Free and enslaved black Americans were not the only ones pushing against political hierarchies. Jefferson\u2019s election to the presidency in 1800 represented a victory for ordinary white Americans in their bid to assume more direct control over the government. Elites had made no secret of their hostility toward pure democracy, that is the direct control of government by the people. In both private correspondence and published works, many of the nation\u2019s founders argued that pure democracy would lead to anarchy. \u201cThe power of the people, if uncontroverted, is licentious and mobbish,\u201d Massachusetts Federalist Fisher Ames maintained in language echoed by many of his colleagues. Ames believed that the writers of the Constitution intended for the government to be a republic, rather than a democracy, since the latter depended upon public opinion, which he argued \u201cshifts with every current of caprice.\u201d Jefferson\u2019s election, for Federalists like Ames, heralded a slide \u201cdown into the mire of a democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Indeed, many political leaders and non-elite citizens believed Jefferson embraced the politics of the masses. \u201c[I]n a government like ours it is the duty of the Chief-magistrate\u2026 to unite in himself the confidence of the whole people,\u201d Jefferson wrote in 1810. Nine years later, looking back on his monumental election, Jefferson again linked his triumph to the political engagement of ordinary citizens: \u201cThe revolution of 1800\u2026was as real a revolution in the principles of our government as that of 76 was in it\u2019s form,\u201d he wrote, \u201cnot effected indeed by the sword\u2026but by the rational and peaceable instrument of reform, the suffrage [voting] of the people.\u201d Jefferson desired to convince Americans\u2014and the world\u2014that a government that answered directly to the people would lead to lasting national union, not anarchic division, proving that free people could govern themselves democratically.<\/p>\n
Jefferson set out to differentiate his administration from the Federalists. He defined American union by the voluntary bonds of fellow citizens toward one another and toward the government. In contrast, the Federalists supposedly imaged a union defined by expansive state power and public submission to the rule of aristocratic elites. For Jefferson, the American nation drew its \u201cenergy\u201d and its strength from the \u201cconfidence\u201d of a \u201creasonable\u201d and \u201crational\u201d people.<\/p>\n
Republican celebrations often credited Jefferson with saving the nation\u2019s republican principles. In a move that enraged Federalists, they used the image of George Washington, who had passed away in 1799, linking the republican virtue Washington epitomized to the democratic liberty Jefferson championed. A contributor to the Alexandria Expositor<\/i> argued that the Federalists had abused their power in the administration by raising \u201ca large army\u201d and naval force, which exemplified the ways they had appeared to be \u201chastily swallowing up all that remained of our liberties.\u201d Leaving behind the military pomp of power-obsessed Federalists, Republicans had peacefully elected the scribe of national independence, the philosopher-patriot who had battled tyranny with his pen, not with a sword or a gun.<\/p>\n
The celebrations of Jefferson\u2019s presidency and the defeat of the Federalists expressed many citizens\u2019 willingness to assert greater direct control over the government as citizens. The definition of citizenship was changing. Early American national identity was coded masculine, just as it was coded white and wealthy; yet, since the Revolution, women had repeatedly called for a place in the conversation. Mercy Otis Warren was one of the most noteworthy female contributors to the public ratification debate over the Constitution of 1787 and 1788, but women all over the country were urged to participate in the discussion over the Constitution. \u201cIt is the duty of the American ladies, in a particular manner, to interest themselves in the success of the measures that are now pursuing by the Federal Convention for the happiness of America,\u201d a Philadelphia essayist announced. \u201cThey can retain their rank as rational beings only in a free government.\u00a0 In a monarchy\u2026they will be considered as valuable members of a society, only in proportion as they are capable of being mothers for soldiers, who are the pillars of crowned heads.\u201d American women were more than mothers to soldiers; they were mothers to liberty.<\/p>\n
Historians have used the term Republican Motherhood to describe the early American belief that women were essential in nurturing the principles of liberty in the citizenry. Women would pass along important values of independence and virtue to their children, ensuring that each generation cherished the same values of the American Revolution. Because of these ideas, women\u2019s actions became politicized. Republican partisans even described women\u2019s choice of sexual partner a crucial to the health and well-being of both the party and the nation. \u201cThe fair Daughters of America\u201d should \u201cnever disgrace themselves by giving their hands in marriage to any but real republicans,\u201d a group of New Jersey Republicans asserted. A Philadelphia paper toasted \u201cThe fair Daughters of Columbia. May their smiles be the reward of Republicans only.\u201d Though unmistakably steeped in the gendered assumptions about female sexuality and domesticity that denied women an equal share of the political rights men enjoyed, these statements also conceded the pivotal role women played as active participants in partisan politics.<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t