Assessing whether the New Deal 'fundamentally changed' federal-state relations
You are answering a 25-mark question: 'The New Deal fundamentally changed the relationship between the federal government and the states.' Your source pack contains: A, Roosevelt's 1936 Madison Square Garden speech attacking 'economic royalists'; B, the Supreme Court's 1935 Schechter decision striking down the National Industrial Recovery Act; C, a 1935 radio address by a businessmen's association warning that federal regulation threatens local self-government; D, a historian's table of federal outlays as a share of GDP and federal employment, 1930–1940. You have 35 minutes. Your draft argues that because the New Deal created many agencies, it was a fundamental change. Your teacher marks this as 'assertion, not judgement' and notes that agencies can be temporary, that the Court blocked parts of the programme, and that the Second World War is outside the source pack.
1. What does 'fundamental change' require you to demonstrate, and how does your draft fail that test?
Read the worked answer
'Fundamental change' requires more than institutional invention. It requires evidence of durability beyond the 1930s, a constitutional or legal shift in federal authority, a change in the everyday capacity to regulate the economy and provide welfare, and a comparison with the pre-1933 norm. The draft fails because it infers change from the number of agencies. Many agencies were temporary; the Supreme Court struck down the NIRA in Schechter; the 1937–38 recession and later retrenchment tested the programme; and Source D's fiscal data may show a spike rather than a permanent plateau. A better test would ask whether federal spending, regulation and public expectation remained higher after the New Deal than before it-and whether that change survived the war.
2. Assess the usefulness of sources B and C for the claim.
Read the worked answer
Source B is valuable because it is a legal decision by the highest court, showing that constitutional limits were real and that parts of the New Deal were blocked. Its limitation is that it addresses the NIRA specifically, not the whole New Deal, and courts can later reverse doctrine. Source C is useful for showing organised business opposition and the language of local self-government, but it is a partisan radio address by an interest group, so it is evidence of argument and resistance, not of the actual effect on federalism. Together they show that the New Deal was contested, which qualifies any straightforward claim of fundamental change.
3. Construct a nuanced conclusion to the essay.
Read the worked answer
The New Deal did fundamentally change expectations and federal capacity: it created new agencies, established welfare and regulatory precedents, and made Washington a direct actor in citizens' lives. But 'fundamental' is too strong if it means a permanent constitutional revolution or the end of local autonomy. The Court blocked key elements, business resistance persisted, and full fiscal centralisation came with the Second World War. A defensible judgement is therefore conditional: the New Deal was a fundamental turning point in federal ambition and institutional capacity, but not a complete transformation of the federal-state balance.