Reference no: EM134014965

Question

Two of the articles were about Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. The two played considerable parts in defining the political and legal philosophies that still guide the United States today. Jefferson was the founder of the Republican Party (NOT the same party of today). The party was named this because it argued that power should reside with the states (the republic) and the people and that a powerful central (federal) government was a threat to democracy and individual rights. Chief Justice John Marshall was a member of the Hamiltonian Federalists that argued power should reside with the Federal government so that it could collect taxes (which requires force) and stabilize/promote the economy. Any political argument that took place prior to the Civil War and any that takes place in the US today ultimately results in a dialogue with the Jeffersonian Republicans and Hamiltonian Federalists over the nature of our system.

How does Zinn's assessment of US history correlate with either the Federalist or Republican arguments? In other words, would Zinn favor one or the other of the two arguments, or would he dismiss them both as different methods with the same goal of elitist control? Explain. How might Zinn have fashioned the political system of the US, and would this have proven beneficial to society as a whole? Explain with specific examples. Finally, how might live in the US be if Marxist philosophy like that of Zinn's predominates? Would it be good or bad given the complexities of our society?