Empire of Liberty, Chapters 8-10

The theme of these chapters is the "democracy" that took over the country after John Adams' administration. The Federalists wanted the elite to run and control government. Jefferson and the Republicans did not want the central government and pushed more power to the states -- except if Jefferson wanted something such as the purchase of Louisiana Territory or the Lewis and Clark expedition. Then going it without democratic control was OK.

p. 292: "The Republicans were determined to destroy the Federalist dream of creating a modern army and navy." Jefrferson read Napoleon's overthrow of the Bourbon monarchy as "..a lesson against standing armies." As mentioned previously, the Constitution does not allow standing armies -- at least my reading of Article I Section 8 indicates that. Were the Republicans merely following the Constitution?
Jefferson wanted a navy to consist of small gunboats that would provide defense of canals and rivers but not go rampaging across the globe.

p. 296: "The Massachusetts legislature had required the second state bank it created to lend at least 20 percent of its funds to citizens living outside of the city of Boston...." Wow, the Barney Franks and Chris Dodds were functioning clear back then.

Chapter 9
Population growth, expansion of territory and the rush to land ownership captured the first decade of 1800.

Rioting occurred as the War of 1812 broke out -- the Federalists liked the Brits, the Republicans did not. It is simply amazing and basically inconceivable to me that Wood's hypothesis as to the source of the rioting is accurate -- that people were drinking more hard liquor.

Chapter 10
The expansion West decimated the Native Americans. This chapter is devoted to the arguments in favor and opposed to the integration of the Indians. Woods gives us his personal lament that neither Jefferson nor Washington before him gave any thought to the cost of destroying a way of life. This makes no sense. The general lack of private property rights to land is what destroyed the Indians. Had they had private property rights it is at least arguable that the property would have remained in the owners' hands.