Over the past few years, it has come in vogue to criticize President Andrew Jackson. As loyal followers of the Critical Junctures Project well know, Andrew Jackson was America’s colorful and controversial seventh President, served in the White House from 1829-1837, was famous for staring down the state of South Carolina during attempts of nullification, and bearer of rugged nicknames such as “Old Hickory” and “The Frontier President.”

Contemporary discussions regarding President Jackson focus on the evils. Critics argue that opposed to having his picture on the $20 Bill (which will be phased out) he should be exposed for his immoral actions. Modern day condemnations of Andrew Jackson focus on military encounters with Creek and Seminole Indians, the forced relocation of Indian tribes resulting in the Trail of Tears, and his open support and practice of slavery. Additionally, the comparisons of Andrew Jackson to President Donald Trump are multiple, abound with the labeling of “populist” for both of the men. This post does not attempt to litigate or draw judgement on General Andrew Jackson, nor does it desire to throw around the populist moniker. Otherwise this post looks to examine President Jackson as an individual who busted through an existing status quo, and as a consequence shifted the path of American politics. A Critical Juncture indeed…

Andrew Jackson was born on the border between North and South Carolina. His father died in an accident prior to his birth and his mother passed when he was just 14, leaving him an orphan. As a young boy, Jackson resisted the British during the Revolution and bore the scars of a British sword. The Revolution took both of Jackson’s brothers as well—a mental scar that Jackson would never relinquish.

Jackson was in the purest sense a self-made man that rose through the ranks of society, first as a lawyer, then a land owner and an officer in the state militia. He led men in battle gaining national notoriety for his overwhelming victory against the British in the Battle of New Orleans. During the election of 1824 Andrew Jackson lost a disputed contest to John Quincy Adams, in what became known as the “The Corrupt Bargain” election, a sign of a political system growing removed from the popular will of an ever increasing and diversifying electorate. Finally, in 1828, greatly benefitting from expanding voting laws, Andrew Jackson was named America’s seventh President. What this election meant parallels certain political dynamics of contemporary times. While urban elites criticized Jackson for his boisterous and barbaric ways, Jackson maintained the touch of the common man speaking the language of the common man and understanding the concerns of the common man. Jackson unabashedly advocated for a government responsive to the popular will, opposed to that of wealthy elites earning him the Populist signature.

The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 and again in 1832 represents a Critical Juncture in American history that should be recognized and celebrated. The onset of “Jacksonian Democracy” that accompanied his election symbolized an expansion of suffrage and a celebration of egalitarianism (restricted to white males). The first six Presidents of The United States—George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams—were products of either Virginia landowning society, or Massachusetts elites with ties to European wealth. The paradigm shift that Andrew Jackson not only brought, but more importantly, represented was an indication of America truly being a land of opportunity. For the first time in the nations very short history, a person of modest origins, fought (literally) his way to the top. He did this through charisma, courage, and conviction. A rags-to-riches story indeed that paved the way for future generations where men of humble beginnings could rise to claim the highest office in the land. Lincoln, Grant, Truman, Eisenhower, Clinton, Obama and others.

What is important for our purposes here, is thinking about what Andrew Jackson embodied. In a nation founded on the ideals and principles of equality in opportunity, the financial and political power of the nation in the mid 1820’s very much resided amongst a secluded group of elites. Jackson, a backwoods gambler, a dueler and a frontier lawyer—could never have access to political power—especially the White House… could he?

Modern day criticisms of President Jackson should keep this context in mind. What Jackson represented was progress from an existing standard to another one. A new paradigm where elected officials became more responsive to the popular will of an expanding electorate. Of course, that electorate has grown and diversified even more since the first half of the 19^th Century, but Jackson should be recognized for his contribution to this effort

   15 August 2017

It all begins with the social contract. Dissecting and perfecting the relationship between the governed and those who govern is an enduring struggle that ensures contention and debate within any democratic system. In certain societies, this contract is ordained by God, which simplifes many issues. For example in Iran, the Supreme Leader is identified as one as closer to God than others, consequently a mandate to rule exists, ordained through heaven. In other societies, the right to rule is determined through lineage and ruling families. This was quite popular throughout history, but in recent times has subsided as a legitimate system. An old man I once met sitting at the bar of an Ethiopian restaurant perfectly articulated to me: “Kings and Queens belong in museums.”

In the United States of course, the relationship is much more nuanced, and a source of the constant back and forth between bickering political positions. Legitimacy is gained and lost through a contentious and hard fought electoral process. Although there are many founding documents that outline how the government is structured and the way the laws of the land are to be implemented, The Federalist Papers stands out, at least in my mind, as a conversation with America and a good place to look in times of modern day political questions. In Federalist number one, Alexander Hamilton lays out the problem before us as a people and a nation; “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” (Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No.1)

This is the initial question of our Republic, and our foundational dilemma. Can we as humans, solve the problems of governance before us through reflection and debate or must we rely on accident and force as Hamilton warned?

A quick review of modern day punditry displays a nation that is moving towards rule by force, at least at the oratorical level. Through the demeaning and insulting of anyone who sees the world differently, we indirectly oppress voices, and turn otherwise constructive contributors to the discussion away from the arena. Not only is this counterproductive to the endurance of the Republic, but contrasts Hamilton’s core tenant regarding political disagreement…he wrote “For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely by cured by persecution.” (Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No. 1)

If heresies are rarely cured by persecution, why is it that political discussions devolve into insults and criticisms? I have a few ideas regarding the answer to this question, but that is not the objective of this post. The takeaway from Hamilton’s wise words are to gain an appreciation for the need of sophisticated and intelligent debate as an anecdote to the nastiness and partisanship of contemporary political dialogue. We as Americans must resist our temptations to echo the ultra-partisanship of cable news pundits understanding this is entertainment aimed at advertising dollars and not the establishment of governance through reflection and choice.

Many fans of the site have written Emails to our staff here at the American Exceptionalism Project inquiring how we choose the Presidential Biographies we read. The answer is quite simple; we found a list from our good friends at the Washington Post and copied it! Here is the link to the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/05/the-best-of-the-best-presidential-biographies-2/

Of the books recommended we do some quick research on Amazon, and then select the best. The “American Presidency Series” books are usually pretty good. They are a condensed telling of that particular Presidents life and admittedly just a summary. But we reasoned that a short look at some of the lesser known Presidents at this time is sufficient, as we ourselves are looking to get through a sequential look at each American President in a reasonable period of time. We also want to invest more time on the well known leaders. Icons like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Eisenhower without getting bogged down in lesser known Presidents like Pierce, Buchanan, and Warren Harding.  As I write this post, we are currently reading “Team of Rivals,” by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It is an excellent book and worthy of the Pulitzer it won. We are always interested to hear your suggestions for good biographies on the Presidents, especially the lesser researched ones. Here is a list of what we have read, and what we intend to read over the course of our Presidential journey. Happy Reading!

The Presidential Biographies

1) George Washington: His Excellency: George Washington, by Joseph J. Ellis.

2) John Adams: John Adams, by David McCullough

3) Thomas Jefferson: American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson, by Joseph J. Ellis; Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, by Jon Meacham.

4) James Madison: James Madison and the Making of America, by Kevin Gutzman

5) James Monroe: The Last Founding Father: James Monroe and a Nation’s Call to Greatness, by Harlow Giles Unger.

6) John Quincy Adams: John Quincy Adams, by Harlow Giles Unger

7) Andrew Jackson: American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House, by Jon Meacham

8) Martin Van Buren: Martin Van Buren (The American Presidents Series), by Ted Widmer

9) William Henry Harrison: William Henry Harrison (The American Presidents Series) by Gail Collins

10) John Tyler: John Tyler (The American Presidents Series), by Gary May

11) James K. Polk: The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America, by Walter R. Borneman. 

12) Zachary Taylor: Zachary Taylor: Soldier, Planter, Statesman of the Old Southwest, by K. Jack Bauer.

13) Millard Fillmore: Millard Fillmore: Biography of a President, by Robert J. Rayback

14) Franklin Pierce: Franklin Pierce (The American Presidents Series), by Michael Holt.

15) James Buchanan: President James Buchanan (The American Presidents Series), by Jean H. Baker

16) Abraham Lincoln: Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, by Doris Kearns Goodwin.

17) Andrew Johnson: Andrew Johnson (The American Presidents Series), by Annette Gordon-Reed.

18) Ulysses S. Grant: President Ulysses S. Grant (The American Presidents Series), by Josiah Bunting III; Grant Takes Command, by Bruce Catton. (We are reading both books here at the American Exceptionalism Project)

19) Rutherford B. Hayes: Rutherford B. Hayes, by Hans Trefousse (The American Presidents Series)

 20) James Garfield: Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President, by Candice Millard.

 21) Chester Arthur: Chester Alan Arthur (The American Presidents Series), by Zachary Karabell.

22&24) Grover Cleveland (the 22nd and 24th president): The Forgotten Conservative: Rediscovering Grover Cleveland: A Study in Character, by John Pafford.

 23) Benjamin Harrison: Benjamin Harrison (The American Presidents Series), by Charles W. Calhoun.

 25) William McKinley: William McKinley, by Kevin Phillips. (The American Presidents Series)

26) Theodore Roosevelt: Theodore Rex by Edwin Morris.

27) William Howard Taft: The William Howard Taft Presidency (The American Presidents Series) by Lewis L. Gould.

28) Woodrow Wilson: Woodrow Wilson: A Biography, by John Milton Cooper Jr.

 29) Warren G. Harding: Warren G. Harding (The American Presidents Series), by John W. Dean.

 30) Calvin Coolidge: Coolidge, (The American Presidents Series), by David Greenberg.

 31) Herbert Hoover: Herbert Hoover (The American Presidents Series), by William E. Leuchtenburg.

 32) Franklin Roosevelt: Man of Destiny: FDR and the Making of the American Century, by Alonzo Hamby.

 33) Harry S. Truman: Truman, by David McCullough.

 34) Dwight D. Eisenhower: IKE: An American Hero, by Michael Korda.

35) John F. Kennedy: An Unfinished Life, by Robert Dallek.

 36) Lyndon B. Johnson: Flawed Giant by Robert Dallek.

 37) Richard Nixon: Being Nixon: A Man Divided by Evan Thomas.

 38) Gerald Ford: Gerald R. Ford: An Honorable Life  by James Cannon.

 39) Jimmy Carter:  Jimmy Carter, by Peter Bourne

 40) Ronald Reagan: Reagan: The Life, by H.W. Brands

 41) George H.W. Bush: George H.W. Bush Destiny and Power, by Jon Meacham.

 –Due to the Partisan nature of any Presidential bio, we felt it premature to dive into biographies of the most contemporary of Presidents. Although we have not read the below editions, they do come recommended to us. It is safe to say, we are at least 20 years removed from a sober biography of any of the four following leaders.  

42) Bill Clinton: First in His Class, by David Maraniss; The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House, by John F. Harris.

 

43) George W. Bush: Decision Points (Bush’s memoir).

 

44) Barack Obama: Barack Obama: The Story, by David Maraniss; The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama, by David Remnick.

 

45) Donald Trump: Trump: The Art of the Deal by Donald J Trump.

“I have not only grown gray, but nearly blind in the service of my country.”

Americans have always championed the underdog. The frontiersman, the adventurer, the common man who rises to achieve great things is a phenomenon that defines the American spirit. In addition to the underdog defeating all odds, humility in its course is a characteristic successful leaders have used to win over audiences since the beginning of the American Republic. In one exceptional case, General George Washington, humbled himself in the eyes of his officers, and consequently, saved the axiom of a civilian government in this experiment of American democracy.

Following the surrender of the British Army at Yorktown, General George Washington was internationally recognized as the hero of the young nation, but remaining under threat from the British, he continued to drill his army while advocating for the financial compensation that the Congress had promised for the soldiers’ sacrifices. A large chorus from within the ranks began to call for a military coup in order to force political leaders to give the army its due respect. Additionally, soldiers openly discussed the weakness of the construct of the Continental Congress and considered the requirement to establish a new monarchy in the states with Washington as the newly anointed king.[1] Upon hearing such rhetoric, Washington responded clearly in a letter stating: “let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your mind and never communicate, as from yourself, or anyone else, a sentiment of the like nature.”[2] Washington’s efforts however, were not fully sufficient. Nearly a year later, disgruntled and uncompensated soldiers launched the so-called Newburgh Conspiracy that threatened Congress with a military coup if pensions for revolutionary soldiers were not delivered as promised. Hearing of the potential insubordination General Washington addressed his officers and the rumors surrounding the conspiracy on March 15, 1783. To open the speech Washington approached the podium, paused, and pulled from his waistcoat a pair of spectacles. Washington had never been seen wearing glasses in public, but while adjusting the awkward eyeglasses Washington, looking splendidly vulnerable, glanced out into the sea of his officers and stated: “gentleman you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.”[3] The room fell silent with only the gasp of the ashamed officers reconsidering their own treason could be heard. Washington went on to read:

“In the name of our common country, as you value your own sacred honor, as you respect the rights of humanity, and as you regard the military and national character of America, to express your utmost horror and detestation of the man who wishes, under any specious pretenses, to overturn the liberties of our country, and who wickedly attempts to open the floodgates of civil discord and deluge our rising empire in blood.”

Washington continued his speech by appealing to the officers’ uppermost personal ideals and morals, calling them to once again to display the great and selfless men they indeed were. He concluded:

 “you will give one more distinguished proof of an example patriotism and patience virtue, rising superior to the pressure of the most complicated sufferings. And you will, by the dignity of your conduct, before the occasion for posterity to say, when speaking of the glorious example you have exhibited to mankind, had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.”[4]

 In the speech Washington reinforced the vision and values that led to the revolution in the first place. He emphasized how a military coup would counter all the tenets upon which the revolution was based. In short, military dictatorship and the American Revolution were mutually exclusive. Moments following the speech, the crowd of speechless and ashamed officers voted unanimously to agree to the rule of Congress.[5] Roughly nine months later, following the signing of The Paris Peace Treaty, Washington triumphantly exited the public stage. His exceptional words separate America as a special nation, a nation of humble leaders and selfless servants; “having now finished the work assigned to me, I retire from the great feature of action. I here offer my commission, and take my leave of all the enjoyments of public life.”[6]

General Washington’s concerns proximate military leadership of government was rooted in a clear understanding of the past. He, like other Founding Fathers possessed an intimate appreciation of history, specifically the experiences surrounding the fall of the Roman Republic. Julius Ceaser’s crossing of the Rubicon with his Army marked a turning point in Roman history and Washington feared a repetition of the eventual outcome. Although Washington’s speech in Newburgh is a footnote in American history, it should be celebrated along with countless other seldom related moments as exceptional. Military leaders from Rome, to France; from Russia to China and most recently in Arab capitals refusing to relinquish power have spelled doom for so many societies creating undue hardship for millions of could-have-been free citizens. George Washington’s decision to abdicate to civilian control of the germinating American Republic is a clear example of American Exceptionalism.

 

[1] Joe Wolverton, “The Man Who Would Not Be King: At the End of the War for Independence, George Washington Foiled a Military Junta’s Plan to Establish a Dictatorship in the United States,” The New American, October 3, 2005, https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-137361217.

[2] General George Washington to Colonel Lewis Nicola, Letters of a Nations: A Collection of Extraordinary American Letters, Andrew Carroll ed, Broadway Books, New York 1997, pp 68-69.

[3] “Washington Puts an end to the Newburgh Conspiracy March 15, 1783,” This Day in History, History.com, accessed 28 December 2014. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/washington-puts-an-end-to-the-newburgh-conspiracy

[4] George Washington Prevents the Revolt of his Officers, The History Place: Great Speeches Collection, 15 March 1783, accessed 28 December 2014. http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/washington.htm

[5] Joseph J Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington, Vintage Books New York, 2004, pp 139-146.

[6] Ellis p 146.

Chapter One: From Subject to Citizen, 1751-76

Describe some of the experiences and people that shaped Madison’s early years.

1. Studying at Princeton under John Witherspoon with exposure to the Scottish Enlightenment (the fundamental importance of human reason combined with a rejection of any authority that could not be justified by reason. They held to an optimistic belief in the ability of humanity to effect changes for the better in society and nature, guided only by reason. This latter feature gave the Scottish Enlightenment its special flavour, distinguishing it from its continental European counterpart. In Scotland, the Enlightenment was characterised by a thoroughgoing empiricism and practicality where the chief virtues were improvement, virtue, and practical benefit for the individual and society as a whole).  Hume as an inspiration for Federalist #10.
2. Lord Dunmore’s War & Western expansion, the VA aggressive nature toward England (similar to Boston), Madison’s Piedmont economy less bound to tobacco & slavery and more westward looking (does this tie to land-speculation/an elite class that was willing to break with the King since he wanted to restrict westward expansion?)
1. How did the The VA Convention of 1776, drafting the VA Constitution and Declaration of Rights, Partnering with James Madison, Patrick Henry, Jefferson and others etc. set the framework for the discussions in Philadelphia months later? It seems as if the VA convention was a rehearsal for the discussions surrounding the Declaration of Independence, how did this contribute to 4 of the first 5 U.S. Presidents being from Virginia?
2. At the age of 22, Madison stated that he believed that “the frequent assaults on America (by the British) will in the end prove of real advantage.” What did Madison mean by this? Do you think it was an accurate statement?

Chapter Two: Winning the Revolution, 1776-87

1. Describe the early years of Madison’s political career.  How did these events shape his political outlook and governing style?
   1. Governing in committee work, having to do the “in the trenches” work of establishing borders, resolving Indian affairs, raising money, raising and fielding an army, etc.
   2. Governing w/out the Articles of Confederation and under it.  Living under British military incursions and negotiating with Spain.
2. What was Madison’s concerns with the Articles of Confederation? How were these concerns analogous with other leaders of the time? How about in the early years under the Constitution?
   1. The articles were clearly too weak to have a functioning central government. Madison’s concerns focused around the control of finances.
3. Describe Madisons support (or lack of) regarding government intervention in religious issues? From where did Madison draw his positions? How did Madison elucidate his argument in Memorial and Remonstrance? Why was this so important for the future of the American Republic?
   1. Madison’s advocacy in support of a secular government was both detailed and comprehensive. He rooted his opinions of how the court of law could never neutrally decide what religion was. In this case he argued which version of the Old Testament “the Hebrew, the Septuagint Greek or the Latin was to be preferred? In which translation?”  His argument was well understood that issues of religion should be left between a person and their God.

 

Chapter Three: The Philadelphia Convention

 

1. How would you concisely describe the twelve “vices” of the political system that Madison aimed to address during the Philadelphia Convention?
   1. The 12 vices as Madison described them, were simply concepts that Madison viewed as flaws preventing the achievement of a successful government. He identified weaknesses both from the side of the federal government, and from the states. He felt that by addressing each of the vices systematically during the creation of the Constitution, he would be able to establish a blueprint for further governmental success.
2. How did Shays Rebellion effect the discussion during the Convention?
   1. Shays rebellion displayed a weakness in the federal government to employ military forces to suppress internal rebellion. The consequence of the rebellion was the identification for a need of a stronger federal system with control over a centralized military.
3. Why do you think Madison and the Virginia delegation were able to have such influence in setting the agenda? How important is that for our Republic today?
   1. Governor Randolph of Virginia kicked off the convention with an opening speech essentially framing the work the convention was to do. He had clearly been influenced by Madison’s “Vices,” and consequently the narrative created by Randolph was the launch point for further discussion on the creation of the Constitution.
4. This chapter is completely filled with important arguments regarding the creation of the U.S. Constitution and the subsequent American experiment.. Which do you find most important? Consider the “Great Fault line of the Convention” between power to the national government and the federalized system vindicated by the revolution. What about the debate surrounding standing armies? The VA Plan vs. the NJ Plan?
   1. There is no real clear answer to this question, but the federal versus state divide and the authorities that reside within each is a conflict that carries on to this day. Conflict within the federalized system is the source of volumes of literature and discussion.

 

Chapter Four: Ratifying the Constitution Part One: The Federalist

1. Why did Madison see the federal government, opposed to the state governments, as better protectors of individual rights? Looking at American history, do you think Madison was correct?
   1. During the convention Madison was a minority opinion on this matter. But he makes a very interesting discussion, and it appears that in certain key instances, he was accurate that the federal government was better suited to defend individual liberties. Although the discussion is nuanced, Madison sees that the federal government is able to protect my Nordie from being oppressed from a majority. If individual liberties are determined by the states, by that logic we would have multiple definitions of individual liberties.
2. What is the problem and the arguments laid out by Madison and Federalist Number 10?
   1. The modern day interpretation of Madison’s “factions” is partially the political party, but more so, special interest groups with undue influence on political parties. Madison describes factions as “a selfish group seeking unpatriotically to have what it wants in violation of either individuals or societies just expectations.”  He identifies the sources of factions as the various and unequal distribution of property. This inequality of wealth and possessions is what Madison described as a concern that must be addressed through a just central government. His prescription to this problem is the expansion of the electorate. By his logic the greater the number of participants in the electoral system, will result in diluting any “special interest” or factions as Madison calls them.
3. The remainder of this chapter is a systematic dissection of Madisons Federalist papers. Of note: Federalist number 39 which demarcates between the federal and the national government. The federal government “Operating on the states composing the Federation, and the national government operating on the citizens directly.” This is an interesting separation, which clearly defines federalism.

 

Chapter Five: Ratifying the Constitution Part Two: The Richmond Convention

1. The debate among still beats in Virginia was splitting into three groups what were they?
   1. The three groups were those who would ratify, those who would ratify with amendments, and those who opposed. Leading the group in opposition was the famous Patrick Henry.
2. How did Madison use the debate with Spain over rights of the Mississippi River to support his argument to ratify the constitution in Virginia? Was the counter argument to this?
   1. A strong central government would be much more likely to pursue strong centralized interests vis-à-vis a foreign power. The Mississippi River would ultimately become vital to Virginias strength as westward expansion inevitably will occur. William Grayson countered by stating that northern states would not want free navigation of the Mississippi River, as it would dilute their influence and in effect monopoly on access to foreign trade.
3. The state of Virginia ultimately ratifies the constitution. However many of the states leading man were still in opposition. They would continue to raise issues with concerns of a centralized authority. Brought down to its simplest form what was the ultimate question when many of the delegates decided to ratify?
   1. The decision boiled down to either ratify the constitution and then advocate strongly for amendments at a later date, or face disunion which promised a dark future for the nation.

 

Chapter Six: Inaugurating the Constitution; 178801800

1. What was the compromise of 1790?
   1. This was a compromise were Alexander Hamilton was able to get the federal government to pay all of the war debts. In exchange the capital of the nation would be located somewhere along the Potomac River ultimately establishing Washington D.C.
2. What was the key issues surrounding the debate on the application of the necessary and proper clause? How did Alexander Hamilton’s actions concern people?
   1. Opponents were concerned that it gave unlimited discretion to Congress. Madison argued on the contrary that the powers of the Congress would be limited to specific issues. Hamilton on the other hand said the powers of the Congress would be implicit, meaning that there was more flexibility in the Congress to raise revenue for issues that the Congress alone determined or worthwhile. This was a great concern to many and a beginning of the split between Republicans and the Federalists.
3. What is the significance and importance of the strong resistance to the alien and sedition acts?
   1. Opposed to much of the work that had taken place over the past 12 years the resistance to the alien and sedition acts was a major move that reversed this trend of centralizing strengths, and push that power back into the states. It was a direct check on executive overreach, and assisted the Republican wave of the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800.

Chapter Seven: Secretary of State; Then President, 1800-1817

1. Explain Thomas Jefferson’s mixed reactions to the purchase of the Louisiana territory from France? What concerns did he have?
   1. Clearly the Louisiana purchase, an opportunity to double the size of the United States for only $15 million was a blessing for Jefferson. But he ran into a problem, the purchase was constitutionally illegal and Jefferson knew it. This may have not been a problem for a Federalist, but as a Republican and one who ran as a strict constructivist of the Constitution itself,  there was some personal hypocrisy with the purchase.
2. Why did Jefferson favor an embargo opposed to war with the British as a result of the attack on the Chesapeake and the illegal impressment of American sailors?
   1. The answer to this question is a significant part of the Jeffersonian legacy with regards to foreign policy. Jefferson was the opinion that a strong centralized military pushed out to fight in foreign lands would force the American people to pay taxes to a centralized government therefore weakening the states vis-à-vis an empowered executive branch. As a consequence, Jefferson decided to embargo British goods from American shores. The result of this was ultimate weakening of the American economy.
3. Madison was one of the masterminds behind the constitution of the United States. He played an integral role in the development of the country from the late 1780s up until he assumed the presidency in 1809. Despite his robust resume why was Madison not the president that mean he thought he could have been?
   1. This question leads us to the importance of oratory skills and public persona of American presidents. Even in the area era prior to television and radio, the ability of an American president to command attention and to deliver powerful messages cannot and should not be underestimated. In Madison’s defense he did adopt a country that was facing economic ruin due to a horribly mismanaged embargo on the British and would shortly face a war against a vastly superior enemy and a weakly committed country.
4. How did Madison’s opinion about the strength and the necessity of a centralized bank namely the bank of the United States shift while he was serving as president?
   1. The War off 1812 against the British displayed all of the weakness of the American federalized system, from lack of military preparedness, to inability to raise funds. This was exploited by the oncoming British and he result of this was the burning of Washington D.C

 

Chapter Eight: An Active Retirement, 1817-1836

1. How did Madison view the Missouri compromise? What was his view about the ability of the federal government to make a decision about slavery in a territory or a state?
   1. Madison felt it was not in the authority of the central government to determine whether or not the territory and ultimately a state would adopt slavery or not therefore this would give Pres. Monroe the authority to veto the Missouri Compromise on constitutional grounds alone.
2. During the first term of Andrew Jackson, what was James Madison’s position on nullification?
   1. Madison thought that nullification had the potential to ultimately result in disunion. Madison gave an academic and Constitutional foundation for his opposition, basing his position on Federalist number 39, which he, conveniently enough, wrote.  Federalist number 39 outlined how the Supreme Court would be the arbiter of disputes between the federal government and the states. This authority given to the Supreme Court was directly given by the constitution however, the roots of legitimacy existed in the state conventions, which gave the Constitution “the validity and authority that it possesses.”

The metropolis of Philadelphia during the Spring and Summer of 1776 brought together leaders and representatives from the 13 colonies to debate the most pressing and relevant issues of the day. In those fateful months, the topic creating the starkest divide was the question of independence, and the Continental Congress was split. But as a growing number of colonists consumed Thomas Paines landmark publication Common Sense, popular opinion from the members of the Second Continental Congress shifted away from reconciliation, and calls for independence from Great Britain intensified. One John Dickinson, a Pennsylvania farmer and recent author of the Olive Branch Petition desired a peaceful agreement with the mother country, opposed to the chaos and near certain violence breaking away from London would result in. The day preceding the vote for independence, Dickinson rose to address his colleagues of the Congress in an eloquent and powerful speech. He questioned the consequences of independence, the inevitability of foreign power interference in the new nation, Native Americans attacking with impunity, slaves rebelling in masse, and the certain defeat colonial boys would face at the hands of the seasoned British Army. Dickinson was not naive to the implications of his disesteemed argument, but rationalized: “thinking as I do on the subject of debate, silence would be guilt.” His famous articulation poignantly concluded that to declare independence at that time “would be to brave the storm in a skiff made of paper.” The next day, July 2, 1776, the colonial representatives to the Second Continental Congress voted unanimously to declare independence from Great Britain (Dickinson abstained). Weeks later the old and weakened John Dickinson, named as Brigadier General in the Pennsylvania militia led 10,000 troops to defend New Jersey from British troops.

 

This simple story of John Dickinson, a man who gloriously displayed moral courage while fighting for an unpopular cause tells a broader story of more than just a man, but a mindset during the birth of the nation. Following the referendum defeating his beliefs, Dickinson demonstrated complete devotion to a renewed purpose by leading men in battle. His actions represent subservience to democratic ideals, the rule of law, and the greater good. Dickinson’s story exemplifies merely one example of exceptional behaviors by American leaders throughout the nations history. These events accumulated define an intangible concept that has produced a very tangible product, American Exceptionalism.

Notes on American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson:

1.  Philadelphia 1775-76:

• Jefferson played to his strengths during the Continental Congress, namely he was widely acknowledged as an excellent writer, but he hated to speak in public or be overtly involved in committee activities.
  • This point carries over nicely to his time as Secretary of State and President. Seems to best fit the way he managed his staff, a far cry from the way Washington did.
• What were the works/philosophies/historical events and people that shaped Jefferson’s political outlook? (A: Whig interpretation of history (pre-Norman), de Rapin’s History of England, Dalrymple’s History of Feudal Property in Great Britain, Hakluyt’s Voyages, The Theory of Expatriation, The English Whig Party/Real Whigs/County Party, Henry St. John Bollingbrook, John Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, James Burgh, Aristotle, Circero, Locke (Essay on Human Understanding), Sidney, The Scottish Enlightenment, Francis Hutcheson’s “moral sense” and communal tradition v. Lockean liberalism, Thomas Sheridan, Hume)
• Was Jefferson a hopeless romantic or a shrewd politician?  Think in terms of his embrace of the pre-Norman mythology of English egalitarianism.  Did he really believe this stuff or was he using it to get his way?
  • I think Jefferson was an idealist and a dreamer that somehow found others to operationalize his vision. (Madison)
  • He does argue that the roots of all evil at 1066 and the beginning of feudalism. I think we see here the beginning of Jefferson’s black and white way to framing an argument. Painting the Saxon’s as all good and the Normans as all Bad. This translates to further arguments he is able to frame, even fabrications of the truth to portray and sell a broader point. That system was simply transferred into colonial practice and led to exploitation. We are fortunate our forefathers did not put up with this for an extended period of time.
• What were the works that Jefferson wrote that laid the foundation for the Declaration of Independence? (A: A Summary Views of the Rights of British American, Causes and Necessity, and The Virginia Constitution).
  • Absolutely, but the influence of Thomas Paine on Jefferson and the cause writ large can also be included. I think the important point on Jeffersons writings, and what sets him apart from others of the era was an “intuitive attraction toward, a narrative structure built around moralistic dichotomies.” (p. 48) Jefferson was at heart an advocate. He thought deeply, read broadly, reached personal conclusions and advocated strongly for them. In this sense he was a visionary. He did not worry about the details, otherwise reaching the final endstate of individual liberties. Many interesting parallels to some of the advocates on certain issues of contemporary.
• Does NY delegate William Livingston comment about Jefferson’s writing style foreshadow the Federalist/Republican split? What about sectionalism in general? “They (Virginians) seem to think a reiteration of tyranny, despotism, bloody, etc. all this is needed to unite us at home…
• Did Jefferson write the Decl. of Indep b/c no one else wanted to? What were other priorities of the Continental Congress? Did he “plagiarize” the document?  Do you think committee work made the document better than if Jefferson had published without any editing?
  • Every thought is plagiarized, but then becomes original by adding existing context to it.

 

2.  Paris  1784-89

 

• Upon arrival in Paris Jefferson’s reputation was based more on his work in VA Assembly on legislative reform and less than his efforts in the Continental Congress.
• pg 68 shows that despite Jefferson’s belief in the ills of federal power, when he was in Congress he did not like the power of the states to interfere with his legislation and his private belief in the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation.
  • This is an excellent point. This is part of the difficulty of Federalism. What is the proper balance between province and center, between the state and the man?
  • I also think though his argument against the Articles was nuanced. He saw that the role of a Federal government was to control foreign affairs and trade and commerce with foreign nations. How did he view the role of the Federal Government to influence policy beyond that?
• Describe Jefferson’s inner circle.  Who were they? What was their background and education? Describe their interactions with Jefferson.  Were they sycophants or honest advisors? (Madison, Monroe, Short).  What were the long-term implications of this circle?
  • The long term implication of Jefferson-Madison-Monroe is that we will see each succeeding President having less authority and ability to make an individual imprint on things. This is well laid out in “The Politics that Presidents Make” by Skowronek. In this book he argues that this cycle of Presidents played on similar themes for legitimacy and therefore political support. But as conditions changed requiring new narratives to meet the problems of the modern day, these Presidents became constrained by the roots of legitimacy that became decades old. We will look at this book later on, but if you have the book, take a look at the case study of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. This is a fascinating dynamic indeed!
• Some interesting comments and justifications given by the Ambassador from Tripoli as a justification for savagery on the High Seas. Uses religion to justify brutal behavior. Can someone please tell me why we have been negotiating with these animals for so long? What would have been a prudent strategy at that time? After this experience it is interesting to see how Adams and Jefferson split on the need to fund a large Navy.
• Paris seemed to be a good place for Jefferson to observe power politics in real-time, particularly international trade and finance e.g. the issue of free trade with France (tobacco) and loans from the Dutch (financial practice).  This clashed with his romantic ideals of a utopian society & revolution (Shays), does this prepare him for his presidency?  What about his shifting views on the French Revolution?
  • What this chapter shows is deepening of certain resolves, questioning of other axioms, and the constant challenging of ideas. This is truly a period of tremendous growth for Jefferson. “If anybody thinks that kings, nobles, or priests are good conservators of the public happiness, send them here.” (p. 100) Great point….
• Does Notes reveal Jefferson as the master Machiavellian politician?
• Jefferson’s framework for government: Indians (Utopia), Wolves guarding sheep (Europe), US/English (gov’ts responsible to people) seem too simplistic, I wonder if it was good he missed the drafting of the Constitution? In fact, Madison had to advise him to endorse ratification.
  • A good point. I think we see Jefferson’s inner struggle playing out during this time. He is undoubtedly drinking all of his French wine and writing all his thoughts out. This is really interesting stuff. We see here how Jefferson wrestles with the right role of the state vs the citizen. Madisons advise was prudent, I think Jefferson drifting to the very radical end of the spectrum during this period.
  • But as we justify Washington and Hamilton as Federalists, with their experience in battle and the need to better centralize resources and plans and fighters to best carry out the fight, we see Jefferson shaped by all that is bad with monarchy in France. He radicalizes here, but I think we see him soften as he returns home.
• Maybe the French Revolution went the way it did b/c the conflicts were so entrenched after centuries of practice?  America was still an infant society.
  • It is interesting here to see how Jefferson misjudges how this is going to turn out. Is he naive? Does he have too great of faith in mankind to default to reason?
  • Also, I think this is a very salient point regarding the entrenchment of ideas. You should have been advising the President. What is exceptional about America?? Well, one thing is that we did not have the entrenched anger to get in the way of democratic progress. Had this point been considered, do you think we would have had a different approach to the Arab Spring? The point is, why did the U.S. think the Arab Spring would look like the Am. Revolution opposed to the French Revolution? Likely becasue those in charge either failed to consider history or had an agenda? I believe our elites are well educated. Thoughts?
• Jefferson wrote “the earth belongs to the living.” Do you think that this point is still relevant? Far left progressives see a lot of salience in this argument, thoughts?

 

3.  Monticello 1794-97

 

• Jefferson is again presented as a man torn between two realities; one in which he wants to retire to a bucolic, utopian farmland and the other is the reality of a shrewd politician that networks with a core group of Republicans.  How does this dichotomy reflect his other thoughts/actions with regard to foreign policy, budding political parties, federalism, etc? (as a coda – all of the Presidents have thus far worked to pure exhaustion and needed long breaks at home to revitalize themselves – is this behavior to model in modern times in which we are “connected” 24/7, 365?
  • An interesting point and I agree. Jefferson did not want to retire, he wanted a break
• Explain Revolutionary Realism as it is described on pg 150. Is this a necessary evil to create a free society?
• Describe the advent of American political “parties”.  How were they different than factions? What was the catalyst?  How did they form along sectional lines, economic lines (look at debt ridden plantation class v. banking/industrial class).  Interesting how both align with the personalities and backgrounds of Jefferson and Hamilton).
  • The factions derive from a fundamental belief in the role of government. The Federalists saw the need for a large centralized bureaucracy to organize and control certain key functions of the government. For Republicans, led by Jefferson, bid government was by nature an infringement on the rights of citizens of a republic.
• What was the catalyst to get Jefferson back into politics? (the Jay Treaty w/ the Whiskey Rebellion as a prologue).
  • After some time to dwell, Jefferson began to see a drifting from the virtues of 1776. Meaning the ideals that crafted the Revolution were not being honored in the way originally envisioned. The final concern was the centralization of a growing debt, a phenomenon that would strengthen the government visavis the people. The Jay Treaty of course was the Stamp Act of 1795, catalyzing libertarians into action. Interestingly, Washington and Adams were both founders. The most fascinating part here is the divergence from those who agreed on the spirit of the founding document.
• Describe Jefferson’s approach to politics.  How was it similar to Washington’s?
• A tremendous juxtaposition of Jeffersons character lies in the way he treated slavery. Why do you think a man who clearly demarcated between right and wrong in political debates, looked at slavery in a more subtle manner considering economics prior to making any major commitments either way on the issue?

 

4. Washington D.C. 1801-04

 

• What is the Revolution of 1800? Is it really a Revolution in your opinion? Why?
• Why did Jefferson dislike the Supreme Court? How did Pres. Jefferson feel about Chief Justice John Marshall? Why?
• Explain the significance of the peaceful transfer of power that took place between Adams and Jefferson. What do you think of the statement: “To put it differently, the most significant events were those that did not happen.” (211)
• Compare the styles of Washington and Jefferson regarding selection of staffs and management style.
• Why did the French sell the LA territory to the U.S?

 

5. Monticello 1816-26

 

• Why did Jefferson enact the Embargo Act? Was this a good idea? Why?
• How are small government and social equality amongst a population related? Is this a Jeffersonian principle? How? What did Adams say about this?
• The letters between Jefferson and Adams prior to their deaths are a fascinating narration of a historic period. Discuss something that stood out.
• What was Consolidation and diffusion in the debate surrounding the expansion of slavery? Which did Jefferson support?

 

6. The Future of an Illusion

 

• How did Jefferson vision slowly die between 1865 and 1950?
• What were the core difference in the assumptions of Jefferson and Adams regarding the role of government? Explain negative liberty.
• What political party would Jefferson be a part of today? What political figure do you think he most closely represents?

Discussion Guide

His Excellency: George Washington

by Joseph Ellis

 

Cross cutting themes:

 

• Washington’s  view of westward expansion (later called manifest destiny)
• The socio-economic factors of the Virginia plantation class
• The desire to centralize the government. Washington’s most influential days are spent as the head of an under resourced military force. He sees this repeat itself frequently from leading a militia, the Continental Army, and then trying to get pensions for the troops. Washington can make a strong argument for Federalism.

 

Early life:

 

• The French & Indian War was a critical event in shaping Washington’s view of westward expansion, his economic interests, his military experience and his view on British relations.  (pg. 7

• Braddock’s defeat influenced Washington’s esteem, military outlook and tactical beliefs
• Col of Virginia regiment showed a pragmatic view of conventional and unconventional tactics
• Began his life trend of – “survive and you shall succeed”

• Washington was a shrewd networker his entire life.  His early attempts are both bumbling (seeking Br. patronage) and effective (marriage to M. Custis and relationship with Dinwiddie)
• Washington’s “captivity” to Br. commercial and political system made him wealthy and subservient (Cary & Co, land grants, commodities, etc.)
• The Proclamation of 1763 was one of the many milestones leading to the American Revolution, but this perhaps, had more of an influence on Washington

 

The Revolution:

 

• Pg. 74 Washington’s personal qualities that led to success: composed, indefatigable, and able to learn from his mistakes; pg. 82 (on Greene’s victory at Ticonderoga) knack for discovering talent where he could find it, valued personal loyalty
• Pg. 87 Washington’s response to the small pox epidemic saved the army and demonstrates the many small, but important decisions that executives must make (also how he interacted with Congress to outfit the army, his decision on a strategy (The Fabian Choice))
• Discuss the “domino theory” of the Br. Empire…American parallels??? (pg. 89). Pg. 102 exposes the Br. penchant for indirect strategy (failed to concentrate forces for decisive blow/southern strategy 1778-79) helped seal fate of war at Saratoga (pg 105) and Yorktown
• Washington had a flair for the bold and used strategically insignificant victories to hold up the army and people (Trenton-Princeton) but also made his attack plans far too complex, likely shows his operational experience with large units
• The shocking lack of support for the Continental Army infused Washington, despite his southern plantation roots, with a strong sense of Federal power vis a vis the states.
• **Pg 139 founders and Washington were steeped in Roman and British history.  Washington was keenly aware of that these two republics fell to military commanders who crossed the Rubicon (Caesar) and failed to relinquish command/rule (Cromwell) – he avoided the Newburgh Conspiracy (pg. 141) and the pitfalls of the Society of Cincinnati

 

The Presidency:

 

• Triggers for Washington to come back into public life – Shay’s Rebellion and Constitutional Convention (pg. 172).  This is also a good framework to look at the dichotomy between the Republican and Federalist versions of the “spirit of 76” and what that would mean to governance.  Pg. 216 the seeds the of the two party system (which the author believes is a good thing)
• Pg. 175 – one reason why Washington was such a good executive is because he recognized the need to surround himself with competent advisors and delegate.  “Washington was accustomed to leading by listening.”  The cabinet system was devised by Washington pgs. 197/198 and excellent for executive leadership – listen, recruit an awesome team of smart, ambitious young men, turn them lose on the details, have the judgment to know when to get involved
  • But this nearly went horribly wrong. Hamilton was active in trying to get more funding to the federal government at any cost.
• Slavery is mentioned many times in the book, Washington wanted to end it but realized that 1) the economic and politics of emancipation made it nearly impossible and 2) it would destroy the nation
• Pg. 205 shows the sectionalism as an economic issue, Hamilton’s bank/northern creditors v. southern plantation system
• Setting another precedent Washington, a classic realist (pg. 236), was hands-on in foreign policy and Indian affairs.  Some people assert Washington was an isolationist, but his desire not to get entangled in European affairs was more of a function of consolidating control of the continent east of the Mississippi.  Also, found the Senate incapable of dealing with foreign policy so marginalized them.
  • The Jay Treaty was the biggest crises of Washington’s Presidency, foreshows Adams’ crises with the French Quasi-War, more fighting between Federalists and Republicans (one side saw a desire to harness the spirit of 76 to build a nation, the other to spread an ideology)

 

Legacy:

 

• Washington came close to major blunders in retirement 1) giving some support to Hamilton and his Napoleonic scheme
• The key blunder here was not that he sided with Hamilton, but more that he got involved in the mud-slinging.
• Great quote on pg. 266 about the future capitol
• His will was a testament to his core beliefs: freed his slaves and equally split inheritance to prevent a dominant heir from emerging.

John Adams

by David McCullough

 

General Themes

1.  Adams and the other founders have a deep understanding of the classics.  Who were the great thinkers of classical antiquity in terms of philosophy, law and government? In our age have we neglected the study of the classics? An education rooted in the classics is a theme that is constantly repeated throughout the book as he is constantly advising first his son, and then others on the value of a good education.

 

Greece: Thucydides, Plato, Socrates, Demonsthenes, Aristotle’s Politics, Plutarch’s Lives, Lucian’s Dialogues, The Choice of Hercules in Xenophon, Homer’s Iliad, Euclid

 

Rome: Cicero’s Orations (mentioned the most), Terrance, Virgil (Aeneid), Sallust, Tacitus’ Agricola, Horace, Ovid, Caesar’s Commentaries, Livy

 

2.  Adams and the founders weren’t steeped in the classics in isolation.  Coming out of the Renaissance and into the Age of Enlightenment, the great thinkers of the time looked to antiquity to inspire their own theories and writings.

 

James Harrington, Shakespeare, Pope (An Essay on Man), Swift, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Milton, Hume, Hobbes, La Rochefoucauld, Rousseau, Joseph Priestly, Samuel Johnson, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Newton, The English Constitution, Condorcet, Turgot, Mary Wollstonecraft’s French Revolution

 

3.  The nature of government, Republicanism v. Democracy.  Federalists v. Anit-federalists/Republicans.

 

4.  Compare the American and French Revolutions. Why were they so different? Why did they ignite such divide in the U.S?

 

5. Adams’s brilliance as a diplomat – (olive branch and arrows (the wood walls) to the French in the Quasi War), securing loans from the Dutch on his own initiative.

 

6. Discuss the impact of sectionalism and political parties in early America. How did the press play a role in this?

 

7. Adams’s thoughts on the virtue, personal characteristics and education are prominent throughout the book.  Link these back to Protestantism and other American characteristics.  This is most clearly elucidated in his comments about Europe, especially the French. What about Adam’s physical, dietary, spiritual and work practices? Are we missing these today?

 

Chapter One:

 

8. What are some of Admas’ key experiences as a youth? Consider the normal ones, death of father, marriage, education, Law Degree, but then in politics: Stamp Act and the Boston Massacre.

 

9. Describe his defense of the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre. Why is this an important step and insight into Adams character? What are some modern day parallels?

 

• Is this a political move? Or is it a call to support the Rule of Law. A high sense of virtue and justice and adherence to the Rule of Law.
• The Rule of Law trumps all.

 

Chapter Two:

 

10. Describe some of Adams initial impressions of Philadelphia

 

11. How was Congress split prior to The Revolution? How did Thomas Paine’s Common Sense change calculations?

 

12. Name some factors that contributed to the shift of those who initially resisted Independence?

– Continued Fighting, Lexington and Concord, Bunkers Hill

– Common Sense

– Failure of Diplomatic Envoy

– Perceived success on the Battlefield

 

Chapter Three:

 

13. Discuss the character and moral courage of John Dickinson.

 

14. What were some of the initial challenges after signing the Declaration of Independence?

 

15. Discuss the need for a standing army, how do you think that debate will change after the victory in war?

 

Chapter Four

 

16. Describe Adams trip across the Atlantic.

 

17. What were some of Adams initial impressions of France?

 

Chapter Five

 

18. What were the core interests for both the French and Americans at the time of the Revolution? How did this lead to Adams moving to The Netherlands?

 

19.  After victory in the War for Independence, what were the priorities of all emissaries in Europe?

 

Chapter Six

 

20. Describe the relationship developed between Adams and Jefferson while they were in Europe. What were some of the differences? Consider Abiagails Adams initial perceptions of French society vs. Jefferson. How do you think that will play out in future policy perspectives?

 

Chapter Seven

 

21. In this chapter, the philosophical differences on government between Jefferson and Adams emerge. It is truly rooted in one issue (albeit a large one) What is it? Why is this important?

 

22. Also, in this chapter we begin to witness some of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation. Give some examples that Adams faced that stemmed from such weaknesses?

 

Chapter Eight

 

23. What were some of Adams impressions upon returning to the States? Any parallels with other periods in history?

 

24. Who is “His Rotundity?” Why was he called that? How did this lead to the devolution in the relationship between Jefferson and Adams? What were some of the issues the two men differed on?

 

25. Why is the issue of State debts so important? Consider Alexander Hamilton’s viewpoints on the manner? In this era, all must be seen through a lens of state vs. Federal Rights? Consider each side of the argument in 1790 America. Which needed to be stronger? Why?

 

26. Why was the French Revolution so close to the American people? How did the French Revolution represent a broader issue for young America?

 

27. Describe the role of a partisan press in the development of factions? How is this different than the press is today?

 

Chapter Nine

 

28. Was it a good idea for Adams to keep holdovers from Washington’s Cabinet? Why?

 

29. What was Adams position on War with France? How was he being pressured from The Federalist “Base” on the issue? What did Adams do to counter such pressures? How did the letter from the envoy change the nature of the discussion?

 

30. What was Adams position on a strong Navy? Army? Discuss through the lens of Federalist/ Anti-Federalist

 

31. What were the Alien and Sedition Acts? Why was this a bad idea?

 

Chapter Ten

 

32. In this chapter there is a true threat to civilian rule of the military. Who threatened this axiom? Discuss the meeting between Hamilton and Adams and relations with France?

 

33. On page 527 Adams states: “Genius in a general is oftener an instrument of divine vengeance than a guardian angel.” What does he mean by this? Compare with Adams belief in a strong Navy.

 

34. Describe how the insults thrown at both Adams and Jefferson during campaign season represented broader and cultural discussions of the time.

 

35. Why was the election the end of the Federalist Party? Would you describe Adams as a moderate or a partisan?

 

Chapter Eleven

 

36. What role did Adams play in the Louisiana Purchase?

 

37. Discuss the importance of the letters between Jefferson and Adams at this time?

 

38. Final Question: Adams had many accomplishments in his life, describe what you feel was his most important in Domestic Affairs, Foreign Policy, Military, Economics, and as a Leader?