Jackson vs. The Federalists

Essay by jherigstadUniversity, Bachelor'sA, November 2004

download word file, 6 pages 4.7

The Federalists had a good idea of what to do to get this country on track as a whole nation. They devised a plan that would work for us for some time. The thing is that everything will need to be changed at some point and that is why the Jacksonian model of government was a good thing to put out for to see and see how it worked. I have chosen to compare the Jacksonian model to the Federalists in this paper and also to explain to you why I thing that the Jacksonians had the better model in the long run.

During the period of 1801-1817, the Jacksonians and the Federalists were viewed differently when it came to the federal Constitution. The Jacksonians were viewed as strict constructionists and the Federalists were more of a group of loose constructionists. Although the two parties had their different views on the federal government, they occasionally switched their views to help solve certain situations.

When deciding whether the Constitution better embodied the American commitment to democracy (republicanism), or whether it produced a greater compromise to it, one must define the nature of a republican government. Both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist set forth their distinctive views on the quality of representational government, but it was James Madison and Alexander Hamilton vision I feel was the most correct. By accepting their view, it is clear that they propose the best arguments for why the Constitution establishes a greater democratic state then the Articles of Confederation. In their opposing arguments, Samuel Adams and Richard Henry Lee see the two distinctive problems with the Constitution, with regard to its democratic nature: the character of the judiciary and the process by which the executive is put into office. I will argue that federalist provide greater justification...