Okay. Well, it's the era of Jefferson and that means there's all kinds of debates about the proper scope and role of the federal government in the toddler years of America. And I don't think it's too much to say that these debates were pretty dang juicy. So, if you're ready to get them brain cows milked, let's get to it. Okay, so Thomas Jefferson won the election of 1800 and that was a pretty big deal because it represented a peaceful transfer of power between two rival political parties. Now, remember that the Federalist kind of dominated the first years of the republic. You had the boss president, George Washington, and then you had his Kirkland's brand knockoff, John Adams. And all the while, the rival party, the Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, basically disagreed with dang near everything the Federalists stood for and the policies they enacted. But now it's 1800, y'all, and Thomas Jefferson is in office. And just in case the momentousness of what I just said is lost on you, the peaceful transfer of power between rival parties was not really a thing in world history up to that point. No, if a faction wanted to strip their rivals of their power pants, then usually someone was about to get shot or stabbed or something. So, this election was kind of a big deal in that regard. But you didn't think that peaceful transfer of power meant that these two parties would stop fighting about politics, did you? Don't be crazy. No. The great weeping and nashing of teeth between these two rival factions would only heat up during the first part of the 19th century. And the beef mainly came down to the different way each side interpreted the Constitution. But before I tell you about that difference, as is my custom, let me tell you about my A Push Heimler review guide. It's got everything you need to get an A in your class and a five on your exam in May. It's got exclusive whole unit review videos that you're not going to find here on YouTube, note guides to follow along, practice questions, fulllength practice exams, and answer keys for every dang bit of them. So, if you need help studying as fast as possible, then check that link in the description. Anyway, the rest of this video will only make sense if you understand how these rival parties interpreted the Constitution. So, the Federalists were loose constructionists, which means they believe that the federal government could rightly exercise powers that were not explicitly stated in the Constitution. For example, remember in unit 3 when we talked about Hamilton's National Bank? Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the power to create a national bank. But Hamilton, using a loose constructionist framework, argued that the necessary and proper clause in Article One of the Constitution allowed for a bank since other explicit powers like tax collection and the regulation of commerce made a bank, you know, necessary and proper. Democratic Republicans, on the other hand, were strict constructionists, which means they believe that the federal government could only exercise power that was explicitly granted by the Constitution. In other words, if it ain't written, they ain't fitting to do anything without constitutional authority. So again, from this perspective, the Constitution says nothing about a national bank and therefore the federal government is forbidden from creating it. Okay, now that you understand that difference, let's talk about how Jefferson brought his strict constructionist Democratic Republican principles to bear on the operation of the federal government. And in case you forgot, Democratic Republicans as a rule loathed expansion of federal power. They wanted to smack the federal piñata as hard as they could until the power candy fell out and scattered itself among the states. That belief was built upon a vision of the United States as primarily an agrarian or farm-based nation. And at the heart of that agrarian nation were scores of yman farmers who owned their own farms and engaged in small-scale agriculture primarily with family labor. So when you hear Jefferson's election called the revolution of 1800, that's what the revolution looked like in old TJ's brain. An agrarian nation and a limited government that served the needs of the common citizen. And to be fair, in some ways, Jefferson acted in line with that conviction by repealing the whiskey tax and reducing the debt of the federal government by about half. But here's where I tell you that under Jefferson's leadership, he also did a whole lot to expand the power of the federal government. I'll give you two examples. First was the Louisiana purchase in 1803. For context, in 1799, Napoleon Bonapart rose to power in France. And one of his first moves was to reclaim possession of their former colony of Haiti after Tusant Luvatur and his troops successfully revolted against the French. But by 1803, the French were defeated and Haiti remained in control of its black le government. This event seemed like a real good opportunity to Jefferson to try to persuade the French to open the port of New Orleans to US merchant activity, which was especially important to Western farmers. And so, Jefferson sent James Monroe to France with $2 million in his pocket to strike a deal with Napoleon for the port. However, with Haiti gone and more wars to finance, Napoleon offered Monroe the entire Louisiana territory for $15 million. Now, unfortunately, Monroe's cell phone didn't get great service in France, and so he couldn't call Jefferson for advice. So, he went ahead and accepted the deal. US territory doubled. And you would think, hey, great news, right? Well, when Monroe returned and told Jefferson about the deal, Jefferson just about pooped his pants. Remember, this guy is a strict constructionist. And nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize a president to purchase land from a foreign government. But in the end, Jefferson cleaned up his pants and embraced the purchase since it afforded millions of acres to settlers who would then fulfill Jefferson's vision of an agrarian America. But in so doing, there is no doubt that the guy expanded federal power. But there were definitely vocal opponents to this purchase, and their main beef was that it would be exceedingly difficult to organize and control such a vast territory. Not to mention, it raised the contentious issue about the spread of slavery into the new states formed out of that territory. But then Jefferson further expanded the reach of the federal government by commissioning the core of discovery to explore and map the new territory. The expedition was led by Merryweather Lewis and William Clark and they spent 2 years traveling and cataloging the features of the Northwest Territory. And then Zebulon Pike led similar expeditions to explore the southern part of the territory. And in doing so, the information provided by these explorers would expand federal power over the territory. Since the data collected would help inform future decisions about statehood and potential conflicts with Spanish and French settlers and the displacement of American Indians whom Jefferson hoped would assimilate to American agrarian lifestyles to free up further land for American settlement. Okay. The second example of Jefferson's expansion of federal power was the Embargo Act of 1807, which was a federal ban on international trade. Now, about 5 minutes after Jefferson cinched up his presidential power pants, the Napoleonic Wars erupted between Great Britain and France. And each power sought an alliance with the United States against the other. And hey, this is Thomas Jefferson, right? It's the guy who hated Washington's refusal to support France so much that he resigned his cabinet position in protest. So, of course, old Tommy is going to ally the US with France, right? Yeah. No. For a whole host of reasons, Jefferson decided to uphold Washington's neutrality proclamation and keep the US out of the fight. But that snub got both Britain and France more than a little saucy. And so they retaliated by interrupting American trade with their rival. So that meant France and Britain seized US merchant ships. They impounded the cargo and forced merchants to fight on their own ships. Like I could go on. And so Jefferson went ahead and puffed up his chest and led Congress to pass the Embargo Act which essentially cut off all US trade with Britain and France and dang near everyone else in the world on the belief that such an act would force Britain and France to respect US neutrality. So Jefferson was like, "How y'all like me now?" To which Great Britain and France responded, "Huh, how's your economy going, bro?" To which Jefferson responded, "Ah, crap." So, while Jefferson's aim was to force these countries to recognize US neutrality, the complete blockage of foreign trade created significant hardship for Americans of many different strikes. Turns out a lot of Americans depended not only on selling goods to an international market, but also buying goods on an international market. And Jefferson went ahead and led Congress to drop a huge legislative dump on Americans economic well-being. And so as an economic recession continued a debate about the proper scope of federal power started gathering steam. In this particular case, the federal government didn't just attempt to regulate international trade, it shut down trade almost wholesale and cause serious economic trouble. And remember, according to Jefferson's own principles, federal power bad. And here he was wielding enormous amounts of federal power to cut off trade with France and Britain. Not to mention using federal power to crack down on smugglers who were flouting the law. And worst of all, it was the United States that suffered most on account of this policy. Okay. Now, the final expansion of federal power you need to know during this time is the strengthening of the Supreme Court. And all of this happened under the leadership of a Federalist Chief Justice by the name of John Marshall, whose actions to beef up the power of the Supreme Court led to bitter debates between the two parties. Now, recall that the Constitution gave relatively little authoritative instruction on the role and power of the Supreme Court. But by means of several important decisions, the Supreme Court gained power during this period and claimed a co-equal place with the other two branches of government. And I'll mention two of those cases. First was Marberry v. Madison in 1803. And here's the quick background. So one of John Adams's final acts as president was to stuff the federal courts with federalist judges, an act that became known as Adams's midnight appointments. And since federal judges served for a life, the Jefferson administration interpreted the appointments as a way for federalists to frustrate the future plans and policies of the Democratic Republicans. Therefore, Jefferson's Secretary of State James Madison solved this problem by not delivering the commissions to several judges. So, in response, some of those judges sued Madison to get their commissions in the case came before the Supreme Court. And in his written decision, John Marshall did something exceedingly momentous. First, he said that the court had no power to compel Madison to deliver the commissions. Okay, that's not a huge deal. But second, Marshall asserted that it was the Supreme Court's role to be the final interpreter of the Constitution, a power known as judicial review. Why are you not falling out of your seat right now? This was massive. Like in claiming the power of judicial review, Marshall elevated the power of the Supreme Court to equality with the other two branches. And that further confirmed the constitutional foundations of the separation of powers and checks and balances. And yet even further, Marshall's claim of judicial review overturned Jefferson's argument in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions that we talked about in unit 3. In other words, the court has the final say on what was or was not constitutional and not the states. Like this was a huge deal. Okay. Now, the second case that illustrates a growth of federal power under Marshall is McCullik v. Maryland in 1819. The big idea here is that this case helped establish the supremacy of federal law over state law. Now, by this time, Congress had chartered a second national bank over the loud objections of the Democratic Republicans who argued that a national bank represented too much federal power over the state. Therefore, in order to keep that power in check, legislators in Maryland passed a tax on the bank, which represented an effort to maintain state power above federal power. But when this case came before the Supreme Court, John Marshall wrote in his decision that the bank was constitutional on grounds of a loose constructionist interpretation of the necessary and proper clause. And ultimately, this decision along with others under Marshall's leadership established the supremacy of federal law above state law, thus expanding federal power. Okay, you can click here to watch my other videos from unit 4, or you can click here to grab my A Push Himler review guide, which has everything you need to study as fast as possible. And I'm glad you came around, and I'll catch you on the flip-flop. I'm Laurat.