1. 1 History 111 & 112 Wright College Library Reference Department Prepared by Daniel Stuhlman and the Wright College Library staff. Wright College is one of the City Colleges of Chicago ©2011 This file is subject to change. Make sure that you have the latest version. Last revised Sept. 19, 2011.

2. Ebsco Academic Search Premier

3. Search for Publications

4. Publications

5. American History

6. Search Within Publication

7. Hits

9. Sources for Documents Internet Archive http://www.archive.org/ http://www.archive.org/ American Memory http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html National Archive http://www.archives.gov/ http://www.archives.gov/ Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/ http://www.census.gov/

10. Sources for Documents 2 Jamestown http://www.virtualjamestown.org/ http://www.virtualjamestown.org/ Documenting the American South- slave narratives http://docsouth.unc.edu/ http://docsouth.unc.edu/ Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History http://www.gilderlehrman.org/ http://www.gilderlehrman.org/ Newspaper Archives http://www.newspaperarchive.com/?gclid=CMqH7d7BnasCFY8DQAodaVb2jQ http://www.newspaperarchive.com/?gclid=CMqH7d7BnasCFY8DQAodaVb2jQ

11. Sample Search Search the library catalog Catalog results

12. Title Page

15. Sample Search from Internet Archive

16. Internet Archive Result

17. Cover Scan

18. Documents from Nat. Archives

19. Social Security Act

20. FindLaw Brown v. Board of Education http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl ?court=US&vol=344&invol=1 Roe v. Wade http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl ?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

21. U.S. Supreme Court Decision U.S. Supreme Court BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 344 U.S. 1 (1952) 344 U.S. 1 BROWN ET AL. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. * No. 8. October 8, 1952.* In two cases set for argument in October, laws of Kansas and South Carolina providing for racial segregation in public schools were challenged as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. In another case raising the same question with respect to laws of Virginia, appellants had filed a statement of jurisdiction and a motion requesting that all three cases be argued together. There was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit a case in which segregation in public schools of the District of Columbia was challenged as violative of the Fifth Amendment, Held: 1. The Kansas and South Carolina cases are continued on the docket; probable jurisdiction is noted in the Virginia case; and arguments in all three will be heard in December. Pp. 2-3 2. Judicial notice is taken of the pendency of the District of Columbia case. The Court will entertain a petition for certiorari in that case, which, if presented and granted, will afford opportunity for argument of that case immediately following arguments in the other three cases. P. 3.

22. Roe v. Wade ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) 410 U.S. 113 ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 70-18. Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973 A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Appellants directly appealed to this Court on the injunctive rulings, and appellee cross-appealed from the District Court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford.

23. Sample Book

26. 26 Prepared by Daniel Stuhlman and the Wright College Library staff. Wright College is one of the City Colleges of Chicago ©2011 Thank you for joining us. If you have any questions or comments on this presentation please direct them to the Wright College Library Reference Department 773-481-8420 dstuhlman@ccc.edu. dstuhlman@ccc.edu For library or data base information direct your questions to the reference department.