Thomas Jefferson, the Third President of the USA
Thomas Jefferson was one of the most significant Founding Fathers of the United States of America. A scholarly and a polymath, he was a conspicuous figure in Virginia legislative issues, an urgent supporter of freedom from Britain, essential creator of the Declaration of Independence, Francophile and minister to France, focal figure of one of the two significant ideological groups in American governmental issues (the Republicans, who pushed less government control, instead of the Federalists who favored a more grounded Federal Government), and the third President of the United States (and the principal chose in a truly focused political race).
During his Presidency, America acquired a gigantic measure of land from Napoleon that dramatically increased the land territory of the United States.
Jefferson composed the declaration of independence himself and confined the constitution alongside the other establishing fathers he was additionally a cultivated structure planner monticello known to be a splendid essayist negotiator and lawmaker. A large number of his letters are still accessible to day on the web and at the smithsonian you should take a read. He likewise adroitly purchased the louisiana/southeast us district from the French for a melody while president. Great bargain on the off chance that you ask me. how was he a dreamer presence of mind man. He put stock in opportunity from oppression and abuse. he put stock in a legislature by and for the individuals. This was another investigation on the planet around then i’d state you must be entirely optimistic to set out dream that caring for things in when pretty much every other nation had a ruler/sovereign and the chances were lonely stacked against your cloth label volunteer army armed force versus the best military power at the time great britain unexpectedly he was a slave proprietor. What’s more was even hitched not legitimately obviously.. in affection increasingly prefer to one specific slave young lady named sally. Records demonstrate he was benevolent to his slaves however they were still slaves nonetheless. This stains the historical backdrop of our country right up until the present time yet most would in any case think of him as probably the best american to ever live.
By composing the Declaration of Independence as flawlessly as he did, Jefferson lifted what could have been an insignificant quarrel about tax assessment onto the plane of a widespread presentation of what government should be about. In doing as such, he changed the whole importance of the American Revolution. He convinced James Madison to compose the Bill of Rights and to push for its entry. By obtaining the Louisiana Territory from Napoleon and quickly lining it up with the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Jefferson opened up the American West, guaranteeing it would be a piece of an equitable Union as opposed to an European state. Though the Federalist Party unequivocally felt that the poor ought not cast a ballot since they were generally ignorant, Jefferson supported that the arrangement was not to constrain the democratic establishment… yet in actuality, have all inclusive government funded training, so the vast majority would have the option to pursue and compose. Jefferson persuaded numerous individuals to this perspective. In receiving widespread state funded training, the USA got one of the primary nations to do as such, and this changed the entire idea of American culture so that (for some time in any case) the USA had more social versatility than practically wherever on the planet.
The Depiction of Hamilton Versus Jefferson Rivalry in Ellis’ Work
Ellis discusses the conflicts of the American Revolution and the history of the United States of America. I will just go by each chapter first because I feel that is easier. In chapter one Burr and Hamilton both shot at each other causing Hamilton to be fatally wounded. After Burr survived his political career did not. Burr and Hamilton were actually very similar. Same age, both military men and both of the revolutionary generations. Ellis makes out the argument between Burr and Hamilton to be political. Hamilton had made his political problems to be personal as well. The duel was actually illegal, so they had to call it an interview. Hamilton’s decision not to use the hair-trigger device on his pistol suggests that his participation in the duel was really just for show, and that he didn’t intend to harm Burr in any way. At the same time, the fact that both men went to such lengths to engage in an act that was actually illegal suggests they did take it seriously. After Burr had shot Hamilton he was filled with instant regret. Burr had even wanted to speak to Hamilton after shooting him which to be showed that t was unintentional and he did not want to shoot him in the first place.
In chapter two Jefferson wrote that he remembered Hamilton looking “dejected beyond comparison,” and that Hamilton told him that the financial plan he’d given to Congress in January was a blockage. Hamilton felt that he had to resign, and that the whole nation would surely collapse after. Jefferson offered to help by hosting a dinner party where key figures could hash out their views on the financial plan in private. This chapter also takes us back before Hamilton was shot. It would be about 15 years before. Jefferson’s account is the only one that is left of the dinner party today this makes it hard to come to conclusions about what had happened that night, yet it all seems to come together and make sense. Historians tend to agree that Jefferson’s version of the story is basically true, as Hamilton and Madison did indeed meet at Jefferson’s home in June 1790, and the agreements they supposedly made there were put into effect shortly after. Jefferson admitted to Washington that the deal had been “the greatest political mistake of his life.” The fact that Jefferson came to regret the bargain makes his account of the dinner party seem more believable, as it would be strange to make up a story that put himself in a bad situation. Ellis first tells the story: At a dinner held in 1790, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton set aside their political differences to come together on a plan to pay off the national debt and to locate the new capital in the South. Ellis then considers whether the story tells us more about Jefferson than about the compromise, which Ellis believes might have been arranged before the dinner ever took place. He recounts how he led the politicians to reach an agreement, by convincing Madison not to dissuade his party members from supporting the financial plan, even if he himself would not vote for it. In return, Hamilton agreed to use his influence to locate the new national capital on the Potomac River, a location that favored the Southern states which Madison represented. Ellis notes that Jefferson’s account of the dinner is the only extant one.
The third chapter discusses the the difficutly in slavery. Southern representatives were outraged that Franklin and Quaker tried to end the African slave trade. While southern representatives didn’t want it to end, Northern representatives wanted to broach the issue. Madison believed that if you did not think about the situation then it when soon go away. However, the next day the Pennsylvania Abolition Society sent yet another petition to Congress, this time advocating abolition. The petition argued that slavery violated the values of the American Revolution and challenged the constitutional ban on restricting the slave trade. With Franklin’s support on tThe House of Representatives, under James Madison’s tactical leadership, quickly formed committees to debate their next course of action. This move quickly inspired a breakdown of decorum in the House, where representatives openly and passionately confronted the question and each other.he petition Madison was wrong, it would not go away by ignoring it.
Chapter four discusses how Ellis discusses George Washington’s retirement from the presidency, suggesting it was not a sign of failure but of strength and foresight. Washington knew how powerful his influence was, and believed that by setting a two-term precedent for Presidency, he would ensure the strength of the country. Ellis also considers how his hatred of press criticism and his failing health fed the decision. The chapter ends with a discussion of the major points in Washington’s Farewell Address. Ellis’ description of the Founding Fathers as god-like does not mean that these men were superhuman or without flaws. Rather, it discusses the reputation that they enjoy in contemporary times was also present in their own lifetimes. In the midst of all the chaos of the Revolutionary era, people trusted figures such as Washington as sources of strength and hope. It was not long before Washington’s Farewell Address became legendary, but when it was first published, most people focused on the fact that it simply meant the American people were “now on their own.”
Ellis turns his attention in the final two chapters to the relationship between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. After having forged a friendship during the Revolution, the two men were separated by political differences, even during Adams’s term as the country’s second President, in which Jefferson served as Vice President. Adams’s presidency was ruined by a variety of issues, but his most grievous resentment was reserved for Jefferson, who unfairly criticized him for the sake of political gain. Jefferson won the office in 1800, largely through the success of these attacks, and despite the fact that Adams’s final decisions in office have been proven wise by history. Adams and Jefferson were opposites. Adams was a short, truthful, healthy New Englander who was always talking and loved to argue; Jefferson was tall, elegant, mysterious, and disliked disagreement. Yet despite these differences, the Revolution had made them a unit. They complimented one another not only through physicality but also through personality. Adams was combative, often allowing his emotions to dictate his reactions. Jefferson always remained coolly detached. “They were the odd couple of the American Revolution,” which is precisely why they worked so well together.
In the final chapter which is also chapter six Ellis examines the renewed friendship between Adams and Jefferson, which persisted through correspondence until their deaths. After Jefferson won the presidency, neither man wrote to the other for well over a decade.They clearly had an on again off again friendship. After time passed, they resumed a friendship, in which they discussed their views of the Revolutionary period, current events, and the country’s future. Ellis details their exchange, noting that both former Presidents were writing both to one another and to posterity. Their long friendship ended on July 4, 1826, the nation’s 50th Independence Day, and the day on which they both died.
Ellis reminds the reader that though Americans take the fact of their independence for granted, their forefathers were not so certain of revolutionary success. Had certain circumstances favored the British in the war, these forefathers might as easily have been hung for treason as celebrated for victory. Yet these men acted as though there was an air of providence and predestination, and a fortunate combination of luck served to shape the foundation of the United States. No other colony at that time in history had ever successfully won its independence to form a lasting republic. In fact, the United States remains the oldest surviving republic in history. The Revolution built institutions and codithe language and ideas that still define Americans’ image of themselves. However, revolutionaries justified their new nation with new ideas that changed the course of history and sparked a global “age of revolution.” But the Revolution was as odd as it was unpredictable. A revolution fought in the name of liberty allowed slavery to persist. Resistance to centralized authority tied disparate colonies together under new governments. The revolution created politicians eager to foster republican selflessness and protect the public good but also encouraged individual self-interest and personal gain. The “founding fathers” instigated and fought a revolution to secure independence from Britain, but they did not fight that revolution to create a “democracy.” To successfully rebel against Britain, however, required more than a few dozen “founding fathers.”
Ellis cites the two ‘founding moments’ in U.S. History as the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the signing of the Constitution in 1787. To centralize a government was to counteract the Revolutionary principles. The colonists had fought to break from a distant, dislocated control, and a government in New York City would have seemed totally alien to a Southern colony, another form of monarchy. The basic question of a central Constitution broke the nation into factions that threatened to cede the progress of the Revolution. The Articles of Confederation were acts of extreme collaboration between all political factions. While leaders like Washington and Hamilton feared the strength of the states and the public, others like Jefferson feared the limit of individual liberties at the hands of government.
The Founding Brothers made me view our government and presidents in a new perspective. It also made me feel a lot of drama between them. It shows the challenges that our founding Fathers faced creating America after the revolution. At first it was slow and I couldn’t really get an understanding of the book but as time went on it was becoming easier and more understanding. When all was said and done the book uncovered the side of history not told in our history books. A major theme for this book would be posterty and in terms of what these men hoped would say about them and their creations.
Hamilton’s Federalist Versus Jefferson’s Anti-federalist Approach
Ham: Hamilton believed that a solid union would be the greatest to peace, and liberty to the states. Jeff: Jefferson believed that if the whole country was ran by one government or union, it will cause a large scale of corruption to the country. Ham: Hamilton was very influenced by George Washington. He believes that if he repeats and picks up after Washington’s legacy, it would help influence the future shape of America. Hamilton also believes that standing armies are too dangerous for liberty because he wouldn’t feel free within society oppressive restrictions imposed by authorities. Hamilton bassically goes on to say that Jefferson lives in a world of his own imagination and scolds him because of his perspectives and viewpoints.
Jeff: Jefferson believed that having an army is a necessity. Jefferson is also a christian man unlike Hamilton, Jefferson believed that people should follow a system of beliefs and shouldn’t break the bonds in the system constructed. He also admired George Washington and knew that he was great when he was angry. Jefferson believed that Hamilton favored British alliances.
- Powers granted under constitution
- Seperation of power into 3 equal branches
- Checks and balances
- The Constitution granted too much power to the federal courts at the expense of state and local court.
- Wanted guaranteed protection for certain basic liberties such as freedom of speech and trial by jury.
- Federal government would be too far removed to represent the average citizen.
A sanctuary city is a place that has decided to keep local resources to solve local problems. Ham: I would say that Hamilton would be okay with sanctuary cities. He’s somebody who believes in a strong federal government and when it comes to a situation where you’d deal with sanctuary cities, he wouldn’t want to limit their cooperation with the national government’s to divide the nation. Jeff: I would say that Jefferson would not be in favor of sanctuary cities because he believes in strong state governments. Governors in many cities may have their own laws on this issue. He wants the states to control their own policies. Some states may have rules against immigration.
My opinion on this issue is that if an illegal immigrant sees a crime, they will not contact authorities because they’re in fear of being deported. For instance, someone’s sibling may be in danger but the immigrant has an option to help, but must turn away because of the consequences but In a sanctuary city, the immigrant may call the police and not have to worry about being deported or taken away.
Tone and Diction of Banneker’s Letter to Jefferson
Banneker’s use of formal tone and succinct diction delivers to Jefferson the urgency of ending slavery. He demonstrates the lack of equality and hypocrisy as Jefferson claims “all men created equal” while treating human beings as possessions that could be bought and sold; and doing that exactly. He strengthens his point by using negative diction and challenges Jefferson’s Christian values to successfully express that slavery should be ended.
Benjamin Banneker utilizes personification to start off his letter by referencing their ruler, Britain, and requesting Jefferson to recall the moment when “the arms and tyranny of the British Crown were exerted with every powerful effort in order to reduce you to a State of Servitude.” This use of personification was used to prioritize and compare the correspondence of past slavery to present-day slavery and how Jefferson once carried an anti-slavery attitude. Banneker utilizes negative diction such as “horrors of it’s conditions” to intrigue Jefferson’s emotions in order to remind him that he does in fact know the persecution and horrors of slavery. Banneker uses the Declaration of Independence as evidence to attack Jefferson with his own past claims and views: ”We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…”, exposing his hypocrisy and that he indeed was against slavery, but however now chooses to ignore this when it’s his own country. Banneker highlights that Jefferson’s words are meaningless, and that he went from being a former anti-slavery supporter, to now “guilty of that most criminal act which you professedly detested in others.” Banneker displays slavery as such a dreadful doing by using negative diction to describe it as “cruel oppression” and “groaning captivity.”
Banneker challenges Jefferson’s Christian values to successfully express that slavery should be abolished. He uses the Bible to express the correspondence between persecuted men in the Bible and persecuted slaves. Banneker attacks Jefferson’s religious views and beliefs to try and make him feel guilty for tolerating slavery and bringing to his attention that he isn’t following Christian beliefs. Banneker says to Jefferson that, ‘You were so fully convinced of the benevolence of the father of mankind and of his equal and impartial distribution of those rights and privileges.” This effectively reminds Jefferson that he is going against God’s will. Additionally, Banneker addresses Jefferson as “sir” and “you” in order to mock him and blame him for his actions.
Throughout this letter, Banneker uses strong and emotional diction, as well as Jefferson’s Christian beliefs and his own past claims against him to prioritize the importance of the abolition of slavery. He utilizes negative diction in order to guilt and remind Jefferson how horrific slavery is and that he is tolerating it.
The Political Designs of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson
There are two different political designs in the initial stage of constructing the United States: federalism and democratic republicanism. Hamilton is a proponent of federalism who have deep non confidence with the citizen while Jefferson advocates democratic-republican party with strong confidence in the crowds. It is proposed that the idea of Jefferson is better for the development of the United States than Hamiltonism on the following three aspects: attitudes toward the common people, the proposals for state rights, and the views about the bank. First of all, Jefferson’s idea, characterized by the appreciation of the people, is conducive to preserving freedom and democracy of the country. According to Jefferson, community members can fall into those who distrust the masses and those who are confident in the common people. All men are created equal and free without being governed by the rich who are well-born. If the government is only controlled by the rulers rather than supervised by the public, freedom and democracy are likely to be destroyed by the dictatorship and autocracy.
On the contrary, people with proper knowledge can be relied on to manage their own country because they value their hard-won freedom and democracy. It is said that people can be turbulent and imprudent so that they can make unreasonable judgments or decisions. Nevertheless, they will uphold freedom and safeguard public interests when they are properly informed. Moreover, Jefferson’s fighting for state rights at the expense of the powerful central government will help to avoid massive corruption and unnecessary waste. If the powers are highly centralized in the hands of the federal government, the public interests can be easily neglected or even infringed by the oppressive regime.
Apart from that, the country will be threatened by massive corruption since the United States is too large to be governed by a single government. Some leaders may avail themselves of the full use of power to seek personal gains due to lack of efficient restrictions or supervision. Besides, the vast country cannot be well managed with a single government and every state should be given considerable autonomy to deal with its internal affairs. The states know how to cope with all the details and thus they will try their best to reduce waste and eliminate corruption. When the country is faced with external threats or dangers, they will also unite to fight together. However, the national government can be greatly influenced by the states at the expense of efficiency and safety. If they are properly restricted in support of the national government, such drawbacks can be eliminated. Finally, Jefferson’s view about the bank can be a quintessential example for the preservation of the state powers or the upholding of the Constitution. He argues that a bank is not necessary to the state and thus it is not authorized by the Constitution in reference to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
A bank is established for the convenience of collecting taxes although all the country can operate well without the existence of such a bank. In other words, the Bank of the United States is not necessary for the performance of all the laws and systems. If such unnecessary organs are constructed, the powers that are delegated to the states can be gradually engulfed. Certainly, the construction of a bank can serve to a good end for managing the property of the United States. But it should not be a good reason to breach against the Constitution. In conclusion, Jefferson’s political idea of democratic-republican is much better than Hamilton’s federalism. Democratic-republican is more sound for America because it attaches the importance to the general public, the state rights as well as the Constitution.
Disapproval of Slavery in Banneker’s Letter to Jefferson
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply do not seem consistent with slavery. How could people be so passionate about the unalienable rights, and yet maintain the brutal practice of human bondage? Somehow slavery would manage to survive the revolutionary era, and the same people who stood against it would support it. Benjamin Banneker takes a huge step in writing Thomas Jefferson about his disapproval of slavery. Banneker wanted Jefferson to see the horrendous situation of the slaves in the U.S. This was an effort by Banneker to persuade Jefferson in seeing the injustice of slavery. Banneker’s purpose is to convey his negative feeling about the issue of slavery. He adopts a respected yet critical tone in order to get his point across politely in his letter to Thomas Jefferson.
Banneker starts off the letter by reminding Jefferson the tyranny of the British. Banneker wants to recall the time when the “Tyranny of the British crown?” (Banneker) tried to push down Thomas Jefferson “to a state of Servitude” (Banneker). Banneker takes Jefferson to a time where he was also treated like a lesser being. Banneker uses personification, and it is so powerful that Jefferson can connect the situation of a slave to his life when the British oppressed them down to nothing. It forces Jefferson to think about the hardships of the slaves. Freedom is something very important to man. No matter what race you are, what gender you are, you always want it. When Jefferson was under the control of the British where he did not have any freedom, and like any man would do, he fought for his freedom. That is exactly what now the slaves are trying to do. Banneker allows Jefferson to compare his own life with a slave, and how similar they can be. Banneker also follows up with parallelism, Where he uses contrasting sentences to indicate the freedom which Jefferson has, which he is denying from the slaves. Banneker says to Jefferson to look at a time “in which every human aid appeared unavailable” (Banneker), and then contrasts this dark times by saying that “you cannot but acknowledge that the present freedom” (Banneker), which Jefferson enjoys is a “blessing from heaven” (Banneker).
Banneker wants Jefferson to see all the hardships he went through before getting his freedom, and by this Jefferson will surely know the value of freedom. Banneker intends to indicate to Jefferson that how does someone who knows the value of freedom, Deny other from getting it. The slaves are in the same place Jefferson was before he got his freedom. They are also fighting for their freedom Just like Jefferson did. Banneker wants Jefferson to acknowledge this and allow them to have their freedom. Banneker utilizes an array of emotional diction to argue about the sufferings of the slaves. Banneker is angry about the many his “Brethren under Groaning captivity and cruel oppression” (Banneker). Banneker uses all this word like “groaning captivity”, “cruel oppression”, as also speaking of the “Injustice” in all this. Banneker specifically chose these words to indicate the conditions of slavery, and the dreadful life they lived. Banneker mainly uses the word “Brethren” to show how they are related to him personally. This makes the slaves look like actual people with feelings rather than properties to be sold. He depicts slaves as real human beings, which Jefferson may have failed to realize. Banneker strongly indicates what Jefferson actions are doing to real people, and install some much-needed guilt in Jefferson as well as calling for change.
“The situation of my brethren is too extensive to need a recital here”. (Banneker). Banneker again uses “Brethren” to show his personal connection with the slaves. Banneker uses the word “Extensive” to show the extent to which the slavery has reached. It has kept growing and never has really stopped growing. And everyone really knows what the situation is here. There is no need for explanation. But why is know one still taking any action. This is what Banneker wanted to ask Jefferson. This institution has been around for too long be kept unnoticed. Someone needs to step up and take action. And Banneker wants Jefferson to step up because he already knows the difficulty the slaves have been through my past experiences.
Banneker uses many religious appeals to go against Jefferson’s slavery stance. He says that even though Jefferson is “Fully convinced of the benevolence of the father” (Banneker) of mankind, he still ”counteract his mercies” by allowing slavery to continue. This appeal serves two purposes. One is to indicate the connection between Banneker and Jefferson as they follow the same religion and worship the same god. This is to show their mutual standing on this topic. But then, Banneker chooses to strike at Jefferson under the name of God so he seems polite, but critical at the same time. This type of criticism has much more value as he is not trying to communicate as a son of a former slave, but as a fellow religious follower pointing out Jefferson’s wrongdoing. Bankers also ask Jefferson to “Put your souls in their souls stead” (Banneker) so Jefferson can know how the slaves feel, and make his “heart enlarged with Kindness” (Banneker). Jefferson is a high-class white male citizen, and there is very little chance Jefferson knows what it means to be a slave. He might not know the suffering the slaves go through when they are separated from their family, and made to do all these harsh work. Banneker wants Jefferson to at least once think about how the slaves feel, so he can understand their hardships. Banneker uses this quote from the Bible because it has more credibility than something Banneker might say because it is the word of God.
The Edified Election of Eighteen-hundred (adams Vs. Jefferson)
The upcoming United States presidential election seems to make headlines of every news station because of the constant drama, name-calling, and blaming. It is as though everything is “breaking news”. Tensions rise, parties split, and it makes a great news story. Elections can cause a nation a great deal of stress. Twenty-first century elections are not the only to possess this style, however. Today’s generations can certainly learn from the Presidential election of 1800; famous or infamous, history provides succeeding generations with valuable information of which they can learn from. By examining the conflicts and the resolutions of the rivalry between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the answer to pacify current presidential elections could seem much clearer. The Democratic-Republicans, led by Jefferson, and the Federalists, led by Adams, tousled in a similar fashion that Democrats and Republicans do today. The media had a strong influence on American thought- precisely what happens today. Again, like present-day, political party labels created a national schism. Both Thomas Jefferson, a Virginia Democratic-Republican, and John Adams, a Massachusettes Federalist, worked together to create the United States and declare independence from the British Empire. However, the two did not unite after freedom rang across the new nation they created. Before one can compare such elections, one must understand the circumstances of both candidates in 1800, and the condition of the country they attempted to administer.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the two final candidates for the election, had been co-workers in the Continental Congress. Both were assigned the demanding, but honorable, task to write the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps their extreme intelligence and ideological differences made them perfect to write a paper for an extremely diverse nation. It is difficult to understand why the two founding fathers later disliked each other. It must be noted, however, this was more than twenty years before the election of 1800. Although both colonial politicians, Jefferson and Adams came from very different backgrounds.
Similarly to most Virginians at the time, Thomas Jefferson was very loyal to his Virginia heritage and the responsibilities with it. He believed in using the land in every possible industrial, agricultural, and economically efficient way. In the late eighteenth century, this implied the practice of slavery. Thomas Jefferson was a polite, gentle, and reliable introvert. Even though a well-renowned politician, Jefferson did not enjoy public events. After a public assembly, Jefferson only hoped that he would not make the newspapers. Although this sounds paradoxical, the newspapers in the late seventeen-hundreds were very malicious, and Jefferson did not want the misleading newspapers to distribute hateful articles about his campaign. Democratic-Republicans believed in what moderners accept as true American principles: democratic elections, freedom of speech, and religious tolerance. These were all values that Thomas Jefferson fought for more so than John Adams. Although the shy Virginian possessed these ideologies, Jeffry Pasley argues that northern Democratic-Republicans were actually closer to the modern-America view. When talking about northern Democratic-Republicans, Pasley states that, “The Democratic-Republicans embraced Thomas Paine and William Godwin along with Jefferson and looked forward to rapid social progress… They denounced human slavery in all forms and promoted such causes as separation of church and state, public education, abolition of imprisonment for debt, and legal reform.” Jefferson’s great qualities are, however, usually overshadowed by the fact that he owned slaves. Democratic-Republicans in the North are viewed as closer to modern America, simply becuase they denounced slavery. As a Northern Federalist, John Adams was also against slavery.
Before the election, Jefferson was John Adams’ vice president. Although their political ideas differed dramatically, the Constitution ordered that second-place Jefferson must be Adams’ vice president. When the Constitution was signed, political leaders did not anticipate political parties would develop in the United States and create such different opinions between first and second place candidates. Some Federalists even tried giving a large enough vote to Adams to win, and for another Federalist to get second, but at the same time, lessening Adams’ chances of winning. This meant making Adams’ winning margin smaller and the likelihood of a Federalist vice-president bigger. John Admas had much different ideas than Jefferson, and those same ideas allowed John Adams to succeed George Washington as the second president of the United States.
John Admas was much more of an extrovert than Jefferson. He made multiple political enemies due to his excessive persistence and bad temper. He also possessed a large ego, believing that his work on the Declaration of Independence was equal, if not more, important than Jefferson’s. Adams claimed he worked more than any member of the Continental Congress. He complained that Jefferson did not talk enough. Adams had a much greater voice than Jefferson, but did not always use it kindly. Adams did not believe in total freedom of speech, as many Republican journalists were put in prison during his presidency. Adams was more tolerant of Great Britain, restricted freedom of speech, and supported a strong central government. Adams and Jefferson possessed different ideologies, but also personalities. With such contrasting candidates, a close election would only be possible if the newly independent United States was divided drastically, and it was.
Less than thirty years after the United States became an independent country, political parties created a divide that never quite cooled until after the Civil War. In the anteceding years of the election of 1800, the previously-mentioned differences in political thought created an unwanted division. Most Federalists resided in New England, and most Democratic-Republicans occupied the South. The hostility between these two political parties can be expertely described in a Joane Freeman article, as she writes, “…National politics in the 1790s was like a war without uniforms…” However, many believe this schism actually contributed to the Civil War, the bloodiest war in United States history. The election of 1800 occurred during a time of hatred politics. Media, propaganda, naivety, and only two major parties contributed to many unethical behaviors by both Democratic-Republicans and Federalists.
America’s founding fathers ridiculed political parties. They did not want to align with certain guidelines that their political party might represent. They wanted to be recognized as simply “Jefferson”, or “Adams”, not as a label of a political party. The two-party system is troublesome for any nation, especially when that nation has only been independent for twenty-four years. The two political parties would dominate and divide a nation. The founding fathers knew this, however, and that is why they despised it. They believed that a two-party system would destroy the Union by elimination opportunity for abstract thought, increasing hate toward a single party, and potentially misinforming United States citizens about a particular candidate. No previous republic had ever peacefully transitioned to a different political party and remained a republic. Comparable to today, Republicans and Democrats account for the large majority of political alliance. Also like today, the media had a considerable influence on elections, and ultimately, only widened the political gap created by the establishment of political parties.
Similar to today, the media treated political opposition unfairly. Today, some Americans wrongly categorized the media as something new and modern; someone speaking in front of a camera. In fact, in 1800, the media may have had more impact than today, only in the form of newspaper. Democratic-Republicans sometimes referred to Federalists as “Monarchists”, and Federalists occasionally called the Democratic-Republicans, “Jacobins”- a radical political group responsible for the French Revolution. Of course, the media did the same, miscatorgarizing political leaders with overexagerated comparisons. In theory, media is provide information that helps citizens better understand a certain circumstance. Yet, when the media focuses on name-calling and bias, it actually confuses and misinforms its listeners. With the malicious media, naive name-calling, and needless division, the election of 1800 was building-up to be a close, hostile, and revolutionary contest.
Although the influences of both the election of 1800 and recent elections are alike, the format was certainly different. In the late 1790s, congressmen had more freedom and likelihood of making change, especially to the electoral college. In the late eighteenth century, states had more power than today, and the country’s youthood made it vulnerable to change. As a result, states felt less companionship toward their fellow states. If all states elected by popular vote, Jefferson would have been the clear winner. At the time, however, some states favored popular-vote systems, and some did not. Federalist-controlled states would try everything in their power to limit popular vote. Federalists tried to limit popular vote, and manipulate the upcoming election in their favor.
Though, the Democratic-Republicans did have a remedy to Federalist efforts: The Three-Fifths Compromise. Every state had a number of delegates to represent how many people were in their state. The delegates are then added-up from each state to make the electoral college, which then decides the president. In this process, a popular vote does not always win. The Three-Fifths Compromise, passed in 1787, allowed slaves to count as three-fifths of a person. This then made southern states more valuable in the electoral college. How then, was the election so close; why did Jefferson not win by a great deal?
Even though popular and well-liked among Democratic-Republicans, Thomas Jefferson was not always the clear candidate. Jefferson not only had to compete against John Adams, he would also have to settle with close competition from a fellow Democratic-Republican. Aaron Burr, a New York Democratic-Republican, also ran for president in 1800. Although New York is a northeastern state, it was one of the very few swing states in 1800, allowing Burr to get crucial New York votes. Not only would the United States divide over the election of Jefferson and Adams, but the Democratic-Rebublicans created their own internal division. When time came for Democratic-Republicans to choose their final candidate, a constitutional, communicational, and political catastrophe occurred: Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied.
The Democratic-Republican tie is one of many reasons the election of 1800 is so interesting. As mentioned before, the fresh, slightly naive United States of America was undoubtedly going to have some unforeseen obstacles. In the event of a tie, the House of Representatives decides the winner. Although, it was probably one man in particular that chose, albeit unwillingly, who represented the Democratic-Republicans as president. Alexander Hamilton, perhaps one of the most popular Federalists in 1800, had the power and trust of his fellow Federalists to persuade the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives to pick Jefferson over Burr as the opposing party’s candidate, and ultimately, the president. Even though not given an official title, Hamilton took responsibility to make sure that Burr had no chance of being president. The two New Yorkers, Hamilton a Federalist and Burr a Democratic-Republican, despised each other and their policies. Before the House’s decision, Hamilton talked of Aaron Burr as, “… the most unfit man in the U.S. for the office of president. Hamilton described Burr as bankrupt, selfish, dishonest, and eager for war. When writing about Burr’s possible nomination, Hamilton wrote, “Disgrace abroad, ruin at home are the probable fruits of his elevation.” Hamilton spent the following days persuading to his fellow Federalist House members to vote for Jefferson. After four days and thirty-three ballots, the final nomination had ceased; James Bayard of Delaware changed his vote from Burr to Jefferson. Now that Jefferson defeated Aaron Burr and John Adams, Jefferson would become the third president of the United States.
Jefferson won the presidential election in such a peculiar fashion that it may seem difficult to imagine a similar election today. Although, by comparing recent elections, which are actually similar in many ways, with the election of 1800, it can be proven that American elections have not changed very little. Political parties have supplied much of that consistency throughout American history. Instead of Federalists and Democratic-Republicans dominating political popularity, today places Democrats and Republicans in their respective positions. The manors of etiquette have not changed dramatically either. It is commonly believed that recent presidential elections, especially that of 2016, have been more hostile than ever. Actually, they are quite lax compared to the bitterness experienced in 1800. For example, Thomas Jefferson was trying to run against the president of which he was vice-president for, Aaron Burr later shot Alexander Hamilton in a duel, and John Adams purposefully created many Federalists-favored implications in the Amerian political system, like appointing multiple Federalist supreme court members, just days before he had to give-up his office to a Democratic-Republican. As Robert Novak, author of Our Founding Partisans, put it, “I am frequently asked, by mail and on the lecture circuit, how it is that our country has fallen so low in recent years from the heights of our noble past into a dismal swamp of bitter partisanship. I reply that bitter partisanship is very much in the American tradition, and that perhaps today’s politicians are more courteous than their predecessors.” The media, which has been a catalyst for bitter partisanship throughout American history, had a great influence on the outlook of the election of 1800.
Similarly to today, political media can cause great affliction among voters, making an election more hostile, embarrassing, and infamous. John Adams would have seemed a threat to some media organizations, since Adams limited free speech. Political propaganda helped Jefferson more because people had already seen what John Adams was capable, or incapable, to accomplish in office. As with any second-term election, propaganda will most likely assist the candidate who is not in office. The media swarms around a topic that attracts people’s attention, which usually strays from important political topics. In the eyes of the media, Jefferson was timid, loose with money, and a hypocrite of freedom because he owned slaves. The media portrayed Adams as a self-centered, strict-ruling, monarchists. During the campaigning years of the election, Adams and Jefferson disliked each other. Though, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were great men with ideas that were able to transform a country. The media added insult to injury on an already tense situation. The media is very much responsible for making the election of 1800 unfortunately infamous. Ultimately, the election of 1800’s infamacy helped, as much as it hurt, the United States of America.
With the demoralizing election over, Jefferson and vice-president Burr, would prove many of their nonbelievers wrong. With a divided nation on Jefferson’s doorstep, he reassured America’s westward goals in his inaugural speech:
A rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye; when I contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honour, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue and the auspices of this day, I shrink from the contemplation & humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking.
Jefferson had an extremely successful time as president, and is regarded as one of America’s finest leaders. The rigorous path to become president hardened the already seasoned politician. Jefferson was in a distinctly unique position; he would lead a country that had just completely, and peacefully, swapped political values. In 1800, this was revolutionary. America had plenty to look forward to, whether that was land westward or governmental glory.
During the election of 1800, many of America’s true values formed, and many flirted with disaster. After all the name-calling, political manipulation, clashing ideologies, constitutional mishaps, exaggerated newspaper headlines, political propaganda, and riveting rivalries, Jefferson’s Republicanism stayed true and lead America into a prosperous future. After understanding the election of 1800, recent elections may not seem to stand-out as much as many once thought. In fact, current presidential elections would seem rather tranquil when compared to what happened during the beginning of the nineteenth century. Political parties still exist, and the United States may never be completely “united”. Yet, if it was, how would America hope to get the determination and fight out of every candidate, like Adams, Burr, and Jefferson did in 1800.
- Davenport, William L. Faithful Are the Wounds of a Friend. American Bar Association Journal 64 no. 2 (1978): 227. EBSCOhost. ISSN: 0002-7596.
- Freeman, Joanne B. The Election of 1800: A Study in the Logic of Political Change. Yale Law Journal 108, no. 8 (1999): 1959-1997. EBSCOhost. doi:10.2307/797378.
- Hamilton, Alexander. In a Choice of Evils … Jefferson Is in Every View Less Dangerous than Burr: Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis on the
- Deadlocked Presidential Election of 1800. OAH Magazine of History. October 2004.
- Jefferson, Thomas. First Inaugural Address. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton University. 2006.
- King-Owen, Scott. To Write Down the Republican Administration: William Boylan and the Federalist Party in North Carolina, 1800-1805. North Carolina Historical Review 89 no. 2 (2012): 155–83. EBSCOhost. ISSN: 0029-2494.
- McGlone, Robert E. Deciphering Memory: John Adams and the Authorship of the Declaration of Independence. Journal of American History 85 no. 2 (1998): 411. EBSCOhost. doi:10.2307/2567746.
- Murphy, Brian P. A Very Convenient Instrument: The Manhattan Company, Aaron Burr, and the Election of 1800. William & Mary Quarterly 65, no. 2 (April 2008): 233–66. doi:10.2307/25096785.
- Nicholls, Michael L. Holy Insurrection: Spinning the News of Gabriel’s Conspiracy. Journal of Southern History 78, no. 1 (2012): 39. EBSCOhost. ISSN: 0022-4642.
- Novak, Robert D. Our Founding Partisans. American Spectator 41 no. 7 (2008): 42. EBSCOhost. ISSN: 0148-8414.
- Pasley, Jeffrey L. Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800. Journal of Southern History 72 no. 4 (2006): 872. EBSCOhost. doi:10.2307/27649235.
Alexander Hamilton Vs Thomas Jefferson
When dusts settled from the famous Revolutionary War, the new victorious nation need a government that can runt eh country well, better than King George could of. In that, two individuals rose with great political ideas that they didn’t know would leave such a mark on America. Those two historical figures were none other Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Both have their own forms of government and disliked the other’s perspective of said government. As an orphan at a young age, Alex’s town was hit by a hurricane. When he was given a quill and paper, he wrote about that hurricane that raged through his town. Impressed with his work, officials in New York sent for him. While being in the great city during the war, he impressed the famous General George Washington.
Washington hired Hamilton as his right hand man. Alex made his way through the ranks of New York with charm and money. He was married to the wealthy daughter of Philip Schuyler, Elizabeth Schuyler. As for Thomas, he grew up in Virginia and had many talents such as riding, hunting, singing and dancing, He would carry a violin with him to many places. When he inherited his father’s land, he settled as a tobacco planter. He then went into politics.
One of the disagreements these two had were on ideal economy. Jefferson, growing up in Virginia, wanted the economy to based on agriculture, since it helped the South be so rich. Hamilton on the other hand disagrees with that, and I sort of agree with him as well. Over some of the seasons, such as winter, the crops might have a hard time growing, if not die, and if they don’t have anything else that would back up the economy – then that would cripple the economy. Alexander Hamilton wanted manufacturing to be the ideal economy. Which makes sense, and is one of the good ideas Hamilton has had.
They also had different views of human nature. While Jefferson believes in power to people, Hamilton states that all human beings are selfish beings. Jefferson says people who work in the fields or the those chosen by god are fit to run the country. While I don’t necessarily agree nor disagree with him, even of the best of people can give in to power and greed. Though I don’t agree or disagree with Hamilton either. He ways the wealthy, educated, or otherwise known as the best people, are fit to run the country. I believe that they should be educated at least, but not all wealthy people can make good decisions, and just like the statement with Jefferson, some people can become to greedy.
Their thoughts on how the government should be is very different as well. Hamilton believes that the government should be loose. He doesn’t want a system that gives too much power to the people. Jefferson though, he wants a small strict government, which gives people more freedom. I have no opinions about those twos.
Both very different people had a huge effect on our nation. They had different views on how our nation should be run, but the thing they have in common in is that they want the best for their country. In the end, Jefferson was favored more for ideas on running the nation than Alexander, but they both had good points. My thoughts on these two is that they should chill and be more friendly to each other.
Thomas Jefferson as the Greatest Teacher and Source of Inspiration Essay
History is the greatest teacher and source of inspiration. Our country, the United States of America, is home to the greatest legendary heroes and scholars who have forged the shape of the today’s world. Former President, J. F. Kennedy, when he “welcomed Nobel Prize winners into the White House in 1962, he out rightly admitted that he was obliged to share the room with the world’s greatest sources of knowledge with the exception of one, Thomas Jefferson”.
Thomas Jefferson was a former President, Politician, Architect, archeologist, paleontologist, musician, inventor, revolutionist and scholar. If I were given the humble chance to travel back in time and get a chance to interview Thomas Jefferson I would ask him the following questions:
- What is your own opinion what do you have to say about banking establishments and the role they play in their environment?
- As a politician and the president of United States of America, which has just gained independence which elements do you intend to enshrine in the domestic policy?
- Following the hot debate and conflicts involving the thorny issue of slave trade, do you consider yourself as a crusader for or against slave trade?
- As The United States of America tries to establish itself as a giant nation in the world what are the various foreign policies you are putting in place to govern the relationship between The United States of America and other countries?
- What is your take on the majority rule and what way should the minorities take to redress any wrongs done on them?
- What are your take on education and its importance on the advancement of United States into one of the strongest countries in the world?
In 1816, Jefferson noted “banking establishments were more dangerous than standing armies and therefore if necessary that such institutions be properly controlled.” Thomas Jefferson was against most banking institutions and their famous discounting techniques which allowed people to spend money which they have not earned at the price of jargons called interest rates.
He thought that banks and their aggressive search for money would swindle the children of America who would wake up homeless one day in the land that belonged to their fore fathers. For instance, from his personal experience, he got into a lot of debt and hard to mortgage his property and slaves.
He believed that such institutions would be used by hereditary aristocrats to further their ambitions at the expense of the citizens. Although Thomas Jefferson tried to lobby policy makers to accept his line of reasoning but they refused only to regret later in 1812 when a financial chaos was formed as a result of war.
He would in turn be very categorical and blame the current financial institutions such as the Wall Street and credit card institutions which have handed massive debt to the citizens of America. It is this debt and their discounting techniques which have ended up leaving Americans with no cash money in their pockets leading to shortage of funds and unemployment.
This is because he thought that banks snatched wealth/power from the people and concentrated the wealth/power between a few people. Therefore he would consequently blame the current financial downfall on the banking and financial system.
Jefferson’s domestic policy was aimed at liberty and freedom. He believed that America should not enter into any association with any country that hindered the rights and liberty of the American people. He believed in republicanism and American exceptionalism. The term republicanism argued that the country and nation belonged to its citizens.
No man and woman should therefore have his/her rights violated since they are enshrined in the declaration of independence. Having championed for the release of slaves with no success, and was the first president who came up with a formal Indian removal plan that was considered humane.
In a letter to one of his friends Samuel Ker cheval, Thomas Jefferson insisted that the foundation of the republican governance was to secure equal rights for all American citizens are it in person or property. Arguably, Thomas Jefferson was a defender of civil liberties.
He further went a step to oppose the principles of hereditary aristocracy that would go ahead to form a big gap between the rich and poor. IT is these same hereditary arrangements that would aggrandize opportunities for a given sect of people and kill the spirit upon which the country was founded on.
As far as the issue of human rights and slavery is concerned, Thomas Jefferson would advocate for human right s and ensure that all human beings should enjoy the liberty and freedom of the land. Thomas Jefferson did not advocate for slave trade he in fact educated and trained all his slaves with exemplary educational and literary skills.
Although Thomas Jefferson had many plantations of slaves he often admitted that slavery was a shame and many a times tried do fight the institution of slave trade. In fact in 1907 he went ahead to sign a bill banning importation of slaves into the United States of America. In his notes on the state of Virginia he attacked slavery and thought that it was duty of the state and society to release slaves.
In fact in the first draft of the declaration of independence he condemned British slave trade and violation of distant people human rights who did not offend her.
Unfortunately this was dropped from the final draft of the declaration of independence. It is therefore clear that Thomas Jefferson was opposed to slavery and slave trade. Therefore it is right to say Jefferson found slavery not to be right and this is why he treated them with dignity and even went ahead to right and publish books on slavery, acting as a voice for the rights of this people who were slaves.
As far as foreign policy was concerned Thomas Jefferson was a famous fan of international trade but was strongly opposed to country alliances he was once quoted in 1779 saying “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.”
This is why he was considered to be a strong republican and therefore a champion for republicanism calling for Americans to love their country and that the citizens be the people who decide who should govern them. It will be true to derive that this was America’s foreign policy. Thomas Jefferson wanted to maintain America’s freedom and liberty and not involve himself with European wars and disputes.
His overall foreign policy was friendship peace and prosperity for all nations of the world. He thought that America’s national security would be compromised by meddling in other peoples affairs. Which is consequently true to date many Americans are being kidnapped and the American government is often asked to release foreign political prisoners or even withdraw troops from certain areas.
Thomas Jefferson believed that it was better to make no treaty than make a bad one; he was opposed to treaties that called for power sharing and preferred peacemaking treaties that lead to stability and peace of nations and regions. Therefore America struggled to separate its systems from European systems.
Thomas Jefferson said to Benjamin Waring (in 1801) “The will of the people… is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”. Thomas Jefferson believed that for decisions to be made and a country to be ran smoothly than the will of the majority must prevail, therefore incase a minority decision that was to be imposed on the majority would be considered an evil.
In this case Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers that could arise out of entrenchment by malicious individuals who would want to impose their opinions on other citizens of the republic. This goes ahead to support that Jefferson was among the first supporters of democracy. He also went ahead to advice those who were minorities and felt deprived of certain rights by the majority should search for good avenues to redress their plight.
As far as education was concerned Thomas Jefferson led from the front. He was a polymath who had ability to tackle many disciplines ranging from mathematics to arts. He even made sure that he educated his slaves in reading and writing and also other technical skills.
He is considered the father of the University of Virginia where he made an elaborate plan of seeing able students through university. He tabled a bill in 1817 that intended to unearth talent that was buried in poverty; he believed that by doing this the number of educated brains would triple output in the United States of Americas compared to other countries.
The bill further supposed that there be a school within every county and district collages near every locality plus a good university system. Being amongst the greatest scholars who have ever lived in this planet it is clear that Thomas Jefferson took education seriously and understood its importance in developing the nation and spreading his spirit of republicanism which aimed at improving the lives of every citizen.
Bernstein, Richard. Thomas Jefferson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Holmes, Jerry. Thomas Jefferson: a chronology of his thoughts. Boston: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002.
Jefferson, Thomas. Thomas Jefferson: His Words and Vision. New York, Peter Pauper Press, 1998.
Reynolds, David. Empire of Liberty: A New History. London: Penguin America, 2010.
Schama, Simon. The American Future: A History from The Founding Fathers To Barack Obama. New York, NY: Vintage, 2009.
- Richard Bernstein, Thomas Jefferson (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 6.
- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson: His Words and Vision (New York, Peter Pauper Press, 1998), 78.
- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson: His Words and Vision (New York, Peter Pauper Press, 1998), 46.
- Jerry Holmes, Thomas Jefferson: a chronology of his thoughts (Boston: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), 58.
- David Reynolds, Empire of Liberty: A New History (London: Penguin America, 2010), 104.
- Simon Schama, The American Future: A History from The Founding Fathers To Barack Obama (New York, NY: Vintage, 2009), 141.
Thomas Jefferson’s Biography Research Paper
Thomas Jefferson (13th April, 1743-4th July, 1826) was the third President of United States (1801-1809). He is largely believed to be the chief author of independence assertion. He envisioned America as a great place of liberty and not only was he a figure of renaissance, but also of enlightenment.
He was fluent in more than five languages, and had scripted over sixteen thousand letters in the course of his life. He was qualified in many fields and could act as a lawyer, inventor, scientist, architect, statesman among many other professions.
In his life he had held many positions: elected to Virginia House of Burgesses, the Continental Congress as a delegate, Governor of Virginia; peace diplomat with Britain, Envoy to France; the French Court minister; Secretary of State; established Democratic-Republican party, established University of Virginia, Vice President of the United States and then President.
Jefferson was born to a wealthy family on a family farm in Virginia and had six sisters and three brothers. He was tutored in classical tradition by a learned man called Maury, he then attended William and Mary college at age sixteen and later pursued law under professor Wythe until he became a practitioner.
Besides practicing law, he represented the County of Albemarle in the Virginia Burgesses House. He later married and built a mansion called Monticello. Jefferson, while a member of the committee mandated to draft a declaration of independence, was selected by the committee to write the draft which he did and was later adopted (Hitchens, 2009).
Around June of 1779 he succeeded Henry as Governor of Virginia. His term as a governor was clouded by hesitation because of the war with Britain. He never vied for a second term and even wished the military could take over.
After declining to vie for a second term as governor he retired to his home to write, rest, and cater for his sick wife. While on retirement, Jefferson engaged in some writing where he took some notes entailing the (Virginia) state but this was never comprehensive. His wife passed at this time and he became traumatized.
However, Washington appointed him to negotiate peace with the British a mission he never accomplished since peace was brokered even before he could set sail. In 1784 he headed to France as an associate diplomat. While in France he authored an article about ascertaining the ideal (standard) weights, right measures, and legal tender for the US. The year that followed saw him joining the cabinet as a full fledged member.
He served for a period of five years and returned to the United States. On returning home (in 1789), he was assigned more assignments in the then government headed by Washington. That put him in a very thorny and responsive position.
Jefferson, alongside many others, was central and important of the initial form the country was taking under the very first centralized administration.
Jefferson was stridently and continuously at odds with his fellow cabinet members (i.e. Adams and Hamilton), both of whom he would find to be too dictatorial and also too fast to take a great deal of power in the part of the new administration. It was this mounting pressure that saw him resign from his cabinet duties in the year 1793 and later formed his own party (Democrat-republican).
The competition continued. In 1796, Jefferson run for the presidency post, however, he lost and became the vice president under the man whom he thought too hard to put up with. The two only met once on the street and never communicated face to face during the whole term.
In 1801 he vied for the presidency and won this time round. He did serve for two successive terms and undoubtedly played a deciding fundamental role in forming the personality and the fundamental nature of the American Presidency.
For the duration of his presidency, the 12th alteration to the Constitution was made thus changing the manner in which the country’s VP was chosen in a bid to separate rival contenders from serving in the same office. He went on to carry out one address (state union) and later conveyed them, as generally obligated by the American constitution, only in black and white form.
He also acquired Louisiana from Napoleon, broadening the borders of the nation far and wide and in the process creating the principle (manifest destiny).
Thomas Jefferson is among the central figures who participated in laying a firm foundation for the United States both as a leader and intellectual figure. His manifest destiny doctrine was used to ascend the country into a super power and is still in use to date.
He wished to be remembered for only two things; as the person who wrote the Declaration of Independence, and also the one who founded the University of Virginia. He died on July 4th, as the nation celebrated in unity the fiftieth anniversary of his authentic and splendid Declaration (Randall, 1994).
Hitchens, C. (2009). Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. New York: HarperCollins.
Randall, S. W. (1994). Thomas Jefferson: A Life. New York: Harper Perennial.