James K. Polk: The Last Jacksonian President

Andrew Jackson was a bold "champion of the common man."  So when he was elected in a landslide victory in 1828, he gave birth to a movement that became known as the Jacksonian Movement or the Jacksonian Democracy.  So while he was the first, the last Jacksonian President was James K. Polk, the eleventh president of the United States.

He was born in North Carolina, and as a young lawyer from Tennessee, and later state legislator, he became good friends with Andrew Jackson.  Later, as a member of the House of Representatives, Polk was a big supporter in Jackson's fight against the Second Bank of the United States. He was Speaker of the House from 1835-1839, only leaving to become governor of Tennessee.  As a Jacksonian Democrat with the support of Andrew Jackson, he was in a prime position to becoming a future president.

Like Jackson, Polk was a huge supporter of expansion, and he believed the United States should annex Texas (a popular idea in the South) and claim Oregon (a popular idea in the North). He also supported acquiring California.

It should be understood here that Polk did understand that slavery was a big issue at the time.  However, he was a slave owner, and he believed slavery was made legal by the Constitution, and a solid boundary had been created with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and so to him slavery was not an issue.

Still, Polk believed new territories in New Mexico and California should not allow slavery.  So, regardless of what he was thinking about this issue, it was not going to be resolved by adding new territory -- rather, it would only get worse.  So, while his ambitions should have been considered an overall good thing and cause for excitement, it only added tensions between the North and South.

Still, he had no ambitions (that were known publicly anyway) of becoming the presidential nominee when he attended the 1844 democratic convention.  Rather, he had fully supported Martin Van Buren, and was hoping to become his Vice President.

Van Buren, however, had trouble gaining enough support from western democrats, who yearned for the immediate annexation of Texas.  Since Polk did support the annexation, they gave their support to him instead.  Van Buren, being a good sport, gave his delegates to Polk, who in turn won the nomination.

So, Polk correctly positioned himself in a spot where he gained a lot of support.  He correctly understood the modern wave of support for expansion, or "Manifest Destiny," and he ran the wave of this support to becoming his parties nominee.

In this way, Polk became what many now refer to as the first Dark Horse Candidate, or the first candidate to come seemingly out of nowhere to earn his parties nomination for president.

As a candidate he made his goals quite clear:  He wanted to settle the Oregon Territory boundary dispute with Great Britain, he wanted to acquire California, he wanted to lower tariffs, and he wanted to establish an independent treasury.  He said if he accomplished all of these goals he would not run for a second term.

The Whigs nominated Henry Clay, who had already lost bids to become president in 1824 and 1832.  Clay wanted to increase the size of the government, and he opposed the idea of annexing Texas.  Some say his efforts to strengthen his position regarding Texas alienated voters in the South and West who strongly supported the annexation. Still, he tried to pull votes from Polk by saying, "Who is James K. Polk?"

The reason the annexation of Texas was such a pressing issue was because of slavery.  Northern states had more representatives in the House, and so they maintained a stronghold there.  Southern states needed to make sure than any new states that entered the union did not throw off the balance in the Senate, where they continued to have an influence.  So the annexation of Texas was strongly supported by southern slave states.

A third candidate, James Birney, was an abolitionist who was the nominee for the Liberty party.  Enough anti-slavery Whigs in the north voted for him that he was able to garnish 2.3% of the popular vote, or enough to give the election to Polk.  James K. Polk then narrowly became the 11th president of the United States.

Before he even took office, John Tyler took the bold step of annexing Texas, and Congress voted to support the annexation.  This left Polk with a big decision of whether he wanted to go to war with Mexico or find some kind of diplomatic solution.  Of course, at the same time, his stance on Oregon risked war with Britain. So it seemed that war was almost inevitable before Polk even set foot in the White House.

Democrats wanted to claim the entire Oregon territory from the California Boundary northward to a latitude 54'40.  A common theme at the time was, "Fifty-Four-Forty or Fight."

Polk understood that nothing short of war would result in the Americans getting all this land. And neither he nor Britain wanted to go to war.  So this called for a compromise with Britain.  He offered to create a boundary between the U.S. and Canada along the 49th Parallel, from the Rockies to the Pacific.

Initially the British declined this offer, and when they did so Polk claimed the entire Oregon area.  Quickly the British decided they had better take the deal.  The only exception they made was the tip of Vancouver Island.  The deal was signed in 1846.  Polk, in this way, was able to avoid war with Britain.

Now he had to deal with Texas and Mexico and California.  Polk sent an envoy to Mexico offering them $20 million (plus a settlement to claims owed to the Americans) for California and New Mexico.  No Mexican leader wanted to sign the deal, particularly considering it meant giving away half the nation.

So the envoy was not well received. So he sent Zachary Taylor to the Rio Grande to increase pressure on Mexico.  The Mexicans saw this as aggression, and they in late April of 1846 they attacked Taylor's forces.

So Polk was unable to avoid war with Mexico.

Despite Northern opposition, Congress declared war. The Americans won many early victories, and by 1848 Mexico the Treaty of Guadalupe was signed, forcing Mexico to cede New Mexico and California in return for only $15 million plus the U.S. would assume any damage claims.  Another part of the treaty drew a line between the U.S. and Mexico at the Rio Grande.

Texas asked to be allowed to join the United States, and this request was accepted.

Polk was constantly bombarded by the Wilmot Proviso, a bill intended to ban slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico.  While the bill was passed the House more than once, but the Senate never supported it.

If there is any criticism of Polk, it's that he did not take up the opportunity to deal with the issue of slavery during his term.  Still, to his credit, he did set goals and he accomplished them all.  And had he made it a goal of his to resolve the slavery issue, it probably would have taken up all of his energy and he may not have accomplished his goal of expanding the nation.

So Polk had succeeded in adding a vast amount of land to the United States.  He had also accomplished his goal of lowering tariffs and creating an independent treasury.  This made him a successful president minus the slavery issue.  He had accomplished this all in only four short years.  As promised, he decided he would not run for re-election.

Indeed, he did add a lot of land to the United States.  But this would increase tensions between the North and the South, moving slavery into the forefront as the main issue in Washington.  So, as Polk left office in March of 1849, with him went the Jacksonian era -- making Polk the last of the Jacksonian Presidents.

He was succeeded into office by Zachary Taylor, a Whig and a man he despised.  Still, it was probably a good thing he did not run for re-election, as he died only three months later, in June of 1849.  He left his estate to his wife under the direction that she free their slaves.

James Monroe: The last unopposed president

James Madison (President 1817-1825) 

James Monroe was the fifth President of the United States. He would become one of the best presidents we ever had, both for his domestic and for his foreign policies. He was the last of the founding fathers to become President, and the last president to run unopposed.

He was born in 1758 in Virginia and attended the College of William and Mary. He also fought in the Continental Army, the army that was formed by the Continental Congress in 1775.  He practiced law in Fredericksburg, Virginia.

He joined the anti-Federalists in the Virginia Convention. Considering the Federalists were in favor of a large central government, this made Madison a supporter of a limited government. In other words, he was essentially a supporter of the Jeffersonian Principles, which included a limited government and strict adherence to the Constitution.

As an anti-Federalist in Virginia, he supported the ratification of the new Constitution that was mostly written by James Madison. In 1790 he was a supporter of Jeffersonian policies when he was elected as a U.S. Senator. He then served as Minister to France from 1794-1796.

During Thomas Jefferson's first term, Spain transferred New Orleans to the French. New Orleans was important to the Americans because it was used by traders as a port for shipping their products to Europe. Fear arose that the French would not allow the Americans to use the port, so Jefferson chose Monroe to go to France to broker a deal that would allow America to buy New Orleans.

When Monroe approached the French, he was surprised that Napoleon was not just willing to sell New Orleans, but the entire Louisiana Territory. Monroe, and current Minister of France, Robert R. Livingston, would decide to agree to the deal. The United States would end up paying $15 million for 539,000,000 acres. This came to about four cents an acre. The deal nearly doubled the size of the United States, and included all or portions of 15 present U.S. states.

In 1811, Monroe was chosen by Madison to be his secretary of state.  At this time the Americans were becoming increasingly impatient with the British, and this resulted in the War of 1812. Madison actually considered asking Monroe to lead troops, although decided he was too valuable as a member of his Cabinet.

This turned to be a critical decision, because Madison's secretary of war -- William Eustis resigned, Madison named Monroe as Secretary of War.  In effect, Monroe held two cabinet position for two months before Madison named John Armstrong as the new secretary of war.

Monroe was then one of the government figures who fled Washington as the British army approached.  The British ended up eventually burning the Executive Mansion, the Library of Congress, and other government buildings.

Blame for this was on Armstrong, and so Madison once again named Monroe as secretary of war. He immediately went to work organizing a defense of Baltimore, where American forces defeated the British three weeks later.

That victory, together with another in New York, lead to the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the war.  The treaty assured that American merchant ships would no longer be terrorized by British war ships.

Monroe's role in the war earned him widespread fame.

Monroe was looking like a quintessential presidential candidate.  Like Jefferson, he was born in Virginia, had served as secretary of state, and was a democratic-republican.

Others, however, believed it was time for a president who was from some other part of the country, and they wanted to nominate William Crawford of Georgia, who was also an ardent supporter of Jeffersonian Principles.

Regardless, on March 16, 1816, Monroe was voted (by a count of 65-54) to be the party's presidential candidate.  Crawford wasn't even chosen to be vice president, as the party chose Daniel D. Tompkins of New York.

The Federalist Party was on the verge of collapse, and so there was limited opposition to Madison.  The Federalist did nominate Rufus King, although he was a weak opponent to Madison, who won by an electoral count of 183 to 34, carrying 16 states to King's three.

Like other candidates of this era, Monroe did not campaign for president: doing so was considered impolite. Instead, campaigning was left to his supporters.  Yet while previous elections, such as the election of 1800, were very partisan and dirty, the election of 1816 was relatively calm: their was very little mudslinging.

Monroe became the fifth president of the United States.  Daniel D. Tompkins was elected vice president.

Monroe wanted to make sure his cabinet well represented the nation.  He named John C. Calhoun as Secretary of War and John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State.  He named Crawford as secretary of treasury.  He named Benjamin Crowninshield as secretary of Navy, and William Wirt as attorney General. He offered a job to Henry Clay, although he declined. Unlike previous presidents, Monroe valued his cabinet, often seeking and heeding their advice.

This era in our history is often considered the "Era of Good feelings." This is mainly because the Federalists were in decline, and the democratic-republicans were the main party, lead by Monroe. By having members of varying opinions in his cabinet, he was essentially able to adapt key ideas from both parties, and this essentially eliminated partisanship. Unfortunately, this era would only last until the end of Monroe's terms, or about 8 years.

Among the first things he did during his first term was undertake a tour of the nation.  It was later dubbed as a "goodwill tour" during "An era of good feelings."  There were no wars, although there were still signs of tensions in the country.  For instance, the territory of Missouri petitioned for statehood.  While you'd think of this as a good thing, what it did was ignite a fiery debate over whether it would be a slave or free state.

The debate would lead to the Compromise of 1820, which allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state and Maine (formerly a part of Massachusetts) to enter as a free state.  There were also prohibitions made on the expansion of slavery.

Monroe had to face another crisis on the border between Spanish Florida and Georgia.  Spanish pirates had established operating bases in Florida.  Seminole Indians living in Florida were raiding white settlements in Georgia, and these were often encouraged by the British. There were also complains that the Seminole were giving shelter to runaway slaves.  While this was going on, the U.S. demanded Spain control the pirates and gain control of the Indians in their land.

Tensions grew to a point that Monroe sent a small force to the region lead by the U.S. military commander of the South, and the hero of New Orleans, General Andrew Jackson.  He had permission to chase the Seminole into Florida if he needed to, and he did.  In fact, he went so far as to capture two Spanish forts and two British men he accused of encouraging the raids.  Jackson executed the men.

The British were outraged and the White House embarrassed.  Some members of Congress wanted to censure Jackson, but this never happened.  However, Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams decided Jackson had gone too far and returned the forts.  They then decided to use the incident as proof that Spain could not control the region, and offered Spain $5 million for the territory.  Spain agreed, and ceded Florida to the U.S.

Being there was no opposition to the democratic-republican party, factions were created within the party, and they started to disagree and argue with one another.  About the only thing they agreed upon was to ignore the president's agenda. This was one of the few times in American history where Congress had a lot of control over the president.

This made men like Henry Clay, the Speaker of the House, very powerful.  Unlike Madison, Clay was a supporter of big government, and he wanted to create a program where the government would raise tariffs to pay for roads linking the eastern and western portions of the U.S., a system called the "American System. Monroe did not support this system, instead believing building and maintaining roads was the job of individual states.  However, Clay succeeded in getting some of his ideas passed, including a tariff on British cotton in 1816, and a tariff on iron in 1818.

In March of 1819 Monroe went on a second tour of the nation, and the response he received was once again spectacular.  Even while he talked of economic prosperity across the nation, the nation was heading into a recession caused by the Panic of 1819.  Because of the increased power gained by Congress over the presidency, Monroe was almost powerless to do anything about it.

With Europe recovering from a 20 year war, fewer goods were shipped to there.  This caused the prices of wheat, cotton, and other manufacturing products to drop.  Farmers could not sell their crops.  Sailors and merchants had no work.  Many were unable to repay their debts.

Compounding this problem was that the Bank of the U.S. loaned money to local banks, who loaned this money to spectators to buy land to sell to new settlers at a profit.  These local banks were printing more money than they had backed up in gold.  This made bills relatively useless. So, when the Bank of the U.S. demanded loans be repaid in gold rather than useless bills, spectators could not repay loans.  Local banks closed, and land prices fell.

This is what caused the Panic of 1819.  Such was the state of the union during the election of 1820, which saw a very popular Monroe running unopposed. With only one candidate to choose from, the election went by with little excitement, meaning there were very few people who participated in the voting.  On March 5, 1820, Monroe was sworn in to a second term.

The first agenda item was regarding foreign affairs.  Spain's American Empire was falling apart, as it had sold Florida to the U.S., and rebels in Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Columbia had won their independence. Monroe and members of Congress worried that other European nations would join forces with Spain to regain control of these lands.

He was also concerned about Russia, which had gained lands along the Pacific in the Oregon Territory. Monroe was worried about a Russian colony being formed

So, how was the United States to deal with such a potential threat. One idea was to have the United States join forces with Britain.  This idea failed to gain weight because the British military was still considered to be the best in the world, and the U.S. would look like a puny partner.

This inspired Monroe, on December 2, 1823, to send a letter to Congress and the world in which he said, in part, "that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers..."

This was America's formal rejection of European powers coming to the United States looking to obtain territorial lands in either North or South America.  This was Monroe's defining moment.  The doctrine had little weight on international law.  No European leader denounced it. Still, Monroe knew he knew the British military would work with him to enforce it if need be.  So this was an opportunity for Monroe to "flex some American muscle."

Essentially, the doctrine was relatively ignored for the most part throughout the rest of the 19th century, and wasn't even referred to as the Monroe Doctrine until 1952.  Still, the doctrine was the first time the United States was able to put itself on equal terms with the other powers of the world. It was a defining moment for Monroe, and a defining moment for the young nation. It put the United States firmly on the side of democracy and self-government around the world.

Still, it did seem to work.  In 1824 the U.S. was able to talk Russia into giving up its claims in the U.S.

Also throughout his second term was ongoing debate over how to spend money on roads.  Henry Clay succeeded in getting a bill through Congress to pay for a National Road, although it was vetoed by Monroe. In vetoing it, he once again insisted, as Jefferson had before him, that it was up to individual states to decide how to spend money, not the federal government. This was Monroe's only veto.

Finally, another thing he did was to champion for a place to send freed slaves.  He was an ardent supporter in former slaves being sent back to Africa.  Like other Americans at the time, he did not believe blacks could function living in a world side by side with whites.  It was during his presidency that the American Colonization Society established a colony in Liberia (West Africa).  This settlement was named Monrovia. Today Monrovia is the capital of Liberia.

In 1824 he decided he would follow in the footsteps of Washington and not run for a third term.  He also decided that he would not support any candidate for president, leaving the decision to the American people. Three of the leading candidates were members of his cabinet (Calhoun, Crawford, Adams) and the third was the speaker of the House (Clay).  The other was a Senator from Kentucky (Andrew Jackson).

Even though Jackson won the popular and the most electoral votes, he didn't win enough to make him president.  So the decision went to Congress.  A deal was brokered between Clay and Adams to make Adams president and Clay Secretary of State.  So Monroe was succeeded into office by John Quincy Adams, a big government democratic-republican.

So, while his presidency was flawed as any presidency, Monroe was a very successful president.  , he supported Jeffersonian Principles, supported westward expansion, saw five new states enter the union (Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine, and Missouri), saw the nation obtain lands all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and he was strong on both domestic and foreign policies.  He was popular throughout his terms of office.  He was, in essence, one of the truly great presidents.

Obama spins economic news, again

So, Obama held a presser telling us how well the economy is doing. He announced that 160,000 new jobs were created in April 2016. This is good news, he says. People who do not ask questions will accept Obama's affirmation of this economic news. But, I ask, is the economy doing better after 7.5 years of Obamanomics? Here are the statistics. You can decide for yourself.

1. A majority of those 160,000 jobs are part time, mainly because Obamacare forces people who have too many full-time jobs to pay for health insurance for those workers, and they can't afford that, so they just create part-time jobs. For more on this, read "The truth about Obama's economic numbers."
2. The 160,000 new jobs supposedly created in April is the fewest announced created jobs in seven months.
3. The number of American workers not working is 94.04 million. There are 210,220 working age people in the United States, so that means the unemployment rate is 40%.
4. People's incomes are not rising!
5. People do not have more disposable income. 
6. People do not have more liberty and freedom with their money.

Without rising productivity, you can't have rising wages, and you can't have increased salaries. You just can't have it.

Those 95 million Americans not working have to have their livelihoods paid for by someone. Someone has to pay for the food on their table, or beer in their refrigerator. Someone has to buy their cars and pay for their gas. Someone has to pay for their iphones and service. Someone has to pay for them when they get sick. 

So those who are working are flipping the bill. And small businesses are paying for the not working rather than creating jobs for the not working. 

So not only is the government spending more and choking more, it is making the economy where the American dream languishes, smaller. Yet here you have Obama at a press conference speaking of how much the economy has improved. Millennials fall for this because they have never seen a robust economy. To them, this is robust. 

Thomas Jefferson: A Small Government President

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was the 3rd president of the United States. If you rank a president's greatness by how much he increased the scope and size of government, Jefferson was not your man.  However, if you rank a president's greatness by his ability to defend and protect the Constitution, then Jefferson ranks among the better presidents.

The election of 1800 had Jefferson running against incumbent John Adams.  It was among the most bitter campaigns ever, and saw Federalists and Democratic-Republicans tossing vitriol violently back and forth. Keep in mind, however, that neither Jefferson nor Adams participated in the campaigning, as presidential candidates at this time thought that doing so would be seen as immodest.

Aaron Burr

The results of the election were that Jefferson received 73 electoral votes and Adams received 65.  A problem ensued as every one of Jefferson's electors were so loyal to the party that they each cast a vote for vice president Aaron Burr as well.  This meant that Jefferson was tied with Burr for the presidency.  This meant that the House had to decide who would be president.

Federalists made trouble by voting for Burr, and after 35 ballots no decision had been made.  However, on the 36th ballot, Hamilton abstained.  This time ten states voted for Jefferson and only four voted for Burr. This made Thomas Jefferson our third President and Burr our third Vice President.

Jefferson referred to the campaign as "The Revolution of 1800."  He said this because it was the first time in the new nation that power was transferred from one party to another.  During his inaugural speech on March 4, 1801, he said, "We are all Republicans -- We are all Federalists."  Such words were needed, or so he thought, to allay tensions created during the campaigning.

During the remainder of his speech he promised to govern under the following principles of government:

1. Strict Construction of the Constitution. He promised to protect and defend the Constitution to the best of his ability.  In other words, he promised to rule by limited government actions, and therefore to protect and defend state's rights.  
2. Decentralized Government.  Jefferson trusted the people to make the right decisions for themselves, and therefore, he would not use the government actions to intrude into the lives of citizens. He believed this would empower the individual to make the decisions necessary to improve their lots in life and to feed their own families.  In other words, he believed people were smart, and that the government could not solve problems better than the individual; that to improve society you must first improve the individual.

These have since become known as Jeffersonian Principles. During his first term he would live up to his own Jeffersonian Principles, as he would.

1. Champion Congress to repeal all the Alien and Sedition Acts, or allow them to expire
2. Pardoned those who had been imprisoned under the Sedition Acts
3. He cut federal policies set by Federalists, included some heavy taxes.
4. He cut federal actions to allow the states to govern without federal intrusion
5. He reduced federal expenditures and personnel
6. He reduced the national debt, and doubled the size of the Federal Treasury
7. He rejected the federalist idea of selling federal land at high prices to pay for government projects that would have improved infrastructure.  
8. Instead, by cutting the size of government, and cutting taxes, he doubled the size of the treasury, and doles out this money equally among the states for local improvement projects (see below)
9. He also sold land to ordinary Americans at modest prices, believing this would empower individual farmers in the west to prosper.
10. He empowered Americans to build up from below, rather than having the federal elites build up from above.  

He was also a good foreign policy president.  When the pasha of Tripoli began firing on U.S. merchant ships and demanded large sums of money.  When they refused to pay, the pasha declared war on the U.S. Jefferson responded by sending the USS Constitution and other warships to open fire on Tripoli.  

Several weeks later the fighting was over and the city surrendered.  A treaty was then signed that provided some protection for U.S. merchant ships in the Mediterranean. The battles "on the shores of Tripoli" are remembered in the current U.S. Marines' Anthem. 

Spain owned New Orleans, and allowed American trappers to transport their goods to the rest of the world through their ports.  When Spain ceded the city to the French, Jefferson became concerned for the trappers. He believed the French might cut off the ports to the Americans as he built a French colony in the huge Louisiana Territory.  After all, French Emperor Bonaparte Napoleon was an empire builder.

So, in the spring of 1803, Jefferson sent James Monroe to France to offer to purchase the ports of New Orleans.  Monroe was surprised to learn that the French would not only sell New Orleans to the Americans, but the entire Louisiana Territory.  The reason was probably because French needed money to pay for their costly wars in Europe.  

Monroe and Robert R. Livingston (the U.S. minister to France) agreed on April 30 to accept the offer. In this way, the Jefferson administration succeeded in doubling the size of the young nation for only 15 million dollars, or three cents an acre. 

Jefferson, as well as other Americans, had already been curious what this vast land contained, and so he met with his secretary, Meriwether Lewis, to discuss this topic.  After the purchase, Jefferson was given the funds he needed for an expedition.  Lewis, along with Captain William Clark, were sent to search for a water route to the Pacific Ocean and to record anything about the land, and the people they found, along their journey.  

Jefferson wanted badly to retire after only one term.  However, he knew the Federalists wanted to regain power badly, and they wanted to reverse many of the things Jefferson had accomplished.  So he was convinced to run for a second term.

The first order of business was to choose a new vice president.  He did not much like Aaron Burr, so he did not include him in much decision making.  In fact, Burr turned out to be a horrible vice president.  In 1804 he ran unsuccessfully for governor of New York and was so heavily criticized by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, that Burr Challenged Alexander to a duel to defend his honor.  Hamilton shot and missed, but Burr's bullet killed Alexander, who died days later of his wounds.  Hamilton's death meant the Federalist party lost it's leader, and so this pretty much sealed the fate of the Federalist party.

George Clinton

So Jefferson chose George Clinton from New York to be his vice president.

During his first term he succeeded in expanding the U.S. Treasury, so during his second term he decided to divide this money equally among the states (which was what the constitution allowed) so the states could decide how the money was spent.  However, Jefferson wanted the money to be spent on projects that would improve rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufacturers, education, and other great projects that would improve the nation.

The military also swallowed up large portions of the excess.  The most famous war at this time was the war between Britain and France.  Napoleon threatened to invade Britain, and so blockades were set up, and so French and British warships were also stopping American merchant ships, thus preventing them from delivering American goods to Europe.

Jefferson knew the American economy depended on trade with both Britain and France.  While Jefferson tended to side with the French, he also knew it was important to keep the peace with the British.  While others wanted America to side with France, others wanted it to side with the British.  Jefferson, on the other hand, believed war might weaken, or even destroy the young nation, so he did everything in his power to keep the peace with both nations.

While Jefferson worked to avoid war overseas, Aaron Burr was stirring up trouble at home.  Perhaps bitter from his fall from grace, he surreptitiously planned to raise an army of westerners who were unhappy with the new government.  He planned to drive out the Spanish from the Louisiana Territory and then move into the Spanish colony of Mexico.  He would then conquer some western states.  He would then, perhaps, name himself as leader of the new Empire.

Of course Burr's secret was revealed to Jefferson, and Burr was considered as a traitor and tried for treason.  However, even though most people considered Burr guilty, not enough evidence to convict him was available.  So he was acquitted by Chief Justice Marshall.

So the British and French had set up blockades to stop merchandise from getting to the other nation. However, the British had lost many sailors to war, so when they stopped American merchant ships, they forced American sailors to work for the British.  This greatly diminished American morale, especially considering the blockades were severely impacting the American economy.

In June of 1807, the American warship was stopped by the British warship Leopard off the coast of Virginia. The British insisted upon boarding the American ship, claiming the Americans were harboring a British deserter.  When the Americans refused, the British fired upon the American ship.  The British then boarded the American ship, and took two American sailors.

When news of this arrived in America, calls were rampant for war against Britain.  Jefferson still aimed to avoid war, and so he tried to broker a settlement, but it failed.  He then did something that was ahead of his time, and he prepared for war.  He had American businesses construct submarines with torpedoes to destroy British ships.  This was another of Jefferson's brilliant ideas, although it was not taken seriously at this time.

In December 1807 he attempted another strategy: he proposed an Embargo Act, and Congress passed it. This essentially created a ban on all trade with France or Britain.  His belief was that this would force these nations to deal more fairly with American merchant ships.

But the embargo also failed.  The only thing it succeeded at was causing thousands of American merchants and sailors to lose their jobs.  Farm prices dropped, and many farmers went bankrupt because they could not sell their crops at a profit.  In fact, the embargo hurt the U.S. more than either Britain or France.

In March 1809 he repealed the Embargo Act.

At the age of 66, Jefferson was tired.  He decided to follow in the footsteps of George Washington and retire from office after serving two terms.  His longtime friend, James Madison, would succeed him in office.

In the end, Jefferson believed in the power of the people.  He believed people were smart, and left to their own devices would solve problems better than government.  It was this approach which allowed any individual with a dream to prosper.  His system of limited government and strict constitutionalism would be used by most presidents who followed him, and with great success.

He made great strides to prevent war, even at the cost of his own legacy. He Jeffersonian Principles would create the cornerstone for a majority of presidents who succeeded him to the office.  He therefore should go down as one of the greatest presidents ever.

His party would dominate politics for the next 24 years. But eventually it would split into two factions that would become the Jacksonian Democratic Party and the Henry Clay Whig Party.

John Quincy Adams: Raised to be President

John Quincy Adams was elected as the 6th president of the United States during the election of 1824.  He was the son John Adams, the second president, and therefore was the first son of a former president to become president.  He had the same temperament as his father, and generally tended to have the same big government views as his father.

He was actually raised to become president.  He watched the Battle of Bunker Hill from the top of Penn's Hill.  He served as his father's secretary in Europe.  He graduated from Harvard and became a lawyer by the age of 26.  He was appointed Minister to the Netherlands.  Then, in 1802, he was elected to the U.S. Senate, and in 1808 he was appointed Minister to Russia by President Madison.

In 1817 he was selected by James Monroe to become Secretary of State.  He would work with the president on writing the Monroe Doctrine.  In fact, he was the main author of the document that forbade European nations from forming colonies, or interfering in any way, in North or South America. He also helped the U.S. obtain Florida from Spain.  Generally speaking, he was considered a great secretaries of state.

This was a time in U.S. history when Secretary of State set a person up nicely to becoming a future president.  The fact that he was considered a great one bode well for him, making many assured that he was the political heir to the presidency.  However, their was public clamor at this time for electors to be chosen by direct vote of the people as opposed to by state legislatures.  So, after John Quincy Adams, the office of Secretary of State would no longer be a stepping stone to the presidency.

By 1824 political factions started to develop among members of the democratic-republican party, and so party unity started to break up.  So what happened was that a candidate was chosen from each of the different regions of the country: New England supported the large centralized government ideas of Adams; Kentucky supported the large centralized ideas of Henry Clay; Tennessee supported the small government ideas of Andrew Jackson; and Georgia supported the small government ideas of William H. Crawford.

These were the four democratic-republican nominees for president.

Jackson won the popular vote.  He also earned the most electoral votes, but not enough to seal the election. So the decision who the president would be was left to the House to decide.

Henry Clay finished in last place, so he was out.  So he brokered a deal where representatives from the states he won would vote for Adams in exchange for Adams naming Clay Secretary of State, a position that would set Clay up nicely (or so he thought) to becoming a future president.

So this was how John Quincy Adams became president of the United States despite losing both the popular and electoral votes to Andrew Jackson.  The deal that Clay made would ultimately backfire on him, as it essentially motivated backers of Jackson to defeating Adams four years later.  In the meantime, however, John Quincy Adams was the president.

The democratic party was now officially split: the followers of Adams and Clay became national republicans, and the followers of Jackson and Crawford became democrats.

Despite being raised to be president, he was not a very effective one.  He believed the U.S. should work as a national entity, with each region of the country focusing on a specific industry.  He also supported Henry Clay's American System and tried to enact it.  The American System included three parts:

1. A tariff to protect and promote American industry (bad because it's a tax on imported goods)
2. A national bank to foster commerce (bad because it gives too much power to a few people)
3. Federal subsidies for roads, canals, and other internal improvements (government officials decided who got what and how much). 
4. High western land prices to prevent people from moving from leaving eastern states to western states (unconstitutional because it favored the rich at the expense of the poor, or one group over another)

The American system pretty much made it so the Federal Government chose what projects would be completed and how much money would be doled out to what project.  This was contrary to Jefferson's approach to improving infrastructure, whereby he dole out surplus funds equally among the states and allowed them to decide what projects to fund. 

Adam's opponents, such as Crawford and Jackson, tended to support the ideas of Jefferson, and so they adamantly opposed the American System.  They claimed it was unconstitutional, and they were right.  But in his opening proclamation to Congress he endorsed this program.  He said a national program was necessary to bring the different sections of the country together through a series of canals and roads. Funds for this would be made by the sale of public lands. 

He also championed for a National University that would allow the U.S. to take the lead in arts and sciences. He also financed championed for expeditions and an observatory.

His opponents balked at such huge ambitions, especially considering he had barely become president in the first place.  So, for this reason, he was barely able to get any of his bold ideas through Congress.  Not helping matters was that he received a lot of pressure from Jacksonian supporters.  Not helping matters was that Jacksonian followers were able to gain 27 seats in the Senate, compared to only 21 seats by the followers of Adams.

He also accomplished in regards to foreign affairs.  This was partly due to the fact he had settled many foreign affairs while he was vice president.

Of course opposition from Jacksonian supporters didn't help either.  However, he did succeed at keeping the United States out of foreign affairs and out of foreign wars, and that in and of itself can be cited as a major accomplishment.

By the end of his term he signed a tariff into law, and it was called the "tariff of ambition' by his political opponents.  It protected American manufacturers, but it raised the prices of many goods, particularly in southern states.  The tariff was so unpopular that it is often sited as sealing the fate of Adams.

He would run as the first and only national republican in 1828 against democrat Andrew Jackson.  The Jackson camp made sure  voters knew about the failures of Adams, and made certain they were well aware of the "corrupt bargain" that made Adams president.  Andrew Jackson defeated Adams in a landslide.

He was known as a great diplomat as Secretary of State before his presidency, and as a great U.S. Senator after his presidency.  However, he is generally considered a poor president, and rightly so.

Further Reading

• whitehouse.gov: John Quincy Adams

4 differences between liberals and conservatives

Dennis Prager recently wrote a series of columns, beginning with "To Defend a Position, You Must Understand Both Sides," explaining the differences between conservatives and liberals.  He said, and correctly so, that "At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.

Difference #1: Liberals Believe Man is basically good.  That's what liberals think.  Since everybody is already innately good, there is no need for religion to teach people how to be just and moral. Since they believe all people are innately good, when people do something bad it's because they were influenced by outside forces, such as poverty, despair, and hopelessness.  When black people riot and commit crimes it's because they live in poor communities.

Democrats often excuse violent crimes by saying things like, "It's the fault of society," or "It's our fault because we didn't help them."  This is why liberals tend to feel guilty when crimes occur, because they feel there might have been something they could have done.  If a teenager goes on a rampage with an assault rifle, they may say something like, "This happened because of republicans."  Meaning that republicans oppose bans on such guns.

Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the undeniable truth that people are born morally flawed. This is why conservatives believe religion, and the morals and values it teaches, is important to a functioning society.  Lacking a good religious upbringing, children are more likely to commit crimes and less likely to succeed in life.  When a person commits a crime it's because that person made a bad choice.  Religion essentially teaches people how to be good, and it teaches personal responsibility.  If you make bad choices, it's your fault, not the fault of society or anyone else.

Of course, the idea that poverty causes people to commit crime doesn't make sense when you consider that the vast majority of people who are equally poor do not commit crimes.  Many liberals explain radical Muslim behaviors by saying these people come from impoverished nations.  The fact that most radical Muslims come from middle class families, and Osama Bin Laden was a billionaire, seems to elude them.

Difference #2: The Left Rejects Many Basic Facts of Life.  Conservatives, on the other hand, understand the basic fats of life, and base many of their beliefs on them.  For instance, conservatives understand that man is inherently flawed, and therefore needs religion to learn how to become good.  The left doesn't understand this fact, so liberals are are more likely to lose their religion, or at least not see the importance of learning about religion at school.  This is why conservatives are more likely to appreciate religion, and liberals more likely to be secular.

Conservatives understand that poor choices result in people committing crimes, and so they enforce laws to make people responsible for their own actions.  Liberals think things beyond a person's control lead them to commit crimes, and so they may be more lenient toward them, and feel bad for them.  They may blame republicans.

Conservatives are more likely to acknowledge what has become known as politically incorrect truths, but what they refer to as facts.  For instance, blacks are overwhelmingly more likely to commit crimes than whites.  Indians are the only people to have lost a war yet are treated as the victors.  They are more likely to display confederate flags as symbols of southern life, or to support teams using Indian names such as the Redskins and using Indian war chants to rev up crowds.

Liberals don't see these undeniable truths, and so they see it as offensive to blacks to say them.  Liberals think it's offensive when whites name their teams after Indians and use Indian war chants.  Liberals think it's offensive to blacks to say that blacks commit most crimes.  The undeniable truths that conservatives see are elusive to liberals.  This was how the political correct movement was formed.

Liberals don't like to hear undeniable truths, so they come up with speech codes at school.  If you speak certain truths you are punished, or called a race baiter, homophobes, bigot, inconsiderate, or some other offensive name.

Liberals want to avoid pain at all costs, and so nothing offensive can be said.  This also explains why they use bumper stickers like, "War is not the answer."  They do not understand the undeniable fact that wars are won with guns and tanks, not with pens and good wishes.  For instance, the Nazi's did not voluntarily stop slaughtering Jews, the Allies came in with guns and tanks and bombs and forced them to stop.

Conservatives understand that the only way to peace is through strength.  This explains why conservatives like Ronald Reagan believe it's important to build up our military.  Yet liberals don't understand this undeniable fact, and they believe strength on our side can be seen as offensive by the other.  So if they get mad at us and hate us and want to kill us, then it's our fault.

Conservatives understand the undeniable truth that marriage means something; it is necessary to hold the fabric of society together; it brings with it culture; it teaches culture; it teaches morals; it teaches right from wrong.  Liberals don't see this, and so they don't see a problem with changing the definition of marriage to include men marrying men.

Difference #3: Liberals believe the way to a better world is by doing battle with society's moral defects (real or perceived).  This makes sense, considering they believe people are morally good, so if there is a problem with a person, it's societies fault.  So, the way to make the person better is by improving society.  Unlike conservatives, they believe a perfect society is possible, and so they are continuously aiming for this goal by championing for laws to direct people in one direction or another.

This explains why those on the left are more involved with politics.  They must make laws in order to get people to act the way they want them to.  This explains why when you hear the terms "activist" or "social activist" you are usually referring to a liberal.  They want to change society so that it is constantly "moving forward," as they like to say.  And their efforts to perfect society is called "social justice."

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the way to a better society is with the moral improvement of the individual.  They believe the person must constantly do battle against inner forces to make himself or herself morally better.  They are less concerned with politics.  They don't want to change American politics, they aim to preserve tradition.  They are, in essence, trying to preserve the religious fabric of a society.  They are the defenders of religion.  They are the defenders of traditional marriage in order to preserve culture.  They understand that culture is important in order to improve the moral character of each person.

Conservatives believe improving moral character is important, although this culture must be taught one generation after another; it must be taught by mothers and fathers.  This is why conservatives tend to believe that poverty in impoverished inner city areas is caused by the break down of culture.  For instance, the fact that 9 in 10 black children are born to unwed mothers explains why crime and poverty is so high among the black population.  So they believe the way to end black poverty is to find ways to teach these people better morals and values.

Prager wrote:

The noblest generation ever born still has to teach its children how to battle their natures. If it doesn't, even the best society will begin to rapidly devolve, which is exactly what conservatives believe has been happening to America since the end of World War II.

Liberals believe the way to improve poverty is to create "social justice" programs that provide welfare and food stamps to these people.  They believe the state can make their lives better, and thus make the world a better place.  Yet conservatives understand the basic fact that the state cannot teach morals and values, only culture can do that, and (again) culture is taught by churches and families.  But the build-up of culture, and making the world good, takes time, and so is a slow process. It must be taught by each generation.

Liberals believe they can fix culture fast simply by making laws.  Or, in the case of the United States, where they cannot force people to act a certain way, they create "negative incentives."  Negative incentives means that you tell someone they have to act a certain way, or do a certain thing, or they will not receive government funding.  For instance, hospitals won't receive funding unless they go to paperless charting, or schools won't receive funding if they don't meat government set goals.

Prager wrote:

The Left does not focus on individual character development. Rather, it has always and everywhere focused on social revolution. The most revealing statement of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, the most committed leftist ever elected president of the United States, was made just days before the 2008 election: "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America," he told a large rapturous audience.

Furthermore, he added:

Conservatives not only have no interest in fundamentally transforming the United States, but they are passionately opposed to doing so. Fundamentally transforming any but the worst society -- not to mention transforming what is probably the most decent society in history -- can only make the society worse. Of course, conservatives believe that America can be improved, but not transformed, let alone fundamentally transformed... The Founders all understood that the transformation that every generation must work on is the moral transformation of each citizen. Thus, character development was at the core of both childrearing and of young people's education at school... As John Adams said: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."... And in the words of Benjamin Franklin: "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. Why is that? Because freedom requires self-control. Otherwise, external controls -- which means an ever more powerful government -- would have to be imposed."

He said that the old adage "You must fix yourself before you can fix society" holds true for conservatives but not liberals.

Difference #4: Liberals Ask the Question: Does it feel good? On the contrary, conservatives ask: does it do any good?"  Prager uses affirmative action as an example.  In 1987 a conservative New York Times editorial asked the question: Does a minimum wage do any good?" The answer was this:

"Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market . … More important, it would increase unemployment. … The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, honorable — and fundamentally flawed.”

So the answer was: no!  So the editorial suggested that the best minimum wage was $0.00.

A more recent post by a now liberal editorial staff at the New York Times championed for a rise in the minimum wage.  They did not pose the question: "Does it do any good?"  Instead, as liberals, they asked the question: "Does it make me feel good?"  The answer was yes.  It makes me feel good that I'm helping my fellow man by allowing them to make a better wage.  It makes the worker feel better because he is making more money.  The fact that my raise may cause my boss to go out of business, or to at least not hire any one new, or lay off one of my coworkers so I can get my raise doesn't matter.  Does it make me feel good about myself is all that matters to a liberal.

Another example Prager used was peace activism.  Does it do any good? No.  In fact, it actually makes matters worse.  If you get rid of all our weapons, and bad guys learn about this, then the bad guys will know that he can have his way with us.  During WWII the Nazis were killing Jews, and it wasn't a peace activist that got them to stop.  In fact, sending a peace activist to talk to Hitler would have gotten the peace activist killed.  So, does peace activism do any good?  No.  So conservatives won't do it.

However, the liberal asks, "Will it make me feel better?"  Well sure it will.  It will make me feel like I'm helping.  The fact that I'm making matters worse doesn't matter: I feel good about myself.  Does leaving Iraq do any good.  No, it only made ISIS.  But does it make Obama feel good about himself? Yes.

Prager concludes by saying:

Perhaps the best example is the self-esteem movement. It has had an almost wholly negative effect on a generation of Americans raised to have high self-esteem without having earned it. They then suffer from narcissism and an incapacity to deal with life’s inevitable setbacks. But self-esteem feels good.

And feelings — not reason — is what liberalism is largely about. Reason asks: “Does it do good?” Liberalism asks, “Does it feel good?”

There you go.

Further Reading:

• Differences between right and lift: part I
• Differences between right and left: part 2
• Differences between right and left: part 3
• Differences between right and left: part 4

Thomas Jefferson: What he meant by 'Wall of Separation'

The statement "wall of separation between Church & State" is a vastly repeated statement by those who believe the federal government should have no influence over religion. These words by Thomas Jefferson are taken out of context more so than any other words by a founding father.
Jefferson became our third president in March 1801, following one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns in American history. Among others, he was called a weakling, a libertine, a coward, an infidel, a deist and an atheist. The later two probably stemmed from his own words, such as ones he wrote to his nephew Peter Car in 1787:

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Jefferson was brought up as an Anglican, which was a Christian religion associated with the Church of England.  He was later influenced by men like Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury, who were deists. They believed that God created the earth and that evidence of this can be found by reason alone, not by supernatural events.

Jefferson was also a strong supporter of the French Revolution, and reports made their way to American homes that the French were violently disrespecting religious structures and symbols. So when word got out that Jefferson was "an atheist," many housewives "were seen burying family Bibles in their gardens or hiding them in wells because they expected the Holy Scriptures to be confiscated and burned by the new Administration in Washington," said Daniel L. Dreisbach of the American Heritage.

Dreisbach explains that New England politics in 1800 were generally dominated by Federalists.  However, New England Baptists tended to support Jefferson, making them a minority political and religious faction in New England.

In October of 1801, the Baptist Association at Danbury wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson Congratulating him on his victory and letting him know that they shared his ideas of religious liberty, and criticized those who called him an atheist for his views.  They said he was not, as his enemies said, "an enemy of religion... because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."

So, on January 1, 1802, it only made sense that Jefferson would sit down and write a return letter to them. He wrote, in part:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

In essence, the letter from Jefferson was meant to affirm that he supported the Constitution, and would not push for laws that would take away Bibles and Churches.  In essence, his letter was meant to allay fears that the government planned to interfere with how the Baptist Church went about its business.

He essentially reaffirms the first amendment.  It is often referred to as the establishment clause, whereas Congress shall make no law...

• Respecting an establishment of religion
• Impeding the free exercise of religion
• Infringing on the freedom of speech
• Infringing on the freedom of the press
• Interfering with the right to peaceably assemble
• Interfering or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Basically, the establishment clause prevents the government from denying the natural right of practicing faith, speaking out against the government, writing about the government, assembling in protest against the government, and petitioning the government.

This is important, because in Britain the Government had forced people to be a part of certain religions, such as the Church of England, and punished those who did not do as they were told. The people of the young nation feared that their new government leaders might take actions that would deny their natural right to worship as they chose, and this explained the fear of a Jefferson Presidency among the Baptist community.

So Jefferson's "Wall of Separation Letter" was nothing more than an affirmation of the establishment clause, and nothing more. And the establishment clause says the government cannot endorse a religion, it does not say that people working for the government (i.e. teachers, legislators, judges, etc. ) can't endorse a religion. It does not say that schools and teachers cannot endorse religion.

Further reading:

• The Heritage Foundation: The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse
• The Jefferson Monticello:  Jefferson's Religious Beliefs
• CNN: Founding Father's Dirty Campaign
• U.S. Constitution Online: Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter