Jefferson Vs. Madison

Although Republicans and Federalists were characterized as having particular views towards the implementation of the Constitution, the Jefferson and Madison presidencies prove that even though virtually they believe one thing, realistically they could very possibly act another way.

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,

Also, when Jefferson passed The Embargo Act, he was going against the Republican Party beliefs. Supported by Document C, the Embargo Act was a great upset to 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, he may have had the good of the country at heart, but he was following the Federalist principle of power in the central government and a loose interpretation of the powers in the Constitution. As the Jeffersonian Republicans grew together and learned a great deal more about their nation, they realized that some of their principles had to change. The country would never stay united if the country kept advancing and the government stayed in the same spot. As Jefferson once wrote, “…I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind…institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times.” (Document G). Jefferson realized in this letter to Samuel Kercheval that, sometimes, people’s ideas and beliefs must grow and change in order to make things better and stay with the times. The Jeffersonian Republicans also realized this. That is why as the nation progressed they obtained more of the ideals of the Federalists.

Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli share similar and different thoughts on how a government should run. On how the government should function. From the rule of the government the rule of the people. However Machiavelli's essay is more cynical, while on the other hand Jefferson is more logical. We might live in a Machiavellian world but it all depends on what people believe in. Personally I believe that Machiavelli's philosophy is cynical compared to Jefferson, Therefore I believe more in Jefferson's piece which is far more realistic although Machiavelli still catches realism in the world we live today.

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,

Through the divide spreading in the nation, with a fair number of citizens showing extreme support of limited federal power and a strong state government, Jefferson fought for his partisan, Anti-Federalist views backed by those that voted for his inauguration. Given that his name was known around the globe for influential political dealings, a simple letter sent overseas to his young country could guide the nation’s lawmakers and statesman as to how they should proceed with a problem, even though he might be thousands of miles away from his home office. Example here. One case of such influence was the affiliation he shamelessly formed with James Madison in order to create the first of two separate parties, the Democratic Republicans as aforementioned.

Conflicting views and contrasting ideologies have always existed throughout the history of United States politics. Alexander Hamilton, who led Federalist Party, believed that a powerful central government was necessary while Thomas Jefferson, who led the Jeffersonian Republican Party, favored an agrarian nation with most of the power left to the states. Although Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were similar in that they both harbored good intentions and tried to keep the best interests in mind for the future of the United States, their policies were drastically different. Without doubt, both of their contrasting ideas served a vital role in forming the government.

The Embargo Act of 1807, under President Thomas Jefferson caused the states, in the Northern and Southern regions of the Untied States, to form an interrelationship for economic self-reliance, from Great Britain. Although the Embargo Act was unsuccessful in gaining economic independence, the act created the necessity of a fast transportation system that would connect raw materials to manufacturers. The dawn of steel transportation railroads in the late 19th century, pushed military advantages, economic expansion, the start of private business relationship with the federal government and an industrialized new American way of life in the ambition of building a modern industrialized America.

On the other hand, as the country advanced and refined, it became known that the fixed views of the two political parties needed to be reasonable if the nation were to expand. Jefferson made the first action toward reconciliation and moderation of his political outlook with the Federalists by contributing a sense of peace in his First Inaugural Address (Doc. 3). Jefferson declared, “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists,” signifying Americans are all in this society together and collectively make the world outstanding. Jefferson and his party had to further control their thinking when the chance to purchase the Louisiana Territory from France appeared in 1803 (Doc. 4). There was a lack of preparation in the Constitution for a president to buy more territory. However, the opportunity may have not continued to be accessible for a long amount of time, and Jefferson changed his own “strict construction” aspects and doubled the size of the United States.

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.

     Jefferson, as a Republican, believed in a society that distrusted the rich and that was run by farmer-citizens. He was a strong supported of not the upper class but, "the people". A defender of human liberty, Jefferson believed in a minimum of government and favored power at the local level. Jefferson also believed that if people were given the opportunity, they would be decent and reasonable. Jeffersons supporting party disagreed with many of the things that Hamilton and the Federalists proposed and passed as laws, including the idea of the national bank. Madison, in fact, argued on behalf of the Republicans that the federal government had no righ to establish a federal bank because it was not among the enumerated powers of Congress found in the Constitution. The Republicans also ignored the Naturalization Act, nor

Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.

A lot of people go to jail that are wrongfully accused of a crime. It is the defense’s job to do anything in their power to make sure this doesn’t happen. Andrew Madison vs the People is a case about Andrew Madison being charged with assaulting a police officer and using disorderly conduct. He was hanging out after school with some friends when two police officers, Kevin Bates and Tommy Majors, thought they were harassing students. The police officers went to the scene and asked Andrew Madison and his friend to see their IDs. There was a misunderstanding and Andrew Madison ended up being arrested. In the case of Andrew Madison vs the People, the defense had a stronger case because there is no burden of proof, and they just have to find holes in the witness statements.

After the Constitution was ratified people had their own opinion about it. The Federalists who were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay just to name a few has a loose interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Republicans which was lead by Thomas Jefferson had a very strict interpretation of the Constitution. Both parties had a different view which will cause controversy later on.