote.
To former abolitionists and to the Radical Republicans in Congress who fashioned Reconstruction after the Civil War, the 15th Amendment, enacted in 1870, appeared to signify the fulfillment of all promises to African Americans. Set free by the 13th amendment, with citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, Black males were given the vote by the 15th Amendment. In retrospect, it can be seen that the 15th Amendment was in reality only another step in the struggle for equality that would continue for more than a century before African Americans could begin to participate fully in American public and civic life.

African Americans exercised the right to vote and held office in many Southern states through the 1880s, but in the early 1890s, steps were taken to ensure subsequent "white supremacy." Literacy tests for the vote, "grandfather clauses" excluding from the franchise all whose ancestors had not voted in the 1860s, and other devices to disenfranchise African Americans were written into the laws of former Confederate states.

Social and economic segregation were added to Black America's loss of political power. In 1896, the Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson legalized "separate but equal" facilities for the races. For more than 50 years, the overwhelming majority of African American citizens were reduced to second-class citizenship under the "Jim Crow" segregation system. During that time, African Americans sought to secure their rights and improve their position through organizations such as National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Urban League and through the individual efforts of reformers like Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. DuBois, and A. Philip Randolph.

The most direct attack on the problem of African American disenfranchisement came in 1965. Prompted by reports of continuing discriminatory voting practices in many Southern states, President Lyndon B. Johnson, himself a southerner, urged Congress on March 15, 1965, to pass legislation "which will make it impossible to thwart the 15th Amendment." He reminded Congress that "we cannot have government for all the people until we first make certain it is government of and by all the people."

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, extended in 1970, 1975, and 1982, abolished all remaining deterrents to exercising the right to vote and authorized federal supervision of voter registration where necessary. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the act involving federal oversight of voting rules in nine states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Voting Rights (1870)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: The House Joint Resolution Proposing the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, December 7, 1868; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript Passed by Congress February 26, 1869, and ratified February 3, 1870, the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote.

# data[].attributes.body
This act had a ten year ban on any immigration on chinese into the United states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Transcript

An Act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to Chinese.

Whereas in the opinion of the Government of the United States the coming of Chinese laborers to this country endangers the good order of certain localities within the territory thereof: Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and until the expiration of ten years next after the passage of this act, the coming of Chinese laborers to the United States be, and the same is hereby, suspended; and during such suspension it shall not be lawful for any Chinese laborer to come, or having so come after the expiration of said ninety days to remain within the United States.

SEC. 2. That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and maybe also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC. 3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and who shall produce to such master before going on board such vessel, and shall produce to the collector of the port in the United States at which such vessel shall arrive, the evidence hereinafter in this act required of his being one of the laborers in this section mentioned; nor shall the two foregoing sections apply to the case of any master whose vessel, being bound to a port not within the United States, shall come within the jurisdiction of the United States by reason of being in distress or in stress of weather, or touching at any port of the United States on its voyage to any foreign port or place: Provided, That all Chinese laborers brought on such vessel shall depart with the vessel on leaving port.

SEC. 4. That for the purpose of properly identifying Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and in order to furnish them with the proper evidence of their right to go from and come to the United States of their free will and accord, as provided by the treaty between the United States and China dated November seventeenth, eighteen hundred and eighty, the collector of customs of the district from which any such Chinese laborer shall depart from the United States shall, in person or by deputy, go on board each vessel having on board any such Chinese laborers and cleared or about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and on such vessel make a list of all such Chinese laborers, which shall be entered in registry-books to be kept for that purpose, in which shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks of peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of each of such Chinese laborers, which books shall be safely kept in the custom-house.; and every such Chinese laborer so departing from the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive, free of any charge or cost upon application therefor, from the collector or his deputy, at the time such list is taken, a certificate, signed by the collector or his deputy and attested by his seal of office, in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, which certificate shall contain a statement of the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, persona description, and facts of identification of the Chinese laborer to whom the certificate is issued, corresponding with the said list and registry in all particulars. In case any Chinese laborer after having received such certificate shall leave such vessel before her departure he shall deliver his certificate to the master of the vessel, and if such Chinese laborer shall fail to return to such vessel before her departure from port the certificate shall be delivered by the master to the collector of customs for cancellation. The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States upon producing and delivering the same to the collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer shall seek to re-enter; and upon delivery of such certificate by such Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at the time of re-entry in the United States said collector shall cause the same to be filed in the custom-house anti duly canceled.

SEC. 5. That any Chinese laborer mentioned in section four of this act being in the United States, and desiring to depart from the United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive, free of charge or cost, a certificate of identification similar to that provided for in section four of this act to be issued to such Chinese laborers as may desire to leave the United States by water; and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Chinese laborer desires to go to issue such certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the same upon registry-books to be kept by him for the purpose, as provided for in section four of this act.

SEC. 6. That in order to the faithful execution of articles one and two of the treaty in this act before mentioned, every Chinese person other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government in each case, such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said government, which certificate shall be in the English language or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come, and which certificate shall state the name, title or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession, and place of residence in China of the person to whom the certificate is issued and that such person is entitled, conformably to the treaty in this act mentioned to come within the United States. Such certificate shall be prima-facie evidence of the fact set forth therein, and shall be produced to the collector of customs, or his deputy, of the port in the district in the United States at which the person named therein shall arrive.

SEC.7. That any person who shall knowingly and falsely alter or substitute any name for the name written in such certificate or forge any such certificate, or knowingly utter any forged or fraudulent certificate, or falsely personate any person named in any such certificate, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not more than five years.

SEC.8. That the master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place shall, at the same time he delivers a manifest of the cargo, and if there be no cargo, then at the time of making a report of the entry of the vessel pursuant to law, in addition to the other matter required to be reported, and before landing, or permitting to land, any Chinese passengers, deliver and report to the collector of customs of the district in which such vessels shall have arrived a separate list of all Chinese passengers taken on board his vessel at any foreign port or place, and all such passengers on board the vessel at that time. Such list shall show the names of such passengers (and if accredited officers of the Chinese Government traveling on the business of that government, or their servants, with a note of such facts), and the names and other particulars, as shown by their respective certificates; and such list shall be sworn to by the master in the manner required by law in relation to the manifest of the cargo. Any willful refusal or neglect of any such master to comply with the provisions of this section shall incur the same penalties and forfeiture as are provided for a refusal or neglect to report and deliver a manifest of the cargo.

SEC. 9. That before any Chinese passengers are landed from any such line vessel, the collector, or his deputy, shall proceed to examine such passenger, comparing the certificate with the list and with the passengers ; and no passenger shall be allowed to land in the United States from such vessel in violation of law.

SEC.10. That every vessel whose master shall knowingly violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to seizure and condemnation in any district of the United States into which such vessel may enter or in which she may be found.

SEC. 11. That any person who shall knowingly bring into or cause to be brought into the United States by land, or who shall knowingly aid or abet the same, or aid or abet the landing in the United States from any vessel of any Chinese person not lawfully entitled to enter the United States, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC. 12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. And any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the President of the United States, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.

SEC.13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and house- hold servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.

SEC. 14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

SEC.15. That the words "Chinese laborers", wherever used in this act shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.

Approved, May 6, 1882.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EnlargeDownload Link Citation: An act to execute certain treaty stipulations relating to the Chinese, May 6, 1882; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1996; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog View Transcript The Chinese Exclusion Act was approved on May 6, 1882.

# data[].attributes.body
December 29 1890, US army surrounded Ghost Dancers when a fight broke out followed by massacre of more than 150 natives murdered including women and children, which ended the Ghost dance movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wounded Knee, located on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, was the site of two conflicts between Native Americans and representatives of the U.S. government, including the U.S. Army and, later, the FBI. An 1890 massacre left some 150 Native Americans dead, in what was the final clash between federal troops and the Sioux tribe. In 1973, members of the American Indian Movement occupied Wounded Knee for 71 days to protest conditions on the reservation.

Ghost Dance and Sitting Bull

Throughout 1890, the U.S. government was worried about the increasing influence at Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Ghost Dance spiritual movement, which taught that Native Americans had been defeated and confined to reservations because they had angered the gods by abandoning their traditional customs.

Many Sioux believed that if they practiced the Ghost Dance and rejected the ways of the white man, the gods would create the world anew and destroy all non-believers, including non-Indians. On December 15, 1890, reservation police tried to arrest Sitting Bull, the famous Sioux chief, whom they mistakenly believed was a Ghost Dancer, and killed him in the process, increasing the tensions at Pine Ridge in South Dakota.

Did you know? Nearly half of the Sioux killed at the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre were women and children.

Wounded Knee Massacre

On December 29, the U.S. Army's 7th Cavalry surrounded a band of Ghost Dancers under Big Foot, a Lakota Sioux chief, near Wounded Knee Creek and demanded they surrender their weapons. As that was happening, a fight broke out between an Indian and a U.S. soldier and a shot was fired, although it's unclear from which side.

A brutal massacre followed, in which an estimated 150 Indians were killed. (Some historians put this number at twice as high.) Nearly half of them were women and children. The U.S. cavalry lost 25 men.

The conflict at Wounded Knee was originally referred to as a battle-the Army troops involved were later rewarded with Medals of Honor-but in reality it was a tragic and avoidable massacre. Surrounded by heavily armed troops, it's unlikely that Big Foot's band would have intentionally started a fight. Some historians speculate that the soldiers of the 7th Cavalry were deliberately taking revenge for the regiment's defeat at Little Bighorn in 1876.

Whatever the motives, the massacre ended the Ghost Dance movement and was one of the last major confrontations in the Indian Wars, America's deadly series of wars against the Plains Indians and other Native Americans.

American Indian Movement

The American Indian Movement (AIM) was founded in 1968 in an effort to stop police harassment of Indians in the Minneapolis area. Borrowing some tactics from the Vietnam war protests of the era, AIM soon gained national notoriety for its flamboyant demonstrations. However, many mainstream Indian leaders denounced the youth-dominated group as too radical.

In 1972, a faction of AIM members led by Dennis Banks and Leonard Peltier sought to close the divide by making alliances with traditional tribal elders on reservations. They had their greatest success on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, after a group of young white men murdered a Sioux man named Yellow Thunder.

Although Yellow Thunder's attackers received only six-year prison sentences, this was widely seen as a victory by the local Sioux accustomed to unfair treatment by the often racist judicial system. AIM's highly visible publicity campaign on the case was given considerable credit for the verdict, winning the organization a great deal of respect on the reservation.

Wounded Knee Siege

AIM's growing prestige and influence, however, threatened the conservative Sioux tribal chairman, Dick Wilson. When Wilson learned of a planned AIM protest against his administration at Pine Ridge, he retreated to tribal headquarters where he was under the protection of federal marshals and Bureau of Indian Affairs police.

Rather than confront the police in Pine Ridge, some 200 AIM members and their supporters decided to occupy the symbolically significant hamlet of Wounded Knee, site of the 1890 massacre. Wilson, with the backing of the federal government, responded by besieging Wounded Knee.

During the 71 days of the siege, which began on February 27, 1973, federal officers and AIM members exchanged gunfire almost nightly. Hundreds of arrests were made, and two Native Americans were killed and a federal marshal was permanently paralyzed by a bullet wound.

The leaders of AIM finally surrendered on May 8 after a negotiated settlement was reached. In a subsequent trial, the judge ordered their acquittal because of evidence that the FBI had manipulated key witnesses. AIM emerged victorious and succeeded in shining a national spotlight on the problems of modern Native Americans.

Trouble Continues at Pine Ridge

The troubles at Wounded Knee, however, were not over after the siege. A virtual civil war broke out between the opposing Indian factions on the Pine Ridge reservation, and a series of beatings, shootings and murders left more than 100 Indians dead. When two FBI agents were killed in a 1975 gunfight, the agency raided the reservation and arrested AIM leader Leonard Peltier for the crime.

The FBI crackdown coupled with AIM's own excesses ended its influence at Pine Ridge. In 1977, Peltier was convicted of killing the two FBI agents and sentenced to life in prison. To this day, Peltier's supporters continue to maintain his innocence and seek a presidential pardon for him.

And in 2021, members of the U.S. Congress petitioned President Joe Biden to revoke the Medals of Honor soldiers received for their participation in the 1890 Wounded Knee massacre.

HISTORY Vault: Native American History

Sources

Disaster at Wounded Knee. Library of Congress.
What really happened at Wounded Knee, the site of a historic massacre. National Geographic.
Warren, Merkley, Kahele Lead Bicameral Letter Urging Biden to Rescind Medals of Honor Awarded to Soldiers who Perpetrated Wounded Knee Massacre. Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senate.
Wounded Knee Massacre. Encyclopedia of the Great Plains.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wounded Knee: Massacre, Memorial & Battle - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wounded Knee in South Dakota was the site of an 1890 Indian massacre by U.S. Army troops, and a deadly 1973 occupation by Native American activists.

# data[].attributes.body
Prohibition of Liquor
Women's temperance movement had a big impact on starting this; result from social movements like the temperance movement that followed the industrial revolution.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 18th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SECTION. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is her…

# data[].attributes.body
Because many religions fought beside one another this helped religious tolerance grow in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Timeline (1914 - 1921) | A World at War | Articles and Essays | Stars and Stripes: The American Soldiers' Newspaper of World War I, 1918-1919 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
example: http://localhost:8000/programs/national-recording-preservation-plan/tools-and-resources/history/timeline/ */ .timeline-title { margin: 0; background: #F6F6F6; text-align: center; height: 30px; line-height: 30px; font-family: 'Roboto Slab', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 16px; top: 0; left: 0; } .timeline-new { padding-left: 0; list-style: none; height: 100%; padding-left: 200px; margin-bottom: 2rem; padding-top: 3.5rem; position: relative;

# data[].attributes.headline
1913 The Moorish Science Temple was founded

# data[].attributes.subject
1913 The Moorish Science Temple was founded

# data[].attributes.body
Moorish Science Temple was created by Timothy Drew in Chicago. In the early 20th century there was a rise of interest from African Americans in interest do to the ties that Christianity had with Western ideals that were used to oppress them. This group was a blend of black nationalism, Christianity, and Islam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Moorish Science Temple of America | History, Location, & Holy Koran

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Moorish Science Temple of America, U.S. religious movement founded in Newark, New Jersey, in 1913 by Timothy Drew (1886–1929), known to followers as Noble Drew Ali and also as the Prophet. Drew Ali taught that all blacks were of Moorish origins but had their Muslim identity taken away from them thr…

# data[].attributes.headline
Scopes Trial (State v. John Scopes) 1925

# data[].attributes.subject
Scopes Trial (State v. John Scopes) 1925

# data[].attributes.body
In 1925 John scopes a high school teacher was charged with illegally teaching evolutionism, he was found guilty but the case did not make it to the supreme court, this case demonstrates the beginning of the divide between creationism and modernism which is still a major divide today.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Scopes Trial, (July 10-21, 1925, Dayton, Tennessee, U.S.), highly publicized trial (known as the "Monkey Trial") of a Dayton, Tennessee, high-school teacher, John T. Scopes, charged with violating state law by teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. The trial's proceedings helped to bring the scientific evidence for evolution into the public sphere while also stoking a national debate over the veracity of evolution that continues to the present day.

In March 1925 the Tennessee legislature had passed the Butler Act, which declared unlawful the teaching of any doctrine denying the divine creation of man as taught by the Bible. World attention focused on the trial proceedings, which promised and delivered confrontation between fundamentalist literal belief and liberal interpretation of the Scriptures. William Jennings Bryan led for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defense.

Jury selection began on July 10, and opening statements, which included Darrow's impassioned speech about the constitutionality of the Butler law and his claim that the law violated freedom of religion, began on July 13. Judge John Raulston ruled out any test of the law's constitutionality or argument on the validity of evolutionary theory on the basis that Scopes, rather than the Butler law, was on trial. Raulston determined that expert testimony from scientists would be inadmissible.

The trial's climax came on July 20, when Darrow called on Bryan to testify as an expert witness for the prosecution on the Bible. Raulston moved the trial to the courthouse lawn, citing the swell of spectators and stifling heat inside. Darrow's cross-examination challenged Bryan on various biblical stories and the validity and practicality of their literal interpretation. Bryan responded by claiming that Darrow's "only aim was to cast slurs on the Bible." With Raulston limiting the trial to the single question of whether Scopes had taught evolution, which he admittedly had, Scopes was convicted and fined $100 on July 21. On appeal, the state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the 1925 law but acquitted Scopes on the technicality that he had been fined excessively.

In the trial's aftermath, Tennessee prevented the teaching of evolution in the classroom until the Butler Act's repeal in 1967. Additionally, the state legislatures of Mississippi and Arkansas passed their own bans on the teaching of evolution in 1926 and 1928, respectively, which also lasted for several decades before being repealed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scopes Trial, also called the 'Monkey Trial,' highly publicized trial that took place July 10-21, 1925, during which a Dayton, Tennessee, high-school teacher, John T. Scopes, was charged with violating state law by teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

# data[].attributes.body
Drew ali passed and his death was unknown causes

# data[].attributes.body
1933 January 30th Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany and begins his plan to eliminate the Jewish people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
www.museumoftolerance.com > Education > Teacher Resources > Holocaust Resources > Timeline of the Holocaust: 1933-1945

# data[].attributes.body
In the 1940s Carl Mcintire formed the ACCC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The American Council of Christian Churches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The American Council of Christian Churches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“Earnestly contending for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

# data[].attributes.body
JFK first catholic president was elected in America demonstrating a huge landmark for acceptance of Catholism as an American religion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"We stand today on the edge of a New Frontier, the Frontier of the 1960's, a Frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, a frontier of unfilled hopes and threats." - John F. Kennedy, Democratic Acceptance Speech, 1960

After narrowly losing the vice presidential nomination in 1956, Senator John F. Kennedy sought the presidency in 1960. After hard-fought primary victories, JFK won his party's nomination and faced-off against sitting Vice President Richard Nixon. This exhibit invites the public to relive one of history's most exciting and energetic presidential campaigns by accompanying Senator John F. Kennedy as he crisscrosses the country bringing his message of a "New Frontier" directly to the voters during the 1960 run for the presidency.

The Museum recreates the sights and sounds of the 1960 Democratic National Convention and the main streets of America traveled by candidates Kennedy and Nixon. Listen as Senator John F. Kennedy accepts his party's nomination at the 1960 Democratic National Convention. Walk down Main Street USA and feel the energy of the Kennedy campaign as Frank Sinatra sings campaign songs "High Hopes" and "All the Way!" Step back into a reproduction of the Chicago television studio where and see the television coverage of the first debate between JFK and Nixon. Stay up late with Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, and Chet Huntley as they report election-night returns and reveal how close a race it really was.

In the hard-fought primaries prior to the Democratic nominating convention and in the general election campaign against Vice President Richard Nixon that followed, candidate Kennedy was assisted by his large and enthusiastic family, by a relatively young but seasoned team of aides and political operatives, and by countless volunteers across the country. Together they brought the message of "The New Frontier" to the voting public, making it possible for Senator John F. Kennedy to eventually claim victory in one of the closest presidential contests in American History.

On display is a recreation of a Kennedy Campaign office filled with campaign paraphernalia and a display of buttons, posters, and handouts which were produced during the course of the campaign. Also on display is the& original TelePrompter text used by Senator John F. Kennedy while delivering his acceptance speech at the 1960 Democratic National Convention, the actual audio control and television camera used by CBS affiliate WBBM-TV for the first televised Presidential debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, and a map of the election return results.

Kennedy for President, Leadership for the 60's Campaign poster

Through his oral history interview with the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, the artist, Donald Wilson, shared his experience designing the Kennedy for President poster:

"President Kennedy was fascinated with pictures of himself and extremely critical of them and so the poster was of great interest to him. The big problem in the summer of 1960 was whether to have a serious, mature poster or a smiling poster. At that particular time one of the major arguments being made by the Republicans was that he was not experienced enough to become president, and therefore, this led a lot of people around him--and himself included--in the beginning to think that he should have a rather serious mature poster. I convinced him that he looked wonderful smiling, but it wasn't easy... The smiling one was produced in the millions and millions that appeared all over the United States."

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, MA. Accession number MO 95.77

PT 109 Tie Clip

Perhaps most popular campaign item was the tie-clasp replicating the form of PT 109, the boat captained by JFK during the Second World War. In an effort to quell public concerns about what some called candidate Kennedy's "inexperience," the Kennedy campaign sought to publicize his heroic service in the Navy. In addition to the tie clasps, thousands of booklets retelling the events of the sinking of PT 109 and Kennedy's efforts to save his crew in the days that followed were mailed to hundreds of thousands of homes across the country.

This tie clip was left by John F. Kennedy Jr. on his father's grave on May 29th, 1964, the anniversary of President Kennedy's birth.

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, MA. Accession number MO 67.235

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"We stand today on the edge of a New Frontier, the Frontier of the 1960's, a Frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, a frontier of unfilled hopes and threats." - John F. Kennedy, Democratic Acceptance Speech, 1960 After narrowly losing the vice presidential nomination in 1956, Senator John F.

# data[].attributes.body
"In six days, Israel defeated three Arab armies, gained territory four times its original size, and became the preeminent military power in the region. The war transformed Israel from a nation that perceived itself as fighting for survival into an occupier and regional powerhouse."(Wilson center). This also led to American Jews having a stronger urge to support Israel. Despite the new secureness tensions with Palestinians have increased with and created wavering support from American Jews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 1967 Six-Day War:
New Israeli Perspective, 50 Years Later Avner Cohen

Introduction [1]

Fifty years ago, war transformed the Middle East. Six memorable days, known to Israelis as the Six-Day War and to Arabs and others as the 1967 War, redrew the region's landscape in fundamental ways. In those six days, Israel defeated three Arab armies, gained territory four times its original size, and became the preeminent military power in the region. The war transformed Israel from a nation that perceived itself as fighting for survival into an occupier and regional powerhouse.

The consequences for the Arab coalition were similarly transformative. For those "on the line of confrontation," as Arab states bordering Israel were called, the war brought the loss of vast territories and crushing humiliation, all the more so for the Palestinians. Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt and the most prominent Arab leader at the time, survived the war but his leadership never recovered. The stunning defeat initiated the demise of his brand of secular pan-Arabism that was once an assertive ideological force in the Arab world.

The 1967 Six-Day War is probably the most important and most researched event in the Middle East since the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Volumes of studies have been produced over the five decades since. Yet, one important aspect remains obscure and untold: the crisis' nuclear dimension. On this issue, both sides remain bonded together by layers of taboo, silence, and secrecy.

On this 50 th anniversary of the 1967 war, the Nuclear Proliferation International History Project (NPIHP) has released historical testimonies and documents revealing that the crisis had an underlying twofold nuclear dimension. First, Israel's nuclear program played a vital role on the threat perception of both sides. Second, and more significantly, those testimonies reveal now that Israel, during the May-June 1967 crisis, first assembled its first rudimentary nuclear devices. Furthermore, at that same juncture, some senior Israeli officials even considered how to detonate a nuclear explosive for demonstrative purpose in the unlikely case of a "doomsday" scenario. It was fifty years ago that Israel first crossed the nuclear threshold, making the 1967 crisis a landmark in global nuclear history.

Old and New Narratives of the 1967 Crisis

While potential for renewed Arab-Israeli hostility simmered in early 1967, most regional actors neither expected nor sought a new military confrontation. This is particularly true for the leaders of Israel and Egypt: Levi Eshkol and Gamal Abdel Nasser. How, then, did a major war erupt seemingly against the wishes of both sides?

The conventional wisdom among historians is that a series of mishaps and missteps -deceptions, miscalculations, misperceptions, and the like-led each party into a war that neither leader planned for nor desired.[2] Israeli-inspired narratives typically cite false Soviet intelligence reports of imminent Israeli attack on Syria as the trigger that launched Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser on a series of miscalculated decisions (massing troops in the Sinai, removing the UN Emergency Force deployed there after the 1956 Suez crisis, and closing the Strait of Tiran to Israeli shipping) that ultimately made war inevitable.

Meanwhile, Arab-inspired narratives assert that Israel's provocative statements against the Syrian regime induced Nasser's reaction. Other narratives divide responsibility between various players-Arabs, Soviets, Israelis, and even the United Nations. Yet all these narratives share the fundamental idea that the crisis sprung from a series of miscalculations that ultimately led to the failure of conventional deterrence.

These narratives also tend to shy away from the nuclear issue; the Israeli nuclear program plays almost no role in those narratives. When the nuclear issue is mentioned, it is in passing and treated as anecdotal rather than essential. This is not surprising given a tendency on both sides to look the other way on the relevance of nuclear weapons to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[3]

This aversion is in part due to a lack of public information, but can be seen also in classified testimonies of Israeli military leaders taken shortly after the war. For example, Yitzhak Rabin's lengthy, top-secret testimony from 1969 refers only three times-all in passing-to his serious concerns that the Dimona nuclear site might be a target for Egyptian attack. Nor does Rabin directly mention his own real-time concerns over attack on Dimona during the build-up to the war, despite the fact these concerns can be found explicitly and extensively in the original Israeli documentation of the crisis.[4] This omission is likely a manifestation of the deep-seated taboo on the topic of Dimona. On the nuclear issue, both sides are bonded together by layers of silence and secrecy.

However, recent Israeli-based historical research has shed new light on the obscure nuclear dimension of the 1967 crisis. Over the last two decades, more evidence on the role Dimona played in shaping Israeli and Egyptian perceptions of each other has surfaced. This introductory essay utilizes this recent historical material to further revisit and clarify the significance of Dimona and provide greater context to the crisis and war of 1967.[5]

An Alternative Nuclear Narrative: The Pre-Crisis Period (1965-67)

By 1966, Israel was moving-quietly but decisively-towards the nuclear weapons threshold. Yet the nuclear project suffered growing pains. The project's two hubs of activity were run as separate organizations, the Negev Nuclear Research Center at Dimona (KAMAG) and the Weapons Development Authority (RAFAEL) in Northern Israel. But in 1966 the two were incorporated under the management of one scientific administration, headed by Professor Israel Dostrovsky of the Weizmann Institute. The Israeli public knew nothing about these developments; the little that was publicly announced was that Prime Minister Levi Eshkol named Dostrovsky as the new director general of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) under the prime minister as its chair.

Israel probably could have tested a nuclear device within a year or so, had its political leaders chosen that path. Such a test would have made Israel the world's sixth nuclear weapons state. As a matter of international law, there was nothing improper about following that path; China and France had tested only a few years prior. But Prime Minister Eshkol was apprehensive about the program's final objectives and political consequences. In May 1966, about the time of Dostrovsky's appointment, Eshkol stated in the Knesset that Israel had no nuclear weapons and "[will] not be the first to introduce them to the Middle East."[6]

Though Eshkol was unsettled about the project's final trajectory, he hardly intervened in the project's progress, except for ruling out a nuclear test on political grounds. "Do you think that the world would congratulate us for our achievement?" Eshkol used to ask sarcastically of those who entertained the idea of a test.[7] In general, Eshkol shied away from the strategic and political implications of the program; he had little appetite for debating the issue within his cabinet. The nuclear project continued to progress, but with limited political guidance from the top.[8]

In line with IDF intelligence assessments, Eshkol worried about a bellicose Egyptian reaction to Dimona, should Egypt conclude Israel was acquiring a bomb. Responding to these concerns, Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin ordered in November 1965 the Chief of Military Intelligence (AMAN), Aharon Yariv, to develop a collection system, codenamed "Senator," to provide the IDF an early warning about Egyptian hostile intentions on Dimona. In an exclusive testimony in this collection, General Yariv's biographer, Brigadier General (retired) Amos Gilboa, reveals how project "Senator" came into being.[9]

The creation of "Senator" highlights how the concerns over Dimona were deeply engraved in the IDF strategic outlook. One should keep in mind Rabin's perception of Dimona at the time. In March 1965, Rabin mentioned Dimona's "lack of international legitimacy" as something that could trigger Egypt into military action: "If Egypt bombs Dimona, and we want to wage a war, we could be issued an ultimatum from the entire world."[10]

Although Nasser's 1960 pledge of waging a "preventive war" to stop Israel from developing nuclear weapons was generally viewed by Israeli intelligence as not too credible, especially while the Egyptian army was bogged down in Yemen, a limited, aerial attack at Dimona was taken as a feasible threat.[11] In late 1966, Rabin cited concerns over Dimona as a reason why Israel should limit its military response against Syria. "There is one vital object in the south," Rabin reminded his colleagues, "which is an ideal object for a limited attack, and of which Egypt may have the support of the entire world."[12]

Then, in late 1966, Eshkol was further shaken when an accident at Dimona killed an employee and contaminated a large, critical working area. Three months later, in a "secret" letter to Washington, US Ambassador Walworth Barbour reported he had never seen Eshkol so uncertain about the future of the nuclear project, and proposed it was time for innovative diplomacy on the nuclear issue. Barbour dismissed US intelligence reports that Israel was only weeks from the bomb and told his colleagues in Washington that Dimona was "not running at full blast."[13]

Barbour's estimate notwithstanding, Israel was fast advancing toward the nuclear threshold, as Eshkol apparently remained unsure whether crossing the threshold would best serve Israel's interests. He appeared open to creative political solutions. This may have put him at odds with the leaders of the nuclear project, who were committed to moving forward. For them, it was virtually inconceivable to stop the project short. The founding ethos said that Israel must achieve a tangible nuclear capability, not something virtual and amorphous.[14]

The 1967 Crisis: The Two Nuclear Dimensions

Then came the crisis of May 1967. Within three extraordinary weeks Israel lurched from normalcy to an existential crisis of a kind not faced since its birth in 1948. During the crisis, the nuclear dimension surfaced in two ways. The first was the dramatic role of Dimona in shaping, maybe even precipitating, the Israeli sense of the crisis. The second was even more dramatic: during the crisis, almost overnight, Israel assembled its first nuclear devices. Both nuclear aspects of the crisis were kept hidden at the time. The assembly of a first device has remained publicly unknown to this day.

Dimona as a Possible Target? Dimona as a Trigger?

As the 1967 crisis began, concerns over Dimona became paramount in Israeli assessments of the situation. As early as May 16, the third day of the Egyptian mobilization, reports about the transfer of Egyptian IL-28 bombers to the Sinai prompted Rabin to alert his colleagues that Dimona might be the target.[15]

The next day, as Rabin and Yariv were briefing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, two Egyptian MiG 21s flew over Dimona, entering Israel at high altitude from Jordan. Israeli jets launched to intercept the invading MiGs, but due to short warning and high altitude they were unable to engage. Israeli pilots were not authorized to cross the border into the Sinai.[16] This collection includes a testimony of one of the Israeli Mirage pilots, Colonel Avraham Salmon, who took part in the aerial encounter.

That reconnaissance flight over Dimona, along with the Egyptian request to remove the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from its positions on the border, convinced the Israeli leadership that the crisis was serious. On that night, Eshkol and Rabin decided to raise readiness of the Israeli Air Force (IAF), to mobilize the air defense system, to call up an additional armor brigade, and to beef up ground security in Dimona. The IAF was given authorization to cross the border in pursuit of invading MiGs.[17]

At a general staff meeting on May 19, General Yariv presented four possible Egyptian strategic objectives, including the possibility of aerial attack against Dimona as an operational threat.[18] By that evening the IAF was now authorized, in the case of an Egyptian attack on Dimona, to respond instantly against all Egyptian airfields in the Sinai.[19]

The second reconnaissance flight over Dimona took place mid-day on May 26, as the ministerial defense committee was in session with Prime Minister Eshkol at his Tel Aviv office. The previous day, there had been a great deal of anxiety about a surprise Egyptian air strike aimed at Dimona and Israeli air bases; there were signs that such an attack could come at any moment. In response, Eshkol fired off two alarming cables to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Washington, the second cable stating, "Dramatic changes happened" and an attack on Israel - Dimona and the air bases -- could be imminent. Eban was instructed to urge the US government to issue immediately a stern warning to Egypt that any attack on Israel would be taken as an attack against the United States itself.[20]

According to the Ministerial minutes, while in the meeting, Rabin was notified that four high-altitude Egyptian MiG 21s had penetrated Israeli air space. Rabin left the room to receive the full report and then reported back to the cabinet. Two of the invading MiGs had broken and flown toward Dimona. Israeli Mirage jets tried to engage the MiGs on their way back to the Sinai, Rabin told the cabinet, chasing them deep into the Sinai Peninsula, but were ultimately unable to shoot them down. The incident dramatically changed the atmosphere in the cabinet meeting.[21]

Minutes later Rabin asked the prime minister for a private consultation with himself and General Ezer Weizman in which Rabin informed Eshkol of new raw-intelligence he had just received: Israeli intelligence had intercepted a "strange and worrisome transmission referring to coordination between fighter jets and bombers." Rabin added that this might be indicative of a coordinated aerial-attack on Dimona. Weizmann was even more alarmist, saying that all indications were that Egypt planned to attack Dimona, with at least 40 aircraft, possibly even that night.[22]

Eshkol returned to the cabinet meeting, keeping this additional information to himself. He told his colleagues the aerial incident would be shared with the US, but without telling the Americans it was over Dimona. Decades later, Moshe Carmel, a cabinet minister at the time, recalled the sense of "shock" the minsters felt when they were notified that "a squadron" of Egyptian aircraft was flying over Dimona.[23]

Three hours later, Eshkol held another meeting, this time with the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. The meeting included briefings from Yariv, Rabin and Eshkol. The 17-page transcript of the meeting is now available in full at the Israel State Archive. Towards the end of the meeting, Prime Minister Eshkol gave his own briefing, in which he reiterated his conviction that Israel could not resort to military action before exhausting all diplomatic means available. Then, spontaneously, the prime minister told the committee about the Egyptian flight over Dimona, and added something else-a few opaque words about a certain, mysterious weapon. The minutes go as follows:

Today four [Egyptian] airplanes flew over Israel. We immediately telegrammed Abba Eban about it. The purpose of a certain weapon can be crucial in this matter, and I don't mean something which is out of this world. It's a weapon that exists in others [other countries] in the hundreds and thousands.[24]

Eshkol's wording is veiled, but nevertheless revealing. We are not completely sure what Eshkol told the committee, and to what extent the minutes reflect his exact wording. He may inadvertently have told the committee more than the minutes say, and subsequently asked to remove his exact phrasing. It may well be that the minutes were subsequently fixed to make them more obscure. Still, it is not that difficult to decipher what the prime minister referred to as a "certain weapon [whose existence] can be significant, ... weapons that exists by others [states] in hundreds, even thousands." This was, at least in the view of this author, Eshkol's subtle revelation that Israeli possessed a bomb.

How real were the Israeli ever-present concerns over Dimona? Was Dimona a true high priority Egyptian target, possibly even the ultimate (but hidden) trigger for the entire crisis, or perhaps it might have been mostly an Israeli obsession, a mirror image of perceived Egyptian thinking? These are still open questions and it may be still impossible to address them with precision and clarity. The state of knowledge on the Egyptian side is still partial, limited, and highly sensitive. Unlike Israeli records, Egyptian documents, military and political, are unavailable. And yet, based on memoirs and interviews of several Egyptians who were in a position to know, it appears that the Israeli assessment from May 25 th that an Egyptian attack was imminent, and may come at "any moment," had strong basis in reality.[25]

It is now widely believed that Egypt did plan to launch an aerial attack on Israel on the morning hours of May 27. Israeli air bases and (probably) Dimona were the key targets. In fact an order to carry out that operation had been issued then retracted according to different Egyptian accounts (e.g., Fawzi, Heikal). As noted, it was American blunt direct threats to Nasser, referring to such an attack as an act of "suicide," issued on May 26 on behalf of President Johnson, as well as the Soviet warning that apparently forced Nasser to cancel the plan at the very last moment. This NPIHP collection addresses this issue through a lengthy testimony of Egyptian Defense Minister at the time, Shams Al Din Badran, accompanied by an Egyptian-based narrative by NPIHP affiliate, Dr. Hassan Elbahtimy

Ya'tza Testimony and the "Shimshon" Contingency Plan

The second nuclear dimension of the 1967 crisis is the tale of Israel's first nuclear alert. The first public hint of this alert appeared fifteen years after the war thanks to Munya Mardor, the founder and first director general of Israel's Weapons Development Authority (RAFAEL). In his 1981 semi-autobiographical book Rafael, Mardor cites a diary entry from May 28, describing a visit to the "assembly hall," watching teams of scientists and technicians "assembling and testing the weapon system, the development and production of which was completed prior to the war... a weapons system they brought to operational alert."[26]

Mardor did not explain what this unique "weapon system" was or why it deserved to be called "fateful." Nor could he write more explicitly. But one obvious explanation is that as the likelihood of war intensified, Israel did something it never had done previously: its scientists assembled all the components, including the handful of nuclear cores it had, into improvised but operational explosive devices.

In my book, Israel and the Bomb (1998), I explicated Mardor's diary entry, based on additional first hand testimony from a prominent, authoritative, and anonymous Israeli source, writing that "on the eve of the war Israel 'improvised' two (possibly three) nuclear explosive devices."[27] I suggested-based in part on a veiled passage in Shimon Peres' 1995 Memoirs-that during the May crisis, and apparently upon the appointment of Moshe Dayan as Minister of Defense on June 1, 1967, Peres proposed that Israel test a nuclear device as a way to prevent a war.[28] I also cited Professor Yuval Ne'eman who told me about Dayan's reaction to his briefing on the newly created nuclear capability on the eve of the 1967 war-"this [capability] is not for now, maybe for the next round."[29]

While I knew that during the 1967 crisis Israel crossed the nuclear threshold- Israel had improvised two or three explosive nuclear devices-I did not know any concrete details about the who, when, and why involved in that crash effort. Did the initiative come from the political top or from the developers and managers in the field? What was the strategic purpose of this rushed assembly? What was the guiding idea? To what extent was the IDF involved, and at what level? Was there any operational contingency plan? How far did they go and how close was it to execution?

In 1999 I obtained an extraordinary first-hand testimony that addressed many of these questions. That summer, I met former Brigadier General Yitzhak Ya'akov (nicknamed Ya'tza), who in 1967, as the IDF colonel in charge of weapons development, was the chief liaison between the IDF and all the civilian defense industries, including the nuclear project.

In May 1967, Ya'tza took it upon himself - with his commanders' blessing -- to add an operational-military dimension to the fast-created, new situation on the ground. He drew a preliminary contingency plan - codenamed "Shimshon" ("Samson") - proposing how such an improvised device could be exploded for demonstrative purposes. To be clear, the operation would have been purely demonstrative, yet the crash effort to make such a contingency plan possible is indicative of the enormous anxiety in Israel in those days.

In a series of interviews I conducted with Ya'tza during the summer and the fall of 1999, he told me a great deal about his role in conceiving, proposing, planning and ultimately preparing for the Shimshon operation-that is, exploding a nuclear device-to be conducted in a desolate part of the eastern Sinai. Ya'tza told me how the idea of adding a military operation came to him after he visited that "assembly hall" and viewed the "spider-like" device; how he drafted that operation order and how he and his boss at the time, General Rechavam Ze'evy (nicknamed Gandi) went to Chief of Staff Rabin to have him sign it off; how he formed a small interdisciplinary military team with the mission to support carry out the mission; and more.

Two "Super Frelon" helicopters, the largest in the Israeli Air Force at the time, were allocated for the operation. It was greatly improvised, there were no clear procedures and well-defined lines of command, but Ya'tza believed that he was named as the military commander of the Shimshon operation (he believed that Israel Dostrovsky, the head of the nuclear agency, was named as the overall individual in charge of the operation).

The underlying idea behind the Shimshon plan, according to Ya'tza, was to prepare and provide the prime minister another, last resort "doomsday" option, a "thinking the unthinkable" kind option for a most extreme (and unlikely) scenario. If everything else failed and Israel's national existence was in peril, the state would still have a trump card. Ya'tza recognized that he was involved in drafting a plan that was highly unlikely to be executed, and yet, according to his testimony, by June 5, the first day of the 1967 Six Day War, he and his small team were ready, just in case.

Historical Assessment

Ya'tza's never-before-told interview from 1999 is the centerpiece of this NPIHP 1967 Six-Day War anniversary collection. It is extraordinary because it is the first detailed, personal testimony on Israel's 1967 nuclear alert from the perspective of someone so directly involved. However, as a piece of oral history, it has certain limitations, which Ya'tza was the first to recognize.

Fundamentally, this is a testimony of a single man based entirely on memory of events that took place more than thirty-two years earlier. While some aspects of the tale come through vividly, others are foggy or even non-existent. Sometimes the narrative is more a matter of guesswork than true recollection. Indeed, two years prior to my conversation with Ya'tza he wrote a fictionalized version of those events under the title Atomic Incident, where missing memories were filled with educated guesses. Ultimately, the testimony reflects one person's point of view.

One must also keep in mind that Ya'tza did not know all aspects of that nuclear crash activity and alert; some key events and conversations took place at levels above him, some at levels below him and some at levels parallel to him in different places and organizations. Anybody who knows something about human memory must acknowledge the fragility and the subjectivity of human memory.

For this reason, I made efforts to find supplementary pieces of historical evidence. I already noted Prime Minister Eshkol's veiled comment at the meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the afternoon of May 26, 1967. We learn from that paragraph two important things. First, that Eshkol was fully informed about the crash nuclear activity that was going on during the crisis, even if he did not initiate that crash activity. Second, that Eshkol thought that there could be some circumstances that that the presence of that weapons "could be significant."

The other related historical evidence is a portion from the oral history interview given by former Chief of Staff Zvi Tzur in 2001 to the Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Center. Tzur arrived at the Ministry of Defense on June 2, 1967 as the chief aid to the newly installed minister of defense, Moshe Dayan. In that capacity, Dayan asked Tzur to assume all the responsibilities of Zevi Dinstein, Eshkol's deputy minister of defense, including the nuclear portfolio.[30]

Regarding Tzur's testimony, one must have some caveats in mind. First, unlike Ya'tza, Tzur's testimony is far more restrained in what he allowed himself to discuss regarding the Israeli nuclear program. Not only does Tzur's testimony not go into any of the specifics which Ya'tza did, but Tzur made plain his disapproval of, even annoyance at, Ya'tza's loose talk. One should recall that Tzur's testimony was made while Ya'tza was under arrest for unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Second, neither Tzur nor his interviewer had a detailed knowledge of what Ya'tza had actually revealed. Third, Tzur's testimony was given in 2001, more than thirty-four years after the events. Finally, Tzur's testimony was raw, unedited, and was clearly never corrected by Tzur himself. The outcome is a testimony that sounds at times unclear, confusing, even self-contradictory.

Yet, notwithstanding its flaws, Tzur's testimony is helpful because it provides another perspective on the nuclear developments associated with the 1967 crisis. From Tzur's perspective, veiled and constrained as it is, the crash activity that took place during the crisis was a way to explore Israel's technical capabilities at the time and the options that lent them. As Tzur put it: "I'm not talking about creating a weapon that would knock the world. I'm talking right now about the option of a test that would make people understand that we should be taken seriously. In those days we didn't even have that option." Tzur also confirms, though without going into too much detail, that soon upon his arrival (possibly on the first day of the war, June 5, 1967) he appointed a two-man committee-Dostrovsky and Ya'tza- to examine "if something [i.e., a test] can be done, but not to do it."

It is also apparent that Tzur viewed the technical capability as very embryonic and rudimentary; implying he would not have recommended using it. Nor did he think it made sense politically for Israel to demonstrate its capability.

Epilogue: Fifty Years Later

From an historical perspective, fifty years later, how should we assess Ya'tza's testimony? In retrospect, how significant were these events?

There are no simple answers, as very little evidence is available. Even Ya'tza himself sounds unclear on the question of how real it all was. In some points in the interview, Ya'tza talked about "Shimshon" as a genuine military plan that could have been executed under some, albeit unlikely, circumstances. On other occasions he referred to it, like Tzur, as an amateurish and improvised idea, conceding implicitly that nobody at the top would or could have taken it too seriously.

In my view, "Shimshon" was more a technical-theoretical exercise for an unlikely scenario than a genuine, military contingency plan. One should keep in mind that Dostrovsky, Tzur, and (to some degree) Rabin (not Ya'tza) would have been the people who would advise the political decision-makers what could be done with the newly formed capability.

I ultimately agree with Tzur's view that on the eve of the 1967 War, Israel's leadership was not seriously considering conducting-or even capable of conducting-a nuclear demonstration. Yet Ya'tza's testimony does reveal-and for the first time from an identifiable source-that Israel had the capability to improvise a nuclear explosive device in June 1967.

While it is an overstatement to suggest that the eve of the Six-Day War was one of nuclear history's "close calls", the war brought about a milestone in the Israeli nuclear program. It was during that crisis that Israel crossed the nuclear threshold. Such an event, by definition, was also a milestone in world's nuclear history.
Yitzhak Ya'acov (1926-2013), known his entire life by the nickname "Ya'tza," was a Brigadier General in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in charge of weapons research and development (R&D). He was at the center of Israel's first nuclear alert on the eve of the 1967 war.

Elie Geisler received training as a radiation-safety officer while serving as a solider at Dimona from 1964 to 1966. As the crisis escalated in late May 1967, Geisler was summoned to meet the head of the Minhal Madaii-the secret scientific administration in charge of the nuclear project-who gave him a special assignment: guarding a radioactive "package" to be placed under heavy security.

Amos Gilboa (1939- ) served in the Israeli military intelligence and held several senior positions in the Intelligence Corps and the Intelligence Department of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) General Staff. He is the author of Mr. Intelligence: Arale, the Biography of General Aharon Yariv (Tel Aviv: Yediot Achronot, 2013).

Avrahm Salmon (1942- ) is a legendary Israeli combat jet pilot in the Israel Air Force (IAF). On May 17, 1967 he scrambld to intercept an invading high-altitude Egyptian MiG-21 that flew over Dimona.

Tzvi Tzur (1923-2004), was the Israeli Defense Force's sixth chief of staff (1961-1963) and subsequently the top civil lieutenant to Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan (1967-1974).

Avner Cohen is a Professor of Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS) and the author of Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia 1998); he is also a Global Fellow with the Nuclear Proliferation International History Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

[1] I am deeply indebted to both individuals and institutions of whom without their assistance and support this new historical collection would have been impossible. First and foremost, thanks to this great historical project, the Nuclear Proliferation International History Project (NPIHP), hosted by the History and Public Policy (HAPP) program at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, which created a research heaven to nuclear historians from all over the world. I have been an affiliate with this project since its birth in 2011, where it became the custodian of the "Avner Cohen Collection." This institutional partnership has made me a Global Fellow with this program.

Individually, many thanks to all the people who make the NPIHP possible: Dr. Christian Osterman, HAPP director and NPIHP co-director (along with Dr. Leopoldo Nuti, the other co-director) who immediately gave his blessing to this collection since I proposed it more than a year ago; the program members who made it all happened, Kian Byrne that serves as my "production manager," Laura Deal, the great webmaster of the Digital Archive, Evan Pikulski and Charles Kraus who provided great deal of editorial assistance. Special thanks to two dear colleagues, Dr. William Burr of the National Security Archive and Dr. James Hershberg of George Washington University, who at the very last moment provided me with extra pair of eyes as friendly peer reviewers.

Special thanks to NPIHP affiliate Adam Raz, an Israeli author and historian, who generously provided this collection with some precious Israeli archival material; Adam also conducted the interview with General Amos Gilboa. Yechezkel ("Hezi") Shmueli, a former Israeli journalist and educator, assisted us with the interview with Avraham Salmon. Then, special gratitude to my colleague and NPIHP affiliate, Dr. Hassan Elbahtimy of Kings College in London, who is my partner to this historical project. We are excited to have Hassan's contribution to this 1967 collection.

Finally, special appreciation to my own home institute, the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (MIIS). The Middlebury Institute provided me travel and research funds, even allowed me to turn one of my courses into a small research seminar on the 1967 war. Last, but not least, I am grateful to our Eva Gudbergsdottir, from our media department, for all her communication assistance.

[3] American scholarship on the 1967 crisis also makes few references to the nuclear issue. For example, Richard Parker's aforementioned study on the origins of the 1967 War mentions the nuclear issue in passing as a possible route for further historical research. He includes only one direct reference to Dimona, to emphasize the impact it had on US-Egyptian relations. Middle East historian Douglas Little touches briefly on the role Dimona played in encouraging more belligerent Arab attitudes from 1966 onwards in his influential book, American Orientalism: The United States and the Middle East since 1945 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina press, 1992), but he stops short of delving deeper into the nuclear question.

[4] Probably the most intriguing personal testimony was taped in a series of meetings in the Fall of 1969 by former Israeli Chief of Staff, Yitzhak Rabin. Initially classified "top secret" by the history department of the IDF, the Rabin testimony was declassified in 2016 and made available through The Israel Defense Forces and Defense Establishment Archives (IDFA). http://www.archives.mod.gov.il/pages/Exhibitions/SixDayWar/1168-192-1974/index.html

[5] The first Israeli scholar to propose a nuclear narrative of the 1967 War was Shlomo Aronson beginning in the late 1970s. Notably, his distinct narrative is logical-reconstructive, somewhat speculative, in nature rather than empirical-based. One should note, however, that at that time no evidence was either available or allowed. Aronson summarized his narrative in Israel's Nuclear Programme, the Six Day War and its Ramifications (London: Kings College Mediterranean Series, 1999). See also, Aluf Benn, "The First Nuclear War," [in Hebrew], Ha'aretz, June 11, 1993. Since then, there has been a surge of writing on the subject. Here is a list of related studies to this essay: Michael Oren, Six Days or War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Ami Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order! (Tel Aviv: Ma'archot, 2004) [in Hebrew]; a shorter English version, Ami Gluska, The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War (London: Routledge, 2007(; Shimon Golan, A War on Three Fronts (Tel Aviv: Ma'archot, 2007) [in Hebrew]; Amos Gilboa, Mr. Intelligence, Aharon Yariv (Tel Aviv: Yediot Sfarim, 2013) [in Hebrew]; Danny Shalom, Like a Bolt out of the Blue (Rishon Lezion: Bavir Publications, 2002) [in Hebrew]; Tom Segev, 1967: Israel, the War, and the Year that transformed the Middle East (New York: Henry Holt, 2002); Adam Raz, The Struggle for the Bomb (Tel Aviv: Carmel Publication House, 2015) [in Hebrew]; Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez, Foxbats Over Dimona: The Soviet Nuclear Gamble in the Six Day War (New haven: Yale University Press, 2007); Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998); Avner Cohen, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010); Avner Cohen, "Crossing the Threshold: The Untold Nuclear Dimension of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and Its Contemporary Lessons," in Arms Control Today, June 2007, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_06/Cohen.

[6] This is Israel's formula of nuclear ambiguity. For the history of the formula, see Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 231-35.

[7] Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 238, n.61

[8] This is a point that the late Avraham Hermony made in his interview with me in 1992-93. The interview is part of the digital archive of the NPIHP. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/117849

[9] Gilboa, Mr. Intelligence, 185, 201

[11] On Nasser's reference to "preventive war" over Dimona see Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 244, 255-57.

[13] Walworth Barbour letter to Rodger Davies, March 9, 1967, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-68, Vol. XVIII, 391.

[14] For more details on some probes see Avner Cohen, "Crossing the Threshold: The Untold Nuclear Dimension of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and Its Contemporary Lessons," in Arms Control Today, June 2007, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_06/Cohen.

[15] Shimon Golan, A War in Three Fronts , p. 59. Since Golan is a senior historian at the IDF, his book is considered the closest to the official IDF history of the 1967 crisis and war. See also Gilboa, Mr. Intelligence, 241; Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order!, 220.

[16] Golan, A War in Three Fronts, 63-64; Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order!, 227-29 (English edition, Gluska, The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 p. 128). The first oblique confirmation of the reconnaissance flights, without mentioning Dimona, appears in the Hebrew longer version of Yitzhak Rabin's memoir, Pinkas Sherut (Tel Aviv: 1979) [in Hebrew], 136-37, 163-66. In 1987 the issue appears in Eitan Haber (based on General Israel Lior's memoir), Today War Will Break Out (Tel Aviv; Edanim Press, 1987) [in Hebrew], 161-63, 186-8. See also Ginor-Remez Foxbats Over Dimona where a claim is made that those reconnaissance flights were made by Soviet MiG-25s (Foxbats) flown by Soviet pilots. IDF and IAF official histories do not support that claim.

[17] Golan, A War in Three Fronts, 64-65; Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order!, 228-29; Rabin, The Rabin Memorial, 70.

[18] Golan, A War in Three Fronts, 68-70; Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order!, 249-53; Amos Gilboa, Mr. Intelligence, 245.

[20] It is still not fully clear what specific piece of intelligence triggered that mood of imminent Egyptian attack in the IDF headquarters on the evening hours of the 25 th. Both Rabin and Yariv subsequently distanced themselves from that alarm. Eban got the most alarming cable hours after receiving the first, and passed it immediately to the highest levels in the US, both the State Department and White House. US policy-makers acted quickly and threatened Egypt in the strongest language against initiating attack, even though the intelligence professionals did not believe Egypt was on the verge of doing so. Years later, it became known, through Egyptian testimonies and memoirs of former senior officials, that indeed an Egyptian all-out aerial attack against Israel was planned for the dawn of May 27. On the Israeli sense of gloom and doom on that evening of May 25 see the following sources: Golan, A War in Three Fronts, 107-09; Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order!, 288-92, 492-93; Oren, Six Days of War, 110-116. See also William B. Quandt, Peace Process (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993), 512, n. 38.

[21] Golan, A War in Three Fronts, 111-12; Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order!, 252-53. In May 2017, I had a phone conversation with one of the Israeli pilots, Colonel Giora Even (Espstein), who participated in that aerial encounter. He denied the veracity of what Rabin told the cabinet. According to Even, the Israeli pilots were not authorized to chase the Migs into the Sinai. In retrospect, he added, he regrets complying to the controller's instructions to end the chase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giora_Epstein

[22] A censored version of the entire meeting is now available at the site of Israel State Archive, http://www.archives.gov.il/archives/#/Archive/0b0717068031be32/File/0b0717068526a92b/Item/090717068526a97f. This collection includes the relevant pages taken from that site. A near verbatim account of the ministerial meeting appears in Golan, A War in Three Fronts, 112; Gluska, Eshkol, Give the Order!, 300-303 Gluska, The Israeli Military and Origins of the 1967 War, 177

[24] We have included this document in this NPIHP release of the Israel State Archive release for the 1967).

[25] Years later Egyptian Chief of Staff General Muhammad Fawzi alluded in his memoirs to an Egyptian aerial attack against Israel on May 27 that was cancelled by Nasser at the very last moment. Not only the United States warned Nasser that an attack on Israel would be suicidal, Hours before that Egyptian aerial attack on Israeli airbases and Dimona Nasser received also a surprise nocturnal visit by the Soviet Ambassador, Dmitri Pojidaev, reading him a stern warning by the Soviet premier, Alexi Kosygin, against military action. (A similar warning was issued about the same time to Prime Minister Eshkol by Soviet Ambassador to Israel Sergei Chuvakhin). On these Soviet nocturnal warnings to both Egypt and Israel, see Oren, Six Days of War, 116-19; Gluska, The Israeli Military and the Origins of the 1967 War, 184-85. On the Egyptian attack for May 27 see also William B. Quandt, Peace Process (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993), p. 512, n. 38.

[27] Israel and the Bomb, 274.

[28] Shimon Peres, Battling for Peace: Memoirs (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1995), 166-67; cited in Israel and the Bomb, 275. One should recall that in June 1967 Peres did not have any official role in government; he was a Knesset Member from David Ben Gurion's opposition party (RAFI), and so was Moshe Dayan until his appointment as Minister of Defense on June 1.

[29] Yuval Ne'eman, interview with this author, April 2006 (two weeks prior to his death).

[30] Dostrovsky, the nuclear chief, had two bosses: Eshkol as his ultimate political boss, and Tzur as his superior administrator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1967 Six-Day War:New Israeli Perspective, 50 Years Later Avner Cohen Fifty years ago, war transformed the Middle East. Six memorable days, known to Israelis as the Six-Day War and to Arabs and others as the 1967 War, redrew the region's landscape in fundamental ways.

# data[].attributes.headline
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

# data[].attributes.subject
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978

# data[].attributes.body
Congress resolved that "it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of religious freedom to believe express and exercise traditional religions"(pg. 39Ablbanese)

# data[].attributes.body
Edwards v Aguiallrd decided you can't teach creationism in public schools in 1987

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana's creation-science law was in conflict with the constitutionally required separation of church and state. Donald Aguillard, shown in 1987, assistant principal of Acadiana High School in Scott, Louisiana, sued the state over the law in 1981. (AP Photo, used with permission from the Associated Press)

In Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), the Supreme Court held that a Louisiana law mandating instruction in " creation science" whenever evolution was taught in public schools violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The 7-2 ruling did not outlaw the teaching of creation science; it held only that states could not require science teachers to teach it.

Louisiana forbade teaching of evolution without teaching creation science

Creationists had successfully prevented the teaching of evolution in several states until Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), when the Supreme Court overturned a statute prohibiting the teaching of the theory. In 1981 Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards signed the Balanced Treatment Act into law, which forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools unless students were also taught creation science.

Donald Aguillard, a high school biology teacher, joined by other public school teachers, parents, and religious leaders, charged that the law endorsed religious beliefs and lacked a secular purpose. The federal district and appeals courts agreed.

Supreme Court said law violated the First Amendment

In the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, Justice William J. Brennan Jr. observed that the law served no clear secular purpose and promoted a particular religious belief, thus violating the establishment clause.

Brennan found the statute's professed goal of protecting academic freedom deceptive because teachers were granted no more flexibility than they already had; the legislative history and the discriminatory preference for creation science over all other challenges to the theory of evolution revealed the real purpose of the law to be to promote a specific religious belief.

Law had no secular purpose

Moreover, the statute's author repeatedly expressed his religious objections to evolution during legislative hearings. Brennan stressed that because attendance in public schools is mandatory, and schoolchildren are especially impressionable, the Court had to be especially vigilant when the schools become entangled with religious beliefs.

Applying the three-pronged test from Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), used to determine if a law falls under the First Amendment's prohibition of laws "respecting an establishment of religion," Brennan found that the statute failed the "secular purpose" prong.

Scalia dissents, finds secular purpose in fostering balanced understanding

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia accepted Louisiana's assertion that its motives were not solely religious, finding a sincere secular purpose in its desire to foster a balanced understanding of the origins of life. Scalia then urged the Court to discard Lemon's secular purpose test. It was futile, he argued, to try to determine subjective legislative intent given the multiple and often conflicting motivations behind a vote for any law.

The issue arose again, in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (M.D. Pa. 2005), when a Pennsylvania school district required that a statement endorsing " intelligent design," a form of creationism stripped of its religious references, be read to children in biology classes. A federal district judge held that the statement violated the establishment clause.
This article was originally published in 2009. Timothy J. O'Neill is Emeritus Professor and Holder of the Tower-Hester Chair in Politics at Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas. He is the author of several articles on the First Amendment, concentrating on religious liberty and church/state relations, as well as teaching constitutional liberty courses for 40 years.
Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that Louisiana's creation-science law was in conflict with the constitutionally required separation of church and state. Donald Aguillard, shown in 1987, assistant principal of Acadiana High School in Scott, Louisiana, sued the state over the law in 1981.

# data[].attributes.headline
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

# data[].attributes.subject
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

# data[].attributes.body
the court agreed with an Oregon state agency to deny unemployment benefits to two Native Americans because they failed drug tests after taking peyote in a religious ceremony)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Alfred Smith was one of two men fired from their jobs as private drug rehabilitation counselors for ingesting peyote as part of a sacrament of the Native American Church. They both were denied unemployment benefits by the state of Oregon because they had violated a state criminal statute on drug use. The Supreme Court ruled that the state's law served a legitimate public interest in combating drug problems and Smith's and Black's free exercise rights were not violated. Although Smith lost, the case created so much national attention that Congress later strengthened protection for Native American religious practices. Smith was a 50-year adherent to Alcoholics Anonymous and worked to help others with alcohol and drug addictions.

In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Supreme Court changed religious free exercise law dramatically by ruling that generally applicable laws not targeting specific religious practices do not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The Court abandoned the compelling interest test that it had used in free exercise cases since 1963 in Sherbert v. Verner.

Smith and Black denied unemployment benefits for smoking peyote in a religious service

The case began when Alfred Smith and Galen Black were fired from their jobs as private drug rehabilitation counselors for ingesting peyote as part of a sacrament of the Native American Church. When Smith and Black applied for unemployment benefits, the Employment Division denied their request because they had violated a state criminal statute. Smith then brought suit against the Employment Division and won his case in the lower courts. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that Smith's and Black's free exercise rights were not violated.

Court said denial of benefits did not violate the First Amendment

In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia held that the denial of unemployment benefits to a member of the Native American Church for using the illegal drug peyote in the practice of his religion was not a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Court said Oregon had legitimate interest in combatting drugs

Scalia wrote that there have been two types of free exercise cases, hybrid and pure. In hybrid cases, the Supreme Court used the strict scrutiny standard, in which the state must show that it has a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means of fulfilling that interest. Hybrid cases involve a constitutional right coupled with another fundamental right; for example, parental rights plus a First Amendment right, as in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972).

In purely religious cases, the Court used the valid secular policy test, in which the state has a lighter burden in demonstrating that the law has a legitimate governmental interest and is neutrally applied. The Court held that Smith was a purely religious case, because it only involved violating a criminal statute. Using the valid secular policy test, the Court held that combating a national drug problem was a legitimate governmental interest and that the law was neutrally applied to all citizens of Oregon. Scalia concluded the Court's opinion by musing that precluding Smith from practicing his religion was the inevitable ramification of living in a democratic regime.

Emerson Jackson, a Native American Church holyman, performs a cedar ceremony outside the Supreme Court in 1989 after the Court heard arguments which may decide whether the American Church participants have a constitutional right to use peyote, a small cactus with hallucinogenic properties, in their religious practices. The Court decided that they do not. (AP Photo/Rick Bowmer, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Other justices said strict scrutiny standard should be used

In concurrence, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued that the strict scrutiny standard should be used in all free exercise clause cases. O'Connor claimed that the state's interest in safety, health, and order would pass the strict scrutiny standard.

In dissent, Justice Harry A. Blackmun, like O'Connor, asserted that the Court should continue to apply the prevailing standard of strict scrutiny. He notes, however, that the state would not pass this standard, because peyote has nothing to do with the national drug problem in the United States.

Later laws looked at strict scrutiny tests in First Amendment cases

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which mandated the Court's use of strict scrutiny in free exercise clause cases, would later reverse the Court's decision in Smith and restore the compelling interest test from Sherbert v. Verner (1963).

Four years later, however, in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court ruled that RFRA was unconstitutional because it represented an attempt by Congress to overrule a Supreme Court decision in violation of the concept of separation of powers.

In Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005), however, the Court upheld provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), which applied this standard to religious land uses and to persons incarcerated in prisons and in mental institutions.
This article was originally published in 2009. John Hermann has been a professor at Trinity University for the 25 years where he teaches on Civil Rights and Liberties. He is an expert in minority rights and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Send Feedback on this article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alfred Smith was one of two men fired from their jobs as private drug rehabilitation counselors for ingesting peyote as part of a sacrament of the Native American Church. They both were denied unemployment benefits by the state of Oregon because they had violated a state criminal statute on drug use.

# data[].attributes.body
"Congress adopted this act to override the supreme court decision in the Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon Vs Smith; (court agreed with Oregon state agency to deny unemployment benefits to two Native Americans because they failed drug tests after taking peyote in a religious ceremony), which ultimately led to greater protection under the first amendment free exercise clause"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
David Schultz (Updated September 2017 by David L. Hudson Jr.)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requiring courts to apply strict scrutiny when examining whether a law violates Amendment religious freedom.

# data[].attributes.headline
February 28 1993 Waco siege of Mount Carmel

# data[].attributes.subject
February 28 1993 Waco siege of Mount Carmel

# data[].attributes.body
In 1993 there was a 51-day standoff between federal agents and Branch Davidians who were led by their cult leader David Koresh. Almost 80 people including many women and children died when the standoff led to the burning of the building which was burned to the ground by most likely David Koresh. Legal authorities began the raid because of the suspicion of many leather automatic weapons and bombs that where in the possession of this group in David Koresh's belief that the end of times would come and they would have to fight in the end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Waco siege, a 51-day standoff between Branch Davidians and federal agents that ended on April 19, 1993, when the religious group's compound near Waco, Texas, was destroyed in a fire. Nearly 80 people were killed.

The Branch Davidians were founded by Ben Roden in 1959 as an offshoot of the Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist Church, which had been established by Victor Houteff several decades earlier. Houteff's group eventually moved to a farm some 10 miles east of Waco, Texas, but by 1962 Roden and his followers had taken possession of the settlement, which was known as Mt. Carmel. There the Branch Davidians lived a simple life, preparing for the imminent return of Jesus. However, in the mid-1980s the group became embroiled in a power struggle, and by the end of the decade Vernon Howell (later called David Koresh) had become head of the Mt. Carmel community. He soon began taking "spiritual wives," several of whom were reportedly as young as 11. Allegations of child abuse and Koresh's launch of a retail gun business attracted the attention of legal authorities.

Believing that the group was illegally stockpiling weapons, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) obtained both an arrest warrant for Koresh and a search warrant for the compound. On February 28, 1993, more than 70 ATF agents raided the complex. Gunfire erupted-though it is uncertain who fired first-and during the two-hour battle, four federal agents were killed and more than a dozen injured. In addition, six Davidians reportedly died.

Nearly 900 law-enforcement officials subsequently descended on the compound, including FBI hostage negotiators. During phone calls, Koresh engaged in "Bible babble" and threatened violence, though he stated that neither he nor his followers were suicidal. Partly in exchange for various supplies-including milk that was delivered in cartons with listening devices-Koresh allowed more than 30 followers to leave. However, it was thought that some 100 remained in the compound. As talks stalled-at one point Koresh said that he would surrender if one of his sermons was broadcast on national radio, but then failed to do so when it aired-agents tried various strategies, including turning off the compound's electricity, playing Tibetan chants over loudspeakers, and shining spotlights on the complex to "disrupt sleep." Convinced that Koresh would not surrender, U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno gave permission for the FBI to raid the compound.

At approximately 6:00 am on April 19, 1993, the FBI began spraying tear gas into the complex. Soon thereafter, the Branch Davidians began firing weapons. For more than five hours armored vehicles, some of which punched holes into walls, deposited 400 tear-gas canisters inside the compound; at 11:40 am the assault ended. Some 25 minutes later, the Branch Davidians set several fires, and at 12:25 pm gunfire was heard inside the compound. Due to safety concerns, firefighters were not allowed into the area for another 15 minutes, by which time the compound was beyond saving. While nine people managed to escape, the rest died. Investigators ultimately found 75 bodies, 25 of which belonged to children. A number of the deceased had been fatally shot, including Koresh. While some of the wounds appeared to be self-inflicted, others did not.

The government's handling of the situation drew sharp criticism, and Reno later expressed regret for authorizing the raid. While the government long maintained that it was not involved in starting or spreading the fire, in 1999 it was revealed that some of the tear gas used by the FBI was flammable. Later that year Reno appointed John Danforth, a lawyer and former Republican senator, to investigate the raid. His probe, which concluded in 2000, found that the U.S. government "did not cause the fire" nor did it shoot at the compound. Regardless of such findings, some people viewed the Waco siege as governmental abuse of authority, and it spurred the growth of militias. In 1995, on the second anniversary of the raid, Timothy McVeigh carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Waco siege, a 51-day standoff between Branch Davidians and federal agents that ended on April 19, 1993, when the group's compound was destroyed in a fire.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act)

# data[].attributes.body
The 1965 Immigration and naturalization act erased these racist acts and bills and allowed for more eastern religions to immigrant to America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 upheld the national origins quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, reinforcing this controversial system of immigrant selection.

It also ended Asian exclusion from immigrating to the United States and introduced a system of preferences based on skill sets and family reunification. Situated in the early years of the Cold War, the debate over the revision of U.S. immigration law demonstrated a division between those interested in the relationship between immigration and foreign policy, and those linking immigration to concerns over national security. The former group, led by individuals like Democrat Congressman from New York Emanuel Celler, favored the liberalization of immigration laws. Celler expressed concerns that the restrictive quota system heavily favored immigration from Northern and Western Europe and therefore created resentment against the United States in other parts of the world. He felt the law created the sense that Americans thought people from Eastern Europe as less desirable and people from Asia inferior to those of European descent. The latter group, led by Democratic Senator from Nevada Pat McCarran and Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania Francis Walter, expressed concerns that the United States could face communist infiltration through immigration and that unassimilated aliens could threaten the foundations of American life. To these individuals, limited and selective immigration was the best way to ensure the preservation of national security and national interests.

Remarkably, economic factors were relatively unimportant in the debate over the new immigration provisions. Although past arguments in favor of restrictionism focused on the needs of the American economy and labor force, in 1952, the Cold War seemed to take precedent in the discussion. Notably, the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations took opposite sides in the debate, demonstrating that there was not one, clear pro-labor position.

At the basis of the Act was the continuation and codification of the National Origins Quota System. It revised the 1924 system to allow for national quotas at a rate of one-sixth of one percent of each nationality's population in the United States in 1920. As a result, 85 percent of the 154,277 visas available annually were allotted to individuals of northern and western European lineage. The Act continued the practice of not including countries in the Western Hemisphere in the quota system, though it did introduce new length of residency requirements to qualify for quota-free entry.

The 1952 Act created symbolic opportunities for Asian immigration, though in reality it continued to discriminate against them. The law repealed the last of the existing measures to exclude Asian immigration, allotted each Asian nation a minimum quota of 100 visas each year, and eliminated laws preventing Asians from becoming naturalized American citizens. Breaking down the "Asiatic Barred Zone" was a step toward improving U.S. relations with Asian nations. At the same time, however, the new law only allotted new Asian quotas based on race, instead of nationality. An individual with one or more Asian parent, born anywhere in the world and possessing the citizenship of any nation, would be counted under the national quota of the Asian nation of his or her ethnicity or against a generic quota for the "Asian Pacific Triangle." Low quota numbers and a uniquely racial construction for how to apply them ensured that total Asian immigration after 1952 would remain very limited.

There were other positive changes to the implementation of immigration policy in the 1952 Act. One was the creation of a system of preferences which served to help American consuls abroad prioritize visa applicants in countries with heavily oversubscribed quotas. Under the preference system, individuals with special skills or families already resident in the United States received precedence, a policy still in use today. Moreover, the Act gave non-quota status to alien husbands of American citizens (wives had been entering outside of the quota system for several years by 1952) and created a labor certification system, designed to prevent new immigrants from becoming unwanted competition for American laborers.

President Truman was concerned about the decisions to maintain the national origins quota system and to establish racially constructed quotas for Asian nations. He thought the new law was discriminatory, and he vetoed it, but the law had enough support in Congress to pass over his veto.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Milestones: 1945-1952 - Office of the Historian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 upheld the national origins quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, reinforcing this controversial system of immigrant selection. It also ended Asian exclusion from immigrating to the United States and introduced a system of preferences based on skill sets and family reunification.

# data[].attributes.body
The Vietnam War was from 1954 to 1975 and was the first war that was so nationally televised which had a major impact on how America viewed the government. A lack of trust for the government along with the churches which indorsed the government was a repercussion of the war. Which led to a new wave of religious movements (hippie movement)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Vietnam War, (1954-75), a protracted conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam and its allies in South Vietnam, known as the Viet Cong, against the government of South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. Called the "American War" in Vietnam (or, in full, the "War Against the Americans to Save the Nation"), the war was also part of a larger regional conflict ( see Indochina wars) and a manifestation of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies.

At the heart of the conflict was the desire of North Vietnam, which had defeated the French colonial administration of Vietnam in 1954, to unify the entire country under a single communist regime modeled after those of the Soviet Union and China. The South Vietnamese government, on the other hand, fought to preserve a Vietnam more closely aligned with the West. U.S. military advisers, present in small numbers throughout the 1950s, were introduced on a large scale beginning in 1961, and active combat units were introduced in 1965. By 1969 more than 500,000 U.S. military personnel were stationed in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union and China poured weapons, supplies, and advisers into the North, which in turn provided support, political direction, and regular combat troops for the campaign in the South. The costs and casualties of the growing war proved too much for the United States to bear, and U.S. combat units were withdrawn by 1973. In 1975 South Vietnam fell to a full-scale invasion by the North.

The human costs of the long conflict were harsh for all involved. Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters. The U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war. In 1982 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C., inscribed with the names of 57,939 members of U.S. armed forces who had died or were missing as a result of the war. Over the following years, additions to the list have brought the total past 58,200. (At least 100 names on the memorial are those of servicemen who were actually Canadian citizens.) Among other countries that fought for South Vietnam on a smaller scale, South Korea suffered more than 4,000 dead, Thailand about 350, Australia more than 500, and New Zealand some three dozen.

Vietnam emerged from the war as a potent military power within Southeast Asia, but its agriculture, business, and industry were disrupted, large parts of its countryside were scarred by bombs and defoliation and laced with land mines, and its cities and towns were heavily damaged. A mass exodus in 1975 of people loyal to the South Vietnamese cause was followed by another wave in 1978 of " boat people," refugees fleeing the economic restructuring imposed by the communist regime. Meanwhile, the United States, its military demoralized and its civilian electorate deeply divided, began a process of coming to terms with defeat in what had been its longest and most controversial war. The two countries finally resumed formal diplomatic relations in 1995.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vietnam War | Facts, Summary, Years, Timeline, Casualties, Combatants, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Vietnam War (1954-75), conflict that pitted the communist government of North Vietnam and its allies in South Vietnam, the Viet Cong, against South Vietnam and its principal ally, the United States. It was part of a larger regional conflict as well as a manifestation of the Cold War.

# data[].attributes.body
Jim Jones began the Peoples Temple cult which opened mid-1950s, eventually, he started a compound in Guyana capeton where the infamous mass suicide happened were over 900 people killed themselves under Jim Jones orders

# data[].attributes.headline
Decline of Christian Population In America 2007-2014

# data[].attributes.subject
Decline of Christian Population In America 2007-2014

# data[].attributes.body
As the population of Christians in America declined there also has been a growth in nonchristian faiths which shows the rise of alternative spiritual practices that came from new age religion and new ideas of holistic medicine, mediation yoga reiki and populatity of affermations as prayer etc.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing, according to an extensive new survey by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, these changes are taking place across the religious landscape, affecting all regions of the country and many demographic groups. While the drop in Christian affiliation is particularly pronounced among young adults, it is occurring among Americans of all ages. The same trends are seen among whites, blacks and Latinos; among both college graduates and adults with only a high school education; and among women as well as men. ( Explore the data with our interactive database tool.)

To be sure, the United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world, and a large majority of Americans - roughly seven-in-ten - continue to identify with some branch of the Christian faith. But the major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated - describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or "nothing in particular" - has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%. And the share of Americans who identify with non-Christian faiths also has inched up, rising 1.2 percentage points, from 4.7% in 2007 to 5.9% in 2014. Growth has been especially great among Muslims and Hindus, albeit from a very low base.

The drop in the Christian share of the population has been driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics. Each of those large religious traditions has shrunk by approximately three percentage points since 2007. The evangelical Protestant share of the U.S. population also has dipped, but at a slower rate, falling by about one percentage point since 2007.

Even as their numbers decline, American Christians - like the U.S. population as a whole - are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. Non-Hispanic whites now account for smaller shares of evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics than they did seven years earlier, while Hispanics have grown as a share of all three religious groups. Racial and ethnic minorities now make up 41% of Catholics (up from 35% in 2007), 24% of evangelical Protestants (up from 19%) and 14% of mainline Protestants (up from 9%).

Religious intermarriage also appears to be on the rise: Among Americans who have gotten married since 2010, nearly four-in-ten (39%) report that they are in religiously mixed marriages, compared with 19% among those who got married before 1960. The rise in intermarriage appears to be linked with the growth of the religiously unaffiliated population. Nearly one-in-five people surveyed who got married since 2010 are either religiously unaffiliated respondents who married a Christian spouse or Christians who married an unaffiliated spouse. By contrast, just 5% of people who got married before 1960 fit this profile.

Explore data on religious groups in the U.S. by affiliation, geographic and demographic information.

While many U.S. religious groups are aging, the unaffiliated are comparatively young - and getting younger, on average, over time. As a rising cohort of highly unaffiliated Millennials reaches adulthood, the median age of unaffiliated adults has dropped to 36, down from 38 in 2007 and far lower than the general (adult) population's median age of 46. By contrast, the median age of mainline Protestant adults in the new survey is 52 (up from 50 in 2007), and the median age of Catholic adults is 49 (up from 45 seven years earlier).

These are among the key findings of the Pew Research Center's second U.S. Religious Landscape Study, a follow-up to its first comprehensive study of religion in America, conducted in 2007.

Because the U.S. census does not ask Americans about their religion, there are no official government statistics on the religious composition of the U.S. public. Some Christian denominations and other religious bodies keep their own rolls, but they use widely differing criteria for membership and sometimes do not remove members who have fallen away. Surveys of the general public frequently include a few questions about religious affiliation, but they typically do not interview enough people, or ask sufficiently detailed questions, to be able to describe the country's full religious landscape.

The Religious Landscape Studies were designed to fill the gap. Comparing two virtually identical surveys, conducted seven years apart, can bring important trends into sharp relief. In addition, the very large samples in both 2007 and 2014 included hundreds of interviews with people from small religious groups that account for just 1% or 2% of the U.S. population, such as Mormons, Episcopalians and Seventh-day Adventists. This makes it possible to paint demographic and religious profiles of numerous denominations that cannot be described by smaller surveys. The most recent Religious Landscape Study also was designed to obtain a minimum of 300 interviews with respondents in each state and the District of Columbia as well as to represent the country's largest metropolitan areas, enabling an assessment of the religious composition not just of the nation as a whole, but also of individual states and localities. (See Appendix D.)

The latest survey was conducted in English and Spanish among a nationally representative sample of 35,071 adults interviewed by telephone, on both cellphones and landlines, from June 4-Sept. 30, 2014. Findings based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points. The survey is estimated to cover 97% of the non-institutionalized U.S. adult population; 3% of U.S. adults are not reachable by telephone or do not speak English or Spanish well enough to participate in the survey. (See Appendix A for more information on how the survey was conducted, margins of error for subgroups analyzed in this report and additional details.)

Even a very small margin of error, when applied to the hundreds of millions of people living in the United States, can yield a wide range of estimates for the size of particular faiths. Nevertheless, the results of the second Religious Landscape Study indicate that Christians probably have lost ground, not only in their relative share of the U.S. population, but also in absolute numbers.

In 2007, there were 227 million adults in the United States, and a little more than 78% of them - or roughly 178 million - identified as Christians. Between 2007 and 2014, the overall size of the U.S. adult population grew by about 18 million people, to nearly 245 million. But the share of adults who identify as Christians fell to just under 71%, or approximately 173 million Americans, a net decline of about 5 million.

This decline is larger than the combined margins of sampling error in the twin surveys conducted seven years apart. Using the margins of error to calculate a probable range of estimates, it appears that the number of Christian adults in the U.S. has shrunk by somewhere between 2.8 million and 7.8 million.

Of the major subgroups within American Christianity, mainline Protestantism - a tradition that includes the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Churches USA, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Episcopal Church, among others - appears to have experienced the greatest drop in absolute numbers. In 2007, there were an estimated 41 million mainline Protestant adults in the United States. As of 2014, there are roughly 36 million, a decline of 5 million - although, taking into account the surveys' combined margins of error, the number of mainline Protestants may have fallen by as few as 3 million or as many as 7.3 million between 2007 and 2014.

By contrast, the size of the historically black Protestant tradition - which includes the National Baptist Convention, the Church of God in Christ, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, the Progressive Baptist Convention and others - has remained relatively stable in recent years, at nearly 16 million adults. And evangelical Protestants, while declining slightly as a percentage of the U.S. public, probably have grown in absolute numbers as the overall U.S. population has continued to expand.

The new survey indicates that churches in the evangelical Protestant tradition - including the Southern Baptist Convention, the Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Presbyterian Church in America, other evangelical denominations and many nondenominational congregations - now have a total of about 62 million adult adherents. That is an increase of roughly 2 million since 2007, though once the margins of error are taken into account, it is possible that the number of evangelicals may have risen by as many as 5 million or remained essentially unchanged.

Like mainline Protestants, Catholics appear to be declining both as a percentage of the population and in absolute numbers. The new survey indicates there are about 51 million Catholic adults in the U.S. today, roughly 3 million fewer than in 2007. But taking margins of error into account, the decline in the number of Catholic adults could be as modest as 1 million. And, unlike Protestants, who have been decreasing as a share of the U.S. public for several decades, the Catholic share of the population has been relatively stable over the long term, according to a variety of other surveys (see Appendix C).

Meanwhile, the number of religiously unaffiliated adults has increased by roughly 19 million since 2007. There are now approximately 56 million religiously unaffiliated adults in the U.S., and this group - sometimes called religious "nones" - is more numerous than either Catholics or mainline Protestants, according to the new survey. Indeed, the unaffiliated are now second in size only to evangelical Protestants among major religious groups in the U.S.

Factors Behind the Changes in Americans' Religious Identification

One of the most important factors in the declining share of Christians and the growth of the "nones" is generational replacement. As the Millennial generation enters adulthood, its members display much lower levels of religious affiliation, including less connection with Christian churches, than older generations. Fully 36% of young Millennials (those between the ages of 18 and 24) are religiously unaffiliated, as are 34% of older Millennials (ages 25-33). And fewer than six-in-ten Millennials identify with any branch of Christianity, compared with seven-in-ten or more among older generations, including Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers. Just 16% of Millennials are Catholic, and only 11% identify with mainline Protestantism. Roughly one-in-five are evangelical Protestants.

However, generational replacement is by no means the only reason that religious "nones" are growing and Christians are declining. In addition, people in older generations are increasingly disavowing association with organized religion. About a third of older Millennials (adults currently in their late 20s and early 30s) now say they have no religion, up nine percentage points among this cohort since 2007, when the same group was between ages 18 and 26. Nearly a quarter of Generation Xers now say they have no particular religion or describe themselves as atheists or agnostics, up four points in seven years. Baby Boomers also have become slightly but noticeably more likely to identify as religious "nones" in recent years.

As the shifting religious profiles of these generational cohorts suggest, switching religion is a common occurrence in the United States. If all Protestants were treated as a single religious group, then fully 34% of American adults currently have a religious identity different from the one in which they were raised. This is up six points since 2007, when 28% of adults identified with a religion different from their childhood faith. If switching among the three Protestant traditions (e.g., from mainline Protestantism to the evangelical tradition, or from evangelicalism to a historically black Protestant denomination) is added to the total, then the share of Americans who currently have a different religion than they did in childhood rises to 42%.

By a wide margin, religious "nones" have experienced larger gains through religious switching than any other group. Nearly one-in-five U.S. adults (18%) were raised in a religious faith and now identify with no religion. Some switching also has occurred in the other direction: 9% of American adults say they were raised with no religious affiliation, and almost half of them (4.3% of all U.S. adults) now identify with some religion. But for every person who has joined a religion after having been raised unaffiliated, there are more than four people who have become religious "nones" after having been raised in some religion. This 1:4 ratio is an important factor in the growth of the unaffiliated population.

By contrast, Christianity - and especially Catholicism - has been losing more adherents through religious switching than it has been gaining. More than 85% of American adults were raised Christian, but nearly a quarter of those who were raised Christian no longer identify with Christianity. Former Christians represent 19.2% of U.S. adults overall.

Both the mainline and historically black Protestant traditions have lost more members than they have gained through religious switching, but within Christianity the greatest net losses, by far, have been experienced by Catholics. Nearly one-third of American adults (31.7%) say they were raised Catholic. Among that group, fully 41% no longer identify with Catholicism. This means that 12.9% of American adults are former Catholics, while just 2% of U.S. adults have converted to Catholicism from another religious tradition. No other religious group in the survey has such a lopsided ratio of losses to gains.

The evangelical Protestant tradition is the only major Christian group in the survey that has gained more members than it has lost through religious switching. Roughly 10% of U.S. adults now identify with evangelical Protestantism after having been raised in another tradition, which more than offsets the roughly 8% of adults who were raised as evangelicals but have left for another religious tradition or who no longer identify with any organized faith.

Other highlights in this report include:

The Christian share of the population is declining and the religiously unaffiliated share is growing in all four major geographic regions of the country. Religious "nones" now constitute 19% of the adult population in the South (up from 13% in 2007), 22% of the population in the Midwest (up from 16%), 25% of the population in the Northeast (up from 16%) and 28% of the population in the West (up from 21%). In the West, the religiously unaffiliated are more numerous than Catholics (23%), evangelicals (22%) and every other religious group.

Whites continue to be more likely than both blacks and Hispanics to identify as religiously unaffiliated; 24% of whites say they have no religion, compared with 20% of Hispanics and 18% of blacks. But the religiously unaffiliated have grown (and Christians have declined) as a share of the population within all three of these racial and ethnic groups.

The percentage of college graduates who identify with Christianity has declined by nine percentage points since 2007 (from 73% to 64%). The Christian share of the population has declined by a similar amount among those with less than a college education (from 81% to 73%). Religious "nones" now constitute 24% of all college graduates (up from 17%) and 22% of those with less than a college degree (up from 16%).

More than a quarter of men (27%) now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, up from 20% in 2007. Fewer women are religious "nones," but the religiously unaffiliated are growing among women at about the same rate as among men. Nearly one-in-five women (19%) now describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, up from 13% in 2007.

Although it is low relative to other religious groups, the retention rate of the unaffiliated has increased. In the current survey, 53% of those raised as religiously unaffiliated still identify as "nones" in adulthood, up seven points since 2007. And among Millennials, "nones" actually have one of the highest retention rates of all the religious categories that are large enough to analyze in the survey.

As the ranks of the religiously unaffiliated continue to grow, they also describe themselves in increasingly secular terms. In 2007, 25% of the "nones" called themselves atheists or agnostics; 39% identified their religion as "nothing in particular" and also said that religion is "not too" or "not at all" important in their lives; and 36% identified their religion as "nothing in particular" while nevertheless saying that religion is either "very important" or "somewhat important" in their lives. The new survey finds that the atheist and agnostic share of the "nones" has grown to 31%. Those identifying as "nothing in particular" and describing religion as unimportant in their lives continue to account for 39% of all "nones." But the share identifying as "nothing in particular" while also affirming that religion is either "very" or "somewhat" important to them has fallen to 30% of all "nones."

While the mainline Protestant share of the population is significantly smaller today than it was in 2007, the evangelical Protestant share of the population has remained comparatively stable (ticking downward slightly from 26.3% to 25.4% of the population). As a result, evangelicals now constitute a clear majority (55%) of all U.S. Protestants. In 2007, roughly half of Protestants (51%) identified with evangelical churches.

Since 2007, the share of evangelical Protestants who identify with Baptist denominations has shrunk from 41% to 36%. Meanwhile, the share of evangelicals identifying with nondenominational churches has grown from 13% to 19%.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) continues to be the largest denomination within the mainline Protestant tradition. Currently, 25% of mainline Protestants identify with the UMC, down slightly from 28% in 2007.

More than six-in-ten people in the historically black Protestant tradition identify with Baptist denominations, including 22% who identify with the National Baptist Convention, the largest denomination within the historically black Protestant tradition.

The share of the public identifying with religions other than Christianity has grown from 4.7% in 2007 to 5.9% in 2014. Gains were most pronounced among Muslims (who accounted for 0.4% of respondents in the 2007 Religious Landscape Study and 0.9% in 2014) and Hindus (0.4% in 2007 vs. 0.7% in 2014).

Roughly one-in-seven participants in the new survey (15%) were born outside the U.S., and two-thirds of those immigrants are Christians, including 39% who are Catholic. More than one-in-ten immigrants identify with a non-Christian faith, such as Islam or Hinduism.

Hindus and Jews continue to be the most highly educated religious traditions. Fully 77% of Hindus are college graduates, as are 59% of Jews (compared with 27% of all U.S. adults). These groups also have above-average household incomes. Fully 44% of Jews and 36% of Hindus say their annual family income exceeds $100,000, compared with 19% of the public overall.

About the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study

This is the first report on findings from the 2014 U.S. Religious Landscape Study, the centerpiece of which is a nationally representative telephone survey of 35,071 adults. This is the second time the Pew Research Center has conducted a Religious Landscape Study. The first was conducted in 2007, also with a telephone survey of more than 35,000 Americans.

The new study is designed to serve three main purposes:

To provide a detailed account of the size of the religious groups that populate the U.S. landscape;

To describe the demographic characteristics, religious beliefs and practices, and social and political values of those religious groups; and

To document how the religious profile of the U.S. has changed since the first study was conducted in 2007. With more than 35,000 interviews each, both the 2007 and 2014 studies have margins of error of less than one percentage point, making it possible to identify even relatively small changes in religious groups' share of the U.S. population.

The results of the 2014 Religious Landscape Study will be published in a series of reports over the coming year. This first report focuses on the changing religious composition of the U.S. and describes the demographic characteristics of U.S. religious groups, including their median age, racial and ethnic makeup, nativity data, education and income levels, gender ratios, family composition (including religious intermarriage rates) and geographic distribution. It also summarizes patterns in religious switching.

In addition, this report includes an appendix that compares the findings of the 2007 and 2014 Religious Landscape Studies with several other surveys and assesses how recent developments in American religion fit into longer-term trends. Data from a variety of national surveys, including the long-running General Social Survey and Gallup polls, confirm that Protestants have been declining as a share of the U.S. population and that the unaffiliated have been growing. But there is less of a consensus about trends in American Catholicism. Some surveys, including the one featured in this report, indicate that the Catholic share of the population is declining, while others suggest it is relatively stable or may have declined and then ticked back up in recent years. (See Appendix C.)

Other findings from the 2014 Religious Landscape Study will be released later this year. In addition to the written reports, the Religious Landscape Study's findings will be available through a new interactive tool. The online presentation allows users to delve more deeply into the survey's findings, build interactive maps or charts and explore the data most interesting to them.

Acknowledgments

Many individuals from the Pew Research Center contributed to this report. Alan Cooperman, director of religion research, oversaw the effort and served as the primary editor. Gregory Smith, associate director for religion research, served as the primary researcher and wrote the Overview and Methodology. Smith also wrote the chapter on the changing religious composition of the U.S., the appendix on the classification of Protestant denominations and the appendix on putting the findings from the Religious Landscape Study into context. The chapter on religious switching and intermarriage was written by Research Associate Becka Alper. Research Associate Jessica Martinez and Research Assistant Claire Gecewicz wrote the chapter on the demographic profiles of religious groups, and Research Analyst Elizabeth Sciupac wrote the chapter on the shifting religious identity of demographic groups. Gecewicz prepared the detailed tables. The report was number checked by Alper, Gecewicz, Martinez, Sciupac and Research Associate Besheer Mohamed. The report was edited by Sandra Stencel, Michael Lipka, Caryle Murphy and Aleksandra Sandstrom. Bill Webster created the graphics. Stacy Rosenberg, Russell Heimlich, Diana Yoo, Besheer Mohamed, Ben Wormald and Juan Carlos Esparza Ochoa developed the interactive tool.

The Pew Research Center's methods team provided advice on the sampling plan, questionnaire design, weighting strategy and data analysis. The methods team, led by Director of Survey Research Scott Keeter, includes Research Methodologists Kyley McGeeney and Andrew Mercer, Research Assistant Nicholas Hatley and graduate student intern H. Yanna Yan.

Others at the Pew Research Center who provided research guidance include Michael Dimock, Claudia Deane, Andy Kohut and Conrad Hackett. Communications support was provided by Katherine Ritchey, Stefan Cornibert, Russ Oates and Robyn Tomlin.

John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, served as a senior adviser on the Religious Landscape Studies, providing valuable advice on the survey questionnaires, categorization of respondents and drafts of the reports. Additionally, we received helpful comments on portions of the 2014 study from David E. Campbell, director, Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy, University of Notre Dame; William D'Antonio, senior fellow, Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies, The Catholic University of America; Mike Hout, professor of sociology, New York University; and Barry Kosmin, director, Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture, Trinity College. We also received valuable advice from Luis Lugo, former director of the Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life project, and Paul Taylor, former executive vice president of the Pew Research Center.

Funding for the 2014 Religious Landscape Study comes from The Pew Charitable Trusts, which received generous support for the project from the Lilly Endowment Inc.

While the analysis was guided by our consultations with the advisers, the Pew Research Center is solely responsible for the interpretation and reporting of the data.

Roadmap to the Report

The remainder of this report explores in greater depth many of the key findings summarized in this Overview. Chapter 1 offers a detailed look at the religious composition of the United States and how it has changed in recent years. Chapter 2 examines patterns in religious switching and intermarriage. Chapter 3 provides a demographic profile of the major religious traditions in the United States. Chapter 4 then flips the lens, looking at the religious profile of Americans in various demographic groups. Appendix A describes the methodology used to conduct the study. Appendix B provides details on how Protestants were categorized into one of three major Protestant traditions (the evangelical tradition, the mainline tradition and the historically black Protestant tradition) based on the specific denomination with which they identify. Appendix C compares findings from the Religious Landscape Studies with other major religion surveys and puts the current results into the context of longer-term trends.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing, according to an extensive new survey by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, these changes are taking place across the religious landscape, affecting all regions of the country and many demographic groups.

# data[].attributes.body
The beginning of the novel coronavirus