document_title: Two-party system

question_text: when did the two party system start in the united states

text: Two-party system

text: Examples[edit]

text: United States[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: There is general agreement that the United States has a two-party system; historically, there have been few instances in which third party candidates won an election. In the First Party System, only Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party and Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party were significant political parties. Toward the end of the First Party System, the Republicans dominated a one-party system (primarily under the Presidency of James Monroe). Under the Second Party System, the Democratic-Republican Party split during the election of 1824 into Adams' Men and Jackson's Men. In 1828, the modern Democratic Party formed in support of Andrew Jackson. The National Republicans were formed in support of John Quincy Adams. After the National Republicans collapsed, the Whig Party and the Free Soil Party quickly formed and collapsed. In 1854, the modern Republican Party formed from a loose coalition of former Whigs, Free Soilers and other anti-slavery activists. Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president in 1860.

text: During the Third Party System, the Republican Party was the dominant political faction, but the Democrats held a strong, loyal coalition in the Solid South. During the Fourth Party System, the Republicans remained the dominant Presidential party, although Democrats Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both elected to two terms. In 1932, at the onset of the Fifth Party System, Democrats took firm control of national politics with the landslide victories of Franklin D. Roosevelt in four consecutive elections. Other than the two terms of Republican Dwight Eisenhower from 1953 to 1961, Democrats retained firm control of the Presidency until the mid-1960s. Since the mid-1960s, despite a number of landslides (such as Richard Nixon carrying 49 states and 61% of the popular vote over George McGovern in 1972; Ronald Reagan carrying 49 states and 58% of the popular vote over Walter Mondale in 1984), Presidential elections have been competitive between the predominant Republican and Democratic parties and no one party has been able to hold the Presidency for more than three consecutive terms, except for the elections from 1932 through 1948 when FDR won 4 elections and Truman one, both as Democrats. In the election of 2012, only 4% separated the popular vote between Barack Obama (51%) and Mitt Romney (47%), although Obama won the electoral vote by a landslide (332–206).

text: Throughout every American party system, no third party has won a Presidential election or majorities in either house of Congress. Despite that, third parties and third party candidates have gained traction and support. In the election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt won 27% of the popular vote and 88 electoral votes running as a Progressive. In the 1992 Presidential election, Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes running as an Independent.

text: Commonwealth countries[edit]

text: In countries such as Britain, two major parties emerge which have strong influence and tend to elect most of the candidates, but a multitude of lesser parties exist with varying degrees of influence, and sometimes these lesser parties are able to elect officials who participate in the legislature. In political systems based on the Westminster system, which is a particular style of parliamentary democracy based on the British model and found in many commonwealth countries, a majority party will form the government and the minority party will form the opposition, and coalitions of lesser parties are possible; in the rare circumstance in which neither party is the majority, a hung parliament arises. Sometimes these systems are described as two-party systems but they are usually referred to as multi-party systems. There is not always a sharp boundary between a two-party system and a multi-party system.

text: Generally, a two-party system becomes a dichotomous division of the political spectrum with an ostensibly right-wing and left-wing party: the Nationalist Party vs. the Labour Party in Malta, Labor vs. Liberal/National Coalition in Australia, Republicans vs. Democrats in the United States and the Conservative Party vs. the Labour Party in the United Kingdom.

text: Other parties in these countries may have seen candidates elected to local or subnational office, however. Historian John Hicks claims that the United States has never possessed for any considerable period of time the two party system in its pure and undefiled form.[14]

text: In some governments, certain chambers may resemble a two-party system and others a multi-party system. For example, the politics of Australia are largely two-party (the Liberal/National Coalition is often considered a single party at a national level due to their long-standing alliance in forming government and additionally rarely compete for the same seat) for the Australian House of Representatives, which is elected by instant-runoff voting, known within Australia as preferential voting. However, third parties are more common in the Australian Senate, which uses a proportional voting system more amenable to minor parties.

text: In the politics of Canada, while having a multiparty system federally and in the largest provinces of Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, many of the provinces have effectively become two-party systems in which only two parties regularly get members elected. Examples include British Columbia (where the battles are between the New Democratic Party and the BC Liberals), Saskatchewan (between the Saskatchewan Party and New Democratic Party), New Brunswick (between the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives) and Prince Edward Island (between Liberals and Progressive Conservatives).

text: India[edit]

text: India also shows characteristics of a two party system with the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)[15] and National Democratic Alliance (NDA)[16] as the two main players. It is to be noted that both UPA and NDA are not two political parties but alliances of several smaller parties. Other smaller parties not aligned with either NDA or UPA exist,[17] and overall command about 20% of the 2009 seats in the Lok Sabha and had further increased to 28% in 2014 general elections

text: Malta[edit]

text: Malta is somewhat unusual in that while the electoral system is single transferable vote (STV), traditionally associated with proportional representation, minor parties have not earned much success. Politics is dominated between the centre-left Labour Party and the centre-right Nationalist Party, with no third parties winning seats in Parliament between 1962 and 2017.[18]

text: Other examples[edit]

text: The English speaking countries of the Caribbean while inheriting their basic political system from Great Britain have become two party systems. The politics of Jamaica are between the People's National Party and the Jamaica Labour Party. The politics of Guyana are between the People's Progressive Party and APNU which is actually a coalition of smaller parties. The politics of Trinidad and Tobago are between the People's National Movement and the People's Partnership which is also a coalition. The Politics of Belize are between the United Democratic Party and the People's United Party. The Politics of the Bahamas are between the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement. The politics of Barbados are between the Democratic Labour Party and the Barbados Labour Party.

text: The politics of Zimbabwe are effectively a two party system between the Robert Mugabe led Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front and the opposition coalition Movement for Democratic Change.

text: South Korea has a multi-party system[19] that has sometimes been described as having characteristics of a two-party system.[20]

text: Furthermore, the Lebanese Parliament is mainly made up of two bipartisan alliances. Although both alliances are made up of several political parties on both ends of the political spectrum the two way political situation has mainly arisen due to strong ideological differences in the electorate.[21] Once again this can mainly be attributed to the winner takes all thesis.

text: Historically, Brazil had a two-party system for most of its military dictatorship (1964–1985): the military junta banned all existing parties when it took power and created a pro-government party, the National Renewal Alliance and an official opposition party, the Brazilian Democratic Movement. The two parties were dissolved in 1979, when the regime allowed other parties to form.[22]

text: A report in The Christian Science Monitor in 2008 suggested that Spain was moving towards a "greater two-party system" while acknowledging that Spain has "many small parties".[23] However a 2015 article published by WashingtonPost.com written by academic Fernando Casal Bértoa noted the decline in support for the two main parties, the People's Party (PP) and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) in recent years, with these two parties winning only 52 percent of the votes in that year's regional and local elections. He explained this as being due to the Spanish economic crisis, a series of political corruption scandals and broken campaign promises. He argued that the emergence of the new Citizens and Podemos parties would mean the political system would evolve into a two-bloc system, with an alliance of the PP and Citizens on the right facing a leftist coalition of PSOE, Podemos and the United Left.[24]

text: Comparisons with other party systems[edit]

text: Two-party systems can be contrasted with:

text:
Multi-party systems. In these, the effective number of parties is greater than two but usually fewer than five; in a two-party system, the effective number of parties is two (according to one analysis, the actual average number of parties varies between 1.7 and 2.1.)[25] The parties in a multi-party system can control government separately or as a coalition; in a two-party system, however, coalition governments rarely form. Examples of nations with multi-party systems include Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Taiwan.
One-party systems or dominant-party systems happen in nations where no more than one party is codified in law and/or officially recognized, or where alternate parties are restricted by the dominant party which wields power. Examples include rule by the Communist Party of China and the People's Action Party of Singapore.

text: Causes[edit]

text: There are several reasons why, in some systems, two major parties dominate the political landscape. There has been speculation that a two-party system arose in the United States from early political battling between the federalists and anti-federalists in the first few decades after the ratification of the Constitution, according to several views.[2][26] In addition, there has been more speculation that the winner-takes-all electoral system as well as particular state and federal laws regarding voting procedures helped to cause a two-party system.[2]

text: Political scientists such as Maurice Duverger[27] and William H. Riker claim that there are strong correlations between voting rules and type of party system. Jeffrey D. Sachs agreed that there was a link between voting arrangements and the effective number of parties. Sachs explained how the first-past-the-post voting arrangement tended to promote a two-party system:

text: The main reason for America's majoritarian character is the electoral system for Congress. Members of Congress are elected in single-member districts according to the "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) principle, meaning that the candidate with the plurality of votes is the winner of the congressional seat. The losing party or parties win no representation at all. The first-past-the-post election tends to produce a small number of major parties, perhaps just two, a principle known in political science as Duverger's Law. Smaller parties are trampled in first-past-the-post elections.

text: Consider a system in which voters can vote for any candidate from any one of many parties. Suppose further that if a party gets 15% of votes, then that party will win 15% of the seats in the legislature. This is termed proportional representation or more accurately as party-proportional representation. Political scientists speculate that proportional representation leads logically to multi-party systems, since it allows new parties to build a niche in the legislature:

text: Because even a minor party may still obtain at least a few seats in the legislature, smaller parties have a greater incentive to organize under such electoral systems than they do in the United States.

text: In contrast, a voting system that allows only a single winner for each possible legislative seat is sometimes termed a plurality voting system or single-winner voting system and is usually described under the heading of a winner-takes-all arrangement. Each voter can cast a single vote for any candidate within any given legislative district, but the candidate with the most votes wins the seat, although variants, such as requiring a majority, are sometimes used. What happens is that in a general election, a party that consistently comes in third in every district is unlikely to win any legislative seats even if there is a significant proportion of the electorate favoring its positions. This arrangement strongly favors large and well–organized political parties that are able to appeal to voters in many districts and hence win many seats, and discourages smaller or regional parties. Politically oriented people consider their only realistic way to capture political power is to run under the auspices of the two dominant parties.[2]

text: In the U.S., forty-eight states have a standard winner-takes-all electoral system for amassing presidential votes in the Electoral College system.[29] The winner-takes-all principle applies in presidential elections, since if a presidential candidate gets the most votes in any particular state, all of the electoral votes from that state are awarded. In all but two states, Maine and Nebraska, the presidential candidate winning a plurality of votes wins all of the electoral votes, a practice called the unit rule.[2]

text: Duverger concluded that "plurality election single-ballot procedures are likely to produce two-party systems, whereas proportional representation and runoff designs encourage multipartyism."[27] He suggested there were two reasons why winner-takes-all systems leads to a two-party system. First, the weaker parties are pressured to form an alliance, sometimes called a fusion, to try to become big enough to challenge a large dominant party and, in so doing, gain political clout in the legislature. Second, voters learn, over time, not to vote for candidates outside of one of the two large parties since their votes for third party candidates are usually ineffectual.[2] As a result, weaker parties are eliminated by voters over time. Duverger pointed to statistics and tactics to suggest that voters tended to gravitate towards one of the two main parties, a phenomenon which he called polarization, and tend to shun third parties.[6] For example, some analysts suggest that the Electoral College system in the United States, by favoring a system of winner-takes-all in presidential elections, is a structural choice favoring only two major parties.[30]

text: Gary Cox suggested that America's two-party system was highly related with economic prosperity in the country:

text: The bounty of the American economy, the fluidity of American society, the remarkable unity of the American people, and, most important, the success of the American experiment have all mitigated against the emergence of large dissenting groups that would seek satisfaction of their special needs through the formation of political parties.

text: An effort in 2012 by centrist groups to promote ballot access by Third Party candidates called Americans Elect spent $15 million to get ballot access but failed to elect any candidates.[31] The lack of choice in a two-party model in politics has often been compared to the variety of choices in the marketplace.

text: Politics has lagged our social and business evolution ... There are 30 brands of Pringles in our local grocery store. How is it that Americans have so much selection for potato chips and only two brands—and not very good ones—for political parties?

text: Third parties[edit]

text: Third parties, meaning a party other than one of the two dominant parties, are possible in two-party systems, but they are often unlikely to exert much influence by gaining control of legislatures or by winning elections.[2] While there are occasional opinions in the media expressed about the possibility of third parties emerging in the United States, for example, political insiders such as the 1980 presidential candidate John Anderson think the chances of one appearing in the early twenty-first century is remote.[32] A report in The Guardian suggested that American politics has been "stuck in a two-way fight between Republicans and Democrats" since the Civil War, and that third-party runs had little meaningful success.[33]

text: Third parties in a two-party system can be:

text:
Built around a particular ideology or interest group
Split off from one of the major parties or
Focused on a charismatic individual.[32]

text: When third parties are built around an ideology which is at odds with the majority mindset, many members belong to such a party not for the purpose of expecting electoral success but rather for personal or psychological reasons.[2] In the U.S., third parties include older ones such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party and newer ones such as the Pirate Party.[2][34] Many believe that third parties don't affect American politics by winning elections, but they can act as "spoilers" by taking votes from one of the two major parties.[2] They act like barometers of change in the political mood since they push the major parties to consider their demands.[2] An analysis in New York Magazine by Ryan Lizza in 2006 suggested that third parties arose from time to time in the nineteenth century around single-issue movements such as abolition, women's suffrage, and the direct election of senators, but were less prominent in the twentieth century.[35]

text: A so-called third party in the United Kingdom are the Liberal Democrats. In the 2010 election, the Liberal Democrats received 23% of the votes but only 9% of the seats in the House of Commons. While electoral results do not necessarily translate into legislative seats, the Liberal Democrats can exert influence if there is a situation such as a hung parliament. In this instance, neither of the two main parties (at present, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) have sufficient authority to run the government. Accordingly, the Liberal Democrats can in theory exert tremendous influence in such a situation since they can ally with one of the two main parties to form a coalition. This happened in the Coalition government of 2010. Yet in that more than 13% of the seats in the British House of Commons are held in 2011 by representatives of political parties other than the two leading political parties of that nation, contemporary Britain is considered by some to be a multi-party system, and not a two-party system.[36] The two party system in the United Kingdom allows for other parties to exist, although the main two parties tend to dominate politics; in this arrangement, other parties are not excluded and can win seats in Parliament. In contrast, the two party system in the United States has been described as a duopoly or an enforced two-party system, such that politics is almost entirely dominated by either the Republicans or Democrats, and third parties rarely win seats in Congress.[37]

text: Advantages[edit]

text: Some historians have suggested that two-party systems promote centrism and encourage political parties to find common positions which appeal to wide swaths of the electorate. It can lead to political stability[4][not in citation given] which leads, in turn, to economic growth. Historian Patrick Allitt of the Teaching Company suggested that it is difficult to overestimate the long term economic benefits of political stability. Sometimes two-party systems have been seen as preferable to multi-party systems because they are simpler to govern, with less fractiousness and greater harmony, since it discourages radical minor parties,[4] while multi-party systems can sometimes lead to hung parliaments.[38] Italy, with a multi-party system, has had years of divisive politics since 2000, although analyst Silvia Aloisi suggested in 2008 that the nation may be moving closer to a two-party arrangement.[39] The two-party has been identified as simpler since there are fewer voting choices.[4] One analyst suggested the two-party system, in contrast with proportional representation, prevented excessive government interference with economic policy.[8]

text: Disadvantages[edit]

text: Two-party systems have been criticized for downplaying alternative views,[4][5] being less competitive,[8] encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices,[4] and putting a damper on debate[5] within a nation. In a proportional representation system, lesser parties can moderate policy since they are not usually eliminated from government.[4] One analyst suggested the two-party approach may not promote inter-party compromise but may encourage partisanship.[5] In The Tyranny of the Two-party system, Lisa Jane Disch criticizes two-party systems for failing to provide enough options since only two choices are permitted on the ballot. She wrote:

text: Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy.

text: There have been arguments that the winner-take-all mechanism discourages independent or third-party candidates from running for office or promulgating their views.[8][41] Ross Perot's former campaign manager wrote that the problem with having only two parties is that the nation loses "the ability for things to bubble up from the body politic and give voice to things that aren't being voiced by the major parties."[32] One analyst suggested that parliamentary systems, which typically are multi-party in nature, lead to a better "centralization of policy expertise" in government.[42] Multi-party governments permit wider and more diverse viewpoints in government, and encourage dominant parties to make deals with weaker parties to form winning coalitions.[43] While there is considerable debate about the relative merits of a constitutional arrangement such as that of the United States versus a parliamentary arrangement such as Britain, analysts have noted that most democracies around the world have chosen the British multi-party model.[43] Analyst Chris Weigant of the Huffington Post wrote that "the parliamentary system is inherently much more open to minority parties getting much better representation than third parties do in the American system".[43] After an election in which the party changes, there can be a "polar shift in policy-making" when voters react to changes.[4]

text: Political analyst A. G. Roderick, writing in his book Two Tyrants, argued that the two American parties, the Republicans and Democrats, are highly unpopular in 2015, and are not part of the political framework of state governments, and do not represent 47% of the electorate who identify themselves as "independents".[44] He makes a case that the American president should be elected on a non-partisan basis,[45][44][46] and asserts that both political parties are "cut from the same cloth of corruption and corporate influence."[47]

text: History[edit]

text: Beginnings of parties in Britain[edit]

text: The two-party system, in the sense of the looser definition, where two parties dominate politics but in which third parties can elect members and gain some representation in the legislature, can be traced to the development of political parties in the United Kingdom. There was a division in English politics at the time of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the late 17th century.[48] The Whigs supported Protestant constitutional monarchy against absolute rule and the Tories, originating in the Royalist (or "Cavalier") faction of the English Civil War, were conservative royalist supporters of a strong monarchy as a counterbalance to the republican tendencies of Parliament.[49] In the following century, the Whig party's support base widened to include emerging industrial interests and wealthy merchants.

text: The basic matters of principle that defined the struggle between the two factions, were concerning the nature of constitutional monarchy, the desirability of a Catholic king,[50][page needed] the extension of religious toleration to nonconformist Protestants, and other issues that had been put on the liberal agenda through the political concepts propounded by John Locke,[51] Algernon Sidney and others.[52]

text: Vigorous struggle between the two factions characterised the period from the Glorious Revolution to the 1715 Hanoverian succession, over the legacy of the overthrow of the Stuart dynasty and the nature of the new constitutional state. This proto two-party system fell into relative abeyance after the accession to the throne of George I and the consequent period of Whig supremacy under Robert Walpole, during which the Tories were systematically purged from high positions in government. However, although the Tories were dismissed from office for half a century, they still retained a measure of party cohesion under William Wyndham and acted as a united, though unavailing, opposition to Whig corruption and scandals. At times they cooperated with the "Opposition Whigs", Whigs who were in opposition to the Whig government; however, the ideological gap between the Tories and the Opposition Whigs prevented them from coalescing as a single party.

text: Emergence of the two-party system in Britain[edit]

text: The old Whig leadership dissolved in the 1760s into a decade of factional chaos with distinct "Grenvillite", "Bedfordite", "Rockinghamite", and "Chathamite" factions successively in power, and all referring to themselves as "Whigs". Out of this chaos, the first distinctive parties emerged. The first such party was the Rockingham Whigs[53] under the leadership of Charles Watson-Wentworth and the intellectual guidance of the political philosopher Edmund Burke. Burke laid out a philosophy that described the basic framework of the political party as "a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavours the national interest, upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed". As opposed to the instability of the earlier factions, which were often tied to a particular leader and could disintegrate if removed from power, the two party system was centred on a set of core principles held by both sides and that allowed the party out of power to remain as the Loyal Opposition to the governing party.[54]

text: A genuine two-party system began to emerge,[55] with the accession to power of William Pitt the Younger in 1783 leading the new Tories, against a reconstituted "Whig" party led by the radical politician Charles James Fox.[56][57][58]

text: The two party system matured in the early 19th century era of political reform, when the franchise was widened and politics entered into the basic divide between conservatism and liberalism that has fundamentally endured up to the present. The modern Conservative Party was created out of the "Pittite" Tories by Robert Peel, who issued the Tamworth Manifesto in 1834 which set out the basic principles of Conservatism; - the necessity in specific cases of reform in order to survive, but an opposition to unnecessary change, that could lead to "a perpetual vortex of agitation". Meanwhile, the Whigs, along with free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel, and independent Radicals, formed the Liberal Party under Lord Palmerston in 1859, and transformed into a party of the growing urban middle-class, under the long leadership of William Ewart Gladstone. The two party system had come of age at the time of Gladstone and his Conservative rival Benjamin Disraeli after the 1867 Reform Act.[59]

text: History of American political parties[edit]

text: Although the Founding Fathers of the United States did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan,[60] early political controversies in the 1790s saw the emergence of a two-party political system, the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party, centred on the differing views on federal government powers of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.[61][62] However, a consensus reached on these issues ended party politics in 1816 for a decade, a period commonly known as the Era of Good Feelings.[63]

text: Partisan politics revived in 1829 with the split of the Democratic-Republican Party into the Jacksonian Democrats led by Andrew Jackson, and the Whig Party, led by Henry Clay. The former evolved into the modern Democratic Party and the latter was replaced with the Republican Party as one of the two main parties in the 1850s.


document_title: National Bank Note

question_text: when did banks stop printing their own money

root

text: National Bank Note

text: Background[edit]

text: Prior to the American Civil War, state banks issued their own banknotes and chartered private banks to issue banknotes as well. Privately issued banknotes were nominally backed by specie or financial securities held by the banks but oversight of issuing banks often was lax and encouraged wildcat banking, in which fraudulent institutions issued worthless banknotes. During the Civil War, in 1863, the National Banking Act established a system of National Banks which were empowered to issue National Bank Notes subject to federal oversight. The chartering of banks and administrative control over the issuance of National Bank Notes were the responsibility of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.[3] A 2 percent tax on state bank notes was authorized in 1864 to speed conversion to the new system, only to be increased the next year to 10 percent, then 20 percent.

tag: p

text: The program[edit]

text: From 1863 to 1935, National Bank Notes were issued by banks throughout the country and in US territories. Banks with a federal charter would deposit bonds in the US Treasury. The banks then could issue banknotes worth up to 90 percent of the value of the bonds. The federal government would back the value of the notes—the issuance of which created a demand for the government bonds needed to back them.

text: The program was a form of monetization of the Federal debt. Bonds eligible as collateral for posting to the Treasury were said to have the "circulation privilege" and the interest they bore provided seigniorage to the National Banks.

text: The notes[edit]

text: Each National Bank Note bore the issuing bank's national charter number as well as the serial number assigned to the note by that bank. Low serial-numbered notes were often withdrawn as souvenirs by the bank officers who signed them.

text: Large size notes[edit]

text: Except for the last few years of issue, all of the National Bank Notes were large-sized.

text: Through much of their earlier history of issue, national banknotes used designs in which the issuing bank's name was prominently displayed, rather than "The United States Of America". One design used for many years featured a portrait on the obverse, near the left edge, and the bank's name printed in prominent shaded type in the middle. The historical figures seen on these notes usually were different from those on the same denominations of paper currency today.

text: Large-size notes bore two serial numbers. The Treasury serial number indicated the total number of notes of that series and denomination issued by all banks. The bank serial number indicated the number of notes of that series and denomination issued only by that bank. Large size notes also bore four signatures. Two signatures were those of the Register of the Treasury and Treasurer of the United States and were printed as part of the note's design. The other two signatures were those of the bank's cashier and president, and were individually signed by those officers prior to issuing the note. Notes were sent to the bank by the Treasury and typically signed as uncut sheets, so that the top edge of some notes show the lower part of a signature (such as the descender of a "y" or "j") from the note above it. Notes were often cut apart with scissors, so that the top and bottom edges of notes can be uneven and cut into the borders of the design.

text: Most, but not all, large size national banknotes showed the charter number of the issuing bank on the obverse. In some cases the charter number was printed once, but typically the charter number appeared twice. The issuing bank's charter number was carefully positioned inside the engraved border, as well as overprinted elsewhere on the obverse. To aid Treasury workers in sorting banknotes, later large size notes also showed a letter to indicate the region of the country in which the issuing bank was located—"N" for North, "E" for East, "S" for South, "W" for West (now called the Midwest), or "P" for Pacific coast.

text: The first issue of National Bank Notes[edit]

text:
Complete type set (Original and Series 1875, mixed)

Value/series
Bank title
Banknote

$1 Original Series
The First National Bank
Lebanon, Indiana

$2 Series 1875
The First National Bank
Emporia, Kansas

$5 Series 1875
The Vineland National Bank
Vineland, New Jersey

$10 Series 1875
The First National Bank
Bismarck, North Dakota

$20 Series 1875
The First National Bank
Butte, Montana

$50 Series 1875
The First National Bank
Cleveland, Ohio

$100 Original Series
The Raleigh National Bank
Raleigh, North Carolina

$500 Original Series[nb 1]
The Appleton National Bank
Lowell, Massachusetts

$1,000 Series 1875 (proof)[nb 2]
The First National Bank
Salem, Massachusetts

tag: table

text: Small size notes[edit]

text: With the advent of small-size banknotes came significant design changes for all types of paper currency including National Bank Notes. As a result of the changes, each denomination now had the same portrait and, except for minor variations, the same decorative features that would characterize all types of United States currency from the late 1920s to the early 1990s. The elaborate rendition of the bank's name was omitted from engraved design, but was now simply over-stamped in black ink, just above the engraved lettering of the promise-to-pay. Similarly, the issuing bank's charter number was omitted from the engraved border, and now simply overprinted in dark ink.

text: Small size National Bank Notes look very similar to, but are distinctly different from, the emergency 1933 issue of the Federal Reserve Bank Notes. These were printed using National Bank Note plates with slight design changes. Both say "National Currency", but have different issuers.[4]

text: End of the program[edit]

text: National Bank Notes were retired as a currency type by the U.S. government in the 1930s during the great depression as currency in the U.S. was consolidated into Federal Reserve Notes, United States Notes, and silver certificates; privately issued banknotes were eliminated. The passage of the Gold Reserve Act created an accounting gain for the Treasury, part of which was used to provide funds to retire all bonds against which National Banks Notes could be issued.

text: Sometimes these notes are called "hometown" notes, with their popularity deriving from the wide range of towns and cities that issued them. Among paper money hobbyists, especially in the U.S., these notes are avidly studied and collected. Some were issued in large numbers and remain inexpensive to collectors today. Others associated with rare banks, towns, states and combinations thereof and are quite valuable. A note from Walla Walla, in what was then Washington Territory, sold for $161,000 in a June 2010 sale at Heritage Auctions.[5]


document_title: Love Potion No. 9 (song)

question_text: who sings the song love potion number 9

question_tokens: who sings the song love potion number 9

text: Love Potion No. 9 (song)

text:
"Love Potion No. 9"

Single by The Clovers

B-side
"Stay Awhile"

Released
September 1959

Length
2:02

Label
United Artists

Songwriter(s)
Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller

text:
"Love Potion Number Nine"

Single by The Searchers

from the album Meet the Searchers

B-side
"Hi-Heel Sneakers"

Released
1964

Genre
Rock and roll

Length
2:05

Label
Kapp KJB-27

Songwriter(s)
Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller

The Searchers singles chronology

"When You Walk in the Room"
(1964)
"Love Potion Number Nine"
(1964)
"What Have They Done to the Rain"
(1964)

"When You Walk in the Room"
(1964)
"Love Potion Number Nine"
(1964)
"What Have They Done to the Rain"
(1964)

text: "Love Potion No. 9" is a song written in 1959 by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. It was originally performed by the Clovers,[1] who took it to number 23 on the US as well as R&B charts that year.[2][3]

text: History[edit]

text: The song describes a man seeking help to find love, so he talks to a Gypsy who determines, by means of palmistry, that he needs "love potion number 9". The potion, an aphrodisiac, causes him to fall in love with everything he sees, kissing whatever is in front of him, eventually kissing a policeman on the street-corner, who breaks his bottle of love potion.

text: In one recorded version of the ending of the song, The Clovers used the alternative lyrics:

text: The "kissing a cop" lyric led to the song being banned by some radio stations.[citation needed] The lyrics also have the narrator describe himself as being "a flop with chicks since 1956"; later recordings of the song have often changed the year to suit the year of recording or the age of the performer. A notable exception is the Australian alternative rock band Tlot Tlot's recording, which leaves the year in the song as 1956. It also uses the alternative Love Potion No. 10 lyrics.


document_title: A Cinderella Story

question_text: what is the setting of a cinderella story

text: A Cinderella Story

text: Plot[edit]

text: Sam Montgomery lives in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles, with her widowed father Hal, who runs a popular sports-themed diner. Feeling Sam needs a mother, Hal marries a vain gold digger named Fiona, who has socially-awkward fraternal twin daughters, Brianna and Gabriella. During the 1994 Northridge earthquake, Hal is killed when he runs to save Fiona. Due to him having supposedly left no will, Fiona receives all of his belongings, including the house, the diner, and to her dismay, Sam.

text: Eight years later, Sam is employed as a waitress at the diner to save money to attend Princeton University, but she is regularly tormented by her step-family, who constantly insult her and treat her as if they were popular, despite being regarded as obnoxious. Even worse, Fiona, in her vanity, uses the inheritance to live as if they were insanely rich, including spending on minor facial surgeries, and even refuses to save water during the ongoing drought. She has also transformed Hal's beloved diner into something befitting of her own image, demands that salmon be served and included in over half the dishes and takes Sam's earnings. Sam struggles to cope socially at North Valley High School, where queen bee cheerleader Shelby Cummings also torments her and calls her "Diner Girl", along with other members of the popular clique.

text: Sam confides in her online pen pal "Nomad" about her dream to attend Princeton, a dream which he also shares. However, Nomad's true identity is Austin Ames, the popular, yet unhappy, quarterback of the school's football team and Shelby's ex-boyfriend, although she refuses to accept that he has broken up with her. He is unhappy because his father planned for him to go to the University of Southern California with a football scholarship rather than going to Princeton. Nomad proposes that they meet in person at the school's Halloween-themed homecoming dance. On the night of the dance, Fiona orders Sam to work the night shift at the diner, then leaves to drive Brianna and Gabriella to the dance. Initially reluctant, Sam is convinced by her best friend, Carter Ferrell, to go to the dance and meet her mysterious online friend.

text: Rhonda, the diner's head waitress who has looked after Sam, and the rest of the diner staff also convince her to disobey Fiona and go to the dance anyway. Sam, wearing a mask and Rhonda's old wedding dress, meets Nomad at the dance, and is surprised to learn that he is Austin, who had become smitten with her upon her entrance. The two decide to leave the party to walk alone and get to know each other a little better. While sharing a romantic dance, Sam and Austin begin to fall in love. But just as Austin is about to unmask her, Sam's cell phone alarm goes off, warning her to return to the diner before Fiona at midnight. She leaves without revealing her identity to Austin, and drops her phone on the way out.

text: Austin picks up her phone and begins a desperate search to figure out who his "Cinderella" really is, but every girl at school claims to be the mysterious owner of the phone. Sam is reluctant to reveal her identity to Austin, feeling that he will not accept her due to their different social circles. When Austin comes into the diner one day, Sam is forced to help him and, after a talk, she attempts to reveal her identity to him, but is cut off by Fiona. Sam's stepsisters end up discovering Sam and Austin's email relationship, and (after having failed to convince Austin that one of them is the owner of the phone) convince Shelby that Sam tried to steal Austin from her. During a pep rally, they and the other cheerleaders humiliate Sam in front of the entire school and expose her identity, as well as naming her an impostor, horrifying the school staff, Carter and Sam. Austin, hurt by Sam's secrecy, is unable to step up to defend her, and Sam leaves the pep rally in tears.

text: Like Austin, Sam is revealed to have been accepted to Princeton, only to be duped by Fiona into believing she was rejected by having a fake rejection letter made in order to keep Sam working at the diner and as her slave. Sam then decides to give up on her dreams and resigns herself to a lifetime of working at the diner, but Rhonda gives Sam a pep talk on not losing hope. When her stepsisters come into the diner, they slam the door, causing a guitar clock to fall off the wall, tearing the wallpaper down with it, and quickly blame it on Sam. However, the torn section reveals an inspirational quote Hal often said, "Never let the fear of striking out keep you from playing the game" (in real life, this quote came from Babe Ruth) and fills Sam with hope. She stands up to Fiona and her stepsisters stating that she will no longer put up with their emotional abuse, quits her job at the diner, and moves in with Rhonda, who also quits along with the entire diner staff, all of whom had only put up with so many years of Fiona's abuse after Hal's death for Sam's sake. The customers, who witness the entire scene, promptly leave in disgust as well.

text: Before the school's homecoming football game, Sam confronts Austin about his cowardice and not defending her at the pep rally, as well as for his seeming reluctance to show his true self. Before the final play of the game, he sees Sam making her way out of the stands, and finally stands up to his father, saying he wants to attend Princeton rather than simply play football all his life. He chases after Sam and apologizes. She accepts his apology, and they share their first kiss as rain falls over the drought-plagued valley (at the same time, the North Valley High Fighting Frogs win the football game). Soon after, Sam finds Hal's will hidden in her childhood fairy-tale book, stating that all of his money and possessions actually belong to her. Since this leaves her as the rightful and legal owner, Sam sells her step-family's fancy cars so that she can pay for college, and Fiona, who claims to have never seen the will before despite the fact she clearly signed it as a witness, is arrested for financial fraud and violating California's child labor laws for all the times she made Sam work long hours at the diner in spite of her being a minor.

text: Sam finds that she was in fact accepted at Princeton; the acceptance letter is retrieved from the garbage by her stepsisters, who knew where Fiona hid it. Fiona, Brianna, and Gabriella are made by the District Attorney to work off the money they stole from Sam at the diner, which is restored to its former glory by its new owners, Sam and Rhonda. Also, Austin's father comes to accept his son's desire to attend Princeton. Things even work out in the end for Carter as he makes a commercial for a new acne medication. Shelby, having previously cheated off of Carter's school work and rejected him for being an outcast even after he was a proper gentleman to her at the Halloween dance, aims to pursue him since he is now popular, but after finally seeing her true colors at the pep rally, he turns her down for Astrid, the high school's goth DJ and announcer. The film ends with Sam and Austin, now officially a couple, driving off to Princeton together after Sam gets her phone back from Austin.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Hilary Duff as Samantha "Sam" Montgomery
Hannah Robinson as young Sam
Chad Michael Murray as Austin Ames
Jennifer Coolidge as Fiona
Madeline Zima as Brianna
Carlie Westerman as young Brianna
Andrea Avery as Gabriella
Lilli Babb as young Gabriella
Regina King as Rhonda
Dan Byrd as Carter Ferrell
Julie Gonzalo as Shelby Cummings
Whip Hubley as Harold "Hal" Montgomery
Brad Bufanda as David
Simon Helberg as Terry
J. D. Pardo as Ryan Hanson
Erica Hubbard as Madison
Kady Cole as Caitlyn
Aimee Lynn Chadwick as Astrid
Lin Shaye as Mrs. Wells
Kevin Kilner as Andy Ames
Mary Pat Gleason as Eleanor
Paul Rodriguez as Bobby
James Eckhouse as Mr. Farrell
Jonathan Slavin as Vernon

tag: ul

text: Reception[edit]

text: On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 11% based on 103 reviews, with an average rating of 3.6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "An uninspired, generic updating of the classic fairy tale."[2] On Metacritic, the film has a score on 25 out of 100, based on 30 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".[3] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "A–" on an A+ to F scale.[4]

text: Roger Ebert called A Cinderella Story "a lame, stupid movie".[5] The film was nominated for five Teen Choice Awards at the 2005 ceremony, winning the award for Choice Movie Blush Scene, the same year Duff won the Kids Choice Awards for Favorite Movie Actress. In 2005, Duff also received a nomination for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress.

text: Box office[edit]

text: In its opening weekend, the film grossed $13,623,350 in 2,625 theaters in the United States and Canada, ranking #4 at the box office, behind I, Robot, Spider-Man 2 and Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. The next week, it dropped in #5, with newcomers The Bourne Supremacy and Catwoman. By the end of its run, A Cinderella Story grossed $51,438,175 domestically and $18,629,734 internationally, totaling $70,067,909 worldwide.[1]

text: Soundtrack[edit]

text: Sequels[edit]

text: The film was followed by three direct-to-video sequels, are featured the modern day versions of the Cinderella character: Another Cinderella Story (2008) with Selena Gomez, A Cinderella Story: Once Upon a Song (2011) with Lucy Hale and A Cinderella Story: If the Shoe Fits (2016) with Sofia Carson. The sequels use the themes and situations but do not contain any characters from the first film. Unlike the first film, the sequels also include musical and dance themes.