Differences Between Jefferson And Federalists

1207 Words 5 Pages
During the years of 1801-1817 two separate parties had formed, the Jeffersonian Republicans (Democrats) and the Federalists, who feuded bitterly in the political world. The Democratic Party remained firm during Jefferson 's presidency, however, began to conform to the Federalists when Madison was president; likewise, Federalists stubbornly held onto their views, but compromised to the stricter views of Democrats when Jefferson was in power.
Jefferson became president in 1801 and began the reign of the strict Democratic party, forcing Federalists to conform to their stringent views. Jefferson made attempts to unify the Federalists and Democrats, stating: “We are all republicans” in order to increase the unity of America and gain approval from
…show more content…
The Federalists had made their own convention in order to pursue the acceptance of their policies, ending the neutrality during Jefferson’s presidency. Federalists wanted to push their opinion onto the government, “The following amendments of the constitution of the United states [will] be recommended to the states represented as foresaid, to be proposed by them for the adoption by the state legislatures…” (Doc E). The Federalist Party broke the conformity of Jefferson’s years, being assertive with their ideas in the federal and state government. Federalists held the Hartford Convention in order to discuss the grievances they had on the ongoing War of 1812, and decided on what subjects to bring to the government 's attention. The Democratic party let Madison overturn the Embargo Act of 1807, much to the joy of Federalists, so America could trade with France and England. Madison’s action was from a Federalist idea originating at the Hartford Convention: “Congress shall not have the power to lay any embargo on the ships or vessels of the citizens of the United States…” (Doc E) Madison, a Democratic president, is executing a Federalist-inspired action, which would never happen in Jefferson’s presidency, showing the strict grip loosening on America. The Democrats were strongly against a powerful central army, but tensions with England caused them to …show more content…
The Democrats wanted to push their views onto bills, yet didn 't throw down laws supported by Federalists during Madison 's presidency. The Federalists mentioned a wannabe law when they formed their convention, "No new state shall be admitted into the Union by Congress...without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses" (Doc E). This law was not enacted until the Federalists pushed, eventually leading it to be passed by Democrats and approved by Madison. This law would be adapted and used up to the final state, Hawaii, joined America. Democratic Republicans had compromised so much that members of it 's own party spoke against Madison. Tensions rode high within their party and hostility remained, "[W]e have another proof that the present government have renounced the true republican principles of Jefferson 's administration on which they raised themselves to power, and that they have taken up, in their stead, those of John Adams..." (Doc F). Outlining the true amount of appeasement Madison ruled with, John Randolph goes as far to compare Madison to John Adams, a prominent Federalist, and condemn Madison for forsaking Jefferson 's achievements. Randolph hoped to stop the proposed tariff of 1816, appealing especially to the Democrats who wanted to preserve a Democratic government. Jefferson strongly

Related Documents