We have read about all of President Jefferson's actions as our nation's leader from 1801-1809. We have also begun discussing a number of his policies in class.
This morning, take a look back at our readings, the posted videos and our lessons and answer the following question in the comments' section:
What is a decision/policy made by President Jefferson that contradicts his principles of Laissez Faire governing and having a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution?
Include a brief description of the policy/decision followed by a short argument supporting your position.
As is our practice, we will reply to two other comments.
The decision to purchase the Louisiana Territory directly contradicts Thomas Jefferson's principles of a Laissez Faire government. Up to that point, Jefferson seemed to want to limit the powers of government and only wanted it to serve its necessary function (no more, no less). However, the purchase of the Louisiana Territory totally contradicts this. Not only would the purchase of the Louisiana Territory massively expand the amount of land the government of the US had control over, it would also give the Federal government powers that it was not given in the Constitution. Even though Jefferson seemed to want his government to be more hands-off, he ends up granting it a very significant power that would be used to expand the size of the nation in the future.
ReplyDeleteI agree that by doing this, Jefferson would be expanding the power of the federal government, which was something that he took steps to reduce.
DeleteI agree, because Jefferson knew that this was not stated in the Constitution, but it seemed like a practical move, so he went forward with it.
DeleteI agree with this as well, Jefferson knew that the Constitution never mentioned anything about purchasing land from foreign nation, but he bought the land anyway.
DeleteI agree, the purchase of Louisiana indirectly gave government power (making them more powerful) to be able to purchase land and expand control.
DeleteSakari
DeleteI agree, this defintely majorly contradicted his previous ideals
The decision to implement The Embargo contradicts Thomas Jefferson's principles and Laissez Faire method of government. Jefferson shuts down the entire trade system with the foreign world and in effect shuts down the economy. Through "peaceful coercion" he wants to convince France and England to respect America's neutrality. This goes against the hands-off approach that Jefferson wished to have as a leader. In fact, he sent troops to stop people from smuggling goods, similar to acts that had been done by Federalists before him. Additionally, the Constitution gives no power about this, contradicting his strict interpretation of the document.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Not to mention, he maintained some of his favoritism towards France, which is not Laissez Faire.
DeleteYes, if Jefferson truly wanted to be Laissez-Faire throughout both his terms, he wouldn't have implemented the Embargo.
DeleteI agree. The Embargo had an extreme and direct effect on the US economy and therefore does work with Laissez-Faire policies.
DeleteYes, the embargo really showed Jefferson's will to get his way and not to back down, which is contradictory to his normal Laissez-Faire approach.
DeleteI agree, the Embargo displays how Jefferson is so fond of strict interpretation of the document, but he went ahead with his choices without consulting the appropriate power given to him.
DeleteI agree the embargo was a very hands on approach to a problem which contradicts laissez faire.
DeleteI agree, his policies towards the french weren't as laissez faire as they could have been.
DeleteSakari
Jefferson's attack on the courts contradicts his principles and Laissez Faire method. When he goes after Pickering and then Samuel Chase, he is not interpreting the Constitution strictly. Instead, he is seizing an opportunity to interpret the Constitution in a way that suits his agenda. During his trial, Samuel Chase points this out in a clear argument, and that is a big part of how he gets acquitted. Jefferson interferes with the courts unfairly, which is not Laissez Faire, and does not align with how he believes the government should work.
ReplyDeleteI agree, his Laissez-Faire principles would imply that he has a hands-off approach to the courts (just like every other government organization). However, this obviously didn't happen.
DeleteAgreed. Laissez-Faire policies do not work with a major land-purchase that will have major effects on the economy.
DeleteI definitely agree that going after another branch of government does not match his more hands off approach.
DeleteI totally agree; he is setting his own precedents and making up his own ideas of reasons to impeach and remove judges from office that are not in the constitution.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree, getting involved in the court is not a hands-off thing to do. Jefferson getting involved was a hands on approach, and he really wanted to get his way.
DeleteI agree with this since a president isn't supposed to use the constitution for his benefit or his party's gain.
DeleteI agree with this as well, Jefferson should not have let his views and biases affect how he acts as president, and he demonstrates this by letting his views of how the government should be run influence his actions.
DeleteThomas Jefferson agreed to purchase the Louisiana Territory. The Constitution never permits a President to purchase land, and the purchase came with widespread government operations, such as the Lewis and Clark Expeditions. This reveals the hypocrisy of the Jeffersonian administration as it advocated for strict Constitutionalism and Laissez-faire policies yet made such a massive decision.
ReplyDeleteI agree. This policy went against Jeffersons ideas for government.
DeleteI agree. The constitution didn't give him those powers specifically, making it go against his interpretation of the Government's power and role.
DeleteEthan Lader
I agree, although I don't think it was a bad decision. In the end I think Jefferson made the right call with this one, it just contradicted his laissez faire approach to government. If anything I hope it proved to him that sometimes the use of hands on, national power is necessary and good.
DeleteI believe Jefferson's decision regarding the Louisiana purchase contradicts his principles regarding the constitution and government interference. He bought new territory for the United States which was never expressly stated as power he had in the Constitution. He did this because he wanted New Orleans for access to rivers which would help the economy. By trying to change trade and the economy, he was not following his principles of a laissez-faire government.
ReplyDeleteI agree, since the Louisiana Purchase completely contradicts Jefferson's political ideologies in the past.
DeleteEthan Lader
I completely agree, I had the same thought.
DeleteI agree with this since the purchase of the Louisiana contradicted all his principles.
DeleteI agree, it makes no sense considering the character he was.
DeleteJefferson's policy towards the courts directly contradicts the Laissez Fair ideology of government, as well as his method of interpretation towards powers of government. This is because the constitution specifically attempted to create separate but equal branches of government, and through Jefferson's attacks to disparage another branch in the judiciary is going against his previous principles.
ReplyDeleteEthan Lader
That is interesting I had not thought about that before.
DeleteI think that the Louisiana purchase was a contradiction of Jefferson's ideals. By his own ideas the president should not be allowed to make a purchase like that without congress.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Jefferson's decision to implement The Embargo contradicts his principles and Laissez Faire method of government. He prohibited American ships from trading in foreign ports, which blocked trade with the other countries and it hurt the economy as a result. This was an audacious move, and is went against the hands-off approach that Jefferson would normally try to use.
ReplyDeleteI agree. By doing so he was making an executive decision that affected all Americans through executive power, rather than letting the local governments decide whether or not to participate in an embargo. This was not a hands off approach.
DeleteI agree. He was using too much authority and hands-on control for a Laissez-Faire type government.
Deletei agree, maybe he was intervening too much when it was supposed to runned more Laissez-Faire mode.
DeleteI agree, it does not make sense considering his ideals.
DeleteJefferson's use of impeachment and patronage as political weapons was a contradiction to his laissez faire style of government and his strict interpretation of the Constitution. Firstly his attacks on the courts through impeachment were interfering with another branch of government, something that was neither a hands off approach or preservational of the Constitution's three branches of government. Moreover he was misusing tools of government (specially impeachment and patronage) to serve his own political ends, something reminiscent of the Federalists, not Jefferson's ideals.
ReplyDeleteI agree, especially about the Constitution. It never explicitly authorized many of his policies, but that didn't stop him.
DeleteJefferson's decision to implement the Embargo contradicts his belief of the Laissez Faire style of government. He shuts off the trade and in turn, shuts off the economy as well. This decision has too much of an effect to be in line with the style of control that Jefferson wants to have, which is hands-off. Along with this incident, the Constitution doesn't seem to support or give power to this decision either, which contradicts his strict interpretation of the document.
ReplyDeleteI agree, jefferson wasn't sticking to his word on how he'd run his government by emplementing the embargo acts.
DeleteAgreed, he became very involved and controlling over the situation with the Embargo, not lining up with his prior intentions.
DeleteJefferson's embargo usage was contradictory to his policy of the Laissez Faire form of government. The embargo completely shut down the economy and was disastrous for many US citizens. The fact that Jefferson decided to interfere with the economy and told people that they couldn't export was directly against his policies.
ReplyDeleteI agree. He claimed he was against government interference yet interfered often.
DeleteThomas Jefferson consented to buy the Louisiana Territory. The Constitution never allows a President to buy land, and the buy accompanied far reaching government tasks, like the Lewis and Clark Expeditions. This uncovers the fraud of the Jeffersonian organization as it supported for severe Constitutionalism and Laissez-faire approaches yet settled on a particularly huge choice.
ReplyDeleteFor sure, this definitely seems like a situation where Jefferson did not have to interfere, but he did.
DeleteThomas Jefferson's War on the Courts. Right before John Adams left office, he filled the court with Federalists known as the midnight appointees, this way, Republicans would not have control over all three branches. When Jefferson became president, however, he did not like the Federalist-controlled courts, and along with his fellow Republicans, he sought to impeach and remove the judges that he didn't agree with. The first victim was district judge John Pickering, who was successfully removed from his post on the grounds of insane behavior. They went as far as to attack the Supreme Court justice Samuel Chase, but they were unsuccessful and their "War against the Courts" came to an end. This doesn't hide the fact that this was totally the opposite of a Lassiez Fiare approach to governing. Jefferson ended up doing quite the opposite, and getting very involved in the issue of the control of the courts. Not only did Jefferson meddle but he actively encouraged and participated the destruction of the Federalist courts. This does not line up with Jefferson's (supposed) Lassiez Fiare approach to running the nation.
ReplyDeleteYes, Jefferson's deep involvement in the courts and mini-purge of previous government shows an uncharacteristic level of control and loose interpretation of the constitution.
DeleteThomas Jefferson's decision to implement the Embargo totally contradicts his laissez-faire approach to the presidency. The Embargo ruined the lives of many Americans economically. It especially didn't make sense for him (of all people) to implement it because his rule was to not get involved in economic topics because of the politics and his political influence and position.
ReplyDeleteJefferson enacting the Embargo contradicts his Laissez Faire principles. The Embargo cut America off from all legal foreign trade and affected the lives of thousands. Jefferson stifled the economy and used troops to enforce this decision. He was against acts that controlled the voice of the people, yet his own policies controlled the people's actions. It all goes against the idea of a "hands off" approach, because he was very much involved in the affairs of the people.
ReplyDeleteThe Embargo is a good point, because it especially targets his pro-laissez faire stance. Enacting it definitely did have the government holding more control over its citizens, and painted him as a complete hypocrite of what he had stated beforehand.
DeletePresident Thomas Jefferson purchasing the Louisiana Territory contradicts his Laissez Faire principles, as Jefferson bought land to help with the economy when It came to the port in New Orleans and trade.
ReplyDeleteI slightly disagree. I think that him purchasing the territory was more contradictory to his strict interpretation of the constitution rather than the laissez faire principles.
DeleteJefferson’s Embargo contradicts his laissez Faire approach to government. With laissez faire he was hands off and let things run their course. However with embargo he shut down the economy. This is very hands on as he affected the lives of thousands just to make a point.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. The emabrgo was a big move that he was directly involved, something that didn't match the actions he had made prior.
DeleteI also agree with this, the Embargo damaged American economy and had a huge impact on Americans.
DeleteJefferson going through with the Louisiana purchase contradicts his strict ideas of the constitution. One of his main points was that he interpreted the constitution as it was written, however nothing in the constitution said that it was within his powers of the executive branch to make this purchase.
ReplyDeleteI agree on that last part of the point that you made, on how "nothing in the constitution said that it was within his powers of the executive branch to make this purchase." Jefferson was an incredibly "interpret the constitution strictly" attitude, but this one time he relented, which contradicted everything he stood for previously.
DeleteI agree, he interpreted the Constitution very loosely in this case.
DeleteThomas Jefferson's decision to purchase the Louisiana Territory and go through with the Louisiana purchase, and contradicts his principles of Laissez Faire governing, as well as having a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. Adding on territory to the United States was not explicitly stated nor forbidden in the constitution, and since Jefferson and his advisors made the decision in that moment to interpret the constitution loosely in order to fit the justification of the Louisiana Purchase, which went against all that he stood for and his valued principles. It can even be said that this was blatant hypocrisy from them, as they had previously shut down Hamilton's plan for a national bank, and his argument that it was allowed in the (interpreted loosely) constitution, citing that it was "not allowed" and that they had to strictly follow it.
ReplyDeleteI agree, very strict and literal interpretation of the constitution says little about territorial acquisition. As well as this, Jefferson was an isolationist in many ways, so not only does this violate constitutional principles but his own as well.
DeleteI agree, he contradicted his idea of interpreting the Constitution as it was written
DeleteJefferson's decision to impose The Embargo contradicts his ideas of a laissez-faire America. It blocked trade, which though was an effort to keep America a more independent nation, and did align with Jefferson's personal beliefs of merchants and other professions besides farming, was in direct conflict with any conception of economic freedom.
ReplyDeleteThe Louisiana Purchase contradicts Jefferson's idea of a Laissez Faire government as the idea of purchasing new territory was not stated in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, the Louisiana Purchase and the idea of purchasing new territory was not directly stated in the Constitution.
DeleteI think that Thomas Jefferson's decision to implement the Embargo contradicted his idea of a laissez-faire approach. The Embargo prohibited American ships from trading in foreign ports, and majorly damaged American economy. He was directly involved in this huge decision which is the opposite of laissez-faire.
ReplyDeleteSakari
ReplyDeleteThe way Jefferson tried to bend the court to his will was not laissez-faire. Attempting to eliminate the opposition from the Supreme Court was not a neutral move, and went against his previously established ideals.