So I'm stuck on my first question and ended up on here and the thought occurred to me..maybe the good people of coldplaying will have some insight?

 

So this is for my United states History class.

 

The question is "How did Thomas Jefferson end up modifying some of his Republican beliefs in strict constructionism, limited federal government, and militarism in the face of events during his presidency?"

 

Any thoughts????

Figured it out.....

If you don't mind my asking, what grade are you in?

 

I love history, but my knowledge is more geared toward Western Europe than America. Can't help with presidents, though I used to be able to recite all the kings and queens of England once...

Very nice. I'm in tenth grade

Here's some hints: "The treaty (Louisiana Purchase) which Livingston and Monroe sent home "aroused constitutional scruples" in Thomas Jefferson's mind, but the times demanded quick action, and Jefferson yielded to his friends. Strict constructionist arguments were taken up by the New England Federalists, but had no effect.

& : in an attempt to safeguard American interests during the relentless duel between the British (under the Crown) and Napoleon was his passage of the Embargo Act of 1807. The attempt was to bring pressure to bear upon both world powers by suspending American commerce with either Britain or France. And you can imagine how well that went over with American traders, especially New Englanders! So, the Federal government exercised arbitrary power and infringed on individual rights to enforce the ban, thus violating some of Jefferson's most cherished principles (penned into the Bill of Rights); and it failed to work. Jefferson, at the end of his career repealed it, and ended his term in office with low popularity. So, there went a lot of the idealism..

Looking at Strict Constructionists, it means those who interpret the Constitution based on the arguments given during the ratifying process, and to "sell" it to the states, a weaker Federal Government was proposed, and State's rights given higher priority, according to the 1st article of the U.S. Constitution. Later, strict constructionists would use the argument during the antebellum period to argue that powers of the Federal Government should be strictly controlled (State's rights) - as I recall, as a way of mollifying states where slavery existed..

In relation to more current times, here's a good article to read (and ponder the past few years under GW & the Neo-cons..):

http:www.strike-the-root.com/52/younga/younga7.html

 

I think, if what's being asked is Jefferson's response and change from appeasement to defense against the Barbary pirates, that's not so much militarism as simply national defense (and global justice against pirates). It contrasts sharply with the twisted interpretation the neo-cons give it...

Bush is the opposite of Jefferson. He should be hit in the face with thousands of shoes thrown by Iraqi journalist.

Thanks! It like totally perfect but i already did it. I wrote like the same thing down though that you said so that's good....right?

Thanks! It like totally perfect but i already did it. I wrote like the same thing down though that you said so that's good....right?

I ought to be sleeping, but insomnia has gotten me up! :laugh3: Yes, it's pretty close to what came from the Encyclopedia, and there's probably way more to the story than what is being discussed (like all things in history, the whole truth is buried by time and yarnspinners) But basically, I think that answers it in a general sense; but what "scruples" were aroused by the Louisiana purchase pertaining to the Constitution? What did the US Government do that violated the individuals' rights to enforce the trade ban? Perhaps quartering troops in houses? Perhaps illegal searches and seizures (searching for trade goods)? Seems likely the latter, as that's the main issue - and the main motivation for the restrictions on government search and seizure was to protect colonial rum smugglers, so it's not so altruistic in it's inception, but the basic right of privacy in one's own home needed something to back the protection - we can thank rum smugglers for that!:laugh3: Seems more likely to be the case..

^^ hah hah yeah.

and i'm always supposed to do stuff but i always end up on here...like my history homework...or right now, wrapping presents. oh well....:rolleyes:

I wish I would've gotten here earlier. My dad's a historian, he could've written out a page and a half about this. xD

Well I do study political sciences but I cant help you, because I dont know English that good to tell you. Sorry.