During the early 1800s America was still developing, trying to develop the government so it can learn to stand up on its own. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison played a key role in the country’s developing time, they created the idea of strict v. broad constructionism. Political parties were contradicting each other on the different point of views they had on the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson during his presidency sometimes made decisions that were based literally on the Constitution, whereas James Madison being a broad constructionist didn’t always take the Constitution literally.
Jefferson and Madison sometimes characterized their parties accurately by allowing certain powers to be given by the people. An example from Jefferson writing
…show more content…
For example document a states, “sink the state government.” The letter from Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger mainly argues that the constitution is the best, and what it says should be done. Jefferson advocated for state’s right over national institution. He wanted more power to be given to the states. This document accurately supporters that Jefferson stood for his Democratic Republic's politics, they believed that the Constitution should be taken literally. Another example is from document d which states, “where is it written in the Constitution.” This shows Madison taking the Constitution strictly. This document talked about where in the constitution is stated that children can be taken away from their parents. He is taking the Constitution strictly, wanting to see where exactly does it give the power to take children away from parents. In this example Madison did not accurately characterize his party, because federalists believed in taking the Constitution lightly, but here Madison was taking the Constitution literally. Another example is from Jefferson writing a letter to Samuel Kercheval, “not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions”. In this example Jefferson can be seen against the Constitution. His political party believed that the Constitution should be taken literally, but in
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson brought many different viewpoints and strengths after the establishment of the Constitution but they both put the nation’s stability first and wanted to preserve the wellbeing of the people first by Adams ending the Quazi war and Jefferson making the Louisiana Purchase.
The creation of political parties originally caused some conflict. Many people thought that they were evil. As time went on, the people warmed up to the idea, and characterizations of the Republican and Federalist parties began. The Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, strictly interpreted the Constitution, but eventually, they loosened their views on the interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand, Federalists held views on a loose interpretation of the Constitution, until they realized that a more strict interpretation could be a good thing.
During the American Revolution, the Americans aspired to keep their government as far away from the resemblance of the British government as possible. Politics were changing in a time where the monarchs ruled the American people, that had to be put to a stop. States’ rights were being advocated into the new United States government as much as humanly possible. James Madison was a helper in writing the Federalist papers along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton. Madison writes “you must first enable the government to control the governed” (Doc I), which demonstrates the authority that the Federalists initially wanted
He states that the government had too many leaders and not enough followers. That the government administrated by too many people who had a different motive on running the state. In addition, Madison agreed to what Hamilton was saying. Therefore, Madison helped Hamilton settle this dilemma. “It has been seen that delinquencies in the members of the Union are its natural and necessary offspring; and that whenever they happen, the only constitutional remedy is a force, and the immediate effect of the use of it, civil war.” (Hamilton) Hamilton father explains why this would be a problem with government and predicts what might happen if it reaches to that point. “To this reasoning, it may perhaps be objected, that if any State should be disaffected to the authority of the Union, it could at any time obstruct the execution of its laws, and bring the matter to the same issue of force, with the necessity of which the opposite scheme is reproached.” (Hamilton) Both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison wrote the 18th and 19th Federalist paper. The 18th article spoke about contradicting the argument of anti-federalists that proposed a monarchical rule in America. Madison states that if the anti-federalist and federalist do not collaborate on the rule that they established for the people. They would become like the people in Greek history. “Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes.” Demonstrating a jealous view of power and disorganized fashion. “Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun
Political parties can mobilize the nation as a movement for change. Zeal can be too emotional and partisan, but it can be good if used toward republican ideals. Madison believed that the creation of the Jeffersonian-Republican Party was a good thing because it fought for republican ideals. The Federalists, whom he called Anti-republicans, he charged with deserting true republican principles (Reichley 49). Most political societies will have two natural societies, he explained, the haves and the have-nots. The haves supported those who had power and money and would protect their power and money, using power and force, thinking that the have-nots were incapable of governing themselves. The Jeffersonian-Republican Party represented the have-nots, the great body of the people (Reichley 43). Since the party that Madison helped create was representing the majority of the people, it supports his argument in Federalist No. 51 ¨a coalition of a majority of the whole could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good.” The majority of people are normally right, so if the majority of people were against the Federalists, then the Jeffersonian-Republicans were filling a republican
With respect to the federal constitution, the Jeffersonian Republicans are usually characterized as strict constructionists who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the Federalists. To what extent was this characterization of the two parties accurate during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison.
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.
As the young colonies of America broke away from their mother country and began to grow and develop into an effective democratic nation, many changes occurred. As the democracy began to grow, two main political parties developed, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. Each party had different views on how the government should be run. The Jeffersonian Republicans believed in strong state governments, a weak central government, and a strict construction of the Constitution. The Federalists opted for a powerful central government with weaker state governments, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Throughout the years, the political parties have grown, developed, and even dispersed into totally new factions. Many of the inconsistencies and changes can be noted throughout the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
However, Jefferson and Madison each picked somewhere to stand their ground and keep some of their Republican views. Jefferson didn't out right abandon Republican views. Jefferson's mission was to restore republicanism, to check the growth of government power, and to stop the decline of virute that had set in during Federalist rule. In his inaugural address he stated, "The will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; the minority posses their equal rights, which equal law must project, and to violate would be oppression." A Republican view was to be ruled by informed masses which is majority rule.
views one can take. The Constitution can be viewed as a "living document" or in
...r to help each other and also contribute to voting for the country. However, even today America still has political party groups which affect the country both positively and negatively unlike what Washington had thought. He stated that parties would cause problems, however the parties are what keep the government intact and it also helps make decisions for the country.
In today's day in age, the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be completely diverse. These two parties have completely opposing views on topics ranging from social issues, health care, tax policy, labor and free trade, foreign policy, crime and capital punishment, energy and environmental issues, and even education. Once upon a time however, these two groups were not as polarized as they have become. Both were once a single party known as the Democratic-Republican Party, formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791. This sole party favored the idea of a decentralized, democratic government. They despised the idea of the U.S government becoming anything similar to England's monarchy system at the time. They also supported states’ rights as well as the literal and strict interpretation of the U.S Constitution. The group's purpose was to stand against the Federalists who were
Throughout the period dating from 1801 to 1817, the United States government was primarily controlled by the Jeffersonian Republican party, whereas the Federalist Party began to slowly fade away from public view. The Jeffersonian Republican party, led by Thomas Jefferson, professed to favor a weak central government through the support of more states' rights, "...that the states are independent... to...themselves...and united as to everything respecting foreign nations." (Document A). The Federalists of the United States were known as the loose constructionists, where if there is something which the constitution does not state, then it should be allowed to be done. The Jeffersonian Republicans were known as strict constructionists for their views towards the constitution that if there is anything that is not in the constitution, then it cannot be done. The Jeffersonian Republican party centered many of their political moves on the basis of creating a strong agricultural society with a weakly centralized government where each of the states have more rights to govern themselves, where the Federalist party believed more strongly on industrializing the nation and creating a strong central government. Even though strict constructionism was the idea behind the Jeffersonian Republican party, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both have evidence against them which can prove that they were not strict constructionists. This is based on different political moves made by these two presidents which are more towards the Federalist side of things opposed to their own Republican and strict constructionist ideas.
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
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.