AP U.S. History · Lesson 1

Jefferson to Jackson: parties, courts and power

Know Know it

In 1800 Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, and power passed peacefully from the Federalists to Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans. Jefferson wanted a smaller federal government, lower spending and a nation of independent farmers. He read the Constitution strictly, yet in 1803 he bought the Louisiana Purchase from France even though the Constitution says nothing about buying land.

Chief Justice John Marshall, a Federalist, led the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835 and used it to strengthen national power. Marbury v. Madison (1803) claimed the power of judicial review. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld the national bank under Congress's implied powers and barred a state from taxing it. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) gave Congress, not the states, control of commerce that crosses state lines.

Trade fights with Britain and France led to the Embargo Act of 1807 and then the War of 1812, fought over British seizure of American sailors, limits on trade and British support for Native resistance in the West. New England Federalists opposed the war, and their Hartford Convention (1814 to 1815) made them look disloyal once peace came. The Federalist Party faded, and a burst of nationalism followed: the American System, the Monroe Doctrine (1823) and a single-party "Era of Good Feelings."

By the 1820s most states had dropped property requirements for voting, so nearly all white men could vote. In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the most votes, but no one won a majority of electoral votes, and the House chose John Quincy Adams. Jackson won in 1828, and his Democrats faced the Whigs in the Second Party System. As president, Jackson used the spoils system, defeated South Carolina's nullification of federal tariffs, and vetoed the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States in the Bank War.

Marshall Court cases to know
CaseYearWhat the Court decided
Marbury v. Madison1803The Court can strike down a federal law that conflicts with the Constitution
McCulloch v. Maryland1819Congress could charter a national bank under its implied powers, and a state could not tax it
Gibbons v. Ogden1824Congress, not a state, governs commerce that crosses state lines, so New York could not grant a steamboat monopoly on interstate routes

Trap Wider democracy, not democracy for all

The Jacksonian era opened voting to nearly all white men, but it did not open it to everyone. Women could not vote, enslaved people had no political rights, and several states took the vote away from free Black men or kept special barriers for them, as Pennsylvania did in 1838. Native nations were pushed off their lands in the same years. An answer that calls the era simply "more democratic" misses half the story.

Worked example Easy

From Chief Justice John Marshall, opinion of the Court, Marbury v. Madison, 1803 (public domain)

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

The principle in this excerpt is most closely associated with which idea?

  1. Implied powers
  2. Judicial reviewAnswer
  3. Nullification
  4. Strict construction

How to solve it

  1. The excerpt says the judicial department decides what the law is.
  2. A court that decides what the law is can also decide that a law conflicts with the Constitution and is void. That is judicial review.

Why each choice is right or wrong

  • A. Incorrect. Implied powers is the idea from McCulloch v. Maryland that Congress may do what is necessary to carry out its listed powers, not a claim about courts.
  • B. Correct. Saying it is the courts' duty "to say what the law is" is the basis of judicial review, the power to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution.
  • C. Incorrect. Nullification claimed that a state, not a court, could void a federal law, which is the opposite of the excerpt's claim for the judicial branch.
  • D. Incorrect. Strict construction is a way of reading the Constitution narrowly, and the excerpt is about which branch interprets the law, not how narrowly.

Explain Explain it

Task verbs: explain, compare

To explain a development, do three things: name it, give a specific example with a date or a name, and say how that example caused or shows the change. "The embargo hurt New England" is a claim. "The Embargo Act of 1807 kept New England ships in port, so shipowners and sailors lost their income" is a claim with evidence and a link.

To compare, set two things side by side on the same feature. Jackson and Calhoun were both southern slaveholders, but on nullification they disagreed: Calhoun said a state could void a federal law, and Jackson said no state could.

Worked example Medium

In November 1832 a South Carolina convention declared the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832 void in the state. How was the crisis resolved in 1833?

  1. The Supreme Court ruled the tariffs unconstitutional, so South Carolina won
  2. South Carolina left the Union until Congress repealed every tariff
  3. Congress passed a Force Bill and a lower tariff, and South Carolina backed downAnswer
  4. Jackson accepted nullification as a state's right and stopped collecting the tariff there

How to solve it

  1. Recall Jackson's stand: he said no state could cancel a federal law.
  2. Congress backed him with a Force Bill but also offered a lower tariff through Henry Clay's compromise.
  3. With a face-saving way out, South Carolina repealed its ordinance against the tariffs.

Why each choice is right or wrong

  • A. Incorrect. The Supreme Court did not decide the crisis, and the tariffs were never ruled unconstitutional.
  • B. Incorrect. South Carolina did not leave the Union in 1833, and Congress lowered tariffs over time rather than repealing them all.
  • C. Correct. Congress paired a Force Bill, which let the president use the military to collect duties, with a tariff that lowered rates over time, and South Carolina then repealed its nullification of the tariffs.
  • D. Incorrect. Jackson rejected nullification outright and warned South Carolina that defying federal law was treason.

Explain Your turn

Explain one way American politics became more democratic in the 1820s and 1830s, and one way taking part in politics stayed limited in those years.

Write it, then compare. Nothing you type here is saved or graded.

Compare with a model answer

A full answer does this

  • Gives an accurate way politics became more democratic in the 1820s and 1830s
  • Gives an accurate way taking part in politics stayed limited in those years

Model answer

Politics became more democratic because most states dropped property requirements for voting by the 1820s, so nearly all white men could vote, and turnout rose. But participation stayed limited: women could not vote at all, and several states, such as Pennsylvania in 1838, took the vote away from free Black men.

Apply Apply it

Practice these topics. AP Practice questions on exactly what this lesson covers, with an explanation for every answer.

Practice these topics