Jefferson’s action demonstrated his ability to regulate foreign relations successfully in this circumstance. Although Jefferson successfully managed the Barbary pirates, the Embargo Act was not a success. The Embargo Act was passed in 1807 by congress, it led to the devastation of the economy. Jefferson did not act upon this law in which had caused chaos. When Congress replaced this act with the Non-intercourse Act, this led to a trade war in which provoked the War of 1812 during James Madison’s administration.
He very frequently talked to the people writing it and voiced his option on what he thought needed to happen. Also at first Jefferson did not support the Constitution, but over time and after a few changes he stated to support it. I feel that both men brought good points of view on how they thought that America should be ran. Although I believe in Hamilton points of views more than Jefferson’s I think that the people of America have done a good job on using both men’s point of views to make that best country
In the 1800’s Thomas Jefferson campaigned on the ethics of Republican belief of a weak central government, and to ensure these beliefs are kept one must rely on the principles of lower taxes, justice, and a lack of governmental restrictions. However, Thomas Jefferson failed to follow the very principles he promised to emanate as he created a government trading restriction known as the Embargo Acts, increased taxes due to the Louisiana Purchase, and followed John Adams ideology in the Alien and Sedition act and tried to have Samuel Chase removed from office on false charges. Thus, Thomas Jefferson failed to keep the philosophy of the Republican party and contradicted his campaign principles through the Embargo Acts, the Louisiana Purchase
But all of these things do not excuse the suffering he caused for America. His total attitude towards being president was if he didn 't like something, then it will not happen. Regardless of what others think. If I were to give Andrew Jackson a letter grade for his presidency, I would give him an F because of the spoils system, the trail of tears, and the corrupted national bank.
With statistics shown about how the number of electors each state gets isn 't even fair, and that smaller states really do get more of an advantage it leads me to really question why they even have this system. America is about freedom, the freedom to choose your leader, the freedom to vote for laws, and the freedom to vote for who is eligible to pass these laws. If we are promised all these freedoms why is it that there is a whole complicated system not everyone even knows about that actually proves the popular votes of the people do not decipher our president? I believe it should be banned from use due to the unfairness of the process as a
This could serious endanger the democratic nation as the President would become one similar to that of King George III whom the founding fathers sought to avoid when they draft the Constitution. However, this court case also proved that privileges granted to a certain person or groups are not absolute. The executive privilege granted to the President is not absolute and neither are any of the rights guaranteed in the constitution. No rights are absolute and thus, this court case had a negative impact on the society of the United States. Generally speaking, the court case, Nixon vs. United States
He agreed that it was not right of Jackson to initiate military action, but argued that the American people would be greatly upset by a court-martialing of Jackson, their hero. As President, Adams knew the importance of pleasing the people. In addition to this, Adams also argued that because Jackson’s actions had not caused any
Respectively, insofar as the act posed threat to the editors in overall, a Republican editor would have totally been against the act. As for John Adams, his position in respect to this article was a bit ambivalent. While at that period, “criticism of his foreign policy reached an all-time high”, this act was useful for the President since it allowed to avoid disapproval of his policies (Roark 282). However, from the other point of view, the act extended the power of the central government to a large extent.
Washington’s alarm and disapproval was so great that the events of Shay’s Rebellion convinced him to come out of retirement. Other elite figures saw Shay’s Rebellion in a similar light to Washington’s opinion. They saw it as a call for a stronger central government. Thomas Jefferson was one of the few elite figures who did not object to Shay’s Rebellion saying “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.” Overall, Washington and other elite figures did not support Shay’s Rebellion.
TR’s decision to run was somewhat of a surprise because he would be campaigning directly against the very man he had selected to succeed him, “He was fearful that the people would blame him for foisting William Howard Taft on them; but he was not the betrayer, rather he was, as he saw it, the betrayed” (Chace 383). Roosevelt could not stand by and watch all the hard work he had done as president slowly unravel, as Taft himself writes in a letter addressed to Roosevelt, “I do not know that I have had harder luck than other presidents but I do know that thus far I have succeeded far less than have others. I have been conscientiously trying to carry out your policies, but my method for doing so has not worked smoothly”. Unable to ignore what he considered a cry for help, TR campaigned to be the Republican candidate, but was unsuccessful despite popular support and defeating Taft in almost every state, including his home state(Gould) Determined to not accept defeat, a group of former Republicans unhappy with the outcome of the Republican convention in Chicago nominated Roosevelt for the recently assembled Progressive party.
With all presidents there comes the good and the bad, as for the bad George failed to deal with the many of the problems at home in the country instead focused mostly on the problems of other countries. This could have been because he was very familiar in dealing with foreign affairs causing him to ignore the domestic problems. An example of his failure to focus on America was he failed to create a new plan for the international environment and to place any responsibility on the United States. Even though he was able to decrease drug use in the middle class in the lower class drug use increased.
Yes, the authors feel he had no equal, at least in his time period, they feel this way mainly because of his differences from JFK. Schweikart and Allen prefer Lyndon’s expansive Great Society to Kennedy’s little attention to racial issues. Though, perhaps the authors believe LBJ focused too much on the Great Society, and not enough on his Campaign, among other things. In PHUS, Zinn believes the new civil rights laws did not help people of color as much as the president pretended to. Adding on to Schweikart and Allen’s information, Zinn includes key facts and statistics about the unemployment gap between races, reasons for uprisings, and civil rights laws passed.
In a “Vietnam Veterans against the war”, John Kerry’s comment on President Nixon not wanting to become, “the first President to lose a war,” illustrates just how insistent Nixon was on maintaining a superior Presidential image of power. Ironically, Nixon has one of the more, if not the most, tarnished Presidential image due to the Watergate scandal. Kerry’s speech drove the idea that the Veterans fighting in Vietnam did not believe that they were there to do good and did not feel that they were the “heroes” liberalizing the Vietnamese from the dangers of communism. As he notes, most people there did not understand the difference between communism and democracy. The freedom the Vietnamese sought was liberation from the helicopters, the bombs,
Along with the miracle of the revolutionary war, the founding of America was no-doubt led by divine assistance. After the revolutionary war, many people suggested that Washington should be king of this new country. But, Washington politely refused because of his public interest and unselfishness, knowing that monarchies often lead to corruption by those lacking in selflessness and integrity. To avoid this, he and many other people organized this revolutionary country with checks and balances to keep the radical in place but allow needful changes to be made.
Therefore, the argument that signing statements propel tyranny is flawed. Through signing statements, the modern presidents are respecting the founding father’s wishes for a safe country and a checked government. Furthermore, it is a difficult position for a president to be in when he has to veto a law. It has even been said that it is political suicide for a president. While it is horrible for a president, the law will typically not pass with the required amount of votes.