Conspectus of the History of Political Parties and the Federal Government/Conspectus of Political History/Jefferson
Jefferson’s Administration.
Republican principles.—Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated President, at Washington City, March 4th, 1801. His policy was set forth in his inaugural address, which showed that he desired to effect a unity of action between the parties. What he deemed the essential principles of our government was stated in the following words: “Equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none; the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administration for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwark against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people; a mild and safe corrective of abuses, which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and the sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason; the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected!” This address, for along time, constituted a creed of political faith for great numbers of the people.
Republican track.—Mr. Jefferson endeavored to put the government on its Republican track. Circumstances favored his endeavors. The foreign and domestic difficulties, which bore so heavily upon his predecessor, were either settled or being adjusted. National finances were prosperous, and material resources were increasing rapidly. He accepted the institutions of the government as they had been provided for by his predecessor, and in so doing incurred no responsibility. Many of his principles were the opposite of those on which the government was administered during Federal rule. The administration was sustained by large majorities, and the Republicans were gaining strength in every section of the Union.
Democrats.—The name Democrat in the Ninth Congress began to encroach upon that of Republican, and continued to do so till the latter went into disuse.
Church and state.—The formidable body of Federalists, who, during the first two administrations, were desirous of forming a union of church and state, surrendered the idea reluctantly when the Republican party came into power. The result was effected mainly through the arguments of this party.
Naturalization law.—The President, in his first message to the Seventh Congress, recommended legislation upon a variety of subjects, and dwelt at some length upon a revival of the naturalization law of 1798. Congress modified the law so as to retain the provisions of the one passed in 1795. “This required a residence of five years, and an application three years prior to admission.”
Slaves desired for Indiana.—Between 1803 and 1808, several attempts were made by the inhabitants of Indiana territory to induce Congress to modify the ordinance of 1787 so that slaves, for a limited time, could be introduced into the territory. No favorable action on the subject was taken by Congress. The question was not made a political issue.
The purchase of Louisiana had its origin in the desire of the United States to obtain control of the mouth of the Mississippi, that our western inhabitants might have a market for their products without annoyance from a foreign power. A treaty for the purchase was concluded in April, 1803, and submitted to Congress by the President on the 17th of October.
The Republicans favored the annexation, and based its legality upon an attribute of sovereignty transferred to the general government by the individual states. That attribute is the right to acquire territory. This was interpreting the constitution so as to give it assumed powers; it was a doctrine which the Republicans had hitherto combated, but which they now advocated with great ardor. The executive himself did not believe that the constitution warranted the acquisition of foreign territory, but he acquiesced in the will of his friends.
The Federals maintained that the government had no power to acquire territory, according to the terms of the constitution; that the purchase of Louisiana would give to the southern states a preponderance which would continue for all time, since the internal development of the southern states would be more rapid than that of the northern; that states developed out of the territory west of the Mississippi would prove injurious to the commerce of New England, and would disturb the political equilibrium which should exist between the east and other sections of the country; and that the admission of the “western world” into the Union would compel the eastern states to establish an independent empire. When the purchase was made, the minority doubted whether the Louisianians should be admitted to the privileges of citizenship, owing to their lineage, dialect, manners, and religion.
Secession planned.—The accession of Louisiana to the Union impressed the Federalists with the idea that the “balance of power” among the states must remain forever in favor of the south, and prompted their most radical leaders to suggest the secession of the northern states. Their hope of success was in uniting with the followers of Burr, that he might be elected governor of New York and be made leader of the northern party. This being accomplished, the name Federal would be dropped, and the war-cry would become “the north!” and “the south!”
But Hamilton opposed the plan, frustrated the election of Burr, and the overwhelming majorities of the party in power rendered fruitless any immediate attempts at dissolving the Union.
The Burrites.—A division in the Republican ranks took place at the election of Jefferson. The adherents of Aaron Burr were called Burrites. The breach between the two portions broadened as the ambitious plans of Burr grew more daring. By a fusion with this faction, the Federalists hoped to regain power. The influence of the Burrites ceased with the death of their leader.
Election of 1804.—The candidates for both parties, this year, were chosen by caucuses consisting of congressmen. The measures of Jefferson’s administration were so popular among the people that he was re-elected in autumn by 162 out of 176 electoral votes.
The embargo.—The struggle in Europe between Napoleon and the allied powers, gave the President an opportunity to inaugurate a foreign policy.
England forbade all trade with the French and their allies, and Napoleon, in retaliation, issued the Milan decree, by which all commerce with England and her colonies was prohibited. These measures violated the neutral rights of the United States and were destructive to their commerce. “American seamen were impressed by British cruisers and compelled to serve in a foreign navy.” Reasonable diplomacy having been rejected, the President recommended an embargo. Congress took the measure under advisement, and three days afterward, on the 21st of December, 1807, passed the Embargo act. The law was at first quietly received by the people, owing to the belief then prevalent that the disturbance of commercial relations with a foreign power was a sure means of defense against injuries which the nation might inflict. This belief did not last long, and the Republican party was required to defend the act. The embargo was the great landmark of Jefferson’s administration, which claimed that “its only choice lay between the embargo and war, and that war should be avoided as long as possible.” The Republicans urged in defense of their position, that it was the only way in which the United States could obtain redress from England and Prance. Both countries had injured the United States in the same way, and to obtain redress by warlike measures would involve the United States in a war with both. This, it was claimed, was something for which the country was not prepared. When the promised effects of the embargo were not produced, the people began to murmur. The Federals urged that the government, by stopping commerce, laid “violent hands on the commercial existence of hundreds of thousands of its citizens;” that the embargo was unconstitutional, because it was not limited to a definite time; that it helped England against France, and was so intended; and that it ruined a large portion of the productive industry of the country.
When it became an established fact that all interests had suffered from the embargo, the tide of public opinion turned against it, and the law met with open resistance on the eastern coast and the Canadian border. In January, 1809, the inefficiency of the embargo having been ascertained, the administration avowed a change of front, and resolved to resume and defend the navigation of the high seas against any nation having in force decrees violating the neutral rights of the United States. Congress provided for the repeal of the law on the 18th of March.
The discussions over the embargo added strength to the Federalists, but, lacking leaders, they were unable to profit by their advantage. At first they advocated war with England, instead of the embargo, but when the dominant party changed front and determined upon a repeal of the act and a defense of commerce, they opposed, unconditionally, a war with England.
The Non-intercourse act was a law prohibiting commercial intercourse with England and France, until the “orders in council” and the “decrees” should be repealed.
Election of 1808.—President Jefferson, in imitation of the example of Washington, declined a re-election. The Republicans were divided as to who should be his successor. One caucus nominated James Madison and another James Monroe. Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus King were the Federal candidates. An earnest canvass followed, in which the Republicans feared their own dissensions more than Federal opposition. Seventeen congressmen formally protested against the election of Madison, and proclaimed his unfitness for the presidency. In some places George Clinton was suggested as the proper man for the position. The embargo, during the canvass, operated in the interests of the Federalists; but the dominant party was too strong to be overthrown. Madison was elected by a large majority.
Republicanism tested.—Jefferson’s administration gave him an opportunity to exemplify the substantive ideas embodied in the platform on which he was elected, and asserted in his inaugural address. He tested Republicanism, and demonstrated that according to its principles the government could be administered with fairness. His course was consistent; his duties were faithfully performed; his administration was promotive of the varied interests of the country; and its influence upon the sentiments and aspirations of the people was benign.