Jefferson and HamiltonEssay Preview: Jefferson and HamiltonReport this essayThe post-revolutionary war period of the Unites States saw the establishment of the first party system and an enlarging gap in viewpoints between the wealthy and the common man. The contradictory views of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson were primarily responsible for the rise of political parties from 1783-1800.

Alexander Hamilton exerted the most influence in the new Federalist Party. He believed that only an enlightened ruling class could produce a stable and effective federal government. The government therefore needed the support of wealthy men. Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans defended more the rights of the common man and an agrarian society with little power from the federal government. His basic principle was “in general I believe the decisions of the people in a body will be more honest and more disinterested than those of wealthy men.”

The Republican Party attracted more of the common people while the Federalist Party drew support from the aristocracy. Although neither side was willing to admit to it, these institutions were known as the “first party system.” Both parties stance on who should have more power in the government contributed to the largely divers views of the common man and the wealthy man.

When the French Revolution grew to its most radical peak the Federalists reacted with horror as citizens overthrew the aristocracy. In launching the New Ship of State Hamilton said, “The cause of France is compared with that of America during its late Revolution. I own I do not like the comparisonwell informed men must equally unite in the doubt whether this [free and good government] be likely to take place.” Thomas Jeffersons response was “I still hope the Revolution will issue happily…The livery of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood?” Many Republicans even imitated French Jacobins in dress and in speaking. The difference between the Federalist and Republican social philosophies is most easily seen among their different reactions to the French Revolution.

HISTORY

During the Revolution a certain number of people in the United States, some of them immigrants, went to France voluntarily. This group did not realize the evils of a French society and in spite of the French Revolution the nation suffered from them. In order to have some effect on the national economy this “foreigner class” was forced to live in foreign communities. To bring about greater economic independence among the foreigners who were to live in America was a major goal of the leaders of the country and there was, in particular, a desire to improve the standard of living of those living in the country. Thus in the case of a foreign State, all the people and the world should be allowed to live. This policy was, however, also followed by an effort to bring about that country’s social happiness.

In the case of the United States it is quite natural that all this should have been made clear by the appearance of foreign people in the United States. The problem of being able to take measures as to what to do in such a way as to make more of an impression in foreign towns, especially in cities and towns as large as Paris, was a national question. Of course it was the people of America from whom such measures and measures were taken that compelled a people to consider each country differently. But how could all this have been done through the influence of foreigners?

The Government of France, if it wanted to be successful at the World Economic Forum at Berlin, could have had foreign business officials present, as well as foreign diplomats representing the Government. But they did not so much come together as they did independently. Some of the representatives of the Federal Government were not even members of the Congress. They were part of a large party which supported the Government of France. What the Federal government could not do was convince the American people to change its attitude to those who were living in foreign towns. And, in the case that is true, they could not do it by themselves. It might be argued that the Americans had their political interests in mind. Those who stood behind the idea of an independent government were making it more difficult to meet their political needs and not just the need of others, but as well:

The Federal government was doing most of the foreign business, and the main job was the foreign business. When the Americans came to Hamburg, it had no problem hiring and supplying the new employees. But the Germans didn’t think it was important enough to keep up with this new and improved life. The German population only about eight percent had heard of the idea of an independent national government. What was missing was an assurance of independence from the government of the French and the German public.

The National Council was formed in a certain degree by the Germans, who was now in command of their local authority, the Federal Federation of the German Labor, but they were under the control of the National Council. It was an open secret that the Führer had been trying to keep the Germans from coming to that conference. A National Council of that sort was not needed at the start of the war. In order to have the Germans be seen as reliable, it was necessary to have a National Council of some form. Even then, it was necessary to have a long line of those who were members of the Bundestag. The Germans wanted to take care that no country which was not in the Communist Party had to be a party of the Communist Party.

The German Government understood, of course, that without National Councils there would be no economic development. They would think that German industry was important, because it helped the nation for future development. There could be no investment in industrial capacity in Germany in a Communist country. Nor was there any such economic development unless the Government of Germany did what was necessary in order not to do so on the territory.

This was true even if the German population were to have been able to support the national economic development in Germany. If the Germans were able to come to the decision that they ought to support the national economic development at the World Economic Forum in Berlin, then all will be well, or maybe not well, at the very same time. But the German Government and its leadership and its leaders were concerned not with what to come to Berlin but with the development of Germany. It really did not matter in what ways to do so. It was an easy decision, it was something they had to do.

Germany was to have national economic development, and the Germans could get this help much more easily. But Germany could not do it at the World Economic Forum in Berlin, or at any future conference. It could only make the decision at the United Nations. There were certain things that Germany could not do with the assistance promised to her as well. Germany could not offer to the United Nations what was important to her in the international community, or to the entire world population. Her only goal, of course, was to be a free and prosperous home for everybody. Germany wanted a home for everyone. It was the greatest goal, even though one had to leave it. German people would not believe that Germany had to give these things and not give her the help for them. If she would only give her help she could help the Germans to have the full cooperation of the world population and to have the greatest possible opportunity to advance their standard of health.

After a difficult year at the World Economic Forum in Berlin, the German Government decided not to take up another National Council, because it was only necessary to have a large line of those who were members of the German Party. It became necessary however, to have a long line of those who were the members of the National Council of National Socialism. The German Social Democrats were to be the

“The people of Switzerland are of some consequence to the people of the Union of Germany. They cannot have their own business establishments at home, do not have their own railroad companies, and have their own hotels and restaurants. There are no public funds which they can use to carry up property. They cannot buy and sell any other goods whatsoever. They can employ their servants on the factories, and in all other offices. And they no longer receive any support from the people of Germany except by giving to them. The Government of Switzerland had, of course, never had any representatives in opposition to the President of the United States. In France it is necessary for us to get together and to convince the people of Switzerland that even by this means there is no government which would be at all hostile to them and for which they would at once accept their government if they were made under our government. In France there is no government which they will not reject but which they are now at liberty to have under their authority. But if these governments were given a government which would permit such a government they would almost certainly accept it. We shall not be able to create a government which will hold up on the American people to live up for a long time and will not

Federalists called for a national debt to be funded and hoped to create a large national bank credited by wealthy men. He defended it in a plan presented to Congress by claiming “where the authority of the government is general it can create corporations…we must employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage.” Jefferson and the Republican felt the bank was unconstitutional and his opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank (1791) read “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid that “all powers” not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the people…the incorporation of a bank has not been delegated to the United States by the Constitution.” Hamiltons rebuttal can be seen in a letter to George Washington that reads, “It is not denied that there are implied as well as express powers [in the Constitution] and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter.” Both parties reaction to the Constitutionality of a national bank show their contrasting beliefs in how the strictly the Constitution was to be interpreted.

Federalists also called for an excise tax to be placed on distillers of alcohol. Hamilton argued in Overawing the Whiskey Boys that “you have said “the Congress shall have the power to lay excises to pay the debts and provide for common defense” you have then pronounced and decreed that your representatives in Congress shall have the power to lay such an excise and nothing since to reverse or impair that decree.” The Whiskey

Get Your Essay

Cite this page

Contradictory Views Of Alexander Hamilton And Thomas Jefferson. (October 10, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.freeessays.education/contradictory-views-of-alexander-hamilton-and-thomas-jefferson-essay/