Public Schools In The Northeast US

While the 1800’s were full of groundbreaking inventions it is also home to many changes in quality of life and living, including the educational reform, the prison reform and the abolition movement. In the early 1800s getting an education was not a priority or option for most children. While it was often class based and varied between the north and south. Most children attended little to no school and the education they did receive was provided by unqualified teachers who received little pay. The education reform directed by Horace Mann helped bring about state sponsored public education, with curriculum and local property tax to finance education. Horace Mann believed that “popular schooling could be transformed into a powerful instrument for social unity.” (https://www.mackinac.org/2035) The organizarional model Mann and others adopted for massachusetts was the Prussian educational system. Allowing for the state to control education from lower grades up to the university level. Along with the state supervising the training of the teachers, children were

Before the educational reform there were very little public schools. If there was a public school in a town it was part time and only one room. Wealthy families could afford to send their children to private school or

The Whigs related to voters in every social-economic group, but determined especially agreeable and interesting to the professional and business classes, such as lawyers, ministers, doctors, bankers, merchants, factory owners, storekeepers, large-scale planters and commercially-oriented farmers.

Though the two political parties, the Democrats and Republicans, aged differently in region, ethnicity, and religion, one similarity was prevalent: neither was willing to take strong stands on the most sensitive topics (H). The sectionalism that had been rife prior to the Civil War was still alive. Since neither side wanted to take risks, for fear of upsetting the balance of power, complex issues such as the tariff and money bills moved forward slowly and thus benefited the public too little or too late. The smaller peoples, including farmers, laborers, and small businessmen, were left out of the political equation except at the local machine level. Presidential cabinets were marked by the practice of patronage as the continuation of Andrew Jackson's spoils system became more widespread throughout the country. With no real standouts of the time, the social issues of the day were largely deferred or ignored.

Another main issue concerning the parties and their different views was centered on domestic economic policies; the creation and sustainment of the National Bank. Federalists were in favor of the National Bank because they believed the nation would thrive off of business, commerce and industry. Although the Constitution did not state within itself the creation of a national banking system, Federalists often loosely interpreted the Constitution. Democratic-Republicans, on the other hand, were strongly opposed to the creation of the National Bank, fearing that it placed too much control in the hands of the federal government. Democratic-Republicans had a strict interpretation of the Constitution, meaning that if the Constitution did not explicitly authorize something to the federal government, then it was reserved to the states. Because of Federalist’s ideals that the nation would prosper off of industry, they gained much support from bankers, merchants, manufacturers, and the elite. Their support system was based in the North, due to the North’s growing industrial economy because of their bitter climate, ports, and abundance of natural resources. However, the Democratic-Republicans gained much of the South’s vote because of their support in farmers and planters. Their belief in state’s rights, individualism, neutrality and preference of an agricultural society as opposed to an industrial society won them support in the south. With their

First, when the political parties emerged in the 1790’s it was evident that their ideologies were vastly different. The Republican Party wanted a representative form of government that functioned “in the interest of the people.” This party, led by Thomas Jefferson, supported a limited central government, with individual states retaining a majority of the control. Jefferson’s vision was for a nation of farmers, and farmers do not need big government to survive. They feared a large central government would take away the rights of the people. On the other hand, the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, supported a strong central government that would pursue policies in support of economic growth, which in turn would provide the freedom the people wanted. Hamilton’s followers also supported a diverse economy.1 It is important to note here however, that both parties knew they would have to become national parties in order to win any elections and both parties had followers in the north and in the south. There was no sectional divide in the parties.

The Populist Party is often referred to as the party of and for the people, and is labeled as such because it was, very candidly, founded by the common people, such as farmers and other laborers. While this party was in power, they had many ambitions and ideas that they sought to spread to others, and aspired to achieve. To understand the topic completely, one requires a general knowledge of the formation of the populist party, the elemental beliefs, goals and ideals, and how the downfall of the party came about, as this will aid in the understanding of the populist party’s want of free coinage of silver and how it would have helped debtors initially, but would have had a comprehensive and unfavorable effect on the American economy

Today, political parties are an authoritative and essential component of the United States political system. However, it is important to examine how the political parties began and evolved over hundreds of years, since they were first established. In 1794, the major political parties were the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The major difference between these two was that the Federalists favored a strong central government, while the Democratic-Republicans preferred a central government with limited power and more state control. At the time of the election, it seemed that the prominent, distinguished Federalist Party clearly had the upper hand, but in the end the

During the Antebellum period, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs. The Democrats advocated for slavery and were led by Herschel V. Johnson, Joseph E. Brown, and congressman Howell Cobb. The upperclassmen were usually part of the Whig party. They wanted the Federal Government to help the South. Robert Toombs and Alexander H. Stephens were the leaders of the Whigs. In the 1840’s most governors were democrats and most of the legislature were Whigs. In the 1850s, Georgians did not like the Compromise of 1850 but the leaders of each party asked the Georgians to accept it. Even though the Georgians didn’t approve of the Compromise they knew it was necessary.

The rapid growth of American cities in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s created huge problems for the government that ran the cities as in most cases in was very poorly structured and could not really give the people what they needed. It is because of the inability of city government to provide these things to the people that there was a rise in political machines. These political machines gained support from the population by providing houses for people who needed them and by also offering people jobs that they desperately needed. This gave the political machines a lot of power and support from there loyal followers.

     The Republicans and Democrats didn’t really have strong opposing beliefs during this period. The Republicans supported high tariffs and sound money. The Democrats supported lower tariffs and expanded currency. Both rural and urban classes supported each party. They worked with spoils and local issues. Both

The investigation aims to evaluate the significance of third party candidates in the US presidential election of 1892. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt famously split the vote of the Republican party as a third party candidate, and the investigation resolves to assess whether a third party candidate changed the outcome of the election in 1892. The investigation will focus mainly on the influence of one particular candidate from the Populist Party, James B. Weaver, as he won several electoral votes but will also include John Bidwell of the Prohibition Party who also drew in votes, although he did not gain an electoral vote. The candidate from the Socialist Labor Party will be excluded from the investigation as he did not play a significant role in the election. A focus of the investigation will be of the political views of those associated with the Populist party and Socialist party as well as why they chose the a third party ticket over the major party candidates running. Two sources, Populism and Political Realignment by L. Patrick Hughes and Populist Party Platform (1892) published by the Omaha Morning Herald, will be evaluated for use in the investigation to demonstrate the purposes, values, and limitations of the sources in context of the investigation.

In 1792, the world’s oldest political party, the Democratic Party, was founded. During the presidency of President Andrew Jackson in 1830, the party adopted its name as the Democratic Party as it is known now. Prior to the renaming of the party, it was known as the Democratic-Republican Party founded by James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson in opposition of the Federalist Party. The Democratic Party’s purposed served to supported states’ rights and the strict interpretation of the Constitution (Mayne, 1). Correspondingly, providing financial support to family based agriculture was one of their main priorities (Mayne, 1). The Federalist Party, their opposition, consisted of wealthy elites that strived, and fought for one strong all ruling national government, rather than state governments. As the United States had just recently become independent, the Democratic-Republican Party was determined to prevent the United States from becoming a monarchy. Over the next century, the Democratic-Republican party began to split due to the lack of agreement on major ideas which led to the current two-party system. However, some ideologies remain the same such as moral stance, and socioeconomic status. Other ideologies like economic view and stance on government power have caused this split between the Democratic and Republican parties (Mayne, 22). It is imperative to remember that even though these two parties are completely different, they originated from the same party with one main goal; “To create a government that is run for and by its people” (Mayne, 23). I have still not developed a political identity, but over the past three years of my residence in the United States, I am more in favor of the Democratic Party and what they stand for.

The political system of America is very different from other developed and developing democracies. Most notable is the increased power bestowed on the upper house of the parliament, the extensive power held by the Supreme Court and the dominance demonstrated by only two major parties. In the United States, third parties have the least influence on the world’s most developed democracy’s political structure. In this democracy, people are under the US Constitution of the governmental system as well as state government and other units of local government. Local government entails counties, districts and municipalities. The evolution of the American political party system has come a long way; with Hamilton and Jefferson being regarded as the founder fathers of the modern party system. These were heads of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist groups in the 18th century of American politics. Ever since, the country has maintained a party system that has two main parties that are relatively stable. These are Democrats and Republicans and have remained in contest for election every time since the 1860 presidential elections. Initially, the Republican Party was the dominant party but the Democrats later gained dominance. However, the two parties became closely competitive and neither of them has been notably dominant since the 1970s (O'Connor & Sabato, n.d).

One of the greatest differences among public schools is the funding they receive. Public schools across the country have incredibly varied amounts of capital dedicated to them which in turn leads to a disparity in the quality of education a student will receive at these schools. The race of a student, the location they live in, and the wealth of their family greatly correlate to the level of education they will receive. As Harvard professor Jennifer L. Hochschild notes, “Districts with a lot of poor students have lower average test scores and higher dropout rates...The highest spending districts report high test scores, and some of the lowest spending districts report the lowest test scores” (“Social Class in Public Schools.”). The students who attend schools that receive less funding typically obtain an education that is lesser in comparison to schools that receive more money. The inequality in funding within a state has a severe impact on the variation of education quality. In the case of Connecticut, “The district that spends the most provides almost twice as much per student as the district that spends the least” (“Social Class in Public Schools.”). As a result, the schools that receive less funding work with more outdated textbooks and equipment, while schools with more funding can afford to buy new equipment and provide a better environment for the