Jeffersonian Republicans Vs. Federalists Essay

From 1801-1817 there was a clear separation of the United States. The Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were in strong opposition of one another. Though the Republicans were usually characterized as strict constructionists, who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the Federalists, both Jefferson and Madison's presidencies highlighted Federalist ideals in many of their decisions. This included Jefferson's unconstitutional decision in purchasing the vast Louisiana territory and Madison's

In the onset of Jefferson's presidency Jeffersonian Republicans were characterized as strict interpreters of the Constitution. Jeffersonian Republicans strictly believed and obeyed what was clearly written in the Constitution. This characterization proved to be inaccurate later throughout Jefferson's presidency as he begins to lean toward a loose interpretation. Jefferson realized that government should be flexible and change with time, based on what best suits the nation (Doc. G). The Federalists lean toward a strict interpretation of the Constitution during Madison's presidency. Originally the Federalists were very lenient with respect to the federal Constitution. This characterization was also inaccurate during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalist party showed strict constructionist views when they required congress ⅔ in order to pass things such as admissions of states and declarations of war (Doc. E). In regards to the construction of roads and canals, Madison acts based on what is written in the Constitution (Doc. H). Madison's vetoing of the Internal Improvement Bill in 1817 showed that he believed that Internal Improvement by the federal government was unconstitutional. This is something that he would not have done originally based on his original ideals and federalists

The Federalists called this act as unconstitutional on the basis that the Congress may “regulate trade with foreign nations, and among the several states…” To regulate trade implies that some trade is allowed. Congress completely banned trade with foreign nations so the Embargo Act of 1807 was clearly unconstitutional. Daniel Webster, a Federalist, said in a speech,

There were some people who didn't agree with everything that the Federalist Party believed. This new party was known as the Democratic Republicans. This party was made up of farmers, small businessmen, and laborers. The Democratic Republicans weren't backed by as much money, and were considerably poorer than the Federalists. The south and west parts of the United States were most influenced by the Democratic Republicans because that is were the majority of the farming population was

After the colonies gained independence, the founding fathers soon found that becoming a new independent nation was going to be a difficult task. The biggest task was deciding on the division of power in the government. This issue divided the people into two groups, the federalists and the Jeffersonian republicans. Alexander Hamilton led the federalists and Thomas Jefferson led the republicans. These two important men in history would later show how the challenges of becoming a new nation. In this essay I will be analyzing the ideas of Linda K. Kerber’s “The Fears of the Federalists,” to Drew R. McCoy’s “The Fears of the Jeffersonian Republicans.” Furthermore, comparisons will be made about both essays to gain a better understanding of the struggles of government in early America.

As his presidency continued Jefferson began drifting further away from the original ideals of the Republican Party. His decisions no longer reflected a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but resembled the loose construction of the Constitution employed by the Federalists. When he made the decision to purchase the Louisiana Territory in 1803, effectively doubling the territory of the USA, he loosely interpreted the Constitution like that of a federalist by working around the Constitution. No where did the Constitution state that the president had the power to make such a purchase, but by using the “necessary and proper” clause as a loop pole he made the purchase. He went against his party doctrine of strict interpretation in order to expand American domain and to protect the US from the threat of a resurgent France. Another show of Republican movement away from being strict constructionist was when Jefferson passed The Embargo Act of 1807, which banned all foreign exports. Supported by Document C, the Embargo Act was extremely unpopular with the American public. No where in the listing of the presidential powers did it state that a law such as the Embargo Act could be passed. When Jefferson passed this Act,

The First Party System refers to a period between 1792 and the 1820’s when the American political system was divided into two parties. Both parties, the Federalist Party, and the Democratic-Republican Party, wanted control of the Congress, the presidency, and the states. The parties were the result of the differences between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson on how to solve various national problems such as the economic crisis that was threatening the nation at the time (Dickerson, 2004). However, the roots of these political parties and concerns emerged during the constitution ratification process. On one hand, the Federalists supported the constitution while, on the other hand, the Antifederalists (Democratic-Republican) did not support it due to key issues that had not been considered in the new constitution (rAndon HersHey & Beck, 2015).

In 1787, the delegates at the continental congress were all federalists. However, at the end of John Adams’ role as president, two separate political parties with different interpretations of the constitution developed: The Democratic-Republicans (also known as the Jeffersonian-Republicans) and the federalists. During the 1800s, there were two main political parties: the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. The Jeffersonian Republicans followed a strict interpretation of the constitution and the federalists followed a loose interpretation. However, during the presidencies of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the two Parties abandoned their original beliefs. The Federalists, including Madison, started to interpret the constitution loosely and the Republicans, who followed Thomas Jefferson, interpreted the constitution strictly. Both changed their political positions

In modern America, many citizens hold to the notion that the Constitution was adopted unanimously, without debate or disagreement. Not only is this not the case, the debate and disagreement that took place during the institution of the governing articles for the newly formed country are ultimately responsible for the system we have in place today as the concerns and counterpoints raised in the discussion were more crucial to the successful continuance of stability in the nation than any unanimous decision. Given the apparent import of such discussion, it is therefore prudent to examine the original points of contention to determine their merit and to further ensure that the concerns originally raised have been addressed sufficiently.

The origins of the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties can be traced back to the early 1790s. Initially, the Federalists, or broad constructionists, favored the growth of federal power and a strong central government. The Federalists promulgated a loose interpretation of the Constitution, which meant that they believed that the government could do anything by the implied powers of the Constitution or that congress had the right to interpret the Constitution based on connotation. On the contrary, the Democratic-Republicans favored the protection of states’ rights and the strict containment of federal power. The Democratic-Republicans were strict constructionists and they

across 6 states, allowing the nation to be tied together and to be utilized for internal commerce. Later in Jefferson’s term he set a law that potentially was one of the worst notions during his presidency. In 1807 the Embargo Act was placed with the purpose of attempting to prevent foreign tension with France and Britain by not allowing American ships to any foreign ports and eliminated international trade. “The embargo, however, backfired and brought greater economic hardship to the United States than Britain” (Newman and Schmalbach. 136). While Jefferson’s attempt to preserve the economy failed once he passed the Embargo Act, he later at least recognized his doings during his presidency that it must be repealed. The embargo eventually got repealed in 1809, during James Madison’s term.

The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these

My thesis is that the plan was to amend the articles of confederation, but there was too much wrong with it, because it gave too much federal power. The Federalist wanted a strong central government, and the Anti-federalist wanted more power in the states. The articles of confederation are the original constitution of the US, ratified in 1781, which was replaced by the US Constitution in 1789(p.48-49). The Federalist are the supporters of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Anti-Federalist are the opponents of ratification of the U.S Constitution in 1787 and 1788. The biggest compromise that was made would be the federalist including agreeing to include bill of rights in the Constitution. We need a new constitution because of inequality because in the 1st amendment it say there is freedom of religion and speech, expression, assembly and the right of petition. But I doesn’t give freedom on access. Also, because it was outdated was written in 1787. The concerns the Anti-Federalist had were on Article II of the Constitution. Article II “established an entirely new concept in government—an elected executive power.”(p.575) Also the Constitution did not equally divide all power with the three branches of government. The Federalist didn’t have any concerns, but what they wanted was for the Constitution to pass. Another thing they wanted was a strong government. The plans that were involved with the compromise were the

The United States began as a weak, newborn nation that grew into a large, self-supporting country with a governing body unique to this time period. As the government grew and the nation prospered, the rise of leaders and political figures came about and with this, conflicting principles and ideology spawned, thus creating the first of the political parties; the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Although the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans ideology and stances on the power of the federal government, domestic economic policies and the group of constituents they represented differed vastly, members of both parties often compromised their own beliefs for the nation’s best interest as a whole.