payment page
How significant was the election of 1800 to Jefferson and the Republicans?
Late in life, Thomas Jefferson commented that the election of 1800 was, “was real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 1776 was in its form.” This statement reflects the fact that Jefferson and the Republicans saw themselves as the saviors of the nation, freeing it from the tyrannical grips of a party (the Federalists) bent on elitism and tending toward monarchy.
Were the Federalists in 1800 as tyrannical as Jefferson and others claimed?
While there was certainly a vast difference between the Federalists' style of government and the Republican style that Jefferson would bring to the national government, most historians think that to frame the transition as one from incipient monarchy to virtuous republicanism is to exaggerate the circumstances a great deal. John Adams was certainly not in pursuit of monarchy. He very much believed in the principles of democracy.
How did Adams and Jefferson’s beliefs about mankind shape their views on government?
John Adams came from a school of thought that considered all men to be basically evil, and he sought to place the power of government in the hands of the least evil and most rational—which he thought to be represented by the political and social elites. Thomas Jefferson, for his part, most likely similarly considered men to be driven by self-interest and greed. However, he was from the school of thought that believed that the pursuit of self-interest could lead to social benefits and believed that government should not limit the governed so much that they could not undertake this pursuit. The difference in ideology was thus not as stark as Jefferson would have painted it.
How were states’ rights concerns used to object to the Louisiana Purchase?
During their debates with the Federalists over the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, the Republican Party took on the cause of states’ rights as their ideological cornerstone. While most of the nation supported the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Federalists raised some opposition to it because they feared that the expansion of the nation would dilute the political power of their strongholds on the eastern seaboard. Jefferson’s consistent assertion that the farmers were the backbone of America and would benefit from this expansion of arable land did not help to assuage these fears. Thus, what little debate there was over ratification centered largely on the assertion on the part of the Federalist minority that no new states should be created in the Louisiana Territory without the consent of the original 13. The Republican majority quickly rebuffed this claim, and the treaty was easily ratified.
Was the Federalists evoking states’ rights sincere or out of political expedience?
The appeal to states’ rights by some Federalists over the Louisiana Purchase was inconsistent considering it the Federalists who had consistently advocated for a strong central government a few years earlier during John Adams’s presidency. But the Republicans had essentially flipped the script regarding states’ rights as well in their defense of the Louisiana Purchase. Historians point to the debate over ratification to suggest that the states’ rights doctrine may not have been an ideological bedrock for the Republicans, but rather a universally useful defense raised by those out of power (be they Republicans or Federalists) against the party in control of the national government.
How did Albert Gallatin counter key Treasury achievements of Alexander Hamilton?
As the Secretary of Treasury under Jefferson, Albert Gallatin, specifically targeted his initiatives to counter the Federalist economics that Alexander Hamilton had established as the norm during George Washington’s presidency. Hamilton’s main initiatives as Secretary of Treasury had been the establishment of a national bank, a running national debt, and the regulation of commerce. Once in office, Jefferson and Gallatin strove to tear down these remnants of Federalist economics one by one. Both Jefferson and Gallatin believed in the principle of free trade and sought to cut regulation of commerce within reason. They immediately cut nearly all internal taxes, and balanced the cut with reductions in the military, which had been built up under President John Adams.
Frugal spending and an increase in trade, which resulted in higher customs receipts, meant that by 1806 the US was running a budgetary surplus that Gallatin used to pay down the debt. Gallatin’s boldest move, which attacked both the governmental attachment to the national bank and the national debt, was the 1802 sale of the US government’s stock in the bank to the House of Baring in London. Gallatin used the profit from this sale to pay a large installment on the debt owed to the Dutch. Thus Gallatin had successfully attacked the bastions of Federalist economics, and would continue to do so throughout his tenure.
What impact did Chief Justice Marshall have on the court system?
The Federalists heavily influenced the U.S. legal infrastructure through the decisions of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall. Most of Marshall’s rulings as chief justice bolstered the federal government’s power compared to that of the individual states. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), for example, he secured the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court. In subsequent cases, he also defended the Court’s superior position to state courts. In doing so, Marshall legitimized the federal government and gave it strong legal precedents.
What were the goals and results of the Embargo Act and the Intercourse Act?
When diplomatic efforts failed to peacefully resolve the crisis that had resulted from repeated British provocations, Thomas Jefferson encouraged Congress to pass the Embargo Act in 1807 to ban trade with all foreign countries. Jefferson hoped the sanctions would convince the British government to change its ways. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Embargo Act failed miserably and primarily hurt American merchants. Congress repealed the law in 1809 and tried to use the new Non-Intercourse Act to ban trade only with Britain and France. This act, however, likewise failed to produce any response, leaving Congress effectively out of diplomatic options.
