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.
One policy that contradicts his ideals of Laissez Faire governing is The Louisiana Purchase. It contradicts his ideals of Laissez Faire governing as it is buying and doubling the size of the country with all the new territory under the control of the Federal Government, making the Federal Government larger. It is also against the idea of a strict interpretation of the Constitution because it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that the president can buy more land. He just assumes that that power is in his policy making powers.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Louisiana Purchase is a strong idea of Jefferson contradicting his Laissez Faire values.
DeleteI agree it was very hypocritical of Jefferson to do so especially since he never seemed to agree with the gray areas within the constitution.
DeleteI agree with this. Jefferson tended to view the Constitution in a very literal way in order to limit federal powers, and doing something that will increase the size and power of the federal government contradicted his principles
DeleteI agree. It is a huge amount of physical evidence, which he didn't have to agree to buy, he had the choice on whether or not to purchase. But he did, and it really does showcase his contradiction to his principles.
DeleteYeah, the Louisiana Purchase, was kind of like a direct contradiction to Jefferson's ideals.
DeleteExactly it was not constitutional.
DeleteThe Louisiana purchase goes completely against what Jefferson supported.
DeleteI agree, this example clearly shows how Jefferson totally contradicted what he stood by.
DeleteOne decision made by President Jefferson that contradicts his principles of Laissez Faire governing is his war on the courts. Jefferson was able to impeach judges on the principle that they were not following the rule of "good behavior" for judges. Jefferson abused this policy by attempting to remove Samuel Chase from office from "talking politics" right before the court was called to session. By impeaching Chase Jefferson was going against the Laissez Faire idea of not interfering when people against your wishes.
ReplyDeleteI agree him impeaching Samuel Chase and abusing the policy was very clearly not similar to the Laissez Faire idea he seemed to believe in.
DeleteI agree, as Jefferson was using his power incorrectly and abusively, which goes against the belief in the Laissez Faire idea.
DeleteI agree, Chase being tried for political convictions instead of an actual crime or misdemeanor went against Jefferson's principles.
DeleteYeah abusing the impeachment policy was something that directly contradicted the non-interference policy of laissez faire.
DeleteI had the same idea. For someone who wanted to reduce the power of the federal government, he definitely contradicted his values.
DeleteI agree, when he waged war on the courts, it felt like he was trying to expand the powers of the Executive, which went against his reasoning.
DeleteI agree. He clearly contradicted his values as someone who wished to diminish the federal government's power and strictly abide by the constitution.
DeleteI agree, it is honestly kind of hypocritical.
DeleteOne decision made by President Jefferson that contradicts his principle of Laissez Faire was the Louisiana Purchase. The Louisiana Purchase increased the United States territory in the West and was a huge amount of land. It contradicts his beliefs because he was always strict on what the constitution said and the gray areas within it and no where in the constitution does it say the President has the power to buy land from foreign countries but he did it anyways.
ReplyDeleteThis is true. If I am remembering correctly, he had doubt that it was within his presidential powers but he did it anyway.
DeleteI agree, it seems Jefferson tends to follow his supposed beliefs only when they benefit his agenda.
DeleteI agree, he was not necessarily sure if he could as the constitution did not state it.
DeleteOne policy that contradicted his support of laissez faire was the Embargo. The Embargo made it so that American ships couldn't leave the US for any foreign port, effectively shutting down all trade. When people attempted to violate this, Jefferson took measures to stop illegal trade. The Embargo and its following actions were the exact opposite of non-intervention because they used centralized power to make and enforce trade policies.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Jefferson using his power to stop international trade completely opposed the laissez faire idea.
DeleteI agree, it did contradict his principles and it ended up causing economic decline.
DeleteI agree. Even if it was a terrible idea, I see his reasoning behind doing so, but it definitely contradicted what his ideas.
DeleteYes, I agree.
DeleteAgreed. This is interfering with the economy.
DeleteThis is a policy that contradicted his Laissez Faire policy as it made the government infringe on the will of the people.
DeleteI like the idea of Jefferson enforcing the Embargo militarily, basically saying that the federal government can raise an army to enforce its policies, a large contradiction of laissez-faire basics.
DeleteA decision made by President Jefferson that contradicts his principles of Laissez Faire governing and having a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution would be the Louisiana purchase. This decision contradicted his principles as even though no where in the constitution said a president could buy land he did. Jefferson was an advocate in strictly abiding to his principles of following the constitution, which he broke when he made this purchase.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I'd consider this violating the constitution, because it doesn't say presidents CAN'T buy land, but it's definitely not letting things take their natural course.
DeleteJefferson's decision in the Louisiana Purchase contradicted his principles with its questionable constitutionality. He agreed to the purchase even though there was uncertainty concerning whether they had the authority to accept it. He believed in the federal government only exercising its assigned powers, yet he approved the purchase and appropriated money for it even though the Constitution did not address the acquisition of more land.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I was actually quite shocked to read that he had gone through with the Louisiana Purchase despite the Constitution never explicitly giving him that power.
DeleteJefferson's support in buying the Louisiana Territory heavily contradicts his principles. The constitution never directly stated anything about buying land, and Jefferson was basically not sure if he could buy the land, which would mean he's basically contradicting himself, believing that the federal government can only exercise what power it currently holds according to the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteJeffersons war on the courts was a direct contradiction of the Laissez Faire. He tried to control the judiciary system by impeaching political opponents from judge position. Samuel Chase, who Jefferson attempted to remove for supposedly discussing politics on the bench. He tried to abuse a power in a situation where the judge technically did not do anything wrong.
ReplyDeleteJefferson's sizing down of the army and his foundation of West Point was in contradiction of Laissez Faire. The core idea of Laissez Faire was non interference, and a complete overhaul of the military was nothing if not complete interference.
ReplyDeleteThe Louisiana Purchase contradicts his ideals of Laissez Faire because it can be debated on whether it's constitutional or not. He bought more land and gave the federal government more power and the constitution does not say the president can buy land. He assumed it which contradicts his ideals.
ReplyDeleteI agree, he shouldn't have assumed something from the constitution if that was what he was against.
DeleteYes, he bought land that the Constitution hadn't clearly stated anything about the federal government being able to buy land.
DeleteI didn't think about it like this, but I agree. While it does not go strictly against the Constitution, the Constitution does not directly allow it, and that was the exact objection that Jefferson made to Hamilton's plans for a National Bank
DeleteA decision that Jefferson made that contradicted his principals was the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson was never told by the Constitution that he could buy land and this purchase was under control of the government which also contradicted the Laissez-faire principals.
ReplyDeleteI agree, for someone who only wanted what power the constitution explicitly gave, he bought the land without a second thought for all I know.
DeleteI agree, it is a complete contradiction, one of many he made in his life along with his shifting opinions on race.
DeleteI agree, the Louisiana purchase was a decision that contradicted his principals.
DeleteAgreed- bending the rules and, in a sense, assuming what is or isn't allowed is very un-Jeffersonian and contradicts much of what he stood for.
DeleteThe Embargo was one measure that goes against President Jefferson's laissez-faire philosophy. The Embargo prevented American ships from leaving the country for any foreign port, thereby halting all trade. When traders tried to circumvent this rule, Jefferson took action to prohibit the unlawful commerce. This goes against laissez-faire philosophy because rather than letting things take their natural course, Jefferson instead opted for strict intervention and government manipulation on trade.
ReplyDeleteI agree, negatively impacting the economy of an entire nation isn't very relaxed.
DeleteI agree--Jefferson took action when he believed it was necessary, and this was against his laissez-faire philosophy.
DeleteThe Embargo is probably one of his more hypocritical actions taken, as the idea of live and let live is kind of ruined when you ruin a ton of traders, merchants, and all the people who's businesses profit from export/import.
ReplyDeleteI agree, because it didn't seem fair to close trade instead of letting things go naturally, it ruined the economy.
DeleteI disagree. George Washington made sure that the Constitution included his beliefs on foreign affairs, and he believed that the U.S should avoid interacting with other countries to prevent war. This policy would abide by that, and would prevent war like Washington had feared.
DeleteAn example of a contradicting decision comes from the War on The Courts. Laissez Faire was interrupted because Jefferson wanted to remove someone that disagreed with the government. Normally judges could be removed for bad behavior like John Pickering for being an erratic person. However, Jefferson then targeted Samuel Chase, for talking about politics in his free time. Jefferson realized he was in the wrong and Chase later got acquitted of charges.
ReplyDeleteThe Louisiana Purchase contradicts his principle of having a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It questions presidential authority in terms of whether or not the land should be acquired because the Constitution does not directly state that the president has the power to purchase territory. However, it was still purchased despite having a "strict interpretation of the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteThe policy that shows Jefferson contradicting his strict interpretation of the constitution was the embargo, since it shut down all trade outside of the US with the US, which was very interventionalist. This contradicts his worldview because he wished for little involvement by the government in national matters, however this policy would do just that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my classmates in the notion that the Louisiana Purchase was an absolute contradiction of Jefferson's supposedly rigid interpretation of the Constitution. The fact of the matter was that the Constitution does not state that the sitting president is allowed to purchase land from another nation, yet Jefferson did so anyway.
ReplyDeleteOne decision that did go against and contradict Jefferson's principle of Laissez Faire governing was the Louisiana purchase. This is due to the fact that the constitution does not say if a president can or can not purchase territory and Jefferson simply assumed that he could.
ReplyDeleteI think that the War on the Courts was a major policy that was very contradictory towards the idea of laissez-faire. This is because he is targeting political opponents, and he also is just not supposed to be really interfering with the court that much to try to remove supporters of the Federalists. I don't think that was a very great way to use his power as well, not just the fact that it doesn't abide by his principles.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the war on the courts contradicted Jefferson's Laissez Faire policies, because they happened in the interest of him removing his political adversaries from places of power within the judicial system. Additionally, though Jefferson believed in a strict intepretation of the Constitution, the Constitution gave no mention of allowing the actions that Jefferson carried out while removing justices.
ReplyDeletePresident Jefferson's Embargo was one of his initiatives that contradicted his laissez-faire views. By forbidding American ships from leaving the country for any foreign port, the Embargo effectively halted all trade. When merchants attempted to circumvent the limits, Jefferson took action to prevent the illicit transaction. Rather of letting things take their natural course, Jefferson preferred severe engagement and government interference of business, which contradicts laissez-faire theory.
ReplyDeleteA policy that contradicts his Laizzez Faire views was the Louisiana Purchase. The Constitution never explicitly states if a president can simply buy more land. While he would usually only do what the Constitution explicitly gave him the right to do, he went against this philosophy and bended the rules a bit more.
ReplyDelete