THE AGE OF JEFFERSON, 1800–1816
In the election of 1800, there had been much animosity and bitter partisan feeling between the two national political parties. Following this Revolution of 1800, Thomas Jefferson, the new president, recognized the need for a smooth and peaceful transition of power from the Federalists to the Republicans. That is why, in his inaugural address of 1801, Jefferson stressed the popular acceptance of the basic principles of constitutional government when he stated: “We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” By the end of the period, it may be argued that the people were “all Republicans,” for the Federalists were no longer a political power. We shall see how, under the leadership of Jefferson and his close friend James Madison, the nation experienced peaceful political change, expanded territorially, survived another war, and strengthened its democratic and nationalistic spirit. This new nation had its problems—including slavery, the treatment of Native Americans, and loyalty to local interests—but it was also a new nation that was surviving and growing.
Jefferson’s Presidency
During his first term, the Democratic-Republican president attempted to win the allegiance and trust of Federalist opponents by maintaining the national bank and debt-repayment plan of Hamilton. In foreign policy, he carried on the neutrality policies of Washington and Adams. At the same time, Jefferson retained the loyalty of Republican supporters by adhering to his party’s guiding principle of limited central government. He reduced the size of the military, eliminated a number of federal jobs, repealed the excise taxes—including those on whiskey, and lowered the national debt. Only Republicans were named to his cabinet, as he sought to avoid the internal divisions that had distracted Washington. Compared to Adams’ troubled administration, Jefferson’s first four years in office were relatively free of discord. The single most important achievement of these years was the acquisition by purchase of vast western lands known as the Louisiana Territory.
The Louisiana Purchase
The Louisiana Territory encompassed a vast, largely unexplored tract of western land through which the Mississippi and Missouri rivers flowed. At the mouth of the Mississippi lay the territory’s most valuable property in terms of commerce—the port of New Orleans. For many years, Louisiana and New Orleans had been claimed by Spain. But in 1800, the French military and political leader Napoleon Bonaparte secretly forced Spain to give the Louisiana Territory back to its former owner, France. Napoleon hoped to restore the French empire in the Americas. By 1803, however, Napoleon had lost interest in this plan for two reasons:
U.S. interest in the Mississippi River. During Jefferson’s presidency, the western frontier extended beyond Ohio and Kentucky into the Indiana Territory. Settlers in this region depended for their economic existence on transporting goods on rivers that flowed westward into the Mississippi and southward as far as New Orleans. They were greatly alarmed therefore when in 1802 Spanish officials, who were still in charge of New Orleans, closed the port to Americans. They revoked the right of deposit granted in the Pinckney Treaty of 1795, which had allowed American farmers tax-free use of the port. People on the frontier clamored for government action. In addition to being concerned about the economic impact of the closing of New Orleans, President Jefferson was troubled by its consequences on foreign policy. He feared that, so long as a foreign power controlled the river at New Orleans, the United States risked entanglement in European affairs.
Negotiations. Jefferson sent ministers to France with instructions to offer up to $10 million for both New Orleans and a strip of land extending from that port eastward to Florida. If the American ministers failed in their negotiations with the French, they were instructed to begin discussions with Britain for a U.S.-British alliance. Napoleon’s ministers, seeking funds for a war against Britain, offered to sell not only New Orleans but also the entire Louisiana Territory for $15 million. The surprised American ministers quickly went beyond their instructions and accepted.
Constitutional predicament. Jefferson and most Americans strongly ap- proved of the Louisiana Purchase. Nevertheless, a constitutional problem troubled the president. Jefferson was committed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution and rejected Hamilton’s argument that certain powers were implied. No clause in the Constitution explicitly stated that a president could purchase foreign land. In this case, Jefferson determined to set aside his idealism for the country’s good. He submitted the purchase agreement to the Senate, arguing that lands could be added to the United States as an application of the president’s power to make treaties. Casting aside the criticisms of Federalist senators, the Republican majority in the Senate quickly ratified the purchase.
Consequences. The Louisiana Purchase more than doubled the size of the United States, removed a foreign presence from the nation’s borders, and guaranteed the extension of the western frontier to lands beyond the Mississippi. Furthermore, the acquisition of millions of acres of land strengthened Jefferson’s hopes that his country’s future would be based on an agrarian society of independent farmers rather than Hamilton’s vision of an urban and industrial society. In political terms, the Louisiana Purchase increased Jefferson’s popularity and showed the Federalists to be a weak, sectionalist (New England-based) party that could do little more than complain about Republican policies.
Lewis and Clark expedition. Even before Louisiana was purchased, Jefferson had persuaded Congress to fund a scientific exploration of the trans- Mississippi West to be led by Captain Meriwether Lewis and Lieutenant William Clark. The Louisiana Purchase greatly increased the importance of the expedition. Lewis and Clark set out from St. Louis in 1804, crossed the Rockies, reached the Oregon coast on the Pacific Ocean, then turned back and completed the return journey in 1806. The benefits of the expedition were many: in- creased geographic and scientific knowledge of previously unexplored country, strengthened U.S. claims to the Oregon Territory, improved relations with Native American tribes, and developed maps and land routes for fur trappers and future settlers.
John Marshall and the Supreme Court
After the sweeping Republican victory of 1800, the only power remaining to the Federalists was their control of the federal courts. The Federalist appointments to the courts, previously made by Washington and Adams, were not subject to recall or removal except by impeachment. Federalist judges there- fore continued in office, much to the annoyance of the Republican president, Jefferson.
John Marshall. Ironically, the Federalist judge who caused Jefferson the most grief was one of his own cousins from Virginia, John Marshall. Marshall had been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the final months of John Adams’ presidency. He would serve in this position for 34 years, in which time he exerted as strong an influence on the Supreme Court as Washing- ton had exerted on the presidency. Marshall’s decisions in many landmark cases had the effect of strengthening the central government, often at the expense of states’ rights.
Case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The first major case to be decided by Marshall put him in direct conflict with his cousin, President Jefferson. Upon taking office, Jefferson wanted to block the Federalist appointments made at the last minute by his predecessor, John Adams. He ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commissions to those Federalists judges whom Adams had appointed in his last days as president. One of Adams’ “midnight appointments,” William Marbury, sued for his commission. The case of Marbury v. Madison went to the Supreme Court for review in 1803. Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission according to the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789. However, Marshall said, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was itself unconstitutional. The law passed by Congress had given to the Court greater power and jurisdiction than the Constitution allowed. Therefore, the law was unconstitutional, and Marbury could not be given his commission.
In effect, Marshall sacrificed what would have been a small Federalist gain (the appointment of Marbury) for a much larger, long-term judicial victory. By ruling a law of Congress to be unconstitutional, Marshall established the doctrine of judicial review. From this point on, the Supreme Court would exercise the power to decide whether an act of Congress or of the president was or was not allowed by the Constitution. In effect, the Supreme Court could now overrule actions of the other two branches of the federal government.
Judicial impeachments. Jefferson tried other methods for overturning past Federalist measures and appointments. Soon after entering office, he sus- pended the Alien and Sedition Acts and released those jailed under them. Hoping to remove partisan Federalist judges, Jefferson supported a campaign of impeachment. The judge of one federal district was found to be mentally unbalanced. The House voted his impeachment and the Senate then voted to remove him. The House also impeached a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, but the Senate acquitted him after finding no evidence of “high crimes.” Except for these two cases, the impeachment campaign was largely a failure, as almost all the Federalist judges remained in office. Even so, the threat of impeachment caused the judges to be more cautious and less partisan in their decisions.
Jefferson’s Reelection
In 1804 Jefferson was reelected president by an overwhelming margin, receiving all but 14 of the 176 electoral votes. His second term was marked by growing difficulties. There were plots by his former vice president, Aaron Burr; opposition by a faction of his own party (the “Quids”), who accused him of abandoning Republican principles; and foreign troubles from the Napoleonic wars in Europe.
Aaron Burr
A Republican caucus (closed meeting) in 1804 decided not to nominate Aaron Burr for a second term as vice president. Burr then embarked on a series of ventures, one of which threatened to break up the Union and another of which resulted in the death of Alexander Hamilton.
Federalist conspiracy. Secretly forming a political pact with some radical New England Federalists, Burr planned to win the governorship of New York in 1804, unite that state with the New England states, and then lead this group of states to secede from the nation. Most Federalists followed Alexander Hamilton in opposing Burr, who was defeated in the New York election. The conspiracy then disintegrated.
Duel with Hamilton. Angered by an insulting remark attributed to Hamil- ton, Burr challenged the Federalist leader to a duel and fatally shot him. Hamilton’s death in 1804 deprived the Federalists of their last great leader and earned Burr the enmity of many.
Trial for treason. By 1806, Burr’s intrigues had turned westward with a plan to take Mexico from Spain and possibly unite it with Louisiana under his rule. Learning of the conspiracy, Jefferson ordered Burr’s arrest and trial for treason. Presiding at the trial was Chief Justice John Marshall, an adversary of Jefferson. A jury acquitted Burr, basing its decision on Marshall’s narrow definition of treason and the lack of witnesses to any “overt act” by Burr.
Difficulties Abroad
As a matter of policy and principle, Jefferson tried to avoid war with a foreign power. Rejecting the idea of permanent alliances, he sought to maintain U.S. neutrality in the face of increasing provocation from both France and Britain during the Napoleonic wars.
Barbary pirates. The first major challenge to Jefferson’s foreign policy came, not from a major European power, but from the piracy practiced by the Barbary states on the North African coast. To protect U.S. merchant ships from being seized by Barbary pirates, Presidents Washington and Adams had reluctantly agreed to pay tribute to the Barbary governments. The ruler of one state, the Pasha of Tripoli, demanded a higher sum in tribute when Jefferson took office. Rather than pay this sum, Jefferson decided to send a small fleet of U.S. naval vessels to the Mediterranean. Sporadic fighting with Tripoli lasted for four years (1801–1805). The American navy did not achieve a decisive victory but gained some respect and also offered a measure of protection to U.S. vessels trading in Mediterranean waters.
Challenges to U.S. neutrality. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic wars continued to dominate the politics of Europe—and to a lesser extent the commercial economy of the United States. The two principal belligerents, France and Britain, attempted naval blockades of enemy ports. They regularly seized the ships of neutral nations and confiscated their cargoes. The chief offender from the U.S. point of view was Britain, since its navy dominated the Atlantic. Most infuriating was the British practice of capturing U.S. sailors and impressing (forcing) them to serve in the British navy.
Chesapeake-Leopard affair. One incident at sea especially aroused American anger and almost led to war. In 1807, only a few miles off the coast of Virginia, the British warship Leopard fired on the U.S. warship Chesapeake. Three Americans were killed and four others were taken captive and impressed into the British navy. Anti-British feeling ran high, and many Americans demanded war. Jefferson, however, resorted to diplomacy and economic pressure as his response to the crisis.
Embargo Act (1807). As an alternative to war, Jefferson persuaded the Republican majority in Congress to pass the Embargo Act in 1807. This measure prohibited American merchant ships from sailing to any foreign port. Since the United States was Britain’s largest trading partner, Jefferson hoped that the British would stop violating the rights of neutral nations rather than lose U.S. trade. The embargo, however, backfired and brought much greater economic hardship to the United States than to Britain. The British were determined to control the seas at all costs, and they had little difficulty substituting supplies from South America for U.S. goods. The embargo’s effect on the U.S. economy, however, was devastating, especially for the merchant marine and shipbuilders of New England. So bad was the depression that a movement developed in the New England states to secede from the Union.
Recognizing that the Embargo Act had failed, Jefferson called for its repeal in 1809 during the final days of his presidency. Even after repeal, however, U.S. ships could trade legally with all nations except Britain and France.
Madison’s Presidency
Jefferson believed strongly in the tradition established by Washington of voluntarily retiring from the presidency after a second term. For his party’s nomination for president, he supported his close friend, Secretary of State James Madison.
The Election of 1808
Ever since leading the effort to write and ratify the Constitution, Madison was widely viewed as a brilliant thinker and statesman. He had worked tirelessly with Jefferson in developing the Democratic-Republican party. On the other hand, he was a weak public speaker, possessed a stubborn temperament, and lacked Jefferson’s political skills. With Jefferson’s backing, Madison was nominated for president by a caucus of congressional Republicans. Other factions of the Republican party nominated two other candidates. Even so, Madison was able to win a majority of electoral votes and to defeat both his Republican opponents and the Federalist candidate, Charles Pinckney. The Federalists nevertheless managed to gain seats in Congress due to widespread unhappiness with the effects of the embargo.
Commercial Warfare
Madison’s presidency was dominated by the same European problems that had plagued Jefferson’s second term. Like Jefferson, he attempted a combination of diplomacy and economic pressure to deal with the Napoleonic wars. Unlike Jefferson, he finally consented to take the United States to war.
Nonintercourse Act of 1809. After the repeal of Jefferson’s disastrous embargo act, Madison hoped to end economic hardship while maintaining his country’s rights as a neutral nation. The Nonintercourse Act of 1809 provided that Americans could now trade with all nations except Britain and France.
Macon’s Bill No. 2 (1810). Economic hardships continued into 1810. Nathaniel Macon, a member of Congress, introduced a bill that restored U.S. trade with Britain and France. Macon’s Bill No. 2 provided, however, that if either Britain or France formally agreed to respect U.S. neutral rights at sea, then the United States would prohibit trade with that nation’s foe. Napoleon’s deception. Upon hearing of Congress’ action, Napoleon announced his intention of revoking the decrees that had violated U.S. neutral rights. Taking Napoleon at his word, Madison carried out the terms of Macon’s Bill No. 2 by embargoing U.S. trade with Britain in 1811. It soon became apparent, however, that Napoleon had no intention of fulfilling his promise. The French continued to seize American merchant ships despite their emperor’s deceitful pledge to the United States.
The War of 1812
Neither Britain nor the United States wanted their dispute to end in war. And yet war between them did break out in 1812.
Causes of the War
From the U.S. point of view, the pressures leading to war came from two directions: the continued violation of U.S. neutral rights at sea and troubles with the British on the western frontier.
Free seas and trade. As a trading nation, the United States depended upon the free flow of shipping across the Atlantic. Yet the chief belligerents in Europe, Britain and France, had no interest in respecting neutral rights so long as they were locked in a life-and-death struggle with each other. Since the French Revolution in the 1790s, the majority of Americans had tended to sympathize with France against Britain. They well remembered that Britain had seemed a cruel enemy during the American Revolution. And Jeffersonian Republicans applauded the French for having overthrown their monarchy in their Revolution. Moreover, even though both the French and the British violated U.S. neutral rights, the British violations appeared to be more blatant because of the British navy’s practice of impressing American seamen.
Frontier pressures. Added to long-standing grievances over British actions at sea were the ambitions of western Americans for more open land. Americans on the frontier longed for the lands of British Canada and Spanish Florida. Standing in the way of their ambitions were the British and their Indian and Spanish allies.
Conflict with the Native Americans was a perennial problem for the restless westerners. For decades, settlers had been gradually pushing the Native Americans farther and farther westward. In an effort to defend their lands from further encroachment, Shawnee twin brothers—Tecumseh, a warrior, and Prophet, a religious leader—attempted to unite all of the tribes east of the Mississippi River. White settlers became suspicious of Tecumseh and persuaded the governor of the Indiana Territory, General William Henry Harrison, to take aggressive action. In the Battle of Tippecanoe, in 1811, Harrison destroyed the Shawnee headquarters and put an end to Tecumseh’s efforts to form an Indian confederacy. The British had provided only limited aid to Tecumseh. Nevertheless, Americans on the frontier blamed the British for instigating the rebellion.
War hawks. A congressional election in 1810 had brought a group of new, young Republicans to Congress, many of them from frontier states (Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio). Known as war hawks because of their eagerness for war with Britain, they quickly gained significant influence in the House of Representatives. Led by Henry Clay of Kentucky and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the war-hawk Congressmen argued that war with Britain would be the only way to defend American honor, gain Canada, and destroy Native American resistance on the frontier.
Declaration of war. British delays in meeting U.S. demands over neutral rights combined with political pressures from the war-hawk Congress finally persuaded Madison to seek a declaration of war against Britain. Ironically, the British government had by this time (June 1812) agreed to suspend its naval blockade. News of its decision reached the White House after Congress had declared war.
A Divided Nation
Neither Congress nor the American people were united in support of the war. In Congress, Pennsylvania and Vermont joined the southern and western states to provide a slight majority for the war declaration. Voting against the war were most of the northern states: New York, New Jersey, and the rest of the states in New England.
Election of 1812. A similar division of opinion was seen in the presidential election of 1812, in which Republican strength in the South and West overcame Federalist and antiwar Republican opposition to war in the North. Madison won reelection, defeating De Witt Clinton of New York, the candidate of the Federalists and antiwar Republicans.
Opposition to the war. Those Americans who opposed the war viewed it as “Mr. Madison’s War” and the work of the war hawks in Congress. Most outspoken in their criticism of the war were three groups: New England merchants, Federalist politicians, and “Quids,” or “Old” Republicans. New England merchants were opposed because, after the repeal of the Embargo Act, they were making sizable profits from the European war and viewed impressment as merely a minor inconvenience. Both commercial interests and religious ties to Protestantism made them more sympathetic to the Protestant British than to the Catholic French. Opposed as a matter of principle to anything Madison did, Federalist politicians viewed the war as a Republican scheme to conquer Canada and Florida, with the ultimate aim of increasing Republican voting strength. For their part, the “Quids” or “Old” Republicans criticized the war because it violated the classic Republican commitment to limited federal power and to the maintenance of peace.
Military Defeats and Naval Victories
Facing Britain’s overwhelming naval power, Madison’s military strategists based their hope for victory on (1) Napoleon’s continued success in Europe and (2) a U.S. land campaign against Canada.
Invasion of Canada. A poorly equipped American army initiated military action in 1812 by launching a three-part invasion of Canada, one force starting out from Detroit, another from Niagara, and a third from Lake Champlain. These and later forays into Canada were easily repulsed by the British defenders. An American raid and burning of government buildings in York (Toronto) in 1813 only served to encourage retaliation by the British.
Naval battles. The U.S. navy achieved some notable victories, due largely to superior shipbuilding and the valorous deeds of American seamen, including many free African Americans. In late 1812, the U.S. warship Constitution (nicknamed “Old Ironsides”) raised American morale by defeating and sinking a British ship off the coast of Nova Scotia. Also effective were the attacks of American privateers who, motivated by both patriotism and profit, captured numerous British merchant ships. Offsetting these gains was the success of the British navy in establishing a blockade of the U.S. coast, which crippled trading and fishing.
Probably the most important naval battle of the war was fought in 1813 on Lake Erie. At the end of an unrelenting and murderous three-hour engagement, a 28-year-old American, Captain Oliver Hazard Perry, declared proudly, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” Perry’s naval victory prepared the way for General William Henry Harrison’s military victory at the Battle of Thames River (near Detroit), in which Tecumseh was killed. The next year,
1814, another young naval captain, Thomas Macdonough, defeated a British fleet on Lake Champlain. As a result, the British were forced to retreat and to abandon their plan to invade New York and New England.
Chesapeake campaign. By the spring of 1814, the defeat of Napoleon in Europe enabled the British to increase their forces in North America. In the summer of that year, a British army marched through the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., and set fire to the White House, the Capitol, and other government buildings. The British also attempted to take Baltimore, but Fort McHenry held out after a night’s bombardment—an event immortalized by Francis Scott Key in the words of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
Southern campaign. Meanwhile, U.S. troops in the South were ably commanded by General Andrew Jackson. In March 1814, at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in present-day Alabama, Jackson ended the power of an important British ally, the Creek nation. The victory not only eliminated the Native American ally but also opened new lands to white settlers. A major British effort to control the Mississippi River was halted at New Orleans by Jackson leading a force of frontiersmen, free blacks, and Creoles. The victory was impressive—but also meaningless. The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815, two weeks after a treaty ending the war had been signed in Ghent, Belgium.
The Treaty of Ghent
By 1814, the British were weary of war. Having fought Napoleon for more than a decade, they now faced the prospect of maintaining the peace in Europe. At the same time, Madison’s government recognized that the Americans would be unable to win a decisive victory. American peace commissioners traveled to Ghent, Belgium, to discuss terms of peace with British diplomats. On Christmas Eve, 1814, an agreement was reached. The terms were:
The Hartford Convention
Before the war ended, the New England states came close to seceding from the Union. Bitterly opposed to both the war and the Republican government in Washington, radical Federalists in New England urged that the Constitution be amended and that, as a last resort, secession be voted upon. To consider these matters, a special convention was held at Hartford, Connecticut, in December 1814. Delegates from the New England states rejected the radical calls for secession. But to limit the growing power of the Republicans in the South and West, they adopted a number of proposals. One of them called for a two-thirds vote of both houses for any future declaration of war.
Shortly after the convention dissolved, news came of both Jackson’s victory at New Orleans and the Treaty of Ghent. These events ended criticism of the war and further weakened the Federalists by stamping them as unpatriotic.
The War’s Legacy
From Madison’s point of view, the war achieved none of its original aims. Nevertheless, it had a number of important consequences for the future development of the American republic. They may be listed as follows:
Jefferson’s Presidency
During his first term, the Democratic-Republican president attempted to win the allegiance and trust of Federalist opponents by maintaining the national bank and debt-repayment plan of Hamilton. In foreign policy, he carried on the neutrality policies of Washington and Adams. At the same time, Jefferson retained the loyalty of Republican supporters by adhering to his party’s guiding principle of limited central government. He reduced the size of the military, eliminated a number of federal jobs, repealed the excise taxes—including those on whiskey, and lowered the national debt. Only Republicans were named to his cabinet, as he sought to avoid the internal divisions that had distracted Washington. Compared to Adams’ troubled administration, Jefferson’s first four years in office were relatively free of discord. The single most important achievement of these years was the acquisition by purchase of vast western lands known as the Louisiana Territory.
The Louisiana Purchase
The Louisiana Territory encompassed a vast, largely unexplored tract of western land through which the Mississippi and Missouri rivers flowed. At the mouth of the Mississippi lay the territory’s most valuable property in terms of commerce—the port of New Orleans. For many years, Louisiana and New Orleans had been claimed by Spain. But in 1800, the French military and political leader Napoleon Bonaparte secretly forced Spain to give the Louisiana Territory back to its former owner, France. Napoleon hoped to restore the French empire in the Americas. By 1803, however, Napoleon had lost interest in this plan for two reasons:
- he needed to concentrate French resources on fighting England
- a rebellion led by Toussaint l’Ouverture against French rule on the island of Santo Domingo had resulted in heavy French losses
U.S. interest in the Mississippi River. During Jefferson’s presidency, the western frontier extended beyond Ohio and Kentucky into the Indiana Territory. Settlers in this region depended for their economic existence on transporting goods on rivers that flowed westward into the Mississippi and southward as far as New Orleans. They were greatly alarmed therefore when in 1802 Spanish officials, who were still in charge of New Orleans, closed the port to Americans. They revoked the right of deposit granted in the Pinckney Treaty of 1795, which had allowed American farmers tax-free use of the port. People on the frontier clamored for government action. In addition to being concerned about the economic impact of the closing of New Orleans, President Jefferson was troubled by its consequences on foreign policy. He feared that, so long as a foreign power controlled the river at New Orleans, the United States risked entanglement in European affairs.
Negotiations. Jefferson sent ministers to France with instructions to offer up to $10 million for both New Orleans and a strip of land extending from that port eastward to Florida. If the American ministers failed in their negotiations with the French, they were instructed to begin discussions with Britain for a U.S.-British alliance. Napoleon’s ministers, seeking funds for a war against Britain, offered to sell not only New Orleans but also the entire Louisiana Territory for $15 million. The surprised American ministers quickly went beyond their instructions and accepted.
Constitutional predicament. Jefferson and most Americans strongly ap- proved of the Louisiana Purchase. Nevertheless, a constitutional problem troubled the president. Jefferson was committed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution and rejected Hamilton’s argument that certain powers were implied. No clause in the Constitution explicitly stated that a president could purchase foreign land. In this case, Jefferson determined to set aside his idealism for the country’s good. He submitted the purchase agreement to the Senate, arguing that lands could be added to the United States as an application of the president’s power to make treaties. Casting aside the criticisms of Federalist senators, the Republican majority in the Senate quickly ratified the purchase.
Consequences. The Louisiana Purchase more than doubled the size of the United States, removed a foreign presence from the nation’s borders, and guaranteed the extension of the western frontier to lands beyond the Mississippi. Furthermore, the acquisition of millions of acres of land strengthened Jefferson’s hopes that his country’s future would be based on an agrarian society of independent farmers rather than Hamilton’s vision of an urban and industrial society. In political terms, the Louisiana Purchase increased Jefferson’s popularity and showed the Federalists to be a weak, sectionalist (New England-based) party that could do little more than complain about Republican policies.
Lewis and Clark expedition. Even before Louisiana was purchased, Jefferson had persuaded Congress to fund a scientific exploration of the trans- Mississippi West to be led by Captain Meriwether Lewis and Lieutenant William Clark. The Louisiana Purchase greatly increased the importance of the expedition. Lewis and Clark set out from St. Louis in 1804, crossed the Rockies, reached the Oregon coast on the Pacific Ocean, then turned back and completed the return journey in 1806. The benefits of the expedition were many: in- creased geographic and scientific knowledge of previously unexplored country, strengthened U.S. claims to the Oregon Territory, improved relations with Native American tribes, and developed maps and land routes for fur trappers and future settlers.
John Marshall and the Supreme Court
After the sweeping Republican victory of 1800, the only power remaining to the Federalists was their control of the federal courts. The Federalist appointments to the courts, previously made by Washington and Adams, were not subject to recall or removal except by impeachment. Federalist judges there- fore continued in office, much to the annoyance of the Republican president, Jefferson.
John Marshall. Ironically, the Federalist judge who caused Jefferson the most grief was one of his own cousins from Virginia, John Marshall. Marshall had been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the final months of John Adams’ presidency. He would serve in this position for 34 years, in which time he exerted as strong an influence on the Supreme Court as Washing- ton had exerted on the presidency. Marshall’s decisions in many landmark cases had the effect of strengthening the central government, often at the expense of states’ rights.
Case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). The first major case to be decided by Marshall put him in direct conflict with his cousin, President Jefferson. Upon taking office, Jefferson wanted to block the Federalist appointments made at the last minute by his predecessor, John Adams. He ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commissions to those Federalists judges whom Adams had appointed in his last days as president. One of Adams’ “midnight appointments,” William Marbury, sued for his commission. The case of Marbury v. Madison went to the Supreme Court for review in 1803. Chief Justice Marshall ruled that Marbury had a right to his commission according to the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789. However, Marshall said, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was itself unconstitutional. The law passed by Congress had given to the Court greater power and jurisdiction than the Constitution allowed. Therefore, the law was unconstitutional, and Marbury could not be given his commission.
In effect, Marshall sacrificed what would have been a small Federalist gain (the appointment of Marbury) for a much larger, long-term judicial victory. By ruling a law of Congress to be unconstitutional, Marshall established the doctrine of judicial review. From this point on, the Supreme Court would exercise the power to decide whether an act of Congress or of the president was or was not allowed by the Constitution. In effect, the Supreme Court could now overrule actions of the other two branches of the federal government.
Judicial impeachments. Jefferson tried other methods for overturning past Federalist measures and appointments. Soon after entering office, he sus- pended the Alien and Sedition Acts and released those jailed under them. Hoping to remove partisan Federalist judges, Jefferson supported a campaign of impeachment. The judge of one federal district was found to be mentally unbalanced. The House voted his impeachment and the Senate then voted to remove him. The House also impeached a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Chase, but the Senate acquitted him after finding no evidence of “high crimes.” Except for these two cases, the impeachment campaign was largely a failure, as almost all the Federalist judges remained in office. Even so, the threat of impeachment caused the judges to be more cautious and less partisan in their decisions.
Jefferson’s Reelection
In 1804 Jefferson was reelected president by an overwhelming margin, receiving all but 14 of the 176 electoral votes. His second term was marked by growing difficulties. There were plots by his former vice president, Aaron Burr; opposition by a faction of his own party (the “Quids”), who accused him of abandoning Republican principles; and foreign troubles from the Napoleonic wars in Europe.
Aaron Burr
A Republican caucus (closed meeting) in 1804 decided not to nominate Aaron Burr for a second term as vice president. Burr then embarked on a series of ventures, one of which threatened to break up the Union and another of which resulted in the death of Alexander Hamilton.
Federalist conspiracy. Secretly forming a political pact with some radical New England Federalists, Burr planned to win the governorship of New York in 1804, unite that state with the New England states, and then lead this group of states to secede from the nation. Most Federalists followed Alexander Hamilton in opposing Burr, who was defeated in the New York election. The conspiracy then disintegrated.
Duel with Hamilton. Angered by an insulting remark attributed to Hamil- ton, Burr challenged the Federalist leader to a duel and fatally shot him. Hamilton’s death in 1804 deprived the Federalists of their last great leader and earned Burr the enmity of many.
Trial for treason. By 1806, Burr’s intrigues had turned westward with a plan to take Mexico from Spain and possibly unite it with Louisiana under his rule. Learning of the conspiracy, Jefferson ordered Burr’s arrest and trial for treason. Presiding at the trial was Chief Justice John Marshall, an adversary of Jefferson. A jury acquitted Burr, basing its decision on Marshall’s narrow definition of treason and the lack of witnesses to any “overt act” by Burr.
Difficulties Abroad
As a matter of policy and principle, Jefferson tried to avoid war with a foreign power. Rejecting the idea of permanent alliances, he sought to maintain U.S. neutrality in the face of increasing provocation from both France and Britain during the Napoleonic wars.
Barbary pirates. The first major challenge to Jefferson’s foreign policy came, not from a major European power, but from the piracy practiced by the Barbary states on the North African coast. To protect U.S. merchant ships from being seized by Barbary pirates, Presidents Washington and Adams had reluctantly agreed to pay tribute to the Barbary governments. The ruler of one state, the Pasha of Tripoli, demanded a higher sum in tribute when Jefferson took office. Rather than pay this sum, Jefferson decided to send a small fleet of U.S. naval vessels to the Mediterranean. Sporadic fighting with Tripoli lasted for four years (1801–1805). The American navy did not achieve a decisive victory but gained some respect and also offered a measure of protection to U.S. vessels trading in Mediterranean waters.
Challenges to U.S. neutrality. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic wars continued to dominate the politics of Europe—and to a lesser extent the commercial economy of the United States. The two principal belligerents, France and Britain, attempted naval blockades of enemy ports. They regularly seized the ships of neutral nations and confiscated their cargoes. The chief offender from the U.S. point of view was Britain, since its navy dominated the Atlantic. Most infuriating was the British practice of capturing U.S. sailors and impressing (forcing) them to serve in the British navy.
Chesapeake-Leopard affair. One incident at sea especially aroused American anger and almost led to war. In 1807, only a few miles off the coast of Virginia, the British warship Leopard fired on the U.S. warship Chesapeake. Three Americans were killed and four others were taken captive and impressed into the British navy. Anti-British feeling ran high, and many Americans demanded war. Jefferson, however, resorted to diplomacy and economic pressure as his response to the crisis.
Embargo Act (1807). As an alternative to war, Jefferson persuaded the Republican majority in Congress to pass the Embargo Act in 1807. This measure prohibited American merchant ships from sailing to any foreign port. Since the United States was Britain’s largest trading partner, Jefferson hoped that the British would stop violating the rights of neutral nations rather than lose U.S. trade. The embargo, however, backfired and brought much greater economic hardship to the United States than to Britain. The British were determined to control the seas at all costs, and they had little difficulty substituting supplies from South America for U.S. goods. The embargo’s effect on the U.S. economy, however, was devastating, especially for the merchant marine and shipbuilders of New England. So bad was the depression that a movement developed in the New England states to secede from the Union.
Recognizing that the Embargo Act had failed, Jefferson called for its repeal in 1809 during the final days of his presidency. Even after repeal, however, U.S. ships could trade legally with all nations except Britain and France.
Madison’s Presidency
Jefferson believed strongly in the tradition established by Washington of voluntarily retiring from the presidency after a second term. For his party’s nomination for president, he supported his close friend, Secretary of State James Madison.
The Election of 1808
Ever since leading the effort to write and ratify the Constitution, Madison was widely viewed as a brilliant thinker and statesman. He had worked tirelessly with Jefferson in developing the Democratic-Republican party. On the other hand, he was a weak public speaker, possessed a stubborn temperament, and lacked Jefferson’s political skills. With Jefferson’s backing, Madison was nominated for president by a caucus of congressional Republicans. Other factions of the Republican party nominated two other candidates. Even so, Madison was able to win a majority of electoral votes and to defeat both his Republican opponents and the Federalist candidate, Charles Pinckney. The Federalists nevertheless managed to gain seats in Congress due to widespread unhappiness with the effects of the embargo.
Commercial Warfare
Madison’s presidency was dominated by the same European problems that had plagued Jefferson’s second term. Like Jefferson, he attempted a combination of diplomacy and economic pressure to deal with the Napoleonic wars. Unlike Jefferson, he finally consented to take the United States to war.
Nonintercourse Act of 1809. After the repeal of Jefferson’s disastrous embargo act, Madison hoped to end economic hardship while maintaining his country’s rights as a neutral nation. The Nonintercourse Act of 1809 provided that Americans could now trade with all nations except Britain and France.
Macon’s Bill No. 2 (1810). Economic hardships continued into 1810. Nathaniel Macon, a member of Congress, introduced a bill that restored U.S. trade with Britain and France. Macon’s Bill No. 2 provided, however, that if either Britain or France formally agreed to respect U.S. neutral rights at sea, then the United States would prohibit trade with that nation’s foe. Napoleon’s deception. Upon hearing of Congress’ action, Napoleon announced his intention of revoking the decrees that had violated U.S. neutral rights. Taking Napoleon at his word, Madison carried out the terms of Macon’s Bill No. 2 by embargoing U.S. trade with Britain in 1811. It soon became apparent, however, that Napoleon had no intention of fulfilling his promise. The French continued to seize American merchant ships despite their emperor’s deceitful pledge to the United States.
The War of 1812
Neither Britain nor the United States wanted their dispute to end in war. And yet war between them did break out in 1812.
Causes of the War
From the U.S. point of view, the pressures leading to war came from two directions: the continued violation of U.S. neutral rights at sea and troubles with the British on the western frontier.
Free seas and trade. As a trading nation, the United States depended upon the free flow of shipping across the Atlantic. Yet the chief belligerents in Europe, Britain and France, had no interest in respecting neutral rights so long as they were locked in a life-and-death struggle with each other. Since the French Revolution in the 1790s, the majority of Americans had tended to sympathize with France against Britain. They well remembered that Britain had seemed a cruel enemy during the American Revolution. And Jeffersonian Republicans applauded the French for having overthrown their monarchy in their Revolution. Moreover, even though both the French and the British violated U.S. neutral rights, the British violations appeared to be more blatant because of the British navy’s practice of impressing American seamen.
Frontier pressures. Added to long-standing grievances over British actions at sea were the ambitions of western Americans for more open land. Americans on the frontier longed for the lands of British Canada and Spanish Florida. Standing in the way of their ambitions were the British and their Indian and Spanish allies.
Conflict with the Native Americans was a perennial problem for the restless westerners. For decades, settlers had been gradually pushing the Native Americans farther and farther westward. In an effort to defend their lands from further encroachment, Shawnee twin brothers—Tecumseh, a warrior, and Prophet, a religious leader—attempted to unite all of the tribes east of the Mississippi River. White settlers became suspicious of Tecumseh and persuaded the governor of the Indiana Territory, General William Henry Harrison, to take aggressive action. In the Battle of Tippecanoe, in 1811, Harrison destroyed the Shawnee headquarters and put an end to Tecumseh’s efforts to form an Indian confederacy. The British had provided only limited aid to Tecumseh. Nevertheless, Americans on the frontier blamed the British for instigating the rebellion.
War hawks. A congressional election in 1810 had brought a group of new, young Republicans to Congress, many of them from frontier states (Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio). Known as war hawks because of their eagerness for war with Britain, they quickly gained significant influence in the House of Representatives. Led by Henry Clay of Kentucky and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, the war-hawk Congressmen argued that war with Britain would be the only way to defend American honor, gain Canada, and destroy Native American resistance on the frontier.
Declaration of war. British delays in meeting U.S. demands over neutral rights combined with political pressures from the war-hawk Congress finally persuaded Madison to seek a declaration of war against Britain. Ironically, the British government had by this time (June 1812) agreed to suspend its naval blockade. News of its decision reached the White House after Congress had declared war.
A Divided Nation
Neither Congress nor the American people were united in support of the war. In Congress, Pennsylvania and Vermont joined the southern and western states to provide a slight majority for the war declaration. Voting against the war were most of the northern states: New York, New Jersey, and the rest of the states in New England.
Election of 1812. A similar division of opinion was seen in the presidential election of 1812, in which Republican strength in the South and West overcame Federalist and antiwar Republican opposition to war in the North. Madison won reelection, defeating De Witt Clinton of New York, the candidate of the Federalists and antiwar Republicans.
Opposition to the war. Those Americans who opposed the war viewed it as “Mr. Madison’s War” and the work of the war hawks in Congress. Most outspoken in their criticism of the war were three groups: New England merchants, Federalist politicians, and “Quids,” or “Old” Republicans. New England merchants were opposed because, after the repeal of the Embargo Act, they were making sizable profits from the European war and viewed impressment as merely a minor inconvenience. Both commercial interests and religious ties to Protestantism made them more sympathetic to the Protestant British than to the Catholic French. Opposed as a matter of principle to anything Madison did, Federalist politicians viewed the war as a Republican scheme to conquer Canada and Florida, with the ultimate aim of increasing Republican voting strength. For their part, the “Quids” or “Old” Republicans criticized the war because it violated the classic Republican commitment to limited federal power and to the maintenance of peace.
Military Defeats and Naval Victories
Facing Britain’s overwhelming naval power, Madison’s military strategists based their hope for victory on (1) Napoleon’s continued success in Europe and (2) a U.S. land campaign against Canada.
Invasion of Canada. A poorly equipped American army initiated military action in 1812 by launching a three-part invasion of Canada, one force starting out from Detroit, another from Niagara, and a third from Lake Champlain. These and later forays into Canada were easily repulsed by the British defenders. An American raid and burning of government buildings in York (Toronto) in 1813 only served to encourage retaliation by the British.
Naval battles. The U.S. navy achieved some notable victories, due largely to superior shipbuilding and the valorous deeds of American seamen, including many free African Americans. In late 1812, the U.S. warship Constitution (nicknamed “Old Ironsides”) raised American morale by defeating and sinking a British ship off the coast of Nova Scotia. Also effective were the attacks of American privateers who, motivated by both patriotism and profit, captured numerous British merchant ships. Offsetting these gains was the success of the British navy in establishing a blockade of the U.S. coast, which crippled trading and fishing.
Probably the most important naval battle of the war was fought in 1813 on Lake Erie. At the end of an unrelenting and murderous three-hour engagement, a 28-year-old American, Captain Oliver Hazard Perry, declared proudly, “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” Perry’s naval victory prepared the way for General William Henry Harrison’s military victory at the Battle of Thames River (near Detroit), in which Tecumseh was killed. The next year,
1814, another young naval captain, Thomas Macdonough, defeated a British fleet on Lake Champlain. As a result, the British were forced to retreat and to abandon their plan to invade New York and New England.
Chesapeake campaign. By the spring of 1814, the defeat of Napoleon in Europe enabled the British to increase their forces in North America. In the summer of that year, a British army marched through the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C., and set fire to the White House, the Capitol, and other government buildings. The British also attempted to take Baltimore, but Fort McHenry held out after a night’s bombardment—an event immortalized by Francis Scott Key in the words of “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
Southern campaign. Meanwhile, U.S. troops in the South were ably commanded by General Andrew Jackson. In March 1814, at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend in present-day Alabama, Jackson ended the power of an important British ally, the Creek nation. The victory not only eliminated the Native American ally but also opened new lands to white settlers. A major British effort to control the Mississippi River was halted at New Orleans by Jackson leading a force of frontiersmen, free blacks, and Creoles. The victory was impressive—but also meaningless. The Battle of New Orleans was fought on January 8, 1815, two weeks after a treaty ending the war had been signed in Ghent, Belgium.
The Treaty of Ghent
By 1814, the British were weary of war. Having fought Napoleon for more than a decade, they now faced the prospect of maintaining the peace in Europe. At the same time, Madison’s government recognized that the Americans would be unable to win a decisive victory. American peace commissioners traveled to Ghent, Belgium, to discuss terms of peace with British diplomats. On Christmas Eve, 1814, an agreement was reached. The terms were:
- a halt to the fighting
- the return of all conquered territory to the prewar claimant
- recognition of the prewar boundary between Canada and the United States
The Hartford Convention
Before the war ended, the New England states came close to seceding from the Union. Bitterly opposed to both the war and the Republican government in Washington, radical Federalists in New England urged that the Constitution be amended and that, as a last resort, secession be voted upon. To consider these matters, a special convention was held at Hartford, Connecticut, in December 1814. Delegates from the New England states rejected the radical calls for secession. But to limit the growing power of the Republicans in the South and West, they adopted a number of proposals. One of them called for a two-thirds vote of both houses for any future declaration of war.
Shortly after the convention dissolved, news came of both Jackson’s victory at New Orleans and the Treaty of Ghent. These events ended criticism of the war and further weakened the Federalists by stamping them as unpatriotic.
The War’s Legacy
From Madison’s point of view, the war achieved none of its original aims. Nevertheless, it had a number of important consequences for the future development of the American republic. They may be listed as follows:
- Having now survived two wars with Britain, a great power, the United States gained the respect of other nations.
- The United States came to accept Canada as a neighbor and a part of the British Empire.
- Widely denounced for its talk of secession and disunion in New England, the Federalist party came to an end as a national force and declined even in New England.
- Talk of nullification and secession in New England set a precedent that would later be used by the South.
- Abandoned by their British allies, Native Americans in the West were forced to surrender large areas of land to white settlement.
- As European goods became unavailable due to the British naval blockade, more U.S. factories were built, and Americans took a big step toward industrial self-sufficiency.
- War heroes such as Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison would soon be in the forefront of a new generation of political leaders.
- As a result of the war, there was a strong feeling of American national- ism and also a growing belief that the future for the United States lay in the West and away from Europe.