Study Guides
stguides.gif (6672 bytes)
sidebut3cm.gif (2281 bytes)
History 153 Home

STUDY GUIDE:  PART V (Unit 12)

DEPRESSION AND NEW DEAL

Themes:
  • employment distress in West Virginia

 

  • state government and the Depression

 

  • factionalism in the Democratic party

 

  • the New Deal in West Virginia

 

  • challenges to private relief

 

  • World War II

 

  • Red Scare in West Virginia

 



People, Places, Terms, and Events:
  • Vito Marcantonio

 

  • Jennings Randolph

 

  • George Robison

 

  • Robert G. Kelly

 

  • Herman Guy Kump

 

  • Matthew M. Neeley

 

  • Rush D. Holt

 

  • Mary Behner

 

  • Eleanor Roosevelt

 

  • Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

  • Robert Jackson

 

  • Phil Conley

 

  • Joseph McCarthy

 

  • Luella Mundel

 

  • Rinehart and Dennis

 

  • Union Carbide/Kanawha Power Co.

 

  • Hawk's Nest Tunnel

 

  • Tax Limitation Amendment, 1932

 

  • the "statehouse gang" and the "New Dealers"

 

  • Scotts Run

 

  • Arthurdale

 

  • West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943

 

  • Red Scare in West Virginia

 



Study Questions:

  • Who were the principals involved in the Hawk's Nest Tunnel project and subsequent congressional hearings? What conclusions can be drawn from the Hawk=s Nest tragedy about employment, business, and politics during the Depression?

 

 

  • What were the philosophical differences between the "statehouse" and "New Deal" Democrats in West Virginia? What were the problems facing private relief agencies during hard times? What caused Eleanor Roosevelt's great interest in West Virginia? What were the goals of the resettlement experiments?

 

 

  • What civil liberties issues emerged with the Barnette case? What influence did World War II have on the case? What was Phil Conley's solution to the impending problems of postwar reconversion of American industry?

 

 

  • How did global political and ideological questions affect West Virginia in the 1950s? What caused the Red Scare? What were the details of the Mundel case? How did the case reflect concerns about education, politics, academic freedom, and ideology? Were the actions of the Board of Education justified? Why, or why not?