Podcasts about democratic republicans

The first US Presidential Elections were held in 1789 and George Washington was elected President. John Adams polled the 2nd highest electoral votes and became Washington's VP. A tie in the Election of 1800 brought in the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, which established separate votes for the President and the VP from the election of 1804.  The Slavery debate dominated politics through most of the second half of the 19th Century, triggering the American Civil War as Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as the 16th US President.

This week we examine the Democratic-Republicans as they start to become a more powerful group, asking what was the ideology that held them together.

How did political parties come about in the early American republic? Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains how the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans came to be the first two political parties in the United States. Center for Civic Education

[This blog will always be free to read, but it's also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I'm always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are deeply unethical. Their conflicts-of-interest are brazen and shameless, they are openly corrupt, and their general and open hostility toward those they believe are their political opponents is especially jarring given how they're not supposed to engage in such behavior as sitting justices. Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas do not belong on any federal bench, of course, let alone in seats on the Supreme Court. I feel every reasonable adult considering the evidence in good faith agrees.That's all well and good to acknowledge, and also: the harsh and sad truth that many folks need to hear is that Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas aren't going anywhere, unless by their own volition or the unyielding authority of mortality's sweet embrace.More to the point: Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas will not be removed from the Supreme Court. That is never going to happen. Ever. So long as they wish to be in those seats and their bodies don't fail them, both will remain sitting Associate Justices of the Supreme Court.I feel the need to point this out because I see a lot of well-meaning folks getting angry with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin and President Biden and whomever the hell else, as though of any these people have a magic wand that can spirit Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas out of power. So, let's review: by authority of the Constitution, federal judges can only be removed from the bench—that includes Supreme Court justices—by a two-thirds conviction of the U.S. Senate following impeachment by the U.S. House.So, for example, if Mr. Alito were to be impeached by the House, as damning as that may be, and even if a whopping 66 senators vote to convict after trial proceedings, he still would not be removed because it takes 67 senators (two-thirds of the body) to reach a conviction. This is not without precedent regarding accountability of federal judges, 15 of whom have been impeached in our country's history, eight of them convicted in the Senate, on charges ranging from abuse of power to soliciting bribes to intoxication while presiding.That exclusive club includes Justice Samuel Chase, the only member of the Supreme Court to be impeached, in a highly partisan war between the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans (the two major parties at the time). He was acquitted on all charges by the Senate.But folks, need I point out the obvious? We don't live in a rational time. We don't live in a good faith political environment. Mr. Alito would have to commit crimes so visceral—and the evidence brought against him would have to be so overwhelming—that numerous Republican senators would have no choice but to vote for a conviction.This is the same bunch that let Trump get away with blatant corruption in two separate impeachment trials. Please, raise your hand if you think the Senate would convict Mr. Alito short of him murdering someone and bragging about it on national television. I know it's frustrating. I know it can feel demoralizing. But I worry far more about the exacerbation of folks' exhaustion if they're led to believe Mr. Alito might be removed from the bench, only to realize, down the road, he will never be. It's not gonna happen. Ever.And before y'all mention it, yes, I read Congressman Raskin's elegantly penned op-ed in The Washington Post yesterday, in which he argues that Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas can be forced to recuse themselves from the Jan. 6th case. (Quick note for those not-in-the-know: “recusal” means a federal judge acknowledges a conflict-of-interest they may hold in a pending case and removes themselves from the process in the interest of fairness. This does not mean they are wholly removed from the bench. Two very different things.)Mr. Raskin has a brilliant mind, and I am regularly in awe of it. But there's one key problem with his argument: outside of Congress (see above), the only folks with an enforcement mechanism on recusal are Mr. Alito's and Mr. Thomas' fellow justices. He's absolutely right on the steps outlined: the Justice Department could petition the other seven justices to enforce recusal, and those justices have the legal authority to do so.I would even encourage the Justice Department to do exactly that, in order to further draw attention to all the ways in which the Supreme Court is failing the American people. I'm all for that as a tactic.But I want to be very clear: the conservatives on the Supreme Court will never support recusal enforcement. They cannot be shamed into it. Mr. Raskin is a truly wonderful man and a great patriot and a brilliant public servant, but he, too, knows—deep down—that will never happen. I believe Mr. Raskin's op-ed does have utility in an important way: bringing more attention to the blatant corruption of Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas, and that is an effort worth making. But I don't want folks to believe recusal will ever happen. It will not.Okay, so, that's the bad news: Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas will never be removed from the bench, and they will never be recused from cases before the Supreme Court that have high stakes for our democracy.Here's the good news for those with the guts to see it: we can focus all our energy on reelecting President Biden and holding the Senate and ensuring another four years of reshaping the federal judiciary, which may even include one or two conservative vacancies on the Supreme Court. Next year, Mr. Thomas will be 76, and Mr. Alito will be 75. We could very well see them both make the decision to step aside in the next four years due to extraordinary health problems. They could choose to spend their remaining time in retirement.I'm not trying to be pollyannaish here, I promise. I will certainly concede it's not likely this will happen. Probably not. But it could happen. By the 2028 election, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Supreme Court could slowly shift to a 5-4 majority of reasonable jurists. And it's a hell of a lot likelier we'll see that happen before Mr. Alito and Mr. Thomas recuse themselves from a case, let alone be removed from the bench.We have a choice in this moment. We can focus on this election, put our hearts and minds into reelecting President Biden and holding the Senate and taking back the House and playing the long game. Or we can get distracted with things that will never happen and put our hard-earned energy into ventures that don't deserve it.Let's criticize the corruption of the Supreme Court and use it as potent messaging on the importance of this election, but let's also be realistic and understand that we're in a marathon for democracy, not a sprint.If we can do that, it'll be worth it. Charlotte's Web Thoughts is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Charlotte's Web Thoughts at charlotteclymer.substack.com/subscribe

Unit 4 is all about the Democratic Republicans and their vision of a Farming Republic. You will get to review how the Louisiana Purchase led to the expansion of farming. You'll look at how Andrew Jackson strengthened farmers and the presidency. And, you'll review the reasons for the expansion of racial slavery and how African Americans resisted this system. You will get the big examples you need for the AP test. You can listen to this in the car, on the bus or out on your run. Because…remember…you have a lot to do and not much time to do it in!!

In this episode, Dr. John Ragosta, a historian at the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies at Monticello, discusses the political turmoil in the 1790s. The period saw hyper-partisanship, with Federalists like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton supporting a strong central government, while Democratic Republicans like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison favored stronger state government. The Alien and Sedition Acts, which gave the President the authority to deport any alien deemed dangerous and made it illegal to criticize the President or Congress, were a significant point of contention. The episode also discusses how Jefferson and Madison realized they had gone too far with their partisan battles and pulled back, leading to a more unified political climate. The episode concludes with a discussion on the importance of a free press, the concept of a loyal opposition, and the principle that the majority rules but the minority must accept this until the next election.

How did political parties come about in the early American republic? Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains how the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans came to be the first two political parties in the United States. Center for Civic Education

On this day in history, September 1, 1807, Aaron Burr, former Vice President and notable shooter of Alexander Hamilton, was acquitted of treason. Aaron Burr's 1807 treason trial was a landmark case and one of the earliest tests of the U.S. Constitution's Treason Clause, outlined in Article III, Section 3. The clause was carefully crafted to limit the charge of treason to the most serious of crimes, requiring "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" for a conviction. The trial featured key figures from the Constitutional Convention, including Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, who were part of Burr's defense team. President Thomas Jefferson, who was convinced of Burr's guilt, directed the prosecution.Burr was arrested in Alabama after being rejected by both major political parties: the Democratic-Republicans for opposing Jefferson in the 1800 presidential election, and the Federalists for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. He had moved west to seek better fortunes and was involved in a plot to seize lands in Louisiana and Mexico. His plot was exposed when General James Wilkinson, a longtime friend, turned against him and informed federal authorities.Chief Justice John Marshall, a political adversary of Jefferson, presided over the trial. In an unprecedented move, Marshall issued a subpoena to President Jefferson to provide documents for Burr's defense, which Jefferson partially ignored. The trial hinged on whether Burr had committed an "overt act" of treason. Testimony revealed that Burr was 100 miles away from Blennerhassett's Island on the Ohio River, where the government claimed he was planning an act of treason. Marshall instructed the jury to focus solely on whether an act of war had been conducted on the island, citing an earlier related case, Ex parte Bollman.The jury quickly acquitted Burr, stating he was "not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us." Jefferson was so infuriated by the acquittal that he reportedly wanted to bring impeachment charges against Marshall, echoing a failed attempt in 1805 to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Interestingly, Aaron Burr had presided over Chase's acquittal as Vice President. The trial revealed the complexities and limitations of the Treason Clause, and it also exposed the personal and political animosities between key figures of the era.U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disclosed that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow funded his travel expenses for three trips last year. This is the first time in two decades that Thomas has reported travel funded by Crow, a Dallas real estate developer. The justice also revealed that he sold three properties to Crow in 2014, a transaction he had previously failed to disclose. These disclosures come after a series of ProPublica reports earlier this year that scrutinized Thomas's financial ties to Crow, including luxury vacations and real estate transactions.In a statement, Thomas's attorney Elliot Berke refuted the allegations, calling them a "partisan feeding frenzy" and stating that the attacks were motivated by disagreement with Thomas's judicial philosophy. Thomas also noted that he did not report earlier vacations with Crow due to new rules adopted by the federal judiciary this year. He added that he had arranged for private transportation to an event in May following an "increased security risk" related to a leaked draft opinion on Roe v. Wade.Thomas also corrected previous omissions in his financial disclosures, including bank accounts and a life insurance policy for his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas. He stated that Crow had paid $133,000 for the three properties in Savannah, Georgia, in 2014, resulting in a capital loss for him and his wife.The disclosure has heightened scrutiny around the ethics and transparency of the Supreme Court, especially as public confidence in the court has declined amid various controversies. Congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have filed ethics complaints against Thomas, but no action or updates have been announced by the Committee on Financial Disclosure, which oversees the reporting process for justices and lower court judges.Justice Clarence Thomas Reports Trips Paid for by GOP Donor (2)US Supreme Court's Thomas flew on GOP donor's jet, cites security risks | ReutersA federal judge has sentenced former Proud Boys leaders Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl to 17 and 15 years in prison, respectively, for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. They were convicted of seditious conspiracy in an attempt to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election loss. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly's sentences were lower than the 33-year and 30-year terms that federal prosecutors had sought. Kelly stated that while he did not want to minimize the violence of the event, it was not equivalent to a mass casualty incident.Before their sentencing, both Biggs and Rehl expressed regret for their actions. Biggs choked up as he spoke about his daughter, who he said needs him, while Rehl broke down, stating that he had let politics consume his life. Prosecutors had partly based their sentencing recommendation for Rehl on evidence that he committed perjury during the trial.Judge Kelly agreed that the conduct of Biggs and Rehl amounted to an act of terrorism but did not apply a terrorism enhancement to the sentences, stating it "overstates the conduct" at issue. The sentences are among the most stringent handed down in relation to the Capitol attack. To date, more than 1,100 people have been arrested, over 630 have pleaded guilty, and at least 110 have been convicted at trial for charges related to the Capitol assault. The attack resulted in five deaths, including a police officer, and injuries to more than 140 police officers.Judge sentences ex-Proud Boys leaders to 17 and 15-year terms for US Capitol attack | ReutersApple and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have settled a lawsuit over the rejection of Apple's application for a federal trademark for the term "Smart Keyboard." The dispute was resolved in principle, according to a joint filing, although details of the settlement were not immediately available. Apple's Smart Keyboard serves as an iPad cover, keyboard, and stand. The USPTO initially rejected Apple's trademark application for the term in 2018, and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the decision in 2021. The board found that "Smart Keyboard" was a generic term for "technologically advanced keyboards."Apple appealed the decision to a Virginia federal court last year, arguing that "Smart Keyboard" was a distinctive trade name for its accessory. The company also pointed out that the USPTO had approved hundreds of other "Smart" trademarks, including Apple's own "Smart Cover," "Smart Case," and "Smart Connector" marks for iPad accessories. In response, the USPTO reiterated its stance that "Smart Keyboard" is a generic term and therefore ineligible for a federal trademark.The case had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Representatives for both Apple and the USPTO did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the settlement. The resolution puts an end to a legal battle that had implications for trademark law and the tech industry.Apple, USPTO settle lawsuit over rejected 'Smart Keyboard' trademark | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

How did political parties come about in the early American republic? Dr. Lester Brooks, emeritus professor of American history at Anne Arundel Community College, explains how the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans came to be the first two political parties in the United States. Center for Civic Education

Democracy in Question? is brought to you by:• Central European University: CEU• The Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: AHCD• The Podcast Company: scopeaudio Follow us on social media!• Central European University: @CEU• Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy in Geneva: @AHDCentre Subscribe to the show. If you enjoyed what you listened to, you can support us by leaving a review and sharing our podcast in your networks! GlossaryGerrymandering(14:00 or p.4 in the transcript)In U.S. politics, gerrymandering is the practice of drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage over its rivals (political or partisan gerrymandering) or that dilutes the voting power of members of ethnic or linguistic minority groups (racial gerrymandering). The term is derived from the name of Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, whose administration enacted a law in 1812 defining new state senatorial districts. The law consolidated the Federalist Party vote in a few districts and thus gave disproportionate representation to Democratic-Republicans. The outline of one of these districts was thought to resemble a salamander. A satirical cartoon by Elkanah Tisdale that appeared in the Boston Gazette graphically transformed the districts into a fabulous animal, “The Gerry-mander,” fixing the term in the popular imagination.source 

Political parties.  President George Washington warned against the rise of political parties (then, the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists), going so far to say they could be used “to subvert the Power of the People” in his Farewell Address in 1796.  In our current Congress, we have seen play out what Washington was warning us against.  In this episode we are discussing bipartisanship and taking a look at just how feasible bipartisanship is in today's political climate.  We are thrilled to welcome two freshman members of congress: Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI) and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY).  Join our all-start student panel in this special episode as we discuss how these members of Congress have already worked together in Congress, how members interact with each other on the House floor and the future of bipartisan legislating!  

Burr emerges as one of the most eloquent and influential Democratic-Republicans in the Senate, yet endures some major defeats.

On this special episode, I join Presidencies of the United States Podcast host Jerry Landry for his Seat at the Table series. This series covers the known and unknown Cabinet officers of American presidential administrations. No president can do it alone, and the early American Presidents alternately relied upon or avoided working with their Cabinet. In the early days of Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans, finding loyal Cabinet officers was rare. Benjamin Stoddert was one of the first and best. And very few people have ever heard of him. Subscribe to History's TrainwrecksSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/historys-trainwrecks. Help keep trainwrecks on the tracks. Become a supporter at https://plus.acast.com/s/historys-trainwrecks. Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Essential Question: How does Thomas Jefferson limit government power? THE REVOLUTION OF 1800! The peaceful transition of power between the Federalists and Democratic Republicans brings in a new age of American politics. The Democratic Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson will take power and implement changes that are still felt to this day.

Joe and Kyle recap the 3rd watch party, then Schuyler Defeated. We discuss the formation of the Democratic-Republicans and Burr's political career. All this and more!

1814 Hartfort Convention beging and try to stop the Democratic-Republicans; 1791 Bill of Rights is ratified; 1864 Battle of Nashville; 1941 WWII news; 1982 Parcells becomes head coach of NY Giants; 2004 Love Shack burns down

Year(s) Discussed: 1801-1805 As James Monroe set off for his new special mission to Spain, a new congressional session began with Democratic-Republicans aiming to settle a long-standing issue as well as put their mark on the judiciary branch. However, they would find that their plans quickly went awry, and the events of early 1805 would … Continue reading 3.25 – What’s Next →

James Monroe delivered his 2nd inaugural address on March 5th, 1821. Read by yours truly. He ran unopposed and had almost unanimously won the election of 1820 – he missed a single elector who (it is thought) didn't vote for him to ensure that only Washington would have had electoral unanimity. The Federalist party faded, leaving the Democratic-Republicans in power. As is often the case, these parties split into the Democratic and Republican parties we have now (though the issues have changed considerably) and paved the way for The cover art is an C. 1820-1822 portrait of James Monroe by Gilbert Stuart. You can get a copy of My Fellow Americans here: Pay-What-You-Want: https://gumroad.com/l/myfellowamericans Kindle ($4.99): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09DXN4KTM Apple Books ($4.99): https://books.apple.com/us/book/my-fellow-americans/id1540137345 Librecron ($4.99): https://librecron.com/products/my-fellow-americans_yuvraj-singh

The fifth episode of my new podcast, My Fellow Americans – the 2nd inaugural address of Thomas Jefferson, read by Kevin Stroud of the History of English podcast (a fantastic listen that you can enjoy here: https://historyofenglishpodcast.com/. The podcast runs from November 18th until January 19th, 2021, just a day shy of Inauguration Day. Jefferson was one of the most important figures of the age – an idealist in the long view, but a pragmatist in the short term. His election meant that the Federalist party was out of power, replaced by his Democratic-Republicans. Jeffersonian democracy would be the dominant political philosophy for the next 24 years, under his successors James Madison & James Monroe. At the end of his 2nd 4 year term, Jefferson resigned. He continued the precedent set by Washington that other presidents would continue to follow (though some tried to secure a third term, only FDR was successful in doing so). The portrait of Thomas Jefferson was painted by Rembrandt Peale in 1800. You can get a copy of My Fellow Americans here: Pay-What-You-Want: https://gumroad.com/l/myfellowamericans Kindle ($4.99): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09DXN4KTM Apple Books ($4.99): https://books.apple.com/us/book/my-fellow-americans/id1540137345 Librecron ($4.99): https://librecron.com/products/my-fellow-americans_yuvraj-singh

The fourth episode of my new podcast, My Fellow Americans – the 1st inaugural address of Thomas Jefferson, read by Jennifer Mercieca, a rhetorical scholar at Texas A&M. She's also the author of Demagogue for President: The Rhetorical Genius of Donald Trump (https://amzn.to/36SvzEo). The podcast runs from November 18th until January 19th, 2021, just a day shy of Inauguration Day. Jefferson was one of the most important figures of the age – an idealist in the long view, but a pragmatist in the short term. His election meant that the Federalist party was out of power, replaced by his Democratic-Republicans. Jeffersonian democracy would be the dominant political philosophy for the next 24 years, under his successors James Madison & James Monroe. The cover art is an oil on canvas portrait of Thomas Jefferson painted by Mather Brown in 1786, while Jefferson was in London. It's housed at the National Portrait Gallery. You can get a copy of My Fellow Americans here: Pay-What-You-Want: https://gumroad.com/l/myfellowamericans Kindle ($4.99): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09DXN4KTM Apple Books ($4.99): https://books.apple.com/us/book/my-fellow-americans/id1540137345 Librecron ($4.99): https://librecron.com/products/my-fellow-americans_yuvraj-singh

This newsletter is really a public policy thought-letter. While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought-letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. It seeks to answer just one question: how do I think about a particular public policy problem/solution?Welcome to the mid-week edition in which we write essays on a public policy theme. The usual public policy review comes out on weekends.PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.- RSJDemocracies have periodic elections to ascertain the will of its people on who should govern them. Often the incumbents lose. This leads to a nebulous, yet perhaps the most precious of features of a democracy – the peaceful transfer of power between the vanquished and the winner. In most democracies, there isn’t a written down law on how this should happen. Instead there are norms of conduct and fair play that guide this. The idea that someone voluntarily steps aside and lets an opponent take over the reins of power is fraught with risk. There’s no guarantee if this gesture will be reciprocated or perpetuated in future. The ability to transcend this fear is what makes democracies tick around the world. Cannot Be Taken For GrantedHow precious this feature is can be gauged from this study done by Adam Przeworski of New York University that was cited by the Economist a few weeks back.“Mr Przeworski’s database, which analyses elections in more than 200 countries between 1919 and 2015, shows that only a little more than half have had even one orderly electoral transfer of power—defined as government handovers free of coups, civil wars or constitutional crises after a vote.Eleven such handovers from one party to another have occurred in America since the end of the first world war. This makes the country an exceptional success on this measure.”Norms follow a logic unique to them. Once set it isn’t easy to dislodge them. Conversely, once challenged and then flouted, it’s difficult to restore them. The norm of peaceful transfer of power for the world was set in the US in the early 19th century. The elections of 1800 were fractious and fiercely contested between the Federalists led by the incumbent President John Adams and the Democratic-Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson. This was a bitter battle. To quote www.history.com: “During Adams’s presidency, Democratic-Republicans and Federalists clashed over everything from taxes to religion, but especially over the main policy dilemma facing the nation: how to deal with the ongoing French Revolution. These bitter differences were front and center during the 1800 presidential campaign, which played out in the highly partisan press. Federalist newspapers and propaganda materials branded French sympathizers as dangerous radicals, while Democratic-Republicans accused the Federalists of wanting to re-establish a monarchy.When the votes were counted, confusion reigned. Though Jefferson and his running mate, Aaron Burr, had defeated Adams and Pinckney, both had received the same number of electoral votes. The tie sent the decision to the House of Representatives, where Jefferson finally won the presidency on the 36th ballot.In the early morning hours of March 4, 1801, John Adams, the second president of the United States, quietly left Washington, D.C. under cover of darkness. On the heels of his humiliating defeat in the previous year’s election, Adams was setting an important precedent. His departure from office marked the first peaceful transfer of power between political opponents in the United States, now viewed as a hallmark of the nation’s democracy. Since then, the loser of every presidential election in U.S. history has willingly and peacefully surrendered power to the winner, despite whatever personal animosity or political divisions might exist.”In his inaugural address, Jefferson made his famous unifying declaration:“But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans. We are all federalists.”Banking On The Usual American Exceptionalism?Over the years, there have been laws drafted and passed to establish a mechanism for peaceful transfer of power. The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 and its numerous subsequent amendments have attempted to create more defined guidelines to achieve this. Yet a few features remain unique to the transfer of power in the US electoral system:There’s an inordinately long 10-week transition period between the elections and the inauguration of the new President.During this period, the incumbent President continues to hold full executive powers till the President-elect is sworn-in.There’s no clarity about what happens if the incumbent refuses to transfer the power citing fraud or electoral irregularities.Alexis de Tocqueville in his classic Democracy in America remarked on the period just preceding the presidential election and after it with acuity:“Whatever the prerogatives of the executive power may be, the period which immediately precedes an election and the moment of its duration must always be considered as a national crisis, which is perilous in proportion to the internal embarrassments and the external dangers of the country. Few of the nations of Europe could escape the calamities of anarchy or of conquest every time they might have to elect a new sovereign.”The ‘national crisis’ that he calls out isn’t a hyperbole. This transition period where no one is really in control has seen some famous missteps by the U.S. political class. The transition from Buchanan (arguably, the second worst President after Trump) to Lincoln between November 1860 and March 1861 was when the states of the Confederate South prepared for the Civil War while the executive remained paralysed. Similarly, the protracted legal battle between Bush and Gore following the elections in 2000 is believed to have given Bin Laden and his associates the window to plan 9/11.   These unique features and the dangers of protracted legal battle during the transition period have now come into focus as President Trump refuses to acknowledge he lost the elections. With the crisis of a second wave of Covid-19 striking many states and the urgent need for a national vaccination plan to be administered in the next six months, there couldn’t be a worse time to question the legitimacy of an election and rousing nearly half of the country to believe the voting was rigged. But Trump has managed that. And more. He is now striking at the foundational norm of democracy – the peaceful transfer of power – a gift that the US has given to the world. Such norms once questioned cease to be inviolable. All bets are then off for future transitions. Tocqueville had cited three causes responsible for maintenance of democratic republic in the United States:The peculiar and accidental situation in which Providence has placed the Americans.The laws.The manners and customs of the people.The Manners Of Americans Of these, Tocqueville specifically cited the manners of American people as the most critical determinant of its success as a democratic polity. He wrote:“The citizen of the United States does not acquire his practical science and his positive notions from books; the instruction he has acquired may have prepared him for receiving those ideas, but it did not furnish them. The American learns to know the laws by participating in the act of legislation; and he takes a lesson in the forms of government from governing. The great work of society is ever going on beneath his eyes, and, as it were, under his hands.”“The laws and manners of the Anglo-Americans are therefore that efficient cause of their greatness which is the object of my inquiry.The American laws are therefore good, and to them must be attributed a large portion of the success which attends the government of democracy in America: but I do not believe them to be the principal cause of that success; and if they seem to me to have more influence upon the social happiness of the Americans than the nature of the country, on the other hand there is reason to believe that their effect is still inferior to that produced by the manners of the people.The manners of the Americans of the United States are, then, the real cause which renders that people the only one of the American nations that is able to support a democratic government; and it is the influence of manners which produces the different degrees of order and of prosperity that may be distinguished in the several Anglo-American democracies.”As Trumpism and a deeply divided society contend with an unprecedented scenario of a raucous transfer of power that so far was the preserve of newly minted democracies of Africa and South America, one hopes the ‘manners’ of the American people that Tocqueville extolled, will save them from the blushes. The American people will have to be at their best ‘manners’ in the coming days.  HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] Timothy Naftali in the Foreign Policy: “The transition of power between presidents has long been a weakness of the U.S. political system. But never more so than now.”[Article] The Election That Could Break America, a long-form piece by Barton Gellman in The Atlantic about the various scenarios of transfer of power Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

The purpose of this 3rd class is to watch America's two political parties contend over foreign affairs, and then to examine one of America's most controversial wars: the War of 1812. Students should understand how and why a split occurred between the Federalists, the party of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, and the Democratic Republicans, the party of Thomas Jefferson, and they should see how broader issues of international relations began to affect the young U.S. We will explore the country's hostilities and armed conflicts with France and the Barbary pirates of North Africa. From the lecture and readings students should understand how and why the U.S. and Britain went to war, what happened during the fighting, how and why peace was restored, and what were the key features of the aftermath. What was the importance of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison as American foreign policymakers? What, in particular, are they remembered for? Did they have foreign policy triumphs? Flaws?

The election was perhaps the nastiest election the country has seen. It had horrible partisan rancor, personal insults, and a politicized media. But we aren't talking about the 2020 election between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Rather it was the 1000 presidential election, where President John Adams faced his own vice president, Thomas Jefferson.Adams was decried as a ‘repulsive pedant’ and ‘gross hypocrite’ who ‘behaved neither like a man nor like a woman but instead possessed a hideous hermaphroditical character.’ Jefferson was said to be ‘a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow’ who would create a nation where ‘murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will openly be taught and practiced. Today's guest, Jeffrey Sikkenga, Executive Director of the Ashbrook Center and Professor of Political Science at Ashland University, believes that the election of 1800 has more parallels to today than any other election, but it also can give us hope. Only 24 years after the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that the Americans were ‘one people,’ it looked like America could be torn apart. The Constitution was only 12 years old and the great unifying figure of George Washington — who was unanimously elected twice as president — had died the year before, in 1799. Even though Washington warned about the dangers of parties in his farewell address, two competing parties had formed — the Federalists of Adams and the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson. Power had rarely been transferred peacefully between rival parties, and never in the new country.Sikkenga argues that nevertheless, America surprised the world. Jefferson won, and Adams, despite personal bitterness at what he regarded as Jefferson’s betrayal, followed the Constitution and stepped aside peacefully. For his part, in his inaugural address Jefferson implored his ‘fellow-citizens’ to ‘unite with one heart and one mind’ and ‘restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things.’Jefferson wasn’t just mouthing platitudes. He believed that during the election Americans may ‘have called by different names,’ but above all they were ‘brethren of the same principle.’ The truths they shared in the Declaration and Constitution — equality, liberty, consent of the governed, the rule of law — were stronger than the differences of opinion dividing the parties.

In this lecture, Dr. Totten argues George Washington's administration set many important precedents that continue in the United States to this day. Washington new he needed experts around him and established the cabinet to help him govern the new nation. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson enunciated two rival visions for the future of the country, with Hamilton enacting numerous policies to stabilize the nation's economy. The battle between Hamilton and Jefferson led to the creation of the proto-political parties, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, also called Jeffersonian Republicans. These parties were further solidified as Americans disagreed over foreign policy, as France and Great Britain were locked in battle over the French Revolution. Washington's administration attempted to negotiate the Jay Treaty with Great Britain, which did not solve the immediate problems of impressment that ultimately led to the War of 1812. While Americans were fearful that the Haitian Revolution might spread to America, Washington illustrated one more weakness of his character, when he attempted to recapture an escaped slave, Ona Judge, who had escaped to freedom. In the end, Washington continued his proclivity for giving up power when he could have been president for life. Thus, Washington is a flawed founder who provided a stable foundation for the Early American Republic.Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/history-of-the-american-people-to-1877/donations

Political Parties first began to emerge during the creation of the Constitution. Supporters of a strong Central Government became known as Federalists and those that preferred the individual states to have the majority of the power were known as Democratic Republicans. During George Washington’s Presidency, political parties really began to take shape – Cabinet Adams (Federalist) Thomas Jefferson (Democratic Republican)Washington warned of Political Parties in his farewell address. He felt they weakened the government and caused division (1796)Federalists, Democrats, Republicans and More...Sectional Conflicts and opponents of Andrew Jackson led to the creation of the Whig party. They would elect 2 Presidents (William Henry Harrison & Zachary Taylor) Supporters (business owners, wealthy white southerners, urban middle class). The issue of slavery eventually weakened the Whig party and many of its supporters joined the newly created  Republican party in the 1850s.In the 1850s, the issue of slavery divided the nation. Northern Democrats – former whigs and abolitionists created the Republican Party in 1854We also get into why some states came in as slave states vs free states. It was all political!Example: Missouri wanted to join a free state – but the senate was the LAST place that southern states had an equal say as the northern states and would not allow it. How did that get solved? We tell you that as well as all about the compromise of 1850 and some new territories that were acquired. We speak to how the parties have evolved over time and become what and how they are today

Year(s) Discussed: 1801-1803 As a new state joined the Union, state and federal leaders in the US worked to redefine the nation’s governmental institutions and its approach to foreign affairs. Jefferson put some plans into motion to stretch American influence through an expedition across western North America. Meanwhile, as Democratic-Republicans sought to wrest control of … Continue reading 3.12 – And the Beat Goes On →

https://www.deadamerica.website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States) The United States Constitution is silent on the subject of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation, as outlined in his Farewell Address. Nevertheless, the beginnings of the American two-party system emerged from his immediate circle of advisers. Hamilton and Madison, who wrote the aforementioned Federalist Papers against political factions, ended up being the core leaders in this emerging party system. It was the split camps of Federalists, given rise with Hamilton as a leader, and Democratic-Republicans, with Madison and Thomas Jefferson at the helm of this political faction, that created the environment in which partisanship, once distasteful, came to being.

https://www.deadamerica.website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States) The United States Constitution is silent on the subject of political parties. The Founding Fathers did not originally intend for American politics to be partisan. In Federalist Papers No. 9 and No. 10, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, respectively, wrote specifically about the dangers of domestic political factions. In addition, the first President of the United States, George Washington, was not a member of any political party at the time of his election or throughout his tenure as president. Furthermore, he hoped that political parties would not be formed, fearing conflict and stagnation, as outlined in his Farewell Address. Nevertheless, the beginnings of the American two-party system emerged from his immediate circle of advisers. Hamilton and Madison, who wrote the aforementioned Federalist Papers against political factions, ended up being the core leaders in this emerging party system. It was the split camps of Federalists, given rise with Hamilton as a leader, and Democratic-Republicans, with Madison and Thomas Jefferson at the helm of this political faction, that created the environment in which partisanship, once distasteful, came to being. Support this podcast

Year(s) Discussed: 1800-1801 As Jefferson assumed office and Democratic-Republicans took control of the federal government in March 1801, new leaders emerged while others exited the stage or moved to the periphery. The new administration would get its start still dealing with the aftermath of the recent contentious election, and the new President had to weigh, … Continue reading 3.03 – The Revolution of 1800 →

Article II, Section 1 is founded on accident, immediately shows signs of trouble, and implodes within 12 years. Hamilton schemes, and others counterscheme. The Federalists swap Pinckneys. The Democratic-Republicans fail to coordinate and Jefferson and Burr end up tied. Jefferson grabs a few votes, the House deadlocks, and Bayard makes a last minute deal. The Democratic-Republicans take the route of least ambition, and fix only a few out of a host of problems.

Welcome to Blackbird9's Breakfast Club's Wednesday Podcast , Colonial Game Trails between the Wars. Tonight we will examine the history between The 1776 War of Independence and The War of 1812.https://www.blackbird9tradingposts.org/2019/07/10/colonial-game-trails-between-the-wars-blackbird9/In the First Hour we cover the chaotic events brought on by the teachings of the Frankfurt School Marxists. Their mission has always been to establish a Greater Israel ruled by globalism under the direction of Talmudic Noahide Law and at the same time force all other nations to surrender their independent sovereignty.In the second hour, Colonial Progress Between The Wars, the host examined the history between The 1776 War of Independence and The War of 1812. From the earliest Centralized MASTER/slave city state models, to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., to the rise of Christianity in Western Civilization, to John Bunyan's 1678 novel Pilgrims Progress, to the founding of the Illuminati on May 1st 1776, to the 1776 Declaration of Independence, to United States President George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address, to the schism between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, to the 1811 vote to kill the Central Bank and the subsequent harassment of British Troops and mercenary Tribes against Americans, to the War of 1812, to the 1816 vote to establish a jewish controlled central bank called The 2nd Bank of The United States and the end of active hostilities by The British, the host questions who really won The War of 1812?

Welcome to Blackbird9's Breakfast Club's Wednesday Podcast , Colonial Game Trails between the Wars. Tonight we will examine the history between The 1776 War of Independence and The War of 1812.https://www.blackbird9tradingposts.org/2019/07/10/colonial-game-trails-between-the-wars-blackbird9/In the First Hour we cover the chaotic events brought on by the teachings of the Frankfurt School Marxists. Their mission has always been to establish a Greater Israel ruled by globalism under the direction of Talmudic Noahide Law and at the same time force all other nations to surrender their independent sovereignty.In the second hour, Colonial Progress Between The Wars, the host examined the history between The 1776 War of Independence and The War of 1812. From the earliest Centralized MASTER/slave city state models, to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., to the rise of Christianity in Western Civilization, to John Bunyan's 1678 novel Pilgrims Progress, to the founding of the Illuminati on May 1st 1776, to the 1776 Declaration of Independence, to United States President George Washington's 1796 Farewell Address, to the schism between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans, to the 1811 vote to kill the Central Bank and the subsequent harassment of British Troops and mercenary Tribes against Americans, to the War of 1812, to the 1816 vote to establish a jewish controlled central bank called The 2nd Bank of The United States and the end of active hostilities by The British, the host questions who really won The War of 1812?

We celebrate American Independence Day on the Fourth of July every year. We think of July 4, 1776, as a day that represents the Declaration of Independence and the birth of the United States of America as an independent nation. 1776 wasn't the day that the Continental Congress decided to declare independence. It wasn't the day we started the American Revolution either. It wasn't the day Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. Or the date on which the Declaration was delivered to Great Britain. The Continental Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. They'd been working on it for a couple of days after the draft was submitted on July 2nd and finally agreed on all of the edits and changes. July 4, 1776, became the date that was included on the Declaration of Independence, and the fancy handwritten copy that was signed inAugust It's also the date that was printed on the Dunlap Broadsides, the original printed copies of the Declaration that were circulated throughout the new nation. So when people thought of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, was the date they remembered. In contrast, we celebrate Constitution Day on September 17th of each year, the anniversary of the date the Constitution was signed, not the anniversary of the date it was approved. If we'd followed this same approach for the Declaration of Independence we'd being celebrating Independence Day on August 2nd of each year, the day the Declaration of Independence was signed! How did the Fourth of July become a national holiday? For the first 15 or 20 years after the Declaration was written, people didn't celebrate it much on any date. It was too new and too much else was happening in the young nation. By the 1790s, a time of bitter partisan conflicts, the Declaration had become controversial. One party, the Democratic-Republicans, admired Jefferson and the Declaration. The other party, the Federalists, thought the declaration was too French and too anti-British, which went against their current policies. By 1817, John Adams complained in a letter that America seemed uninterested in its past. After the War of 1812, the Federalist party began to come apart and the new parties of the 1820sand 1830s all considered themselves inheritors of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans. Printed copies of the Declaration began to circulate again, all with the date July 4, 1776, listed at the top. The deaths of Thomas Jefferson and John Adamson July 4, 1826, may even have helped to promote the idea of July 4 as an important date to be celebrated. Celebrations of the Fourth of July became more common as the years went on and in 1870, almost a hundred years after the Declaration was written, Congress first declared July 4 to be a national holiday as part of a bill to officially recognize several holidays, including Christmas. Quick Recap: On July 4, 1776, the 13 colonies claimed their independence from England, an event which eventually led to the formation of the UnitedStates. Each year on the fourth of July, also known as Independence Day, Americans celebrate this historic event. The conflict between the colonies and England was already a year old when the colonies convened a Continental Congress in Philadelphia in the summer of 1776. In a June 7 session in the Pennsylvania StateHouse, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented are solution with the famous words: "Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." Lee's words were the impetus for the drafting of a formal Declaration of Independence, although the resolution was not followed up on immediately. On June 11, consideration of the resolution was postponed by a vote of seven colonies to fi --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/roger-keyserling/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/roger-keyserling/support

Early colonists try to balance religious liberty with established state churches. John Peter Zenger goes to trial and suffers a pyrrhic loss. The murky origins of the free speech clause. James Madison slyly tweaks proposals from the state ratifying conventions. Federalists and Democratic-Republicans battle over the Sedition Act in the shadow of the new First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson proposes a radical fix that nearly undoes the Constitution.

The Patterson team debates whether the 1789 Act is pro-debtor or creditor. The Federalists giveth to the Midnight Judges, and the Democratic-Republicans taketh away. Marshall and Chase contemplate a strike. Marbury v. Madison establishes judicial review—or does it? The justices resume circuit riding, and fold in Stuart v. Laird. Concern over civil rights slowly opens the door to expanded federal jurisdiction, until the railroads kick it down.

Year(s) Discussed: 1799-1801 As President Adams and the federal government transition to the new federal capital, the next presidential election looms, and both Federalist and Democratic-Republican leaders work on behalf of their favored candidates to meet challenges to their prospects. While Federalists cope with an internal debate over exactly which candidate to support, Democratic-Republicans in … Continue reading 2.22 – Enter the Federal City →

Year(s) Discussed: 1795-1796 Though finally managing to resolve his personnel issues, Washington and his Cabinet find themselves faced with a host of new problems including a new round of debate over the Jay Treaty and political maneuverings by the Democratic-Republicans as the next presidential election draws ever closer. Source information for this episode can be … Continue reading 1.32 – Samsons and Solomons →

Welcome back to The Emancipation Podcast Station - the place to hear about history researched and retold through the eyes of Middle school and HS students. Last time on the show... George Washington John Adams   Today we discuss “The Early Republic”.   Let’s dive in. Which Candidate would you have voted for, why?   The election of 1800 1st - Ricky-the Election of 1800 was a cruel, and partisian time filled with bitterness and hate. The gist of the Election was that Thomas jefferson had been ‘waging war’ so to speak against John adams. Each had different views on America even though they were friends Thomas Jefferson was Democrat/Republican and John adams was federalist. 2nd - Gabe - There was some major conflict in america in 1800 because with the Federalist leaning toward Britain and the Democratic/republic leaning More Toward the French many thought the federalist were trying to bring back more of a monarchy. 3rd -  Ben- These bitter rivals fighting over how the States should be governed, but both representing different points of views. The alien and sedition acts were also still a problem during this time, and alexander hamilton wrote a 54 page long letter criticising adam and all his flaws, which mustve been many flaws if it was 54 pages. Soon after, the entire letter was published, which really damaged the federalists. Duing the voting of who would be president, it was a total tie, with 65 electoral votes on each side, but once south carolina turned it their votes, it revealed that jefferson had won the election. 4th - Ethan - There was a foreign policy debate based on an appropriate response to the French revolution. The democratic-republicans were sympathetic to the French. Note to self Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic Republican and John Adams was a federalist. 5th - Hunter - The United States presidential election of 1800 was the fourth United States election. It was held from Friday, October 31 to Wednesday December 3. The election was between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson it was a hard-fought campaign. 6th - Blake -The election of 1800 pitted two rivals of different parties against each other. Former Vice President and current President John Adams and wealthy Virginia farmer Thomas Jefferson were the two candidates of this hostile election. 7th - Skylar - The election of 1800 was a fight against Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It was basically an argument about two different views and opinions for the United States. This election was one of the most bitter elections in US history.   Jefferson's presidency and the turn of the nineteenth century In your opinion what was the most important thing Jefferson did? 1st - Gabe - Thomas Jefferson was the writer of the declaration of independence He was a Democratic/Republican not a Federalist he ran against john adams and Won in 1800 before that he was a secretary under george washington and vice President for John adams. 2nd - Ethan - Jefferson was the 3rd president of the US. He served 2 terms from 1801-1809. Jefferson had to deal with some difficult challenges with authority. Piracy on the Barbary Coast of Northern Africa and British impressment.  This made Jefferson instate a massive ban on European goods. This was called the Embargo Act of 1807. Jefferson was born in Virginia. He was the first US Secretary of State. 3rd -  Ben- Jefferson authorized the louisiana purchase during this time, really helping the united states gain some more land and territory. When jefferson became president, he focused on reducing the national debt that america had, from 83 million to 57 million, he did this by reducing the size of the navy. 4th - Hunter -  Adams and Jefferson represented two different visions of what the United States of America should look like. Whereas Adams and his fellow federalists, including George Washington, envisioned a strong central government and a thriving manufacturing sector centered in the cities, Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans espoused an agrarian ideal, rooted in the republicans virtues of the independent small farmer. The election of 1800 was fiercely contested and facilitated the rise of the two-party system and bitter partisanship. 5th - Blake - The aftermath of the 1800 election which resulted in Thomas Jefferson being elected for two terms. Jefferson’s first act as President was to attempt to minimize national debt, which he was able to lower by almost 50%. 6th - Skylar - Jefferson was the 3rd presidency and served as the United States for 8 years, 1801-1809.  He dealt with piracy along the Barbary Coast of North Africa.  Also the British which ended in Jefferson having to make the Embargo Act of 1807.  Jefferson also made the Louisiana Purchase during this time and made the US move farther west. The Barbary Coast is in north africa along Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria. It’s so important because it was a big call for Thomas Jefferson because he was only the second President, he didn’t have anyone to look back on and say, he would’ve done this or that. 7th ricky- Adams and jefferson as Hunter said “represented Two different visions” and for this they were enemies. The Louisiana Purchase and its exploration What did the Purchase do? Why do you think it was so cheap. 1st - Ethan - The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the US, which reshaped the environmental and economic stance of the country. He was the president that confronted the fact that he didn’t have the power to do it but he did it anyway. He got 2 men to explore the new territory. These 2 men were Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. 2nd - Ben- The louisiana purchase was a treaty made with france in 1803, stating that america was buying the state of louisiana for a whopping 15 million. It bought the land from the rocky mountains to the mississippi river, and from the gulf of mexico to canada, expanding the territory of the united states by a lot. 3rd - Hunter - Though the Louisiana territory had changed hands between France and Spain a number of times, in 1800 Spain ceded the territory to Napoleon’s France. Napoleon, whose attention was consumed by war in Europe, began to view the territory as a needless burden. 1803, he volunteered to sell all 828,000 square miles to the United States for the bargain price of $15 million. 4th -  Gabe - Once Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase it increased his chance of being reelected by all but 14 votes. Even tho there was a lot of criticism from the northern states about there being to many slave states but he passed it anyway. 5th - Blake - At the time of the Louisiana Purchase President Thomas Jefferson didn’t even know if it was constitutional. During the years of the Louisiana Territory being passed around by France and Spain it was mostly inhabited by various Native American tribes. Altogether there was about 828,000 square miles of land in the entire territory which sold for 3 cents an acre adding up to about 315,000,000 in today’s money. 6th - Skylar - The Louisiana purchase was a purchase Thomas Jefferson and The United States made like Ethan said.  It doubled the size of the United States an added land from the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico like Ben stated.  William Clark and Meriwether Lewis explored this new unknown territory. 7th - the louisiana purchase helped the french tremendously, napoleon, the french emperor, was in desperate need of funds at the time. Because of this france had no choice but to accept. This payed for a lot of military funds in the french take over of europe. Lewis and Clark Expedition            1st -  BEN- The lewis and clark expedition was from may 1804- september 1806, it was       also called the Corps of discovery expedition. It was a selected group of US army volunteers, led Meriwether Lewis and his good friend Second Lieutenant William Clark. They were hired to explore the newly bought territory that america got during the louisiana purchase. 2nd - Ethan - Lewis and Clark were hired by Jefferson to explore the land west of the Mississippi River. The expedition lasted 4 years. The were aided in their investigation by a local indian woman named Sacagawea. She knew the tribes and land so she help immensely. 3rd - Hunter - By the end of the expedition, Lewis and Clark found and categorized 122 new animals and 178 plants, mapped the geography, and achieved friendlier relations with the natives. How ever they did not find an all water route to the Pacific Ocean. 4th - gabe - As Lewis and Clark went up the mississippi river gnats and mosquitos swarmed them. They killed many animals including: elk,grizzly bears, and buffalo. One of the explorers actually had been bitten by a rattlesnake and survived. They documented flora and fauna and lewis being very curious had  even eaten some minerals and had become very sick. 5th - Blake - After the Louisiana Purchase Thomas Jefferson had newly bought land that was undiscovered so Jefferson granted an expedition. Jefferson selected two Army volunteers to lead the expedition Captain Meriwether Lewis and Second Lieutenant William Clark. One of the many animals they discovered was the prairie dog which they captured by pouring buckets of water down each hole and flooding them out. 6th - Skylar - The lewis and clark expedition was basically two normal guys just exploring new territory that the US bought. The found tons of things like the rocky mountains, new plants, and animals like hunter said, and many other things.  While on this expedition the found a girl named sacagawea Hidatsa villages who was pregnant at the time and had to endure a lot of pain walking through the Rocky mountains while i was riding through these mountains i seen very fit people struggling to walk through these mountains so i couldnt even imagine walking through with an extra 15-20 pounds. 7th Ricky- The lewis and clark expedition was a long and perilous journey through the recently purchased Louisiana Purchase. In the end it prospered. Along the way they met sacagawea, an indian whose parents were Smoked lodge, and Otter Woman (hey I didn’t name them). Sacagawea was lewis and clark’s translator and guide. Unfortunately She died shortly after the expedition.   The War of 1812 -   1st - Ben- The war of 1812 lasted from June 18, 1812- February 12, 1815. There was a lot of conflict deciding if they should go to war or not, but the biggest group, the “War Hawks” led by Henry Clay said that they shouldn't tolerate such insults from britain. Most federalists didn’t want a war, they thought it would stop important trade that northern america depended on. 2nd - Ethan - They fought over the issues in relations between the US and Britain. The British allied themselves with the  northwestern indians. Federalists opposed the war. 3rd -  Hunter - The war of was a military conflict that lasted actually from June 18, 1812, to February 18, 1815, fought by the United States of America and the United Kingdom, its North American colonies, and its North American indian allies. 4th - GABE - the war of 1812 definitely taught the indians  in the Battle of Horseshoe bend Andrew Jackson destroyed all military capabilities of the Creek Nation. Andrew wanted to clear land for the US settlements they killed 15% of the Creek Nations population. The creek had to give up 23 million acres of land and had to never join sides with the Spanish or British against the Americans again when they signed the treaty of Fort Jackson. 5th - Blake - The War of 1812 was a armed conflict from 1812 to 1815. The combatants of this war were The United States, Great Britain and American Indians. The US and Great Britain were definitely not on great terms after the American Revolution. The british had friends within the Native American tribes and they weren’t on great terms with the US either as settlers had been pushing for more westward expansion. 6th - Skylar - The war of 1812 lasted from June 18, 1812, to february 18, 1815.  This war was fought because of issues between the US and Britian even after the revolutionary War had ended.   The issues were things like trade restrictions, American sailors and other things that was not any of Britians business. 7th - the war of 1812 was a conflict in which ended 1815. What surprises me the most is that no one mention the national anthem which was created during the war of 1812. The Monroe Doctrine What did the Monroe Doctrine do? Was it effective in your opinion? 1st - Ben- The Monroe Doctrine was a speech, or well, a part of a speech, the speech was given in 1823 by president James monroe, here is what it says, “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system (They were talking about britains system of government, monarchy) to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” It was basically declaring americas overall freedom, that britain couldnt interfere in anything or put british colonies on their land. 2nd - Ethan - The Monroe Doctrine was a US way of opposing Europe colonizing the Americas. It was established in 1823. It told us that European nations could not colonize the Americas would be considered “The manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the US”. 3rd - Hunter - The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding European countries in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as act of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. 4th - Blake - The Monroe Doctrine a letter to the entirety of Europe saying hey keep out. The only problem was that the US didn’t have much power at the time so countries really wondered if the US would be able to uphold that statement. 5th - Gabe - Since the US didn't have a navy or army when they wrote this It was discarded largely by the other nations. Australia said it was just another way for an American revolt , but for britain they accepted the doctrine. 6th - Skylar - James Monroe wrote the Monroe Doctrine in the year of 1823.  Monroe told the “Crowned Heads” of Europe to stay out of the Americas.  He also said the era of colanization is over.  Monroe did not want Europe to know anything about the Americas. The crowned heads were the kings and queens of Europe, higher up, and pretty much knew and thought they were better than anyone. This was only a phase to describe monarchs. 7th - Ricky- in all seriousness, the monroe document was a, as blake puts it “keep out” signal for other countries to not dare colonize/attack or they would regret it. Today, would it wouldn’t be that bold of a statement, but the difference was that it was done in the 1800s when america was young. That’s all we have time for today. Thanks for joining us in this emancipation from the box, that is learning.

Welcome back to The Emancipation Podcast Station - the place to hear about history researched and retold through the eyes of Middle school and HS students. Last time on the show... George Washington John Adams   Today we discuss “The Early Republic”.   Let’s dive in. Which Candidate would you have voted for, why?   The election of 1800 1st - Ricky-the Election of 1800 was a cruel, and partisian time filled with bitterness and hate. The gist of the Election was that Thomas jefferson had been ‘waging war’ so to speak against John adams. Each had different views on America even though they were friends Thomas Jefferson was Democrat/Republican and John adams was federalist. 2nd - Gabe - There was some major conflict in america in 1800 because with the Federalist leaning toward Britain and the Democratic/republic leaning More Toward the French many thought the federalist were trying to bring back more of a monarchy. 3rd -  Ben- These bitter rivals fighting over how the States should be governed, but both representing different points of views. The alien and sedition acts were also still a problem during this time, and alexander hamilton wrote a 54 page long letter criticising adam and all his flaws, which mustve been many flaws if it was 54 pages. Soon after, the entire letter was published, which really damaged the federalists. Duing the voting of who would be president, it was a total tie, with 65 electoral votes on each side, but once south carolina turned it their votes, it revealed that jefferson had won the election. 4th - Ethan - There was a foreign policy debate based on an appropriate response to the French revolution. The democratic-republicans were sympathetic to the French. Note to self Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic Republican and John Adams was a federalist. 5th - Hunter - The United States presidential election of 1800 was the fourth United States election. It was held from Friday, October 31 to Wednesday December 3. The election was between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson it was a hard-fought campaign. 6th - Blake -The election of 1800 pitted two rivals of different parties against each other. Former Vice President and current President John Adams and wealthy Virginia farmer Thomas Jefferson were the two candidates of this hostile election. 7th - Skylar - The election of 1800 was a fight against Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. It was basically an argument about two different views and opinions for the United States. This election was one of the most bitter elections in US history.   Jefferson's presidency and the turn of the nineteenth century In your opinion what was the most important thing Jefferson did? 1st - Gabe - Thomas Jefferson was the writer of the declaration of independence He was a Democratic/Republican not a Federalist he ran against john adams and Won in 1800 before that he was a secretary under george washington and vice President for John adams. 2nd - Ethan - Jefferson was the 3rd president of the US. He served 2 terms from 1801-1809. Jefferson had to deal with some difficult challenges with authority. Piracy on the Barbary Coast of Northern Africa and British impressment.  This made Jefferson instate a massive ban on European goods. This was called the Embargo Act of 1807. Jefferson was born in Virginia. He was the first US Secretary of State. 3rd -  Ben- Jefferson authorized the louisiana purchase during this time, really helping the united states gain some more land and territory. When jefferson became president, he focused on reducing the national debt that america had, from 83 million to 57 million, he did this by reducing the size of the navy. 4th - Hunter -  Adams and Jefferson represented two different visions of what the United States of America should look like. Whereas Adams and his fellow federalists, including George Washington, envisioned a strong central government and a thriving manufacturing sector centered in the cities, Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans espoused an agrarian ideal, rooted in the republicans virtues of the independent small farmer. The election of 1800 was fiercely contested and facilitated the rise of the two-party system and bitter partisanship. 5th - Blake - The aftermath of the 1800 election which resulted in Thomas Jefferson being elected for two terms. Jefferson’s first act as President was to attempt to minimize national debt, which he was able to lower by almost 50%. 6th - Skylar - Jefferson was the 3rd presidency and served as the United States for 8 years, 1801-1809.  He dealt with piracy along the Barbary Coast of North Africa.  Also the British which ended in Jefferson having to make the Embargo Act of 1807.  Jefferson also made the Louisiana Purchase during this time and made the US move farther west. The Barbary Coast is in north africa along Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria. It’s so important because it was a big call for Thomas Jefferson because he was only the second President, he didn’t have anyone to look back on and say, he would’ve done this or that. 7th ricky- Adams and jefferson as Hunter said “represented Two different visions” and for this they were enemies. The Louisiana Purchase and its exploration What did the Purchase do? Why do you think it was so cheap. 1st - Ethan - The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the US, which reshaped the environmental and economic stance of the country. He was the president that confronted the fact that he didn’t have the power to do it but he did it anyway. He got 2 men to explore the new territory. These 2 men were Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. 2nd - Ben- The louisiana purchase was a treaty made with france in 1803, stating that america was buying the state of louisiana for a whopping 15 million. It bought the land from the rocky mountains to the mississippi river, and from the gulf of mexico to canada, expanding the territory of the united states by a lot. 3rd - Hunter - Though the Louisiana territory had changed hands between France and Spain a number of times, in 1800 Spain ceded the territory to Napoleon’s France. Napoleon, whose attention was consumed by war in Europe, began to view the territory as a needless burden. 1803, he volunteered to sell all 828,000 square miles to the United States for the bargain price of $15 million. 4th -  Gabe - Once Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase it increased his chance of being reelected by all but 14 votes. Even tho there was a lot of criticism from the northern states about there being to many slave states but he passed it anyway. 5th - Blake - At the time of the Louisiana Purchase President Thomas Jefferson didn’t even know if it was constitutional. During the years of the Louisiana Territory being passed around by France and Spain it was mostly inhabited by various Native American tribes. Altogether there was about 828,000 square miles of land in the entire territory which sold for 3 cents an acre adding up to about 315,000,000 in today’s money. 6th - Skylar - The Louisiana purchase was a purchase Thomas Jefferson and The United States made like Ethan said.  It doubled the size of the United States an added land from the Rocky Mountains to the Gulf of Mexico like Ben stated.  William Clark and Meriwether Lewis explored this new unknown territory. 7th - the louisiana purchase helped the french tremendously, napoleon, the french emperor, was in desperate need of funds at the time. Because of this france had no choice but to accept. This payed for a lot of military funds in the french take over of europe. Lewis and Clark Expedition            1st -  BEN- The lewis and clark expedition was from may 1804- september 1806, it was       also called the Corps of discovery expedition. It was a selected group of US army volunteers, led Meriwether Lewis and his good friend Second Lieutenant William Clark. They were hired to explore the newly bought territory that america got during the louisiana purchase. 2nd - Ethan - Lewis and Clark were hired by Jefferson to explore the land west of the Mississippi River. The expedition lasted 4 years. The were aided in their investigation by a local indian woman named Sacagawea. She knew the tribes and land so she help immensely. 3rd - Hunter - By the end of the expedition, Lewis and Clark found and categorized 122 new animals and 178 plants, mapped the geography, and achieved friendlier relations with the natives. How ever they did not find an all water route to the Pacific Ocean. 4th - gabe - As Lewis and Clark went up the mississippi river gnats and mosquitos swarmed them. They killed many animals including: elk,grizzly bears, and buffalo. One of the explorers actually had been bitten by a rattlesnake and survived. They documented flora and fauna and lewis being very curious had  even eaten some minerals and had become very sick. 5th - Blake - After the Louisiana Purchase Thomas Jefferson had newly bought land that was undiscovered so Jefferson granted an expedition. Jefferson selected two Army volunteers to lead the expedition Captain Meriwether Lewis and Second Lieutenant William Clark. One of the many animals they discovered was the prairie dog which they captured by pouring buckets of water down each hole and flooding them out. 6th - Skylar - The lewis and clark expedition was basically two normal guys just exploring new territory that the US bought. The found tons of things like the rocky mountains, new plants, and animals like hunter said, and many other things.  While on this expedition the found a girl named sacagawea Hidatsa villages who was pregnant at the time and had to endure a lot of pain walking through the Rocky mountains while i was riding through these mountains i seen very fit people struggling to walk through these mountains so i couldnt even imagine walking through with an extra 15-20 pounds. 7th Ricky- The lewis and clark expedition was a long and perilous journey through the recently purchased Louisiana Purchase. In the end it prospered. Along the way they met sacagawea, an indian whose parents were Smoked lodge, and Otter Woman (hey I didn’t name them). Sacagawea was lewis and clark’s translator and guide. Unfortunately She died shortly after the expedition.   The War of 1812 -   1st - Ben- The war of 1812 lasted from June 18, 1812- February 12, 1815. There was a lot of conflict deciding if they should go to war or not, but the biggest group, the “War Hawks” led by Henry Clay said that they shouldn't tolerate such insults from britain. Most federalists didn’t want a war, they thought it would stop important trade that northern america depended on. 2nd - Ethan - They fought over the issues in relations between the US and Britain. The British allied themselves with the  northwestern indians. Federalists opposed the war. 3rd -  Hunter - The war of was a military conflict that lasted actually from June 18, 1812, to February 18, 1815, fought by the United States of America and the United Kingdom, its North American colonies, and its North American indian allies. 4th - GABE - the war of 1812 definitely taught the indians  in the Battle of Horseshoe bend Andrew Jackson destroyed all military capabilities of the Creek Nation. Andrew wanted to clear land for the US settlements they killed 15% of the Creek Nations population. The creek had to give up 23 million acres of land and had to never join sides with the Spanish or British against the Americans again when they signed the treaty of Fort Jackson. 5th - Blake - The War of 1812 was a armed conflict from 1812 to 1815. The combatants of this war were The United States, Great Britain and American Indians. The US and Great Britain were definitely not on great terms after the American Revolution. The british had friends within the Native American tribes and they weren’t on great terms with the US either as settlers had been pushing for more westward expansion. 6th - Skylar - The war of 1812 lasted from June 18, 1812, to february 18, 1815.  This war was fought because of issues between the US and Britian even after the revolutionary War had ended.   The issues were things like trade restrictions, American sailors and other things that was not any of Britians business. 7th - the war of 1812 was a conflict in which ended 1815. What surprises me the most is that no one mention the national anthem which was created during the war of 1812. The Monroe Doctrine What did the Monroe Doctrine do? Was it effective in your opinion? 1st - Ben- The Monroe Doctrine was a speech, or well, a part of a speech, the speech was given in 1823 by president James monroe, here is what it says, “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system (They were talking about britains system of government, monarchy) to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” It was basically declaring americas overall freedom, that britain couldnt interfere in anything or put british colonies on their land. 2nd - Ethan - The Monroe Doctrine was a US way of opposing Europe colonizing the Americas. It was established in 1823. It told us that European nations could not colonize the Americas would be considered “The manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the US”. 3rd - Hunter - The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding European countries in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as act of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. 4th - Blake - The Monroe Doctrine a letter to the entirety of Europe saying hey keep out. The only problem was that the US didn’t have much power at the time so countries really wondered if the US would be able to uphold that statement. 5th - Gabe - Since the US didn't have a navy or army when they wrote this It was discarded largely by the other nations. Australia said it was just another way for an American revolt , but for britain they accepted the doctrine. 6th - Skylar - James Monroe wrote the Monroe Doctrine in the year of 1823.  Monroe told the “Crowned Heads” of Europe to stay out of the Americas.  He also said the era of colanization is over.  Monroe did not want Europe to know anything about the Americas. The crowned heads were the kings and queens of Europe, higher up, and pretty much knew and thought they were better than anyone. This was only a phase to describe monarchs. 7th - Ricky- in all seriousness, the monroe document was a, as blake puts it “keep out” signal for other countries to not dare colonize/attack or they would regret it. Today, would it wouldn’t be that bold of a statement, but the difference was that it was done in the 1800s when america was young. That’s all we have time for today. Thanks for joining us in this emancipation from the box, that is learning.

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington's administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain's rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America's reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment's free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington's administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain's rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America's reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment's free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington's administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain's rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America's reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment's free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798: Testing the Constitution (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), Terri Diane Halperin has provided a political history of the 1790s and explained the origins of one of the most contentious free speech events in American history. The Alien and Seditions Acts, which were actually four laws enacted in 1798, dramatically tested the principles of free speech in the young republic. Halperin explains the political origins of the controversy, which began in the earliest days the George Washington’s administration. Although the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams, and the Democratic-Republicans (or Jeffersonians), led by Jefferson and James Madison, had already established their differences on the national stage regarding the Constitution, foreign affairs would create further cleavages between these groups. Halperin investigates and analyzes how the French Revolution was celebrated and feared in America. When France descended into civil war and instigated European wars, the United States feared being drawn into the conflicts. The Federalists developed an affinity for Britain’s rejection of the Terror and resistance to France, while the Democratic-Republicans celebrated the promise of the French Revolution, even though most deplored the violence of the Terror. French and Irish immigrants were welcomed by the Jeffersonians and feared by the Federalists. Halperin demonstrates how dissent against American foreign policy, usually through the many newspapers published in America, was viewed as subversive and threatening to America’s reputation and national security. The Federalists, who dominated the national government during the 1790s, conceived of federal criminal laws to quash dissent. Halperin explains how both sides had their dearly held beliefs: the Federalists thought Jeffersonian newspaper editors would encourage rebellions against federal power or foreign powers efforts to acquire land in the New World; the Jeffersonians claimed that dissent was legitimate and pointed to the First Amendment’s free speech clause as a right that allowed criticism of government. My conversation with Halperin covers all of these events and reveals the importance of the debate over free speech in the early Republic. Ian J. Drake is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Law at Montclair State University. His scholarly interests include American legal and constitutional history and political theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Federalists and Democratic-Republicans were the first two major, recognized poltical parties in American politics. I am asking tonight, if we think it is time to proclaim the major party in power today should in fact be called the  DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICANS... Democrat Speaker of the House, Johny Boner has played a might hand of bait and switch with the American Right and tonight we will discuss his association with the Democrat party as well as his political theater of giving the prime Minister of Iseral a bust of Great Britian's Winston Churchill...