Thomas+Jefferson-Political+Compromiser

MDS As MRL stated below, it cannot be denied that Jefferson was a successful and generally popular president. However, Jefferson’s success or failure was irrelevant to the more important issue involved in the election of 1800 – political partisanship. Despite George Washington’s warning against it, the two main political parties, Federalists and Republicans, had emerged quite clearly by the election, with Hamilton and Jefferson as their leaders, respectively. Many historians, such as Lance Banning in his article “The Revolution of 1800 and the Principles of Ninety-Eight”, accuse Jefferson of hypocrisy and betrayal of his party and an “abrupt reversal of policies” when he began to adopt Federalist policies during his presidency. However, Morton Borden argues in “Thomas Jefferson: Political Compromiser” that party differences were simply minor and that Federalists and Republicans shared similar overall principles.

The true question here is: was Jefferson the hypocrite, or was he the victim of a misinterpretation on the part of the extremists of the Federalist and Republican factions? While Hamilton led the Federalists in a loose interpretation of the Constitution and a belief in a strong central government, he understood that Jefferson was nothing if not a great believer in the necessity of the strong American government to support democracy. He urged his more extreme fellows that Jefferson was a lesser evil than his Republican opponent Aaron Burr, but was largely ignored. In fact, these Americans who believed Jefferson’s policies (Republican policies) to be evil to the country were appalled when it appeared that Jefferson had abruptly changed his viewpoint and employed Federalist policies to govern the country, accusing him of duplicity. However, Hamilton’s early support of Jefferson over Burr is clearly indicative that there was no “change” per se in Jefferson’s views – even before the rise of political parties, Jefferson had believed that there were certain overarching principles involved in the creation of America.

Therefore, I must respectfully disagree with MRL’s assertion that Jefferson’s success was based mainly on “political flexibility”. This term insinuates that Jefferson was ungrounded in his principles and was willing to adjust his views to whichever angle necessary to increase his popularity and success with the people. While certainly Jefferson had to reevaluate his policies and constantly modify them based on the needs of the people and the country, he rarely compromised his own viewpoints just to make a wider appeal to the American population and to make himself accessible to both political parties. To be sure, Jefferson sided with his party in many debates, involving such issues as interpretation of the Constitution and the construction of power within the federal government. However, as Borden explains, many historians extend these disagreements to full-on radicalism, vehemently opposed to Federalist views, thus resulting in an unexpected, hypocritical change of views during his presidency. These historians ignore the previous consistency of Jefferson’s views, shared by other founders even involved in opposite parties, such as Adams and Hamilton, that America was founded on certain essential points that could not be fully implemented with just the views of one portion of the American people.

MRL - America's adolescence is a time known for a flurry of political debate as partisan politics become prevalent. Perhaps one of the most legendary examples is the political battle between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, which resulted from Jefferson's belief in strict construction, versus Hamilton's belief of loose contruction. At the time, it was specuated that the party differences between the Federalists and Republicans would eventually cause America to fail in its adolescent stages. After Jefferson became president and it was evident that America would continue to survive and prosper. Therefore it can be deduced that Jefferson's success was largely predicated on his willingness to compromise on several significat issues of the time, rather than align himself solely with the ultra-radicals of the Republican party. Thomas Jefferson's political flexibility as president is a precedent setting occurrence parallel to Washington's formation of a cabinet or his rule of a two term presidency. This is significant because Jefferson was able to squelch the doomsayings of both the Republicans and Federalists while demonstrating that political unity is still a possibility as long as both sides are able to compromise. This is embodied by Jefferson's quote, "We are all republicans --- we are all federalists"; such a profound quote explicates the truely patriotic values of Jefferson. Although he was staunchely involved in partisan politics, unlike John Adams for example, he was ready to do what was right for his nation rather than only his party. Such patriotism was only matched by George Washington, who warned America about the evils of political parties, yet Jefferson managed to create an environment where both parties and patriotism can coexist. This is significant because if not for Jefferson's compromises, American politics would become hopelessly deadlocked, and it can only be imagined what would have resulted from such political turmoil.

LM I would like to add that I find MRL's post extremely helpful and accurate, for it explains the political backdrop for the America's second contested election. The above synthesis of the political atmosphere well explains much of what took place after the election of the Republicans to power in 1800. thanks MRL.

CCR- The 1790’s were filled with political activism and clashes of core principles relating to the future of the infant United States. It was the task of America’s new government to create a country. Though Washington advised in his farewell address to stay away from political parties, factions had already been formed by then end of his second term. The two main parties were the Republicans and the Federalists. Thomas Jefferson was the most popular of all the Republicans. He was an extremely strong states’ rights activist that had adamantly opposed many Federalist policies. Morton Borden asserts in his article “Thomas Jefferson: Political Compromiser,” that Jefferson changed his political views when he became president. After the constitution was drafted, Thomas Jefferson continually supported a strict interpretation of the new governing document of the United States. That is to say, he thought that the limits of Executive Power were equivalent to the powers specified in the Constitution and nothing more. However once Jefferson was in office, he began to take some presidential actions that were not specifically addressed in the Constitution. One main example of this is the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson then went over Congress’ head and purchased the colony. Another example of this is the sending of soldiers to the Mediterranean in order to confront the Barbary pirates. Some said that Jefferson “out federalized the Federalists.” He further flexed the muscles of a central government by using federal funding to create a strong road system. He went against some of his original views on central government, and was quoted as saying “We are all republicans-we are all Federalists.” Through this quote in his inaugural address, Jefferson was trying to show his public that he was not a partisan president. AJJ- As America grew as a nation, political parties began to emerge to help people with similar values unite and form alliances to stop the domination of people with differing views. The leader of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson, became the first Republican president of the United States beating out his long time rival and Federalist, John Adams.

There were many elements of this event that were positive and negative. On the positive side, this event was the first ever successful transition of power without a war or major event that changed the country. This event could be looked back on as a successful act of democracy and a win for America as America wouldn’t be dominated by one group of people like many people had been so used to in Europe. It also showed that people from different backgrounds could be president as Jefferson was primarily a farmer unlike Washington or Adams, a general and a banker.

On the negative side, the era of Jefferson began the idea of political partisanship, an idea that George Washington strongly disagreed with. Republicans saw that with united ideas and united power they could rise to be leaders within the country. Political partisanship is a bad thing because it compromises the ideas of the individual for the ideas of the group. It also inspired Federalists to become more partisan as they looked to take back the reigns of power and stop their Republican foes. Though, Morton Borden argues that Federalists and Republicans had only minor differences and shared for the most part the same principals, I disagree as their principals were strong enough to divide them against each other. The Jefferson vs. Hamilton era only exacerbated these growing differences which ultimately lead to the partisan politics that we live by into this day and age.

RIL Contradictory to his belief that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly, meaning that if it does not say an action is permitted then it is not, Thomas Jefferson sent a naval squadron to the Mediterranean to combat the Barbary Pirates without Congress’ approval. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a president has a right to involve America in a war without Congress having had any say in the matter. Therefore, by taking such action, Thomas Jefferson was going against strict interpretation of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, even though he contradicted his beliefs, did the right thing. By taking military action against the Barbary Pirates, Thomas Jefferson had ultimately helped America. If Jefferson had not taken action, America could have been bribing those pirates for years and years just as European nations had been. As he saw it, the need for defeating those pirates through war surpassed the importance of interpreting the Constitution literally. The Barbary Pirates were defeated by the Americans and this opened trade in the Mediterranean which helped America’s economy and therefore helped America. As Borden points out, two members of his cabinet, among others, opposed war with the Barbary Pirates and were in favor of paying tribute to them as European countries did. The fact that Jefferson chose to involve America in a war with the Barbary Pirates even though he had been told it was a bad idea and even though it forced him away from strict interpretation of the Constitution shows how daring and selfless Jefferson actually was. If he wanted to stay true to his beliefs or if he had wanted support from his cabinet and from Congress to avoid hurting his reputation, he would not have been able to send that first naval faction to the Mediterranean. He prioritized what he believed was right for America over his own views. Selflessly putting his own outlook and reputation aside for America, he made the right decision as president. checked--

**week 3**v *** AVG – In the first post on this page, MDS makes the claim that Lance Banning’s article “The Revolution of 1800 and the Principles of Ninety-Eight” accuses Jefferson of hypocrisy. However, I respectfully disagree with such an interpretation.

Banning does acknowledge that Jefferson’s presidency involved some breaks with his earlier philosophies; for example, Jefferson strengthened the central government to allow enforcement of his Embargo Act. However, Banning exonerates Jefferson of the charge of hypocrisy by claiming that earlier Republican policies (such as strict Constitutional interpretation states’ rights) had not been ends in themselves but rather means to prevent a tyrannical government. From this perspective, Jefferson’s stringent enforcement of the Embargo Act continued his original aims because he believed that it would prevent a war, which could lead to government tyranny. Thus, Jefferson was able to modify his methods without betraying his original goals. Banning goes even further and states that the Republicans’ major flaw was not their hypocrisy but rather the exact opposite – their unwillingness to adapt to new situations (167).

I would also like to defend MRL’s article against the claim that it implies Jefferson was unprincipled. Out of context, the phrase “political flexibility” generally refers to expediency and a politician’s emphasis on popular favor rather than principles. However, MRL used the phrase to emphasize a positive aspect of Jefferson’s presidency: his pragmatic desire to do whatever was best for the country regardless of private political views.

MDS correctly asserts that “Jefferson had believed that there were certain overarching principles involved in the creation of America.” This assertion is buttressed, not weakened, by both Banning’s article (which emphasizes that Jefferson’s primary goal was opposition to government tyranny) and MRL’s post (which argues that Jefferson valued the overall good of America over petty disputes). I therefore see no reason why MDS should disagree with Banning and MRL when all three advance similar arguments. great debate points/analysis -- too bad 1st person