Setting up the government
George Washington took office in 1789. His Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, wanted a strong national economy. His plan had the national government assume state war debts, set up a national bank, and promote manufacturing. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison objected. They favoured farming and a limited reading of federal power, arguing that the Constitution nowhere authorised a bank. The dispute over loose versus strict construction of the Constitution grew into the first party system: Federalists (Hamilton, John Adams) and Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson, Madison).
Washington's Farewell Address (1796) warned against permanent foreign alliances and against bitter party rivalry.
Adams, Jefferson and the courts
Under Adams, the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798) made it a crime to publish "false" criticism of the government, and opponents called them an attack on free speech. Jefferson won the election of 1800, which saw the first peaceful transfer of power between opposing parties. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review, the Court's power to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution.
Growth and war
Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803 for about 15 million dollars, roughly doubling the nation's size. The Lewis and Clark expedition explored it. Britain's seizure of American sailors and interference with trade, plus frontier tensions, led to the War of 1812. It ended in a draw, but it boosted national confidence and weakened the Federalist Party. In 1823 the Monroe Doctrine warned European powers against new colonies in the Americas.
Worked example: Hamilton's bank and the Constitution
- The Constitution lists powers of Congress, and "create a bank" is not among them.
- Jefferson reasoned: powers not listed are not given. Strict reading, so no bank.
- Hamilton reasoned: Congress may make laws "necessary and proper" to carry out its listed powers, such as taxing and borrowing, and a bank helps do that. Loose reading, so a bank is fine.
- Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bank bill in 1791.
- Later, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court agreed with Hamilton's reading.
The example shows how one clause, "necessary and proper", can support two opposite arguments, which is why interpretation is a recurring theme.