Brunswick School & Greenwich Academy's Magazine of History 2022 (Volume 19)

The Brunswick and Greenwich Academy Magazine of History

2022 Editor

Dr. Brian Hoffman

Editorial Office

Department of History

Pettengill Campus

Brunswick School 100 Maher Avenue

Greenwich, CT 06830

E-mail:bhoffman@brunswickschool.org

Contents

Volume 19, 2022

National History Day Projects

Research Paper:

To Pekin for Peace: How Daring Diplomacy Transformed Sino-American Relations by Jackson Fels '23.

Documentary:

Peru v. Yale Cultural Property Debate by Grace Sullivan ’24

The Fall of the Berlin Wall: Unity through Diplomacy by Sayah Trahanas ‘25

The Patterson-Kehoe Lead Debate: A Key to Ensuring a more Sustainable Future by Angelina Hubertus ‘25

Breaking From Isolationism: America's Entry Into The First World War by Thomas Rockman ’25 and Kody Horton ‘25

Website:

Validation and Appeasement of Hitler in the Berlin Olympics by Wim Nook ‘25 and Henry Raine ‘25

Exhibit:

The Power of the Pamphlet by Gianna DeBono ’25 and Karin Lund ‘25

During the 2022 Spring Semester, the Brunswick History Department participated for the first time in the National History Day program. Created in 1974 to encourage the development of historical research skills, the National History Day program provides an opportunity for students to submit their research at local and state contests and to win prestigious prizes and to advance to the National Contest. Over 500,000 Middle School and High School students compete each year around the nation. At Brunswick, freshmen, sophomores, and juniors enthusiastically selected their topics, spent weeks researching a topic of their choosing and then creating their projects. Exhibiting creativity, thorough research, and excellent writing, the work of several Brunswick and Greenwich Academy students advanced to the state level and even to the National Contest!

This volume of the Brunswick and Greenwich Academy History Magazine will highlight the many different ways that students presented their historical research. In addition to accepting the traditional history research paper, the National History Day program invites students to submit research as an “exhibit,” “documentary,” “website,” or “performance.” Each project category has its own unique rules while requiring all students to use research skills to work with primary sources, develop a strong thesis statement, and to carefully organize and present their conclusions. The exhibit category, for example, restricts the words students can include in their trifold and asks students to craft a narrative through the way they arrange their sources, similar to an installation in a museum. The documentary allows students to share their research as a dynamic ten minute video presentation narrated in their own voice. A website also restricts the words and multimedia students can use in order

to focus students’ efforts on formatting their research to be presented digitally. The Performance category asks students to act out their research, incorporating primary sources into their costumes, sets, and dialogue. Brunswick and Greenwich Academy students participated with great results in each category. This Volume of the Brunswick and Greenwich Academy Magazine of History, as a result, has adopted a new digital format to better present these highly interdisciplinary and creative projects.

Another change in this Volume of the Brunswick and Greenwich Academy Magazine of History is the publication of both individual and group projects. Students can chose to compete in the National History Day program with another student or individually. This introduces the benefits and challenges of collaboration. The opportunity to divide tasks, to take advantage of different skill sets, and to share ideas produced wonderful student work. The projects also all engage the National History Day’s required 2022 theme of “Debate and Diplomacy: Successes, Failures, and Consequences.” The theme encouraged students to conduct research on a variety of historical events and debates in American and World history and to craft arguments about their significance in shaping history. Each student project published in this Volume includes a “process” paper, a 500 word explanation of their research and how it engages the year’s theme. Please enjoy reading and viewing the incredibly creative, interdisciplinary, and well-researched projects of the students at Brunswick and Greenwich Academy.

Jackson Fels

To Peking For Peace: How Daring Diplomacy

Transformed

SinoAmerican Relations Process Paper

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, many speculated that America was the world’s last superpower. Perhaps this assessment was true for a fleeting moment, but today it is evident that assessment is no longer the case. China today stands as the great superpower in the East, and America’s geopolitical status is no longer peerless. When I first began considering the theme of debate and diplomacy in history, the news headlines were dominated by talks of rising tensions between the US and China. Trade wars, tariffs, and military posturing have been the topics of the day. Yet, as I understood it historically, these tools were not the ones that had previously made possible Sino-American bi-lateral

development. Granted, even at the height of their relations, the two nations had always been distrustful of each other and were ideological rivals. However, both their periods of greatest development occurred when they put these differences aside through the means of debate and diplomacy. In understanding the successes and consequences of debate and diplomacy between America and China during the “opening” of China, starting under Nixon, I hoped to come to a better understanding of how debate and diplomacy could be utilized towards the goal of mutual prosperity today.

I began my research by consulting secondary sources, hoping to come to a general understanding of the chronological timeline of events before I dove into specifics. While in the process of this, I emailed twelve experts in the field of Sino-American diplomacy (being careful not to interview any historians). At the end of this process, after fielding initial responses from experts: a policy advisor at Oxford; think tank fellows; and former diplomats, few panned out into real results. Fortunately, I got a response from the person who is the most renowned expert in this field, and who I thought I had no chance of talking with: John Daly. Daly’s background on this topic is second to none. He is currently the director of the Wilson Center’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, has served as a U.S. diplomat in Beijing; as an interpreter for Chinese and U.S. leaders, including President Carter and Secretary of State Kissinger himself; and as head of China programs at Johns Hopkins, Syracuse, and the University of Maryland. My interviews with Daly were enormously influential on the path of my research both in shaping my thesis and sharing with me primary documents, some of which he was part of the group that originally wrote them. After considering Daly’s insight, secondary sources, and

the plethora of primary sources I discovered, I set my final historical argument. That the diplomatic maneuver of opening up China was a success of enormous proportion, for China, America, and mankind writ large. Drawing on my conclusions in the analysis of this past era of diplomacy, I hope my paper sheds insight onto the future of AmericanChinese diplomatic relations, and how the path forward must be one of diplomacy.

Jackson Fels ‘23

To Peking for Peace

Winner Best Paper Senior Division

Fairfield Region Connecticut History Day

“In his essay, ‘Perpetual Peace,’ Immanuel Kant, argued that peace would eventually come to the world in one of two ways, by human insight or by conflicts and catastrophes of a magnitude that left humanity no other choice. Today we met at such a juncture.”

- Henry Kissinger, Former Secretary of State

The existential threat of the Soviet Union engrossed most geopolitical pundits in the West in the latter years of the 1960s. But while most attention was concentrated elsewhere, a small group of ingenious diplomats began to turn their sights south of the Soviet Union, imagining the unbounded potential of a rising China. They saw in China both a potential counter-balance to America’s Cold War rival and a malleable nation with mutual interests, one that perhaps could be induced to liberalize and join the international community. saw in China both a potential counter-balance to America’s Cold War rival and a malleable nation with mutual interests, one that perhaps could be induced to liberalize and join the international community. But anti-communist sentiment still raged within the US, and the idea of an American president stepping foot in China would have been utterly preposterous at the time. Understanding the delicacy of the situation, American and Chinese special envoys worked in secret to formalize diplomatic ties and pave the way for official channels, eventually culminating in President Richard Nixon’s one-week trip to China in 1972. What resulted was one of the greatest triumphs of diplomacy and bilateral debate in modern history. Starting largely in 1971, the consequences of this diplomatic effort transformed not only the path of the Cold War but also the two respective nations themselves. Undaunted by the considerable ideological and political barriers, Sino-American diplomats worked together to counter the Soviets and ushered in decades of coevolution and coexistence between the United States and China.

The American Landscape

The true brazenness of this diplomacy from the American perspective must be understood in the political context of the time. Still very much in a cold war mindset, the American people, broadly speaking, detested and feared

the specter of communism. But Nixon had long established himself as a vehement anti-communist, thanks in large part to his aggressive campaign ads for the presidency. In one such ad, when asked how he planned to negotiate with Soviet leader Khrushchev, Nixon famously declared “The only answer to communism is a massive offensive for freedom.”[1] Thus, while nearly any other politician seen shaking hands with a communist leader would most certainly have been labeled a communist sympathizer by his domestic rivals, Nixon was immune to this attack.[2] However, the explanation of why Nixon was open to such a diplomatic move goes deeper than his “anti-red” resume. Nixon had experience and expertise in foreign affairs and saw himself as a grand strategic thinker with long-term plans. He laid out his projection for Asian policy publicly in 1967, writing in Foreign Affairs Magazine that America must deal with China sooner rather than later.[3] Nixon understood his transcendent position in the domestic debates over working with communists and used this advantage to seize a diplomatic opportunity few politicians could, or would, have done.[4]

Undoubtedly, Nixon’s decisions were not solely of his own formulation. The great mastermind and orchestrator of these negotiations was his Secretary of State and long-term advisor, Dr. Henry Kissinger.[5] Kissinger, like Nixon, saw the geo-political world like a chessboard and he had his own vision as to how to create a new global order. In his book

“Diplomacy,” Kissinger argued that the configuration of power most likely to produce such order was ideally a balance between three superpowers. An astute student of history, Kissinger argued that since the 17th century only two global configurations had produced notable stability: the Concert of Europe, created after the Congress of Vienna in 1815; and the liberal order that followed the aftermath of World War II.

But neither, he explained, was ideal and both failed to last because they lacked the proper balance. The former involved too many powerful nations, and the latter involved only two. [6] Only in a new three-way balance, Kissinger deduced, could power be checked. In America, China, and Russia, Kissinger saw the three chess pieces he needed. This theory, and assurances from Kissinger to Nixon that the international community would eventually back this move, proved enough to convince the American president that diplomacy could be the path forward.[7]

The Chinese Landscape

In China, the domestic political scene was less convoluted than that in America because, for all intents and purposes, the political scene was dominated by one man. Chairman of the Communist Party, Mao Zedong, had an iron grip over the party and the party had an iron grip over the country.[8] Despite his near dominance, Mao still had many complex factors to consider. At the time of American outreach in the early 1970s, China was in the midst of a cultural revolution. Formally known as the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution,” domestic life for many was upended.[9] There was little sense of normality in the public sphere, and Mao understood the underlying vulnerability caused by this turmoil. Even though he largely benefited from this revolutionary fervor, Mao was keenly aware of its danger. A society mobilized against itself in class warfare would be unable to mobilize against an existential threat, like the Soviet Union. And Mao, perhaps even as much as the US, feared Soviet aggression. Indeed, Mao so feared Soviet aggression that he ordered the construction of underground bomb shelters across China.[10] This development was of particular interest to the CIA, and internal documents reveal the agency believed that perhaps “A new period of open

hostility between the two powers has arrived.”[11] Similar to the US, Mao saw the need for a bilateral counterbalance to the Soviets. Hence, as their mutual interests became evident, openness to diplomacy became a viable option.

Kissinger’s Gamble

With an understanding of the possibilities before him, Kissinger found his first opportunity to launch dialogues with China in 1969, after the Sino-Soviet border conflict on the Ussuri river. The crisis was precipitated by the Soviet military, who appeared to have been building up forces along the border, suggesting serious conflict was imminent.[12] Via secret hand-delivered letters, using the American embassy in Pakistan as a middle man, Kissinger and his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai, began communications. In these letters, both parties expressed their willingness to talk in person. Even more, the Chinese delegation wrote that they saw in-person meetings as a prerequisite to any real diplomatic success. This was articulated to the US in Zhou Enlai's letter to Kissinger asserting “However, if the relations between China and the U.S. are to be fundamentally restored, a solution can be found only through direct discussions between-high levels persons of our two countries.”[13] In delivering this letter to Nixon, Kissinger called it the “most important communication that has come to an American president since the end of World War II.”[14] With this aspiration, Kissinger secretly made his way to Beijing on July 9th, 1971, where he met face to face with Premier Enlai. As written in the American transcript of the meeting, the two began discussions over three main points of concern. The first topic was their mutual understanding and alliance over the issue of the Soviet Union. Kissinger went as far as to say that the US would “make no moves affecting your [China’s] interests without informing you first.” The second point was

the issue of Taiwan. Regarding this concern, the two sides were at clear odds. Nonetheless, they agreed to disagree. While they differed on the issue, they understood each other’s positions, and in an effort to keep the talks alive, they chose to shelve the issue for another time.[15] Such a decision demonstrated not only remarkable tolerance and openness but also reflected the optimism the two sides felt toward a peaceful discourse over the issue in the future. The third, and perhaps most groundbreaking, resolution was a verbal agreement on President Nixon making a trip to Beijing to meet with Chairman Mao. The details of this visit were mapped out on Kissinger’s second secret visit on August 6, 1971, where Enlai again expressed a general sentiment of optimism about the visit and its potential.[16] As for Kissinger, in describing the ordeal he wrote emphatically “My visit to Peking resulted in the most searching, sweeping and significant discussions I have ever had in government.”[17]

Nixon’s Visit: The Week That Changed the World

Nixon’s ensuing arrival in Beijing in February 1972 formalized all that Kissinger had dreamed and covertly worked to realize: the end of the bipolar division of the world. During the visit, symbolic gestures between Nixon and Mao were celebrated by both American and Chinese media. Spectacular banquets, a visit to the Great Wall, and press conferences with Mao left images that quickly became iconic. The image of President Nixon shaking hands with Chairman Mao was splashed on the front page of newspapers across the western world. (See appendix A) During this visit, diplomats on both sides meticulously focused on the litany of issues on which the two powers could compromise. Nixon’s personal meetings, as with most of the high-level meetings, focused largely on the global balance of power and creating a new international order.[18]

This groundbreaking diplomacy came to its denouement in the Shanghai Communiqué. Much of the wording of the Shanghai Communiqué itself is brilliantly ambiguous. While that description may seem oxymoronic, given the staunchly differing opinions of the two sides on specific issues, this was the only way any mutually agreeable document could have been produced. A good illustration of this is the document’s handling of Taiwan. The compromise was that the two sides agreed to merely acknowledge, but not agree with, the other side's position. Chinese diplomats insisted on the “OneChina principle” stating that Taiwan was a part of China and

Pictured here, Mao Zedong greets President Richard Nixon, at Mao’s personal residence , near the Capital of Peking. This image soon became the iconic symbol of a new era of Sino-American diplomacy.

nothing more than a runaway province, whereas American diplomats pushed for the recognition of Taiwanese sovereignty.

[19] By acknowledging each other's stance, without conceding their own, they were able to keep a working relationship alive in the name of pursuing a greater common interest.

Success and Consequences

The consequences of this frenzy of diplomacy transformed the world stage. Patiently building mutual trust over the course of six years, the US formally agreed to recognize the People’s Republic and established official diplomatic relations under President Jimmy Carter on December 15, 1978.[20] Soon after, at China’s behest, the US and its allies slowly began to surrender Taiwan to China’s sphere of influence, and the US broke off diplomatic relations with Taiwan and withdrew any official US military presence from the island. On the other hand, just as Kissinger had envisioned, economic liberalization occurred in China following political opening. While the Russian economy stagnated and the Soviet Union broke apart, China experienced unprecedented growth. China joined the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1980, a decade before Russia did.[21] China transformed into an export-led economy, making products that became a crucial part of consumption in the US and across the larger western world. Since 1978, China’s GDP growth has averaged almost 10 percent a year, and more than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty.[22] This economic development in China must be viewed not just as of benefit to China, but also as a fundamental humanitarian victory for the world. Chinese economic development meant better standards of living for millions of its people, and that in itself is an achievement worthy of recognition.

There is also the success of negotiations, in a geopolitical sense, to consider. In this regard, diplomacy was objectively successful. Sino-American war was avoided, and the Soviet Union was toppled without the Americans or Chinese having to

Shanghai Communiqué were met unequivocally. This detente set in motion by Kissinger and Enlai facilitated coexistence, coevolution, and economic integration, all of which could have only occurred in the context of peace.

With the benefit of hindsight, some have questioned if the opening of China was a miscalculation based on myopic interests. The source of this discontent is understandable as, since 2012, China has grown openly hostile towards the US under Xi Jinping. China began to close itself off from the world, reverse liberalization, and Xi Jinping has consolidated progressively more totalitarian power. [23] While this is a truly tragic development, most so for the

This graph, made by the World Bank, puts into visual representation the boom China’s economy experienced since opening up economically in 1978. Specifically, it depicts China’s annual GDP percent growth from 1978 to 2020.

Chinese people, it is not a development that either was, or could have been, anticipated in the era of Nixon and Kissinger. It is an unfair historical standard to question how politicians of decades past did not predict every possible development and transformation emanating from the modern era. Critics also point to economic predictions of Chinese economic power soon eclipsing that of the US as a discredit to the Nixon-Kissinger mission, though this too is misconstrued. True, it is a statistical reality that China has grown at a faster rate in terms of GDP than America, but China also started at a lower point and thus had far more room to grow. In 1971, China’s GDP was 99.8 billion, nearly a fraction of America’s GDP of 1.165 trillion that same year. [24] Global prosperity and human economic success are not zero-sum games. Furthermore, lifting a large swath of humanity out of poverty is a self-justifying goal. China today accounts for one-fifth of the world's population. Therefore, the economic growth this nation experienced after its opening, which benefited one-fifth of mankind, is a success of epic scope and scale.

Learning from this history may even give insight into today’s debates over policy with China. Some pundits argue the chances for diplomatic success with China today are unlikely. Yet such a pessimistic outlook ignores the lessons of the past. America and China have always been ideological rivals, but diplomacy and bilateral exchange have made it so they do not have to be incompatible. Moreover, their interests do not have to be mutually exclusive. Today, the two nations, as a direct result of prior diplomacy, have shared economic interests and integrated industries. Perhaps the most meaningfull common interest, though, is the avoidance of a mutually destructive war. While tensions are high and both sides are skeptical of, have grievances against, and do not full-heartedly trust the other, the diplomacy of the past

teaches that these barriers can be transcended in the pursuit of mutual interest. Thus, once again, the world is at a juncture. On one path, today’s leaders can approach the other in the spirit and promise of diplomacy, where they allow economic integration to foster prosperity in both countries, as it has done so far. Conversely, the leaders can shun diplomacy, further dividing the countries and damning each other to the turbulent fate of what could become a new Cold War. A shining lesson for the leaders of today, the opening of China speaks to the power and promise of debate, diplomacy, and the resulting mutually beneficial coexistence of two adversarial nations.

Notes

[1] Advertisement for Richard Nixon on Communism and Khrushchev. Oct. 1960. John F. Kennedy Center-Victoria Schuck Collection, www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/ archives/VSC.

[2] Daly, Robert. Personal Interview. 28 Jan. 2022.

[3] Nixon, Richard M. "Asia After Viet Nam." Foreign Affairs, new series, vol. 46, no. 1, Oct. 1967.

[4] Mansfield, Mike. "Mike Mansfield on President Nixon." US News and World Report [New York City], 38th ed., Dec. 1971. US News and World Report.. Interview.

[5] Kissinger, Henry, Dr. Diplomacy. New York City, Simon & Schuster, 1994.

[6] Kissinger, Henry, Dr. Diplomacy. New York City, Simon & Schuster, 1994.

[7] House, Office of the Historian. Memorandum From Lindsey Grant and Hal Saunders of the National Security Council Staff to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs. Government Publishing Office, Aug. 1969. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume XVII, history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/ d26. House Document 26.

[8] Kaiser, David. "The Cultural Revolution and the History of Totalitarianism."TIME, vol. 187, no. 19, 16 may 2016. TIME, time.com/4329308/ cultural-revolution-history-totalitarianism/.

[9] Gao, Mobo. The Battle for China's Past: Mao and the Cultural Revolution. London, Pluto Press, 2008.

[10] Daly, Robert. Personal Interview. 28 Jan. 2022.

[11] Sheppard, Capt. "The President's Intelligence Checklist-21 September 1962." 21. Sept. 1962. CIA Reading Room, www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/ DOC_0005995941.pdf.

[12] Henry Kissinger, White House Years, Boston, Little Brown & Company, 1979.

[13] En Lai, Chou, Premier. Memo. 27 Apr. 1971. The National Security Archive, nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/ NSAEBB66/ch-17.pdf.

[14]Isaacson, Walter. Kissinger: A Biography. E-book ed., New York City, Simon and Schuster, 1992.

[15] United States, Congress, Foreign Affairs Committee. My Talks with Chou-Enlai. Government Publishing Office, 14 July 1971. The Kissinger Report.

[16] United States, Congress, House, Office of the Historian. Memorandum FromPresident Nixon to his Assistant for National Security Affairs. Government Publishing Office. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, China,, history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/ frus1969-76v17/d3.

[17] United States, Congress, Foreign Affairs Committee. My Talks with Chou-Enlai. Government Publishing Office, 14 July 1971. The Kissinger Report.

[18] Daly, Robert. Personal Interview. 28 Jan. 2022.

[19] State Department. Joint Communiqué of the United States of America and the People's Republic of China (Shanghai Communiqué). Government Publishing Office, 28 Feb. 1972. Wilson Center Digital Archive, digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/121325.

[20] Daly, Robert. Personal Interview. 28 Jan. 2022.

[21] The World Bank in China. Washington D.C, World Bank, 12 Oct. 2021. World Bank,

[22] Ibid

[23] Daly, Robert. Personal Interview. 28 Jan. 2022.

[24] The World Bank in China. Washington D.C, World Bank, 12 Oct. 2021. World Bank,

Grace Sullivan ‘24

Peru v. Yale: Cultural Property Debate

Process Paper

This documentary centers on the debate over cultural property between Yale University and Peru, which ended diplomatically despite the feud lasting a full century. The artifacts were first excavated in 1912 by Hiram Bingham who brought them from Machu Picchu to the United States under a confusing and controversial contract. Over the next one hundred years, Yale would refuse to give the relics back to Peru; their claim was that they owned these artifacts under the original contract. This debate ultimately closed with an ethical solution of returning the artifacts. Because cultural

property was diplomatically repatriated, this topic fits precisely into the debate and diplomacy theme for this year's NHD competition. This topic was selected because it was very recent, only being settled in 2012, while having been sparked back in 1912. Tracing a long-spanning debate that ended peacefully proves that diplomacy is possible, no matter how enduring the conflict is. Research for this topic began by looking through JSTOR to find a historian’s article and arguments regarding this subject. The Yale website was used frequently to assess their perspective of the argument while media outlets discussing Peru’s protests were used to capture Peru’s perspective. When creating the project, first a script was made to create structure and an evidence-based argument throughout the project. Images from news articles and footage of Machu Picchu, Peru, were compiled to show in the documentary. iMovie was used for piecing the documentary together, first using audio clips. Pictures and videos were then spliced in over the audio to correlate with whatever was being explained. After the regional competition, more videos were incorporated as a well as more subtitles for clarity. After feedback from the state-level competition, the script was revised to include more details from each angle of the argument while incorporating more visual evidence for support. Adding in images and videos was a difficult process since it had to engage the viewer as well as align with the audio. The visual evidence however made the argument significantly more interesting and effective. This film is arguing that the artifacts were repatriated because of protests, since the legal route was ineffective. This topic is very significant in history because it is not an isolated

incident. Museums of powerful countries are known to hoard cultural property from less powerful countries. An example of this is the Saint Louis Museum illegally keeping artifacts from Egypt. Sometimes powerful countries obtain relics as prizes of war, while other times it’s through excavations. Nevertheless, the Peru vs. Yale debate is very important because it shows that a politically less powerful country can regain their cultural property despite power dynamics.

National History Day Documentary by Grace Sullivan ’24

Winner Best Individual Documentary (Fairfield Region)

Winner Best Individual Documentary (State Level)

National Contest Individual Documentary Submission

Senior Division

Angelina Hubertus ‘25

The Patterson-Kehoe Lead Debate: A Key to Ensuring a More Sustainable Future Process Paper

I’ve always been interested in science and stem topics. In 4th grade, I watched the NOVA documentary Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, learning of the forgotten battle with Lead Contamination and Clair Patterson’s legacy as the sole defendant of lead toxicity. This story is perhaps one of the most important in history, where a large-scale catastrophe was prevented primarily by the work of one man, but Patterson’s work and the harm of the lead industry is rarely recognized and told. Each year since, I’ve researched Patterson’s work in greater depth and feel Patterson’s

triumph in fighting out capitalistic lead contamination must be more widely known.

I used JSTOR for many of my primary sources to view scientific journals written by Patterson and his colleagues’ experiments with Lead, particularly a study measuring the lead content in Greenland ice cores that provided insight on the natural occurrence of lead in the environment. I also went through Robert Kehoe’s work on setting safety environmental standards of Lead to cover up the environmental contamination responsible by Ethyl Corp. The National Library of Medicine also provided invaluable resources with new studies of the impacts of lead contamination, especially on growth and reproduction of plants and organisms following the lead contamination. The United Nations Chemicals Management Resolution and UN projects also tell of the social and economical impacts of lead and the work towards the ultimate banning of lead. I found a college thesis written by a science history major on Patterson’s work and Lead contamination as a secondary source that provided a thorough overview of the Lead Debate including advertisements from the 1960’s stating that lead is completely safe that misled the public.

I decided to create a documentary that is easily understood by viewers and is engaging. Many events can only be understood when seen, such as Thomas Midgeley’s Lead demonstration where he poured leaded gasoline on his hands

to demonstrate it’s safety and the scientific processes used. I created my project using iMovie by compiling primary and secondary source audio clips together first and matching video footage afterwards. I took audio clips from Patterson’s interviews and Midgeley’s press statements to create a whole view of the two opposing sides.

While there were clear economic benefits during the prime of the Lead Industries Association (LIA), Clair Patterson’s work and efforts in banning leaded gasoline and role in the great lead debate was a success for global health, and a key to ensuring a more sustainable future. While organizations such as the United Nations have worked towards diminishing lead products and pollutants since Patterson’s proof, the world has been inevitably harmed by Lead, decreasing global IQ’s and causing developmental disabilities in third world countries. Without Patterson’s advocacy and initial evidence against lead, the Lead Industries Association may still be producing leaded products and further impairing health globally, having deleterious effects on modern day and the future. Patterson’s advocacy prevented catastrophe and cut out the work for current environmentalists.

Winner 3rd Place Individual Documentary (Fairfield Region)

Connecticut History Day Individual Documentary Submission (State Level) Senior Division

Sayah Trahanas ‘25

The Fall of the Berlin Wall: Unity through Diplomacy

My project for this year’s National History Day contest was the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. In looking for examples of debate and diplomacy in history, according to this year’s theme, I found a very clear example in a topic I knew a bit about beforehand: the fall of the Berlin Wall, its causes, and its consequences. I knew on a very basic level that the Berlin Wall was one of the first columns of communism to fall in Europe, setting in motion the ideological momentum which would later topple the Soviet Union, but researching the topic was a completely eye-opening experience, as I got to truly

understand debate and diplomacy’s role in the fall. The research process began with historical summaries of the events around the fall, but eventually it became clear that primary sources, like interviews, primary articles, and POV videos taken at the time were a superior resource for creating my project due to how valuable those first-person perspectives were and are to this day in telling this story. I gathered footage, images, and interviews from across the internet, and then compiled them into a documentary in Adobe Premiere Rush, where I was able to compile the most truthful narrative possible about debate and diplomacy’s role in such a historical event. If one looks at the mosaic of events leading up the fall, conversation, relationships, and debate over the future of a split country interweave in the historical narrative. As mentioned in the documentary, international relations had to become friendships to bridge divides of understanding. Debate between the government and the people was essential in establishing a dialogue of freedom. And, of course, conversation and communication, or lack thereof, created the momentum needed in any bloodless revolution. I bring up all of these in my documentary, and this is because they culminate to an event which provided the ideological momentum needed for the toppling of one of the most oppressive and divisive regimes in history: the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. It was not heavy artillery or warfare which saw the fall of communism; instead, it was all types of debate and diplomacy which lead to unity and freedom for all. The Berlin Wall was just a microcosm of that bigger necessity.

Winner 2nd Place Individual Documentary (Fairfield Region)

Connecticut History Day Individual Documentary Submission (State Level) Senior Division

Thomas Rockman ’25 and Kody Horton ‘25

Breaking from Isolationism: America’s Entry into the First World War Process Paper

This year’s NHD theme of Debate and Diplomacy presented a opportunity to research my topic of my interest: World War I. Once I heard about the project and that we had no limitations for topics, I told my partner, Tom, that I was interested in doing World War I and he was also interested. We both shortly after, presented our idea of researching World War I to our teacher, Mr. Mandes. We were told that our topic was too broad, so we did some brainstorming. We came across the Zimmermann Telegram, which we remembered touching on in 8th grade US history and decided to use it as our topic.

Shortly after deciding our topic Tom and I decided that we wanted to do a documentary because it was a way of presenting our information that neither of us had done before for history. We began by both researching on websites such as JSTOR, in order to find sources that are not encyclopedias that informed us on the Zimmermann Telegram and World War I. After reading the sources we found, we argued that the Zimmermann Telegram was directly responsible for the US’ intervention into World War I. From there, Tom and I each individually researched reasons to support our argument and all of the background information required to present a documentary on it.

Our research went smoothly until we were assigned an argumentation plan where we had to map out many arguments for our thesis all with 3 evidence points supporting it. Tom and I realized that although we had started too broad, we had limited ourselves too much with our Zimmermann Telegram argument. We decided to change our topic to factors that caused America to join World War I, which was a good topic choice because it broadened our previous topic, but none of our previous research was wasted, since the Zimmermann Telegram was a factor in the US’ entry to World War I. Our topic was also great because there was a significant amount of internal debate for America to join World War I.

National History Day

Documentary by Thomas Rockman ’25 and Kody Horton ‘25

Group Documentary Submission (Fairfield Region)

Senior

Wim Nook ’25 and Henry Raine ‘25

Validation and Appeasement of Hitler in the Berlin Olympics Process Paper

The theme of debate stood out to us because we knew that we could connect the theme to a topic we feel passionate about and find interest in. We both love sports so we decided to connect debate to the world of sports. We first thought of talking about the debate of letting African Americans play in the MLB. Unfortunately, we could not connect our topic directly to the U.S so we continued our search for a topic we would enjoy making a project on. We looked at topics on NHD.org and found the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The idea of combining sports and debate intrigued us. From there, we had decide what we were going to argue. This took us a while

but we eventually decided to talk about the validation of Hitler during the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The validation of Hitler relates to the theme of debate because within the U.S and many other countries, there were debates on whether or not their country should participate in the Olympics. The U.S eventually decided to attend the games and after the U.S made their decision, other countries also attended the games. By countries attending the games, it lead to the world validating Hitler’s views and discriminatory policies towards Jews and black people.

To start our research, we looked up what the Berlin Olympics were on Google. We just wanted to get a basic understanding of what we are talking about. We then gathered secondary sources that would give us good information on our topic. After getting our sources, it was time to get our primary sources. We went into our school’s library and searched for books online. We found two books: The Nazi Games and The Nazi Olympics. These books were great primary sources because of the detail the books went into.

We decided to do a website because our topic had a lot of information and we wanted to try something new. We were not great with making websites nor did we have any knowledge of how to make a website before. But, we watched videos online and finally learned how to make the website. Making the website was challenging because of our lack of technical knowledge. We made the website in NHD Website Builder. The auto-nav gave us trouble on the website. We could not figure out how to work it, but through trial and error, we figured out how to work the auto-nav. Overall, making the website was a fun experience because it put us

outside of our comfort zone and making the website made us try something new.

The 1936 Berlin Olympics is significant to history because it led the way for future Olympic boycotts and it sounded the alarm for inhumane treatment of athletes and citizens. The world learned from the 1936 Olympic Games. In the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, the U.S decided to boycott the games. The 1936 Berlin Olympics influenced the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

National History Day Website by Wim Nook ’25 and Henry Raine ‘25

Group Website Submission (Fairfield Region)

Senior Division

Validation and Appeasement of Hitler at the Berlin Olympics

Connecticut History Day

1936 Olympic Games, Berlin, Germany, The Olympic Stadium, 1936, Germany, Private Collection. (Photo by Photo12/UIG/Getty Images)

Gianna DeBono ’25 and Karin Lund ‘25

The Power of the Pamphlet Process Paper

When presented with the annual theme of debate and diplomacy, we were quick to begin research on influential debates throughout history. However, as we continued research, we began to ponder what allowed these debates to occur. Often people are quick to assess a debate’s topic and neglect to think about what factors allowed this debate to spread. Through research on the power of the pamphlet, our topic strives to reach a conclusion on what factors, specifically those of the media, allowed the French Revolution Controversy to become such an influential debate.

Our historical argument strives to prove that the pamphlet was the key factor that enabled the enlightenment ideas of the French Revolution Controversy to spread rapidly and widen the public sphere of debate. Through our research, we concluded that specific characteristics of the pamphlets, such as its format and cheap price, enabled its mass production and distribution. When enlightenment ideas reached targe audiences, including the working class, citizens advocated for the new opinions they developed from reading the partisan pamphlets, making the pamphlets the true reason that the citizen’s voice could reach the British government for eventual reform.

Centered around a debate on natural rights at the height of the Enlightenment, the research process for our topic was rich in primary sources. By speaking with a member of our history department with expertise on our topic, we centralized our research on the works of Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and Mary Wollstonecraft, whose pamphlets we found in our school library and online. Through their works, we identified the most prominent and influential pillars of radical and conservative arguments in the British debate. We accessed pamphlets and satirical prints from the MET, British Museum, and British library, giving us insight into the format, price and characteristics of the pamphlet as a medium of the media. The official UK parliament website educated us on the structure and various reforms of the UK parliamentary system. We also focused our research on a plethora of secondary sources, including research papers,

books, videos and articles. After researching, we concluded that an exhibit would be the optimal presentation choice, because our argument relies heavily on visual components of pamphlets. Lastly, our contrast of tea stained text on black and white backgrounds aligns with the colors of the printing press.

In summary, the British French Revolution Controversy was a defining debate of the Enlightenment, provoking one of the most radical reevaluations of human rights and government since the dawn of the Age of Reason. It welcomed a new era of debate and communication that largely hinged on the media’s commoditization. In the 21st century, media has been completely transfigured. The public sphere of debate now includes not only those with a cell phone, but is an international sphere, encompassing peoples from every corner of the globe. Then, and now, the media is itself a participant in current debate and politics, a decider of the information released and opinions expressed, and the battleground upon which people discuss.

The Power of the Pamphlet Full Exhibit Image

Group Exhibit Submission (Fairfield Region)

Senior Division

Connecticut History Day

Gianna DeBono ’25 and Karin Lund ‘25

French Revolution Controversy (1789 - 1795):

A British Political Debate that took the form of a “pamphlet war”. Key figures who participated in the widespread debate via pamphlet publications were Edmund Burke, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Thomas Paine. Most affected and captivated by the controversy were the middle and working

class, who, privy to the ideas expressed by radicals in pamphlets, developed vigorous new drives for parliamentary reform. Radicals wanted dramatic governmental reform, while conservatives/loyalists wished to keep the British monarchy.

“The Debate about the French Revolution: The publication of

Historical Context Image

Richard Price’s sermon on “A Discourse on the Love of Our Country” in November 1789, in which he praised both the American and the French Revolutions, prompted Edmund Burke to write his critique of the French Revolution Reflections on the Revolution in France in 1790. This began a debate about the nature of the French Revolution which continues to this day: was it a step towards individual liberty and constitutional government or towards chaos and tyranny? Burke’s critique was quickly replied to by supporters of the Revolution such as Thomas Paine (1791) and William Godwin (1793). Burke, in turn, returned to the topic in numerous other writings” (Oll Liberty Fund, The Debate About the French Revolution)

Debate:

Conservatives vs. Radicals Government

“The very idea of the fabrication of a new government is enough to fill us with disgust and horror” (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France)

“We are resolved to keep an established church, an established monarchy, an established aristocracy, and an established democracy, each in the degree it exists, and in no greater” (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France)

“To reason with governments, as they have existed for ages, is to argue with brutes. It is only from the nations themselves that reforms can be expected” (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man) Religion

“Man is by his constitution a religious animal; that atheism is against, not only our reason but our instincts” (Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France)

“But as religion is very improperly made a political machine, and the reality of it is thereby destroyed. Why may we not suppose, that the great Father of all is pleased with a variety of devotion; and that the greatest offense we can act, is that by which we seek to torment and render each other miserable?” (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man)

Natural Rights

“It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters” (Edmund Burke, letter to a Member of the National Assembly of France, 1791)

“Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place of person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good” (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man)

“Whatever is my right as a man is also the right of another, and it becomes my duty to guarantee as well as to possess” (Thomas Paine, Rights of Man)

“The ‘public sphere’ is generally conceived as the social space in which different opinions are expressed, problems of general concern are discussed, and collective solutions are developed communicatively” (Oxford Bibliographies, Public Sphere, Hartmut Wessler, Rainer Freudenthaler)

3D Pamphlet Text

What Am I? (Pamphlet Edition)

“The format and size of an early modern printed book was determined by the proportions of the paper on which it was printed and the number of times the paper was folded. Size influenced status” (Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain, by Joad Raymond)

“A pamphlet typically consisted of between one sheet and a maximum of twelve sheets, or between eight and ninety six pages in quarto” (Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain, by Joad Raymond)

“A folio was made from sheets folded once, resulting in a large and usually grand book; a quarto was made from sheets folded twice; and an octavo from sheets folded three times” (Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain, by Joad Raymond)

“In the first instance it [the pamphlet] was a short, quarto book” (Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain, by Joad Raymond)

“During the 1580s the meaning of the world ‘pamphlet’ coalesced with frequent used: It came to refer to a short, vernacular work, generally printed in quarto format, costing no more than a few pennies, of topical interest or engaged with social, political or ecclesiastical issues” (Pamphlets and Pamphleteering in Early Modern Britain, by Joad Raymond)

-Before the spread of pamphlets, noblemen and wealthy landowners entirely controlled British government. The majority of the British working class therefore had inadequate representation and little influence in the public sphere of debate. Their illiteracy and poor income additionally hindered their influentiality.

taverns.” (Pascal Verhoest, Pamphlets, Commodification, Media Market Regulation, and Hegemony: A Transnational Inquiry into the Seventeenth-Century Print Industry in England, France, and the Netherlands)”

-“The same disparity was found across the UK. Growing industrial cities like Manchester, population 144,000, lacked direct representation, while 159 of the English parliamentary boroughs had fewer than 1000 inhabitants” (Steve Franklin, History Hub).

-“The form that the test took in England was to make the receiving of Holy Communion according to the rites of the Church of England a condition precedent to the acceptance of office” (Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Test act).

- “Moreover, a wide tertiary audience existed because pamphlets were also read aloud, listened to, and discussed in private and in public, in places like church porches or

-“Boroughs with very small numbers of electors, often controlled by a single or small number of landowners were called rotten boroughs. Old Sarum is the classic example, where from 1820 the Alexander Brothers owned all 11 vote yielding Birgit plots, and duly elected themselves as MPs. Meanwhile Dunnage, a once thriving port town, returned MPs despite having largely fallen into the sea” (Steve Franklin, History Hub).

Sub Argument 1 Bottom Image (Left Panel)

traditions of oral, visual, and scribal culture that preceded it: poetry, song texts, fables, allegories, dialogues, and satire” (Pascal Verhoest, Pamphlets, Commodification, Media Market Regulation, and Hegemony: A Transnational Inquiry into the Seventeenth-Century Print Industry in England, France, and the Netherlands)

-“The candidates for counties were required to possess £600 p.a. freehold, so adventurers were discouraged”(Liza Picard, The Working Classes and the Poor, 2009).

-“ A labourer’s average wage was between 20 and 30 shillings a week in London, probably less in the provinces. This would just cover his rent, and a very sparse diet for him and his family” (Liza Picard, 2009).

-“Signifying a thing belov’d by all: For a Pamphlet being of a small portable Bulk, and of no great Price, and of no great Difficulty, seems adapted for every one’s Understanding, for every one’s Reading, for everyone's Buying, and consequently becomes a fit Object and Subject of most People’s Choice, Capacity and Ability” (Miles Davies, Athenae Britannicae, 1719). Pre-Existing Conditions Pamphlet Solution

-Illiteracy Chart The pamphlet was illustrated, used common vernacular, and was cheap, making it accessible to the uneducated poor. “These literary genres drew heavily on the

-“As the price line suggests it could be bought by the hundred at one guinea plain and two guineas coloured and was most often dispatched with specific orders to place it in pubs and barber’s shops.” (UCL Art Museum)

-“They were distributed widely through a dense network of shops and stalls, and through a network of ambulant retailers, which could easily be expanded in times of political insecurity when sales were high.” (Pascal Verhoest, Pamphlets, Commodification, Media Market Regulation, and Hegemony: A Transnational Inquiry into the Seventeenth-Century Print Industry in England, France, and the Netherlands)

(Left Panel, Bottom and Center Panel, Bottom) Panel)Bottom Center

-The partisan nature of the pamphlet encouraged the development of opinions within the working class, who responded passionately to the biased arguments designed to persuade; the enlightenment ideals such as equality and representative government additionally drew them into the public sphere of debate by directly addressing the disparities they faced.

French Revolution is an extraordinary instance.” - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

- “[The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine]’s outspoken appeal to the natural rights theory and its uncompromising attack upon the British constitution, king, and aristocracy spread perhaps even greater horror among the leaders of British society than had the warnings of Reflections”(Henry R. Wrinkler, The Pamphlet Campaign Against Political Reform In Great Britain, 1790-1795).

-“Among the incivilities by which nations or individuals provoke and irritate each other, Mr. Burke’s pamphlet on the

- “A glorious chance…given to human nature of attaining more virtue than ha[d] hitherto blessed our globe" (Mary Wollstonecraft on the French Revolution, pg. 196, Revolting Woman the Use of the Revolutionary Discourse in Mary

Sub Argument 3 1st Column Photo

(Center Panel, Center Left)

-The accessibility and partisan nature of the pamphlet incited advocacy among the newly-informed working class, who translated the radical ideas reaped from the pamphlets into political and social action. This changed public sphere of debate to one of physical action.

-Uprising of Civilians

-“[Blanketeers] organized a demonstration with the intention of marching to London to petition the Prince Regent over the desperate state of the textile industry in Lancashire and the recent suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act (which ensured that no one could be imprisoned unlawfully)”(History Press UK, The March of the Blanketeers 1817).

-“About 60,000 persons attended, including a high proportion of women and children” (Britannica, Peterloo Massacre).

- “The meeting was intended as a great demonstration of discontent, and its political object was parliamentary reform: Masses saw parliamentary reform as the solution to England’s troubles.” (Britannica, Peterloo Massacre).

Sub Argument 3 Right Hand Side

Photo (Center Panel, Center Right)

-Of those most passionate in their revolutionary zeal were the Dissenters, individuals who rejected the Church of England, and a key example of radicals that wielded the pamphlet as a weapon of action that challenged British law and religious discrimination.

-“Enthusiasm was most potent among those championing domestic political reform - Dissenters excluded from political office by the Test and Corporation and Subscription Acts, members of the middling orders denied the vote by antiquated constituency boundaries and a restricted suffrage” (BBC, Britain and the French Revolution).

-“The Dissenters played a key role both in writing and publishing pamphlets in the Revolution Controversy, as the most coherent group of reformers in the 1790s” (NGMH, The Revolution Controversy and the Dissenters: political debate and action in the 1790s).

-“The Unitarian Joseph Johnson was one of the most prominent publishers at the time and was instrumental to the writing careers of many of Newington Green Meeting House’s important figures”(NGMH, The Revolution Controversy and the Dissenters: political debate and action in the 1790s).

-“Johnson played a significant role in the Revolution Controversy, publishing a quarter of the works responding to Burke in the year following the publication of Reflections, including Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Men”(NGMH, The Revolution Controversy and the Dissenters: political debate and action in the 1790s).

-“The birthright of man, to give you, Sir, a short definition of this disputed right, is such a degree of liberty, civil and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in a social compact, and

the continued existence of that compact”(Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Man, 1790).

-“The LCS was primarily conceived as a working-class organization—a forum for tradesmen, mechanics, and shopkeepers. As Hardy once asserted, the LCS was to represent those who were 'but few in number and humble in situation and circumstances' (Graham, 282)” (Michael Davis, London Corresponding Society).

“Thomas Hardy's London Corresponding Society (LCS), formed early in 1792, spent five evenings discussing whether they 'as treadesman (sic) shopkeepers and mechanics', had any right to seek parliamentary reform. The society went on to become hugely influential and developed scores of divisions and local branches” (BBC, Britain and the French Revolution).

-“in addition to the thousands of LCS members who remain unknown or known only by name, there were also those who had significant careers and held professional positions. Basil William Douglas Lord Daer . . . In 1789 he travelled to Paris, from where he returned with an enthusiasm for the French Revolution, becoming an active protagonist in the British reform movement. He was one of the earliest LCS activists and held concurrent membership of the Society for Constitutional Information and the Scottish Association of the Friends of the People. This provided the LCS with an important early link to other reform societies”(Michael Davis, London Corresponding Society).

Sub Argument 4 Top Image (Right Panel, Top)

Sub Argument 4 Bottom Image (Right Panel Center

Sub Argument 4 Text

The pamphlet’s success as a weapon of the media and in reaching and driving the masses to action is ultimately prove in its censorship by the British government: The English “anti-jacobin campaign’ grew to its zenith following the publication of Rights of Man, attempting to stifle the voice of change which had become all too powerful with the pamphlet.

“The Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Acts placed harsher punishments on those accused of publishing blasphemous or seditious material. The maximum sentence was transportation for up to fourteen years” (Dr. Katie Carpenter, The Six Acts and Censorship of the Press)

“Jacobin became the dominant term of disapprobation for British reformers” (pg. 99, Chapter 7, Romantic Border Crossings, Miriam L. Wallace)

“Institutionalizing the term “Jacobin” within Britain to indicate not only French sympathies, but dangerous desires for social and political reform, was the express purpose of the 1797 Anti-Jacobin Weekly and the subsequent Anti-Jacobin Magazine and Literary Censor (1798-1821)” (pg. 100, Chapter 7, Romantic Border Crossings, Miriam L. Wallace)

“The publication on May 21, 1792, of the famous royal proclamation against seditious meetings and political ‘libels’ . . . was taken to indicate official approval of the unsactioned anti-jacobin outbreaks which had taken place” (pg. 25, The Pamphlet Campaign Against Political Reform in Great Britain, 1790-1795, Henry R. Wrinkler)

“The campaign waged by these advocates [British loyalists] of the status quo has commonly been identified as the ‘antiJacobin movement’, since reformers were held almost invariably to be supporters of the new French System” (pg. 23, The Pamphlet Campaign Against Political Reform in Great Britain, 1790-1795, Henry R. Wrinkler)

“TRIAL OF THOMAS PAINE, FOR A LIBEL; Guildhall, London, Tuesday, Dec. 18th, 1792, The KING against THOMAS PAINE . . . . . This is an information against THOMAS PAINE, for that he, being a person of wicked, malicious, and seditious disposition; and wishing to introduce disorder and confusion, and to cause it to be believed, that the Crown of this kingdom was contrary to the rights of the inhabitants of this kingdom,” (The genuine trial of Thomas Paine; for a libel contained in the second part of Rights of man; at Guildhall, London, Dec. 18, 1792, before Lord Kenyon and a special jury. . . Taken in shot-hand by E. Hodgson)

Sub Argument 5 Image (Right Panel, Bottom)

It became evident upon the passing of the Three Great Reform Acts that the victory reaped by British loyalists by censoring free speech was short lived. The pamphlet, which had given a platform upon which to participate in the public sphere of debate, gave way to reforms which promised representation and a permanent influence in government to those previously unheard and unrepresented.

“The Representation of the People Act

1832, known as the first Reform Act or Great Reform Act:

-Disenfranchised 56 boroughs in England and Wales and reduced another 31 to only one MP

-Created 67 new constituencies

-Broadened the franchise’s property qualification in the counties, to include small landowners, tenant farmers, and shopkeepers

-Created a uniform franchise in the boroughs, giving the vote to all householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more and some lodgers” (UK Parliament)

“The 1867 Reform Act:

-Granted the vote to all householders in the boroughs as well as lodgers who paid rent of £10 a year or more

-Reduced the property threshold in the counties and gave the vote to agricultural landowners and tenants with very small amounts of land” (UK Parliament)

“Parliament’s resistance to ‘one man, one vote’ was partly overturned in 1884 with the third Reform Act which:

-Established a uniform franchise throughout the country

Brought the franchise in the counties into line with the 1867 housholder and lodger franchise for boroughs” (UK Parliament)