One of the first problems that students face in understanding the second American party system is that of distinguishing among Jeffersonian Republicans, Jacksonian Democrats, National Republicans, and the present Republican party. Students will welcome the assistance of a lecture that makes clear these distinctions. Earlier study of the nation's first decades will have treated the Founders' fears of faction and the gradual shift in point of view as citizens coalesced into differing groups to achieve their political goals. A reprise of these themes in considering the second American party system will be helpful. Moreover, students need to understand how the political structure in the United States tends to support a two-party system. The period of only one political party was relatively brief. But periods of more than two significant parties in America have also been brief. Why is that? And why is it that men of background and learning, the men of the Virginia and Massachusetts dynasties, were replaced by men who emphasized their ordinariness? The second American party system was carefully constructed by men who used their political skills and an understanding of human nature to advance their political interests. Background for a lecture on the second American party system might include Richard P. McCormick, The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era (1966); Donald B. Cole, Martin Van Buren and the American Political System (1984); Lawrence Frederic Kohl, The Politics of Individualism: Parties and the American Character in the Jacksonian Era (1989); and some of the studies listed in the excellent bibliography at the conclusion of Chapter 10 of the text.

Most Americans have only a fuzzy idea of the relationship between banks and money. The concept of banks actually creating money can be a source of astonishment for beginning economics students. The difficulty is compounded when the focus is on the relatively free-flying banking structure of antebellum America. To understand adequately the philosophies of hard money and soft money (as distinct from merely memorizing which of society's groups favored one or the other), students will find helpful a lecture explaining the creation of credit through bank notes and the economic interests of those who sought to encourage or discourage such note issue. The preeminent work in the field is Bray Hammond, Banks and Politics in America from the Revolution to the Civil War (1957). See also George Rogers Taylor, editor, Jackson Versus Biddle's Bank: The Struggle over the Second Bank of the United States (second edition; 1972). Drawing a contrast between the aristocratic Nicholas Biddle and the so-called man of the people, Andrew Jackson, may enliven the lecture.

What was Jackson like? What was "Jacksonian democracy" like? Jackson was a man of courage and conviction who devoted his energies to the strengthening of the nation while preserving the interests of the states. He was a wealthy plantation owner, a slaveholder--and a democrat. He was a man of integrity. He was a man of questionable moral character. All these statements and more have been part of the assessment of Andrew Jackson by politicians and scholars. Which are the most convincing? A lecture that provides at least two differing interpretations of Andrew Jackson and his era will show students the difficulty of the question. Consult especially Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Age of Jackson (1945); Edward Pessen, Jacksonian America: Society, Personality and Politics (1979); Richard Hofstadter, "Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism," in The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (1948); and John William Ward, Andrew Jackson: Symbol for an Age (1955). Good use can be made of a collection of several points of view as in James L. Bugg, Jr., and Peter C. Stewart, editors, Jacksonian Democracy (second edition; 1986). Jackson was truly a colorful leader. His activities in Florida, his duels, his bitterness over the treatment accorded his wife, and his magnanimity toward Peggy Eaton make for an entertaining account. Because of that, however, the lecturer should take more than ordinary care to emphasize issues of policy and historical impact.

A lecture describing America at a moment in time can help students shake off anachronisms and better understand the past. Such a lecture can lean heavily on Russell Blaine Nye, Society and Culture in America, 1830-1860 (1974). This wonderfully comprehensive book can be supplemented with anecdotal material taken from travelers' accounts, such as those of Frances Trollope, Domestic Manners of the Americans (1832), a not very friendly portrayal, and Michael Chevalier, Society, Manners and Politics in the United States (1839). Francis J. Grund, Aristocracy in America; From the Sketchbook of a German Nobleman (1839), deals with the upper classes in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington. See also Harriet Martineau, Society in America (1837). Miss Martineau's reformist temperament made her more sympathetic to the power of the democratic majority than Tocqueville. A good portion of the lecture can also profitably be devoted to Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1833). What can account for Tocqueville's insights? How good were they? A short essay on a limited aspect is Hugh Brogan, "Tocqueville and the American Presidency," Journal of American Studies 15 (December 1981): 357-375. Brogan believes that Tocqueville significantly underrated the degree of centralization in the United States and the power of the presidency. For a fuller treatment, see Marvin Zettterbaum, Tocqueville and the Problem of Democracy (1967).

Among the characteristics of Americans that so interested Tocqueville was a dedication to humanitarian reform, which manifested itself in fields as diverse as abolitionism, public education, and women's rights. Why, students may wonder, did the reform impulse seem to focus so dramatically at this particular juncture in the nation's development? Why at this moment were so many seeking reforms? An interesting essay by C. S. Griffen, The Ferment of Reform, 1830-1860 (1967), looks at that question. For more fully developed studies, consult especially Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom's Ferment (1944), and Ronald G. Walters, American Reformers, 1815-1860 (1978).