Chapter 11: The Triumphs and Travails of the Jeffersonian Republic 1800-1812 Flashcards
- How important was establishing the principle of judicial review? Does that principle make more sense than Jefferson’s belief that the states retained the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution? How important was the failed attempt to impeach Samuel Chase in establishing an independent judiciary? What role should Supreme Court justices play in politics?
The principle of judicial review is the idea that the Supreme Court has the last word on whether something is or is not constitutional and the power to uphold state laws. This principle is extremely important because it gave the Supreme Court the power that it has today. Without the Marbury vs. Marshall case, it is likely that the Supreme Court would not be as prominent as it is today. Thomas Jefferson disagreed with this principle, believing that the States should hold this power instead. Jefferson’s belief is sensible because it helps ensure that neither the Supreme Court nor the government has too much power. There are some problems with this, however. Without judicial review, the government would not have been able to do some of the things that it deems necessary, simply because it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson’s attempt to impeach Samuel Chase failed, and therefore helped assure that there we have a judiciary independent from the other two branches of government today. The role of the Supreme Court justice in politics is to check the constitutionality of law and acts passed by the President and Congress. Its power is limited, however, as it is balanced by the other two branches of government.
- Why was Jefferson willing to fight for the freedom of the sea versus the pasha of Tripoli (who required tribute) but not against Britain (which was impressing American sailors)? Did Jefferson make a mistake in fighting for freedom in only one of these instances? When should America fight for its freedom, and when should it not?
Jefferson was willing to fight the pasha of Tripoli because he declared war on America by cutting down the flagpole of the American “embassy.” Many Americans were very upset about the lack of action against the pirates. Jefferson did not fight against Britain because he was a peace lover. If he had the choice, he wouldn’t have fought the pasha of Tripoli either. The American people demanded that some action be taken, however, so Jefferson placed an embargo on the export of all goods from the United States. The people hated this act because it had a detrimental effect on the economy. Jefferson did not make a mistake in fighting only Tripoli because the people were adamant that he use force against them after they declared war on America. Even though people wanted to take up arms against Britain as well, Britain did not actually declare war as the pasha of Tripoli did. The American navy and army were ill equipped at that time to enter a war with the British. America should fight for its freedom, as it did in the Revolution, when freedom is truly jeopardized. In cases like the British bulling that took place, however, it is likely that fighting would have cost them their freedom, and it is better that they did not fight.
- How did Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase transform Americas understanding of itself and its future? Was it inevitable that the west would become part of a much greater United States, or was there real danger in efforts like Aaron Burrs to break those areas off from the country?
The Louisiana Purchase dramatically changed the physical appearance of America. It also changed America’s understanding of itself. Jeffersonians were pleased with this massive addition of land, because it made possible their dreams of an agrarian republic. America had room to grow into a powerful nation that could sustain itself. This purchase supported George Washington’s hope for an isolationist land. Once the land was purchased, it was inevitable that the west would become part of the United States. As nations grow in strength, they tend to expand, and at the rate that Americans were demanding new farmland, they would have moved into Louisiana eventually, if not at that time, then during the Industrial Age in which people began making grabs for raw materials. Aaron Burr’s conspiracy was dangerous, but because he was a member of an extremist minority, I don’t believe that he would have prevailed.
- How does the period 1800 - 1812 look if viewed through American Indian eyes? Could the attempt of Tecumseh and the Prophet to unite western Indians against American expansion have created a different dynamic in white-Indian relations?
When the period of 1800-1802 is observed through the perspective of an American Indian, the world looks different. Most would have been upset that Americans were stealing land and uprooting them from their homes. Instead of a hopeful, yet cautious expanding viewpoint, you get a fearful and angry one. Natives like Tecumseh and the Prophet would have felt like they were delivering justice and putting things right in their attempt to stop American expansion. Their attempt to unite the western Indians would have created a starkly different dynamic in white-Indian relations if they had succeeded. A larger war would have most likely broken out, and the drive that some Americans already possessed to eliminate the Indians would have only increased.
