FEDERALISM:

THE DEVELOPMENT OF STRONGER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND NATIONALISM

Learning Objective One: Discuss the difference between Federalist and Antifederalist 

In 1789, the United States was a nation in name only as people still thought of themselves as citizens of their state first and then the nation. As a result of the weakness of the Articles of Confederation the majority of the people realized theneed for a new and stronger government BUT everyone was not in agreement as to how much power the new government should have It is important to keep in mind that the country was large and sparsely settled, that communication was slow, and that the central government did not influence the lives of most people to any great degree'

Many persons, including some who had been in the forefront of the struggle for independence believed that a centralized republican system

would not work in a country so large and with so many varied interests as the United States. These opponents of the Constitution were called Anti-federalists who drew their support primarily from rural areas with subsistence agriculturally based economies, but their leaders came from all regions and classes.

Many of the Anti-federalists leaders were moved by ideological reservations. They were concerned that the Constitution lacked a

Bill of Rights to protect individuals from an aggressive government. Also, many of the Anti-federalists leaders feared the new

government would be controlled by the wealthy and thus would be controlled by the wealthy and thus would remove the control of government from the people.

The supporters of the new constitution called themselves Federalists. The Federalist Papers consist of eighty-five letters written to newspapers in the late 1780s to urge ratification of the U.S. Constitution. These are a series of eighty-five letters written to newspapers in 1787-1788 by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, urging ratification of the Constitution.After a new Constitution, intended to replace the ineffectual Articles of Confederation, had been hammered out at the Philadelphia Convention, it was agreed that it would go into effect when nine of the thirteen states had approved it in ratifying conventions. With the Constitution needing approval from nine of thirteen states, the press was inundated with letters about the controversial document. Celebrated statesmen Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay weighed in with a series of essays under the pseudonym “Publius,” arguing that the proposed system would preserve the Union and empower the federal government to act firmly and coherently in the national interest. These articles, written in the spirit both of propaganda and of logical argument, were published in book form as The Federalist in 1788.

There ensued a nationwide debate over constitutional principles, and the press was inundated with letters condemning or praising the document, among them these articles, signed “Publius.”The three men—chief among them Hamilton, who wrote about two-thirds of the essays—addressed the objections of opponents, who feared a tyrannical central government that would supersede states’ rights and encroach on individual liberties. All strong nationalists, the essayists argued that, most important, the proposed system would preserve the Union, now in danger of breaking apart, and empower the federal government to act firmly and coherently in the national interest. Conflicting economic and political interests would be reconciled through a representative Congress, whose legislation would be subject to presidential veto and judicial review.

This system of checks and balances and the Constitution’s clear delineation of the powers of the federal government—few, limited, and defined, as Madison put it—would protect states’ rights and, as they saw it, individual rights. The ultimate protection of individual liberties had to wait for later passage of the Bill of Rights, for these men, as their arguments made plain, distrusted what Madison called “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Many of the constitutional provisions they praised were intended precisely to dampen democratic “excesses.”The articles, written in the spirit both of propaganda and of logical argument, probably had little influence on public opinion of the day. Nevertheless, the essays, published in book form as The Federalist in 1788, have through the years been widely read and respected for their masterly analysis and interpretation of the Constitution and the principles upon which the government of the United States was established.

Each branch, they argued would created a "check and balance" the others and thus preserve liberty and state sovereignty.

With the ratification of the new Constitution the political debates that took place on the national level were more than ever directly related to

(l) sectional,

(2) social and

(3) economic interest groups rather than

individual states.

John Marshall

Discuss the development of the Federal court system and show how John Marshall played a key role in its development and contributed to strengthening and defining "federalism" in the United States by examining his significant rulings: Madison v. Marbury, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Dartmouth College v. Woodward

• Marshall's significance lies in the fact that he gets people to start thinking nationally as a result of his 34 years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Also, Marshall's use of a loose interpretation reviewing the Constitution kept the states from over ruling federal laws
• Marshall's contribution can best be evaluated by a review of some of his most important court decisions:

• Marbury vs. Madison (1803).
• MuCulloch vs. Maryland (1819)
• Dartmouth College vs. Woodward both (1819).

Marbury V. Madison 1803

An example of reviewing the Constitution and federal legislation is the case of Marbury vs. Madison. An appointment made by John Adams in

1801 presented Marshall with a historic opportunity to establish the principle of judicial review. When William Marbury, whom President

Adams had named a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, learned that his commission was being denied him by the new Secretary of

State, James Madison, (Madison was appointed by the new President Thomas Jefferson) he sued for its delivery.

Marshall knew that Jefferson or Madison would hardly spring forward to enforce a writ to deliver the commission to his fellow Federalist Marbury. He therefore dismissed Marbury's suit to avoid a direct political showdown but at the same time he won a political victory by stating that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 on which Marbury tried to base his appeal was unconstitutional. Marshall said the act that attempted to assign to the Supreme Court powers that the Constitution had not foreseen. In this self-denying opinion, Marshall greatly magnified the authority of the Supreme Court establishing JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Examples of judicial review of state laws and state court decisions involving powers and duties delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are: McCulloch v. Maryland and Dartmouth College v. Woodward both in 1819 --AND both of these cases bolstered the power of the federal government at the expense of the states.

McCulloch v. Maryland, 1803

The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.

This case established two important principles in constitutional law.   

• First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers or the elastic clause for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.
• Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

Dartmouth College vs. Woodward both (1819)

A similar example was the Dartmouth College v. Woodward case in which Marshall and the Court invalidated state laws conflicting

with the federal Constitution and protected property rights against popular pressures.

The college had been granted a charter by King George III in 1769, but the state legislature of New Hampshire had seen fit to change it. Dartmouth appealed the case. The case arose when the president of Dartmouth College was deposed by its trustees, leading to the New Hampshire legislature attempting to force the college to become a public institution and thereby place the ability to appoint trustees in the hands of the governor. The Supreme Court upheld the sanctity of the original charter of the college, which predated the creation of the State. The decision settled the nature of public versus private charters and resulted in the rise of the American business corporation and the free American enterprise system. In this sense his nationalism was the most enduring of the era. He supported a strong federal government and helped to mold a stable, nationally uniform environment for business and thus ranks as one of the foremost creators of our existing national government.

Alexander Hamilton

Since Great Britain had already established a successful banking and credit system, Hamilton looked to them for economic models that might be reproduced in this country. Hamilton's government policies supported the wealthy because his view of human nature made him afraid of total democracy. He assumed that in a republican society, the gravest threat to political stability was anarchy rather than a monarchy. He felt the common people lacked the ability to govern.

Any attempts by them to rule or for government to rule in their direct interest would only "... exciting their jealousies and apprehensions to throw affairs into confusion and bring on civil commotion."

The best hope for the survival of the Republic, Hamilton believed, lay with the country's monied classes. If the wealthy could be

persuaded that their economic self-interest could be advanced (or made less insecure) by the central government, they would support it and bring a greater measure of prosperity to the common people. From Hamilton's perspective. there was no conflict between private greed and public good was the source of the other.

Hamilton realized America's strength and prosperity depended upon incentives for the wealthy and powerful, as well as the striving masses. Today this philosophy is referred to by the Reagan and Bush Administrations as "supply side economics" or the trickle down theory.

The bank had branches in other cities and played a valuable role in the commerce of the young nation. However, it was constantly under attack from the Jeffersonian Democrats who prevented its charter from being renewed in 1811. However, the financial stress of the War of 1812 showed the need for the bank, and the Second Bank of the United States was chartered after the end of the war. After Alexander Hamilton spearheaded a movement advocating the creation of a central bank, the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791.

Explain the trickle down theory and relate it to either Hamilton's reports on public credit or a national banking system.

During bad times: spend money to take care of people, cut taxes to create jobs.

Other significant contributions of the reports: They give the United States the best credit rating (report on public credit) or provides for a uniform money system and a stable economy (report on national bank).

• Both reports gave people faith in the government.
• Both reports got people to start thinking nationally.
• Both reports helped create our political two-party system.

Discuss Hamilton's report on Public Credit.

The unsettled state of the nation's finances presented the new government with a staggering challenge. In September 1.789,t he House of Representatives Asked Hamilton for suggestions.

Hamilton responded with three reports within two

years:

(1) on public credit,

(2) a proposed national bank, and

(3) manufacturing and trade guidelines.

Hamilton's Report on Public Credit contained two major recommendations

addressed FUNDING and ASSUMPTION. FIRST, under his plan for FUNDING the new federal government would

fund its foreign and domestic obligations at full face value.

According to Hamilton, America must have credit for industrial development, commercial activity, and the operations of government. Her future credit would depend on how she met her present obligations. The United States debt, foreign and domestic,

Everyone agreed the foreign debt of $l1.7 million owed mostly to the Netherlands, Spain and France should be paid at par.

Consequently; almost overnight Hamilton's fiscal feat had established the public credit. As a result the Treasury was able to

secure needed funds in the Netherlands on terms more favorable than any other borrowing nation.

However, many people objected to paying the $42.4 million at par which the government borrowed under the Articles of Confederation from the American people during the war. The opposition was led by Jefferson and Madison who were upset when urban speculators rushed to rural areas where they purchased loan certificates from unsuspecting citizens at bargain prices. It was estimated that, of the nation's domestic obligation, about 20,000 people owed a majority, only 20 of whom were the original creditors. Hamilton's program allowed all current holders of loan certificates, no matter how they obtained them, to exchange the old certificates for new government bonds bearing 6% interest.

Madison was concerned about the citizens and soldiers who, because of financial hardship, were compelled to sell their certificates at rock bottom prices. Why should wealthy speculators now profit from their hardship? Also to many back-country farmers, making money without physical labor appeared immoral, un-republican, and, certainly, un-American. Too many records had been lost since the Revolutionary War for the Treasury Department to identify all the original holders.

The result

In February 1790 Congress soundly defeated Madison's proposal to pay "...the highest price (to the speculators) which has prevailed in the market and the remaining funds would go to the original purchasers." Also, nearly half the members of the House of Representatives, 29 of the 64, owned Continental securities, many through purchase. The debate and organized opposition between the urban commercial class and the agricultural rural class over the domestic debt began the solidification of the two interest groups that would be the foundation of our two party system.

Next, under his ASSUMPTION program, Hamilton urged the federal government to pay all remaining state debts. Hamilton argued the state debts were a proper national obligation, for they had been incurred in the war for independence.

Hamilton believed federal assumption of state debts would chain the states more tightly to the "federal chariot." It was hoped that the maneuver would shift the attachment of wealthy creditors from the states to the federal govemment. Getting the wealthy to THINK nationally was a crucial link in Hamilton's political strategy to strengthen the central

government. Hamilton also reasoned that the federal government's assumption of the

states' $21.5 million debt would significantly reduce the power of the individual states to shape national economic policy and thus create a

strong federal government.

Assumption unleashed great criticism from states like Virginia which had already paid its revolutionary war debts, and Hamilton's program seemed to reward certain states like Massachusetts for failing to put their finances in order. Virginia had levied high taxes

to pay its debts and now its citizens would have to pay the debts of other states as well... mostly for the benefit of northem speculators.

The debate over financing the federal debt would help polarize the southern agricultural interest against that of the northern commercial interest which would help lead to the two party system. To win support for his controversial plan, Hamilton made a deal with the large, powerful congressional delegation from Virginia. He agreed to support the transfer of the national capital from Philadelphia, its temporary home, to to a new federal district across the Potomac River from Virginia.

Discuss Hamilton's Report on the National Bank. 

As the cornerstone of his financial system, Hamilton proposed a Bank of the United States. A great admirer of the English, Hamilton modeled his bank after the Bank of England. He proposed a powerful private institution, of which the federal

government would be a primary stockholder and in which the federal Treasury would deposit its surplus moneys.

The federal government would not only have a convenient strongbox but federal funds would stimulate business by remaining in circulation. The bank would also print urgently needed paper money and thus provide a sound and stable national currency. Hamilton also argued that a growing financial community required a central bank to facilitate increasingly complex commercial transactions.

" The Congress shall have Power...To make all Laws Which shall be necessary proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"- justified issuing charters national banks.

The "foregoing Powers" upon which Hamilton placed so much weights are

( 1) taxation,

2) regulation of commerce and

( 3)making war.

HE BOLDLY ARTICULATED A DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED POWERS, AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT NEITHER MADISON NOR JEFFERSON HAD ANTICIPATED

Hamilton's so-called loose construction carried the day, and on February 25,1791, Washington signed the bank into law. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, an ardent champion of states' right predicted that state banks could not survive competition from this monopolistic

monster. More alarming he felt that the liberties of the states would be jeopardized by the bank which had a virtual monopoly of the government's surplus funds. Jefferson and Madison also opposed the bank because they felt it would perpetuate the interest of the wealthy and would provide little benefit to the common man and farming interest. Jefferson was right, Hamilton's followers were mainly merchants, bankers, and speculators. They gradually began to call themselves Federalists. This name was derived, of course, from the term for supporters of the Constitution in 1788. In general, Jefferson and Madison aimed their arguments toward small farmers Southern planters, and old Anti-federalists. They even adopted the name "Democratic-Republican"... though it was "Republican" that eventually stuck.

In summary Hamilton's dynamic programs under the leadership of Washington strengthened the government politically while bolstering it financially.

His programs of funding the domestic debt, assumption, and the bank all encroached sharply upon states rights and created political battles that would lead to the formation of America's two party system.

These programs shaped a strong national economic policy which created a permanent national debt and tied the interests of the new financial elite to the national government.

Though a skillful planner, Hamilton was at heart a gambler-- a taker of calculated risks. He was playing for enormous stakes, and the outcome might be either a resounding success or a crashing failure. The huge debt, which he had so confidently urged Congress to assume, could be paid off only if ample receipts flowed into the custom houses. Disaster would befall the nation if foreign trade fell or if it were choked off by war with America's best customer, Great Britain. Consequently, in foreign policy Hamilton and the Federalists were always pro British.

Finally, Hamilton's programs bolstered faith in the government's credit and stabilized the economy and money supply by providing a sound banking program and a uniform currency system.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

Discuss the arrival of, principles and contributions of Jeffersonian Democracy and the conditions as stated by Jefferson necessary to preserve such a democracy.

LO: 1 Discuss the election of 1800 and the arrival of Jeffersonian Democracy.

The split in the Federalist party during the Adams administration made Thomas Jefferson's and the Republican party's prospects for winning the presidency in the election of 1800 very good. The Republican caucus named Thomas Jefferson as their presidential candidate and Aaron Burr for vice president, while the Federalists supported John Adams for president and C.C. Pinckney for vice president.

The final vote was 64 for Pinckney, 65 for Adams, and 73 each for Jefferson and Burr. Because of the unexpected deadlock between Jefferson and Burr, the House of Representatives would have to decide the election. According to the Constitution, voting was to be done by states (one vote each), not by individuals; thus 9 of the 16 states were needed to win. The House of Representatives was controlled for several more months by the lame-duck Federalists, who were eager to elect Burr because he was from New York. They felt he would represent their interests more than Jefferson. Also, Burr would not step down as he was hoping to pick up the presidency through the back door.

Finally, on the 36th ballot Jefferson captured the presidency due to the failure of the Federalists to make the Republicans accept Burr.

The election of 1800 is significant in American History for three reasons:

1. The possibility of another such tie was removed by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution in 1804 which required the

electors to vote on separate ballots for president and vice president.

2. Jefferson later claimed that the election of 1800 was a "revolution" comparable to that of 1776. But it was no revolution in the sense of a massive popular upheaval or an upending of the political system. What was revolutionary was the peaceful and orderly transfer of power on the basis of an election whose results all parties accepted. This is considered a remarkable achievement by any country in this time in history as comparable developments would not take place in Britain for another generation.

3. The most important result of the election of 1800 and the Jeffersonian revolution was only in a change in the government's attitude toward the people. The Federalists openly advocated government by the rich for the rich. Chief Justice John Jay said it best: "Those who own the country ought to govern it." Let the rich rule, insisted many Federalist leaders, for they had the leisure with which to study the problems of governing. They also enjoyed all the advantages of intelligence, education and culture. The Republicans on the other hand advocated government by the rich FOR the interest of the common man .

However, Jefferson did not advocate giving EVERY adult white male the vote. He favored government only for those men who were literate enough to inform themselves of the problems of society. BUT he had profound faith in the reasonableness and teachableness of the masses and in their collective wisdom when taught . Because of his republicanizing ideas the common man could identify with Jefferson and the new government more than his predecessor . Jefferson's presidency, especially his skillful guidance of Congress, demonstrates his brilliant performance as a leader. This can be seen by his attempts to cultivate programs in the PUBLIC INTEREST that truly transcended party lines and helped build a national identity.

Also in foreign affairs, when he was forced to deal with challenges from foreign countries, Jefferson proved to be a strong nationalist. Thus the importance of Jefferson was his ability to adjust his strong sectional and personal philosophy for the good of the nation when be became aware such adjustments were necessary. His PRAGMATISM was an essential ingredient in helping this country become a nation in reality not just in name. The secret of Jefferson's success with the common man was that he appealed to and expressed America's better self: her idealism, simplicity, and hopeful outlook, rather than the material and imperial ambitions which Hamilton represented.

LO 2: Discuss Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase and show how there was very little change from that of his Federalist predecessors in his (1) domestic and (2) foreign policies and (3) interpretation of the Constitution.

A roar of anger rolled up and down the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys as many westerners talked of either descending upon New Orleans with rifles in hand or of following Spanish leadership if Jefferson and the United States government failed to protect their commercial rights

To avoid conflict with the French and Spanish and to keep the support of the westerners Jefferson instructed Robert Livingston, the United States minister in Paris, to purchase the port of New Orleans for $2 million.

In January, 1803, Jefferson asked James Monroe to join Livingston in Paris and offer up to $10 million for New Orleans and the Floridas. By the time Monroe joined Livingston, Napoleon had lost interest in establishing an American empire and offered to sell the entire Louisiana Territory for $15 million.

On April 30, 1803, the deal was closed and the agreement provided that $4 million of the $15 million would be used to settle past claims by American ship owners against France. Neither Livingston or Monroe were certain how much land they had actually purchased.

When they asked Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, whether the deal included Florida, he responded ambiguously, "you have made a noble bargain for yourselves, and I suppose you will make the most of it." Even at that moment, Livingston realized that the transaction would alter the course of American history. "From this day on the United States take their place among the powers of first rank."

Napoleon's desire to create an empire in the Americas faded when the French lost the island of Santo Domingo due to military resistance and yellow fever. Also the threat of a new war against Britain in Europe prevented France from sending reinforcements and Napoleon now feared a possible invasion of Louisiana by American settlers or to lose the area to the British if and when war broke out in Europe.

Napoleon also had to consider a possible war with the United States as Jefferson had stated: "The day that France takes possession of New Orleans, we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation."

The Constitution said nothing about the purchase of territory by the federal government, and as Jefferson felt an amendment would take too long, the territory was purchased by way of treaty. From this point on, Jefferson could no longer appeal to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Louisiana Purchase illustrates Jefferson's pragmatism and, at the same time, it's a contradiction of his own previous political philosophy. But Louisiana was so desirable that Jefferson found it less embarrassing to reverse himself on strict construction than to loose this magnificent windfall. If Louisiana made Jefferson a loose constructionist, it made many Federalists strict constructionists. These Federalists argued that there was no constitutional bases for the transfer of land. (The same argument the Republicans used to oppose the Bank of the United States). What really worried the Federalists was that the signing of the Louisiana treaties was the signing of their own political death warrant. New states would be carved from the new territory that would outvote the 13 charter states including Federalist New England.

In his interpretations of the Constitution and in domestic policy, Jefferson demonstrated a loose interpretation of the Constitution which was needed to create a strong federal government so that the government might have the power to act in the best interest of the people.

In foreign policy Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana proved to be a landmark decision. Overnight he avoided a possible rupture with France (holding to his previous pro-French position) while at the same time he avoided an entangling alliance with England and allowed the nation to continue its noninterventionist policies of the Federalists before him. Again, Jefferson showed his pragmatism by his willing if necessary to support the foreign allies of the Federalists to preserve American neutrality In foreign policy Jefferson thus demonstrated that there was little difference between himself and his Federalist predecessors.

Discuss the elements within society that are necessary to create a democracy for Jefferson and show how they compare to those of Andrew Jackson.

LO 1: Discuss the election of 1800 and the arrival of Jeffersonian Democracy.

The House of Representatives was controlled for several more months by the lame-duck Federalists, who were eager to elect Burr because he was from New York. They felt he would represent their interests more than Jefferson. Also, Burr would not step down as he was hoping to pick up the presidency through the back door. Finally, on the 36th ballot Jefferson captured the presidency due to the failure of the Federalists to make the Republicans accept Burr.

Third, the most important result of the election of 1800 and the Jeffersonian revolution was only in a change in the government's attitude toward the people. The Federalists openly advocated government by the rich for the rich. Chief Justice John Jay said it best: "Those who own the country ought to govern it." Let the rich rule, insisted many Federalist leaders, for they had the leisure with which to study the problems of governing. They also enjoyed all the advantages of intelligence, education and culture. The Republicans on the other hand advocated government by the rich FOR the interest of the common man. However, Jefferson did not advocate giving EVERY adult white male the vote. He favored government only for those men who were literate enough to inform themselves of the problems of society. BUT he had profound faith in the reasonableness and teachableness of the masses and in their collective wisdom when taught. Because of his republicanizing ideas the common man could identify with Jefferson and the new government more than his predecessor . Jefferson's presidency, especially his skillful guidance of Congress, demonstrates his brilliant performance as a leader. This can be seen by his attempts to cultivate programs in the PUBLIC INTEREST that truly transcended party lines and helped build a national identity.

Also in foreign affairs, when he was forced to deal with challenges from foreign countries, Jefferson proved to be a strong nationalist. Thus the importance of Jefferson was his ability to adjust his strong sectional and personal philosophy for the good of the nation when be became aware such adjustments were necessary. His PRAGMATISM was an essential ingredient in helping this country become a nation in reality not just in name.

LO 2: Discuss Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase, the Barbary War, and the Embargo Act, and show how there was very little change from that of his Federalist predecessors in his (1) domestic and (2) foreign policies and (3) interpretation of the Constitution.

In October 1800, Napoleon (France) secured from Spain in a secret treaty (San Ildefonso) the territory of Louisiana. Rumors of the transfer were partially confirmed in October 1802 when the Spanish who still controlled the territory for the French canceled the right of deposit given the United States under the Pinckney treaty in 1795. With the right of deposit lost, this meant that most of the American trade of the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys would be tied up at New Orleans. Consequently, the American farmers would be unable to get their produce to market. A roar of anger rolled up and down the Mississippi and Ohio Valleys as many westerners talked of either descending upon New Orleans with rifles in hand or of following Spanish leadership if Jefferson and the United States government failed to protect their commercial rights.

To avoid conflict with the French and Spanish and to keep the support of the westerners Jefferson instructed Robert Livingston, the United States minister in Paris, to purchase the port of New Orleans for $2 million. In January, 1803, Jefferson asked James Monroe to join Livingston in Paris and offer up to $10 million for New Orleans and the Floridas. By the time Monroe joined Livingston, Napoleon had lost interest in establishing an American empire and offered to sell the entire Louisiana Territory for $15 million. On April 30, 1803, the deal was closed and the agreement provided that $4 million of the $15 million would be used to settle past claims by American ship owners against France. Neither Livingston or Monroe were certain how much land they had actually purchased. When they asked Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, whether the deal included Florida, he responded ambiguously, "you have made a noble bargain for yourselves, and I suppose you will make the most of it." Even at that moment, Livingston realized that the transaction would alter the course of American history. "From this day on the United States take their place among the powers of first rank."

Napoleon's desire to create an empire in the Americas faded when the French lost the island of Santo Domingo due to military resistance and yellow fever. Also the threat of a new war against Britain in Europe prevented France from sending reinforcements and Napoleon now feared a possible invasion of Louisiana by American settlers or to lose the area to the British if and when war broke out in Europe.

Napoleon also had to consider a possible war with the United States as Jefferson had stated: "The day that France takes possession of New Orleans, we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation." The Constitution said nothing about the purchase of territory by the federal government, and as Jefferson felt an amendment would take too long, the territory was purchased by way of treaty.

From this point on, Jefferson could no longer appeal to a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Louisiana Purchase illustrates Jefferson's pragmatism and, at the same time, it's a contradiction of his own previous political philosophy. But Louisiana was so desirable that Jefferson found it less embarrassing to reverse himself on strict construction than to loose this magnificent windfall.

If Louisiana made Jefferson a loose constructionist, it made many Federalists strict constructionists. These Federalists argued that there was no constitutional bases for the transfer of land. (The same argument the Republicans used to oppose the Bank of the United States). What really worried the Federalists was that the signing of the Louisiana treaties was the signing of their own political death warrant. New states would be carved from the new territory that would outvote the 13 charter states including Federalist New England.

In his interpretations of the Constitution and in domestic policy, Jefferson demonstrated a loose interpretation of the Constitution which was needed to create a strong federal government so that the government might have the power to act in the best interest of the people.

In foreign policy Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana proved to be a landmark decision. Overnight he avoided a possible rupture with France (holding to his previous pro-French position) while at the same time he avoided an entangling alliance with England and allowed the nation to continue its noninterventionist policies of the Federalists before him. Again, Jefferson showed his pragmatism by his willing if necessary to support the foreign allies of the Federalists to preserve American neutrality.In foreign policy Jefferson thus demonstrated that there was little difference between himself and his Federalist predecessors.

Another example of Jefferson's application of a loose interpretation of the Constitution to meet the countries domestic and foreign needs as can be his actions during his attempt to win respect for the American right on the high seas with his war with Tripoli in 1801 and the Embargo Act of 1807 . 

Tripolitan War of 1801-05 -- Declaration of War

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitian War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the Ottoman provinces of Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis, which were enjoying a large autonomy, as well as the independent Sultanate of Morocco. The war was fought because U.S. President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay the high tributes demanded by the Barbary states and because they were seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. It was the first military conflict authorized by Congress that the United States fought on foreign land and seas.

Immediately prior to Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that 'shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.' ... In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to 'protect our commerce & chastise their insolence—by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.'" On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, on 10 May 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.

Before learning that Tripoli had declared war on the United States, Jefferson sent a small squadron, without informing Congress, consisting of three frigates and one schooner, under the command of Commodore Richard Dale with gifts and letters to attempt to maintain peace with the Barbary powers. However, in the event that war had been declared, Dale was instructed "to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression," but Jefferson "insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'"

He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."

Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." The American squadron joined a Swedish flotilla under Rudolf Cederström in blockading Tripoli, the Swedes having been at war with the Tripolitans since 1800.

During the following years, American warships fought in the waters around Tripoli, and, in 1803, when Commodore Edward Preble became commander of the Mediterranean squadron, greater successes ensued. The intrepid Preble sailed into Tangiers to rescue a number of American prisoners, and, on Feb. 16, 1804, he ordered his young lieutenant, Stephen Decatur, to undertake the spectacular raid in which the captured U.S. frigate Philadelphia was destroyed in the harbour of Tripoli.

The combination of a strong American naval blockade and an overland expedition from Egypt finally brought the war to a close, with a treaty of peace (June 4, 1805) favourable to the United States. The other Barbary rulers, though considerably chastened, continued to receive some tribute until 1816

The Embargo of 1807

In a desperate attempt to avert war, the United States imposed an embargo on foreign trade. Jefferson regarded the embargo as an idealistic experiment--a moral alternative to war. He believed that economic coercion would convince Britain and France to respect America’s neutral rights.

The embargo was an unpopular and costly failure. It hurt the American economy far more than the British or French, and resulted in widespread smuggling. Exports fell from $108 million in 1807 to just $22 million in 1808. Farm prices fell sharply. Shippers also suffered. Harbors filled with idle ships and nearly 30,000 sailors found themselves jobless.

Jefferson believed that Americans would cooperate with the embargo out of a sense of patriotism. Instead, smuggling flourished, particularly through Canada. To enforce the embargo, Jefferson took steps that infringed on his most cherished principles: individual liberties and opposition to a strong central government. He mobilized the army and navy to enforce the blockade, and declared the Lake Champlain region of New York, along the Canadian border, in a state of insurrection.

Pressure to abandon the embargo mounted, and early in 1809, just 3 days before Jefferson left office, Congress repealed the embargo. In effect for 15 months, the embargo exacted no political concessions from either France or Britain. But it had produced economic hardship, evasion of the law, and political dissension at home. Upset by the failure of his policies, the 65-year-old Jefferson looked forward to his retirement: "Never did a prisoner, released from his chains, feel such relief as I shall on shaking off the shackles of power.'' The problem of defending American rights on the high seas now fell to Jefferson's hand-picked successor, James Madison. In 1809, Congress replaced the failed embargo with the Non-Intercourse Act, which reopened trade with all nations except Britain and France. Then in 1810, Congress replaced the Non-Intercourse Act with a new measure, Macon's Bill No. 2. This policy reopened trade with France and Britain. It stated, however, that if either Britain or France agreed to respect America's neutral rights, the United States would immediately stop trade with the other nation.

Napoleon seized on this new policy in an effort to entangle the United States in his war with Britain. He announced a repeal of all French restrictions on American trade. Even though France continued to seize American ships and cargoes, President Madison snapped at the bait. In early 1811, he cut off trade with Britain and recalled the American minister.

For 19 months, the British went without American trade. Food shortages, mounting unemployment, and increasing inventories of unsold manufactured goods finally convinced Britain to end their restrictions on American trade. But the decision came too late. On June 1, 1812, President Madison asked Congress for a declaration of war. A divided House and Senate concurred. The House voted to declare war on Britain by a vote of 79 to 49; the Senate by a vote of 19 to 13.

Discuss the elements within society that are necessary to create a democracy for Jefferson and show how they compare to those of Andrew Jackson.

For Jefferson there were three key elements for creating a democracy. They were (1) land, (2) education, (3) and time.

To Jefferson, a republic was a form not merely of political but also of social organization. It depended upon the predominance in the population of yeomen farmers, each with enough PROPERTY to value order. The significance of LAND for Jefferson was American liberty rested on the firm foundation of agriculture. Jefferson found much to admire in America's rural life which avoided the evils of the European economic system. American cities were small and thus contained no great factories and therefore had no oppressed laboring class among their residents. Jefferson expressed the threat of the cities with the following quote: "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe, and go to eating one another as they do there."

An abundance of land was a guarantee that no worthy person need ever become dependent, because he could always find opportunity in the empty space of the country. Hence, the general public could resist the influences of merchants or plantation aristocrats who might seek economic power and influence over them. The significance of the Louisiana Purchase comes into perspective for Jefferson and the country when viewed with Jefferson's ideas of developing an agrarian democracy. Jefferson felt the "Valley of Democracy" would always provide elbowroom for future generations to preserve their liberties.

Virtuous yeomen were the masters of none and servants to no one, but this alone was not enough to create a democracy. Working their own farms they were content and free; but once they were content, free, and educated they would be capable of making the proper civil and political choices.

It was at this point the yeomen could be entrusted with the conduct of their own government. They were not merely to consent to

being governed; they were to participate actively . This had been the significance of the addition of the adjective, Democratic, to the term Republican in Jefferson's party designation. Virtuous citizens would spontaneously single out those best qualified to rule over them. A good educational system would teach the people the necessity and methods of this selection process. The process would also help select and train the leaders that the people would choose and who would form an aristocracy of ability rather than of birth .

Andrew Jackson was the first President to be elected under Jefferson's formula. Jackson typified the ideal of the American man and success story. He was the first President who did not come from a well-established American family. He rose from the log cabin environment to the White House. Jackson believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and promised to reduce the government to the simple machine which the Constitution created.

Andrew Jackson

Jackson idealized an agrarian society and described the agricultural interest as "superior in importance" to all others. Jackson and his supporters favored state sovereignty, strict construction of the Constitution, and laissez-faire because they hoped for a return to old-fashioned, agrarian-oriented Jeffersonianism. For Jefferson, the solution to America's problems was (1) LAND, (2) EDUCATION, and (3) time. So long as all three were available, nothing could threaten the security and liberty of society.

LO4 Discuss the role of descent and rebellion in society in preserving a democracy.

On rebellion and liberty Jefferson made the following statement in November,

1787, in writing about Shays rebellion . "And can history produce an instance ofrebellion so honorably conducted? I say nothing of its motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness . God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed . The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are

not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance: Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

The fact that rebellion exists and is allowed to exist in our society is a sign of the strength of society. Rebellion points out the weaknesses and imbalances in society so that society may become aware of these weaknesses and imbalances and

correct them before the basic values that society wants to preserve are lost. As Jefferson points out people are generally unaware of the potential loss because they are so busy trying to survive on a day-to-day basis. The rebellion makes them aware of the possible loss of values and a permanent shift in the direction in which society may operate. Hence, Jefferson felt that rebellion was an essential ingredient in preserving the basic values and institution of a democracy. Without rebellion the institutions will gradually be modified and the original meaning of the institutions and values they represent will be lost.

ANDREW JACKSON

Discuss the democratic revolution that was to culminate during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. Also discuss his contribution to the development of nationalism and demonstrate his view of the presidency by using Jackson's attack on the Second Bank of the United States.

Discuss the development of the democratic revolution in the United States from 1776-1840 by looking at the three trends during that time period of:

1. Idealism
2. Sectionalism
3. Changing Political Conditions 

IDEALISM

The period from 1776 to 1828 is often looked upon by historians as a democratic revolution that was to culminate in Jacksonian Democracy, 1828-1840.

Politically during the 1820s there was almost universal agreement that the advancement of democratic institutions and idealism of the American Revolution could be used by different socio-economic groups to advance their own special interest. This belief led to wide support for political change within society.

The following events and movements offer examples of the high degree of IDEALISM during the "Jacksonian" era:

1. THE SECOND GREAT AWAKENING
2. UNITARIANS AND TRANSCENDENTALISTS MOVEMENT
3. ABOLITIONISM
4. WOMEN RIGHTS MOVEMENT   

ABOLITIONISM

By the 1820s, abolition—the movement to free African Americans from slavery— had taken hold. More than 100 antislavery societies were advocating that African Americans be resettled in Africa. In 1817, the American Colonization Society had been founded to encourage black emigration. Other abolitionists, however, demanded that African Americans remain in the United States as free citizens.

Around 1844 she married a free black named John Tubman and took his last name. (She was born Araminta Ross; she later changed her first name to Harriet, after her mother.) In 1849, in fear that she, along with the other slaves on the plantation, was to be sold, Tubman resolved to run away. She set out one night on foot. With some assistance from a friendly white woman, Tubman was on her way. She followed the North Star by night, making her way to Pennsylvania and soon after to Philadelphia, where she found work and saved her money. The following year she returned to Maryland and escorted her sister and her sister's two children to freedom. She made the dangerous trip back to the South soon after to rescue her brother and two other men. On her third return, she went after her husband, only to find he had taken another wife. Undeterred, she found other slaves seeking freedom and escorted them to the North.

Tubman returned to the South again and again. She devised clever techniques that helped make her "forays" successful, including using the master's horse and buggy for the first leg of the journey; leaving on a Saturday night, since runaway notices couldn't be placed in newspapers until Monday morning; turning about and heading south if she encountered possible slave hunters; and carrying a drug to use on a baby if its crying might put the fugitives in danger. Tubman even carried a gun which she used to threaten the fugitives if they became too tired or decided to turn back, telling them, "You'll be free or die."

By 1856, Tubman's capture would have brought a $40,000 reward from the South. On one occasion, she overheard some men reading her wanted poster, which stated that she was illiterate. She promptly pulled out a book and feigned reading it. The ploy was enough to fool the men.

Tubman had made the perilous trip to slave country 19 times by 1860, including one especially challenging journey in which she rescued her 70-year-old parents. Of the famed heroine, who became known as "Moses," Frederick Douglass said, "Excepting John Brown -- of sacred memory -- I know of no one who has willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve our enslaved people than [Harriet Tubman]."

And John Brown, who conferred with "General Tubman" about his plans to raid Harpers Ferry, once said that she was "one of the bravest persons on this continent."

Becoming friends with the leading abolitionists of the day, Tubman took part in antislavery meetings. On the way to such a meeting in Boston in 1860, in an incident in Troy, New York, she helped a fugitive slave who had been captured.

During the Civil War Harriet Tubman worked for the Union as a cook, a nurse, and even a spy. After the war she settled in Auburn, New York, where she would spend the rest of her long life. She died in 1913.

LIFE UNDER SLAVERY

In the 18th century, most slaves were male, had recently arrived from the Caribbean or Africa, and spoke one of several languages other than English. By 1830, however, the numbers of male and female slaves had become more equal. The majority had been born in America and spoke

However, two things remained constant in the lives of slaves—hard work and oppression.

The number of slaves owned by individual masters varied widely across the South. Most slaves worked as house servants, farm hands, or in the fields. Some states allowed masters to free their slaves and even allowed slaves to purchase their freedom over time. But these “manumitted” or freed slaves were very few. The vast majority of African Americans in the South were enslaved and endured lives of suffering and constant degradation.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton And Lucretia Mott Meet In Seneca Falls

Eight years later, Stanton was living in Seneca Falls, New York, when Lucretia Mott was visiting her sister, Martha C. Wright, in nearby Waterloo, New York. During a social visit on July 14, Stanton, Mott, Wright, and Mary Ann McClintock and Jane Hunt decided that it was time "to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman" publicly—in just five days time. They publicized the convention mainly by word of mouth, although they did place a small notice in the local paper. They knew it would be a comparatively small convention, but as Mott told Stanton, "It will be a start."

The Seneca Falls Convention Begins

Stanton took the task of writing the document that would be debated and signed by the attendees. She based the Declaration of Sentiments on the Declaration of Independence, listing 18 grievances and 11 resolutions demanding the recognition of women as equal members of society. The ninth resolution, which argued for "elective franchise," proved to be the most radical, even to Mott. Stanton, the daughter of a lawyer and judge, had studied law in her father’s offices and often debated issues with his clerks; she "saw clearly that the power to make the laws was the right through which all other rights could be secured."

The Declaration Of Sentiments Is Debated And Ratified

Over the two days of the convention, presided over by Lucretia’s husband James Mott, the Declaration of Sentiments was read and its resolutions debated. The ninth resolution continued to be the most controversial, particularly because the attendees were predominantly Quaker, and Quaker men often declined to vote. Freed slave and newspaper editor Frederick Douglass argued for approval of the resolution and convinced the audience of its necessity. At the end of the convention, about 100 of the attendees signed the declaration, although some removed their names later due to criticism.

The Aftermath Of The Seneca Falls Convention And Women’s Suffrage

The convention and another meeting a few days later in Rochester drew ridicule and criticism from the press. Although Stanton was dismayed by the coverage, she recognized the value of any attention—"It will start women thinking, and men too; and when men and women think about a new question, the first step in progress is taken."

EDUCATION AND WOMEN’S HEALTH

Improvement in women’s education began to improve women’s lives, most notably in health reform. Elizabeth Blackwell, who in 1849 became the first woman to graduate from medical college, later opened the New York Infirmary for Women and Children. In the 1850s, Catharine Beecher, sister of novelist Harriet Beecher Stowe, and a respected educator in her own right, undertook a national survey of women’s health. To her dismay, Beecher found three sick women for every healthy one. It was no wonder: women rarely bathed or exercised, and the fashionable women’s clothing of the day included corsets so restrictive that breathing sometimes was difficult.

Unfortunately, black women enjoyed even fewer educational opportunities than their white counterparts. In 1831 Prudence Crandall, a white Quaker, opened a school for girls in Canterbury, Connecticut. Two years later she admitted an African-American girl named Sarah Harris. The townspeople protested so vigorously that Crandall decided to enroll only African Americans. This aroused even more opposition, and in 1834 Crandall was forced to close the school and leave town. Only after the Civil War would the severely limited educa- tional opportunities for black women slowly begin to expand.

Born Isabella Baumfree circa 1797, Sojourner Truth was one of as many as 12 children born to James and Elizabeth Baumfree in the town of Swartekill, in Ulster County, New York. Truth's date of birth was not recorded, as was typical of children born into slavery. Historians estimate that she was likely born around 1787. Her father, James Baumfree, was a slave captured in modern-day Ghana; Elizabeth Baumfree, also known as Mau-Mau Bet, was the daughter of slaves from Guinea. The Baumfree family was owned by Colonel Hardenbergh, and lived at the colonel's estate in Esopus, New York, 95 miles north of New York City. The area had once been under Dutch control, and both the Baumfrees and the Hardenbaughs spoke Dutch in their daily lives.

After the colonel's death, ownership of the Baumfrees passed to his son, Charles. The Baumfrees were separated after the death of Charles Hardenbergh in 1806. The 9-year-old Truth, known as "Belle" at the time, was sold at an auction with a flock of sheep for $100. Her new owner was a man named John Neely, whom Truth remembered as harsh and violent. She would be sold twice more over the following two years, finally coming to reside on the property of John Dumont at West Park, New York. It was during these years that Truth learned to speak English for the first time.

Becoming a Wife and Mother

Around 1815, Truth fell in love with a slave named Robert from a neighboring farm. The two had a daughter, Diana. Robert's owner forbade the relationship, since Diana and any subsequent children produced by the union would be the property of John Dumont rather than himself. Robert and Sojourner Truth never saw each other again. In 1817, Dumont compelled Truth to marry an older slave named Thomas. Their marriage produced a son, Peter, and two daughters, Elizabeth and Sophia.

The state of New York, which had begun to negotiate the abolition of slavery in 1799, emancipated all slaves on July 4, 1827. The shift did not come soon enough for Truth. After John Dumont reneged on a promise to emancipate Truth in late 1826, she escaped to freedom with her infant daughter, Sophia. Her other daughter and son stayed behind. Shortly after her escape, Truth learned that her son Peter, then 5 years old, had been illegally sold to a man in Alabama. She took the issue to court and eventually secured Peter's return from the South. The case was one of the first in which a black woman successfully challenged a white man in a United States court.

Sojourner Truth's early years of freedom were marked by several strange hardships. Having converted to Christianity, Truth she moved with her son Peter to New York City in 1829, where she worked as a housekeeper for Christian evangelist Elijah Pierson. She then moved on to the home of Robert Matthews, also known as Matthias Kingdom or Prophet Matthias, for whom she also worked as a domestic. Matthews had a growing reputation as a con man and a cult leader. Shortly after Truth changed households, Elijah Pierson died. Robert Matthews and Truth were immediately accused of poisoning Pierson in order to benefit from his personal fortune. Both were acquitted, and Robert Matthews, who had become a favorite subject of the penny press, moved west.

After her successful rescue of her son, Peter, from slavery in Alabama, the boy stayed with his mother until 1839. At that time, Peter took a job on a whaling ship called the Zone of Nantucket. Truth received three letters from her son between 1840 and 1841. When the ship returned to port in 1842, however, Peter was not on board. Truth never heard from him again.

SECTIONALISM:

By the mid 1820s, strong disagreement over key economic issues had polarized the geographical sections (South, North and West). The conflict between the social and economic interest groups within each section and between the section also led to motivation for political change. During this time the northern business class found its interests threatened by opposition from farmers, laborers, and southern planters

CHANGING IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM:

• Two other events were also primarily responsible for the political changes.
• THE ECONOMIC: The development of the Industrial Revolution led to the change in the political needs of the different social and economic groups as well as the geographic sections of the country. Many people saw the possibilities of using the powers of government either to resist or promote the Industrial Revolution .
• THE POLITICAL: Next, the western territorial expansion of the United States caused a change in the political needs in the geographic sections of the country and accelerated the pressures to expand participation in government.

As western states joined the Union they adopted constitutions that gave the right to vote and to hold office to all white males over twenty-one. This put pressure on eastern states to follow suit by dropping property requirements for voting and holding office. They also hoped this would keep residents from moving west. Between 1812 and 1821 six western states entered the Union with constitutions providing for universal white male suffrage or a close approximation. From 1810 to 1821 four of the older states also substantially dropped property qualifications for voters.

By 1840, the electorate included more than 90% of the adult white male population. By this time most states had established direct popular election of governors (property qualifications were no longer needed), presidential electors, and some judges. Hence, not only could more people vote; they could vote for more of their government officials.

In addition, a new generation of politicians emerged that appealed in different and innovative ways to the newly expanded electorate.

This factor was not very consequential in the countryside, where almost everyone had possessed the minimum qualifications for voting, but in the cities significant groups of artisans, journeymen, and even laborers were stirred to political consciousness.

This changing character of the electorate was also important because it influenced both the STYLE and the METHODS of politics. A new generation of political leaders encouraged the common feeling that the popular will of the people should control the choice of public officers and the formation of public policy . This new generation of political leaders directed popular resentment against the caucus system, which they branded as a flagrant usurpation of the rights of the people. They also spread the conviction that the control of politics must be taken from the hands of a social elite and opened to participation by the common man.

As the political movement developed, a popular demand arose for laws to prevent imprisonment for debt, a national bankruptcy law, and new tariff and public-land policies. For the first time many Americans thought of politics as having an intimate relation to their welfare. Adding to the complexity of the situation were the chief means of educating and informing the common man. Free public schools and inexpensive newspapers became widely available.

In summary as a result of all these changes,

(1) THE VOTING PUBLIC BECAME MUCH LARGER,

(2) MORE COMPLEX IN ITS COMPOSITION,

(3) BETTER INFORMED AND EDUCATED,

(4) MORE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED IN POLITICS,

(5) THE STYLE AND METHOD OF POLITICS CHANGED AND

(6) A FEELING THAT POLITICS MUST BE TAKEN FROM THE HANDS OF THE SOCIAL ELITE AND OPENED TO PARTICIPATION BY THE COMMON PERSON.

There was political agreement within the country until the early 1820s. The political complacency that existed up until the 1820s was reflected by the fact that the Republican party was the only party that existed between the presidential elections of 1816-1824. By this time the different social, economic interests started to pull at the different sectional interests of the country. The intense rivalry between the sectional, social and economic needs of the different interest groups finally had its political impact in the presidential election of 1824. This caused the Republican party to split into two parties (Democratic-Republican party formed by Andrew Jackson and the National Republican party headed by John Q. Adams).

The man whose presence was a reflection of the new political environment, and who came to symbolize the triumph of democracy and the birth of America's second two party system, was Andrew Jackson

Learning Objective Two:
Describe Jackson's views as president and what he thought the role of the president was in relation to the Federal Government. 

The Election of Andrew Jackson

Despite these sectional tensions, the story of America in the early 19th century was one of expansion—expanding economies, expanding territory, and expanding democracy. The man who embraced the spirit of that expansion and to many personified it was Andrew Jackson, who captured the presidency in 182 8

As President, Jackson favored a formula of state sovereignty, strict construction, and a laissez-faire government because he hoped for a return to old-fashioned, agrarian-oriented Jeffersonianism. On numerous occasions Jackson looked back to the simpler and presumably purer young republic of Jefferson's day and praised it for its virtues. Although the agrarian ideal was already out of date, Jackson, like Jefferson, idealized an agrarian society. He described the agricultural interest as "superior in importance" to all others and the cultivators of the soil as the "...best part of the population. Independent farmers are everywhere the basis of society and true friends ofliberty

Second, Jackson also looked upon himself as the guardian of the people's interest. He felt by reducing the government's role in the economy, it would make it harder for special interest groups to win privileges.

Views of the Economy and Bank

As an exponent of laissez-faire, Jackson promised to reduce the government to the simple machine which the Constitution created. This was because Jackson believed that federal intervention in the affairs of the people usually came in the following forms:

(1) special favors to influential minorities or

(2) encouragement to monopolistic corporations.

Jackson realized that there would be distinctions in society

between the abilities of one individual over another; but when laws were undertaken to add to these natural advantages (artificial distinctions which would make the rich richer and the poor poorer), then "the humble members of society--farmers, mechanics,

laborers who had neither the time nor the means of securing like favors for themselves"--had a right to complain about the injustices of their government.

Although, reducing the government's role in the economy made it harder for favored groups to win special privileges, it also gave free reign to irresponsible entrepreneurs in a period of frantic economic activity. What the Jacksonian mentality could not foresee was the degree of which, in a growing country, unrestrained enterprise could lead on to new economic combinations, centers of gigantic power largely independent of governmental regulation. But history is forever pursued by irony. Here the ultimate irony would be that the laissez-faire rationale for republican simplicity eventually became the justification for the growth of unregulated centers of economic power far greater than any ever wielded by Biddle's bank.

Learning Objective Three:

Discuss the function that Jackson saw for himself as President. In this discussion explain how Jackson's leadership strengthened and defined "federalism" in favor of the federal government. with his attack on the Second Bank of the United States and the Nullification Crisis. 

Jackson's most important and controversial use of executive power was his successful attack on the Bank of the United States. The attack demonstrates Jackson's strong prejudices against special interest as well as his contempt for expert advice, even in fields like banking where his ignorance was complete. Furthermore, "The Bank War" revealed some of the deepest concerns of Jackson and his supporters and expressed their concept of democracy in a dramatic way. It also aroused intense opposition to the President and his policies, an opposition

that crystallized in a new national party--the Whigs (more on the WHIGS in Unit Four).

The Second Bank of the United States was a large commercial bank which the federal government had chartered for twenty years in 1816 and partially owned (20% of the bank's stock was owned by the government). The bank had long been embroiled in public controversy. Its role in precipitating the panic of 1819 by suddenly calling in its loans had led many, especially in the South and the West, to blame the bank for the subsequent depression. But, after Nicholas Biddle took over the bank's presidency in 1823, it regained public confidence. The bank's most important role was the stabilization of the nation's money supply. Most American money consisted of notes--in effect, paper

money--that state-charted commercial banks issued with the promise to redeem on demand with gold or silver coins.

The bank played its stabilizing role by regularly collecting these state bank notes, returning them to the banks that had issued them, and demanding that the banks convert them into gold and silver coins.

With the threat of collection hanging over them, state banks had to be conservative in extending credit in the form of bank notes. As the state banks continued to issue more notes they could redeem at any given time, they were expanding the money supply. BUT, under the discipline imposed by the Second Bank, they had to do so cautiously. During the prosperous 1820s, the Second Bank performed well, maintaining steady, predictable increases in the money supply throughout the nation.

Most people did not understand commercial banking, particularly its capacity to enlarge the money supply through the lending of bank notes. Nor did they appreciate the functions of the Second Bank. It was easy to believe that banking was a nonproductive activity and that bankers earned their profits illegitimately through the exercise of special privilege.

Various interest groups played on popular prejudices for the purpose of killing the Second Bank. Wealthy New York bankers, including supporters of Martin Van Buren, (who would be Jackson's hand-picked successor to the presidency) wanted to see federal deposits in their banks, and some bankers in smaller cities, including Nashville supporters of Jackson, wanted to be free of regulation by the Second Bank.In 1832, Jackson's opponents in Congress, led by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, united to impose a political trap on Jackson. Knowing that many Democrats in Congress supported the Second Bank, and that Jackson was opposed to it, Clay and Webster hoped to lure Jackson into an unpopular veto just before the 1832 elections.

Consequently, plotted the passage of a bill to-recharter the Bank four years earlier than its original recharter date of 1836 in

order to make an election issue out of it. Seeming to fall into the trap, Jackson vetoed the bill. But he accompanied his veto with a powerful message that gained wide circulation. Jackson denounced the Second Bank as a nest of special privilege and of monopoly power that advanced the interests "of the few at the expense of the many," damaging the "humbler members of society--the farmers, the mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves." Finally, Jackson made a connection that was especially damning in patriots' eyes. He emphasized the heavy investment by British aristocrats in the Second Bank.

Jackson's charge that the bank was involved with a number of conflicts of interest contained much truth. Biddle cleverly lent funds where the bank would make influential friends. In 1831 alone, a total of 59 members of Congress borrowed from the Bank. Also, during one period Daniel Webster was a director of the bank, its chief paid counsel, its debtor in the sum of thousands of dollars, and a member of the United States Senate, where he eloquently battled for his employer's interest.

A good public image was attempted by the use of judicious loans made to newspaper editors to ensure "good press." In his veto and subsequent "bank war," Jackson had a better sense of the public's anti-corporate mood than did the supporters of the Bank. His most fervent supporters came from a broad spectrum of people who resisted industrialization. Jackson also won support for his position from some promoters of economic growth, such as state bankers who had originally supported the Second Bank, but now believed its demise would open the way for more speculative investments by their banks.

Thus. he managed to expand his coalition of groups, even though some held diametrically contradictory positions on the value of banking and even industrialization. Herein lies the reason for Jackson's political success: his ability to gain the identification and support from a wide spectrum of people with different political beliefs, while at the same time able to capture the support of the emerging urban working class. However, the bank veto stimulated significant organized opposition which culminated in the formation of a new political party, the Whig party 

Nullification

In 1824 and again in 1828, Congress increased the Tariff of 1816. Jackson’s vicepresident, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, called the 1828 tariff a Tariff of Abominations because he blamed it for economic problems in the South. The South’s economy depended on cotton exports. Yet the high tariff on manufactured goods reduced British exports to the United States, and because of this, Britain bought less cotton. With the decline of British goods, the South was now forced to buy the more expensive Northern manufactured goods. From the South’s point of view, the North was getting rich at the expense of the South.

In 1832 the issue of states’ rights was put to a test when Congress raised tariffs again. South Carolinians declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 “null, void, and no law.” Then they threatened to secede, or withdraw from the Union, if customs officials tried to collect duties. In response, an outraged Jackson urged Congress to pass the Force Bill to allow the federal government to use the military if state authorities resisted paying proper duties. A bloody confrontation seemed likely until Henry Clay forged a compromise in 1833. Clay proposed a tariff bill that would gradually lower duties over a ten-year period. The compromise also included passage of the Force Bill. The tension between states’ rights and federal authority subsided—temporarily.