What is meant by the term Jeffersonian Democracy? Explain how Jefferson's moderation and compromises turned the "Revolution of 1800" into a relatively smooth transition of party control from Federalists to Republicans.
Describe the conflicts between Federalists and Republicans over the judiciary and the important legal precedents that developed from these conflicts.
How does the period 1800-1812 look if viewed through Native American eyes? Could the attempt of Tecumseh and the Prophet to unite western Natives against US expansion have created a different dynamic in white-Native relations?
What were the "causes" of the Louisiana Purchase? How did Jefferson's
Louisiana Purchase transform America's understanding of itself and its future?
Was it inevitable that the west would become part of a much greater United
States, or was there real danger in efforts like Aaron Burr's to break those
areas off from the country?
Describe Jefferson's basic foreign policy goals and how he attempted to achieve them. Describe the original intentions and the actual results of Jefferson's embargo. Was there any merit at all
in Jefferson's embargo policy? What prompted this policy in the first place?
What were the causes of the Louisiana Purchase?
ReplyDeleteAs the Mississippi River became the chief trading channel for goods shipped among the states it bordered, the American government became greatly interested in purchasing New Orleans, an important port city and mouth of the river. Beginning in 1801, and with little luck at first, Thomas Jefferson sent envoys to France to negotiate the small purchase they had in mind. A prominent French commander recently had lost a fierce battle in Saint-Domingue that took up much needed resources and cut off the connection to the ports of North America’s southern coast for the French. France also did not have a strong enough navy to maintain control of lands so far away from home, separated by the Atlantic ocean. Napoleon wanted to consolidate his resources so that he could focus on conquering England. Believing he lacked the troops and materials to wage an effective war, the French general wished to sell France's land to raise funds. Napoleon rejected America's proposal to purchase New Orleans, choosing instead to offer the entirety of France's North American possessions as the Louisiana Purchase.
DeleteThe Louisiana Purchase helped to transform America’s view of itself by making it seem more as if the United States was destined to be a large and important country. Before the purchase was made, the US was not very big and was rather weak. The purchase did not strengthen the US militarily, but it did increase the size of the country tremendously. All of a sudden, the idea of a country that stretched across the entire continent was not unreasonable. Americans came to feel that the country could be physical very large, and presumably powerful in proportion, in the future. The Louisiana Purchase, then, caused Americans to see their country as a potential great power and helped to give them a greater sense of national pride.
Thomas Jefferson was not sure if he was aloud to purchase the Louisiana Territory because it went against his strict constructionist beliefs in the Constitution. It did not say if the president was aloud to purchase land without the consent of Congress.
DeleteAllowed.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter 1800 the major Federalist role came in the judiciary. Led by Federalist, John Marshall as Chief Justice from 1801 to 1835, the Supreme Court carved out a unique and powerful role as the protector of the Constitution and promoter of nationalism.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWIth John Marshall as the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court was able to become an equal branch in power with the legislative and executive branches. Under John Marshall the courts made several important decisions, including establishing judicial review, the power of the federal government over the state, as well as upholding enumerated powers. Without these important decisions early on in the young United States, there would not have been the infrastructure for a strong a lasting government.
DeleteHow did Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase transform America's understanding of itself and its future?
ReplyDeleteAt first when the land was initially purchased by France and Napoleon, America was scared, foreshadowing a future of battles and bloodshed. Because their armies would not be able to defeat Napoleon and his, the US would have to find allies. Which would not be good either, considering that many Americans believed in the anti-alliance policy. Due to various reasons, Napoleon decided to give all of the trans-Mississippi area to the Americans, allowing Jefferson to purchase it.
The Senators were quite happy about the purchase, land hungry they supported the idea of moving West. The people appeared to be the same, and Jefferson curiosity finally got the best of him as he sent Lewis and Clark into the West to discover the unknown.
After the purchase, I think that a majority of the people felt more secure and found themselves liking the idea of expanding. Was it inevitable though? No, I do not think so. Although the government, Jefferson, and the people were excited to move on, I think that it wasn't till Lewis and Clark came back that Americans truly considered the possibility of a bigger America. But before that, like Jefferson, the people didn't know what was out there, they were curious.
Also, the Louisiana purchase effectively doubled the size of the United States giving it a much larger appearance geographically in the world. SO, this can be considered the origin of the big and bad american motto because now that we have twice as much land, America itself, grew up into the adulthood in the worlds view.
DeleteDescribe Jefferson's basic foreign policy goals and how he attempted to achieve them:
ReplyDeleteJefferson thought that the foreign policy should be passive. He did not want to have to deal with the European wars. Jefferson wanted the army to be more of a police force in the United States than bother with foreign affairs. Many could call Jefferson's policy one of "non-involvement". Here are few quotes: "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." --Thomas Jefferson to T. Lomax, 1799.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to E. Gerry, 1799.
When Jefferson entered office, one of his goals was to reduce the military because h thought that it had too much power. Instead of a standing army, he thought that a militia among the states would be more beneficial. Without a standing military, he could also accomplish his goal of keeping the country neutral from foreign affairs.
DeleteThe Louisiana purchase could have been seen as a final end to indian's having any chance of keeping their land as the french that had occupied the space were far more peaceful than the americans that came to control the territory after the purchase.
ReplyDeleteWhat were the causes of the Louisiana Purchase? At the beginning of the 19th century the U.S. was looking to expand west, and it just so happened that the owners of the West were in a dire need of money. Specifically, Napoleon needed to fund his wars in Europe and release french landholdings in America. Jefferson was also willing to purchase originally just Louisiana and as much landholdings for 10 million dollars but little be known to him how much he would acquire in 1803. So, the causes can essientially be sumed up as the purchasing parties wanting to expand, and the landholding parties wishing to get rid of their landholdings in the new world, and also needed money to fuel their European wars.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S gained 828,000 miles of land
ReplyDeleteJeffersonian Democracy marked the end of federalist control of politics. Jeferson placed more emphasis on the common man and brought more idealism into the government.
ReplyDeleteJefferson reversed Federalist policies like dropping the excise tax, eliminating the Sedition Act, reducing the naturalization requirement for immigrants to only five years, and reducing the standing army.
DeleteCould the attempt of Tecumseh and the Prophet to unite western Natives against US expansion have created a different dynamic in white-Native relations?
ReplyDeleteYes, a different dynamic would have formed. However, it would have divided the United States and since the west was not extremely populated at this time, it would have been easy for the rest of the United States to over power them and the native americans. Also , the native americans would have viewed the period of 1800-1812 as a terrible learning experience. They didn't have a concept of land at first, but once they went through multiple treaties with colonists they soon realized that their so-called "land" was being taken unfairly. So they were pretty pissed.
Let's use historical language and specifics in our responses. Which treaties? What dynamic specifically would you envision? Divided the West how?
DeleteWhat is meant by the term Jeffersonian Democracy? Explain how Jefferson's moderation and compromises turned the "Revolution of 1800" into a relatively smooth transition of party control from Federalists to Republicans.
ReplyDeleteJefferson was all about agrarian interests and the idea that the power in a democracy resided with the common people of the republic. He opposed the idea that elitists should run the government and that the government should adopt forms and policies similar to the aristocracy of England. His compromises and moderations dealt with his idea of an agrarian democracy and it created a somewhat smooth transition of party control from Federalists to Republicans because he won the election and no one questioned him.
The "Revolution of 1800" proved that the infant republic could peacefully transfer power from one party to another. The House of Representatives decided the election. Jefferson promised a wise and frugal government to preserve order among the inhabitants, and leave the Republicans alone to freely regulate their pursuit of industry. Due to this, the "Revolution of 1800" was a smooth transition.
DeleteDescribe the original intentions and the actual results of Jefferson's embargo.
ReplyDeleteJefferson believed that France and Britain were dependant on American trade to survive and pushed an embargo to cut them and make them realize that they can't take American ships. But in reality Britain imported from other places and France was large enough to sustain itself and this starved America's economy, forcing them to open up factories and thus began America's history in manufaturing.
Jefferson's embargo was to ensure that the Orders in Council and Continental System were repealed. However, it was severely detrimental to the US economy. After the Embargo act was instituted, trading revenue dropped from 108 million dollars per year down to only 22 million per year, and that small amount came from the illegal smuggling. Farmers could no longer find any market to export their goods, and plantation owners in the South no longer had any way to export their cotton and tobacco. The hardest hit were the New Englanders, however, because they were the ones who were the traders between the US and other nations. This act took away their entire livelihood, creating widespread anger and poverty
DeleteWas it inevitable that the west would become part of a much greater United States, or was there real danger in efforts like Aaron Burr's to break those areas off from the country?
ReplyDeleteAlthough the concept of 'Western America' separating and forming its own nation under the rule of an Aaron-Burr-like persona no doubt seemed especially threatening at the time, there was never any long term danger of the continental United States not stretching 'from sea to shining sea'. Looking at the trend US history had taken up to that point, with westward movement even after Britain declared it to be unlawful (the Proclamation of 1763), Americans had such a strong desire to own the continent that they wouldn't let a little thing like national borders get in their way. At the point of the 'Aaron Burr threat', the US had already had had several confrontations with the Native Americans, and had endured significant disagreements with them over land. However, despite the supposed 'borders' implied by the Native Americans' territory, colonists/Americans moved right on in. Judging by these trends, even if western America had temporarily established itself as a separate entity, the movement of Americans westward would have eventually made its absorption/purchase/winning through war inevitable.
How does the period 1800-1812 look if viewed through Native American eyes? Could the attempt of Tecumseh and the Prophet to unite western Natives against US expansion have created a different dynamic in white-Native relations?
ReplyDeleteThe natives during this time saw the Americans as invaders on their land and most of the tribes wanted to get them off of their land. Tecumseh and his brother, the Prophet, were both part of the Shawnee tribe that attempted to unite the tribes of Ohio and Indiana against white settlers in a pan-Indian resistance movement. With this on mind, Indians began to look at whites with even more hatred.
This hatred was fueled by the Indians' discredit due to the Battle of Tippecanoe. In the fall of 1811 an army gathered by William Henry Harrison advanced on Tecumseh's headquarters. With Tecumseh absent, the Prophet, though outnumbered, attacked Harrison's forces, resulting in the Shawnees being routed and their settlement burned. Since the Indians were seen as aggressors, this resulted in becoming discredited
DeleteThe natives were being controlled by the Americans through the Louisiana purchase. they did not get the concept of owning land... at first. but they began getting angry that the Americans were taking their land and killing their people and the somewhat good relations in certain places disappeared.
DeleteThere was no real danger in Aaron Burr's attempted to secede the newly acquired western lands. One of the reasons Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase was to gain land which would contribute to the agrarian society he envisioned. Even if Burr had succeeded momentarily in taking the lands, Jefferson would not have allowed this to continue, as he went through the trouble of violating his own constitutional beliefs in obtaining the Louisiana Territory.
ReplyDeleteWhat prompted [the Embargo of 1807] in the first place?
ReplyDeleteBecause Great Britain and France were at war starting in 1806/1807, Britain needed extra seamen, and so began impressing US citizens into its navy (at this time the British still considered Americans to be British subjects: "Once British, always British.") These impressments, in addition to the fact that the United States was having difficulty trading with either country due to the war, and the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair of 1907, in which the British ship The Leopard fired upon the American ship The Chesapeake after she refused to submit for a search for British deserters (the Chesapeake was then boarded, and four men were impressed into the British navy), prompted Jefferson to issue the Embargo of 1807.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCheck your history!
Delete1807?
DeleteTake Two...
DeleteIn addition to the British, the French also impressed US seamen, just on a much smaller scale. That is not to say the the US did not take notice, for a portion of Jefferson's reasoning for the Embargo of 1807 was to halt said French impressment of US seamen.
1807...
DeleteWas there any merit at all in Jefferson's embargo policy?
ReplyDeleteDespite the Embargo of 1807 being intended to stifle the British and French economies into submission to US demands for the halt of the impression of US seamen, all it really succeeded in was stifling the US economy. US seamen were unemployed (so in an ironic way they really did not have to worry about being impressed). Merchants and farmers who depended on foreign sales were financially ruined. The black market and smuggling became increasingly popular. But, despite all the aforementioned negatives, at least one good came of it (at least in the eyes of industrial America): the Embargo encouraged domestic manufacturing, which had been around since the English defector Slater came to America and began industrializing textile mills in the 1790s.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete