Stony Brook University Political Divisions Change and Economic Growth Discussion

Must use both resources (videos(2) and the textbook= pages are listed)

Length- 2 pages double spaced

Resources: Textbook: A People and A Nation, Brief 10th edition

Norton, Mary Beth, Jane Kamensky, Carol Sheriff, David W. Blight, Howard P. Chudacoff, Frederick Logevall, Beth Bailey, and Debra Michals. A People & a Nation: A History of the United States. Brief Tenth ed. Boston, MA: Cengage, 2015.

ISBN-13: 9781285430843

• Textbook pages 176-185, 193-4, 199-204, 208-228, 265-276, 278-286, 329-332, 335-338, 339-344

Videos = https://www.learner.org/series/a-biography-of-amer…

https://www.learner.org/series/a-biography-of-amer…

Discussion question for response – should be three paragraphs – no plagiarism. check grammar must have no errors

The period from 1787 to 1848 brought tremendous political, economic and demographic changes to the United States.

Different groups sometimes agreed on the goals of economic development. For instance the Federalist Party and Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson’s supporters) “agreed that improved transportation would promote national prosperity” (Norton, 10th Brief ed., 222). To that end, both parties wanted to assure transportation on the Mississippi River and control of the Port of New Orleans.

However, political parties disagreed on both the reasons for pursuing their policies, as well as the methods they would use. The Federalists, and later the Whigs, emphasized using national and state government funds to support improved transportation and other kinds of economic development, whereas the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans, and later the Democrats, emphasized acquiring land and making it cheaply available to farmers. Jeffersonians and Democrats were hesitant to have the national government take too active a role, as when Jefferson opposed the Bank of the United States (Norton, 10th Brief ed., 178-180) and President Andrew Jackson vetoed the Maysville Road bill and bill to recharter the Bank of the United States (Norton, Brief 10th ed, 332 & 334).

Given the events during this period, do you think that Americans were more in agreement about how their country should develop economically, or deeply divided? You might briefly describe important changes and developments, then consider how much differences in priorities and leadership may have affected the outcomes.

TEACHER COMMENT: My training and interest are primarily as a political and legislative historian. I have rather strong views, which I generally try not to impose on my students. However, occasionally, I indulge myself. In my opinion, a large portion of Americans today, including many leading pundits, seem to assume that there should be a united vision and widespread agreement among political leaders and political parties. I admit (confession time!) that I get extremely impatient with leaders who claim they will “bring us together.” It’s a sweet idea, but historically, agreement such as this has been exceedingly rare, and usually a temporary response to crises. Our divisions go all the way back to the founding. Anti-federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution and Jeffersonian Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison arose in opposition to President Washington and the economic plans of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. If there was widespread opposition to GEORGE WASHINGTON, the great hero of the Revolution and premier unifying figure in the wake of newly won independence, how could anyone reasonably expect consensus on important issues in a diverse society? This is the man who is pictured on the dome of the Capitol rotunda ascending to godhood (Links to an external site.) (yes, really! click on the link) and yet there were profound disagreements and debates during his presidency, as well as the formation of an opposition political party.

My mentor way back in graduate school argued that Americans showed maturity when they looked for ways to keep disagreement and dissent within acceptable bounds, rather than by suppressing dissent or pretending that there existed some mythical “reasonable” position that everyone could support. Take the example of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 (Norton, Brief 10th ed., 184-185). The Federalist Party in power saw their political opponents as illegitimate and even treasonous, whereas the Jeffersonian Republicans saw the Federalist Party in power as trying to reestablish a British-like tyranny against which the Americans had recently rebelled. Eventually the Jeffersonian Republicans won control of the presidency and Congress in the election of 1800, then allowed the Alien and Sedition Acts to lapse while President Jefferson pardoned those who had been convicted under them (Norton, Brief 10th ed., 202). The fact that people were sent to jail for criticizing the ruling party and that the opposition came up with a set of responses that argued that states could nullify federal laws when the laws violated the Constitution (Norton, Brief 10th ed., 185) illustrates the challenges of attempting to make important policies in a country where there were deep disagreements. There has rarely been a “happy medium” in American politics — the best that we have usually been able to achieve is when disagreements are channeled through “normal” politics such as elections and debates rather than illegal action, abuses of power and violence.