I noticed in reading the JSR book, Washington’s reluctance to lead his nation. I always thought of him as a stand up leader, reading that he chose a democracy and a presidency, turning down a coronation of being king. He seemed so nonchalant in the reading and after 4 years just wanting to head back to “his plow and field”. (page 20 JSR) Yet this actually helped the country. His advisor's, mainly Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson, urged him to run, or as the book puts it to merely sit back and allow his name to be tossed in the hat. This, up until FDR, served as the unwritten headstone rule for the two-year maximum serving time of a president.
It also allowed for the reliance on advisor's and the cabinet, just another departure for a monarchy. If the first president was a person like Jefferson, who wanted to govern by his own morals, then the presidency would have enormous powers and he would have set incredible precedents. Jefferson purchased the Louisiana territory with no authority to do so, even trying to grandfather it into an amendment later on. Imagine this act done by our first president instead of the third and imagine how far he could have gone with no one following as an example before him.
I also noted numerous ties between the election of 2004 and of 1812. These ties can be linked to any of FDR’s reelections as well. The public seems to have more confidence in our leader during war time as well as unwillingness to change the person in charge when there is a war going on. Yet there are caveats to this. The war has to have a sense of hitting home and has to be a large one. For example World War II and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan connect to the war of 1812 showing that there was imminent danger to the American way of life.
As much as American’s protest for peace and diplomacy over force, there is an overbearing drive to keep our freedoms and way of existence, and if that means war or a fight then we are up for it. Bush won the 2004 election primarily by using the “9-11” tactic and showing the people that this war is not only necessary but a good thing. It also shows the stunning difference of elections after a war and during a war. Since Bush can no longer run, the debates and primaries are about change and the war in Iraq, yet what if it ended and we won? Much like the 1816 election it would be “dull as dishwater” (page 29 Presidential Campaigns) Instead we have been gearing up for this election for the past two years.
-Chris Brower
1 comment:
Excellent piece. You wrote: "Jefferson purchased the Louisiana territory with no authority to do so, even trying to grandfather it into an amendment later on."
Republican Congressman Caesar A. Rodney cited the necessary and proper clause of the constitution during the fight. Granted, a very, very, weak argument and quite hypocritical for a strict constitutionalist such as Jefferson (it still makes me shudder) but it was an argument that was made at the time, even though applying it to purchasing foreign territory is a leap and a stretch. Later on, Chief Justice Marshall eventually ruled that the government possesses the power to aquire territory by conquest or treaty *(shudder)*
I find it so ironic that a man such as Jefferson, who always fought and argued for very limited constitutional government, was the President who wound up expanding its powers the most for future precedent.
(Ryan)
Post a Comment