Download Smith 1 Characterizing the Democratic

Smith 1
Characterizing the Democratic-Republicans as strict constructionists and federalists as
loose constructionists vastly over-rates ideology at the expense of political action, and is not
particularly accurate. Calling one party strict and the other loose would lead to a
misunderstanding of their roles in t he early 1800s. As the American political system sailed
toward the Era of Good Feelings, the Democratic – Republicans and the Federalists showed that
they were as willing to act according to the interests of their members (or occasionally the
country) as they were to adhere to party doctrine.
The Democratic-Republican’s philosophy is set forth in Documents A and B. In them,
Jefferson declares that the USA “is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single
government (A) and refuses to declare a Thanksgiving holiday because the Constitution has not
authorized it (B), both declarations of strict constructionists beliefs. However, Document H
shows his willingness to venture into the realm of loose construction, namely, the purchase of
Louisiana. When American diplomats, authorized to carry out a much more limited mission, had
the unexpected opportunity to purchase the vast area of Louisiana, Jefferson stepped in and did it
on the grounds of national interest. He recognized the American desire to push west, and the
golden opportunity to hinder the expansion of British and Spanish interest on the American
borders. His judgment was quickly confirmed by Congress, even though authority to purchase
land wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Both Congress and the President had
become loose constructionists on this issue.
Document C is a cartoon complaining about the Embargo Act, and thus anti-Jefferson an
and his Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson’s Congress had passed the Embargo Act. Strictly
speaking, Congress has the power to regulate commerce, but it is a stretch of the imagination to
Smith 2
believe that regulation includes the power to destroy it all-together. Again, the strict
constructionist Democratic-Republicans ventured into the field of loose construction. Josiah
Quincy’s description of the effects of the Embargo Act sound like they are written by a
Federalist criticizing the scope of the Democratic – Republicans action, and thus his description
may be partisan rather than accurate. However, he could equally be a Democratic-Republican
outraged at the action of his own party, but again, either situation would point out the inaccuracy
of characterizing on party as loose and the other as strict constructionist.
James Madison’s administration faced a world situation (War of 1812) which led it
beyond its party’s strict constructionist view. Madison needed men to fight in the army and
proposed a draft, which was not a power listed in the constitution. Daniel Webster, a Federalist,
spoke out against Madison’s attempt to draft troops into the army (document D), asking “Where
is it written in the constitution?” An example of a strict constructionist appeal by a member of
the loose constructionist party. At almost the same time the, Hartford Convention (Document E)
was meeting and considering secession. Its members were proposing a strict constructionist
interpretation of new amendments to the Constitution to protect their trade and commerce—most
Northern merchants being Federalists. Again, personal interest dissolved political doctrine.
By 1816, John Randolph, a Democratic-Republican, is complaining in Congress
(document F) that Madison has abandoned Jefferson’s strict constructionism for the principles of
John Adams, a Federalist and loose constructionist. He does it by interpreting the phrase giving
Congress the power to regulate commerce to exclude a tariff favoring manufacturing and to
include only a tariff to raise revenue. Here is a debatable interpretation of the constitution (loose
Smith 3
construction) by a strict constructionist accusing his own party of loose constructionism. This
shows how meaningless relaying on the labels loose and strict construction had become.
James Madison, in 1817, without a foe on the borders and a war to fight, reverts to strict
constructionism as an explanation for vetoing a bill spending money on internal improvements.
For whatever reason, he sees eye to eye with John Randolph, who spoke against the 1816 Tariff
bill. In both cases, the Virginians are frustrating the desires of the Northern traders who wanted a
protective tariff and internal improvements.
Whether one looks at the Federalists or the Democratic-Republicans, applying a label of
loose constructionist or strict constructionist seems as likely to mislead as to inform. Such
characterizations are inaccurate and unreliable. Political interests, constituent activities, and the
world situation are much better gages to understanding the actions of the political parties in the
Early 1800’s than are the labels strict constructionist or loose constructionist.