User:Jazzman831/jefferson
I don't pay much attention to the American History class on Conservapedia, but the answers to the fourth homework assignment caught my eye. This week's lecture covers the topic of Thomas Jefferson, who is "not as successful or important as liberals claim..." because "he failed personally and as president"[1]. In his lecture, the section on the Jefferson administration is dedicated almost entirely to the Louisiana Purchase. Andy correctly points out that Jefferson, a strict constructionist, had to go against his own principles, since the purchase of land was unconstitutional. He then has, in bold print: "Debate: Was this "Louisiana Purchase" an improper exercise of power?" The lecture later turns to Jefferson's failure (his words, not mine; I know little about this period of history) in the First Barbary War, then to his failures of enacting trade embargoes on England, then mentions that, despite coming from a wealthy family, Jefferson was in financial ruin when he died.
Now, if we head over to CP's page on liberals, we find that liberals believe in "A 'living Constitution' that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended". Since conservatives are 100% the opposite we can infer that conservatives are strict constructionists.
Now to this week's homework question number 2: "2. If you were the president, would you have approved the Louisiana Purchase? Explain."
Given only the information given in the lecture, there are two correct bare-minimum correct answers to this question:
- "If I were the President, I would not have approved the Louisiana Purchase, because it was unconstitutional." OR
- "If I were the President, I would have approved the Louisiana Purchase, even though it was unconstitutional."
Given only the information given in the lecture, and general knowledge of conservatism, there is one bare-minimum correct conservative answer to this question:
- "If I were the President, I would not have approved the Louisiana Purchase, because it was unconstitutional, and the Constitution is not meant to be interpreted however you like. Also, Jefferson was for the Louisiana Purchase, and Jefferson was a failure."
(Note that these bare-minimum correct answers would probably only recieve 5/10 points for getting the answer right; they make up the other 5 with reasons why the LP was unconstitutional, or reasons why the LP is more important than the Constitution)
So, how many students answered correctly? And how many students answered the good conservative answer? Let's find out:
, and general knowledge about conservative interpretations of the Constitution, the absolute minimum respons for a "good conservative" (no-spin) answer to this question is as follows:
- "If I were the President, I would not have approved the Louisiana Purchase, because it was unconstitutional."
When trying to figure out "what does the teacher want me to talk about," these additional subjects should all come to mind:
- Jefferson was a strict constructionist
- Jefferson had to go against his principles to approve the Louisiana purchase
- (Bonus) Jefferson made many other mistakes
| Student | Response[1] | Constitution mentioned?[2] | Reason [3] | Score [4] | Comments[5] |
| One | Yes | Yes[6] | It's not in the Bible; The Constitution still had wet concrete and could be wiggled | Full | Superb answer that deserves to be in the model answers! |
| Two | Yes | No | More land; keep away "immigrates" | Full | Good answer! Note that it is "immigrants", not "immigrates". |
| Three | Yes | No | More resources; keep out unknown neighbors; more places to put immigrants | Full | Good point, although I don't think space is so tight! |
| Four | Yes | No | Good deal; keep out (European?)neighbors of opposite ideologies | Full | Superb |
| Five | Yes | Yes | It's ok to slightly deviate from the Constitution if it's for the good of the country; the Constitution was new, and we were still figuring it out | Full | Good, and you explain your position well. |
| Six | No[7] | No[8] | It was good for the US | Full | Honest answer! Good work. |
| Seven | Yes | No | Breathing room; economic advantages; prevent bad neighbors | Full | "Superb" |
| Eight | Yes | No | Enlarge the country; great deal; move population west; strengthen country in international arena | Full | Superb |
| Nine | Yes | No | Despite the cons (increased Indians, greed, people, and states; difficulties of current comprimises), need land for population growth; needed to boost economy | Full | Superb |
| Ten | Yes | No | It was a great deal | Good | Superb |
| Eleven | Yes | No | Expansion; good price; keep out French neighbors | Full | Good |
| Twelve | Yes | No | Good deal; provides farm land | Full | Great point about the farmland |
| Thirteen | Yes | No | Bad decision, but good future investment | Full | Good |
| Fourteen | Yes[9] | No | Good deal; provides food | Full | Superb |
| Fifteen | Yes | No | America needed the land; it was a show of power | Full | Good point |
| Sixteen | Yes | No | Prevent inevitable overpopulation | Full | Doubt the overpopulation part: 300 million could fit comfortably within one or a just a few states. The Louisiana Territory doesn't have all that many people today. But otherwise your answer is good[10] |
| Seventeen | Yes | No | More land = more power = getting England to back off | Full | Interesting, but not sure it had that effect: the War of 1812 soon followed. |
| Eighteen | Yes | No | Keep out French neighbors; more land = more power | Full | Excellent |
| Nineteen | Yes | No | Help expand to the Pacific | Full | OK. (Capitalize the "p" in "pacific") |
| 21 | Yes | No | Land is a valuable asset; we could all fit on the east coast if we wanted to, but we're Americans, so we don't have to[11] | Full | Excellent, and argued well. Grammatically, say "if I were," not "if I was." |
| 25 | Yes | No | "It was in the best interest of the country." (full answer) | -1 | OK, but briefly explain why |
| 26 | Yes | No | "Because that is what was best for the country." (full answer) | -1 | But precisely why? Please explain your reason for any position taken |
| 28 | Yes | No | To have all the land in between the oceans; possibility of selling it later on | Full | Superb points! |
| 29 | Yes | No | Keep out French neighbors; good deal; put land to good use | Full | Superb |
| 30 | Yes | No | So that we don't have France, or some other country, as a neighbor | Full | Good point! |
| 31 | Yes | No | It was a great deal; reduce neighbors; control Pacific | Full | Superb, though not much coast along the Pacific was involved |
| 32 | Yes[12] | Yes[13] | Good deal; made way for expansion; included New Orleans |
- ↑ Would the student have approved the Louisiana Purchase?
- ↑ Does the student mention the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase?
- ↑ What reason(s) does the student give to support his answer?
- ↑ The score Andy gave to the student
- ↑ Andy's comment to the student
- ↑ He does take care to mention that a looser interpretation of the Constitution wouldn't be appropriate now, since the people who wrote it are too long gone.
- ↑ Not because he is against it, but because he wouldn't have had the forsight of Jefferson
- ↑ But noted that Jefferson had to go against his principles
- ↑ Technicially, this student does not give an answer, but he gives no reasons not to accept the deal
- ↑ note that there is in fact no "rest" of her answer!
- ↑ Note that this answer references the grading of student 16, meaning that, without a doubt, this student based his answer off of how other students were being graded
- ↑ Sort of; he says that Jefferson made the right decision
- ↑ Not only did this student mention the problems for a strict constructionist, but he proposes the correct way an SC should deal with the problem
Analysis
Students who mentioned the Constitution (bare minimum for a correct answer): 3/27
Students who would reject the deal (bare minimum for a conservative answer): 1/27 (note that this one student is being humble; he thinks that the Louisiana Purchase was the right thing to do, but that if he were the President, he wouldn't have had the forsight to make the right decision)
Most common reasons given for ignoring the Constitution in favor of Purchasing the Louisiana Purchase
- 16: America "needed the land" for foreign relation/power/economic/expansion/population/unstated reasons
- 8: Keep out neighbors
- 6: It was good (or some other blanket goodness claim)
- 7: It was a good deal
- 2: Didn't actually give reasons why (this counts all others in this list as "reasons")
Leaving aside the fact that none of the students properly supported their answer (and a few didn't even try), the thing that immediately came to my mind is that none of Andy's students gave the good conservative answer, opting instead for the rather unprincipled decision to ignore the Constitution in order to not let a great opportunity be passed by. In fact, only two students even bothered to mention the Constitution, which any reasonable analysis of the question would suggest is the entire reason for even asking the question.
Students 25 and 26 had arguments just like XX and YY, but got fewer points because they didn't hide it as well.
Most students stated reasons, but didn't explain why these reasons were enough, or even, always, why these reasons were good things.
Conclusion
Student 32 clearly sticks out from his peers. Given that he was only assigned a 1-paragraph response (or at least, 1-paragraph responses can get full credit), he is clearly the only one who passed this part of the homework.