Jeffersonian (Democratic) Republican’s were established by Thomas Jefferson in 1801 and lasted until 1810. The act of rural farming and owning land was important to this group because they believed “the United States needs (needed) steady independent farmers/ citizens tilling their own land.” They feared cities with manufacturing would create too many landless citizens who would then depend on corporations. The Jeffersonian Era was known as the period of physical nation-building, as a result of the emphasis on farming and living the agrarian way of life. The Federalist were established by Alexander Hamilton in 1700 and lasted until 1800. Urban manufacturing was important to this group as a result of the idea of wage labor, workers who are paid …show more content…
Free [slave] vs wage labor was a prevalent issues around the late 1880’s. The Federalist believe that wage labor is a more modern way of life than slavery. Except, to the Jeffersonian (Democratic) Republicans, slavery to them is “necessary” and important to the plantation society. Ultimately by the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the Jeffersonian Era, it was clear that the success of the economy was “built on the backs of enslave people.” By the time of the Antebellum Period, the act of abolishing slavery was well …show more content…
state power was significant during the early 1800’s. Hamilton favored a strong central government with the power to control commerce, taxes, declare war, and make treaties. He also thought that individual states will survive because they will be able to depend on a strong federal government. In 1801when Jefferson was elected into office, he wanted to limit the role of the national government because he believed the power of the government should be in the hands of the states and the people. Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay in 1849, during the Antebellum Period, titled “Resistance to Civil Government”, expressing his thoughts about the “government required (requiring) an individual to violate his or her own morality, it had no legitimate authority.” From this, one might assume that the issue of federal vs. state power is important during this time, but in a different
Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy are the same in just about every regard. Their views and goals as presidents are the same. Both are in favor of the common man and feel that it is the common people who should have the biggest influence on government, not the wealthy aristocrats. They also support states rights and feel that the federal government should not get involved with the state affairs. Both men's actions clearly show that the common man does not include minorities.
During the early 1800s, two parties were developed having different perspectives on government and the Constitution. The Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were always characterized by following the strict construction of the constitution. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were characterized by following the broad construction of the constitution. The presidencies of Jefferson and Madison proved this characterization to be somewhat accurate. Although the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists did support their own ideas and views, they also did many things that contradicted them.
Jefferson’s presidency was to a certain extent a “Republican Revolution” and to a certain extent it was a Federalist Continuation. Jefferson proclaimed his “Republican Revolution” to help the average farmer and reduce the Federal debt the United States had acquired due to war and to reduce the power of the Federal Government. Jefferson had based the ideals of the “Republican Revolution” on his strict interpretation of the Constitution and did not believe in loose interpretations, opposing Hamilton’s proposal of having a Federal Bank. Jefferson would largely focus on helping the average person, as he would try to support the common man through his decisions. He would try to lower the Federalists control as well as power and give equality.
Politically, there were questions about the amount power given to the federal government vs the states; as question since the adoption of the Constitution. At times states felt the need to question the power federal government. For example in the Decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) confirmed that no state could tax federal property, enforcing the supremacy clause (Document D). While this reinforced a nationalist point of view that challenge was clearly sectionalist in nature. Efforts to diffuse political rivalries were also present. An example was the request for Missouri statehood in late 1819 who was also requesting that slavery be permitted. To diffuse the sectionalist debate the Missouri Compromise was placed by congress. At the time the U.S. contained 22 states, evenly divided between slave and free. (Page 155).... (QUOTE BY JEFFERSON) A sectionalism standpoint was also depicted in the presidential election of 1824 where each state differed in voting for the men running for the same position (Document
The states attempted to limit the power of the national government because they feared that it would become a monarchy. In an effort to limit the power of the national government, Congress created one without enough power to govern effectively, which led to serious national and international problems. One of the main weaknesses under the Articles of Confederation was its incapability to regulate trade and levy taxes. The states controlled all of their “cash flows.” Sometimes, the states were in debt because of tariff wars that they would engage in with one another.
Thomas Jefferson has an amazing role in our lives today from the hard work and time he spent to make an easier future for all of us. There are days that some of us could not thrive as the people we are without the appliances he made to make challenging tasks easier for us. Some people look up to him because he never stopped doing great things and never stopped showing unselfishness. Thomas Jefferson revolutionized the world of the 18th century and centuries to come. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most influential people of the 18th century because he was one of the founding fathers of America, he was the founder of the University of Virginia, and he was the creator of many life changing inventions, which drastically changed the world.
Before 1801, the Jeffersonian Republicans were usually strict constructionists of the constitution. However during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison they had to adopt some Federalist ideas. In many instances, the two parties completely interchanged their views on the construction of the constitution. During that period of time it was difficult to characterize anyone as a member of either the Federalist or Republican party based on how they interpreted the constitution.
During the period 1800-1817, the Jeffersonians to a great extent compromised their political principles and essentially “out Federalized the Federalists”. While traditional Jeffersonian Republicanism advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and an emphasis on an agrarian economic system, the actual policies of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were markedly different from their theoretical principles. This obvious compromise of Jeffersonian principles is evident in the Federal government’s assumption of broad-based political powers and institution of capitalistic Hamiltonian economic reforms, both of which stemmed from Jefferson and Madison’s adoption of broad constructionist policies.
During the period of time between 1789 and 1840, there were a lot of major changes occurring on the issue of slavery such as the impact it had towards the economy and the status of slaves in general. There were two types of African Americans slaves during the era, either doing hard cheap labor in a plantation usually owned by a white and being enslaved, or free. Undoubtedly, the enslaved African Americans worked vigorously receiving minimal pay, while on the other hand, the free ones had quite a different lifestyle. The free ones had more freedom, money, land/power, are healthier, younger and some even own plantations. In addition, in 1820 the Missouri compromise took into effect, which made it so states North of the 36°30′ parallel would be free and South would be slave and helped give way to new laws regarding the issue of slavery.
Jefferson’s agricultural viewpoint was vastly different from Hamilton’s manufacturing perspective. Though they both envisioned a great and prosperous nation, they had contrasting opinions on how this should occur. Hamilton, a Federalist, believed the rich and powerful should be the central government for all people, as they knew better how to foster and protect the em...
The argument between Federalists and Anti-Federalists might seem long gone to American citizens, but still their philosophical foundations shape the teams, scope and size of the battlefield. These philosophies go back to two lone men, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Both fought aggressively for a government based on their ideas, and both did make portions of the now-standing American government. This essay will outline the political, social and economic philosophies of both men, how their philosophies influenced the government today, and a closing opinion.
Hamilton implored the newly formed 13 States of the United States of the need for a strong federal government; he feared the grave dangers awaiting this newly formed body of States. “A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages “(Hamilton).
To define the terminology of federalism to a simplistic way is the sharing of sovereignty between the national government and the local government. It is often described as the dual sovereignty of governments between the national and the local to exert power in the political system. In the US it is often been justified as one of the first to introduce federalism by the ‘founding fathers’ which were developed in order to escape from the overpowered central government. However, federalism in the United States is hitherto uncertain where the power lies in the contemporary political system. In this essay I will outline and explain how power relationship alternates between states and federal government. Moreover I will also discuss my perspective by weighing the evidence based upon resources. Based on these resources, it will aid me to evaluate the recent development in the federal-state relationship.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.