Source D Our opponents claim that the programs of the New Deal represent an unprecedented expansion of government power. But I remind you that the Constitut...

This is a "How far do you agree?" question worth 10 marks about whether the expansion of federal power in the United States has always been driven by national crises. You need to build a balanced argument using the source and your own knowledge.

What the source contributes: The 1936 Democratic Party speech links three periods of federal expansion to national crises. Lincoln used federal authority during the Civil War to preserve the Union and end slavery. Theodore Roosevelt used federal power to break up monopolies and protect consumers during the challenges of industrialisation. Franklin Roosevelt expanded government through the New Deal (Social Security Act, WPA, banking regulations) in response to the Great Depression. The speaker argues that these expansions fulfilled, rather than violated, American values.

Arguments supporting the statement:

• The Civil War (1861-1865) led to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and a massive increase in federal authority over states.
• The Progressive Era saw federal regulation expand in response to the social problems of rapid industrialisation, including the Pure Food and Drug Act (1906) and the creation of the Federal Reserve (1913).
• The Great Depression produced the most dramatic peacetime expansion of federal power through New Deal agencies (WPA, CCC, TVA) and the Social Security Act of 1935.
• World War II further expanded government control over the economy through rationing, price controls, and industrial planning.

Arguments against the statement:

• Some expansions occurred without immediate crises. The Louisiana Purchase (1803) doubled the nation's territory and expanded federal authority. The Great Society programmes of the 1960s, including Medicare and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, responded to long-standing inequalities rather than sudden emergencies.
• The Progressive movement's reforms built gradually over decades of advocacy, not in response to a single crisis.

Source evaluation: The speech is biased. As a Democratic Party address during the 1936 election, it selectively uses history to justify New Deal policies. Not all Americans agreed these expansions were necessary or constitutional: the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures in cases like Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935).

Reaching Level 4 (9-10 marks): The highest marks require sustained analysis with source evaluation and specific historical evidence. You should use the source as a starting point, add your own knowledge on both sides, and evaluate the source's reliability as a political speech. A strong conclusion might argue that crises have been the most common catalyst for expansion but not the only one, and that the source's selection of examples is deliberately one-sided.