Download Chapter 8 – Jefferson and Good Feelings

Chapter 8 – Jefferson and Good Feelings
I. Jefferson’s Inauguration
A. “Pomp and Circumstance”
B. What Jefferson Hoped For
(Federalism, Republicanism)
II. The Age of Jefferson
A. Jeffersonianism
B. The “Revolution” Against Federalism
C. Jefferson and the Supreme Court
D. The Louisiana Purchase
E. The Election of 1804
F. The Lewis and Clark Expedition
III. Problems in Jefferson’s Second Term
A. Aaron Burr
B. John Randolph and the Quids
C. Suppression of Trade and
Impressment
D. The Embargo Act of 1807
IV. Madison’s Presidency
A. Election of 1808
B. “Peaceable Coercion” Fails
C. War Hawks
D. Tecumseh and the Prophet
E. War Against England, 1812
V. The War of 1812
A. Battles in Canada
B. British Offensive on Washington
C. The Treaty of Ghent, 1814
D. Battle of New Orleans
E. The Election of 1812
F. The Hartford Convention, 1814
G. The Election of 1816
H. The Election of 1820
VI. The Awakening of American Nationalism
A. Reasons for the Nationalistic Feeling
B. John Marshall and the Court
C. The Missouri Compromise, 1820
D. Monroe’s Foreign Policy, 1819
E. The Monroe Doctrine, 1823
Chapter 8 Terms
Barbary Pirates
Judiciary Act of 1801
Midnight Judges and Marbury v. Madison
John Marshall and the Courts
The Louisiana Purchase
Lewis and Clark Expedition, Sacajawea
Aaron Burr and James Wilkerson
British Orders in Council
Napoleon’s Continental System
Chesapeake-Leopard Affair
Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts
War Hawks with John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay
Tecumseh and the Prophet
William Henry Harrison – Tippacanoe, Thames
Oliver H. Perry and Battle of Lake Erie
Treaty of Ghent and Status Quo Ante Bellum
Battle of New Orleans, Andrew Jackson
Hartford Convention
Era of Good Feelings
Dartmouth College v. Woodward
McCulloch v. Maryland
Missouri Compromise
John Quincy Adams
Rush-Bagot Treaty, Adams-Onis Treaty, Monroe Doctrine
Aaron Burr’s Duel with Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton fights his fatal duel with Vice President Aaron Burr.
When it became clear that Jefferson would drop Burr from his ticket in the 1804
election, the Vice President ran for the governorship of New York instead. Burr
lost the election, and blamed his loss on a personal smear campaign believed to
have been orchestrated by his own party rivals, including New York governor
George Clinton. Hamilton also opposed Burr, due to his belief that Burr had
entertained a Federalist secession movement in New York. He called Burr "a
dangerous man, and one who ought not be trusted with the reins of government,"
and on occasion compared him to Catiline. Burr, however, felt that Hamilton went
too far at one political dinner, where he said that he could express a "still more
despicable opinion" of Burr. After a letter regarding the incident written by Dr.
Charles D. Cooper was published in the Albany Register, Burr sought an
explanation from Hamilton.
Instead Hamilton responded casually by educating Burr on the many possible
meanings of despicable, enraging and embarrassing Burr. Burr then demanded
that Hamilton recant or deny anything he might have said regarding Burr’s
character over the past 15 years, but Hamilton, having already been disgraced
by the Maria Reynolds scandal and ever mindful of his own reputation and honor,
did not. Burr responded by challenging Hamilton to personal combat under the
code duello, the formalized rules of dueling. Hamilton's eldest son, Philip, had
died in a duel in 1801.
Although still quite common, dueling had been outlawed in New York, and the
punishment for conviction of dueling was death. It was illegal in New Jersey as
well, but the consequences were less severe. On July 11, 1804, the enemies met
outside of Weehawken, New Jersey, and following the code duello Hamilton was
mortally wounded. There has been some controversy as to the claims of Burr
and Hamilton's seconds. While one party indicates Hamilton fired only because
of the shock of being struck by Burr's shot—the implication being that Hamilton's
shot was unintentional—the other claims that Hamilton fired first. The two sides
do, however, agree that there was a 3 to 4 second interval between the first and
the second shot, raising difficult questions in evaluating the two camps' versions.
Historian William Weir contends that Hamilton might have been undone by his
own machinations: secretly setting his pistol's trigger to require only a half pound
of pressure as opposed to the usual 10 pounds. Burr, Weir contends, most likely
had no idea that the gun's trigger pressure could be reset. In any event,
Hamilton's shot missed Burr, but Burr's shot was fatal. The bullet entered
Hamilton's abdomen above his right hip, piercing Hamilton's liver and spine.
Hamilton was evacuated to Manhattan where he lay in the house of a friend,
receiving visitors until he died the following day. Burr was charged with multiple
crimes, including murder, in New York and New Jersey, but was never tried in
either jurisdiction. He fled to South Carolina, where his daughter lived with her
family, but soon returned to Philadelphia and then on to Washington to complete
his term as Vice President. He avoided New York and New Jersey for a time, but
all the charges against him were eventually dropped.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819), was a landmark United States
Supreme Court case dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States
Constitution to private corporations.
In 1769 King George III of England granted a charter to Dartmouth College. This document
spelled out the purpose of the school, set up the structure to govern it, and gave land to the
college.
In 1815, over thirty years after the conclusion of the American Revolution, the legislature of New
Hampshire attempted to alter Dartmouth's charter in order to reinstate the College's deposed
president, placing the ability to appoint positions in the hands of the governor, adding new
members to the board of trustees, and creating a state board of visitors with veto power over
trustee decisions. This effectively converted the school from a private to a public institution. The
College's book of records, corporate seal, and other corporate property were removed. The
trustees of the College objected and sought to have the actions of the legislature declared
unconstitutional.
The trustees retained Dartmouth alumnus Daniel Webster, a New Hampshire native who
would later become a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts and Secretary of State under President
Millard Fillmore. Webster argued the college's case against William H. Woodward, the state-
approved secretary of the new board of trustees. Webster's speech in support of
Dartmouth (which he described as "a small college," adding, "and yet there are those who
love it") was so moving that it apparently helped convince Chief Justice John Marshall, also
reportedly bringing tears to Webster's eyes.
The decision, handed down on February 2, 1819, ruled in favor of the College and invalidated the
act of the New Hampshire Legislature, which in turn allowed Dartmouth to continue as a private
institution and take back its buildings, seal, and charter. The majority opinion was, predictably,
written by Marshall. The opinion reaffirmed Marshall's belief in the sanctity of a contract (also
seen in Fletcher v. Peck) as necessary to the functioning of a republic (in the absence of royal
rule, contracts rule).
The Court ruled that the College's corporate charter qualified as a contract between private
parties, the King and the trustees, with which the legislature could not interfere. Even though the
United States are no longer royal colonies, the contract is still valid because the Constitution says
that a state cannot pass laws to impair a contract. The fact that the government had commissioned
the charter did not transform the school into a civil institution. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion
emphasized that the term "contract" referred to transactions involving individual property rights,
not to "the political relations between the government and its citizens.
The decision was not without precedent. Earlier the Court had invalidated a state act in Fletcher
v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), concluding that contracts, no matter how they were procured (in the
case of Fletcher v. Peck, a land contract had been illegally obtained), cannot be invalidated by
state legislation. Thus, the court, though working in an early era, was treading on Dartmouth.
Fletcher was not a popular decision at the time, and a public outcry ensued. Thomas Jefferson's
earlier commiseration with New Hampshire Governor Plumer stated essentially that the earth
belongs to the living. Popular opinion influenced some state courts and legislatures to declare that
state governments had an absolute right to amend or repeal a corporate charter.
The traditional view holds that this case is one of the most important Supreme Court rulings,
strengthening the Contract Clause and limiting the power of the States to interfere with private
charters, including those of commercial enterprises.
McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819), On April 8, 1816, the Congress of the United States passed
an act titled "An Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the United States" which
provided for the incorporation of the Second Bank of the United States. The Bank first went into
full operation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1817, the Bank opened a branch in Baltimore,
Maryland, and transacted and carried on business as a branch of the Bank of the United States by
issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes, and performing other operations usual and
customary for banks to do and perform. Both sides of the litigation admitted that the President,
directors, and company of the Bank had no authority to establish the Baltimore branch, or office
of discount and deposit, other than the fact that Maryland had adopted the Constitution of the
United States.
On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act titled, "an act to impose
a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature":
James McCulloch, head of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused
to pay the tax. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer who sought to collect one half of
the fine as provided for by the statute. The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals
where the state of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks." It was
Maryland's contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state that the federal
government was authorized to charter a bank, the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional.
The court upheld Maryland. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The court determined that Congress had the power to charter the bank. Chief Justice Marshall
supported this conclusion with three main arguments. First, he stated that the Constitution was a
social contract made with the people of the United States at the Constitutional Convention. The
government proceeds from the people and binds the state sovereignties. Therefore, the federal
government is supreme, based on the consent of the people. Marshall declared the federal
government’s overarching supremacy: "If any one proposition could command the universal
assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this— that the government of the Union, though
limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action." Second, Congress must act under
explicit or implied powers of the Constitution. Pragmatically, if all of the means for implementing
the explicit powers were listed, then we would not be able to understand or embrace the
document; it would not be possible to write them all down in a brief document. And although the
term "bank" is not listed in the Constitution, Congress enjoys express powers in the Taxing and
Spending Clause, thus giving Congress the implied power to create the bank so as to better
implement this express power. Third, Marshall supported the Court's opinion textually by
invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause, which permits Congress to seek an objective that is
within its enumerated powers so long as it is rationally related to the objective and not forbidden
by the Constitution. In liberally interpreting the Necessary and Proper clause, the Court naturally
rejected Maryland's narrow interpretation of the clause, which purported that the word
"necessary" in the necessary and proper clause meant that Congress could only pass those laws
which were absolutely essential in the execution of its enumerated powers. The Court rejected
this argument, on the grounds that many of the enumerated powers of Congress under the
Constitution would be useless if only those laws deemed absolutely essential to a power's
execution could be passed. Marshall also noted that the Necessary and Proper Clause is listed
within the powers of Congress, not the limitations.
The Court held that for these reasons, the word "necessary" in the Necessary and Proper Clause
does not refer to the only way of doing something, but rather applies to various procedures for
implementing all constitutionally established powers. "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within
the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to
that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are
constitutional."
An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United
States of America and Their Territories.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That war be and the same is hereby declared to exist between the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United
States of America and their territories; and that the President of the United States is hereby
authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States to carry the same into
effect, and to issue to private armed vessels of the United States commissions or letters of
marque and general reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the
United States, against the vessels, goods, and effects of the government of the said United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof
APPROVED, June 18, 1812
The Alien and Sedition Acts of
July 14, 1798
An Act in addition to the act, entitled
"An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the
United States."
SEC. I
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall
unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any
measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are
or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any
law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a
place or office in or under the government of the United States, from
undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty; and if any person
or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to
procure any insurrection, riot. unlawful assembly, or combination,
whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall
have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a
high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United
States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not
less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the
discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good
behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.
SEC. 2.
And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or
publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or
publishing, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing,
printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious
writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either
house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United
States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the
said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them,
into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of
them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any
unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the
United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in
pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the
constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such
law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign
nation against the United States, their people or government, then such
person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States
having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two
thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
SEC. 3.
And be it further enacted, and declared, That if any person shall be
prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid,
it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in
evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the
publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall
have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the
court, as in other cases.
SEC. 4.
And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until
the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no
longer: Provided. That the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat
a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the
time it shall be in force.
JONATHAN DAYTON, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
THEODORE SEDGWICK, President of the Senate, pro tempore.
APPROVED, July 14, 1798:
JOHN ADAMS, President of the United States.
Full Text of the
Whiskey Rebellion
Proclamation
BY AUTHORITY
By the president of the United States of America
A Proclamation
Whereas, combinations to defeat the execution of the laws laying duties
upon spirits distilled within the United States and upon stills have from
the time of the commencement of those laws existed in some of the
western parts of Pennsylvania.
And whereas, by a law of the United States entitled "An act to provide for
calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
insurrections, and repel invasions," it is enacted that whenever the laws
of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed
in any state by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the
marshals by that act, the same being notified by an associate justice or
the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States
to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations and to
cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, when
such combinations may happen, shall refuse or be insufficient to suppress
the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the
United States shall not be in session, to call forth and employ such
numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient
thereto as may be necessary; and the use of the militia so to be called
forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days
after the commencement of the of the ensuing session; Provided always,
that, whenever it may be necessary in the judgment of the President to
use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President
shall forthwith, and previous thereto, by proclamation, command such
insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes
within a limited time;
And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by
writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him
notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in
Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution
thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the
ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the
marshal of that district";
And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of
the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress
the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed;
and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for
the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential
interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government
and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in
the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are
seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual
suppression of so fatal a spirit;
Therefore, and in pursuance of the proviso above recited, I. George
Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all
persons, being insurgents, as aforesaid, and all others whom it may
concern, on or before the 1st day of September next to disperse and
retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all
persons whomsoever against aiding, abetting, or comforting the
perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable acts; and do require all officers
and other citizens, according to their respective duties and the laws of the
land, to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such
dangerous proceedings.
In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the United States of
America to be affixed to these presents, and signed the same with my
hand. Done at the city of Philadelphia the seventh day of August, one
thousand seven hundred and ninety- four, and of the independence of the
United States of America the nineteenth.
G. WASHINGTON,
By the President, Edm. Randolph
The Treaty of the Louisiana
Purchase
Jefferson Acts To Expand The Nation
Largest Single Land Purchase in U.S.
History
For President Thomas Jefferson it was a diplomatic and political triumph.
In one fell swoop the purchase of Louisiana ended the threat of war
with France and opened up the land west of the Mississippi to
settlement.
By any measure the purchase of Louisiana was the most important action
of Jefferson's two terms as president. Jefferson knew that acquiring the
very heart of the American continent would prove to be the key to
the future of the United States.
Initially Jefferson, through his minister to France, Robert Livingston,
offered Napoleon $2 million for a small tract of land on the lower
Mississippi. There Americans could build their own seaport. Impatient at
the lack of news, Jefferson sent James Monroe to Paris to offer $10
million for New Orleans and West Florida. Almost at the same time, and
unbeknownst to Jefferson, France had offered all of Louisiana to
Livingston for $15 million.
Though the transaction was quickly sealed, there were those who
objected to the purchase on the grounds that the Constitution did not
provide for purchasing territory. However, Jefferson temporarily set aside
his idealism to tell his supporters in Congress that "what is practicable
must often control what is pure theory." The majority agreed.
Jefferson later admitted that he had stretched his power "till it cracked" in
order to buy Louisiana, the largest single land purchase in American
history. As a result, generations of Americans for nearly 200 years have
been the beneficiaries of Jefferson's noble vision of America and his
efforts at expanding the continent.
Thomas Jefferson's Views
Concerning Native Americans
By Tom Jewett
Thomas Jefferson, our icon of freedom and personal liberty set the
national policy toward Native Americans that would last for over one
hundred years. He began the trail of tears which would destroy cultures
and result in the reservation system.
Always a man of dichotomies, Jefferson admired and lauded the American
Indian. As a man of the Romantic Era he saw them as unspoiled; the
"noble savage". As, also, a man of the Enlightenment, with its analytical
detachment, he knew that the Indian way of life could no longer exist in
an expanding United States.
Jefferson's attitude toward the Indian population of the United States
always seemed as profoundly paradoxical as his attitude toward slavery...
On several occasions he went out of his way to describe the Indian people
of North America as a noble race who were the innocent victims of
history....One senses in so many of Jefferson's observations on Indians an
authentic admiration mingled with a truly poignant sense of tragedy about
their fate as a people...On the other hand, it was during Jefferson's
presidency that the basic decisions were made that required the
deportation of massive segments of the Indian population to land west of
the Mississippi..."the seeds of extinction" for Native American culture
were sown under Jefferson. (Ellis, 1997).
His lifetime interest in Native Americans can also be seen in his long term
effort to collect and catalogue Indian vocabularies. He worked on this
extensively during his Presidency, perhaps as way of relieving the stress
of office. But, the office, also, gave him new resources. On July 4, 1801,
his first year as president, Jefferson held a reception for five Cherokee
chiefs where he queried them for his vocabularies study. When he sent
Lewis and Clark on their expedition of the Louisiana Territory he tasked
them to collect linguistic records of all the tribes they encountered.
This great ethnological treasure, alas, was never finished. At the end of
Jefferson's second term they were lost to a pair of ferrymen who thought
that the President's baggage contained treasure.
On one hand, he had ordered Lewis and Clark to offer friendship, trade,
education, and even to offer vaccination for smallpox to the Indians.
(American Heritage, 1972).
On the other hand, as soon as Louisiana was purchased, during his first
term, he embarks on a cold-blooded policy toward Native Americans.
Jefferson, in a lengthy letter to William Henry Harrison, military governor
of the Northwest Territory, explained the nation's policy "is to live in
perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate their affectionate
attachment from them, by everything just and liberal which we can do for
them within the bounds of reason." Having said that, Jefferson then
instructs Harrison on how to get rid of every last independent tribe
between the Atlantic states and the Mississippi. (Montgomery, 2000). In
secret messages to his cabinet and Congress, Jefferson outlined a plan for
removal of all Native Americans east of the Mississippi to make sure that
this land would never fall to the French or the British. Jefferson was even
less sentimental and more direct during his second inaugural address in
1805. Even the area west of the Mississippi would no longer be available
to the Indian.
This was certainly a very regrettable situation, but the idea of questioning
the right of an overflowing population to occupy scarcely populated
territories did not for a moment enter Jefferson's mind. To deny such a
right would have been not only detrimental to the very existence of the
United States, but also a denial of the "right" of "our Saxon ancestors" to
settle in England. Furthermore, the President was confronted with a
certain set of facts and not with theory. The territory of which the Indians
had so long enjoyed undisturbed possession was growing narrower every
day. With the recent acquisition of Louisiana, it was to be foreseen that
they would not be able to roam freely much longer in the vast territories
extending west of the Mississippi. (Chinard, 1964).
Thus, the Native Americans must change, become Europeanized, or
become extinct. Even out of office Jefferson held this view. In his plan for
the University of Virginia, he devised a scheme to "civilize" the Native
American.
The plan of civilizing the Indians is undoubtedly a great improvement on
the ancient and totally ineffectual one of beginning with religious
missionaries. Our experience has shown that this must be the last step of
the process. The following is what has been successful: 1st, to raise
cattle, etc., and thereby acquire a knowledge of the value of property; 2d,
arithmetic, to calculate that value; 3d, writing, to keep accounts, and
here they begin to enclose farms, and the men labor, the women spin and
weave; 4th, to read Aseop's Fables and Robinson Crusoe are their first
delight. The Creeks and the Cherokees are advanced thus far, and the
Cherokees are now instituting a regular government. (As cited in Mayo,
1972).
Even though Jefferson's plan never came to fruition, it did set the tone for
relations with Native Americans. This, along with his governmental
policies, laid the basis for the end of most Native cultures.