Top-Rated Free Essay
Preview

Jeffersionan Republicans vs. Federalists

Good Essays
1656 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Jeffersionan Republicans vs. Federalists
Maria E. Garcia
APUSH
1st pd
October 17, 2013

During the Revolutionary Period in the early 19th century, the two dominant political parties, the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists, had many conflicting belies. The Federalists believed that the federal government had certain implied powers that were not laid out in the Constitution. The Jeffersonian Republicans, on the other hand, believed that the government did not have the power to do anything that was not granted in the document. The DemocraticRepublicans can habitually be depicted as strict constitutionalists and the Federalists can be seen as broad constructionists, but to a certain extent, this classification of these two parties during the administrations of Jefferson and Madison, from 1801 to 1817, were fallacious as they occasionally strayed from their core beliefs for what they thought may benefit the United States; Jefferson and Madison both stuck to their original political beliefs for the most part, but in certain cases, strayed from these beliefs for the good of their country.

The Federalists, which were originally led by Alexander Hamilton for his opposition to the Democratic Republicans, stressed the need for order, authority, and regularity in the political world. They believed in the idea of a broad interpretation of the Constitution. Northern merchants and commercially oriented farmers tended to form part of this faction; Americans of English stock also conformed the Federal party. Unlike Republicans, thy had no grassroots political organization and emphasized poorly on involving ordinary people in government. One of their most important issues was the great debt that America was going through. Alexander Hamilton saw this situation and proposed that Congress assumes outstanding state debts, combine them with national obligations and pay interests. His aim was to expand the financial research of the U.S, government and reduce economic power of the states. This was opposed by James Madison that argued that there was no state debt since Virginia, his own state, had already paid. Hamilton agreed to change the plan to benefit Virginia. With this, the first part of Hamilton's program became law in August 1790,later leading to the idea of the First Bank of the United States. The conflict that the Republicans argued against this is wether the Constitution gave Congress the power to establish such bank. Which arose to the differences of interpretation of the Constitution. When Hamilton argued that Congress could choose any means not specifically prohibited by the Constitution to achieve constitutional end. Later, the bill became law, and the bank proved successful. Oppositions between these parties grew, thus creating hatred. This is when political parties started a sort of attacks. Since the members of the House of Representatives voted as coherent groups rather than as individuals(factional loyalty) the amount of non aligned congressmen significantly dropped in 1796, which aided the Federalists to control the first three congresses throughout the spring of 1795. In the spring of 1798, the federalists controlled the Fifth Congress and adopted a set of four laws know as the Alien and Sedition Acts, intended to support dissent and prevent further growth of the Republican party. At first they were claimed as being designed to to protect the U.S. from alien citizens of enemy power and to stop attacks from weakening the government, but the Democratic Republicans attacked these laws as being unconstitutional since the Sedition Act did not protected the vice- president, which occurs to be Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican. These Acts were, however, never appealed to the Supreme Court because they had no rights of judicial review, which were issued by president John Marshal, until 1803 in the case known as Marbury v. Madison. In the case, he ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission of a writ of mandamus but that the court could not compel Madison to honor it, because the Constitution did not grant the Court the power to issue the writ. Thus, President Marshall authorized the Court to issue such writs. The Supreme Court claimed its power to judge the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. This came to me known as judicial review. But it was not all good for the country. During the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, there was war going between France and England, and both countries demanded that they could not ally with the other. Without any choice, president Jefferson prohibited trade with either England or France. This is known as the Embargo Act of 1807. This angered the New Englanders which proclaimed against the injustice and the negative impact of the Embargo Act[Doc C] and even talked about seceding the nation. At Jefferson's renounce the act eventually collapsed under the pressure of domestic opposition. In his last days in office, he tried to lighten the burden by working to replace the embargo with the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809. The Act reopened trade with all nations except Britain and France. When this Act expired in 1810, Congress created the Macon's Bill Number 2 which reopened trade with GB and France, but provided that if either nation ceased to violate American rights, the president could shut down trade. But the French continued to seize American ships. Since the Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic Ocean, Britain was the main target of American hostility. Frustrated and having exhausted all efforts to alter British policy, the U.S. in 1811 and 1812 drifter into war with Great Britain. The war consisted mostly of scuffles and skirmishes; full scale war was rare. But still, Daniel Webster felt that the federal government doesn't have a right to draft man into military[Doc D]. When the war was ended by the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, Federalists delegates from New England met in Hartford, Connecticut to revise the national compact or to pull out of the republic, since they opposed the war. They came up with foolish resolutions [Doc E] which stated their displeasure with the current functions of the national government.When the news about the victory at New Orleans and the peace treaty reached the Hartford convention, the talk about secession and constitutional amendment looked ridiculous and treasonous. This seemed to be the end of the Federalist party. They retreated before a rising tide of nationalism.

While in office, the majority of Jefferson's political philosophy was the same as a constructionist's political philosophy. In Jefferson's first year of his presidency, he gave George Granger a letter in which he states his beliefs of following the Constitution strictly, and his opponents' (the Federalists) political views of loose interpretation [Doc A]. It can be implied through this letter that Jefferson believed that the Federalist's view of loose interpretation would lead to a superior national government, similar to that of a monarchy, which would cut out state's rights which are clearly laid out in the Constitution. Jefferson wrote a letter in his last year of office to Samuel Miller [Doc B], in which he reinforces the image of a strict constitution by stating that he intends to break the precedent of his predecessors to better adhere to the Constitution's policy of separation of church and state. Another example of Jefferson's strict allegiance to the Constitution was his philosophy that the National Bank should not be established because it was unconstitutional. Similar to Jefferson, Madison stuck to his Jeffersonian Republican political beliefs for the most part. Speaking for Madison, Daniel Webster questioned Congress's ability to draft men for the military on the sole argument that the power to do so is not listed in the Constitution. He said that if Congress was not to adhere to the Constitution completely, they would be turning their country into a dictatorship [Doc D]. In his own address to Congress, Madison says that funds cannot be set apart for the development of transportation because that power is not stated in the Constitution [Doc H]. Both of these documents show Madison's very strict constructionists beliefs, and support that common characteristic of Jeffersonian Republicans. In addition to these things, Madison also vetoed the Bonus Bill because it granted the federal government power that wasn't supported by the Constitution. Both Jefferson and Madison supported the characterization of Jeffersonian Republicans as strict constructionists, but in face of political popularity, were forced to retire or compromise some of their core beliefs. For example, because of Jefferson's lack of popularity at the beginning of his presidency, he could not quickly abolish the national bank supported under Adams, even though it was not granted by the Constitution. Jefferson's biggest defiance of his strict interpretation of the Constitution came from his purchase of the Louisiana Territory. Even though the Constitution didn't grant the ability to purchase the territory, Jefferson did so anyway because he couldn't pass an offer to double the size of the country. After his presidency, Jefferson wrote a letter to Samuel Kercheval that showed his support for changing the Constitution since times were changing [Doc G]. This was a huge step from Jefferson's previous statements that the federal government couldn't do anything without it first being granted by the Constitution. Madison is also guilty for the same types of actions. John Randolph accused Madison of having Federalist ideals, specifically referring to Madison using the federal government to set the Tariff of 1816 [Doc F]. Madison also received criticism for his "American System"; The American System set up things not supported by the Constitution, such as the Second Bank of the United States.

From looking at the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, one can see the ideals of their political party, the Democratic Republicans, emerge. One can also see the hypocriticalness of their said beliefs, through events such as the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, and the reestablishment of the national bank. Sometimes, political views had to be disregarded when trying to care for either the overall well-being of the United States, or when trying to keep one's own popularity high. Generally, Democratic Republicans were strict constructionists and the Federalists were broad constructionists, but the actions under the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison did not always support these views

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The two main political parties in early America, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, fought many ideological and political battles from 1790 to 1810. Conflicts between these two parties grew out of their opposing ideologies the Democratic-Republicans supported states rights and a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, whereas the Federalists favored a strong central government and a broader interpretation of the Constitution. However there are more than 3 major topics that I could talk about involving the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans between the years 1789 and 1812. Some of the topics are boring and some of the topics are pretty interesting.…

    • 383 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    1998 Dbq Essay

    • 1116 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Federalist dominated national politics for the first decade of our nation’s history and it was not until the Revolution of 1800 when the Jefferson and his Republicans took over. In a letter to Gideon Granger, a fellow Republican, Jefferson expresses his opinion that the Federalist indeed do not observe the obvious principles of the Constitution and that the Republicans true “preservation” of the Constitution will lead them to a majority in the legislature, (Document A). This piece of information shows support to the idea that the Republicans were strict constructionists of the Constitution and their looking down of the Federalists who took a broader…

    • 1116 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    With respect to the federal Constitution, the Democratic-Republicans were usually characterized as strict constructionists who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the Federalists. As history dictates, this is substantially accurate. In the time frame of 1801-1817, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Republican presidents of the time, demonstrated the differences of the Republican Party in several aspects involving the interpretation of the Constitution. The Democratic-Republicans believed that the government should follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and held the idea that this would allow honest representation of the people and prevent government corruption. However, the Federalists were firm believers in the production of a strong central government and a broad interpretation of the Constitution.…

    • 1140 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout the 1800's, Jeffersonian Republicans thought that the federal government’s power was confined to the grants of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Federalists believed in the broad construction that gave the government any power that was not forbidden by the constitution. Despite the fact that the Jeffersonian Republicans believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and Federalists believe in a loose interpretation, these beliefs were misrepresented according to the party’s views on the authority of the government during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. During this time, the Jeffersonian Republicans beliefs were inverted with the beliefs of the Federalists. The Jeffersonian Republicans leaned toward a loose interpretation and the Federalists leaned toward a strict one.…

    • 839 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The federalists were mostly developed by high-class wealthy merchants, bankers, manufactures or professional men from New England and the Atlantic Seaboard, along with farmers and Southern planters. They admired the English aristocracy. Federalists considered the common people ignorant and incapable of self-government. They desired high voting qualifications claiming that unfettered democracy was anarchy. They favored a broad interpretation of the constitution to strengthen the central government at the expense of the state’s rights and wanted an expanding bureaucracy.…

    • 312 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the Federalists, and his party believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution. This means they think that certain powers not specifically given to the federal government was more or less implied. Hamilton says “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” He and the Federalists think the government needs more control to run its…

    • 434 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Alexander Hamilton, one of the most important people of the time, was the first Secretary of the Treasury. Utilizing federal power to modernize the nation, he convinced Congress to use an elastic interpretation of the Constitution to pass laws that Jefferson deemed unconstitutional. These laws included federal assumption of the state debts, creation of a national bank, and a system of taxes through a tariff on imports and a tax on whiskey. Hamilton was also the creator of the Federalist Party. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson was born to a wealthy family but was nonetheless an anti-federalist. He was sympathetic towards the poor people and advocated state’s rights.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    With many different views on how to run the government, it was hard to depict which parties’ group would be the strongest and the best fit to control the country: the Federalists’ or the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists’ wanted a very strong government to bring together the bickering states. On the other hand, the Democratic-Republicans pictured more independent state governments to rule the people. Although they didn’t agree on many things they did have one idea in common, such as, both parties wanted to follow the Constitution, but in different ways.…

    • 499 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Through the development and drafting of the constitution, two political parties were born. One labeled as strict constructionists, the Jeffersonian Republicans, and the other labeled as broad constructionists, the Federalists. The Democratic-Republicans such as Thomas Jefferson, were first labeled as anti-federalists and believed the states should have the most power in the government and most vowed not to sign the constitution without the addition of a Bill of Rights. They believed that if a power was not specifically stated in the constitution, then it could not be acted upon. The Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton, believed that they could exercise whichever powers on the basis that, even if a power was not physically stated, it could be interpreted from the specified powers. During the presidencies of Washington and Adams these characterizations of the two parties remained evident, but during the presidencies of Republicans, such as Jefferson and Madison, the line between strict and broad constructionism became a little more unclear. After the election of 1800 both the Federalist and Democratic-Republican party began to back down on their views of constructionism when faced with the task of deciding what would benefit the nation most.…

    • 1427 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Hamiltonian Federalism- Alexander Hamilton wanted to form a strong union with the states and federal government. He sought an increase in the power/control of the federal government over the individual states. Hamilton also wanted a bank of the State so that loans could be put out to manufacturers and commercial enterprises. He felt like it was necessary to create a large national debt so that the government's credit would be built up over time. Finally, he wanted to place/raise tariffs on foreign goods to promote American manufacturing and the affordability of the products.…

    • 248 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In fact, the Federalist Party was led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. They favored a strong central government and believed that the Constitution should be interpreted loosely. As treasury secretary, Hamilton devised 3 major reports to Congress as a way to enhance national authority and assist economic development. The lucid program presented the expansion on national mercantilism, it consisted of: public credit, a national bank, and manufactures. In fact, the report was welcomed by foreign and domestic creditors.…

    • 809 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout the period of 1801-1817 there were a couple ways the two parties of Democratic Republican and Federalists extended both strict and loose characterizations of the constitution, that shows the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison were not as much of a stereotype. The Democratic Republicans had many ways of being strict through the constitution and a couple ways of being loose. Along with the Democratic Republicans the Federalists were more strict than loose when it came to the constitution and together both the Democratic Republicans and Federalists shows hoe Jefferson and Madison were not much of a stereotype of other presidents.…

    • 798 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    After the American Revolutionary war, the budding country was deeply in debt. People had different ideas on how to pay off this debt, later leading to the formation of political parties. The Federalist Party was formed and they believed that it was in the new country’s best interest to have a strong centralized…

    • 1602 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    By 1817 the great American experiment was in full swing. America was developing into an effective democratic nation. However as the democracy continued to grow, two opposing political parties developed, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. The Jeffersonian Republicans believed in strong state governments, a weak central government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Federalists saw it differently. They opted for a powerful central government with weaker state governments, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. The seemingly solid divide between Federalist and Republican would begin to blur during the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. For, neither Republican president was able lead the nation with purely republican ideals.…

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    During the early years of our nation, there was not a great deal of brotherly love, peace and agreement that could be found in the government. Two political parties had evolved that possessed interests that spanned both ends of every argument and political idea. The Federalists believed that the nation should have a very centralized government and stood firm that this would bring about the most order and prosperity. To the contrary, Republicans wanted the rights to stay with the people and States and therefore felt that the federal government should have little control to protect the rights of the people. Many historical documents record the struggles between the two parties. The main struggles revolved around three areas. The first area…

    • 866 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays