SOLUTION: DBQ Essay | My Assignment Tutor

======================================================= US history 1900-1945It is subjective because it is a DBQ Essay45 minutesTomorrow at 8 am Atlantic standard timeOnly one chancePROMPT: In what ways did Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson differ in their interpretation of the powers of the federal government? In what ways might they have been similar?The Haitian Revolution that lasted until 1804 indirectly, but certainly, paved the path for the growth of the American Union. Napoleon, the French leader of the time, wanted to reestablish the French colonies in North America. Nevertheless, the uprising of the Haitian Revolution demanded money and resources from Frane. It also opened the perspective for Napoleon to realize the hardships of ruling colonies. The combination of the Haitian Revolt and the Napoleonic wars led Napoleon to offer the Louisiana territory to Thomas Jefferson.The acquisition of the Louisiana Territory enabled westward expansion during Jefferson’s presidency. It allowed for a growth of agrarian states, but it also resulted in the expansion of raw materials for the growing industrialization in the Union. The expansion of this territory, however, also stripped the Native Americans from their lands. With extensive land available, during and after the Jacksonian era, the Native Americans were forcefully removed from their lands, they were reallocated as if they were objects west of the Mississippi. Jefferson and Jackson had similar yet distinct interpretation in the role of the federal government as they both argued against the National Bank and they passed acts, but they had different views upon the power of the state governments.First and foremost, Thomas Jefferson formed part of the Democratic-Republican party. That means that they were strict interpretors of the US Constitution. For isnatnce, Jefferson wrote the Giedeon Granger the Federalist opposed the power of the state government, but Jefferson believes that the state government the theory of the US Constitution describes how the states are independent and should have the benefit of acting from themselves (DOC C). The strict interpretation explains why Jefferson argued against the enactment of a national bank in 1789 (DOC A)Constitution describing how it allows for things that are necessary, and it does not matter that things bring additional benefit, they should not be included if the are not mentioned in the Constitution. Jeffersons political ideology shapes the document because he believed that there should be a strict interpretation of the Constitution. That being said, because the Contittuion does not mention that the federal government has the right to establish a national bank, he opposed it. If it were to mention it he would have probably agredd with it since the beginning. Jefferson opposed the national Bank and Hamilton’s debt plan, but he was convinced when Hamilton agreed that the federalists would support the capital to be near the Potomac. Jefferson continued to disagree against it, but a deal was a deal. However, it is hypocritical of Jefferson to critique the Federalist plans for the nations economy, but during his presidency he did not dismantle all of the Federalist policies including the Bank of the United States and the debt plan. Moreover, Andrew Jackson, the 7th POTUS, like Jefferson (at first) argued against the existence of the National Bank. Jackson described how it was in favor of the few rich in the nation; he exclaims that it was a monopoly (DOC F). The life that Jackson grew up in shapes the context of the document because he was a “common man,” and he grew up from nothing. That being said, if it were a wealthy person they would agree that a national bank should remain, but because Jackson did not come from rich backgrounds he wanted to include the majority of the population and he believed that by removing the US bank there would be a more equal representation. Jackson instead put the money and the economic responsibility on “Pet Banks” that heavily destabilized the economy and created great inflation because there was a mass printing of money.Both Jefferson and Jackson supported that the Federal government had the power enact policies. For instance, Thomas Jefferson passed the Embargo (1806) and the Nonintercourse Acts (1809) (DOC D). Jefferson decided that the Embargo act had to be passed in order to alleviate the foreign affairs with Britain and France. There was mass empressement of the US navy and there Britain for example passed the Orders in Council stating that US ships had to pass through Britain when trading in Europe, and France passed the Berlin Decree claiming that they would seize US ships trading with England. The Embargo Act cut off merchant relations with these two countries. This in a way benefited the north as they focused on producing their own goods and helped them grow industrially, but it angered the Southerners who previously received their goods from Europe. Jefferson did acknowledge the fact that the federal government could order acts in the nation. Jackson, too believed that the federal government had the power to import tariffs. For example, under his presidency the Tariff of 1828 was passed by Congress. Again this favored the northern industrial inclined states as they would gain more profit from their products, but it hurt the southern states as they had to pay more money for the goods they obtained. This created once agains sectionalism and division. Under Jackson’s presidency, the Tariff of 1832 was also passed with more alleviated terms. Both Jackson and Jefferson recognized that the federal government had the power to pass acts or tariffs.In contrast to their opinions of the national bank and acts that can be passed by the federal government, Jefferson and Jackson had different viewpoint regarding the power of the state governments. For example, in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 Madison and Jefferson describe how a state should be able to nullify any law passed by the federal government that they view to their dislike (DOC B). These two men were more inclined to the terms of the Articles of Confederation were the states were more powerful than the central government. Nevertheless, Jackson had a different viewpoint. After the passing of the tariff of 1832 South Carolina was reluctant to follow and they refused to pay the tariffs. That said, Jackson passed the “Olive Branch and Sword” were he argued that the army and the navy had the right to forcefully collect the taxes (DOC G). This describes how Jackson did not agree with the the fact that states could refuse to pay attention to acts passed by the federal government. Jackson himself gave more to power to the executive branch through out his presidency.Ultimetely, both Jefferson and Jackson believed the national bank should not exist, they recognized the fact that the gov could pass acts and tariff, but they had opposing views upon the power of the state governments. Before Jackson’s presidency the candidate for a party was elected by a small group of individuals within the party. This was known as the Caucus system. Nevertheless, starting in 1828, when political parties were engrained in America memebrs from the political py would nominate the candidate. This is very similar today with the electoral college.Atlantic standard timea =======================================================