116____Chapter_13__The_Continued_Move_WestLearning_OutcomesAfter

116 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

7-1 Describe the first state constitutions written and adopted after the United States declared its independence.

7-2 Analyze the federal government as it existed under the Articles of Confederation.

7-3 Describe the most significant issues that the United States had to deal with under the Articles of Confederation, and explain how the Articles failed to live up to the needs of the new country.

7-4 Explain the need for the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787, and describe the process of writing the Constitution.

7-5 Describe and explain the major provisions of the Constitution created by the Philadelphia convention, especially concerning the separation of powers and the rights given to individual states.

7-6 Explain the procedure established for ratification of the Constitution, describe the actions of its supporters and its opponents, and explain how and when ratification was eventually achieved.

Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

Chapter 7

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 116 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

State Constitutions, 1776–1780 117

“Could Americans design a government able to provide liberty and strong enough to protect that

liberty?” By 1783, the nation was offi- cially independent, but it had three immediate problems: (1) it had amassed a huge debt from fighting for inde- pendence; (2) it suddenly had vast lands to control in the West; and (3) it had to recre- ate a system of trade after England’s protections had been withdrawn. These problems were intensified because the ideology that had pro- pelled the revolution—republicanism—strenuously warned against a strong central authority, and most Americans were repelled by the idea of a home-grown authoritar- ian yoke. They wanted their day-to-day freedoms. They wanted the liberties promised in the Declaration of Independence. Which begs the obvious question: What were those freedoms, and, just as important, what price were people willing to pay for them? Could Americans design a government able to provide liberty and strong enough to protect that liberty?

This was a primary concern from the moment the colonists declared their inde- pendence in 1776. Their first attempt to find an appropriate balance (through a govern- ment established under the Articles of Confederation) proved unsuccessful. The Articles made the federal government too weak to address the nation’s pressing needs. By 1787, Americans had scrapped the Articles and designed an entirely new structure of govern- ment. This new government, as defined in the United States Constitution, placed more power in a central authority than most Americans had anticipated or wanted. But a Bill of Rights protected the liberties Americans sought to preserve. Although not perfect, what they created in the Constitution has served the nation for more than two hundred years.

This chapter explores the development of the American government between 1783 and 1789. It begins by examining the state constitutions that served as testing grounds for the federal constitution; then it examines the strengths and weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation before addressing the current U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

7-1 State Constitutions, 1776–1780 Between 1776 and 1780, while the fighting continued, all of the thirteen states except Connecticut and Rhode Island drafted their own constitution. Most changed their con- stitution several times, meaning that there was a good deal of experimentation going on. The ideas laid out by John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, the English Parliament, and the colonial legislatures were put to the test at

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /R

ic h

V in

ta ge

The framers of the Constitution intended it to be an adapt- able document. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

         

                                                     

What do you think?

<< The “Betsy Ross flag,” with 13 five-pointed stars in a circle, came into common use in 1777. But could the freedoms promised by the revolution be instilled in a government strong enough to be effective?

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 117 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

118 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

the state level during these years. These state constitu- tions worked out ideas that would influence the federal system.

7-1a Content Most of the state constitu- tions had several common elements. For instance, all were attempts to fashion a government that offered some form of representation. They almost all shared three other things that were par- ticularly important: (1) bills of rights; (2) limits on par- ticipation; and (3) separation of powers.

Bills of Rights Each state constitution included a bill of rights that protected the “natural rights” that many Americans felt were threatened by England’s prerevolutionary laws. Most of the bills of rights guaranteed the free- dom of the press, the right of popular consent before being taxed, and protections against general search warrants. Most states guaranteed the freedom of religion, although many limited political participa- tion to Christians only.

Limits on Participation Almost universally, the state constitutions broad- ened the base of people who could participate in government by relaxing property-holding qualifi- cations. Pennsylvania, for instance, gave the vote to anyone who paid taxes. And New Jersey opened the vote to “all free inhabitants” worth at least fifty pounds. Nevertheless, each state maintained limits on who could vote and who could hold public office. These limits usually concerned owning property or adhering to a particular religion. Women and teen- agers were almost universally excluded from voting, except, sometimes, when they owned property.

Separation of Powers As they tinkered with various forms of government, each state recognized that creating several differ- ent branches of government and giving each of them different responsibilities prevented one per- son or one body from becoming overly tyrannical or exerting an excess of authority. This was called the separation of powers. In the 1780s, John Adams of Massachusetts developed the theory behind separa- tion of powers, one he called “mixed government.” Most of the states operated according to separation of powers, in that they had a weak elected governor, a powerful legislature that changed membership frequently, and courts whose judges were named for life to ensure they were beholden to no one. Despite the ideal of separation of powers, the legislative branches were almost always more powerful than the executive and judicial branches.

T he

L o

nd o

n A

rt A

rc hi

ve /A

la m

>> New Jersey’s constitu- tion of 1776 opened the franchise to “all free inhabitants” who were worth at least fifty pounds, thus allowing many New Jersey women to vote for the first time. Note that there is also an African American man waiting to vote.

bill of rights List of “natural rights” that many Americans felt were threatened by England’s prerevolution- ary laws; most of the bills of rights included in early state constitutions guaranteed the freedom of the press, the right of popular consent before being taxed, and protec- tions against general search warrants

separation of powers The concept of creat- ing several different branches of government and giving each of them different responsibilities so as to prevent any one body from exerting an excess of authority

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 118 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Articles of Confederation, 1777–1787 119

7-1b Results The various state constitutions were valuable forums for working out different types of govern- ment. Many worked well for their citizens. However, none addressed the issue of how the states would participate in and contribute to a national body. They were jealous of their powers. And anyway, most Americans were leery of a large national government, uncertain it could prevent itself from becoming increasingly powerful.

7-2 The Articles of Confederation, 1777–1787

Americans managed to fight more than half the Revolutionary War without any legitimate federal government. That was unsustainable, and the prob- lem was rectified by 1777 with the Articles of Confederation.

7-2a Origins In the absence of a federal government, the Continental Congress had assumed a number of rights and respon- sibilities, such as creating the Continental Army, print- ing money, managing trade, and dealing with debt. But it had done these things without having been granted authority by the people or some other sovereign power. Feeling the need to legitimate their actions and define the colonies’ col- lective sovereignty, the revolutionaries realized they had to form a governing body. So between 1776 and 1777 the Continental Congress drafted the Articles of Confederation. The following year, it presented the document to the states for ratification, and, by July 1778, eight states had ratified the document. But full unanimity of the thirteen states, which was required before it could go into effect, would not be reached until 1781.

The experimentation that had taken place in the states did not affect the Articles of Confederation, which were drafted too early to be substantially influenced by the state constitutions. Thus the Articles did not innovate; they basically codified the way things were in the late 1770s. John Dickinson, the prominent lawyer who had drafted the ideologi- cal tract Letter from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, was the principal author of the Articles. Although he initially voted against independence (he felt the colonies were ill prepared), the Continental Congress invited him to draft the new system of government.

7-2b Division of Powers Fundamentally conservative, the Articles provided for each state’s independence, granting very little power to the overarching federal government. The central government was simply an administrative agency that provided a meeting place for debate and enacted some very minimal, hard-to-enforce rules.

Powers Reserved for the Federal Government Dickinson’s Articles placed all governing power in a single legislature, which was the system fol- lowed under the Continental Congress. This meant no separation of powers. There was no president, monarch, or prime minister to serve as the execu- tive power. Instead, there was a “Committee of the States,” in which one representative from each state was seated. This was the most centralized author- ity, and its powers were minimal. The Continental

articles of Confederation Document that defined the colonies’ collective sovereignty; drafted by the Continental Congress between 1776 and 1777, then ratified by the thirteen states by 1781

N o

rt h

W in

d P

ic tu

re A

rc hi

ve s/

A la

m y

>> Carpenters’ Hall in Philadelphia was chosen as the site for the Continental Congress.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 119 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

120 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

Congress, on the other hand, had five powers under the Articles: (1) to declare war and make peace; (2) to make international treaties; (3) to control Indian affairs in the West; (4) to establish a currency; and (5) to create and maintain a postal service.

Powers Reserved for the States The states, meanwhile, maintained the all-impor- tant rights to (1) levy taxes and (2) regulate com- merce. Unfortunately, these were perhaps the two most pressing needs of a nation conducting a war, precisely because they are the actions that keep money rolling in. If the states would not provide enough funds to fight a war, what could the federal government do? Under the Articles of Confederation, it could do nothing.

7-2c Achievements of the Articles We can already begin to guess at the flaws and limits of the Articles, but they also represented significant achievements. From a philosophical

perspective, two stand out: (1) the Articles established the United States as a gov- ernment of laws that placed limits on the government’s

authority, and (2) the Articles created a national citizenship, which gave equal rights to qualifying members. There would be no titles or codifica- tion of classes in America. These were both major accomplishments well within the ideals of republi- canism. A third accomplishment of the Articles, the greatest in its day-to-day operations, was its utility in organizing the newly acquired western lands.

7-2d Weaknesses of the Articles But the weaknesses of the Articles outweighed its achievements. Three stand out: (1) the inability to raise funds; (2) the need for unanimity to make changes; and (3) the lack of authority over internal trade.

Inability to Raise Funds The war had sunk the new nation badly in debt, and the Articles declared that Congress could not levy taxes. Furthermore, with a massive debt, it was hard to find creditors. This combination spelled immedi- ate trouble for the new nation. For instance, how could it afford to pay an army? Who would regulate currency? Who would maintain credit?

The Need for Unanimity to Make Changes In 1781, nationalists in Congress chartered a national bank to help consolidate the national debt and facilitate credit. In order for the bank to operate, however, Congress needed capital to create a system of reserves. To get that capital, Congress passed a bill that put a 5 percent tax on all imported goods. However, the Articles of Confederation required that all bills receive unanimous approval before becom- ing law. Tiny Rhode Island, reliant on foreign trade for its economy, would not assent to the tax. Without Rhode Island, the bill died, as did these early plans for a national bank. In matters legislative, the need for unanimity was a clear problem.

Lack of Authority over Internal Trade Finally, commerce between the states suffered because there was no centralized authority to man- age it. Because each state had its own currency, its own levels of inflation, and its own taxes, it was difficult to transport goods across state lines or engineer large programs that would encompass an entire region. The Articles provided no national policy on commerce, and throughout the first half of the decade, delegates from southern states resisted efforts to devise one. They feared that such a policy would allow northern merchants to monopolize the trade of southern agricultural products, bypassing southern merchants and traders. The way in which each region had developed as a colony helped dic- tate its outlook on a federal state.

7-3 Day-to-Day Operations of the Confederation

In addition to these constitutional problems, the government under the Confederation faced three other significant challenges: (1) managing the west- ern expansion, (2) foreign relations, and (3) debt. These further underscored the Articles’ strengths and weaknesses.

7-3a The Western Problem The most pressing challenge concerned land in the West. During and after the Revolution, Americans continued their seemingly perpetual push west- ward, and in the 1780s large numbers of Americans moved to western Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and the

Learn more about (and read) the Articles of

Confederation.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 120 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Day-to-Day Operations of the Confederation 121

Nashville region. They were slowly populating the area between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River. But as these pioneers moved west, they began to enrich the states that had charters in the West (since many of the original colonial charters specified northern and southern bound- aries but usually made the western boundary the Pacific Ocean). These stipulations bred jealousy among states that had no claims on western land. Maryland, in fact, refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until the largest western landholder, Virginia, ceded its western holdings to the federal government (Map 7.1).

Land Cessions In 1784, Congress finally persuaded Virginia to cede much of its land to the federal government. But Virginia and other large landholders did so only

on the condition that they be allowed to keep small “reserves” of land for later use, a condition the Continental Congress had to grant. By 1802, eigh- teen years later, all states had ceded their western lands to the federal gov- ernment. The inability of the federal government under the Articles to make this happen sooner showed it could not bully the states into doing what it wanted, even if what it wanted was best for the young nation.

Organizing Territories With continued westward migration and calls for the federal government to oversee that expansion, Congress devised several

plans to organize the western territories. The Land Ordinance of 1785, which surveyed the immense western territory, divided it into townships 6 miles square and set prices for its sale to individu- als. This plan favored wealthy speculators because small farmers could not afford an entire “township,” thus requiring speculators to act as intermediaries, which drove prices up. These speculators, not small farmers, were the real beneficiaries of this system.

Furthermore, two years later Congress passed the great achievement of the government under the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established territorial governments in the Great Lakes region and set a pattern for future western development. The Ordinance crafted bound- aries for territories and developed laws by which a territory could be included in the nation. When the male population of a territory reached 5,000, it could

Ohi o R

St . L

re nc

e R.

M issouri R.

M ississippi R.

Arkansas R.

Red R.

is si

ss ip

pi R

. T

ne sse

e R .

Susquehanna R.

Lake Superior

L. E rie

L. On tario

ke M

ic hi

ga n

Lake H uron

G u l f o f M e x i c o

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

NORTHWEST TERRITORY

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

GEORGIA

PENNSYLVANIA

MARYLAND DELAWARE

NEW JERSEY

NEW YORK

RHODE ISLAND CONNECTICUT

MASS.

N.H.

MAINE (MASS.)

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA (CANADA)

FLORIDA (SPAIN)

LOUISIANA (SPAIN)

Ceded by S.C. to Georgia 1795

Claimed by Georgia. Ceded 1802

Ceded by N.C. 1790 (TENNESSEE)

Western Reserve Claimed by CONN.

Ceded 1800

Claimed by CONN. Ceded to PA. in 1782

Ceded by MASS.

1786

Ceded by MASS. to

N.Y. 1786

Claimed by U.S. and Great Britain

Claimed by N.H. and N.Y. Ceded 1791 (VERMONT)

Claimed by CONN. and VA.

Ceded by VA. 1784; ceded by CONN. 1786

Claimed by MASS. and VA.

Ceded by VA. 1784; ceded by MASS. 1785

Ceded by Virginia 1792 (KENTUCKY)

Ceded by S.C. to Georgia 1787

Claimed by Virginia.

Ceded 1784

Claimed by Virginia.

Ceded 1784

100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W

30°N

40°N

0 200 400 Mi.

200 400 Km.

Boundary of territory ceded by New York, 1782 Territory ceded by Virginia, 1784 Territory ceded by Georgia, 1802 Other claims

Original thirteen states after their cessions

Cengage Learning Ms00288a Western Land Cessions to the United States, 1782–1802 Trim 30p0 x 30p0 Final proof: 8/26/09 Boyer variant: Eliminate States without land claims; modify country labels

Text block map No bleeds

Map 7.1. Western Land Claims After the Revolution © Cengage Learning 2014

Northwest Ordinance of 1787 Legislation that established territorial governments in the Great Lakes region and set a pattern for future western development

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 121 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

122 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

elect a legislature and send a delegate to Congress. When the population reached

60,000, the territory could enter the Union as a state, on equal status with all other states, including the original thirteen. The Northwest Ordinance also contained something absent from the Articles: a bill of rights. In addition, the Ordinance prohibited slavery in the territories, a point that would become increasingly contentious as westward expansion continued throughout the first half of the 1800s.

Overall, the Confederation enabled easier access to western lands. But because it could not fund a standing army, the government had little capacity to protect the settlers who moved there.

7-3b The Problem of Foreign Relations

The second important issue confronted by the government under the Articles of Confederation had to do with foreign relations. Most significantly, with a weak federal government, Americans found it difficult to secure their borders. Three groups took advantage of this weakness: the English, the Spanish, and pirates.

The English Although the United States had won its indepen- dence, Britain retained a few forts along the U.S.- Canadian border. They did this to protect their lucrative fur trade and to ensure that the United States would pay off its loans to British creditors. The United States badly wanted these forts removed but did not have the muscle to push them out. Again, the United States had no standing army and could not afford to maintain one.

The Spanish From a foreign relations perspective, there were three main problems with Spain: (1) the Treaty of Paris was unclear about who controlled a piece of land called the Yazoo Strip, which was the boundary between Spanish Florida and American Georgia; (2) the Spanish controlled the mouth of the Mississippi River and were able to close off this central access point to the American interior, should they ever wish to; and (3) the Americans wanted access to Spanish traders in the West Indies, but Spain was reluctant to allow this access because it did not want the United States to become dominant in the Western Hemisphere.

In 1784, Spain made a proposition to the United States: Spain would grant Americans access to the

>> Like other images of the American West, this “Plan of an American New Cleared Farm” from 1793 helped entice Americans to move further west, something the federal government sought to control with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

Li b

ra ry

o f

C o

ng re

ss , P

ri nt

s &

P ho

to gr

ap hs

D iv

is io

n, L

C -U

S Z

62 -2

76 6

Read the North- west Ordinance.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 122 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Day-to-Day Operations of the Confederation 123

Spanish West Indies (which would benefit American traders), but it would cut off access to the Mississippi River (so that Spain could limit the amount of goods that came down the Mississippi into the open mar- ket). Needing nine votes in Congress to pass the measure, the treaty floundered, winning only seven. It was revealing that all seven votes came from northern states, infuriating the South, which would be hurt economically if the Mississippi River were closed off to American traders. The Spanish even- tually reopened the Mississippi but charged high duties to American merchants.

Pirates In the 1780s, American forces were also impotent in the face of Mediterranean pirates, who preyed on American trade ships in the Atlantic and the Caribbean. Without the capital to maintain a strong army or navy, the government under the Articles could do little to stop the marauding of American ships and pillaging of American goods.

7-3c The Debt Despite these two serious issues (the West and for- eign relations), the overarching problem facing the new nation was debt. This had three visible political ramifications: (1) those who held the debt wanted to be repaid; (2) the rank-and-file of the army grew angry when the government could not pay all the back pay it owed the soldiers; and (3) farmers grew angry because inflation had priced them out of the life to which they were accustomed.

Promissory Notes and Bonds To finance the Revolutionary War, the American gov- ernment had sold bonds, which had to be repaid, plus interest, at a certain time in the future. Furthermore, the government had issued several promissory notes, mostly to farmers and usually after the army had seized farmers’ property in order to wage battle. Both types of these debt-holders wanted to be paid back to prevent them from defaulting on their own loans.

An Angry Army The problem escalated when, shortly after the war, it became evident that the government could not pay its soldiers their back pay. Officers petitioned on behalf of the soldiers’ grievances, sometimes threatening violence if the payments were not made. In one standoff, troops protested in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, forcing the Continental Congress to abandon Philadelphia (it moved to Princeton, New Jersey, until the threat

quieted down). Only George Washington’s words could soothe the troops. But this signaled troubles to come; after all, the Continental Congress was still unable to raise revenue, and the sol- diers were angry.

Angry Farmers Meanwhile, inflation contin- ued to rise, meaning that prices increased dramati- cally. Farmers were hit the hardest. They had enjoyed rising prices for their goods during the war and had increased their spending, sometimes to the point of indebtedness. After the war, with no army to feed, markets suddenly shrank. At the same time, Britain prohibited American ships from trading in the West Indies, further limiting the size of the market.

As a result, American agricultural goods flooded American markets, lowering prices and dropping farm wages by as much as 20 percent. When credi- tors demanded payment from the farmers in gold or silver (a form of payment called specie), most farmers were unable to pay their debts. Although most of the farmers’ debts were small, foreclosure threatened many. Some were about to lose their farms or were imprisoned after being convicted in debtors’ court.

Shays’s Rebellion The financial burden seemed unbearable to those who had just fought for independence. In Massachusetts, a tax increase compounded these problems. In 1786, rural towns in Massachusetts petitioned its state assembly for a moratorium on taxes and on lawsuits against debtors. In doing so, they relied on the republican revolutionary lan- guage that had fueled the revolution in 1776. When the assembly rejected their petitions, angry crowds gathered at several county courthouses to stop the courts by force. Daniel Shays, a former Continental Army officer, emerged as the leader of the protesters.

Fed up with the Massachusetts government’s failure to address the problem of inflation and with its apparent favoritism toward coastal merchants who did not require the large and costly infrastruc- ture that farmers did, on January 26, 1787, Shays led 1,200 men to seize control of the federal arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts. This potential coup was formally called Shays’s Rebellion.

specie Gold or silver, which has intrinsic value, used as payment instead of paper money, which has extrinsic value

Shays’s rebellion Potential coup of January 26, 1787, when Daniel Shays led 1,200 men to seize control of the fed- eral arsenal in Springfield, Massachusetts, to protest the state legislature’s inability to address the debt problems of small farmers

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 123 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

124 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

The Massachusetts government, however, had prepared for such a move (after protesters had stormed the debtors’ courts), and a force of 4,400 soldiers from New England was ready to defend the arsenal. Tellingly, these troops were funded and led into battle by East Coast merchants, not country farmers. The troops opened fire on Shays’s army. Six died. This seemed to be the beginning of a civil war between the commercial class and the farming class, the wealthy and the poor. But, unprepared for formal combat, Shays’s followers quickly abandoned their siege, and during the next few weeks Shays’s Rebellion waned.

Despite the rebellion’s dissolution, unrest con- tinued to haunt leaders in Massachusetts and other states. Shays’s Rebellion was a warning that the federal government would have to address the prob- lem of debt to prevent a lower-class uprising. Under the Articles it was impossible for it to do so. Shays’s Rebellion was also a warning about the dangers of true democracy, dangers that made many leading intellectuals of the time incredibly nervous. How could order be preserved in a country that lionized liberty?

7-3d The Failure of the Articles of Confederation

Despite these underlying problems with the Articles of Confederation, a financial collapse was the last straw. In 1783, England banned all American ships from the West Indies and put limitations on specific competitive items. Few other countries granted pro- tective treaties with the United States, knowing that America was too weak to honor them. Meanwhile, the individual American states began to levy their own tariffs to raise money. The result was that the states with the lowest tariffs received the most trade, which led to hostile competition between the various states within the Union. The federal government’s attempt to pay off its debt by simply asking the states for help was not working and was in fact promoting further discord. With a single veto, both New York and Rhode Island rejected proposed revenue-raising tariffs. Change had to come.

Calls for Change At the urging of Virginia and Maryland, in 1786 (months before Shays’s Rebellion), congressional representatives made plans to meet in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the problem of commerce. Only five states sent delegates, but several prominent fig- ures were there, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington. The convention’s main success was in reaching a consensus to call a general meeting of delegates for the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation. They agreed to meet again in May 1787, in Philadelphia.

7-4 The Constitutional Convention

Although it started as an effort to amend the Articles of Confederation, the meeting in Philadelphia rap- idly became a Constitutional Convention, aimed at creating an entirely new government. There were substantial differences of opinion, however, and the Constitutional Convention debated these issues throughout the summer of 1787. The goings-on were kept secret, thus allowing each member to speak his mind without fear of political retribution. Only through participants’ notes, most notably James Madison’s, do we know what happened at the Convention.

7-4a Membership One matter on which there was complete agreement was that George Washington should be the president No

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

>> Shays’s Rebellion was a warning that the fed- eral government would have to address the problem of debt to prevent a lower-class uprising.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 124 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Constitutional Convention 125

of the Convention. Washington’s reputation and integrity protected the Convention from accusations that it had usurped the authority of the Congress.

In addition to Washington, fifty-four other del- egates attended. The states had elected members to go to the meeting who were, for the most part, mem- bers of the social and educational elite. Most were young (average age: forty-two), wealthy, and wanted to strengthen the national government to protect trade and promote economic and social stability. They were leery of democracy, however, because Shays’s Rebellion had demonstrated that democracy could be messy. Most of the delegates were also law- yers (more than half were college graduates), which meant they would respect and honor the rule of law.

7-4b Preliminary Plans There were several key divisions at the Convention (northern states versus southern, merchants ver- sus farmers), but none was as important as that between the large states and the small ones. Two plans, prepared before the Convention even began, highlighted the differences between the two.

The Virginia (Large States) Plan James Madison of Virginia was clearly the star of the Convention. A thirty-six-year-old Princeton gradu- ate, Madison was well read in political science. He came to the Convention with an agenda, summa- rized as the Virginia Plan. The Virginia Plan sought to (1) scrap the Articles of Confederation; (2) create a Congress with two houses, known as a bicameral legislature; (3) establish a federal judiciary; (4) estab- lish a president who was elected by Congress; and (5) in general create a centralized system of govern-

ment in which Congress had veto power over the actions of the states. Membership in Congress would be determined by population, which would clearly favor the large states.

The New Jersey (Small States) Plan For obvious reasons, smaller states objected to the Virginia Plan. Under the Articles of Confederation, all states had received an equal voice in Congress, regardless of size. To counter the Virginia Plan, New Jersey delegate William Paterson proposed an alter- native—the New Jersey Plan—that called for revising the Articles of Confederation rather than replacing them altogether. Paterson’s plan strengthened the federal government in many ways, but it proposed giving each state equal representation in a single, or unicameral, legislature, defined as a legislature with two houses with differing rules regarding responsi- bilities and duration of a member’s term.

7-4c Drafting the Constitution The Convention was deadlocked over apportion- ment of representatives until Roger Sherman of Connecticut came up with a compromise.

The Great Compromise Sherman suggested granting each state equal rep- resentation in the upper house (to be called the Senate) and representation that was proportional to population (1 representative for every 30,000 people) in the lower house (the House of Representatives). This plan was ultimately approved (after Benjamin Franklin reproposed it and conceded to the larger states the power to have all funding bills originate in the lower house). Sherman’s plan is called the

E o

n Im

ag es

>> Most delegates were young (aver- age age: forty-two), wealthy, and wanted to strengthen the national government to protect trade and promote economic and social stability.

Virginia plan This proposal, known as the large states plan because it favored those states, sought to scrap the Articles of Confederation and create a Congress with two houses, with representation in Congress being determined by population

New Jersey plan This proposal suggested revising the Articles of Confederation rather than replacing them altogether

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 125 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

126 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

Great Compromise because it broke a stalemate that could have been fatal to the development of a new fed- eral constitution.

Slave State Versus Free State The large states–versus– small states debate was only one of the many divi- sions that bedeviled the Convention, and indeed, the Great Compromise had raised another problem. How do you count the population of each state? Should only vot- ers count? Only taxpayers?

Should women count toward the total? Although the conventioneers had ready answers for many of these questions, the issue became volatile when it touched on slavery.

In the early 1780s the Atlantic slave trade was at its height, and southerners were on the defensive over the issue. The spread of antislavery senti- ment in the North threatened their labor supply. In addition, southerners feared that freed slaves would seek vengeance against their former mas- ters. The southern delegates wanted a constitu- tional guarantee that slavery would be legal in the new nation, and they needed political power to ensure that slavery would con- tinue. Thus, in a stroke of histori- cal irony, this demand meant that southerners wanted slaves to be included in the counting of their population, which would grant the South more representatives in the House. Northerners objected, argu- ing that, because slaves would not have an active political voice, their numbers should not be included.

Yet another compromise emerged, allowing southern- ers to include three-fifths of their slave population for both representation and the appor- tionment of federal taxes. This “three-fifths clause” demonstrated that, despite the new nation’s stated commitment to freedom and equality, white Americans still treated African Americans as far less than equal—and that this perceived inequality would be enshrined in the American Constitution.

Delegates also had to forge a compromise regarding the slave trade. Some southerners threat- ened to secede if the slave trade was abolished, but many delegates (both northern and southern)

considered the trade inhumane. George Mason, a Virginia slave- holder himself, even predicted that slavery would cause “the judgment of heaven” to fall upon the nation. But the majority of delegates felt that the survival of the nation was at stake and agreed to yet another compromise. Ultimately, antislav- ery delegates agreed to permit the slave trade for twenty more years, until 1808. In exchange, proslav- ery delegates granted Congress the authority to regulate commerce with a simple majority (rather than the two-thirds vote desired by most southerners).

East Versus West The final compromise of the Convention was made between eastern and western states. Easterners were afraid that western expansion would allow the government to be controlled by agricultural interests

Great Compromise Plan to grant each state equal representation in the upper house (to be called the Senate) and representation that was proportional to population (1 represen- tative for every 30,000 people) in the lower house (the House of Representatives)

three-fifths clause Section of the Constitution that allowed southerners to include three-fifths of their slave population for both repre- sentation and the appor- tionment of federal taxes

Ja m

es M

ad is

o n

(1 75

1– 18

63 )

(c o

lo ur

li th

o ),

S ua

rt , C

ha rl

es G

ilb er

t (c

. 1 78

7– 18

13 )/

Pr iv

at e

C o

lle ct

io n,

P et

er N

ew ar

k A

m er

ic an

P ic

tu re

s/ T

he B

ri d

ge m

an A

rt L

ib ra

>> James Madison of Virginia was clearly the star of the Convention.

George Mason, a Virginia slaveholder

himself, predicted that slavery

would cause “the judgment of

heaven” to fall upon the nation.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 126 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Constitution 127

rather than commercial ones. To compromise, the Convention granted Congress (and not the presi- dent) the power to admit new states to the nation, which meant that the eastern states that were already a part of the nation would have the power to regulate the number of new (western) states that could enter.

7-5 The Constitution Once these compromises were agreed upon (after the Convention had gone on for four hot sum- mer months), the Convention established the struc- ture of the new government in a constitution. The

U.S. Constitution developed mostly out of the Virginia Plan, although considerable concessions were made to small states, southern states,

and eastern states. The Convention created a govern- ment of three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—granting unique powers to each branch.

7-5a The Powers Given to Congress The Convention allocated several specific powers to Congress. Its intention was to make Congress the most powerful branch, allowing it to do five vital things: (1) collect taxes and raise revenue; (2) regulate commerce, both foreign and domestic (except on the issue of slavery, where compromise meant that it could not touch the issue until 1808); (3) declare war; (4) maintain an army; and (5) make any changes necessary to pursue these powers. By controlling the government’s purse strings and by demanding that all laws originate in Congress, the Constitutional Convention wanted to ensure that no single authority would possess too much power. This was a testament to the republican ideology of the war, although somewhat tempered by the com- promises made at the Convention.

7-5b The Executive Branch The Convention also created an executive branch, consisting of a president and his cabinet.

How Elected Because of their experience with King George III, most Americans initially favored keeping power in the hands of elected legislators. Yet, after the fail- ure of the Articles of Confederation, those at the Constitutional Convention realized that this system

did not work. As an alterna- tive, the Virginia Plan pro- posed to have Congress elect the president. Another plan would have the president serve a life term. A third plan would have three presidents serving simultaneously. Finally, Gouverneur Morris, an influential delegate from Pennsylvania, insisted that the executive should not depend on Congress for his office. Instead, Morris proposed to have him elected directly by the people to two terms of substantial length.

Although this plan certainly had its merits, the framers of the Constitution remained fearful of true democracy. They remembered Shays’s Rebellion. So in the Constitution they created an Electoral College that was composed of delegates from each state equal in number to its total apportionment in Congress (number of senators plus number of rep- resentatives). The college was to ensure that only qualified candidates, not populist hooligans, got elected. Each delegate in the Electoral College was to vote for two people. The person who received the most votes would be president; the one with the second most votes would be vice president. Anticipating that several people would run for pres- ident (and not anticipating the two-party system), the House of Representatives would decide the president if no one received a majority of the votes.

Powers The Constitution also gave the president the power to do five important things (although perhaps not as important as the powers granted to the legislature): (1) make treaties, but only if two-thirds of the Senate approved them; (2) oversee the army and navy as commander-in-chief; (3) name diplomats with the consent of the Senate; and, most important, (4) exe- cute the laws passed in Congress and (5) veto acts of Congress that he did not feel were constitutional (or, as it was understood after Andrew Jackson, in the country’s best interests). The president was to be powerful, but also somewhat deferential to Congress.

7-5c The Judicial Branch The Constitution also provided for a federal system of courts, headed by a Supreme Court and several regional courts. The president was to name the judges to the courts to serve lifetime appointments. The judges had jurisdiction over constitutional

Learn more about the Constitutional

Convention and read Madi- son’s original notes.

electoral College Group composed of del- egates from each state equal in number to its total apportionment in Congress (number of senators plus number of representatives); these delegates cast votes for president

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 127 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

128 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

questions, cases in which the United States itself was a party, and cases between two or more states or between the citizens of two or more states. The framers also included a “supreme law of the land clause” (or Supremacy Clause), which made the Constitution supreme over state laws in all legal matters.

7-5d Federal and State Powers Conscious of the necessary balance between state and federal powers, the framers of the Constitution forbade states from making their own money, levy- ing customs, or infringing on the obligation of con- tracts (all things that the states had done during the era of the Articles of Confederation). Other than that, states maintained significant power. By design, if a power was not specifically given to the federal government, the states controlled it.

7-5e Relationship of the Government and the Governed

There were other transitions as well. Under the Articles, the central government was not permit- ted to reach the individual—that was the sovereign right of the states. But under the new Constitution, the federal government could rule individuals directly. Perhaps the most significant change in

this regard was granting the federal government the power of taxation. The rev- olutionary commitment to

representation was not abandoned, however, as the legislative branch of government, which repre- sented the people most directly, held the exclusive right to tax.

7-6 The Ratification Debate

In September 1787, the framers of the Constitution presented their work to the states for ratification. The Constitution needed the states’ approval to become the law of the land. Otherwise, the Articles of Confederation would still rule. The convention- eers urged each state to hold a special convention to discuss ratifying the new document, and they voted that approval by nine states was enough for the Constitution to take effect—deliberately avoiding the need for unanimity.

7-6a A Slow Start A few states ratified the Constitution almost immedi- ately: smaller states, such as Delaware, Connecticut, and New Jersey, supported the Constitution because it promised to strengthen their position in conflicts with their larger, more populous neighbors. The Great Compromise had secured their votes. Georgia ratified quickly as well because it felt threatened by Indian conflicts and the Spanish presence in Florida. The people of Georgia needed protection. But the only large state to ratify the Constitution before the end of winter 1788 was Pennsylvania. In the other states with a large population—particularly New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia—concerns about the loss of sovereignty generated opposition. They wanted to ensure they kept the rights they felt they had won during the Revolution.

7-6b The Federalists Factions speedily formed. It was never a foregone conclusion that the Constitution would be passed,

Read the U.S. Constitution.

Li b

ra ry

o f

C o

ng re

ss . P

ri nt

s &

P ho

to gr

ap hs

D iv

is io

>> This cartoon from the 1787 ratification debate shows Connecticut as the wagon, buried under debt and sinking into the mud of the hap- less Articles of Confederation. The Federalists are pulling the wagon into sunshine (it is a Federalist cartoon). Connecticut became the fifth state to approve the US Constitution.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 128 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Ratification Debate 129

especially after reflecting that the Revolution had been fought to get rid of an overarching government. In an effort to undercut opposition, supporters of the Constitution took the name Federalists and began openly campaigning for the Constitution’s ratifica- tion. The Federalists, mostly composed of young men whose career had been made by the Revolution and who generally favored a larger commercial plat- form, emphasized that the new government would not end state autonomy. They also contemplated a bill of rights that would prevent the new centralized government from infringing on what were considered natural rights.

To influence the debate in the key state of New York, in 1787 the Federalists John Jay and Alexander Hamilton wrote a series of essays that came to be called the Federalist Papers. The essays appeared in pamphlets and were condensed in newspapers. Soon James Madison of Virginia added his own essays to the series. The Federalist Papers were to become the most important tool in the ratification debate, as well as America’s most significant contribution to political theory. They defended the Constitution article by article, demonstrated to Americans how the Constitution would work, and addressed many of the complaints of opponents, such as the concerns about the size of the new nation. The papers were a tool of ideological warfare in the name of the new Constitution.

The Federalists’ choice of a name was meaning- ful too. Supporters of the Constitution emphasized that the new government was designed around the principle of federalism, which is the philosophy of government in which states and nation share the responsibility of government, with no one group or agency possessing sufficient power to dominate the other. This was an attempt to assuage notions that the new government would slide into tyranny.

7-6c The Anti-Federalists The name Federalists impelled opponents to take the name Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists, who came from a variety of factions and included many prominent patriots, including Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and Samuel Adams, preferred a weaker confederation of states and a more direct democ- racy. They sought to protect the “spirit of ’76,” the language they used to make sure democracy was preserved despite the obvious need to govern. In fact, Anti-Federalists did not really oppose federalism, but they did object to the concentration of power

in a centralized government regardless of how it divided power. They believed that centralized governments threatened the sovereignty of the states and the liberties of individuals. At the very least, the Anti-Federalists wanted an explicit bill of rights to safeguard those liberties. Because of their steadfast defense of individ- ual rights, historians often view the Anti-Federalists as idealistic patriots concerned about how much liberty they would have to sacrifice to earn federal security.

7-6d The Debate The Federalists attempted to address the concerns of their opponents by arguing that the rights of the states and of individuals were ade- quately protected by state bills of rights. However, the Anti-Federalists maintained that, if the Constitution were the supreme law of the land, its provisions would have preeminence over any state legislation. Thus, Anti-Federalists—especially those from the powerful states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia—insisted on the addition of a federal Bill of Rights before they would consent to ratification. The Federalists, on the other hand, resisted any amendments because they knew that the addition of new sections to the Constitution meant that the entire process of ratification would have to start over.

Compromise ultimately broke the deadlock. In Massachusetts, the Anti-Federalist leader, John Hancock, changed his position after Federalists promised him that the insertion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution would be the first order of business for the new government. Such conditional ratifica- tion provided New York and Virginia with an accept- able formula for their own voting; they shortly consented to the new Constitution, although the voting remained incredibly close. Virginia passed

Read the Feder- alist Papers.

Federalists Framers of the Constitution who emphasized that the new government would not end state autonomy; they also contemplated a Bill of Rights that would prevent the new central- ized government from infringing on what were thought of as natural rights

Federalist papers Essays written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison in 1787, meant to influence the Constitution ratification debate in New York State; the essays defended the Constitution article by article and addressed many of the complaints of opponents, such as the concerns about the size of the new nation

federalism Philosophy of government in which states and the nation share the responsi- bility of government, with no one group or agency possessing sufficient power to dominate the other

anti-Federalists A group of American patriots who preferred a weaker confederation of states and a more direct democracy; they objected to the concentration of power in a centralized gov- ernment regardless of how it divided power

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 129 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

130 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

the Constitution by a vote of 89 to 79. New York’s vote in favor was 30 to 27 (see Table 7.1).

The compromise came just in time. In June 1788, New Hampshire voted to ratify the Constitution, becoming the critical ninth state and putting the Constitution into functional operation. But it was crucial for the new government to have the support of the larger states of Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia if it was going to succeed. With these larger states now sup- porting the document, by the end of 1788, twelve states had accepted the Constitution (Rhode Island finally ratified the Constitution in 1790). The new United States government was launched.

7-6e The Bill of Rights Massachusetts, Virginia, and New York had all agreed to ratify the Constitution only if Congress hastened to the task of drafting a Bill of Rights that would protect individual freedoms from the threat of a potentially tyrannous federal government. It began the task of crafting these rights even before the Constitution was fully ratified. Congress pondered a dizzying number of protections, many of which were borrowed from the various state constitutions. In the end, twelve were proposed, and ten passed.

The first two amendments, which specified the number of constituents of each representative and compensation for congressmen, respectively, did not pass. The remaining ten became the Bill of Rights.

We can see in each amendment a specific griev- ance that emerged during the “long train of abuses” that led to the Revolution, including the fear of an established church, abridgements to free speech and peaceful gatherings, attempts to disarm the people, the quartering of soldiers in private homes, the

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /N

an cy

H o

ne yc

ut t

>> Congress pondered a dizzying number of protections as part of the original Bill of Rights. In the end, twelve were proposed, and ten passed.

table 7.1 ratification of the Constitution

Date State Votes Yes Votes No

December 7, 1787 Delaware 30 0

December 12, 1787 Pennsylvania 46 23

December 18, 1787 New Jersey 38 0

January 2, 1788 Georgia 26 0

January 9, 1788 Connecticut 128 40

February 6, 1788 Massachusetts 187 168

April 28, 1788 Maryland 63 11

May 23, 1788 South Carolina 149 73

June 21, 1788 New Hampshire 57 47

June 25, 1788 Virginia 89 79

July 26, 1788 New York 30 27

November 21, 1789 North Carolina 194 77

May 29, 1790 Rhode Island 34 32

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g

20 14

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 130 10/29/12 10:31 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Ratification Debate 131

Small states got apportionment. Several small states, such as Delaware, Connecticut, and New Jersey, supported the new Constitution immediately, mainly because the Constitution strength- ened their position relative to the larger, more populous states. The Great Compromise had secured their votes.

Georgia needed protection. Georgia supported the Constitution quickly too, mainly because it needed protection from the Spanish in Florida and the Indians to its south and west.

The persuasive Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers, drafted by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison during the ratification debate in New York, argued that the new Constitution would not abridge the “natural rights” that were fought for and thought to be secured by the American Revolution. More than just a series of polemical pamphlets, the Federalist Papers addressed many of the most important questions in political theory at the time, including how much liberty should be sacrificed for the protection of a governing state, how the rights of minority groups could be

protected in a democracy, how the Constitution could prevent one of the three governing powers from growing too strong, and how a nation could expand its borders without sacrificing the liberty of those already members. The Federalist Papers are perhaps the most important contributions in political theory ever to emerge from the United States. Their arguments swayed many state delegates, espe- cially in New York.

The promise of a Bill of Rights. And fourth, impelled by the writers who came to be known as the “Anti-Federalists,” who were afraid the Constitution would make the national government too strong, the framers agreed to attach a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, which ensured that some of the liberties deemed sacred would be protected in the Constitution. By agreeing that the new government’s first order of business would be to draft a Bill of Rights, the framers of the Constitution won the support of the three most important states at the time: Massachusetts, New York, and Virginia. The state legislatures in each of these three states, how- ever, still endured incredibly close votes.

There were at least four reasons why the states ratified the Constitution:

the reasons why . . .}{

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /B

o nn

ie J

ac o

b s

>> The Constitution.

forcible removal of private property, unreasonable searches by the federal government, the denial of a trial by one’s peers, and the suspension of protec- tions under the law. The First Amendment’s prohi- bition against establishing a national religion was especially important because of the sectarian battles happening between the various Protestant denomi- nations. The Congregationalists in New England were afraid the Anglicans in the South might win federal power, while the Anglicans were equally afraid of the Congregationalists. The Baptists, mean- while, were bitter that some states maintained control over certifying who could become a minis- ter, making them fearful that one day they might

be disallowed from practicing their faith. The First Amendment ended many of these debates and assuaged most of these fears, at least at the federal level.

The Bill of Rights was to defend against the kind of tyranny that the revolutionaries had encountered in the run-up to the Revolutionary War. Indeed, the final amendment making up the Bill of Rights pro- nounced that any power not delegated to the fed- eral government by the Constitution was reserved for the states, thus ensuring a balance of power between the new government and the state governments.

Read the Bill of Rights.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 131 10/29/12 10:32 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

132 Chapter 7 Confederation and Constitution, 1783–1789

Looking Ahead . . . The Constitution has survived, relatively unchanged, as the basis of the United States’s republican govern- ment for more than two hundred years. The first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights promised by the Federalists—were added in 1791. Since then, only seventeen more amendments have become law. Some of the fundamental debates, includ- ing the question of the balance of power between the states and the federal government, continue today. Interpretations of the framers’ intentions have changed over time, but the American frame of government created in 1787 has demonstrated impressive flexibility and longevity.

More than just a political document, the Constitution also sparked essential debates that would continue to preoccupy the American nation. What would be the role of African Americans? Was America a nation only for white people? And what about women as citizens? Was there any justifica- tion for their exclusion from voting? And what would be the nature of the relationship between the Americans and the Indians, both of whom had good reasons to think of the land as theirs? Who would decide? The Constitution took a stand on many of these issues, coming out in ways that make it look anything but democratic. Slaves were to be counted as merely three-fifths of a person, women were not explicitly granted the right to vote, and Indians were not made citizens.

Through amendment and custom, though, the American nation would slowly achieve greater

What else was happening . . . 1785 Frenchman J. P. Blanchard is said to be the first to

actually use a parachute by dropping a dog in a basket, to which the parachute was attached, from a hot-air balloon. The dog survived, but fourteen years later, Blanchard suffered a heart attack, fell from one of his own balloons, and died of his injuries.

1787 Mozart composes his opera Don Giovanni.

1788 Australia is first settled by Europeans as a penal colony.

1789 Mutiny takes place on H.M.S. Bounty.

1793 Reign of Terror begins in France, as rival revolu- tionary factions battle over the proper ways in which “liberty, equality, and fraternity” can be implemented in a modern nation-state. Between 15,000 and 40,000 French lose their lives during the fourteen-month Terror, many by the blade of the guillotine, which earns the nickname “National Razor.”

democracy. The initial steps were taken in the first years of the new nation, a period that historians today call the Federalist era.

Visit the CourseMate website at www.cengagebrain.com for additional study tools and review materials for this chapter.

53548_ch07_ptg01_hr_116-133.indd 132 10/29/12 10:32 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

134 Chapter 13 The Continued Move West

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

8-1 Describe the creation of the federal government under the new Constitution.

8-2 Describe how disagreements over how the United States should be governed led to political divisions, and discuss some of the individuals who took strong stands on each side.

8-3 Outline the country’s development of a two-party political system.

8-4 Discuss the issues of John Adams’s presidency, and explain how he and the country dealt with them.

8-5 Explain the convoluted political process that made Thomas Jefferson president in 1800, including the constitutional change designed to mend the problem.

Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

Chapter 8

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 134 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Creating a New Government 135

“Although the Constitution had been ratified, the debate about the size, shape, and duties of the federal government continued. A blueprint,

after all, is not a building.”Although the war had been won and the Constitution rati- fied, the debate about the size, shape, and duties of the fed- eral government continued. A blueprint, after all, is not a building. Some, like New York’s Alexander Hamilton, were worried that common people could not handle democracy and would be confused by the challenges of running a nation. Others, like Thomas Jefferson, were concerned that a powerful centralized federal government would take away coveted liberties.

The stakes were high, as the unformed nation struggled to establish itself on the periphery of the European economic system. Daily life went on, of course: people went to school, got married, had families, bought slaves, moved west, and built new homes. But they did so during a time of heightened worries about the political stability of their new nation. Was American independence going to be temporary? Could the country’s leaders pull the nation together? Politics of the 1790s was fraught with questions, anxiety, and passion. It led to disagreements, and even duels.

In the end, the political center held, but not in a way that anyone had predicted. Nearly all the founders disliked political partisanship, yet they helped usher in the two- party system that we know today. They also preached the virtues of liberty and equality but went to great extremes to safeguard both the practice of slavery and the continued seizure of Native American lands. Thomas Jefferson advocated a rural, agrarian republic, yet the stability enjoyed and the land acquired during his presidency helped foster an economic revolution—one that we will encounter in the following chapters. But, first, to the decade following the ratification of the Constitution, when the central role of the fed- eral government was to secure the new nation. This chapter examines the development of the new government, the rise of the two-party political system, and the first peaceful turnover of power in the “bloodless revolution” of 1800.

8-1 Creating a New Government From 1789 to 1800 the federal government was remarkably small. In 1800, the Department of State had only three employees, plus representatives in London, Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, and The Hague. The entire Treasury had a total of about seventy-five employees. The War Department consisted of the secretary of war, two clerks, and a messenger. The Post Office numbered seventy-five offices. The legislative branch had only twenty-six sena- tors and sixty-four representatives. For a nation suspicious of centralized power, a small federal government was appropriate.

N o

rt h

W in

d P

ic tu

re A

rc hi

ve s/

A la

m y

The American nation became stable not when the United States drafted the Constitution, but only after the govern- ing power peacefully ceded power to an opposing party, in 1800. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

             

What do you think?

<< Although the Constitution laid the blueprint for the governing structure of the new nation, the 1790s were fraught with tensions over how to interpret that blueprint to fit with the rapidly growing nation.

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 135 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

136 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

As the new government began operations in 1789, it became clear that, although the Constitution outlined a framework of government, the exact roles of its three branches were not clearly defined. Establishing prec- edents would be the mission of the first group of federal politicians.

8-1a The First Citizens According to Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution, the states dictated who was and was not a citizen. They more or less confined citi- zenship to white, property-holding males, although there were a few exceptions to this generalization. Immigrants could become citizens as well, and in the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress declared that, among immigrants, only “free white persons” could become citizens of the United States. This obviously limited black people, Native Americans, and Asians. (These restrictions continued for almost a century, until 1870, when African Americans were allowed to become citizens.) White women also had few

property rights, and, once she was married, anything a woman owned became the property of her husband. It was not until 1920 that women were granted full citizenship.

8-1b The First Congress The first federal election under the new Constitution was held late in 1788. Most of the men elected were sympathetic to the arguments laid out in the Federalist Papers. At its first meeting in the capital city of New York, the first Congress had four major tasks: (1) setting up a

system of federal courts; (2) secur- ing the Bill of Rights that had been promised during the ratification period; (3) establishing the exec- utive department; and (4) rais- ing revenue. By addressing these pressing issues in a relatively tidy manner, the first Congress dem- onstrated its strength compared to the Continental Congress under

the Articles of Confederation. The new government seemed to be working.

Courts The Judiciary Act of 1789 created three circuit courts and thirteen district courts to accompany the Supreme Court established by the Constitution.

Rights James Madison proposed to Congress seven- teen amendments to the Constitution, twelve of which Congress approved and ten of which the states later ratified. These ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

Executive Department Congress created five executive posts: (1) the secretary of state, (2) the secretary of war, (3) the secretary of the Treasury, (4) the attorney general, and (5) the postmaster general. These positions were to be filled by the president, meaning that the president would control patronage, defined as the granting of rewards for assisting with political victories (although, in these early years, these jobs were not viewed as lucrative because the federal govern- ment was so small). Under President George Washington, these positions (except that of postmaster general) would serve as his cabinet of advisors.

Naturalization act of 1790 Legislation which declared that, among immigrants to the United States, only “free white persons” could become citizens

patronage System of granting rewards for assisting with political victories

>> Federal Hall in New York City, the first capitol building of the United States, on the day of George Washington’s inauguration as first president.

From 1789 to 1800 the federal government was

remarkably small.

Read the Natu- ralization Act of 1790.

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 136 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Creating a New Government 137

Revenues James Madison, who had played an essential role at the Constitutional Convention,

was elected to the House of Representatives from Virginia. His work was equally indispensable during the first term of Congress. In 1789, he persuaded Congress to pass the Hamilton Tariff of 1789, which imposed a 5 to 10 percent tariff on certain imports. This act’s success freed the federal government from constant worry about economic shortfalls.

8-1c The First President The least surprising outcome of the nation’s first election was installing George Washington as president. His stature as an honest war leader made him the obvious choice to lead the new government. He never ran for the office, and indeed, had retired from public life altogether before he was elected. Washington had to be talked into coming back and serving his country once again.

As he formulated his approach to the office, Washington was aware that he had no contempo- rary role models; the American republic was truly an experiment. “I walk on untrodden ground,” he said. “There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn in precedent.” Washington established several important precedents while in office. Three of the most significant concerned the presidential manner, the cabinet, and rela- tions with Congress.

The Presidential Manner Washington displayed a dig- nified and formal manner as president. In the debate about how people should address him, Washington remained quiet. Federalists proposed calling him “His Excellency” or “His Highness,” but Anti- Federalists rebuffed the pro- posal, favoring a less lofty title. Without any insistence from Washington himself, he came to be called simply “Mr. President.” This endowed him with importance, but not regal

entitlement. Washington also dressed formally (never in military attire, always in American-made suits), con- ducted affairs in a formal manner, and decided not to use his veto power unless he deemed a law unconsti- tutional. He wanted people to take the office of presi- dent seriously, but without encouraging the office to usurp the will of the people as expressed by Congress.

The Cabinet Washington’s second important precedent concerned his cabinet. Congress voted to create several departments within the executive branch, but the Constitution did not explicitly outline the respon- sibilities of these departments

(which were collectively known as the president’s “cabinet”). With the cabinet’s role open to inter- pretation, Washington assembled this group with an eye toward gathering differing viewpoints. He hoped that including a range of opinions within the government would keep leaders working together

Take a virtual tour of the activi- ties of the First

Federal Congress.

It was not until 1920 that women were granted full

citizenship.

>> Washington in retirement at Mount Vernon after the war. He would have to be persuaded to reenter public life and become the new nation’s first president. North Wind/North Wind Picture Archives— All rights reserved

hamilton tariff of 1789 Act that imposed a 5 to 10 percent tariff on certain imports to fund the new government

cabinet Group of the heads of departments within the executive branch; one of George Washington’s inno- vations as president

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 137 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

138 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

in the nation’s interests rather than fighting among themselves for power.

Washington appointed Thomas Jefferson the first secretary of state. In addition to heading American diplomatic relations, Jefferson’s office was in charge of the census, patents and copyrights, public lands, and the mint. Washington’s Treasury secretary was Alexander Hamilton, a close friend who had served as his aide-de-camp during the Revolution. Henry Knox was secretary of war, as he had been under the Continental Congress during the 1780s. Knox commanded an army of 5,000 men, most of whom were deployed for defense against Native Americans in the western territories. Samuel Osgood was the postmaster general, in charge of mail delivery. Edmund Randolph was the attorney general, who met with the cabinet as Washington’s personal advisor.

Reflecting the balance of perspectives that Washington sought, Hamilton and Knox favored a strong centralized government, whereas Jefferson

and Randolph favored greater power at the state level. Jefferson and Randolph were from Virginia, Hamilton

from New York, Knox and Osgood from New England. When Washington began consulting them on official

matters (or, more commonly, asking Randolph to solicit their opinions), the cabinet system was born.

Relations with Congress The Constitution required that the executive branch draft treaties with the “advice and consent” of the Senate, but the first time Washington endeav- ored to make a treaty, the resulting bickering with Congress led to an inconclusive treaty. From then on, Washington decided to negotiate treaties first and then submit them to Congress for approval. This established a precedent. Washington also took seri- ously his role of informing Congress of the state of the union once a year, thus demonstrating that he was ever attentive to the will of the people.

8-2 Political Divisions During its first decade, this small government had serious problems to confront, and the confronta- tions sparked factionalism. Whose side you chose in the debate depended on your vision for the nation. Some, like Washington, Hamilton, and Adams (who, as a political group, would come to be called the Federalists), wanted a strong federal government that would assist merchants and industry in order to create a buoyant, market-based nation. Alexander Hamilton was the true visionary of the bunch. Born out of wedlock on a Caribbean island, the ambitious Hamilton was determined to utilize what he saw as the bustling spirit of Americans in order to create a first-class capitalist nation that was important to the world’s economy. He wanted an assertive gov- ernment that encouraged economic investment and entrepreneurship. He wanted all the states to buy into this vision, and he proposed a series of creative and far-sighted economic measures that would transform the United States from an economic outpost to a true international powerhouse. Many of his proposals appeared in his famous “Report on Manufactures,” a plan that would eventually become government policy.

Others, like Jefferson and Madison (who would come to be called the Democratic-Republicans), preferred a weaker federal government that would allow the preservation of “natural rights” and of slavery. Often, but not always, the Democratic- Republicans were Anti-Federalists in the debate about the Constitution. The most brilliant of this lot was Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson came from Virginia and was an agrarian aristocrat. He sought a decentral- ized government made up of small farmers. He >> General George Washington, lionized war hero and president.

Read Washing- ton’s First Inau- gural Address.

N o

rt h

W in

d P

ic tu

re A

rc hi

ve s

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 138 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Political Divisions 139

feared that the expansion of commerce and industry via Hamilton’s plan would create a class of wage workers who were dependent on others for their income and thus unable to participate in democratic political processes.

Although no party set out to create calcified political divisions, that would be the end result. Two issues illustrated these competing visions of the nation—problems over government finance and foreign policy. Together, they would help form the nation’s first two-party system.

8-2a The Problem of Finance During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress had taken out loans to fund the war. Foreign investors held $12 million worth of notes; domestic bondholders were owed $48 million. To establish good credit and to maintain authority over the states, the federal government had to pay off the loans.

Hamilton’s Financial Plan Hamilton, in an effort to promote economic policies aligned with his vision for a strong, centralized gov- ernment, proposed an economic plan to remedy the problem, one that quite naturally favored the inter- ests of the commercial and mercantile elite. His plan had four key components: (1) consolidating the loans that Congress took out during the Revolutionary War into one national debt, which would importantly commit the wealthy people who were owed money to the success of the federal government; (2) consoli- dating the individual states’ loans into the national debt, making the states beholden to the federal government and thus strengthening its authority; (3) raising revenue through the sale of bonds, the sale of public lands, the establishment of tariffs, and the imposition of an excise tax on whiskey; and (4) creating the First Bank of the United States, which would hold the government’s revenue and issue bank notes (paper money) that would be legal tender throughout the country.

The bank was the linchpin of the plan. It would benefit the business classes, who could capitalize on the stability provided by a bank. It would orga- nize the loans and the debt as well. But it would also expand the power of Congress and, therefore, of the federal government. A national bank was not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Constitution did grant Congress the power to do anything “neces- sary and proper” to carry out its delegated powers. If Congress could successfully charter a bank (which it did in 1791), it would assume a vast amount of

implied powers through a loose interpretation of the words in the Constitution—a position called loose con- structionism. This would in turn make the federal gov- ernment much more power- ful. Some of the founders had envisioned this all along, while others had not, thus making the “original intent” of the founders difficult if not impossible to decipher.

Opposition to Hamilton’s Plan Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the faction that immediately opposed Hamilton’s policies. Because Jefferson was a towering fig- ure in the new government, this faction came to be called the Jeffersonians, although they preferred to be called the Democratic-Republicans. The Democratic- Republicans had three problems with Hamilton’s plan (see “The reasons why . . .” on the next page).

Jefferson, Madison, and their supporters envi- sioned an agrarian nation made up of independent farmers, not laborers and industrialists who were dependent on others. Their plan for an agrarian nation, of course, also allowed for, indeed depended on, the perpetuation of slavery. (Hamilton, mean- while, ardently opposed slavery, believing that it denied individual liberty and favored the estab- lished aristocracy of the South over the merchants of the North.)

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /S

te fa

n K

le in

>> Hamilton, architect of a strong national government in con- trol of national finance, now appears on the ten-dollar bill.

implied powers Congress’s power to do anything “necessary and proper” to carry out its delegated powers, even if those actions are not explicitly named in the Constitution

loose constructionism Interpretation of the Constitution suggest- ing that the Constitution should be flexible to accommodate new demands

Democratic- republicans Faction that coalesced in opposition to Alexander Hamilton’s economic poli- cies and Jay’s Treaty; led by Virginians like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison; also known as the Jeffersonians

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 139 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

140 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

Congressional Impasse and Washington, D.C. The deadlock over Hamilton’s plan was ultimately bro- ken by a compromise on an entirely separate issue: the location of the national gov- ernment. Between 1789 and

1793, the federal government of the United States was in New York City. In 1793, the government moved south to Philadelphia, but southern leaders wanted the government to be located even farther south, in Virginia. They also wanted it to be located outside a big city, because many of Jefferson’s sup- porters considered big cities sinkholes of corruption.

Over dinner and wine one night, Jefferson and Hamilton struck a deal: Hamilton would instruct the supporters of his economic plan to favor relocating the seat of government along the Potomac River, and Jefferson would allow Hamilton’s plan to pass through Congress. With this compromise, Hamilton’s economic legislation passed, the First Bank of the United States was created (it lasted until 1811), and the stage was set for the national government to move to Washington, D.C. It was a true victory for Hamilton, as his economic plan would transform the nation and little would come from the fact that the capital city was located further south.

The Whiskey Rebellion Opposition to Hamilton’s economic policies was not limited to Democratic-Republicans in the govern- ment. In western Pennsylvania, Hamilton’s decision to tax whiskey proved divisive. Before railroads or

canals were built, western farmers depended on slow, halting, horse-based transport and had dif- ficulty transporting their crops without spoilage. They found it easier to distill their grain to whiskey and ship it in that form. A tax on whiskey was thus a serious threat to their livelihood. To make mat- ters worse, Hamilton’s plan taxed small producers of whiskey more than it did large producers, in part because the tax was an effort to demonstrate to small farmers and westerners the government’s authority to tax them. This gave rise to accusations of East Coast elitism.

In 1794, many westerners attacked the tax men who tried to collect the whiskey tax. When Washington and Hamilton attempted to bring some of the rebels to justice, they chose whiskey pro- ducers in western Pennsylvania as their test case.

Speculators would benefit. The Democratic-Republicans thought that honoring all debts was unfair because many of the Americans who had purchased bonds to fund the Revolutionary War—often widows and soldiers—had been forced to sell their bonds for less than their face value during the hard economic times of the 1780s. Commercial speculators bought the bonds from them at low prices, and Hamilton’s plan would reward these speculators unfairly.

Some had already paid off their debts. They also believed that nationalizing the state debts was unfair because some states (espe- cially southern states like Jefferson’s Virginia) had already made headway in paying off their debts by selling western lands. If the debts of all states were pooled together, the residents of the states

that had already reduced their debts would have to pay a dispropor- tionate share of the national debt.

A fear that financiers were given preferential treatment. Creating a bank was contentious because many Americans—par- ticularly southerners—argued that the creation of a national bank would serve the interests of only financiers and merchants. They believed it would offer little aid to farmers and plantation owners. The Democratic-Republicans considered these groups the most virtuous citizens of an agrarian republic. Arguing that the creation of a bank was not within the purview of the federal government, the opponents of Hamilton’s plan favored a more literal interpretation of the Constitution—a position called strict constructionism.

The Democratic-Republicans had three problems with Hamilton’s plan:

the reasons why . . .}{

strict constructionism Literal interpretation of the Constitution, argu- ing that the original meaning of those at the Constitutional Convention should not be adapted to fit more recent times

>> The bank was the linchpin of Hamilton’s plan to strengthen the federal government. iStockphoto.com/Robert Dodge

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 140 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Political Divisions 141

The rural Pennsylvanians fought back, eventu- ally rioting and overrunning the city of Pittsburgh, where they were to be tried for tax evasion. This was the Whiskey Rebellion. Alarmed by the direct refusal to adhere to the dictates of the federal gov- ernment, George Washington issued a proclamation declaring the farmers in rebellion and sent a newly organized army of nearly 13,000 to quell the revolt. Washington himself at times led the troops. But by the time the army reached western Pennsylvania, the rebels had gone home. Washington ultimately pardoned the two men who were captured in the dispute.

There were two main results of the Whiskey Rebellion. First, from this time forward, the west- ern provinces were firmly Anti-Federalist, favoring the small-government approach of the Democratic- Republicans. Hamilton’s economic plans had indeed exacerbated sectional differences between those who most obviously benefited from them (East

Coast elites, bankers, and educated businessmen) and those who did not (southern and western farm- ers). But second, Washington’s message was clear: the national government would not allow extralegal protests to effect change. In a nation of laws, change would come only through peaceful means.

8-2b The Problem of Foreign Policy Through the 1790s, there were still no formal politi- cal parties, but clear divisions were apparent. Both politicians and everyday Americans had to deter- mine what kind of nation they wanted. In the Whiskey Rebellion, the Pennsylvania farmers sought to defend their idea that the federal government should not reach too deeply into the pockets of everyday Americans. They lost that particular battle, but the sympathy they aroused from the future Democratic-Republicans showed that their com- plaints did not go unheard.

table 8.1 the Differences Between Jefferson and hamilton

Jefferson Hamilton

Party Democratic-Republican Federalist

National vision An agrarian republic of independent farmers A capitalist, industrial power

Federal government Small, subservient to states Strong and centralized

Labor Free and enslaved Free

National bank Against For

Constitution Strict interpretation Loose interpretation

Whiskey rebellion Conflict in which Pennsylvania farmers fought a tax on whiskey, eventually rioting and overrunning the city of Pittsburgh in 1794, where they were to be tried for tax evasion

T he

G ra

ng er

C o

lle ct

io n,

N ew

Y o

rk /T

he G

ra ng

er C

o lle

ct io

>> George Washington sent a newly organized army of almost 13,000 to quell the Whiskey Rebellion.

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 141 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

142 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

As a new nation, the United States also had to travel the often-treacherous terrain of foreign policy. And here too, almost every deci- sion made by the federal government was liable to be framed in divisive language. Would the nation support other Enlightenment-based revolutions, like the one tak-

ing place in France? Would it challenge England when it infringed on American liberties in the seas? Plus, there were still divisions in the West, with the Spanish still in control of the Mississippi River and Florida, the British still possessing forts in the west- ern hinterlands and Canada, and Indians still living on and claiming lands throughout the vast terrain. The answers to these questions only increased political divisions.

The Pinckney Treaty In one rare instance, the Pinckney Treaty of 1796 (also called the Treaty of San Lorenzo) was an accomplishment everyone could celebrate. The tax on whiskey remained after the Whiskey Rebellion, but opposition to the policy cooled when the treaty with Spain gave Pennsylvania farmers an easier way to get their crops to market. The Pinckney Treaty opened the Mississippi River to American ship- ping and allowed Americans the “right of deposit” at New Orleans, which meant that American mer- chants could warehouse goods in the city. The Pinckney Treaty was popular, a notable foreign policy achievement in a decade of political con- troversy. Other foreign policy decisions, however,

divided American leaders in the 1790s. In particu- lar, government officials clashed over the French Revolution and the conduct of trade with certain foreign nations.

The French Revolution and the Citizen Genêt Affair In 1789 in France, growing discontent with the king spurred the French people to overthrow their monar- chy, inciting the French Revolution. Most Americans were initially pleased with the news, thinking that they themselves had been on the front line of an inev- itable transition to republican governments around the world. But by the early 1790s, the news from France grew worse: the country had erupted into vio- lence, and one leader after another had been deposed, creating chaos and a reign of terror. The French could not agree on what liberty was, who was deserving of it, or how the nation could be governed fairly.

Public opinion in America was divided over the French Revolution. The disorder in France alarmed many Federalists, and criticism increased when the revolutionaries executed the former king, Louis XVI, and his wife, Marie Antoinette, in 1793. At the same time, many Federalists (especially in New England) viewed England as the United States’s natural trad- ing partner. When Britain declared war on France in 1792 (other European nations saw France’s chaos as an opportunity to make territorial gains, prompting Europe-wide battles), many New Englanders were concerned that too much support for France’s revo- lution would sour trade relations with England. On the one hand, the Democratic-Republicans contin- ued to sympathize with the revolution, supporting its attempt to create a republican government. On the other hand, Federalists in New England sup- ported Britain.

In the United States, the conflict came to a head when an ambassador from the revolution- ary French Republic, Edmond Genêt, arrived in the United States on April 8, 1793. Genêt’s mis- sion was to raise support for the new French government, particularly because the revolution had brought France into conflict with England and Spain, key trading partners of the United States. Genêt received a mixed reception. Many Americans remembered the French contribu- tion to the American Revolution and welcomed him. Others pointed out that America’s alliance had actually been with the now-deposed French king, not the new French Republic. To avoid entanglement, Washington issued a neutrality proclamation two weeks after Genêt’s arrival, on April 22, 1793.

>> Washington, D.C., in 1800 was not a large city at all.

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

pinckney treaty of 1796 Agreement with Spain that opened the Mississippi River to American shipping and allowed Americans the “right of deposit” at New Orleans, which meant that American merchants could warehouse goods in the city

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 142 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Political Divisions 143

Genêt ignored the proclamation and very pub- licly tried to recruit American soldiers and advocate American attacks on British ships. Since this was a direct challenge to Washington’s stance on neutral- ity, the president issued a proclamation in August 1793 that France recall Genêt. (Genêt was allowed to stay in America, however, after a new French government demanded his arrest and Washington became aware that Genêt would likely be exe- cuted if he returned to France. Washington opposed Genêt’s methods, not Genêt himself.)

Besides creating a diplomatic nuisance, the Genêt affair was significant because it delin- eated further distinctions between Washington’s Federalists and Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson opposed President Washington’s neutral- ity and realized that Washington had started look- ing more to Hamilton for advice on foreign affairs than to him. Recognizing his loss of influence, Jefferson resigned as secretary of state in July 1793, a sign of the growing divisions within American political leadership.

U.S. Neutrality and Jay’s Treaty The rebuke of Genêt did not end Washington’s prob- lems maintaining neutrality. Indeed, neither France nor Britain respected American neutrality, with the British sometimes performing the terrible act of impressing (capturing and forcing into service) American sailors into its navy. Other British policies, unrelated to the war with France, also aggravated Americans. For example, the treaty that ended the American Revolution decreed that the British evacuate their forts on the American frontier, but a decade after the agreement was reached, Britain still occupied the forts. In addition, Britain closed its ports in the West Indies to American ships.

To address these issues, in 1794, Washington sent New York’s John Jay to Britain. Jay had served as the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and helped negotiate the treaty that ended the American Revolution.

In 1795, Jay returned with Jay’s Treaty. In it the British agreed to evacuate military posts along the frontier in the Northwest Territory and make reparations for the cargo seized in 1793 and 1794. But Jay made several concessions; for instance, the United States lifted duties on British imports for ten years. Furthermore, the treaty avoided addressing other important issues, such as the impressing of American sailors.

Jay’s Treaty brought the conflict over foreign relations (whether to support France or England) to a boiling point. Jefferson’s partisans were bru-

tal in their attacks on the Federalists, claiming that Jay’s Treaty was a betrayal of the 1778 alliance with France and a humiliating capitula- tion to the British. At pub- lic rallies, protesters burned Jay in effigy. The vehemence of the opposition caused Washington to hesitate in signing the treaty, although he did sign it eventually. Nevertheless, Jay’s Treaty indicated growing divisions within American politics, passionate divisions over the direction of the nation that would contribute to the rise of a two-party political system.

8-2c Indian Relations If problems of finance and foreign policy were craft- ing two political factions, both parties could at least agree on the policies toward Indians. Once again, it was the Americans’ westward expansion that pro- voked conflict.

Indian Resistance in the Northwest In 1790, a huge coalition of Indian tribes (including the Chippewa, Ottawa, Shawnee, Delaware, Pottawatomi, and others) attacked American settlers north of the Ohio River, in what is today Ohio. Buttressed by British promises of support, the Native Americans were successful in defeating several American bat- talions until 1794, when the American Army finally secured a victory in the Battle of Fallen Timbers. President Washington intended to clear the Ohio River Valley for settlement and had finally done so at that battle. The result was the Treaty of Greenville (1795), which forced the Indian tribes of the Old Northwest westward across the Mississippi River (Map 8.1). This development signaled peace in the Ohio River Valley and white settlement there for two decades.

The South At about the same time, the Creeks near Georgia were battling to prevent further American encroach- ment on their lands. The Spanish were the real beneficiaries of the Creek war, because the Creeks served as a buffer between Spain’s Florida territory and the American settlers in Georgia.

impressment Practice of capturing and forcing sailors from other nations into naval service

Jay’s treaty Treaty in which the British agreed to evacuate military posts along the frontier in the Northwest Territory and make reparations for the cargo seized in 1793 and 1794 while the United States lifted duties on British imports for ten years

treaty of Greenville Agreement that forced the Indian tribes of the Old Northwest westward across the Mississippi River in 1795

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 143 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

144 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

Anxious to avoid contin- ued attacks by the Creeks, George Washington called the Creek leader, Alexander McGillivray, to New York to pursue a treaty. The par- ties agreed to terms that legitimated the Creek pres- ence and ended hostilities until 1792, when McGillivray accepted better terms from

the Spanish. Small wars continued in the South and Southwest until 1794, at which time Tennesseans,

hoping to establish Tennessee as a state, successfully pushed the Creeks farther west and south.

A New Policy The continuing violence led the United States to revise its Indian policy. In 1790, Congress passed the first of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, which made it illegal for Americans to trade with Native American tribes without formal consent from the federal government. The acts also made it illegal to sell land to or buy land from Native Americans with- out similar federal consent. This last part began the process of defining “Indian territory,” the lands where

Indian trade and Intercourse acts Laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade with Native American tribes without formal consent from the federal government and also made it illegal to sell land to or buy land from Native Americans without similar federal consent

Pensacola

St. Augustine

Vicksburg Savannah

Baton Rouge

New Orleans

Mobile

Ft. Michilimackinac

Fort Detroit

Fort Miami

Fort Niagara Fort Oswego

Fort Oswegatchie

Fort Point au Fer

Fort Dutchman’s Point

Fort Nogales

Fort San Fernando

Fort Confederación

Fort Natchez

Fallen Timbers, 1794

Harmar’s Defeat, 1790

St. Clair’s Defeat, 1791

Te nn

es se

e R .

Ohio R.

Arkansas R.

M is

si ss

ip pi

R .

M issouri R.

Lak e E

rie

Lake Ontario

La ke

M ic

hi ga

Lake H uron

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

G u l f o f M e x i c o

Treaty Li ne of

Greenvill e, 1795

CHCHEROKEE

SHAWNEE

CHICKASAW

CHOCTAW UPPER CREEK

LOWER CREEK

SEMINOLE

90°W

30°N

40°N

80°W

70°W

MAINE (MASS.)

N.H.

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

VT.

MASS.

CONN. R.I.

N.J.

DELAWARE MARYLAND

VIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

GEORGIA

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY

NORTHWEST TERRITORY

MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA (CANADA)

EAST FLORIDA

WEST FLORIDA

LOUISIANA

U.S., 1783

Spanish territory

Area claimed by Spain, to 1796

British territory

Spanish fort on U.S. soil

British fort on U.S. soil

U.S.- Indian battle

0 150 300 Mi.

150 300 Km.

Cengage Learning Ms00601 Disputed Territorial Claims in the West, 1783–1800 Trim 30p0 x 33p3 Final proof 8/26/09

Text block map No bleeds

Map 8.1. The West, 1783–1800 © Cengage Learning 2014

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 144 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The Rise of Two-Party Politics 145

Indians could live and work. The acts once again made it clear that the United States had no intention of integrating Indians into their new nation.

8-3 The Rise of Two-Party Politics

Despite the factions’ willingness to come together to fight Indians, by 1795, after the uproars caused by the Citizen Genêt affair and Jay’s Treaty, the two major divisions of opinion had crystallized into political parties: the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists. Each party considered itself the inheritor of America’s revolutionary ideology and viewed its opposition as illegitimate.

8-3a The Democratic-Republicans The Democratic-Republican Party (often called the Republican Party or the Jeffersonian-Republicans) coalesced in opposition to Hamilton’s economic poli- cies and Jay’s Treaty. James Madison and a few other Virginians were the architects of the new organization. They transformed a loose collection of “Democratic- Republican societies” into a disciplined party whose members voted with consistency. In 1792, Thomas Jefferson assumed the party’s leadership.

In general, the Democratic-Republicans favored limited government. They opposed the national bank and other measures that enhanced the power of the federal government, and they sided with France over Great Britain because of the feeling of shared republican brotherhood with France. It should be noted, however, that their sense of self- rule also included the right to own slaves if one so desired. Jefferson found supporters among southern landholders and among free workers and laborers everywhere.

8-3b The Federalists The Federalist Party grew out of the faction of American leaders that endorsed Hamilton’s eco- nomic policies and Jay’s Treaty. They supported Washington’s presidency and helped John Adams succeed him in 1796. In general, the Federalists sup- ported the stability provided by a centralized gov- ernment and were suspicious of the whims of the populace. The Federalists supported a strong gov- ernmental role in economic affairs and the stabil- ity of trade with Britain. They were mostly wealthy merchants, large property owners, or conservative

farmers. New England and the Middle Colonies were Federalist strongholds.

8-3c Slavery Aside from finance and federalism, another issue caused a rift between the two parties: slavery. To be sure, most Federalists were not abolitionists, but many of them were less committed to the continu- ation of slavery than the Democratic-Republicans. This division was illuminated in each party’s reac- tion to the Haitian Revolution.

The Haitian Revolution In 1791, slaves in Santo Domingo, Haiti, a Caribbean island nation just south of Florida, revolted, kill- ing planters and burning sugar plantations. Led by Toussaint L’Ouverture, the slaves declared

Federalist party Faction of American leaders that endorsed Hamilton’s economic poli- cies and Jay’s Treaty

>> In 1791, slaves in French-controlled Haiti sought their inde- pendence. Led by Toussaint L’Ouverture, the bloody revolution led France to pull up its roots in the New World, ultimately leading to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

S ch

o m

b ur

g C

en te

r fo

r R

es ea

rc h

in B

la ck

C ul

tu re

/ T he

N ew

Y o

rk P

ub lic

L ib

ra ry

, A st

er , L

en o

x an

d T

ild en

F o

un d

at io

ns .

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 145 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

146 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

several conspirators leaked the plan. State leaders hanged twenty-six reb- els, including the leader, a slave named Gabriel. A second attack in 1802 (led by a slave named Sancho) was also preemptively stopped. These two attempts to overthrow the sys- tem resulted in the continued tightening of the laws governing slaves. Most significantly, all postrevolu- tionary talk of emancipation in the South ended due to white fears of black insurrection. The harsh mea- sures were meant to stifle slaves’ hopes of escaping the system, and the measures worked.

8-4 Adams’s Presidency and Dealing with Dissent

George Washington easily won reelection as president in 1792, but as the election of 1796 approached, Washington decided not to run for a third term. Exhausted by his years as president and by the con- tinual attacks of the Democratic-

independence from their French overlords. In America, the Federalists supported the revolution (in this instance, they were the ones mindful

of their own republican roots). George Washington kept up trade relations with Haiti and sought to recognize the independent nation that was made up mostly of former slaves.

Democratic-Republicans were aghast at Washington’s actions. The Haitian Revolution had forced a flood of white landholders to decamp to America’s southern states, who told of the violence they had witnessed and warned against the potential creation of a black republic near the coast of America. When Thomas Jefferson became president in 1800, he reversed the nation’s position on the Haitian Revolution and sup- ported French attempts to crush the slave rebellion. (The French lost this effort in 1803, and Haiti became the first black republic and Latin America’s first independent state.)

There were three results of the Haitian Revolution in the South. First, southern lawmakers tight- ened black codes, citing fear of slave insurrections in America. Second, the revolution also hardened plant- ers’ conviction that the South was meant to maintain slavery. This reliance on slavery had deepened after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793, which made labor-intensive cotton profitable in much of the South. Finally, the revolution under- scored France’s increased reluctance to maintain its possessions in the New World, a sentiment that led to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 (see Chapter 9).

Gabriel’s Conspiracy Yet another result of the Haitian Revolution was the spread of revolutionary fervor among American slaves, which sparked Gabriel’s Conspiracy in 1800. After the American Revolution, New York and Philadelphia became havens for free black people, and nearly all of the northern states developed plans to free their slaves. The opposite was happen- ing in the South, where slavery was becoming more and more entrenched.

In 1800, several churchgoing African Americans learned of the events in Haiti and planned a simi- lar attack on Richmond, Virginia. They intended to burn the town and capture the governor, James Monroe. After heavy rain postponed the attack,

Adams’s opponent, Thomas Jefferson,

became his vice president. From 1797 to 1800,

there would be no harmony in the

federal government.

E o

n Im

ag es

Gabriel’s Conspiracy Slave rebellion in 1800 in Richmond, Virginia; twenty-six rebels were hanged

>> John Adams.

See documents related to Gabri- el’s Conspiracy.

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 146 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Adams’s Presidency and Dealing with Dissent 147

Republican press, Washington encouraged Americans to come together under a nonpartisan system.

His hopes were not realized. The Democratic- Republicans and the Federalists both began orga- nizing local meetings of their supporters. In his

heartfelt Farewell Address, Washington rued these divi- sions, but both parties were sufficiently well organized to

field candidates in the election of 1796. The two-party political system was born.

8-4a Adams’s Election When Washington’s vice president, Federalist John Adams, announced his candidacy for president, the Democratic-Republicans nominated Thomas Jefferson to oppose him. After a particularly par- tisan campaign, rife with intense bickering and dissention, Adams received 71 electoral votes and became president. According to the Constitution, the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes was to be vice president, and,

by previous arrangement among Federalist electoral voters, Adams’s running mate, Thomas Pinckney of South Carolina, was meant to receive the same number of votes as Adams less one, with one supporter with- holding his vote. This would have given Pinckney 70 votes and the vice presi- dency. Confusion and trickery muddled the plan, though, and communications were slow. No one was sure who was supposed to hold back his vote for Pinckney, and so several did. The result was that, instead of Pinckney, it was Jefferson who took second place, with 68 electoral votes. Thus, Adams’s oppo- nent, Thomas Jefferson, became his vice president. From 1797 to 1800, there would be no harmony in the federal government.

8-4b The XYZ Affair Upon entering office in 1797, Adams immediately faced a foreign policy crisis called the XYZ Affair,

B et

tm an

n/ C

O R

B IS

>> “Cinque-têtes, or the Paris Monster,” an outrageous contemporary political cartoon on the XYZ Affair, shows staunch Americans resisting threats and demands for money from revolutionary France, depicted as happily devouring frogs, guillotining aris- tocrats, and supporting the Haitian Revolution (notice Toussaint L’Ouverture seated at the far right).

Read Washing- ton’s Farewell Address of 1796.

XYZ affair Foreign policy crisis with France over the trade wars; three agents designated X, Y, and Z attempted to extort money from American envoys as a prerequisite for negotiations

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 147 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

148 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

which further divided the two factions. The French had interpreted Jay’s Treaty as an indication that the United States was siding with Great Britain in the trade wars, and they retaliated by raiding American merchant ships. France was angry at what it saw as a rebuke to the clan of republican brotherhood. Adams sent three envoys to France to defuse the situa- tion, and the French foreign minister sent three agents to meet them (designated X, Y, and Z in official French documents). It became evident that X, Y, and Z’s real purpose was to extort money from the Americans as a prerequisite for nego- tiations. When news of “the XYZ Affair” reached the United States, Americans were outraged at France’s galling lack of respect.

Result—The Quasi-War Meanwhile, the French continued to raid American ships. The Adams administration responded to these raids by repudiating America’s 1778 alliance with France, and a “quasi-war” erupted between the two nations. From 1798 to 1800, the naval fleets of both coun- tries openly plundered each other’s ships. As Franco-American relations deteriorated, Adams feared the out- break of a full-scale war between the two nations. This was signifi- cant because it put Adams on the defensive regarding dissent within the American government. In his mind, America was on the verge of an international war.

8-4c The Alien and Sedition Acts Adams’s concerns about dissent became problem- atic because partisanship had continued to escalate during his term. For example, in 1798, a fight broke out on the floor of the House of Representatives when Matthew Lyon, a pugnacious Democratic-

Republican congressman from Vermont, declared that aristocratic Federalist representatives were perpetually duping the people. Roger Griswold, a Federalist representative from Connecticut, asked Lyon if he meant to defend the people with a wooden sword. (Griswold was referring to the fact that, dur- ing the American Revolution, Lyon had been court- martialed for cowardice and forced to wear a wooden sword as punishment.) Lyon retaliated by spitting in Griswold’s face, and the two men began wrestling on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Attempting to bring such bitter conflicts under control, Adams pushed a series of measures through Congress known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. They turned out to be his undoing.

The Alien and Sedition Acts consisted of three separate acts, the third of which would have the big- gest impact on Adams’s future. (1) The Alien Enemies Act authorized the deportation of the citizens of enemy nations. (2) The Alien Friends Act allowed the government to detain and deport noncitizens for almost any cause; because many of the most active Democratic-Republicans were recent British immi- grants, this was regarded as a deliberate assault on the party. Finally, (3) the Sedition Act set fines and prison sentences for anyone found guilty of writing, speaking, or publishing “false, scandalous and mali- cious” statements against the government.

The two Alien Acts had little impact, but the Sedition Act was explosive. Several Democratic- Republican newspaper editors were jailed for vio- lating the new law. Federalists used the law to jail Matthew Lyon, the Democratic-Republican repre-

sentative who had wrestled on the House floor. Not only did the act make political martyrs out of the jailed Republican-Democrats, but it also provoked their party col- leagues to fight back.

Calling the Alien and Sedition Acts a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantees, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison col- laborated anonymously to pen a set of resolutions denouncing the acts. In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky adopted

resolutions—called the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions—proclaiming the Sedition Act to be an infringement on rights protected by their state con- stitutions. The resolutions declared that each state had the right to nullify federal laws within its borders.

This bold challenge to federal authority was called the doctrine of nullification. No other state

alien and Sedition acts Legislation signed by President John Adams; included the Alien Enemies Act, the Alien Friends Act, and the Sedition Act; opponents called them a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantees

Virginia and Kentucky resolutions Declarations written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and adopted by the legis- latures of Virginia and Kentucky, proclaiming that the Sedition Act was an infringement on rights protected by their state constitutions and that states had the right to nullify federal laws within their borders

doctrine of nullification The theory that each state had the right to nul- lify federal laws within its borders

Lyon retaliated by spitting in

Griswold’s face, and the two men began

wrestling on the floor of the House of Representatives.

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 148 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

The “Bloodless Revolution” of 1800 149

endorsed the resolutions, and several openly rebuked them, but they provided the intellectual framework for sectional divisions that were to come. They also set the stage for the bitter election of 1800.

8-5 The “Bloodless Revolution” of 1800

The candidates in the election of 1800 were the same as those in 1796, Jefferson and Adams. Four years of controversy, however, had intensified the bitter rivalry between the two men. Citing the Alien and Sedition Acts, Democratic-Republicans accused Adams of harboring monarchical ideas and called him a slave to British interests. Federalists castigated Thomas Jefferson as an atheist (he had composed his own personal copy of the Bible by cutting out every- thing but the words spoken by Christ) who would

follow the lead of the French revolutionaries and instigate a reign of terror in the United States. The campaigning was vitriolic, to say the least.

8-5a The French Again John Adams gave his opposition unexpected help by reopening negotiations with France. In terms of inter- national relations, the negotiations were a success; they resulted in a peace treaty that brought the quasi- war to an end. In terms of Adams’s candidacy, because most of his fellow Federalists were pro-British, his efforts to smooth things over with France divided his own party. The Federalist Party had already suf- fered in the controversy over the Alien and Sedition Acts. Now they were divided over whether the United States should negotiate with France. In putting the priorities of the nation over the interests of his party, Adams won a victory for statesmanship but created a political problem he could not overcome.

8-5b The Election As the election of 1800 approached, the Federalists were too divided to give Jefferson any real com- petition. Hamilton, in fact, jockeyed to get the Federalists to dump Adams as their candidate. In contrast, the Democratic-Republican Party was well organized, and the final tally in the Electoral College gave Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr of New York, a clear margin of victory.

8-5c Results The assumption of power by the Democratic- Republicans did not go off without a hitch, however. Ironically, the Democratic-Republicans were, in a way, too organized. Jefferson and Burr received 73 votes apiece in Electoral College voting. This was a problem because the Constitution did not provide for a two-person ticket (with one designated as president and the other as vice president). Rather, it stated that the candidate with the most electoral votes became president and the candidate with the second most votes assumed the vice presidency. In the event of a tie, the decision was placed in the hands of the House of Representatives.

In the election of 1800 (Map 8.2), Democratic- Republican candidates had also won control of both houses of Congress, but the new Congress did not sit until after the presidential election was settled. Therefore, it was the lame-duck (or, soon-to-be-out-

lame duck Politician who is not return- ing to office and is serving out the rest of his or her term with little influence; a soon-to-be-out-of-office politician or Congress

GA 4

TN 3

MISSISSIPPI TERRITORY

INDIANA TERRITORY

NORTH- WEST TERR.

KY 4

VA 21

NY 12

PA DR-8/F-7

SC 8

NC R-13/F-4

VT 4 NH

DE 3

NJ 7

MA 16

CT 9

RI 4

MD DR-5/F-5

Adams (Federalist) Pinckney Jay

Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) Burr 73 53%

73 53%

Electoral VoteCandidate (Party)

65 47% 64 46% 1

1800

Cengage Learning Election of 1800 Ms00296a Trim 20p6 x 29p9 Final: 8/1/08 Overtake revision 8/13/08—cm: standardize vote tallies add white feather at left side Kennedy 14e variant: Eastern US only

SINGLE COLUMN MAP No bleeds

Map 8.2. The Election of 1800 © Cengage Learning 2014

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 149 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

150 Chapter 8 Securing the New Nation, 1789–1800

Visit the CourseMate website at www.cengagebrain.com for additional study tools and review materials for this chapter.

of-office) Federalist Congress that would make the decision. Some Federalists decided to support Burr and deny Jefferson the presidency, and, although Burr did not openly support this movement, he also did not denounce it. Hamilton, however, distrusted Burr more than he disliked Jefferson. Using his influ- ence among the Federalists, Hamilton helped his old rival Thomas Jefferson to victory on the thirty- sixth ballot. To ensure that the shenanigans of the 1800 election would never be repeated, in 1804 the United States adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, allowing electors to vote for presi- dent and vice president separately.

What else was happening . . . 1791 Early bicycles are made in Scotland.

1791 France begins using the metric system.

1795 Tula Slave Rebellion in the Dutch Caribbean colony of Curacao lasts a month before finally being sup- pressed. August 17 is still celebrated in Curacao as a day of freedom.

1798 The first soft drink is invented.

1800 Worcestershire sauce is invented.

Looking Ahead . . . Although party politics had increased tremendously between 1796 and 1800, the election of 1800 was valuable in demonstrating that an opposition party could defeat the party in power without causing a total breakdown of government or a civil war. This was a tremendous accomplishment. When Adams and the Federalists handed over the reins of power peacefully, optimism ran high that the nation had passed a critical test. Jefferson himself declared in his Inaugural Address, “We are all Republicans. We are all Federalists,” thus suggesting that the survival of the nation should trump political differences. After 1800, opposition became a cornerstone of the American system of government, as did the two- party system. The so-called bloodless revolution of 1800 paved the way for active, peaceful political dis- sent in American life.

53548_ch08_ptg01_hr_134-151.indd 150 10/29/12 9:49 AM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

152 Chapter 9 The Continued Move West

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

9-1 Define Jeffersonian Democracy, and explain how Jefferson’s presidency both defined and contradicted that political philosophy.

9-2 Discuss the reasons for and results of the War of 1812.

Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800–1814

Chapter 9

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 152 11/1/12 1:36 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Jefferson’s Presidency 153

“Democratic-Republicans brought politics to the people in a new, more personal way.”

Jefferson’s election in 1800 marked a reversal in American politics. Jefferson’s apprehen- sion of an overly strong cen- tralized government led him to advocate a vision of a farm- ers’ republic led by an agrarian upper class. He hated cities, thinking they were “sores” on the body politic, places where corruption and vice would tarnish the purity and benevolence earned by a farmer who labored in the earth. His vision was of a nation of small farmers who were economically self-sufficient, personally independent, and beholden to no one.

To realize this agrarian vision, Jefferson attempted to roll back several of the Federalist policies, although he did not go as far as many of his supporters hoped. At the same time, Jefferson dramatically expanded the boundaries of the nation to allow for continued westward expansion. All this occurred during a simi- larly dramatic expansion of America’s social and economic life, which is the subject of Chapter 10. This present chapter, however, examines Jefferson’s presidency, the meaning of “Jeffersonian Democracy,” and the rule of the Jeffersonians through the War of 1812.

9-1 Jefferson’s Presidency In addition to being the beneficiaries of the country’s first bloodless revolution, the Democratic-Republicans were instrumental in transforming the political culture of America. This new political culture earned the name Jeffersonian Democracy.

9-1a Jeffersonian Democracy Since George Washington, the Federalists had never relished the notion of making appeals to the public, preferring instead for the people to call on their leaders to act on their behalf. In contrast, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans eagerly cultivated popular opin- ion. They founded highly partisan newspapers that spread throughout the country. They campaigned at the grass roots, staging political barbecues and clambakes. They also led virulent attacks on their Federalist opponents. The Federalists never mastered this aggres- sive art of politicking, a failure that made them appear increasingly out of touch with the people. Thus, although the vote remained restricted to white male property holders

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /J

er ry

D o

w ns

Jefferson’s attempts to create an idealized agrarian repub- lic proved disastrous. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

         

What do you think?

<< Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, spoke of keeping the nation tied to its agrarian roots, but the events of his presidency made it difficult to maintain such an ideal.

Jeffersonian Democracy Innovation introduced by Jefferson’s Democratic- Republicans when they eagerly cultivated popular opinion by campaigning at the grass roots

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 153 11/1/12 1:36 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

154 Chapter 9 Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800–1814

over the age of twenty-one, the Democratic-Republicans brought politics to the people in a new, more personal way. This is what historians mean by Jeffersonian Democracy.

9-1b Jefferson’s Domestic Policies

Jefferson’s domestic policies focused on (1) reducing the size of government; (2) navi- gating the development of the first national court system; and (3) expanding what he saw as the agrarian republic.

Reducing the Size of Government Although Jefferson and his supporters changed America’s political culture, they retained much of Hamilton’s ambitious economic plan. However, Jefferson did seek to make the small federal gov- ernment even smaller. He proposed two major cut- backs. First, he repealed many of the taxes Hamilton had imposed, which allowed Jefferson to reduce the number of federal employees (especially the hated tax assessors). Under Jefferson’s plan, tariffs from trading partners, not internal taxes, would fund gov- ernment operations. Second, Jefferson cut back the military, maintaining just a small army on the west- ern frontier and a tiny navy that could protect only America’s coast. He would pay a substantial price for these two changes, but there was no way for him to know this during his first term.

The Federalists, having lost both houses of Congress, could do nothing to prevent these actions, despite the fact that many New England Federalists were concerned that their shipping industry would be jeopardized by the weakened naval fleet. Perhaps taking pity on their powerless status, Jefferson refused to use the Alien and Sedition Acts against the Federalists, as he was legally entitled to.

Developing the Court System Federalists still had power in the courts, though. This situation birthed two of the most important developments in U.S. judicial history: (1) judicial review, which gave the courts the right to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional and therefore make it void; and (2) the idea that partisanship was not a crime.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Court decision declaring that William Marbury deserved his appoint- ment but that the Court could not force the president to grant it because a federal law was unconstitutional; first U.S. Supreme Court decision to declare a law unconstitutional

doctrine of judicial review Right of the courts to judge the constitutional- ity of federal laws; estab- lished the Supreme Court as the ultimate inter- preter of constitutional questions

Judicial review. The first of these developments emerged in 1800, when the outgoing president, John Adams, made a number of last-minute “midnight appointments” of Federalist judges. Adams hoped to ensure that the Federalist Party could retain a strong position in the judiciary. But Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans swiftly repealed the appointments. William Marbury, one of the frus- trated judges, sued James Madison (Jefferson’s sec- retary of state) for denying his appointment. This dispute reached the Supreme Court as Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, headed the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835. Marshall, suspecting that Jefferson would ignore his decision whatever it might be, issued a decision, in 1803, declaring that Marbury deserved his appointment but that the Court could not force the president to grant it. He said that the original Judiciary Act of 1789, which supposedly gave the Court the right to enforce appointments, exceeded the powers granted to the Court in the Constitution, which said the Court only had jurisdiction over cases involving states or ambassadors. Thus, the original Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

In this roundabout way, Marshall ultimately declared that the courts had the right to judge the constitutionality of federal laws, a right called the doctrine of judicial review. Based on that ingenious decision, the Supreme Court refused to engage in the partisan bickering of the time, while at the same time carving out its position as the ultimate inter- preter of constitutional questions. Since Marbury, the Court has struck down more than one thousand acts of Congress or state legislatures.

The legality of partisanship. The second important judicial precedent was established when Jefferson sought to impeach the most politically biased Federalist judges. To Jefferson’s chagrin, in 1805, the Senate refused to convict Federalist judge Samuel Chase on purely political grounds. This set the prec- edent that partisanship was not a crime and that, once appointed, judges could be as partisan as they wished in their decisions without facing rebuke or retribution.

Expanding the Agrarian Republic Given the republican belief that farming provided the moral basis for good citizenship, Jefferson felt it essential that the United States continue to open new territory to settlement. Without access to new land, Jefferson reasoned, crowding would pressure people into working for others as urban wage labor-

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 154 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Jefferson’s Presidency 155

ers. In contrast, territorial expansion allowed every American the chance to be a self-sufficient farmer. Jefferson believed the new nation was likely to expand and should continue to do so, dislodging Spanish claims to territory in Florida and northern Mexico and French claims in the Mississippi.

The Louisiana Purchase. The first step Jefferson took to realize this vision was to purchase the city of New Orleans from France. New Orleans was a vital port city at the mouth of the Mississippi River, and the Mississippi was the country’s main north-south inland waterway, providing a means of transporta- tion from the Gulf of Mexico to present-day St. Paul, Minnesota. The United States could never guarantee control of the Mississippi unless it controlled New Orleans as well.

In 1803, Jefferson sent emis- saries to France to negotiate the purchase of New Orleans. Much to Jefferson’s surprise, the French emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte, wanted to sell not only New Orleans, but also the rights to all of Louisiana, which was at the time a huge tract of land that stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains, land that was of course occu- pied and claimed by a variety of Native American tribes but that was nevertheless laid claim to by the French. The French treasury was nearly empty, and another war between France and Britain loomed imminently. In addition, after the Haitian Revolution (see Chapter 8), France had learned how costly it was to maintain colonial possessions. Napoleon asked only $15 million for the claim to 830,000 square miles of Louisiana.

The Constitution did not give the president power to buy new territory, but Jefferson pushed ahead with the Louisiana Purchase. Although he claimed to believe that federal power was dangerous and that the Constitution had to be followed strictly, Jefferson was willing to bend his own rules to expand America’s western boundary all the way to the Rockies (see Map 9.1 on page 157). The purchase nearly doubled the geographic size of the nation.

Lewis and Clark. Jefferson took responsibility not only for acquiring new territory, but also for exploring it. In 1803, before the Louisiana Purchase was com- pleted, Jefferson sent his private secretary Meriwether Lewis with William Clark as co-commander on an exploratory mission to the Pacific. In 1804, Lewis and Clark, along with forty-eight other men, left St.

Louis and journeyed north- west toward the Rockies. With the help of Sacajawea, a Shoshone Indian woman who served as their guide, Lewis and Clark traveled to the Pacific. Their jour- ney lasted two-and-a-half years. They encountered Indians friendly and fierce, unknown wildlife, and bru- tal weather, both hot and cold. In 1806, the expedi- tion returned to St. Louis with an immense amount of information about the American West, including a valuable map. Their journey and the stories from it inspired generations of Americans to move west-

ward and lay claim to the nation’s interior.

Land policies. Jefferson also made access to western lands easier through a revised land policy. The Land Act of 1800, signed by President Adams, had set up land-selling offices in the West, made the par- cels smaller (and more affordable), and allowed for payment over time

(rather than in a single large lump sum). In 1804, the Democratic-Republicans again reduced the minimum amount that could be purchased, making western

Louisiana purchase Tract of 830,000 square miles that stretched from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains; Jefferson bought the rights to it from Napoleon for $15 million in 1803

The Lewis and Clark expedition

inspired generations of Americans to move westward.

>> Sacajawea, a Shoshone Indian woman who served as Lewis and Clark’s guide and translator, as depicted in a nineteenth-century painting.

M P

I/G et

ty Im

ag es

Read Lewis and Clark’s journal.

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 155 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

156 Chapter 9 Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800–1814

land even more afford- able. In a sense, the fed- eral government had become the real estate agent for the nation’s interior. And, as always, increased westward

expansion meant increased contact, and battles, with Native Americans.

Tecumseh and the Prophet In the early 1800s, two Shawnee brothers, Tecumseh and the Prophet, proposed to unite tribes from the Old Northwest (in Ohio and Michigan) and the South (Georgia) to resist the perpetual encroach- ment of American settlers. The brothers toured across the land preaching a revival of old ways in a revitalization movement remi- niscent of Neolin’s (Chapter 4). The brothers opposed the acceptance of European and American hab- its, including whiskey and guns. They set up pan-Indian towns across Indiana, the most famous of which was called “Prophetstown”

by the surrounding American set- tlers and was situated alongside the Tippecanoe River. As white Americans moved further west, they would eventually run into a united force of Indians.

Reelection Taking advantage of the new culture of politics, the expansion of the nation, and the good economic times of the early 1800s, Jefferson coasted to an easy reelection in 1804. The Federalists had once again been beaten badly, and some Federalists were so dismayed at their reversal of fortune that they per- suaded Aaron Burr to run for governor of New York and then, if victorious, to separate New York and New England from the rest of the nation. This, in 1804, was the country’s first serious plot of secession. Alexander Hamilton—ever the nationalist—learned of the plot and politicked against Burr in New York, leading to Burr’s defeat.

In his fury, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel. The two had a long-standing feud, and this would be its final episode. In the duel, on a desolate hill in New Jersey (they had deliberately left New York, where dueling was illegal), Burr shot and killed Hamilton, who had fired first but, disapproving of duels, had fired his gun into the air. Burr, hearing a shot whiz by his head and crash into the trees behind him, fired a fatal bullet into Hamilton’s gut. Burr subsequently lost all political respectability because most Americans believed that politics was meant to occupy the realm of discussion and law, not violence and vigilantism. Deemed a relic of an older age and cast out from distinguished political society, Burr moved west, plotting further seces-

>> Tecumseh and the Prophet (shown here), Shawnee Indian brothers who led a revitalization movement among tribes of the Old Northwest, saw their movement decimated after the Battle of Tippecanoe.

G eo

rg e

C ai

tli n

Te n-

sq úa

t- a-

w ay

, T he

O pe

n D

oo r,

Kn ow

n as

T he

P ro

ph et

, B ro

th er

o f

Te cu

m se

h. S

ha w

ne e.

1 83

0. O

il o

n ca

nv as

. 2 9

x 24

in . (

73 .7

x 6

0. 9

cm )

# A

R T

46 31

C re

d it:

m ith

so ni

an A

m er

ic an

A rt

M us

eu m

, W as

hi ng

to n,

D C

/A rt

R es

o ur

ce , N

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

>> William Clark’s diary of the Lewis and Clark expedition.

revitalization movement Revival of old ways of tribal life and pan- Indianism preached by Tecumseh and the Prophet

The Louisiana Purchase nearly

doubled the geographic size of

the nation.

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 156 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Jefferson’s Presidency 157

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

d Arkansas R.

Rio Grande

M issouri R.

M is

si ss

ip pi

R . C

olor ad

o R .

Snake R.

Gila R.

Platte R.

Ohio R

Te nn

es se

e R .

C ol

um bia

R .

Sa cr

am en

to R.

Red R.

100°W 90°W 80°W 70°W 60°W

30°N

40°N

110°W120°W

Gulf of Mexico

A T

L A

N T

I C O

C E

A N

P A

C I F

I C O

C E

A N

Lewis and C lark 1804–1806

Lewis’s Return

Clark’s Return

Chihuahua

Nacogdoches

Santa Fé

New Orleans

Philadelphia

Washington, D.C.

Baltimore

St. Louis

San Antonio

Taos

San Francisco

Santa Barbara

Monterey

San Diego

El Paso

N.J.

LOUISIANA PURCHASE

1803

OREGON COUNTRY

CALIFORNIA

MICH. TERR.

INDIANA TERR.

OHIO

PA.

KY.

ME. (MASS.)

N.H.VT.

N.C. TENN.

VA.

R.I.

MASS.

CONN.

DEL. MD.

MISS. TERR.

GA.

S.C.

SPANISH FLORIDA

N.Y.

N E W S P A I N

B R I T I S H N O R T H A M E R I C A ( C A N A D A )

Pikes Peak

0 200 400 Mi.

200 400 Km.

Original United States by Treaty of 1783

Louisiana Purchase, 1803

British territory

Spanish territory

Oregon Country (disputed)

Fort

Mission

Cengage Learning Louisiana Purchase Ms00298b trim-45p x 27p Replacement Final: 9/2/08 Berkin variant 2/23/10—cm: Eliminate Pike routes

Type block map Map bleeds top, right Align top map trim at top page trim Align left map trim at type block

sion attempts, until he was tried for treason in the nation’s first “Trial of the Century.” He was found not guilty by Chief Justice John Marshall, but his widespread unpopularity prompted him to decamp to Europe.

Although Burr is an extreme case, his actions illustrate the bitter divisions between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. His very extrem- ity and singularity, however, also demonstrate that, despite partisanship, the new nation was a nation of laws.

9-1c Jefferson’s Foreign Affairs While the new nation was weathering the few inter- nal storms that arose (and enjoying good economic times), international events seized attention during Jefferson’s two terms.

Jefferson’s Problematic Diplomacy Shortly after the Louisiana Purchase, the long- expected war between France and Great Britain erupted. At first, the United States benefited. With Britain and France fighting each other, America (as a neutral power) took control of the shipping trade between the Americas and Europe. Many American

traders grew wealthy. Soon, however, the United States found itself caught in the middle.

England controlled the seas, and France con- trolled the continent of Europe. With no land to fight on, each nation attempted to starve the other into sub- mission. They restricted other nations from trading with their enemies, raided ships, and prevented them from entering European ports. American shipping

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

>> Burr assassinated Hamilton, who, disapproving of duels, had fired his gun into the air.

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 157 11/6/12 1:13 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

158 Chapter 9 Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800–1814

was particularly punished. By 1807, about eight hundred American ships had been raided by French and British fleets. Meanwhile, the British began impressing American sailors into the Royal Navy, much as they had in the early 1790s. Estimates of the num- ber of Americans eventually impressed range from 4,000 to 10,000. After one highly publicized attack on the U.S.S. Chesapeake, Americans were so angered that some called for war, but it was not to be, for the simple reason

that Jefferson had dismantled the U.S. military and was sure to lose any such battle.

The right of neutrality. Eager to save face, Jefferson reiterated the rights of a neutral party and initiated a program of “peaceable coercion,” which he hoped would get both England and France to stop tormenting America’s shipping industry. His plan turned out to be his admin- istration’s biggest mistake. The plan centered on the Embargo Act of 1807, which stopped American exports from going to Europe and prohibited American ships from trading in foreign ports. Jefferson reasoned that depriving France and Britain of American commerce would force them to recognize America’s neutral rights. In essence, he was saying that, if England and France would not respect American rights, Jefferson would pun- ish them by shutting down a large portion of the American economy.

Results. The Embargo Act was a disaster. Europe was not deprived of very much, and British ships took over the Atlantic sea trade. The act imperiled the American economy, though, especially in the Federalist stronghold of New England, where ship- ping was a major part of the local economy. Angered by the embargo, American traders began smuggling goods out of the country, an act the Democratic- Republicans denounced.

Despite the policy’s shortcomings, Jefferson refused to admit his mistake. All of these frustra- tions bubbled into the presidential election of 1808.

9-2 James Madison and the War of 1812

The Federalists hoped to capitalize on the unpopu- larity of the Embargo Act to reclaim the presidency in 1808, but, despite solid support in New England, they did not have the national strength to defeat the Democratic-Republicans.

9-2a The Election of 1808 and Declaration of War

Like Washington, Jefferson had chosen not to run for a third term. Instead, he ensured that the nomi- nation would go to his friend and fellow Virginian, James Madison. Madison handily defeated the Federalist candidate, Charles Pinckney, but Pinckney did better than projected, worrying the Democratic- Republicans, who became aware of the widespread

anger stirred up by Jefferson’s Embargo Act.

The Repeal of the Embargo Act To prevent the Federalists from gaining ground on the issue of the Embargo Act, Congress repealed it in 1809, shortly before Madison became president. In its place, Congress passed the Non- Intercourse Act, which allowed American ships to trade with all nations except Britain and France and authorized the president to

resume trade with those countries once they began respecting America’s neutral trading rights.

France Makes Amends In a brilliant tactical move, France’s emperor, Napoleon, announced that he would respect America’s neutrality rights, whereupon Madison resumed trade with France and vehemently prohib- ited trade with Britain. With British trade banned from both continental Europe and the United States, the British economy suffered a depression. On June 16, 1812, the British vowed to respect American neu- trality. But it proved to be too little, too late.

In the West It was events in the West that proved determinate, though. Tecumseh and the Prophet had grown popular with young Indians, and the few British who remained in the American West encouraged

embargo act of 1807 Legislation that stopped American exports from going to Europe and pro- hibited American ships from trading in foreign ports

Non-Intercourse act Legislation passed in 1809 that allowed American ships to trade with all nations except Britain and France and authorized the president to resume trade with those countries once they began respecting America’s neutral trading rights

The Embargo Act was a disaster.

Europe was not deprived of very

much, and British ships took over the Atlantic sea trade.

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 158 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

James Madison and the War of 1812 159

the growth of the revitalization movement, hop- ing it would prove too formidable for the American frontiersmen and curb further expansion. But the American settlers had a strong presence in Indiana. In 1811, Indiana governor William Henry Harrison attacked Prophetstown, setting the town ablaze.

Declaration of War Madison had been incensed by Britain’s refusal to recognize American neutrality. Moreover, he had been influenced by westerners who wanted war with Britain because they felt the British were to blame for increased Indian violence in the Midwest. These westerners, led in Congress by Kentuckian Henry Clay, were called “war hawks.” They wanted the British evicted from the West, and they hoped to annex Canada as well. Their influence meant that the war would be fought against both the British in the Atlantic and hostile Indians to the west.

Under these pressures, James Madison went to Congress on June 1, 1812 (two weeks before Britain pledged to honor America’s neutrality), to ask for a declaration of war. Congress split over the question along party lines, with Democratic- Republicans favoring war and Federalists condemn-

ing it. Federalists were convinced that war would only hurt American trade further. They believed an expansionist war would not address the prob- lem of impressments or the violation of neutrality rights. In contrast, Democratic-Republicans were convinced that a “second war for American inde- pendence” was necessary before Britain would rec- ognize America’s rights as a neutral nation. Despite Federalist opposition, the Democratic-Republicans carried the vote, and the United States declared war against Britain on June 14, 1812. (For more, see “The reasons why . . .” on the following page)

The regional support for the war emerged a few months later, in the presidential election of 1812. Madison and the Federalist candidate DeWitt Clinton split the votes of all the eastern states, while the five western states voted solidly for Madison, catapulting him to a second term.

9-2b The War of 1812 With Britain still embroiled in conflict with France, many Americans expected to win the War of 1812 handily. In reality, winning the war proved more difficult.

>> Ships lie idle, and grass grows on the wharves in Portland, Maine, during the embargo.

N o

rt h

W in

d /N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

s— A

ll ri

gh ts

r es

er ve

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 159 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

160 Chapter 9 Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800–1814

Early Defeats Jefferson’s reduction of the American military had left the United States poorly prepared. Nevertheless, American forces initiated an assault on British- controlled Canada in 1812, hoping to conquer it quickly and make it one of the United States (Map 9.2).

The invasion of British Canada was a complete fiasco. Instead of striking directly at the St. Lawrence River—the lifeline that linked Canada’s principal cit- ies to the Atlantic Ocean—the Americans split into three forces, each too small to crush the opposition. They were further handicapped by Britain’s willing- ness to sign treaties with Native Americans if they would fight against the Americans.

Surprising Victories and Indian Decimation The following year, the picture brightened for the United States. American forces held their own against the British and won a crucial naval battle at Put-in-Bay on Lake Erie. American naval control of the waters in the region made defense of the area north of Lake Erie impossible for the British. The British defeat spelled disaster for a group of Indian tribes that had united with the British to fight for tribal rights, as the victorious Americans now felt entitled to plunder their villages.

In the South in 1813, a frontier army under Andrew Jackson defeated the Creek Indians (who

viewed the War of 1812 as an opportunity to take advan- tage of a distracted American army and finally secure its

land in Georgia). In March 1814, at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in today’s Alabama, Jackson’s troops forced the Creeks to accept a treaty that ceded their best lands to the Americans. The Creeks had divided over the issue of whom to support in the war, lead- ing to a civil war between the Upper Creeks and the Lower Creeks. This division did not matter much to Jackson, who, upon winning, took the land of all the Creeks, including those who had helped him at Horseshoe Bend.

Culmination Just as the Americans had seemed to turn the tide of battle, their position teetered when the British forced the abdication of Napoleon, briefly end- ing European hostilities and freeing the British to focus on their war with the United States. British leaders planned a three-pronged strategy: attack- ing Lake Champlain, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans.

At Lake Champlain, in September 1814, the British ground force of 15,000 men faced stiffer- than-expected resistance from American advance units, while U.S. naval forces under Captain Thomas Macdonough defied all expectations and destroyed the British fleet as it waited for ground support. The British assault on Washington, D.C., was more successful. The U.S. militia was overwhelmed and essentially vanished during the fight, leaving only a small force of American soldiers and sailors to serve as the region’s defense. President Madison and his wife Dolley were among those compelled to flee the city. The British burned the White House, the Capitol,

A violation of neutrality rights. In 1803, Britain and France began fighting what came to be called the Napoleonic Wars. At first the United States benefited from a battle between two of its primary economic competitors, and it remained officially neutral in the war. These benefits dissipated, though, once both sides began restricting American ships from trading with their enemy. The British raided and attacked American ships bound for France, and France did the same to ships bound for Britain. The United States was an unwilling par- ticipant. Its rights as a neutral power were being violated.

Impressment. Furthermore, in need of soldiers, the British began forcing Americans into British naval service, an act called impress- ment. Americans were obviously angered by the practice. The British impressed between 4,000 and 10,000 Americans in the buildup to the War of 1812.

Napoleon’s smarts. In a brilliant tactical move, the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte saw the increasing American resentment against the British and recognized that France would benefit if Britain were distracted by a war with the United States, so he announced that he would respect America’s neutrality rights, leaving Britain as the lone violator of American neutrality rights.

Battles for the West. In the West, meanwhile, the British offered encouragement to a pan-Indian revitalization movement led by Tecumseh and the Prophet in the Indiana territory. Expansive-minded Americans were unimpressed, and western congressmen such as Henry Clay from Kentucky became known as “war hawks” because they saw a potential war against Britain as a way to remove the British from the American West and from Canada too.

There were four reasons why the War of 1812 began:

the reasons why . . .}{

Take an online course on the Battle of Horse-

shoe Bend.

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 160 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

James Madison and the War of 1812 161

PensacolaMobile

Montréal

Plattsburgh

Sorel

Fort Jackson

Fort Niagara

Fort Meigs

Ross 1814

H ar

ris on

1 81

Perr y 18

Washington, D.C. Aug. 24–25, 1814

Baltimore Sept. 13, 1814

British naval blockade 1814–1815

New Orleans Jan. 8, 1815

Detroit Aug. 16, 1812

Thames River Oct. 5, 1813

Put-in-Bay Sept. 10, 1813

Michilimackinac July 17, 1812

Tennessee R.

Ohio R.

Arkansas R.

Wa bash

Red R.

M is

si ss

ip pi

R .

Ill in

oi s R

. Missouri R.

L. Superior

Lake Huron

L. Ontario

La ke

ic hi

ga n

L. Erie

A T L A N T I C O C E A N

G u l f o f M e x i c o

90°W

30°N

40°N

80°W 70°W

MISSISSIPP I TERRITORY

INDIANA TERR.

I LLINOIS TERR.

MICHIGAN TERR.

UNORGANIZED TERRITORY

MAINE (MASS.)

N.H.

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

VT.

MASS.

CONN. R.I.

N.J.

DELAWARE MARYLANDVIRGINIA

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTH CAROLINA

GEORGIA

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY

OHIO

LOUISIANA

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA (CANADA)

SPANISH FLORIDA

Tecumseh killed in battle; pan-Indian alliance collapses.

Dearborn approaches Montreal but then retreats, Nov. 1812.

Andrew Jackson‘s combined Cherokee Indian and Tennessee militia massacre the Red Stick Creeks at Horseshoe Bend, March 27, 1814.

The American capital falls to a British amphibious force. The government escapes, but the British occupation force plunders and then burns Washington, D.C.

American advances, 1812

American advances, 1813

American advances, 1814

British advances, 1814

American victory

British victory

Fort

Annexed from Spain, 1812

0 150 300 Mi.

150 300 Km.

Cengage Learning The Three Invasions of 1812 Ms00300a trim-45p x 48p6 Final 2: 8/29/08 Kennedy 14e variant: Delete Cochrane route; add Perry route; delete call-out and some battles

TYPE BLOCK MAP Bleeds top, left Position top map trim at top page trim Align right map trim on type block

and other government buildings, but the ultimate objective of the invasion—to capture the port city

of Baltimore—eluded them. During the failed invasion of Baltimore, Francis Scott Key wrote the poem “The Star-

Spangled Banner.” Later set to the tune of an English drinking song, this became the national anthem.

Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans The most startling upset took place in January 1815 at New Orleans, where the British bungled their invasion plans and were mowed down by American troops serving under Andrew Jackson. The Americans suffered only 21 casualties in the

Battle of New Orleans, but the British incurred more than 2,000. Jackson became an instant national hero and a symbol of America’s deter- mination to be permanently independent of Great Britain.

The Hartford Convention As Jackson and his men defended New Orleans, Federalists in New England held a meeting at Hartford, Connecticut, to discuss their problems with the Democratic-Republicans. At the meeting, called the Hartford Convention, Federalist leaders expressed their frustrations with

Read the lyrics to “The Star-Span- gled Banner.”

hartford Convention Meeting of New England Federalists in 1814 in which they proposed con- stitutional amendments limiting the government’s ability to restrict American commerce and repealing the three-fifths clause to limit the power of the South in Congress

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 161 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

162 Chapter 9 Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800–1814

the proceedings of the War of 1812, which they had pro- tested from its inception. They were fed up with the government’s economic poli-

cies, which had hurt the mercantile interests of New England. They had also witnessed their increasing alienation from southerners and westerners. To remedy this problem, some Federalists proposed a series of constitutional amendments limiting the government’s ability to restrict American commerce and repealing the three-fifths clause in order to limit the power of the South in Congress. Some representatives even broached the idea of seceding if these measures failed.

Jackson’s victory, followed by an announcement that the United States and Britain had negotiated terms for peace, made a mockery of the Hartford Convention. The Federalist Party was immediately tainted with treason, and nearly all support for the

party vanished. The nation’s first two-party era was over, as only the Democratic- Republicans remained viable. The period of nonpartisan

politics that followed became known as the “Era of Good Feelings.” This lasted a few years, and, although the seeds of factionalism would blossom again in 1819 and 1820, historians generally consider the Era of Good Feelings to have lasted until the presidential election of 1824.

The Treaty of Ghent In 1814, the Treaty of Ghent formally ended the War of 1812, but it did not settle any of the sig- nificant issues, principally naval impressments and America’s right to neutrality. It did, however, end

hostilities, which was a relief to both sides. With the war over, the United States was able to turn its atten- tion away from Europe and back to affairs at home.

9-2c The Significance of the War of 1812

The War of 1812 was significant for at least four reasons: (1) in politics, it affirmed the importance of a strong national government; (2) it vacated the British from the West; (3) it shaped America’s role in world affairs; and (4) it unified the nation and boosted American patriotism.

Political changes. Politically, the War of 1812 demonstrated the weakness of the Republican- Democrats’ insistence on a small federal govern- ment. It prompted four immediate changes from James Madison: (1) he recognized that having a stronger standing army and navy would have served the country better than the scanty forces that had eked out a victory against Great Britain; (2) he recog- nized the need for a new national bank to centralize banking, which he chartered as the Second United States Bank in 1816; (3) he agreed to new protective tariffs designed to support the growth of American industries; and (4) he realized the need for a system of national improvements, such as roads and canals to facilitate transportation between the newly set- tled West and the East Coast. Each of these lessons (some of them very Hamiltonian and Federalist) would play an integral role in the future develop- ment of the United States.

View a satirical cartoon poking fun at the Hart-

ford Convention.

E o

n Im

ag es

>> The Battle of New Orleans, a surprise American victory, made a hero out of Andrew Jackson.

>> Fifteen-star American flag.

N . C

ar te

r/ N

o rt

h W

in d

P ic

tu re

A rc

hi ve

“era of Good Feelings” Period of nonpartisan pol- itics following the implo- sion of the Federalist Party, roughly 1815–1824

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 162 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

James Madison and the War of 1812 163

Vacating the West. In the West, the War of 1812 pro- duced decisive defeats against the most powerful Native American tribes in the Southwest (in today’s Tennessee and Alabama) and the Northwest (in the Ohio River Valley). The conclusion of the war also meant that Britain would no longer impede settle- ment in the American interior, leaving the United States free to expand in the West—at the continued cost of Native Americans, who were running out of room further to the west.

America’s role in the world. The War of 1812 also showed the European powers that the United States was a relatively strong, modern nation. Twice in three decades the United States had defeated Britain. The United States had earned greater respect and entered a prolonged period of relative isolation, safe from invasions and incursions from abroad.

American patriotism and American culture. And fourth, pride in their victory in the War of 1812 generated a strong urge to define the United States as fundamentally different from England. Hatred of the British prompted some to propose that the United States make German its official language. This movement obviously did not succeed, but during the course of the 1800s, Noah Webster developed a more practical solution. He noticed that a new American idiom had arisen over the 150-year colonial period; in 1828 he codified this new idiom in his Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language. Webster’s dictionary included such uniquely American words as skunk and squash, and it replaced British spellings, such as colour, with American versions, such as color.

At the same time, a group of poets called the “Hartford Wits” became the first well-known creative authors on American soil. The most prominent of the Hartford Wits was Francis Scott Key. Other “Wits” composed such enduring songs as “Hail Columbia.” At the same time, the first American magazine of note—the North American Review—began publica- tion in 1815. The very title of the magazine denoted Americans’ attempt to separate culturally from Europe.

In the graphic arts, talented painters in early America crafted pictures with patriotic themes, expressing their gratitude for liberty. The best remembered are the portraits of the founding

fathers, many of them painted by Gilbert Stuart (1755–1828) and John Trumbull (1756–1843). Trumbull was also known for his patriotic images, the most popular of which is Declaration of Independence (1819), which today appears on the back of the two-dollar bill.

The most notable artistic expres- sion of early American national- ism developed in architecture, as American architects, identifying with the ancient republican Romans, revived classical architecture styles and motifs, a style known as neo- classicism. Both Thomas Jefferson, who designed the University of Virginia and his home, Monticello, and Charles Bulfinch, who designed the Massachusetts State House in Boston, excelled in this flourishing realm. Pierre l’Enfant, the French

>> Glorious news from New Orleans.

E o

n Im

ag es

>> John Trumbull’s The Signing of the Declaration of Independence (1819) reflects the rise in American nationalism during the aftermath of the War of 1812. The event as depicted here never happened. The painting was meant to be symbolic.

E o

n Im

ag es

View more pictures of the classical revival

in America.

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 163 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

164 Chapter 9 Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800–1814

of politics into the political culture, one that focused on courting voters and asserting a specific kind of patriotism.

But Jefferson’s attempts to create an idealized agrarian republic proved problematic. By curbing the size of the military and limiting federal income to only tariffs, Jefferson exposed the nation to a variety of geopolitical upheavals taking place in Europe. Only heroic fighting and some good luck during the War of 1812 kept the young nation politically solvent.

Shortly thereafter, the nation would turn another corner and embark on a period of eco- nomic growth that ran counter to the image ideal- ized by Jefferson and his followers. In place of an agrarian republic, the nation developed into an international trading center, bustling with mar- kets and commerce. America was still largely a nation of farmers, but these farmers became more intent on bringing their product to market than on merely remaining self-sufficient. Although the Democratic-Republicans had established much of the political and diplomatic security for the new nation, their vision would not carry the day. It is to the Market Revolution and its manifestations that we now turn.

architect commissioned to design the capitol build- ings in Washington, D.C., also participated in this revival, which explains the plethora of classical archi- tecture found today in Washington, D.C.

>> Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, is a prime example of the neo-classical style that flour- ished after the War of 1812.

iS to

ck p

ho to

.c o

m /C

he ng

C ha

Looking Ahead . . . With the rise of the Democratic-Republicans in the early 1800s, the American nation had survived its first significant transfer of power. The Democratic- Republicans had also introduced a new, livelier style

What else was happening . . . 1808 End of legal slave importation in the United States.

1810 Peter Durand invents the tin can.

1810 Father Miguel Hidalgo begins the movement for Mexican independence.

1811 Steamboat service begins on the Mississippi River.

1815 Battle of Waterloo ends the Napoleonic Wars and the reign of Napoleon.

Visit the CourseMate website at www.cengagebrain.com for additional study tools and review materials for this chapter.

53548_ch09_ptg01_hr_152-165.indd 164 11/1/12 1:37 PM

L A W S O N , A N G E L A 6 8 5 3 B U

Condensed_HIST_Schultz_ch07

Ch 7: Confederation and Constitution, 1783-1789��

7-1: State Constitutions, 1776-1780��
7-2: The Articles of Confederation, 1777-1787��
7-3: Day-to-Day Operations of the Confederation��
7-4: The Constitutional Convention��
7-5: The Constitution��
7-6: The Ratification Debate��

Condensed_HIST_Schultz_ch08

Ch 8: Securing the New Nation, 1789-1800��

8-1: Creating a New Government��
8-2: Political Divisions��
8-3: The Rise of Two-Party Politics��
8-4: Adams's Presidency and Dealing with Dissent��
8-5: The "Bloodless Revolution" of 1800��

Condensed_HIST_Schultz_ch09

Ch 9: Jeffersonian Democracy, 1800-1814��

9-1: Jefferson's Presidency��
9-2: James Madison and the War of 1812��

All questions require two (2) citations from an authoritative source in APA format, INCLUDING a citation from the attached textbook - Chapters 7-9..placing any direct quotes in quotation marks.

Question #1 – The minimum word count is 250

1. What were the main divisions at the Constitutional Convention, and what were the compromises that resolved them? Does the Constitution still need changing? If so, what changes? If not, why not?

Question #2 – The minimum word count is 500

2. Analyze the federal government as it existed under the Articles of Confederation. What were some of the issues that the United States had to deal with under the Articles of Confederation? How did the Articles fail to live up to the needs of the new nation?

Question #3 – The minimum word count is 500

3. Describe the creation and development of the federal government under the new Constitution. How did disagreements over the ways the United States should be governed lead to a two-party political system?

Question #4 – The minimum word count is 500

4. Define Jeffersonian Democracy, and explain how Jefferson's presidency both defined and contradicted that political philosophy.

See page 2 for textbook cover.

blog1

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.