Why was Thomas Jefferson a bad president?
Jefferson was president for eight years, 1801 to 1809, having beaten John Adams and realigning the nation by sweeping the Federalist Party out of power completely. This is, undeniably, the point where Republican/Democrat as the two primary parties began. Obviously his reelection shows that, at least contemporaneously, he wasn’t thought to be a bad president.Jefferson could be viewed negatively for his hostility towards the ‘midnight judges’ appointed by Adams under the Judiciary Act of 1801. This led to the infamous Marbury v. Madison case, where the concept of Judicial Review was entrenched into the judiciary. In that this means Jefferson was effectively presidenting against the Constitution he helped build, he could be said to have been a bad president.He lowered the national debt by about a third (from $83 million to $57 million), but I don’ t know that I’d call it bad to do so. He also, of course, completed the Louisiana Purchase and launched Lewis and Clark along with associated expeditions to chart the new borders of the nation.His disgraceful disregard for Burr’s killing of Hamilton in 1804 was rather undignified, but unsurprising given his personal enmity with Hamilton throughout his adult career. Ironically, he targeted Burr later for Burr’s conspiratorial attempt to forge a secession of the western part of the nation. Then, ironically, jefferson refused to participate in Burr’s trial, leading to his acquittal. All of this was not good presidenting, to be sure.It’s hard not to give Jefferson credit for being eager to abolish slavery, since the ban on ending the slave trade would end in 1808. He vocally denounced slavery, and signed a law to criminalize the international trade that January. I think this is probably peak of his presidency.In other words, while he had flaws, I don’t think he was a bad president. He was one of the earliest presidents in the grandest social experiment in human history. He and his contemporaries, while flawed, were flying by the seat of their pants to a degree we can scarcely understand. This was a nation whose army still wore rags, sometimes. A nation who could barely pay the back-pay owed to the revolutionary soldiers. A nation whose economy was more in flux than any in history. A nation struggling with the very definition of humanity as it attempted to unravel the horrific gordian knot of slavery and its legacy. What can we honestly demand of such presidents?
Was Thomas Jefferson a good president?
I'm not a fan of this type of question, because it presumes that you can quantify what makes someone a "good" President.If you like American manifest destiny, then you love Jefferson, because he vastly expanded the geographic scale of the US, via the Louisiana Purchase.If you hate what American expansionism did to native peoples, then Jefferson has to be high on your hate list. He was a big part in geographically expanding the US, he did so willingly, and knew that native peoples would ultimately be pushed off their lands.If you hate(d) Islamic terrorism, and piracy, then you love Jefferson because of his ordering the actions now known to history as the Barbary Wars (something he'd been contemplating doing for many, many years) (America's first war against fundamentalist Islam).If you hate slavery, Jefferson is a terrible President (perhaps the absolute worst!). He not only had, and kept, slaves throughout his entire Presidency, but he also failed to manumit his slaves, did almost nothing whatsoever during his Presidency to alleviate slavery, or advance the cause or interests of Black Americans. AND he, more than anyone, really should have known better(1).Jefferson was a very complex man. How you feel about the "goodness" of his Presidency depends very much on the ideas, and views, and judgments, you yourself bring to the evaluation. Really, it's for too simple to say any one President was "good" (or bad).(1) Jefferson, after all, wrote that "all men are created equal"; he'd lived in Paris and seen a (semi-colorblind) society, without slavery; he knew full-well that the then prominent theories that 'blacks were mentally inferior', that 'blacks couldn't learn' and 'were better off being slaves' were all bunk; he had many associates that pressured him to free his slaves, he had contemporary examples of manumission; He was a leading light on individual liberty, and knew from close personal experience that slavery was brutish and wicked; He loved, and had many children via, a black woman ... Jefferson - more than anyone - should have known better!
What obstacles did Thomas Jefferson face while he was in office?
He was one of the Presidents who had to deal with America’s first major foreign policy crisis: the Barbary Pirates. This was probably his biggest obstacle as it forced him to make do with what assets the US had at the time. The Barbary Wars would eventually be won under Madison, but Jefferson faced the bulk of the conflict.As for domestic obstacles, there were relatively few. He was an incredibly popular President whose party dominated Congress. Alexander Hamilton was dead, John Adams was out of commission, and the economy was booming as the US was the economic middleman between revolutionary France and Great Britain.
Based on his presidency did Jefferson deserve to be put on Mt. Rushmore?
Well,, maybe they can re-chisel his face into Obama's at some future date. That would be SOMETHING, wouldn't it? I say we vote for 4 new faces! Okay........probably keep Lincoln.........and I suppose Washington HAS to stay........ but Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt? Meh,.......... maybe change Teddy into JFK..........
What challenges did the nation face during washingtons presidency?
Well it was the wake of the revolutionary war. The nation had debts that need to pay off, someone need to pay for the war. They also had the task of creating a government that fitted the needs of the people without being to powerful. They obviously did not want to create a government that would over rule the people so a republic was set up.
Why did Thomas Jefferson refuse to support the creation of the National Bank, according to his letter of opinion to President Washington?
I think “states’ rights” as a term carries a certain unhelpful baggage and doesn’t adequately explain Jefferson’s feelings on the subject.We can actually interrogate Jefferson himself on this by reading his own words here.I think the more appropriate category to give Jefferson’s objections is not “states’ rights,” but rather “strict constructionism.” In other words, Jefferson believed — as did many of his contemporaries, indeed this is how a national constitution got ratified in the first place — that the US Constitution granted an explicit and finite list of powers to the federal government.The 1791 bill to establish a national bank proposed to do many things that were not on that list of powers. Jefferson’s argument against doing this was not merely that it was “unconstitutional,” or violated the rights of states in that moment. He was worried about the precedent it would set regarding the scope of the federal government’s power. In his words:I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.Or to put it more plainly, if the government is allowed to ignore the limits imposed by the Constitution, inconvenient as they may be, then it has no limits at all.
What are the foreign affairs from the following presidents: George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe?
The French Revolutionary Wars was the major issue during this period, especially the war between Britain and France.Washington tried to remain neutral, but the British navy kept attacking American ships and impressing our sailors. He sent John Jay to negotiate the Jay Treaty, which avoided a war with Britain and strengthened trade relations. But this upset France, leaving John Adams to deal with that crisis.Adams faced a naval war with France, and was on the verge of a large-scale war. He avoided that war, although the crisis consumed his entire term in office.Jefferson played Britain and France off one another and negotiated the Louisiana Purchase with Napoleon, doubling the size of the US. However, his second term saw Jefferson embargo both Britain and France as a way of punishing them for attacking US ships. This led to a recession.Madison was mad about the British continuing to impress US sailors, and sent a diplomatic team to Britain to negotiate a solution and avoid a war. That team succeeded, but news traveled slowly in the 1800s, and Madison asked Congress to declare war on Britain. This was the War of 1812, which is usually considered a stalemate (the British burned down the White House in 1814).Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo in 1815, so the European war was over when Monroe became president. He delivered the Monroe Doctrine (written by John Quincy Adams), which said that the US would not allow Europe to colonize new countries in the Western Hemisphere, while also saying that he would not attack the ones that currently existed. This was an anti-colonial move, but also turned the Hemisphere into a US sphere of influence. Monroe also took Florida from Spain.
Was the Louisiana Purchase by Thomas Jefferson unconstitutional?
I have never really understood why there was such concern or debate, then and even now, about the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase. To me it seems rather simple. Countries change their borders either by conquest or by purchasing land via a treaty which is simply a contract between nations. The Louisiana Purchase was the latter, a treaty. The Constitution specifically grants the president the power to negotiate treaties which is just what Jefferson did. It is true that the Constitution does not specifically authorize Congress, let alone the executive branch, to purchase land from other nations. It seems as if this bothered some people who also found it hypocritical that Jefferson, known as a very strict constructionist, would approve of such a sale. I would have found this objection laughable myself. James Madison assured Jefferson that the Louisiana Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution. Since the power to negotiate treaties was specifically granted to the president, the only way extending the country’s territory by treaty could not be a presidential power would be if it were specifically excluded by the Constitution (which it was not). And Congress approved the treaty. It seems like a truism to me that this is perfectly legal. A far more interesting legal question is whether France had the legal right to sell the territory or if such a sale infringed or violated the terms of the treaty with Spain by which France acquired the land initially. A good case can be made they did not. But that was not our problem. In this case possession was nine tenths of the law.