Debate Between Jeffersonian Republicans And The Federalists

During the time period of 1801 to 1817, there were multiple issues in the United States ranging from wars to political boundaries. This time period saw the termination of the Federalist party. The conflicts were between two parties called the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. The Federalist party was officially started by John Adams. John Adams was also a loose constructionist just like all the other Federalists. Federalists were in favor of a strong central government. On the other side, was Thomas Jefferson who was in office from 1801 to 1809. Jefferson started the Jeffersonian Republican party. The Jeffersonians were strict constructionists who believed in states rights. They said that anything that is not stated in

8). The second reason he interpreted the constitution this way was because if the Constitution were to be interpreted loosely, it would pose a threat towards Slavery. Jefferson had supported slavery, and did not want the government to be able to gain more power through the clause, and in the long run, eventually ending slavery in America. The final reason Jefferson opposed Hamilton's interpretation was because Hamilton was using his loose interpretation to his advantage, creating a bank to further push his financial plan into motion, which was the exact opposite of what Jefferson wanted as it went against all of his beliefs. Jefferson was trying to stop Hamilton's plan, and one way was to stop the abuse of the “Necessary and Proper” clause.

One of Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s first disagreements began with the idea of a National Bank. Hamilton suggested that the government should create the Bank of the United States Jefferson protested because this was not allowed by the Constitution. Hamilton opposed the view of Jefferson and stated that the Constitution’s writers could not have predicted the need of a bank for the United States. Hamilton said that the right to create the Bank of the United States was stated in the “elastic” or the “necessary and proper” clause in which the Constitution gave the government the power to pass laws that were necessary for the welfare of the nation. “This dilemma revisits the ever lasting dispute between the “strict constructionists” (Jefferson) who believed in the strict interpretation of the Constitution by not going an inch beyond its clearly expressed provisions, and the “loose constructionists” (Hamilton) who wished to reason out all sorts of implications from what it said”. Just a few years later, under President Jefferson, the federal government of the United States

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

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.

Another provision in the Constitution that was used to defend the constitutionalist of a national bank was the ‘regulate commerce with foreign nations’ clause. Jefferson argues that this is again unnecessary because the creation of the bank and the regulating commerce are two very different propositions. One is making something to be bought and sold while another is regulating things that are being bought and sold. Jefferson makes it clear that a bank is not necessary to regulate commerce in the United States or in foreign nations with a national bank. (1)

Thomas Jefferson believed in the ?strict interpretation'; of the constitution, especially the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment states,'; the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; Jefferson argued that since the Constitution did not specifically empower the federal government to establish a national bank, thus it could not do so. Hamilton argued for a loose interpretation. He relied on the implied powers clause which states that Congress can make all laws ?necessary and proper'; for the execution of its power.

Not only did their differences in the way Jefferson and Hamilton were brought up differ, especially their ideas and views on government and the Constitution. Jefferson, our first Secretary of State had differing ideas on government that Hamilton. Jefferson said about the Constitution, “…I like the organization of the government into Legislative, Judiciary, and Executive…” This quote states that he favors a more viewpoint in which he favored a small government and states’ rights. Today, he would have been part of the Republican Party. He also believed that the Majority should always be victorious, and that the nation should stick to an agricultural lifestyle. Since he favored the Constitution and wrote a majority of it, there were things that upset him when he was

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.

     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

By 1817 the great American experiment was in full swing. America was developing into an effective democratic nation. However as the democracy continued to grow, two opposing political parties developed, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. The Jeffersonian Republicans believed in strong state governments, a weak central government, and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Federalists saw it differently. They opted for a powerful central government with weaker state governments, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. The seemingly solid divide between Federalist and Republican would begin to blur during the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. For, neither Republican president was able lead

Although Republicans preferred more power to the states, as President, Jefferson should have kept the county's best idea in mind and tried to keep the national government strong. Jefferson also comes across as very hypocritical in this letter by trying to dismantle the government he created and fought for during the drafting of the Constitution. In this letter, Jefferson is guilty of trying to allow his own vision for the country to come through rather than keeping the strict constructionist ideas of his party in mind and supporting the Constitution even if it called for a strong national government.

The main reason that rise to conflict between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson is their contradict ideas about the government. As a federalist supporter, Hamilton find favor in a strong central government, meanwhile, Jefferson believe in a limited government. Because his fear of mod rules, HaMilton distrusted that a government should be ruled by everyone. He acknowledge that a strong central government

The real dilemma the Anti-Federalists had with the constitution, when the constitution was signed it did not contain a Bill of Rights to protect citizen’s rights. The Anti- Federalist feared a national government would strip citizens of their individual rights. The Anti-Federalists did not want a repeat of the Revolutionary War.

In addition to saving the integrity of the Federalist-dominated Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, John Marshall also promoted certain Federalist principles, including the idea of a strong national government. From the years when the Constitution was being created, Alexander Hamilton fought for the creation of a national bank since he believed it was “necessary and proper” for the growth and development of the United States (“The Marshall Court”). As Hamilton and the Federalist Party had hoped, a national bank was created and one of its branches was placed in Baltimore, Maryland. State legislators from Maryland were not satisfied with the progress the bank was making because the negligent behavior of its bank officials was bringing the bank under (Newmyer, 295). To save their citizens from having to deal with the bank’s faulty leadership, the legislators attempted to drive the branch out of the state by placing a tax on all the banknotes issued by the bank. When the tax was purposely left unpaid, Maryland sued the cashier of the bank--James McCulloch. In the state courts, Maryland won its case,