DOCSLIB.ORG

B. Strict Interpretation of the Constitution C. Public Good Over Private Interests D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
B. Strict Interpretation of the Constitution C. Public Good Over Private Interests D Age of Jefferson Beliefs: a. Smaller government (state over federal) b. Strict interpretation of the Constitution c. Public good over private interests d. Virtue – educated farmers e. Does not believe Black and Whites can live together f. Does believe Native Americans and Whites can live together Actions: a. Slashed expenditures 1) closed embassies, reduced the army, repeal taxes b. Repealed Judiciary Act of 1801 1) Adams reduced Supreme Court Justices from 6 to 5 and added 16 federal judgeships 2) “Midnight Appointments” – before leaving office, Adams appoints 16 federal judges (Federalists) c. Upheld judicial review, but attempted to impeach Federalist judges Foreign Challenges North Africa Tripoli declares war with the US – 1796 No British naval protection US pays Barbary pirates $1 million to stop ship seizure Quasi-War History - 1798 Jefferson opposed strengthening the navy as too expensive Tripolitan War – 1801 to 1805 Cheaper to go to war rather than continue to pay higher bribes Britain – Rise of Napoleon 1805 – American merchant ships seized going into French ports 1807 – Embargo Act (Peaceable Coercion) US refuses to trade with England and France Spain Owned East Florida, Port of New Orleans, West Florida Territory turned over to France (Napoleon ruler) France Spain gave territory to France Napoleon’s vision: French empire in New World, Louisiana to become the breadbasket for the new empire, hub of empire in Haiti and Dominican Republic Jefferson’s Vision: “Empire of Liberty” Western expansion by free and virtuous American people The Spark Port of New Orleans is the only port for western farmers ($3 mil) 1802 – right to use port is revoked by Spain (blamed on Bonaparte) Louisiana Purchase France faced slave rebellion in Caribbean – cannot secure empire US purchased territory as France needed money Significance: Sold for $15 million - .13 ½ cents/acre Doubled size of the US – not an enumerated power of the Federal government Contradiction – Elastic Clause Land would promote republican liberty – goes against strict interpretation of the Constitution Election 1804: 12th Amendment – Separate and distinct ballots for presidential and vice-presidential candidates Federalists – no national issue Aaron Burr – tie in Electoral College; courts the Federalists Jefferson – purchased Louisiana territory; starts to pay off debt http://www.time.com/time/2002/lewis_clark/ map/ Lewis and Clark Expedition: Objective: Find a water route across the continent Sacajawea – served as guide Significance: Mapping of the new territory Expedition is interpreted as diplomatic by Native Americans Jefferson’s Second Term Napoleonic Wars – US Becomes a Pawn Homefront Challenges Aaron Burr, Vice President Involved himself in activities without government consent a. joined a pro-British group b. created an independent confederacy (west) to conquer Mexico and invade West Florida c. Fled to Europe to set up an Anglo- French invasion of the US John Randolph - Quids Extremist – every government action threatened liberty Jefferson’s policies are no longer this extreme Randolph’s spark – Yazoo Land Scandal a. Compromise – land investors received 5 million acres Foreign Challenges Trade prior to 1805 – British Rule of 1756 If trade was closed during peacetime, it could not be opened during war Back-door policy: American ships unload products then classify products as American products Spark: Britain declares total war on France Britain’s Decree: British Orders in Council Blockade of French-controlled ports French Response: Continental System Objective: Make Europe self-sufficient and isolate Britain Ships that obey British orders would be subject to French seizure Result: US ships are seized British search most American ships leaving port Impressment enacted for the Royal Navy British sailors desertion rates high = increased rates of searches Chesapeake-Leopard Affair British board the Chesapeake-US citizens are enraged Result: Embargo Act of 1807 (Peaceable Coercion) US suspends trade with France and Britain Impact: British found new markets Loopholes – American ships blown off course can dock in European ports Americans bear the brunt of the embargo a. 30,000 seamen unemployed b. merchants go bankrupt c. debtors jails filled up d. farmers unable to export products e. New England most impacted—port cities People clamor for war The Up Side Capital diverted to manufacturing Election of 1808: Federalist – have a national issue – oppose the Embargo Act of 1807 (revived) young Federalists gain voters by popular techniques – barbecues, mass meetings James and Dolly Madison Repealed Embargo Act replaced with Non-Intercourse Acts-1809 Trade opened with all nations except Britain and France Exception – President can restore trade with B&F if neutral rights were not violated (Failed) Macon’s Bill No. 2 -1810 Opened trade with B&F If either nation repealed restrictions, US would halt trade with the other (Failed) Result of failed “Peaceable Coercion” Policy Economic Recession War hawks - Militant Republicans (South and West) Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Richard Johnson, William King War Hawk Agenda Expel British from Canada – fear recruitment of Native Americans Expel Spain from Florida "No tribe has the right to sell, even to each other, much less to strangers.... Sell a country! Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Didn't the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children? The way, the only way to stop this evil is for the red man to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was first, and should be now, for it was never divided." Tecumseh We gave them forest-clad mountains and valleys full of game, and in return what did they give our warriors and our women? Rum, trinkets, and a grave. Brothers -- My people wish for peace; the red men all wish for peace;but where the white people are, there is no peace for them, except it be on the bosom of our mother. Where today are the Pequot? Where today are the Narrangansett, the Mohican, the Pakanoket, and many other once powerful tribes of our people? Treaty of Fort Wayne – 1809 Jefferson and Madison: Compensate Native Americans for their land if they gave up traditional lifestyles Reality: Settlers sign away land for liquor, guns, blankets William Henry Harrison: Negotiated with Native Americans who did not have land Treaty: Native Americans ceded millions of acres (2 cents/acre) Tecumseh and Tenskwatawa: Outraged, together they revitalize their culture Tecumseh – strategist Tenskwatawa – visionary Prophetstown – Battle of Tippecanoe Tenskwatawa attacks Harrison’s camp Significance: Harrison became a national hero “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too” help elect him as president Tecumseh became leader of western tribes Tecumseh allies with the British War of 1812 – America’s Second War of Independence Madison sent war message to Congress Britain suspended Orders in Council, but war had already been declared Reason for war: Impressment Great Britain Strengths Strong navy Canadians were former Tories Native American Allies Weaknesses Best troops fighting in Europe Americans Weaknesses Weak navy Citizens uncommitted Stages: 1812- 1813; 1813-1814; 1814 1812 – Battle of Queenston British – Tecumseh cuts supply line, control Lake Erie Americans – Have to control Lake Erie 1813 – Battle of Lake Erie/Battle of Put-in-Bay British – Hold Lake Erie Americans – Oliver Perry destroys British squadron William Henry Harrison defeated British and Native Americans at Battle of Thames – Death of Tecumseh 1814 – Battles of Lundy and Chippewa Americans cross into Canada, but cannot hold 1814 – Battle of Plattsburgh British – reinforcements; split New England states; fails 1814 – Battle of Bladensburg – “Bladensburg Races” Americans flee, Washington burned British head to Baltimore and fail to hold (Fort McHenry – Star Spangled Banner) Treaty of Ghent – 1814 Britain loses control of Great Lakes and Lake Champlain Neither side loses or gains territory Impressment not addressed – but war in Europe ended Northern border to be discussed 1815-Battle of New Orleans Two weeks after Treaty of Ghent Andrew Jackson (Old Hickory) crushes British; becomes a national hero Hartford Convention (assert states ‘ rights) New England succession discussed Grievances 1. New Englanders becoming a minority 2. Amend Constitution a. abolish 3/5’s Compromise b. 2/3 vote of Congress to declare war and admit new states c. limit president to 1 term d. presidents cannot be from same states (successively) e. Embargoes cannot last more than 60 days Results of the War of 1812 1. Rise of Nationalism (national identity) White House, Star Spangled Banner 2. American navy 3. Era of Good Feelings 1817-1824 End of Federalists Confidence that Republic is strong Republicans embrace Federalists ideas American Plan – Henry Clay of Kentucky Internal improvements – canals and roads Tariff protection for industries Second National Bank Elections of 1816 & 1820 .End of Federalists as a national party .Monroe elected – J. Adams, VP John Quincy Adams, Monroe’s Vice-President 1817 – Rush-Bagot Treaty Great Lakes demilitarized 1818 – US-Canadian border fixed Oregon “free and open” US claim to the Pacific 1819 - Adams-Onis Treaty Line – 1819 (Transcontinental Treaty) Spain ceded Florida and Oregon County along 42 N latitude line Spain maintained sovereignty over Texas MARSHALL COURT Case: Marbury v. Madison (1803) Facts: Marbury (Federalist) does not receive commission before Adams leaves office Jefferson refused to give Marbury his commission Marbury
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sea Power in Its Relations to the War of 1812
    UNIVERSITY -5^ LIBRARY DATE DUE w^trt ^^m^^ Uj^Sd^Mi^* PRINTED IN U.S. A Cornell University Library E 354.M21 Sea power in its relations to the War of 3 1924 006 126 407 SEA POWER IN ITS EELATIONS TO THE WAR OF EIGHTEEN HUNDRED AND TWELVE VOLUME I SEA POWER IN ITS RELATIONS TO THE WAR OE 1812 CAPTAIN A. T. MAHAN, D.C.L., LL.D. SlniteB State Nabg AUTHOR OF "THE INFLUENCE OF SEA POWEE UPON HISTORY, 1660-1783," "THE INFLUENCE OF SEA POWER UPON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION ANI> EMPIRE," " THE INTEREST OF AMERICA IN SEA POWER," ETC. IK TWO VOLUMES VOL. I BOSTON LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1905 > 2 5^ V.I Copyright, 1903, 1904, By Charles Scribnek's Sons. Copyright, 1905, By a. T. Mahan. All rights reserved Published October, 1905 c o THE DNTVEKSITY PRESS CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A. PREFACE present work concludes the series of " The THEInfluence of Sea Power upon History," as originally framed in the conception of the author. In the previous volumes he has had the inspir- ing consciousness of regarding his subject as a positive and commanding element in the history of the world. In the War of 1812, also, the effect is real and dread enough ; but to his own country, to the United States, as a matter of national experience, the lesson is rather that of the influence of a negative quantity upon national history. The plirase scarcely lends itself to use as a title ; but it represents the truth which the author has endeavored to set forth, though recognizing clearly that the victories on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain do illustrate, in a distinguished manner, his principal tliesis, the controlling influence upon events of naval power, even when transferred to an inland body of fresh water.
    [Show full text]
  • Emp, An& Juapoleon
    gmertca, , ?|emp, an& JUapoleon American Trade with Russia and the Baltic, 1783-1812 BY ALFRED W. CROSBY, JR. Ohio Sttite University Press $6.50 America, IXuaata, S>emp, anb Napoleon American Trade with Russia and the Baltic, 1783-1812 BY ALFRED W. CROSBY, JR. On the twelfth of June, 1783, a ship of 500 tons sailed into the Russian harbor of Riga and dropped anchor. As the tide pivoted her around her mooring, the Russians on the waterfront could see clearly the banner that she flew — a strange device of white stars on a blue ground and horizontal red and white stripes. Russo-American trade had irrevocably begun. Merchants — Muscovite and Yankee — had met and politely sounded the depths of each other's purses. And they had agreed to do business. In the years that followed, until 1812, the young American nation became economically tied to Russia to a degree that has not, perhaps, been realized to date. The United States desperately needed Russian hemp and linen; the American sailor of the early nineteenth century — who was possibly the most important individual in the American economy — thought twice before he took any craft not equipped with Russian rigging, cables, and sails beyond the harbor mouth. To an appreciable extent, the Amer­ ican economy survived and prospered because it had access to the unending labor and rough skill of the Russian peasant. The United States found, when it emerged as a free (Continued on back flap) America, Hossia, fiemp, and Bapolcon American Trade with Russia and the Baltic, 1783-1812 America, llussia, iicmp, and Bapolton American Trade with Russia and the Baltic, 1783-1811 BY ALFRED W.
    [Show full text]
  • AP® UNITED STATES HISTORY 2010 SCORING GUIDELINES (Form B)
    AP® UNITED STATES HISTORY 2010 SCORING GUIDELINES (Form B) Question 1 — Document-Based Question The issue of territorial expansion sparked considerable debate in the period 1800–1855. Analyze this debate and evaluate the influence of both supporters and opponents of territorial expansion in shaping federal government policy. Use the documents and your knowledge of the years 1800–1855 in your answer. The 8–9 Essay • Articulates a clear, well-constructed thesis that analyzes the debate and evaluates the influence of both supporters and opponents of U.S. territorial expansion in shaping federal government policy between 1800 and 1855. • Effectively employs a substantial number of documents to analyze the debate and evaluate the influence of supporters and opponents of U.S. territorial expansion in shaping federal government policy between 1800 and 1855. • Provides substantial, relevant outside information taken from the period 1800 to 1855 to analyze the debate and evaluate the influence of supporters and opponents of U.S. territorial expansion in shaping federal government policy. • Evaluates the ways in which supporters and opponents of U.S. territorial expansion shaped federal government policy between 1800 and 1855. • Is well organized and well written. • May contain minor errors. The 5–7 Essay • Contains a thesis, which may be partially developed, analyzing the debate and evaluating the influence of both supporters and opponents of U.S. territorial expansion in shaping federal government policy between 1800 and 1855. • Satisfactorily employs an ample number of documents to analyze the debate and evaluate the influence of supporters and opponents of U.S. territorial expansion in shaping federal government policy between 1800 and 1855.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Diplomatic History/Diplomatic Relations Lecture Outline
    Scholars Crossing Faculty Publications and Presentations Helms School of Government 1996 United States Diplomatic History/Diplomatic Relations Lecture Outline Steven Alan Samson Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs Part of the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons Recommended Citation Samson, Steven Alan, "United States Diplomatic History/Diplomatic Relations Lecture Outline" (1996). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 312. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/312 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Helms School of Government at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC HISTORY/DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS LECTURE OUTLINE Steven Alan Samson I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS A. STUDY OF HISTORY AND POLITICS 1. Role of Ideas and Presuppositions 2. Cross of Reality 3. Philosophies of History a. Autonomy b. Teleology 4. Presuppositions 5. Korzybski and Burke 6. Social Sciences 7. Institutional Memory 8. Dual Purpose for Studying History a. Seeking Facts b. Interpreting Meaning B. INESCAPABLE CONCEPTS 1. Sovereignty a. Centralization and Decentralization b. The One and the many c. Governing Principles 2. Ends 3. Means 4. Truth 5. Consequences II. EARLY AMERICAN DIPLOMACY A. WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE 1. First Great Imperial Struggle (c. 1415-1815) 2. Shot Heard 'Round the World 3. Olive Branch Petition 4. Debate in Parliament 5. American Prohibitory Act, 1775 6. Battle of Saratoga 7. Benjamin Franklin 8.
    [Show full text]
  • The President-Little Belt Affair and the Coming of the War of 1812
    A FRIENDLY SALUTE: THE PRESIDENT-LITTLE BELT AFFAIR AND THE COMING OF THE WAR OF 1812 by JONATHON WOODARD HOOKS A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2009 Copyright Jonathon Woodard Hooks 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT In May 1811, thirteen months before the start of the War of 1812, the United States frigate President and the British sloop-of-war Little Belt fought an hour-long battle approximately fifty miles off the North Carolina coast. When the firing ceased the Little Belt had suffered heavy damage and thirty-two casualties. The President sustained only minor damage and one wounded sailor. The brief battle had significant ramifications for Anglo- American relations. The victory of the U.S.S. President four years after the defeat of the Chesapeake redeemed the honor of the United States and its navy. Because the action occurred near the spot of the previous bout, some Americans and Britons suspected the scrape did not happen accidentally. Newspaper editors and political leaders hostile to the president alleged that President Madison ordered the attack as a means to halt the impressments of American sailors or possibly to draw the United States into a war with Great Britain. In both nations sentiment for a conflict increased as many Britons believed the United States had sullied their national honor and numerous Americans concluded that a victory over Britain would come with ease. The President -Little Belt Affair also confirmed the American tactical theory holding that the United States Navy could never destroy Britain’s, but that lone, swift ships could defeat single British vessels in head-to-head duels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Corps the Corps and and and the War of 1812 the War
    THE CORPS AND THE WAR OF 1812 Compiled and Edited by Lorna Hainesworth Introductory Note: The following paper is the culmination of readily available resource materials. No effort toward primary source document research has been expended other than the examination of digitized, on-line versions of primary documents when available. Rather, the writer has served more in the capacity of an editor to compile information from various secondary sources. The intention was to gather together in one place various pieces of information regarding significant life experiences for members of the Corps of Discovery and for associated non-members that took place during the “period” of the War of 1812 whether or not that person served in the conflict. In the context of this paper, the period of the War of 1812 refers a time beginning in late 1807 when the United States first took measures to counter the effects of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe through the Embargo Act and continuing until the signing of several treaties with various Indian tribes by the end of summer in 1815. The initial narrative is intended to set the stage and to aid the reader in gaining a basic understanding of information regarding this War. Brief biographies are provided on several Corps members and persons associated with the Corps. Each biography conforms to a similar pattern, which is name of person, date and place of birth, if known, person’s Lewis and Clark connection and person’s experiences during the War of 1812. The list of names is in three groups: Corps—Military, Corps—Non-Military and Corps— Associated.
    [Show full text]
  • Legislative Neutrality in the United States C.H
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1938 Legislative Neutrality in the United States C.H. McLaughlin Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation McLaughlin, C.H., "Legislative Neutrality in the United States" (1938). Minnesota Law Review. 925. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/925 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Journal of the State Bar Association VOLUME XXII APRIL, 1938 No. 5 LEGISLATIVE NEUTRALITY IN THE UNITED STATES By C. H. MCLAUGHLIN* W ITHOUT venturing at this late date to impeach tile authority f Humpty Dumpty on the tyranny of words,' one can yet feel regret that the term "neutrality" has fallen into the hands of his acolytes. In popular usage it seems to have lost precise content, so that it merely connotes broadly any attitudes, principles or measures calculated to avoid participation in war. Hence the current confusion of "neutrality" legislation with security legisla- tion in general. In fact, there are two fundamental categories of security legis- lation. The first seeks to subject the relations of belligerent and neutral states to legal limitations. These may be of the traditional sort, which sought only to give precise definition to the rights and duties of neutrals, or they may be of the more recent type, which condemns a war of aggression as itself an illegal institution to be resisted by the collective force of international society.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideology, Economic Interdependence, and International
    Chapter Two The United States and the World, 1790-1848 Dale C. Copeland University of Virginia April 29, 2016 [Note to conference readers: The following is the first empirical chapter for a book I am completing for Princeton UP, tentatively entitled Commerce, War, and American Foreign Policy, 1790 to the Present Era. The book can be considered a companion volume to my recent book Economic Interdependence and War (Princeton UP, 2015). A bit of background so that the chapter below makes more sense: Chapter 1 of the new book briefly outlines the competing theories linking trade to either peace or war. Liberals as you know argue that the benefits of trade give states an incentive to be peaceful (the “opportunity costs” of going to war are high), while realists contend that trade increases the probability of war because it compels states to struggle for vital raw materials and markets. I argue that under certain conditions, higher economic interdependence can lead to either peace or to conflict and war. Specifically, when dependent states have positive expectations regarding the future trade environment, they will likely stay peaceful to avoid spirals of hostility that could restrict their access to key markets. But if those expectations turn negative, and dependent states believe they are being cut off or will be cut off in the near future, they will turn to hard-line actions, including war, to ensure access to the goods and markets needed for long-term power and security. Chapter 1 also outlines some of the more important non- economic theories of American foreign policy (ideological, bureaucratic, governmental structure, personality, etc.) to allow a full test of competing arguments for the specific cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Trade Policies in the Early Republic
    Trade Policies in the Early Republic Jes´usFern´andez-Villaverde1 June 9, 2021 1University of Pennsylvania Trade policies • Trade policies are key component of the political economy of the early republic. • Central role in the formation of the first Party System: 1. Different views on how economic life should be conducted. 2. Different views on the foreign relations of the U.S. • At the core of the first armed conflicts of the new independent U.S.: 1. Quasi-War with France (1798-1800). 2. First (1801-1805) and Second Barbary Wars (1815). 3. War of 1812 (1812-1815). 1 2 3 The reciprocity debate 4 The Federalist side • Federalist political base is mainly commercial states (New England and mid-Atlantic). • Federalist want friendly commercial relations with Great Britain, which provides the best foreign market, and avoid a trade war. • In particular, Hamilton believes the U.S. is much weaker commercially and has more to lose. • Also, Hamilton is concerned with a steady stream of revenue to support paying debt and establishing creditworthiness. • He wants to avoid loss of revenue from duties on imports and unexpected spending that would occur in a conflict. Alexander Hamilton, Fact No. I, September 11, 1792 \Nothing can more interest the National Credit and prosperity, that a constant and systematic attention...for extinguishing the present debt, and to avoid as much as possible, the incurring of any new debt." 5 Federal government revenue Revenue 6 7 The Democratic-Republican side • Political base in the south. • Democratic-Republicans despise Great Britain for mercantilist policies, especially exclusion of U.S.
    [Show full text]