The relationship between the executive and legislative branches of the United States government is a complex yet vital party of American public policy and national security. The balance of power between these two branches is important to maintain because humanity is naturally evil and corrupted by sin. Yet, when the two branches can work together, it shows a nation that can set aside differences and work for the greater good. Many times throughout history the two branches have clashed on issues, and this relationship impacts the actions and abilities of the president. By studying Thomas Jefferson's presidency, one can see an example of the relationship and dynamics of the executive and legislative branches. By studying Jefferson's presidency, one can see how the president and Congress can work together in light of the Congressional/Constitutional restrictions placed on the executive. Jefferson understood and was able to work with Congress during the Conflict with Tripoli and on other issues. Jefferson's views on foreign policy focused on the importance of foreign trade and its protection. Jefferson provided protection primarily through using the navy as force projection as shown in the Barbary conflict. Foreign nations considered the new United States weak, but Jefferson sought to change this by utilizing the navy and other tactics.
Thomas Jefferson is revered by many Americans because he helped created one of the greatest nations in history. When the average person thinks of Jefferson, his contribution to the Declaration of Independence comes to mind. However, Jefferson’s term in office is just as important as his other contributions. Congress made sure that power within the United States government is not vested in one entity; it divides power between the executive, legislative, and judicial. Specifically, the executive and legislative must work together. Therefore, the executive and legislative branches frequently clash on issues, even if persons of the same party hold the White House and the majority in Congress. This majority scenario was Jefferson's presidency. Even though Jefferson and his fellow republican party colleagues controlled both the executive and Congress, Jefferson would still need to learn how to work effectively with Congress. Finally, Jefferson sought to deal with U.S. foreign relations through trade and its protection through the projection of power through the military.
The separation of powers is a sacred protection outlined in the Constitution to guard against an unjust government. James Madison, Jefferson’s secretary of state and fellow founding father, puts it best: “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, or few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (Madison, 2001, p. 249). The relationship between the three branches, and in this case specifically the executive and legislative, is meant to be one of contention; the branches need to work together to resolve issues. Jefferson specifically desired to work closely with Congress on many matters, which arguably sets him apart from many presidents throughout history. Even though Jefferson and the Republicans controlled both the executive and Congress, they still clashed on some issues. Casper (1995) notes that after addressing a friendly Congress during his first inaugural address, the relationship between Jefferson and Congress towards the end of Jefferson's first term was at times filled with tension; some in Congress claimed that Jefferson went back on his claims of upholding the separation of powers (p. 476). Specifically, John Randolph, once a principal ally of Jefferson in the House, now claimed that Jefferson was overstepping his boundaries by not allowing British trade into the United States and therefore is guilty of violating the separation of powers (Casper, 1995, p. 477). Yet, there were many times that Jefferson also did everything in his power to work with Congress and maintain a good relationship; one example was with the conflict in Tripoli.
Concerning the Tripoli matter, one must focus on congressional limitations on presidential actions; specifically, it is critical to emphasize the Constitutional and congressional limitations on the President's ability to declare war. Jefferson believed in strict adherence to the Constitution and limiting the jurisdiction of the federal government. As a result, he recognized the boundaries placed on him by Congress/the Constitution and acted accordingly. However, to understand this significance, the beginnings of the conflict with Tripoli and how it led to war requires explanation. The struggle with Tripoli has roots that go back to the 1790s. Casper (1995) points out that pirates from the Ottoman states controlled a vast majority of the Mediterranean, and instead of fighting the pirates, they gave money to avoid the sinking of their trade vessels; the United States also followed in Europe’s ways and gave money to these provinces (p. 481). According to Eric Covey (2017), a treaty created with Tripoli entailed that the United States would provide the country with money in exchange for the protection of American trade vessels from pirates in the Mediterranean area (p. 180). However, this treaty would not last long. The treaty between the United States and Tripoli would only serve as a temporary solution that would ultimately boil over into conflict. The leader of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, became dissatisfied with the United States because they did not provide Tripoli with the amount of money agreed upon; Qaramanli had first resorted to diplomatic measures to secure the funds owed, but this did not work (Covey, 2017, p. 180). As a result, on May 14, 1801, Tripoli declares war on the United States in response to the denying funds to the province (Thomas Jefferson – Key Events, n.d.). It is Jefferson's response to Tripoli that is of considerable note. Casper (1995) states that an American ship clashed with a Tripolitan vessel; this was done without Congressional consent (p. 482). However, in an address to Congress, Jefferson (2008) argued that the Americans fought in self-defense and that only Congress can declare war:
Unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go out beyond the line of defence, the vessel being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. The legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offence, also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of the important function considered by the constitution to the legislature exclusively, their judgment may form it- self on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.
In other words, Jefferson stated that he can only act militarily without the consent of Congress when a narrow set of circumstances are present, such as self-defense. If these limited circumstances were not apparent, then the president could not act in any way. While Jefferson understood that there were some critical circumstances, he always believed that he needed to discuss with Congress anything related to the war, and many of the individuals within his cabinet disagreed with this assertion and claimed that he did not need legislative consent to use any kind of enforcement; Jefferson supported his beliefs by saying that it was Congress that was ultimately responsible for paying the way through the war and should also play a hand in helping to decide what should be used to help win the conflict with Tripoli (Casper, 1995, 483). It is evident that Jefferson wanted to work closely with the legislative Branch on issues and chose not to take many actions without Congress allowing it. Abraham Sofaer (1976) states that “Jefferson had prior congressional approval for virtually all the broad objectives that he sought” (p. 225). As one can see by this example of the relationship between Jefferson and Congress, Jefferson sought to work with the other branch even if there were issues that caused tension. In this case, the congressional limitation put on Jefferson strengthened the bond between the presidency and Congress. The relationship between the executive and legislative branches was integral to the success of Tripoli. The United States projected a unified front on how to handle Tripoli, and this resulted in victory. Even though contention will always exist, when these two realms of government work together, the best results will happen and enable the government to help resolve issues in the fastest way possible. Jefferson recognized that it was not his place to circumvent Congress or go behind its back. Instead, Jefferson chose to stay within his boundaries and work together, which ultimately ended in victory and did not create unnecessary conflict with Congress during a time of war.
It is no secret that the Constitution alludes to the idea that Presidents should play an integral role in international relations. Further, H. Jefferson Powell (1999) states that the idea of the president bearing the responsibility for international relations is a valid interpretation to make in light of the language of the founding fathers (p. 1475). During his tenure as President, Jefferson approached international relations/foreign policy in light of the lessons he learned as a diplomat in Europe during the 1780s and 1790s. Jefferson was a republican, and his views concerning foreign policy align with republican ideas. According to Francis D Cogliano (2014), Jefferson believed that to prevent the country from failing, America should be a land of farmers and not turn into a manufacturing state. However, they were not to be altogether independent of manufacturing in the states; any manufactured goods, besides basic manufactured necessities for farming, should come from overseas (p. 48-50). As one can see, Jefferson's foreign policy focused on the importance of trade and its protection. Because of Jefferson's vision of the United States as a primarily agrarian country, foreign commerce was integral to the survival of the economy. Consequently, Jefferson's approach to international relations emphasized fostering effective trade agreements and routes (Cogliano, 2014, p. 50-51). Again, turning to the situation with Tripoli can help show how Jefferson approached international relations and the projection of force. The Barbary states posed a considerable threat to American trade. Cogliano (2014) talks about the importance of commerce to Jefferson and the interference of the Barbary States:
By threatening United States trade, the Barbary States endangered the liberty of American citizens. This threat was literal in the case of the sailors imprisoned in North Africa…One reason the Barbary States preyed on American ships was because the republic was perceived as weak – a view fostered by the British.
So, another critical point of the issue was that many countries thought that the new United States of America was weak; Jefferson sought to change this. Now the argument turns towards Jefferson's use of the projection of military force.
As Jefferson dealt with the Barbary pirates problem over the years before and during his presidency, he began to realize that the use of force was necessary and an inevitable. Cogliano (2014) states that Jefferson had become a chief supporter of the use of the navy to deal with the Barbary problem and ensure the protection of American trade (p. 50). In other words, Jefferson believed that one of the prominent ways to show the world that the United States was not weak was to utilize the navy. Seeing as many nations at the time had powerful navies, it would be plausible to think that one of the chief ways to project strength would also be to create a navy that would be a force to be taken seriously. Jefferson believed that the best way to deal with the Barbary States was by utilizing the navy. Additionally, Jefferson believed that America should work with other European nations; this would allow for stronger diplomatic relations with European countries that saw the Barbary states as a threat and show that the United States was not a weak country (Cogliano, 2014, p. 51). As stated in the section concerning Jefferson’s relationship with Congress, Jefferson did utilize the navy to the best of his ability to help fight against Tripoli; his strategic use of the navy would prove advantageous and would ultimately end in a victory. To summarize, Jefferson's chief way of projecting force was by using the navy to intimidate and project an image of power towards the Barbary States and the rest of the world. When navies were the chief projection of military power, Jefferson, through his views on foreign policy and force projection, showed that the United States should not be underestimated. Cogliano (2014) summarizes Jefferson’s beliefs perfectly:
As secretary of state and president, his foreign policy was not based on a desire to create a new diplomacy but on a recognition of the weakness of the United States. He resorted to a combination of tactics – mixing force, threats of force, diplomacy, economic coercion, and when all else failed, temporizing – to defend and protect vital American interest.
Although Jefferson did have his faults, he recognized that foreign policy and establishing the United States as a dominant player in the world stage would be vital and that all avenues, including force when necessary, should be considered to help show the world that this new country was here to stay.
The balance of power between the three realms of the federal government is central to understanding how the American system operates. The Founders recognized that power corrupts.