Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Jefferson 1st Term Poll


vcczar
 Share

Jefferson 1st term poll  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Jefferson declares at his inauguration that, "We are all Federalists, We are all Republicans" and makes a private promise not to purge Federalists from lower offices. How do you feel?

    • I don't trust Jefferson to live up to his promise.
    • I feel betrayed. Washington and Adams did their best to shut us out.
    • I think this is wise for the sake of harmony. We've had too much chaos.
    • I don't know.
      0
  2. 2. Which of Jefferson's cabinet do you confirm? *Check all that apply*

    • James Madison at Sec of State
    • Albert Gallatin at Sec of Treasury
    • Henry Dearborn at Sec of War
    • Levi Lincoln Sr at Att Gen
    • Robert Smith at Sec of Navy
  3. 3. Despite his initial opposition to the Bank of the US, Sec Gallatin is consistently defending the Bank whenever Jefferson considers killing the bank. What do you advise Jefferson to do?

    • Gallatin is a Jeffersonian economist and even he sees the merit of the US Bank. Advise Jefferson to let it be.
    • We need to wipe out this hallmark of the Federalist Party! The corrupt Bank gives power to the wealthy elite and to the North.
    • I have no real opinion on the Bank
      0
  4. 4. France has acquired Louisiana in a treaty with Spain. We now have Napoleon at our backs, the Spanish in Florida, and King George III to our North and in the Ocean! We're surrounded!

    • We secured peace with Napoleon under John Adams, so Napoleon at our backs is not a threat. We have more to worry about British Canada.
    • This is a national security threat and it prohibits our own expansion. This land isn't important to Napoleon, while New Orleans is crucial for us. Let's see if he'll sell it.
    • We should just invade and take Louisiana as soon as Napoleon is bogged down in a major military campaign.
    • I'm not interested in this issue.
      0
  5. 5. Jefferson has reversed the policy of Washington and Adams, refusing to pay tribute to the Barbary Pirates and opting to wage battle to end this menace.

    • I support this policy. We shoudn't be using government revenue to pay pirates.
    • We haven't the navy to fight pirates at this point.
    • I have no opinion on this.
  6. 6. Hamilton confides in you that the American world is not meant for him, hinting at possibly a permanent retirement in his mid-40s. How do you respond back?

    • Why are you talking to me? You are my enemy!
    • Concur that it is the best that Hamilton retire. Suggest he move to London.
    • Give no response other than a sympathetic nod.
    • Tell Hamilton that he's wrong and that America is home to diverse opinions and beliefs.
    • Tell Hamilton that he is the true "American world," and that he's needed to take America back from the Jeffersonian tyrants!
  7. 7. Rumor spreads that VP Aaron Burr showed up uninvited to a Federalist dinner and giving a toast for "the Union of all honest men!" How do you respond?

    • I am a Federalist. I was at that dinner. I welcome a coalition with Burr and his allies to thwart Jeffersonianism.
    • I am a Federalists. I was at that dinner. He's trying to use us for his own ambitions. What an arrogant move to show up uninvited!
    • I think Burr was just being friendly, possibly trying to fulfill Jefferson's speech that we are all Federalists and all Republicans.
    • I think Burr is clearly trying to gain some converts from Federalists to Burrites to out influence Jefferson. It smacks of a betrayal to the president.
    • I think Burr is considering flipping parties. It's a good thing Jefferson has isolated Burr from his administration.
  8. 8. Jefferson is about to sign a bill creating a military academy at West Point.

    • I approved of this measure as it will be a boon to our national security efforts.
    • I opposed this measure and encourage him to veto it. Militarism isn't the American way.
    • I am uninterested in military matters.
      0
  9. 9. A Richmond newspaper has released an account of Jefferson's sexual relationship and children with slave Sally Hemings. Jefferson refuses to respond to it. How do you respond?

    • I call for the impeachment and/or resignation of Jefferson!
    • Good for him!
    • Whether this is true or not, it isn't a major deal.
    • Call on Jefferson to make a public statement.
    • Whether this is true or not, deny that Jefferson did it to prevent this story from spiraling out of control.
    • Exaggerate the claims and try to expand this into a larger scandal.
      0
    • Demand that Jefferson give Hemings and her children their freedom.
    • Ignore this scandal.
  10. 10. Do you believe Jefferson has the Constitutional authority to make the Louisiana Purchase?

    • We need an amendment passed and ratified to make it Constitutional to both add the territory and its citizens into the US. Do this, even if the year or so delay might cause Napoleon to back out.
    • We need an amendment passed and ratified to make it Constitutional to both add the territory and its citizens into the US, but Napoleon is thinking of backing out, so lets just sign the deal.
    • Let the voters decide if it is unconsitutional. Just go ahead and sign the treaty. If they reelect Jefferson, then its Constitutional; if they don't, then Jefferson was unconstitutional.
    • I'm sure the Constitution can be interpreted in a way that makes it legal. Go ahead and sign it.
    • I am no expert on this.
      0
  11. 11. Jefferson requests funds for an expedition to the Pacific Ocean to note the potential resources, native tribes, flora and fauna of Westward land in the event we expand.

    • I do not favor government funds for this or the expedition.
      0
    • I do not favor government funds, but we can request donations.
    • I will personally fund this trip to save the government funds.
    • This is a rightful use of government funds. Let's allocate them for this purpose.
    • This is a rightful use of government funds, but I do not support the expedition as it might lead to expansion.
  12. 12. Thomas Paine suggests that if Napoleon conquers London that the US should grab Canada and Bermuda. How do you respond?

    • Thomas Paine is completely insane.
    • This is a good way to make Great Britain a permanent enemy.
    • While desirable, British Canadians aren't going to just let us walk into Canada. It could be a disaster.
    • I'll carry this idea personally to Jefferson. It has my endorsement!
  13. 13. New England High Federalists believe that if VP Burr wins the race for Gov of NY that New England and NY could succeed to create a Northern Confederacy.

    • I'm a New England Federalist and I approve this measure.
      0
    • I'm a New England Federalist, but I don't think Jefferson and Jeffersonianism is bad enough to warrant secession.
    • I am NOT a New England Federalist, but I believe they have a right to secede.
    • I am NOT a New England Federalist,and I think secession would be a disaster for the North.
    • I do not think secession is legal and any attempt to do so would lead to an automatic civil war to enforce the US Constitution.
    • This is just talk. For one, Jeffersonianism is growing in the North and Burr lost too much popularity competing with Jefferson to win Gov of NY. Only the leading Federalists are irate.
  14. 14. VP Aaron Burr has kill Alexander Hamilton in a duel. A few months later, Burr presides over the US Senate. As you look at him with the gavel in his hand, you think.....

    • ...Murderer!
    • Here's the man who rid America of its greatest threat: Hamilton.
    • Your first thought is on the fact that Jefferson dropped Burr from the ticket and this will be the last session of Burr presiding over the Senate.
    • You don't take much notice or give much thought to Burr.
  15. 15. The 1804 presidential election has begun--the first with a party ticket. Who do you vote for?

    • Jeffersonians: Pres. Jefferson of VA & George Clinton of NY
    • Federalists: C C Pinckney of SC & Rufus King of NY
  16. 16. During the impeachment of Federalist Assoc Justice Samuel Chase, do you convict?

    • Yes. He is guilty of lnflammatory language against Jeffersonians, including libel. His speech has been loud and erratic, lacking the impartiality becoming of a Justice.
    • No. Whether we are a Federalist or not, the opinionated Justice Chase is doing nothing worthy of conviction. This is just a partisan attempt, sadly, to remove an unlikable Federalist judge.
  17. 17. With President Jefferson taking the oath of office for a 2nd term, how are you feeling?

    • I am a Jeffersonian or independent and I am Joyful
    • I am a Jeffersonian or independent, but I am disappointed with Jefferson. He's moderated too much and/or is making poor decisions.
      0
    • I am a Federalist or independent, but I am content with the relative domestic peace and harmony of Jefferson's presidency compared to the chaos of Washington and Adams.
    • I am a Federalist or independent, and I am saddened to have to suffer through 4 more years of Jefferson.


Recommended Posts

I would still be a Federalist, but I'd vote against CC Pinckney for president. Both he and Jefferson are major slaveholders, but Jefferson at least is known to support the eventual abolition of slavery, while Pinckney was fighting for slaveowner writes at the Convention. I can't support any presidential nominee from the Deep South in the era of slavery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I would still be a Federalist, but I'd vote against CC Pinckney for president. Both he and Jefferson are major slaveholders, but Jefferson at least is known to support the eventual abolition of slavery, while Pinckney was fighting for slaveowner writes at the Convention. I can't support any presidential nominee from the Deep South in the era of slavery. 

Accuse me of being a partisan hack maybe, but all these people who were like "oh yeah, we'll totally abolish slavery.... someday!" My response is "uh huh, sure..."  In other words, it identifies them as someone weaseling for political convenience.  Yeah, the other slave holders are bad too, but this "moderate" position doesn't win any points in my book, and in fact, might actually lose someone points because it seems as if they're just being an opportunist.  Therefore, I'm going to stick to the Federalist ticket and other cycles we'll have better candidates.  The issue at hand won't budge regardless, so it doesn't matter.

  • Thanks 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

Accuse me of being a partisan hack maybe, but all these people who were like "oh yeah, we'll totally abolish slavery.... someday!" My response is "uh huh, sure..."  In other words, it identifies them as someone weaseling for political convenience.  Yeah, the other slave holders are bad too, but this "moderate" position doesn't win any points in my book, and in fact, might actually lose someone points because it seems as if they're just being an opportunist.  Therefore, I'm going to stick to the Federalist ticket and other cycles we'll have better candidates.  The issue at hand won't budge regardless, so it doesn't matter.

I suppose Abraham Lincoln is opportunist scum for saying he wanted to return slaves to Africa... before signing the Emancipation Proclamation... and beginning efforts to ensure the passing of the 13th Amendment. 

Edited by Pringles
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pringles said:

I suppose Abraham Lincoln is opportunist scum for saying he wanted to return slaves to Africa... before signing the Emancipation Proclamation... and beginning efforts to ensure the passing of the 13th Amendment. 

The 1850s and 1860s was a drastically different time than circa 1800 1804, hence my comment "there's not going to be any movement on the issue anyway".  It's also a false equivalence fallacy, because while to us "returning the slaves to Africa" would not necessarily be a good look, it is hard to argue it's not an improvement over, you know, actually being enslaved.

That said, Lincoln does have waffly opprotunist tendencies.  That wouldn't be my biggest gripe with him.  That said, in his case, everyone else had way bigger detractions so he's the best of the lot, so it doesn't matter.  In short, basically my argument is not about ME, but it's about YOU.  Anyone saying Jefferson is better "because he wanted eventual abolition" is simply put telling themselves that so they can sleep better at night.  That's on you, not me me.  Hell, look at all the same people trying to sweep him raping a slave under the rug in the same breath.  Bravo voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

In short, basically my argument is not about ME, but it's about YOU.  Anyone saying Jefferson is better "because he wanted eventual abolition" is simply put telling themselves that so they can sleep better at night.

Did I say this? Didn't think so. You're perfectly within your right to hate the grievances you mentioned. However this is a for-fun poll, and I don't believe it's healthy for one to take it too seriously, even when presented with facetious/devils advocate remarks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Did I say this? Didn't think so. You're perfectly within your right to hate the grievances you mentioned. However this is a for-fun poll, and I don't believe it's healthy for one to take it too seriously, even when presented with facetious/devils advocate remarks. 

I mean such is the nature of the poll, though.  Perhaps I did come off strongly, but I was merely trying to illustrate my point:  The mark against Jefferson is *right there*.  It is of course impossible to tell what any of us would have done if we were actually alive back then.  I'd say many of us are looking at this with too much of a modern lens, but I'm not one to judge on that because since it seems to be consensus I am as well.  If I was alive in 1804 maybe I would be full on in support of slavery, having not had the chance to grow up with different morals.  Honestly, to that point, it was somewhat with that in mind that I responded to V in the first place:  in 1804 surely I would have cared more about the bank policy than slavery.  1850?  Maybe not.  1804, I'd say almost certainly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@OrangeP47 I think the primary feeling around my statement regarding Jefferson and Pinckney is that I don't think Jefferson would be actively working to strengthen slavery or the slave states, while Pinckney likely would have, considering where he comes from. If you consider all of the nominees for president from 1788-1820, the only two with any true abolitionist feelings were Aaron Burr and Rufus King. Washington, J Adams, George Clinton, DeWitt Clinton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe aimed to abstain on the issue, although Washington signed a fugitive slave act and Monroe the Missouri Compromise, which both protected slavery and restricted it. Jefferson signed the slave trade ban, but it had some negative to it. The two Pinckneys--CC and Thomas--were at a totally different level. They were part of the slavocracy of South Carolina, the slavery as a "positive good" school of thought. Jefferson and Washington were addicted to their free labor but both routinely wrote private letters wanting it to be abolished. They just couldn't kick the addiction, but they wouldn't encourage the growth of it. The Pinckneys would. Madison was somewhere in the middle. He seems to not have felt guilty the way Washington and Jefferson did. I suspect Monroe was more like Madison in this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@OrangeP47 I think the primary feeling around my statement regarding Jefferson and Pinckney is that I don't think Jefferson would be actively working to strengthen slavery or the slave states, while Pinckney likely would have, considering where he comes from. If you consider all of the nominees for president from 1788-1820, the only two with any true abolitionist feelings were Aaron Burr and Rufus King. Washington, J Adams, George Clinton, DeWitt Clinton, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe aimed to abstain on the issue, although Washington signed a fugitive slave act and Monroe the Missouri Compromise, which both protected slavery and restricted it. Jefferson signed the slave trade ban, but it had some negative to it. The two Pinckneys--CC and Thomas--were at a totally different level. They were part of the slavocracy of South Carolina, the slavery as a "positive good" school of thought. Jefferson and Washington were addicted to their free labor but both routinely wrote private letters wanting it to be abolished. They just couldn't kick the addiction, but they wouldn't encourage the growth of it. The Pinckneys would. Madison was somewhere in the middle. He seems to not have felt guilty the way Washington and Jefferson did. I suspect Monroe was more like Madison in this. 

I would totally go for Aaron Burr, except for the fact that he killed Hamilton. (also the fact that these polls are "on rails" so to speak, that's not a criticism it's just the nature of the beast.  I would much prefer an adaptive timeline, but I mean, that's why we have AMPU, so I'm not gonna complain about this at all haha). That being said, it's a double edged sword.  Just as I can't vote for Burr (in a timeline where he didn't kill Hamilton), we don't have real world information on what would happen if Pinckney was elected.  Perhaps it would be terrible. Perhaps the Northern base would make sure politics focused on the core Federalist issues, or kick the slavery issue down the road.  In my opinion, I think the Northern concentration of Federalist power was great enough that the latter options were likely.  I do not see 1804 as the time when the slavery issue comes to a head *or* the union is torn apart.  Around 1812-1816 maybe, but not now.  Of course, even this is a big if since historically it took much longer, but point being I don't think the issue had reached saliency yet.  My point being, when you look at the grand scheme of history, I don't think the "final outcome" on the slavery issue would be much changed by this one election.  It's "great man history" vs "history from below" in otherwords.  We all love great man history because it makes cool stories, but history from below is probably the more explanative theory.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally finished the Madison book by Jay Cost. It was much better for my purposes than the Meachem book on Jefferson. It was almost as good as the Chernow (Washington) and McCullough (Adams) books. The only flaw in the Cost book is that he doesn't site the dates very frequently prior to the Constitution and after Madison's presidency. Washington and Adams are specific with dates throughout, for the most part. Meachem is very chronologically non-specific, which will likely lead me to reading another Jefferson book at some point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might get to the 2nd term of Jefferson today. I'm a little behind on things, so it might get pushed back until Friday.

I'm now reading a Monroe biography by McGrath. It's fairly well-researched and well-written, but the author has a bad issue of using historical letters and quoting from them even if the dates of the letters don't line up with the year he's covering. I know he's trying to capture sentiment of Monroe, and etc., but it definitely frustrates my goal of typing out a timeline. Quoting letters from 1782 to talk about an event in 1779 without mentioning in-text that the quote is coming from 3 years later is misleading. Stuff like this has happened a few times already. 

So far, I'd say the Monroe book is better written than the Madison and Jefferson book, but that it falls short of the Washington and Adams books for the reasons I state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2023 at 4:12 PM, vcczar said:

I finally finished the Madison book by Jay Cost. It was much better for my purposes than the Meachem book on Jefferson. It was almost as good as the Chernow (Washington) and McCullough (Adams) books. The only flaw in the Cost book is that he doesn't site the dates very frequently prior to the Constitution and after Madison's presidency. Washington and Adams are specific with dates throughout, for the most part. Meachem is very chronologically non-specific, which will likely lead me to reading another Jefferson book at some point. 

I've read Meachem's books on Jefferson and Jackson and found them likely. He's obviously a good writer, but the detail is always lacking. With detail and Jefferson, it's hard to beat Dumas Malone's series on him. It's six volumes and about 3,300 pages, but each book does begin with a chronology of the events covered in that volume. If you get to Jackson, I've read the first volume of Robert Remini's three-part biography and found it quite good.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...