Strict vs. Broad Interpretation
Strict vs. Broad Interpretation During both Jefferson’s and Madison’s presidential term, both the Republicans’ and the Federalists’ ideals did not always stay consistent to their previous, more defined beliefs. Jefferson felt it necessary during his presidency to restore the states’ rights that the Federalists previously took away, but he also considered what was good and beneficial to the nation, even if a few of the ideas were not strictly constitutional.
During Madison’s presidency, while most Republicans still believed in the states rights, Congress desired a slightly looser interpretation of the Constitution, and created another Bank of the United States and protection tariffs, giving more power to the federal government. Also, although the Federalist Party was failing and they still did for the most part desire a broad interpretation of the Constitution, the New England delegates from the Hartford Convention showed that they now did not appreciate all of the power that Congress currently possessed.
In the beginning of Jefferson’s presidential term, the two American parties had very defined political views. The Democratic-Republicans believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and in limiting the power of the federal government, while the Federalists supported a broad view of the Constitution and wanted to give as much power to the federal government as possible. So while Jefferson was president, he promptly removed Hamilton’s excise tax and created the Naturalization Law of 1802.
He said to Gideon Granger in 1800, “Our country can never be harmonious and solid while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution, to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchise that. ” (Doc A) However, Jefferson was known to be “consistently inconsistent”. The Louisiana Purchase, as well as the war and peace treaty with Tripoli, proved that he was willing to give up some of his Republican beliefs for the benefit of the nation.
During the last days of Madison’s term in 1816, Jefferson told Samuel Kercheval, “Some men deem constitutions like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched… But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. ” (Doc G) Although the general idea of Democratic-Republicanism was a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Jefferson, while president, recognized that compromises were necessary to keep the nation moving forward. Even in the first days of his presidency, Madison felt it necessary to continue Jefferson’s “republican experiment”.
The constant British assaults on American neutrality caused him to ask Congress to declare war against Britain in 1812. He believed that only a vigorous assertion of American rights could demonstrate the viability of American nationhood and a democratic government. Although the United States faced brutal defeats during the war because of their lack of organization and strategy, a sense of nationalism skyrocketed throughout the country. So, in 1816, Madison and Congress revived the Bank of the United States, expanded the national army to ten thousand men, and imposed the Protection Tariff of 1816.
This was a complete turn from the original beliefs of the Republican’s. Previously cringing at the idea of a large army or national bank, they were now supporting the very Hamiltonian proposal that they once were against. John Randolph, a republican commenting on the Tariff of 1816, states, “Their principle is now old Federalism, vamped up into something bearing the superficial appearance of republicanism. ” (Doc F) In 1817, Congress voted to distribute $1. 5 million dollars for internal improvements.
However, Madison vetoed the measure as unconstitutional, compelling the individual states to build these public works on their own (Doc H). Both Randolph and Madison, here, demonstrated that even though the “war hawk” controlled Congress was leaning towards a more powerful federal government, not every Republican supported these changes in their party’s principles. Republicans were not the only ones that altered their original beliefs during the time of Jefferson’s and Madison’s presidencies. The illicit trade with the enemy in Canada and the absence of British blockade during “Madison’s War” angered the New England Federalists.
So delegates from this region came together in Connecticut at the Hartford Convention of 1814. Here they met to discuss their grievances and to seek redress for their wrongs. However, these resolutions contradicted their original belief in federal government power. Although they didn’t completely transform their ideas, they argued that Congress did not have the power to lay any embargo on American ships for more than 60 days nor have the power to admit new states into the Union without the consensus of two thirds of both houses (Doc E).
The miniscule, and quickly dying, Federalist party realized that Congress at this point could not possess every political and economical power. John Marshall stayed true to his initial beliefs though. In his case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Maryland tried to destroy a branch of the Bank of the United States, but Marshall declared the bank constitutional using Hamilton’s doctrine of implied powers. He also strengthened federal authority and struck at state infringements when he denied Maryland its right to tax the bank.
Even if the New England delegates sought a slightly stricter interpretation of the Constitution, Marshall was dead set in his “loose construction” and federal power ways. The years 1801 through 1817 clearly demonstrated how political and economical ideas are always transforming. While some individuals still believed in the original doctrines of the Federalist and the Democratic – Republican Party, others during Jefferson’s and Madison’s presidencies slightly altered these views.
The Louisiana Purchase, the new Bank of the United States, and the Hartford Convention are just a couple of examples in which some of the Republicans sought a broader view of the Constitution and some of the Federalists preferred a stricter view of the Constitution, contradicting what they originally thought. Even though these changes in ideals occurred within this time period, for as long as the United States is a democratic government, our political parties today will also always be destined to change.
