DBQ Jeffersonian Vs. Federalists University Essay Example

DBQ

During the time period of 1801 to 1817, there were multiple issues in the United States ranging from wars to political boundaries. This time period saw the termination of the Federalist party. The conflicts were between two parties called the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. The Federalist party was officially started by John Adams. John Adams was also a loose constructionist just like all the other Federalists. Federalists were in favor of a strong central government. On the other side, was Thomas Jefferson who was in office from 1801 to 1809. Jefferson started the Jeffersonian Republican party. The Jeffersonians were strict constructionists who believed in states rights. They said that anything that is not stated in the Constitution, is reserved for the states to decide. However, this was not always the case. The statement that the Jeffersonian Republicans are usually characterized as strict constructionists who were opposed to the broad constructionism of the Federalists is partly accurate during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. While any party is in office, that party will almost always be loose constructionists because each party in office wants more power. The Jeffersonians started out as strict constructionists but slowly turned into loose constructionists because they were in office for twenty years.

The Jeffersonians were actually strict constructionists before Jefferson was elected in 1801. For example, the Jeffersonians did not like the idea of a national bank. They thought that banks are reserved for the states because there is nothing in the Constitution that states that the federal government can create a national bank. Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist who proposed the First Bank of the United States, was appointed as the first Secretary of Treasury. He thought that a national bank would help to improve the nation’s credit. Jefferson and Madison were opposed due to that a national bank mainly benefited merchants and investors rather than the whole population. Jefferson to Gideon Granger says, “attached equally to the preservation to the states of those rights unquestionably remaining with them” (Document A). Jefferson is promoting states’ rights here in saying that the state governments hold the right to anything that is not clearly stated in the Constitution. Also, Jefferson states, “The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations” (Document A). Jefferson again is stating that the states have more rights and to let the states be independent. Jefferson says this in 1800, one year before he becomes president. During Madison’s presidency, John Randolph, a Quid, says to the House of Representatives, “[W]e have another proof that the present government have renounced the true republican principles of Jefferson’s administration on which they raised themselves to power, and that they have taken up, in their stead, those of John Adams” (Document F). John Randolph is criticizing the acts of Jefferson and Madison.

More specifically, he is criticizing the Tariff of 1816 because imposing a tariff such as a tariff on imported goods, although a right of the federal government in the Constitution, was not promoting state rights. The Jeffersonian party started up as promoting states’ rights and strict constructionism. The Jeffersonian party was slowly drifting away from their basic principles. The Ograbme turtle cartoon in document C shows that the Embargo Act of 1807 was unconstitutional and was not promoting states rights. The Embargo Act was an act that Jefferson passed that cut off all trade during the Napoleonic Era. The Federalists called this act as unconstitutional on the basis that the Congress may “regulate trade with foreign nations, and among the several states…” To regulate trade implies that some trade is allowed. Congress completely banned trade with foreign nations so the Embargo Act of 1807 was clearly unconstitutional. Daniel Webster, a Federalist, said in a speech, “The [Madison] administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion… Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article of section is it contained that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly or the wickedness of the government may engage it?” (Document D). Webster is talking about the draft system that the Madison administration had implemented.

The Federalists chastised the idea of a draft because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has the right to do that. Jefferson says, “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched” (Document G). He basically says that loose constructionism is good. Changing the Constitution, or adding new bills is okay according to Jefferson in document G. The Jeffersonian Republicans started out as strict constructionists, but due to being in power, they became more and more loose. On the other hand, Jefferson and Madison were partly still strict constructionists. Congress introduced the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 which was then argued against by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were political statements made by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures that were drafted to argue that the states had the right to declare any acts of Congress as unconstitutional. By doing this, they argued for states’ rights and strict constructionism. Jefferson and Madison, both being from the Virginia legislature, also advocated states’ rights and strict constructionism. Jefferson then became president soon after and brought his ideas of strict constructionism into play. Near the end of his second term in 1808, Jefferson says to Samuel Miller, a minister, “Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general [federal] government. It must then rest with the states…” (Document B). Jefferson clearly states that the states have the right to religion. Jefferson also says to Gideon Granger, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government” (Document A).

Jefferson wants a small federal government to give more power to the states. Both these statements back up the initial idea of the Jeffersonians of strict constructionism and giving more rights to the states. Just like Jefferson’s thinking, when Madison was presented with the Internal Improvements Bill in 1817, Madison clearly was against it saying, “But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and a reliance of insufficient precedents” (Document H). Madison refuses to allow the bill to pass because the power to give money is unconstitutional even though it may be good for the country, “I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses…” (Document H). During these four terms of presidency of Madison and Jefferson, both of them kept their basic ideals and principles that the party was based off of. Therefore, with respect to the federal Constitution, the Jeffersonian Republicans, although usually characterized as strict constructionists, are not completely strict constructionists. When they are in power, they become more and more loose constructionists, but during the times when the Federalists or any other opposing party is in power, they revert back to strict constructionism.

Outline And Evaluate Explanations Of Obedience

Outline & Evaluate one or more Explanations of Why People Obey. There are many reasons as to why people obey which have been justified gradually over several decades. Milgram (1974) argued the fact that in an obedience situation, people tend to pass all sense of responsibility onto the authoritative figure. Milgram said that people are in an autonomous state when taking their responsibility but move into an agentic state when passing this responsibility to an authoritative figure; this shift in state of mind is called an agentic shift.

For example in Milgram shock experiment (1963), many participants reported after they were debriefed that they knew delivering the shocks was wrong but they felt that the experimenter was to be held responsible and not them. Similar to at the Nuremberg trials as many Nazi soldiers defended their actions saying they were just following orders so it was not their fault. Another explanation to why people obey being this idea of Gradual commitment, which has a snowball effect of starting of small and therefore making it easier to progress to something more extreme. If we look back at Milgram’s experiment, all participants were started at the same, relatively harmless, 15 volt shock. The shock levels gradually increased in increments of 15 volts and did not become painful or dangerous until several shocks had been administered. However, had participants been asked to deliver one large shock initially, it is less likely that they would have done so, but the method of gradually increasing bit by bit made the previously unthinkable seem like just another step. The idea of gradual commitment could perhaps be applied to the actions carried out my Nazi soldiers, they began small: name calling, minor violent attacks, more serious attacks, then it grew more serious: murder and mass extermination. However Milgram’s study lacks ecological validity and can therefore not be used definitively as explanations for real life situations. The role of Buffers is also another explanation as to why people obey.

Buffers are defined as “anything that reduces the immediacy and impact of the orders given, or reduces the depersonalisation of the victim”. When one is to look at the statistics of Milgram’s study, obedience rates dropped to just 20% if the authority figure was placed in a different room to the participant, therefore harder to refuse to follow an order when in closer proximity to authority figure. Obedience levels dropped to 40% when the participant could see the victim and then to a further 30% if they were close enough to touch the victim, therefore proximity to the victim you are causing harm to also can have an effect on how well one obeys. Environment also plays a key role in obedience, for example obedience levels dropped to 48% when participants were moved from a university to an office building. Furthermore the legitimacy of the authoritative figure can also rationalise why people obey. In Milgram’s experiment (1963) the experiment was made to wear a light grey lab coat to symbolize a legitimate figure of authority and power. Other examples of uniform that implicate the legitimacy of authority are; nurses, police officers, security guards etc. The power effect a uniform has on someone in order to influence them to obey was demonstrated by Bickman (1974); he used 3 male actors (one in normal clothing, one as a milkman, and one as a security guard), the actors would ask passers-by to pick up rubbish or spare them some change. It was found that the passers-by were more likely to obey the actor dressed as a security guard and less likely to obey the actor dressed in regular clothing. Although Bickman’s experiment was a field experiment therefore high in ecological validity, it was an opportunity sample so cannot be generalised beyond those who had so happened to be passing by.

Btec Business Level 3 Unit 4 P4

The iconic swoosh, a symbol recognized worldwide, represents Nike Inc., the well-known manufacturer of athletic shoes and clothing. Nike has grown from modest beginnings to have a global impact and revolutionize the sportswear industry. This includes transforming not only athletic shoes but also sports equipment, apparel, and accessories. Esteemed athletes like Michael Jordan, Andre Agassi, Roger Federer, and the Williams sisters have endorsed Nike as they align with their mission to inspire and innovate for athletes around the world.

Nike aims for immediate brand recognition by sponsoring various football teams through kits and endorsing footballers who wear their shoes. Created in 1971 by Carolyn Davidson for just $35 (despite initial reservations from founder Phil Knight of Blue Ribbon Sports Inc.), the famous logo featuring the swoosh was ultimately chosen as Nike’s emblem. The swoosh represents the wing found on the statue of Nike – the Greek Goddess of victory – which has served as inspiration for countless brave warriors throughout history.

Legend has it that Greeks would exclaim “Nike” when achieving victory in battle. Originally referred to as ‘the strip,’ it was later renamed ‘Swoosh’ to reflect materials used in Nike shoes. The logo made its debut on a shoe in spring 1972 with tremendous success.Nike is endorsed by prominent figures around the world through advertisements and television appearances, where they are seen wearing the brand. Cristiano Ronaldo, an influential figure who passionately supports Nike, is one of the celebrities who greatly contribute to the brand’s global sales growth and substantial profits. His regular television appearances inspire countless individuals aspiring to be like him, prompting them to buy his trainers and football kits.

error: Content is protected !!