“The Adams style was to confront, shout, rant, and then to embrace. The Jefferson style was to evade, maintain pretenses, then convince himself all was well” (Ellis, 2003 pg. 170). To illustrate this importance of difference, Ellis begins chapter one with the duel between Burr and Hamilton where conflict and bodily harm indicate the height of dispute resolution. However, the results shed light to a different path because the death of Hamilton marks the end of Burr’s political career which symbolizes what would happen to the United States if the founding brothers failed to reconcile their different ideologies and made compromises because the unity of the republic was important than the feelings of any single man.
Jefferson centralizes the importance of minimizing the power the government maintains, so that the general public will have their rights protected, and also criticizes the divisiveness that political parties have created in politics. Jefferson’s opinions were not commonplace during his time period, however his calls for unification and improvement struck many as sincere, and he was able to successfully attain presidency in 1801. Though it has been over 2 centuries since his campaign, Jefferson remains an iconic figure in American history to this day, and his first inaugural address serves as a great indicator of the rights that were intended to be granted to American citizens at the founding of the
On the contrary, submission also has some limitations. When people are instructed, they have capacities to do evil and blind obedience sometimes leads to disasters. Being obedient to a reassuring leader will make it easy to win a war. In the American Revolutionary War, George Washington acted a pivotal part. Before he was appointed to be the president, all the decisions had to be made by the Continental Congress.
In the year 1798, President Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, as rumors of a French invasion and enemy spies frightened many Americans. In paranoia, Adams approved of the acts, which increased the residency requirement for American citizenship that were not free white men of good character. They authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered dangerous, and restricted speech opposing the government. On the contrary, Thomas Jefferson, strongly believed in the rights of Americans, so he argued that these acts were an abuse of presidential powers and free speech. Compared to Adams, Jefferson held a stronger position in opposing the Alien and Sedition Acts because the acts granted the president tyrannical power that restricted the activities of foreigners in the country and limited freedom of speech and of the press.
Originally, the Mexican constitution established a very loose federation, where states could act as they saw fit in order to dilute power. The federal government could not intervene without request and states had no representation in the federal legislature. Congress had to grant the President emergency powers, and beyond those, he had very weak authority but could also be re-elected ad infinitum. However, due to massive divides between liberals and conservatives, civil war broke out, which led to the precedent and necessity of an authoritarian and extremely powerful executive to make wartime decisions for the survival of the liberal government. Thus, Juárez expanded the emergency powers and federal intervention authority, obtaining permission from Congress frequently.
While the two lived and wrote at the same time, contributing to the founding of the United States; the differential weight they carried in terms of their literature was vital to the Declaration. In Paine 's Common Sense, he begins to argue the case of American independence from Great Britain. Paine also has the notion of government being a necessary evil, keeping the vices of man in check. He argues the hereditary succession is bad; man being born into a world of equality. Paine states that hereditary succession brings incompetent kings, corruption, and civil
Rousseau's understanding of democracy is often described as the theory of identity in the sense of the continuing identity of sovereigns with sovereigns. However, it is precisely the skepticism of Rousseau that the sovereignty of these sovereigns and the institutional connection of the legislature and the executive are so connected. Finally, the external political and geopolitical conditions must be appropriate for democracy: for Rousseau, democracy is a form of state that fits the smaller and poorer states, but as a rule these states are connected to other great states in economic and military terms. Rousseau was a republican. His ideal state - historically, the Republic of Rome and authoritatively ruled Sparta, and in the meantime, in a small space, a morally perfect republic, in particular the Corsican, as a general ideal form of government for him as the "last classical utopian" It was a republic.
The Monroe Doctrine was a claim by Monroe that no European power should be involved in the affairs of the Americas, under threat of war. The Americans were also able to bring the British to their side, strengthening their threat and giving it merit. This idea that America could police the world and other nations that they were not allowed to become involved in Central and South America was extremely nationalistic. However, this nationalism was not limited to the President and Congress. As Stephen Decatur, a naval officer claimed, “Our Country!
Since the founding of America, the courts were designated as the final arbiters of justice, but were inefficient in its execution. The judicial branch should support the federal government, not weigh it down. Hence, replacing the court system with coin flips adequately resolves all of its current
Throughout American history, our presidents have changed the implications by the meaning of American exceptionalism. Originally coined to mean the United States has a unique position to create a better world, the term soon morphed into an excuse to force our beliefs onto other nations. In its purest form, American exceptionalism serves as an urging for the United States to go and help nations who ask for it, and it is our duty to respond. However, various administrations have morphed this message to imply that the United States is the pinnacle of “good”, and any nation who is not following our system is “evil”. This view leads to a dangerous international affairs, and the perception Americans have of the world.