Land And The Federalist Party example essay topic

The political opposition for the Federalists during the presidencies of Jeffersonian Republican leaders Jefferson and Madison. This was just another battle in the much larger war, spanning all of American history, between the two main stay political parties. Jefferson and Madison's actions during their presidencies and Federalist proposals clearly prove that the Jeffersonians were loose in policy during this time period. Classically, throughout history, the party in political power wants to keep a tight reign on their power and maintain a strong hold on the national government, this is called strict constructionism. During the time period of 1801 to 1817, the Jeffersonians had two different presidents in office. The Jeffersonians wanted to be able to loosely interpret the constitution to serve their own needs as a political party.

On the other hand, since the Federalists were out of power they wanted to emphasize states rights so that they would have some amount of small power in government. Since they didn't have the major say in the national government, they wanted the Constitution interpreted for what was there, not what wasn't. By that, it is meant that they wanted everything done by the book. If the Constitution didn't say the Republicans had the power to do something, then they couldn't assume that power. These two sides of the same coin couldn't appear more different, however, they are virtually interchangeable. These beliefs and practices change drastically as one party looses power and another gains control.

This theory is proven via Document A. Just one year before the Jeffersonian take over of the government, the Federalists were in power. Document A clearly proves that at that time, because his party wasn't in power, Jefferson himself supported states rights and strict constructionism. The Embargo Act of 1807 is a prime example of loose constructionism by the Jeffersonians during their tenure as political leaders of the US. This Act placed a trade embargo suspending all trade, due to an attempt to remain neutral in the fighting between France and Britain.

Jefferson felt that if trade were cut off with these two nations they might possibly start to respect our neutrality. However, Jefferson was afraid that if he only restricted trade with these two nations, and allowed all other trade continue, traders would file false sea plans and trade with Britain and France anyway. To prevent this, all trade with every nation was suspended. Although not exactly in the constitution, Jefferson stretched the "Elastic Clause" in the constitution to benefit what was "good and right" for the country at that time. However, if he was honestly trying to help the country, he did more hurt then good as far as the Federalists were concerned. Most of the Federalists thrived on trade with other nations, especially Britain.

As shown in Document C, because the Federalists couldn't trade with other nations, the commerce in New England received a near fatal blow. A few more years into Jefferson's role as leader of the US, in 1803, the United States almost doubled in size, not due to a growth spurt, but due to the purchase of some land from Napoleon. This incredible bargain is known as the Louisiana Purchase today. This was a huge controversy within the United States for a few reasons. There was nothing in the Constitution about adding land.

Many Federalist argued that an amendment needed to be made to the Constitution before Jefferson could even consider buying the land from France. Jefferson, acting as a loose constructionist, supported the purchase of this new land because it was, again, "good and right" for the country at that time. However, the Federalists were strongly against this. Their underlying cause? As more and more states were added to the Union, they lost more and more of the popular vote to the Republicans. By trying to stop the Louisiana Purchase, they were trying to ensure that they'd get back into power eventually.

Almost directly after Madison came to power in 1808, the War of 1812 started. Although Madison considered this war the best thing to remedy the small amount of respect that Europe had for the US, the New England Federalists were strongly apposed to the war. A war would hurt their trade with Europe and they really didn't care if Britain got out of the forts miles away from them. The Federalists were so irate they held a meeting, known as the Hartford Convention, to discuss what they could do about the unfair trade restrictions being placed on them, however, this will be discussed in more complete detail in the latter portion of this paper.

The war turned out to be a good thing for American nationalism. With the indecisive end to the war, Americans felt important and strong because they hadn't been crushed by the British army. They had fought their battle all on their own and they had not lost. After the war, in spite, Britain flooded our markets with products, trying to choke off our industry. In response, Madison passed the first protective tariffs, in the name of Jeffersonian Republicans. The proposals of the Federalists during this time period proves that they were, in fact, strict constructionists.

Document D deals with drafts for the War of 1812. The Jeffersonians were loosely interpreting the Constitution to make drafts for the army. The Federalists, in support of the people, and in support of strict constructionism, made the point that no where in the constitution was there an article that stated anything about drafting young men to fight a war. Daniel Webster argued that if the Jeffersonians could make the "Elastic Clause" support essentially killing young, innocent boys, then the Jeffersonians could easily stretch the "Elastic Clause" enough to create a dictatorship out of the American government. The Hartford Convention was a response to the War of 1812. Fed up and tired of their trade being destroyed by Jeffersonian policies such as the War and the Embargo Act, the Federalists wanted the Constitution to be read as is without assumptions placed upon it.

At this Convention, seven amendments were written aimed specifically at disarming Republican power in government. Their strict constructionist amendments screamed for "sovereignty of states and liberties of the people" and even housed a veiled threat of succession. All of these ideas are clearly presented in Document E. However, the day their amendments were to be heard by Congress, Jackson proved his startling military superiority over Britain by making our former mother country retreat from battle. After this, a resounding ring of nationalism was heard throughout the land and the Federalist Party suffered a crushing blow, and were labeled as disloyal to the country.

It can be argued that the Federalists were in favor of loose constructionism and de-emphasis of states rights based upon the judicial decisions of Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall made a long strain of rulings putting down the state governments and ruling in favor of the people and the national government. Marshall even established state governments lower on the political food chain then banks. Marshall, however, was an old school Federalist, meaning that his policies were the very same that had been implemented when the Federalists had been in power. As stated above, when the Federalists had been in power before the reign of the Republicans they were loose constructionists. So, essentially, by the early 1800's, Marshall wasn't a Federalist anymore.

His unwillingness to change with his political party and his stubborn, steadfast ways, had morphed him into a Jeffersonian. In 1808, Jefferson made it clear that he thought the national government had no place meddling in religious affairs. He believed that religion was a state matter. This, supported by Document B, proves that the Jeffersonians still believed in states rights to some extent, but all of the other evidence overshadows this small grievance in the political structure of the Jeffersonians.

Another argument against the thesis would be that of internal improvements. This was a proposal that would take the money owed to the government by the Bank of the US and put it toward building bridges and roads. This was national government business, building interstate roads and bridges. Oddly enough, however, Madison vetoed an internal improvements bill. Madison felt the bill was unconstitutional without the backing of an amendment to the Constitution.

This left it to the states and private companies to build the roads and bridges, giving the states more power. As a loose constructionist, this makes no sense. Madison however, made it known that he did support the bill, but it wasn't in the Constitution to finance such ventures and he didn't think there was anyway to stretch the Constitution to fit their needs. So, Madison stuck to his Jeffersonian guns while still making a Federalist move. During the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison, the political parties were defined with an exclamation point. The Jeffersonians, in power, stood for loose constructionism and strong national government while the Federalists yearned for strict interpretation and states rights.

These theories are proven by all the supporting details above..