Friday, December 12, 2008
Jefferson's Presidency
Hello there people... over the next few days, post three comments regarding your impressions of Jefferson's presidency. Was he a hypocrite? What consequences resulted from some of his decisions? Your first response will be about your reaction to the prompt, and the remaining two in response to your classmates. Spread out your comments so that you are able to adequately discuss this prompt as a class. We will discuss this on Tuesday and possibly Wednesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
66 comments:
Hi guys… I guess I’m the first to comment.
Thomas Jefferson promised several things at the start of his presidency including keeping peace with other nations, westward expansion, impeaching Federal appointees, and equality of opinion. Of these four, he carried out two in ways that were beneficial to the country. Westward expansion was realized through the Louisiana Purchase, which not only doubled America’s size but also denied the land to other countries seeking possession of it. Equality of opinion was also carried out efficiently, by terminating the Alien – Sedition Acts and allowing freedom of the press, speech, protest, etc. as allowed by the Constitution. However, the other two promises were not carried out as efficiently. In trying to keep peace with other nations (namely Britain and France) he thought it best to issue the Embargo Act, which stopped exports from going to Britain or France. This he thought, would prevent keep the US neutral. The effects were far from what he had planned, and the economy suffered terribly. Jefferson even went as far to say that this was a patriotic sacrifice that the people should be willing to make. The other promise of impeaching Federalist appointees had negative and indirectly positive effects. This issue did cause the Marbury vs. Madison case, but it did essentially strengthen the Judicial branch to include Judicial Review.
eisJefferson's presidency reaches more than just his term, his influence altered the political philosophy that was radically different from the past president's view of things, Washington and Adams, who were both Federalists. Jefferson expanded the continetal Unted States by huge leaps-westward expansion. These decisions that Jefferson made would change the rest of the United States for years to come. Jefferson limited government he kept the executive branch small to keep a balanc- something that Federalists would oppse strongly. Jefferson cut federal budget that destroyed federalists ideas to make the capital marvelous. He believed that the military was sort of unnececcary, so he reduced the military by cutting down the size of it. He also took away the whiskey tax-which made the farmers happy.From all of his choices, actually reduced the debt of the nation. What I found personally very interesting is that he encouraged education, and wanted the citizens to have access to free schooling at every level (public schools!) and he founded the university of Virginia with FREE tuition for people who were too poor to pay for schooling.
Most importantly, Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase so he could expand his idea of westward expansion to solve the problem Thomas Malthus brought up over-population. Other reasons for the purchase was the Pinckey Treaty, the Mississippi River issue, and the westward expansion issue.
Jefferson's presidency reaches more than just his term; his influence altered the political philosophy that was radically different from the past president's view of things, Washington and Adams, who were both Federalists. Jefferson expanded the continental United States by huge leaps-westward expansion. These decisions that Jefferson made would change the rest of the United States for years to come. Jefferson limited government he kept the executive branch small to keep a balance- something that Federalists would oppose strongly. Jefferson cut federal budget that destroyed federalist’s ideas to make the capital marvelous. He believed that the military was sort of unnecessary, so he reduced the military by cutting down the size of it. He also took away the whiskey tax-which made the farmers happy.From all of his choices, actually reduced the debt of the nation. What I found personally very interesting is that he encouraged education, and wanted the citizens to have access to free schooling at every level (public schools!) and he founded the university of Virginia with FREE tuition for people who were too poor to pay for schooling.
Most importantly, Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase so he could expand his idea of westward expansion to solve the problem Thomas Malthus brought up over-population. Other reasons for the purchase were the Pinckney Treaty, the Mississippi River issue, and the westward expansion issue.
Jefferson wanted to change many things that the Federalists had accomplished. Impeachment of many officials of the judicial branch was one of the ways he wanted to eliminate Federalists- this ended horribly and tarnished his reputation. He also wanted peace for internally between states and peace externally between foreign nations- also ended horribly due to the Napoleonic War and the Embargo Act.
Although it seems that Jefferson’s presidency twisted everything the Federalists worked for, Jefferson did respect many things that he opposed, such as the Bank of the United states and accepted Jay’s Treaty. So I guess he could be called a hypocrite, but I respect him as a great leader because he set up the Republican-Democratic stance the United States is now.
Overall, Jefferson's administrations illustrated a basic pattern in United States Politics: The shift in parties did not result in the destruction of the United States. Yet, shifts from one part to another has resulted in so little in the direction of public affairs and the reactions of public opinion settled up the basis of the two-party system we have now, the race between the Democratic Party and Republican Party.
-amy
Rebecca, I totally agree with you when you said that some of his promises were not carried out that well. His foreign relationships were tarnished because of the Embargo Act, which caused more stress on Britain and France- since they were already tense from the wars they were fighting- Napoleonic War. Also, I agree that what he did with the "federalist appointees" was very irresponsible.
On the whole, I believe Jefferson's Presidency was beneficial to the country although it did have its moments of folly, like all presidencies, He ultimately fulfilled all the promises ha made to the country. He shrank government, greatly expanded the nation, and purged the national government of federalists, and overall he did keep peace. However, he can be considered somewhat hypocritical in that he tried to impeach several judges due to criteria strangely reminiscent of the sedition acts imposed by Adams. Also, Jefferson's foreign relations plan did not work as well as he would have hoped in that the embargo act did not strengthen but strain relations with England and France. Once all was said and done however, Jefferson ran a great administration that changed the nation for ever.
In response to the prompt:
In general, Jefferson was not a hypocrite. Among the promises made in his inauguration speech were equal justice to all, supremacy of civil over military, support of states, reduction of government spending, and westward expansion.
Save for one, all of these promises were upheld.
Supremacy of civil over military:
The size of the army was reduced and the Federalist's provisional army was disbanded.
Support of states and reduction of government spending:
The size of the national government was reduced in size and power.
Expansion:
The Louisiana Purchase.
However, the principle of equal justice to all may be a point of contention when considering whether or not Jefferson was hypocritical. That is because Jefferson’s actions may be considered unfair in the fact that he often used controversial power plays to remove judges with Federalist leanings.
In general however, the consequences of Jefferson’s actions such as disbanding the provisional army and purchasing territory in the west benefited the United States. Even when Jefferson utilized somewhat illegitimate tactics, such as purging Federalist judges, the consequences backfired and judicial review was established which also ultimately benefited the U.S.
In response to K-Dubbs:
I agree that Jefferson's embargo plan strained foreign relations rather than avoided tensions. It is interesting to note, however, that the act in placing an embargo was not hypocritical. Rather, doing so coincided with Jefferson's principle of isolationism and "no entangling alliances with Europe."
Also, I realized that the Louisiana Purchase may be considered hypocritical of Jefferson. This is because Jefferson promised to decrease governmental spending and power, but by purchasing territory without Congress' approval, Jefferson actually extended his powers.
In response to Rebecca:
It is true that Jefferson carried out equality of opinion by terminating the Alien-Sedition Acts and allowing freedom of the press. However, it is important to remember that Jefferson was hypocritical in that fact that he promised equality of opinion, but had many Federalist judges fired.
As we discussed in class, Thomas Jefferson promised many things when he became president in 1800. These included:
1.Keeping peace with other nations
2.Westward Expansion
3."Equality"
4.Impeach Federalist appointees and repeal Federalist legislation
5.Create agrarian socities
6.Have a small national government.
Jefferson was able to accomplish his goals in a fairly successful manner, with a few issues apperaing. One of his most visible benefits to the nation was the Louisiana Purchase. This doubled the size of the US and provided more land for settlers. Internal revenue by agrarian means went up over 4200% since 1790. Where Jefferson could be perceived hypocritical is his push for "equality." While he repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts, he impeached several Federalist Supreme Court Justices in a possibly "unconstitutional way." Despite this minor detail, Jefferson pushed the nation in a positive and beneficial way.
Responding to Jefferson's foreign policy strategies, or lack thereof, this was not a strong point for him. Jefferson was a staunch supporter of "no entangling alliances" with Europe, so an agrarian society could flourish. In 1803, Congress passed the Non-Importation Act which banned British imports to the nation. Shortly after, the Embagro Act was passed, forbidding American ships to trade with other nations. This is never a smart idea, because it negatively affects your own economy. The only positive foreign policy Jefferson had was purchasing the Louisiana Purchase from France. Even though he could not negociate West Florida from the Spanish, Jefferson was able to acquire vast amounts of land for not much money.
I feel that Jefferson kept all his promises except for his promise for equality of opinions. He tried to keep his promise of impeaching Federalist appointees but in effect, contradicted his promise for equality of opinions. His efforts to keep his promises didn't always end too well either. When he tried to keep peace with other countries and stay out of the Napoleonic wars as well as focus on agrarian rather than commercial interests, he passed the embargo act. This resulted in disaster for the United States economy. His main accomplishment was the purchase of Louisiana. Although this does fulfill Jefferson's promise of westward expansion and doesn't violate any of his other promises, I can't help but notice that his initially strict interpretation of the constitution became more loose. The Constitution did not say it was in the president's power to buy new land but Jefferson proceeded to buy it anyway. In the end, I guess you could call Jefferson a hypocrite but his accomplishments during his time in office like his purchase of Louisiana and reduction of federal debt helped the country and changed it forever.
I think Amy brings up a really good point when she looked at the bigger picture. I agree when she says that, "Jefferson's presidency reaches more than just his term". It's important to look at not just what is happening at the moment but also how it affects the future.
Alex also brings up a good point that I overlooked. Jefferson did promise equality of opinion but he try to impeach all the Federalst judges he could and override many Federalist policies.
In response to Kyle's comment:
I agree with you that, in the end, Jefferson's presidency benefited America more than hurt it. I'm not so sure that he kept all his promises though. I'm sure he tried to but he broke some of them while trying to keep others.
Alexa points out that Jefferson's strict interpretation of the Constitution becomes loose at time; her example was when he purchased the Louisiana Territory. However, this is not the only case where his strict interpretation becomes somewhat lax. The biggest case was when Jefferson tried to keep Marbury's commission from him. This is an outright defiance of the Constitution and Jefferson knew it, yet he tried to go through with it anyway.
Responding to Evan's (latest) comment:
I also think that passing an embargo restricting your own country's trade is definitely not a good idea. Although Jefferson wanted to focus on agrarian issues, trade and commercial business is extremely important for every country, especially one as new as America.
Oh and on a somewhat irrelevant side note, I also think Jefferson's embargo act contradicts his promise to have a smaller/less powerful national government since the embargo affects every state and how it can trade.
Although Jefferson made several decisions that had negative repercussions, I do not think he was a hypocrite. A hypocrite is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." Of the four promises he made, the only one that was slightly not kept was the "equal and exact justice to all." Never once does he resort to using Federalist tactics. Yes, he does undermine some of the judges in the Judiciary branch, but that does not make him a hypocrite.
Furthermore, Jefferson does not abuse his power to silence tha nation's voices. The Federalists used the Sedition Act, which clearly violated the rights of the people. However, Jefferson believed that that the press gave the people an opportunity to comment on different issues.
The consequences were both positive and negative. The Westward expansion, for example, definitely led to great effects. One example is that he obtained land that probably would not have been a part of the United States had he not done so. However, when trying to impeach the judges of the Judicial Branch, it was clearly a bad decision since it ruined his reputation. People criticized the way he pursued the judges, sometimes doing so without clear reasons. Furthermore, he did abuse his position when he underhandedly rid of some the Federalists. He then unintentionally gives the Judicial branch greater power, which definitely did not help his cause.
In summary, he accomplished many of the goals that he had promised. Although some of the things he did is criticized as hypocritical, Jefferson did not do anything that contradicted his beliefs. He fought against Federalists, expanded the nation, kept peace, made the government smaller, and reduced the size of the military.
I'm still a little unsure of what to think of Jefferson's presidency. I think he did some good things, furthering western expansion and making the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of the US. This promoted the country's growth and the extra land helped protect against Malthus's warnings that the people would outgrow the food supply.
We have discussed Jefferson's promises to the nation in class. They included:
1. Keeping peace with other countries.
2. Repealing Federalist legislation and creating a smaller national government.
3. Focusing on an agrarian society.
4. Westward expansion.
5. "Equality" of opinion
I already discussed how he followed through with Westward expansion. He also cut down the army and stayed out of foreign affairs leading to war. He got all the Federalists out of the government except those in the Judicial Branch who were there for life.
His focus on an agrarian society ended had negative consequences as it limited the nation's development, though it did raise internal revenue. The consequences of trying to remain neutral and issuing the Embargo Acts, stopping exports to France and Britain, only led to the economy suffering. Repealing Federalist legislation (Sedition Acts, etc.) was appreciated by most but removing them from the government caused much dissent and tension. One response was the famous case, Marbury vs. Madison. However, the long term consequence was positive because Civil War never erupted and the political change when Jefferson came to power was a peaceful transfer. And the Marbury vs. Madison case strengthened the Judicial Branch.
The part that makes Jefferson a hypocrite was his claim of "equality" since he stacked his government with Republicans and rid of the Federalists. This I can understand because he felt threatened by the Federalists. Overall, Jefferson's presidency seems to have greatly benefited and advanced our country, though he of course had his faults.
- Stefanie Sequeira
Alex said "Also, I realized that the Louisiana Purchase may be considered hypocritical of Jefferson. This is because Jefferson promised to decrease governmental spending and power, but by purchasing territory without Congress' approval, Jefferson actually extended his powers."
I agree with this because like I said before, Jefferson did many things that he claimed to be "Republican", or based on old Anti-Federalist beliefs, but really since he was president did increase the power of the national government.
Jefferson’s decisions led to both negative repercussions as well as positive outcomes. Even though there were detrimental consequences, Jefferson would not be considered a hypocrite.
Jefferson planned to expand the nation, lower government spending, creating an equality of opinion, focus on agrarian societies, and to impeach Federalist appointees. To expand the nation, Jefferson acquired the Louisiana Purchase and almost doubled the size of the nation. This allowed the goal of securing an agrarian democracy to be established through this purchase. Yet, some negative aspects to his actions included the Embargo Act, which halted trade with France and Britain in an effort to remain a neutral country to both powers. The Act instead harmed the economy greatly and was a major downfall for the nation. However what Jefferson was able to accomplish was that an equality of opinion was obtained by eliminating the Alien-Sedition Acts. In addition, he eliminated Federalists from legislation and one important conflict between the two parties included the Marbury vs. Madison case which in the end strengthened the judicial branch by instilling Judicial Review. In the end, although there were many differences between the two groups in government, the transition went relatively smoothly to the eyes of the public thanks to Jefferson’s policies.
In response to Alex’s comment, I also agree that Jefferson’s actions towards the Federalist judges did seem a little unjust. For example, Jefferson impeached Samuel Chase, a Supreme Court Justice, with “intemperate and inflammatory political harangues”. After Chase went to court, there was no viable evidence to show that he committed any offense; he was acquitted and then allowed back to the bench. These actions do not reflect on Jefferson’s plans for equal judgment and treatment.
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite in many regards. He is renowned for claiming that slavery was "unremitting despotism" yet he owned, bred and sold slaves. He had cautioned and advised against the "amalgamation" or merger of the races, but he had children with his slave mistress, Sally Hemings. While serving as George Washington's secretary of state and Adam’s Vice President, he spread rumors about both! He opposed the concept of national debt yet died deeply in debt. He claimed to be “for the people” and against lavishness, yet he himself spent loads of money on luxury items. Thus Jefferson was definitely hypocritical in many ways.
I disagree with Alan’s comment that “Jefferson was not a hypocrite”. Thomas Jefferson was most definitely a hypocrite. Jefferson fits very nicely in Alan’s definition of a hypocrite as "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" Of the many things I stated above Jefferson's stance on slavery is most definitely hypocritical.
In response to Alan's post which reads "A hypocrite is "a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings." Of the four promises he made, the only one that was slightly not kept was the "equal and exact justice to all." Never once does he resort to using Federalist tactics. Yes, he does undermine some of the judges in the Judiciary branch, but that does not make him a hypocrite."
How would that not make him a hypocrite? He went against his beliefs and feelings of equal and EXACT justice to ALL by ridding of the Federalists in the government. By telling Madison not to deliver the commissions to the new judges appointed by Adams prior to his leave (ie Marbury), Jefferson was totally a hypocrite. What he did not only went against his beliefs, though, but also the Constitution! Good President?...
-Stefanie Sequeira
WOW RITU I TOTALLY DIDN'T SEE YOUR COMMENT UNTIL AFTER I POSTED. hahaha we're like the same person =)
-stefanie
I agree with Alicja and also note that Jefferson’s presidency did have some positive outcomes. Jefferson's social, economic and political policies such as public education, limited industry, and frugal government all reveal his desire for the overall betterment of Americans. He was looking to “advance freedom, equality and the pursuit of happiness”, but it cannot be overlooked that in matters of gender and race, Jefferson was socially conservative.
Wait Steph where is ur comment? I don't see it! Are you under Alicja's name?
In response to the prompt, I do think that Jefferson was slightly hypocritical during his presidency, despite the fact that he almost made some good decisions during his term. His promises of westward expansion and focusing on argrarian issues were all carried out successfully and did benefit the country. After all, the Louisiana Purchase was one of the most important aspects of our countries earlier history. Some of Jefferson's other actions, however, could be seen as questionable. At the beginning, it was Jefferson's goal to rid the supreme court of nearly all of the Federalists. This to me seems hypocritical, for one of the biggest complaints of the republicans was the inequality of opinion. The outcome of doing this somewhat backfired on him though, when he was outsmarted by Marshall. So, Jefferson did greatly benefit the country by making a slightly smaller national government, expanding westward, and lessening the Federalist grip on the government, but he did not do so without some hypocrisy along the way.
Jefferson's presidency was a crucial step in the evolution of our country to what it is today. Jefferson's primary goals for his presidency were to limit the United States federal government and establish America as an agrarian nation. From the onset of his presidency Jefferson may be considered a hypocrite for believing in limiting the government's control, while he was out to remove the Federalist judges from the Judiciary branch. The consequence of Jefferson's assertion of power was the declaration that one branch cannot influence another because its un-Constitutional. Ultimately, Jefferson's actions actually resulted in the exact opposite of limiting the government. With the establishment of Judicial Review, following the Marbury versus Madison case, the Judiciary branch had more power than ever before.
wow since I am getting totally bashed by people, I would like to have a chance to defend myself. First of all, he is a Republican, which means he is naturally an enemy to the Federalists. Because he belongs to an opposing party, he would obviously try to get rid of them. That is going accordingly with his principles. When he said "equal and exact justice to all," that can be interpreted in many ways. It is such a vague term that I can take the liberty to say that he went against the Federalists because they were obviously abusing their powers before. By justice he probably thought that the judges deserved it, I mean he was an ardent Republican after all. Come on, their party is called the JEFFERSONIANS. By saying that he would give equal and exact justice of all, he could have meant that he was going to punish those who had overstepped the line. By the way, he DOES NOT go against the Constitution. It does not say anything regarding what he did. He only had an EXTREMELY loose view of looking at it. I do agree, however, that his views did change because he became President. However, I am not willing to go so far as calling him a hypocrite. You can call him a jerk for not giving Marbury the letter, but if the Constitution does not address that issue, you cannot say he is going against it.
In response to Alexa's comment, I agree that Jefferson took on a new view of the Constitution as his term went on. He was originally appalled by the idea that the Federal government could interpret the Constitution in a way that would help individuals reach their goals over the majority. An example of this loose interpretation being the Federalists creation of the Sedition Acts. However, this is essentially what Jefferson did to meet his vision of a westward expanded America. He saw an oppurtunity with the Louisiana Purchase to accomplish one of the goals he set for himself, and took it without the consent of Congress.
In response to Ritu's comment, I think when Mr. Oftedal was talking about Jefferson being a hypocrite, it referred to his presidency, not what he did in his free time. And besides, you do not know how Jefferson treated his slaves. Did you know that since slaves were so expensive, many slave owners actually treated their slaves with care? I bet that Jefferson's slave was probably better off there than looking for work or food somewhere in the United States. Even if he did release his slaves, the bigger question is how would they survive? No money, no relatives, no way of finding a stable job. So what if he had sex with a slave? That is completely irrelevant, as is the claim about him spreading rumors and being in debt. Just because he wanted the country to not be in national debt, doesn't mean it has anything to do with his own debt. The only point I would agree on was the way he spent his money, but once again that has nothing to do with his presidency.
hahaha yes Ritu I forgot my log-in so i use Alicja's whooops.
In response to many of your blogs about how Jefferson actually strengthened our country in the long run, I have to disagree on some issues. I think his term helped strengthen the future of our country, but through his faults. For example, the Judicial Branch became more powerful and steadier because of his injustices and because of Marshall's intelligence. I think the Louisiana Purchase was his most important contribution to our current country. But I think he made some hypocritical decisions that other people helped make better.
In response to Ritu’s comment, I totally agree with her point about Jefferson and slaves. I completely forgot that he owned as well as bred slaves, making his statement that slavery was "unremitting despotism" hypocritical. The fact that he had also spread rumors about Washington and Adams does not really surprise me but definitely strengthens the point in the argument that Jefferson was hypocritical in some senses.
-Alicja :]
Responding first to the prompt, I agree with Alex and many others in saying that Jefferson was not a hypocrite when he was in office. Every president sets a lists of goals and wishes that they will fulfill during their presidency. He wanted to give freedom back to the people which he did by terminating the Alien and Sedition acts of Adam's presidency. Although not all of his promises were fulfilled, two were, those being the Lousianna Purchase and the revoke of Adam's acts. He wasn't superman and therefore was not able to change everything he wanted to, almost no president has actually been capable of that. How could he be a hypocrite if his actions changed the course of America for the better which was his full intention when he took office?
For the people discussing Jefferson's hypocritical nature: I dont really think there is much of a difference between being a hypocritical president vs. just being a hypocritical person. It is still saying one thing and doing another. So, like Alicja and Ritu said, the fact that Jefferson had slaves and the issue of debt still make him a hypocritical president. Also, in response to Alan, the fact that Jefferson attempted to rid almost all of the federalists did make him hypocritical. The reason he was unhappy with the Federalists was not solely becasue of their opinions, but also because they were completely dominating the government, not allowing any opposing views. This, in reverse, is exactly what Jefferson was doing, thus making him hypocritical.
Thomas Jefferson did a pretty good job in terms of completing what he wanted to get done, however, it came at the cost of being slightly hypocritical. First, he was able to balance the issue of a primarily Federalist Congress, allowing for more opinion and voice in the government from a diversified crowd of people. Second, he greatly achieved his idea of westward expansion through the Louisiana Purchase. In doing this, he prevented other countries from claiming the land that was bordered America, which if that had occurred, it would be likely that there would be turmoil of who claimed what land.
As well, Jefferson made some pretty wise moves that helped America support the government. For example, he reduced the military, which many seem far-fetched, (especially for a country that was recently at an undeclared war with France) but there were good consequences that emerged from this decision; less money would have to be spent on the military. As well, he ridded the whiskey tax, making many people happy. Thus, he gained their support.
In terms of hypocrisy, Jefferson's decision of the Louisiana Purchase was almost opposite of what he would usually be for: the government spent a good amount of money on land, however it can be argued that westward expansion was necessary. Also, by impeaching Federalist appointees, Jefferson conveyed a somewhat hypocritical attitude towards this topic.
In response to Ryan's comment:
The Lousiana Purchase was indeed slightly hypocritical. It increased government spending as well as increased it power. However, this purchase was needed in order to keep another one of Jefferson's promises. He promise to expand agrian culture from its hub in the south. This could only be accomplished one way plain and simple, the United States needed to expand. Jefferson was not hypocritical per se, he simply bent on of his promises as a sacrifice to another that he deemed of more import.
Jefferson,just like any other leader, was hypocritical in some respects. Despite stating that "every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle..." Jefferson still tried to rid the government of all federalists. This is most evident in the case of Stephon Marbury vs The Knicks, or something like that. Another example of hypocrisy by Jefferson was the embargo act. Not only did this act hurt the country economically but it also repressed the freedom of the citizens. In a completely free society merchants would be able to trade with whoever they pleased. On the plus side Jefferson did fulfill his promises of westward expansion and not engaging in war.
I agree wioth what John said earlier. Jefferson, although I do not deem him a hypocrite, definately changed his opinion of the Constitution and how it should be interpreted. We have been learning that Jefferson was a strict constructionist and many of the things he did (Lousiana Purchase for one) are not in conjunction with that srict view.
Whenever kinney gets around to posting I'll agree with him. Ill elaborate when I actually get to see what he writes.
Responding to Ritu's comment:
Jefferson's ownership of slaves is certainly hypocritical of his position and feelings on liberty. Not to defend slavery in any way but if you're going to attack Jefferson for this you must remember that a lot of the other Founding Fathers owned slaves as well. However talking about the evils of slavery while still owning slaves is most defiantly above and beyond being a bit hypocritical.
I agree with WIll's comment that the Embargo Act was another example of Jefferson's hypocrisy that was apparent throughout his presidency. This act only managed to surpress citizens which was clearly against Jefferson's original intentions and personal beliefs. In this sense Jefferson has to be considered a hypocrit becuase he ignores his most basic principle and what he had fought the Federalists to gain.
Since I;m tired of waiting for Kinney I'm going to choose another post.
In Response to Alan's comment:
I agree with Alan's statement that overall Jefferson was not a huge hypocrite. Like Alan said one of Jefferson's main promises was not to oppress the people, as the federalists did in the sedition acts. In this regard Jefferson kept true to his word.
I think it is pretty easy to say that Jefferson was a hypocrite. He did deliver on his promise of westward expansion with the Louisiana Purchase, which was a truly enormous move for the country. The one other thing he did deliver on was expanding rights of citizens by abolishing the alien and sedition acts, moves that have stood the test of time. However as much as Jefferson wanted equality he was a major slave owner. You can also say that he cant see eye to eye with the public because of his extravegant mansion at Monticello, which set himself apart from most. Also by vowing to kick the federalists out of power he was denying the government to act naturally and assuming too much power, which is a direct violation of the Constitution. Overall, Jefferson may have done good things but didn't keep true to his word.
To return the favor to Will and to honor the treaty that our side of the room I will respond to his comment. I would agree that Jefferson didn't want to punish the people and thats where the repeal of the alien and sedition acts come into play. On the flipside, his other actions indirectly violated the ideals he believed the Constitution stood for, which in turn did harm the people. I do believe Jefferson was a good president but overall wasn't the stand up guy we all want the president to be.
The intensions of Jefferson’s decisions and promises, since they diverged from the conventional Federalist political ideologies, absolve him of suspicions of hypocritical behavior. He promised westward expansion, which he clearly followed through on evidenced by the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson urged a policy of diplomatic neutrality and keeping peace with other countries. He issued the Embargo Act, which tarnished foreign relations yet assured that the U.S. would be forced to participate in a war so long as it did not start one. Jefferson also aimed to restore his equality notions, especially free speech, and did so by invalidating the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as encouraged schooling. Economically, Jefferson wanted to focus on improving agrarian rather than commercial sources of wealth. His presidency resulted in decreased debt and a decreased federal budget, which angered many Federalists who envisioned a lavish capital. Additionally, the Louisiana Purchase allowed trade to flourish since it solved the issue of blocked trade in the Mississippi River’s delta. Jefferson also intended to rid the government of the Federalist residue left from Adams’s presidency–supreme court judges. He attempted to impeach these judges yet only lost respect. Jefferson was not a hypocrite since he made the choices he saw best to further his beliefs.
One point that i keep noticing is the similarities between Jefferson and our presidents today. They live rich and lavish lifestyles and lie right to the faces of citizens. Funny to think all this nonsense began so long ago,,,,
I agree with Rachel one hundred percent. Just because he didn't complete everything and made a few people upset does not mean he was a hypocrite. He made his beliefs well known and made the decisions based on his principles and the want to better America. He wasn't a hypocrite.. yes, Chris, there was a lot of nonsense in the government, but politics have always been shady. He helped make America what it was today, just because you might not agree with his decisions doesn't mean he's a hypocrite.. he did the best he could.
In response to one of Alex's comments, I would have to disagree. He did believe in quality of opinion but in order to get his laws enacted he needed to get the federalist judges who were blocking him out of the way. That's not hypocritical at all. He let people have a say in his laws and acts, its just that the judges were out to get the federalists back in power, yes it was shady, but neither side was the victim or the good guy. In politics you have to fight fire with fire, and he was in a position to do so. People still had a say and got their rights back with the elimination of the Alien and Sedition acts.
I agree with Kyle that the Louisiana Purchase was necessary for Jefferson to keep a promise.
Also, I liked the quote Will found: "every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle..."
This is intriguing because it shows how Jefferson wanted a diversified Congress rather than a solely Federalist Congress.
I agree with Will in that although Jefferson did not deliberately make decisions to compromise his beliefs, some of the consequences to these decisions were uncontrollably contradictory to Jefferson's thoughts. For example, the Marbury vs. Madison case was intended to get rid of Federalist influence from government, however ironically created judicial review, which created judicial power. And since a centralization of power had Federalist support, the Marbury case aided the Federalists.
Jefferson's presidency was marked by Westward expansion, the Sedition Acts, banning the slave trade and the Marbury case. Westward expansion was meant to protect the economy of the United States while the Sedition Acts were meant to protect our country from aliens, mainly the French during the Quasi-War. Jefferson imposed a ban on the slave trade after the constitutional ban on the slave trade discussion expired in 1808. This ban ended the trade, but forced the government to hand over smuggled slaves to local state governments to deal with it themselves. Therefore the slave trade was reduced but not eliminated. The Marbury case was quintessential in establishing judicial review.
Many of Jefferson's decisions could be seen as hypocritical, as they went against the ideals of the Constitution, but they were necessary for the survival and safety of our country. For example, the Sedition Acts might have impended our liberties as US citizens, but they kept us safe from our enemies by arresting suspicious aliens. The slave trade laws enacted by Jefferson were meant keep our country free from conflict, by allowing the states to decide their own slave laws instead of listening to an absolute decree from the federal government. Jefferson did not know at the time that the slave law would only blow up into a bigger conflict later on.
Overall, the Constitution is a document full of ideals on how to run a government. Sometimes the actions a government needs to take in order to protect a country must go against the ideals, which is what happened to Jefferson with the Sedition Acts. The Quasi-War was a bigger threat to our country than our right of liberty. Since our country was still intact by the end of Jefferson's presidency and still is, I say Jefferson was a good president.
In response to Rebecca's comment:
I do agree that the Embargo Act did not go as well as Jefferson planned, but the results of the Embargo Act were not necessarily ones that he could foresee. During the Quasi-War, the United States was in a lose-lose situation, so either way, negotiating with either the British or the French would not work to secure the peace. Both countries were interfering with our trade, but if we negotiated with one country, the other would think that we were against them.
I'd like to add to others who touched on the topic of the Jeffersonian administration's importance. It was almost as important as Washington's presidency and more important than Adams's. This was the first time there was a change of parties and could well have led the U.S. to a civil war. Previously, whenever there was a change in parties or governments, it was in the form of a revolution as opposed to as in the form of voting. Jefferson's presidency was yet another test, however one of the most important tests of the United States' strength of governmental system.
I agree with Kyle. Impeaching the judges was hypocritical because Jefferson did it out of his own self-interest. However, Jefferson believed in "loose" construction of the Constitution, and the Constitution did give Jefferson the power to impeach others, so I don't Jefferson really did anything wrong there per se.
Although Jefferson's presidency has resulted in a variety of benefits for our nation, I believe that Jefferson was a bit of a hypocrite. Starting with the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson allowed for our nation to expand westward very rapidly. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal," and are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Although this new land provides new opportunities for citizens of the United States, what does it hold for the Native Americans? If they are men that are "created equal," aren't they entitled to the pursuit of happiness? How can they possibly do that with a swarm of people taking over?
Jefferson also promised "absolute acquiescence" in the decisions of the majority. However, that's a load of crap. It's crap because his plan was to impeach Federalist appointees, replacing them with Jeffersonians. Who's going to have the majority now?
I believe that although Jefferson had achieved many great things throughout his presidency, he was a bit of a hypocrite. He preached equality from the very beginning but tried to push the Federalists out of Congress and enforce Republican ideas through getting as many of them as he could into government positions. He also worked to essentially undo anything that the Federalists had done (for example the alien and sedition acts). He impeached many of the Federalist officials and even caused Marbury vs. madison
Jefferson having had to somehow unite a nation that continued to split within the federalist party and between republicans and federalist, needed to gain the trust of his citizens. First, Jefferson needed to gain the trust of federalist who were afraid this shift in power would ruin the nation. Jefferson did this by continuing Hamilton's policies concerning national banks and tariffs.
Also, Jefferson had to satisfy those in his own party, now that they indeed had quite a say in government. He did this by appointing his own choice of men to replace high federalist government positions. He also advocated an agrarian society to become the foundation of the economy.
His promises to expand the nation westward, decrease military size, and bring equality of opportunity were fulfilled. For this reason I believe Jefferson was not a hypocrite, but rather a man who knew he had to, somehow, secure everyone's belief in him.
Concerning Katie's last comment, Jefferson faced an adverse political climate when he took office in 1801. He was able to accomplish numerous of his goals that greatly helped our nation. First, he encouraged westward expansion and bought the Louisiana Purchase from France. This doubled the size of the nation and provided more land for settlers. Jefferson also encouraged America to produce her own goods and limiting the importing we did. Furthermore, he was able to consolidate the national government, creating a more effective government. The point that Jefferson was a hypocrite for not being "equal" towards the Federalists is not fully supported. In order to achieve his goals, he needed to weaken the power of the Federalists. While his ways were unorthodox, they were necessary is limiting Federalist power in our nation's first Republican administration.
I wholeheartedly agree with Rachel's comment about the importance of this presidency. Not only was this a major shift in power, but as a result, it presented new governmental rights and responsibilities. Adams had, for the most part, just continued with Washington's plans during his presidency. Jefferson not only presented new promises and changes to plans of government, but took charge in adding amendments to the Constitution regarding the government's power, such as expanding territory. Some may say he felt he needed to do this since he was an orthodox follower of the constitution, but in the long run he provided the government with powers used to this day.
In regards to Evan's comment, I also believe that Jefferson's actions to gain seats for republicans were necessay. Any new power taking office would be illminded not to do so because then the leader would have no back up in the government. Yes Jefferson did advocate equality, but he was merely balancing the power, not completely overriding it. Equality, in my opinion was maintained since positions such as Marshall as chief justice were still there to provide a check on the power of the Republicans.
Jefferson was able to keep one of his promises through the lousisina purchase. While buying more land for America, he also prevented other countries from buying it qne that was important because it couold cause problems dealing with borders, this also allowed for more westward expansion.
The Republican congress also allowed for more diversity and change in government and it was able to include more opinions in the governemnt.
To gain the support of the citizens in America, Jefferson got rid of the wiskey tax, which made him more popular and seem more understanding of the citizens.
wow good point about the Native Americans dharik. I like.
I don't think you could call jefferson a hypocrite. he did keep all of his "promises" alleged in his campaign. An effective president? its hard to say. but a hypocritical one? no. the debt was reduced, we expanded westward, and the federal government was shrunk
it also has to be taken into consideration the difference between being a hypocritcal president and leading a hypocritical personal life. we don't really know what hypocricy was upheld in the personal philosophies of other founders, and im sure there was a lot. While Jefferson's whole slave thing was cerainly hypocritical, hi outlined aspirations before the presidency paralleled surprisingly well with the results. Many men who see as noble and honorable historical figures were personal hypocrites, but that doesn't stop us form admiring them, right?
Post a Comment