Plants and Politics

       Thomas Jefferson once referred to John Adams as having become "absolutely mad." The two former revolutionaries were once close companions, but due to the controversial topics working their way through the political system, a large rift was emerging at the heart of American politics. The rift pertained to the formation of the nation's political parties, the Federalist and the Revolutionaries. The two parties were characterized by their iconic leading figures, Adams and Hamilton were Federalists whereas Jefferson and Madison Republicans.
        
         Wulf does a fantastic job of connecting the agricultural industry directly to the political theater of the time period. During the debate between the two political parties, primarily Jefferson and Hamilton possessed extremely differing ideas on the direction of the country's economic base. Jefferson envisioned an America in which the farmers were independent and self-sufficent. Whereas, Hamilton urged the country to move toward a more industrial economic future. Jefferson uses his connection to the agricultural industry to his advantage during his and Madison's travel throughout the Hudson River Valley in order to discover America's farming potential. After discovering the potential for America's sugar industry, Jefferson urged farmers to begin to develop Maple trees. Jefferson, in his anti-British mindset, was encouraged at the thought of independence from British sugar, imported from the West-Indies. He saw the opportunity, and he took every opportunity to make it flourish.

        Hamilton, on the other hand, was working into a completely differing direction. After his successful passage of his bank bill, He began to work on an opportunity to utilize the Niagara Falls. Once again Hamilton did not view the landscape in the same manner as Jefferson. Hamilton wanted to use the natural energy of the falls in order to power all types of industry in the area. These two approaches to the utility of the landscape are, in my opinion, very symbolic to the differing approaches the opposing parties possessed. Thus, putting nature in the very heart of the political debate.

       These two men unquestionably sought the best for the early country, but their differing approaches allow for a valuable insight into the way in which the founding fathers shaped the country. Jefferson's Republican point of view directly connected his love of nature to his economic vision, and Wulf is spot on with her depiction of this.