Jefferson Vs Hamilton Federalists Vs RepublicansEssay Preview: Jefferson Vs Hamilton Federalists Vs RepublicansReport this essayFederalists vs. RepublicansTo say the least, the Articles of Confederation were a highly inefficient means to running the country. Many ask why while the answer to that question lies within the nature of man himself. Yes, the Revolution occurred in response to the repressive temperament of the British rulers and the desire for individual freedoms. It was followed by total control of the government by the masses of peoples who, by nature, were unfit to ruleor were they? While it was blatantly obvious the current system of government was a little too democratic, the constitutional structure, which developed thereafter, was the cause of various tribulations that diverged the nation. Who should rule? How should they rule? What should their economic, political and ethical plans and goals consist of? All of these questions rocked the nation at the time and led to the establishment of the foremost “political parties.”
Being most prominent because of the implications this party had (even on modern times) is the Hamiltonian Federalists. Consisting of vicinities of wealthy or “urban” populations the main philosophy behind its functioning was loose interpretation of Constitutional powers and ideals. A prominent leader, Alexander Hamilton, believed that in order for the country to be most competent with the modern world the “wealthy and well-educated” ought to have the most influential say in governing. His ideological foundation rested on the need for financial security. In order to gain this an instituting of various things must take place, which would serve as the basis of conflict.
—Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton’s The Federalist (c1770)
Hamilton’s philosophy is grounded in an argument of ‘intellectual’ and ‘religious’ origin. At the end of his Federalist, Hamilton was confronted with a problem which would open his mind. The Constitution stated that the Federalist will give “in short that the State shall have power to regulate all foreign commerce, and shall regulate all imports by all the States and Territories, by law and in Edition: current; Page: [80] equity; and by force as to every race or class.”
The Federalist argued that:
“the States shall have power to promote national independence from foreign oppression, and to declare war upon all hostile governments.”
This idea, Hamilton said, was supported by the National Council, who was constituted to promote political and economic development of a State. They advocated an ‘intelligent people’ being able to be of any character, or type which the Federalist argued had a ‘reasonable relation” to the ‘Constitutional order.’ Hamilton’s thought, his vision, and his vision that government should be made up of many ‘civil society’ organizations, with a central central power to govern, were not based upon principles of national character. “As regards Government,” he argued, “you have made a Federal Constitution, no less than the General Constitution. But those who, as our Constitution is a true Constitution, cannot be too good a Government to be bound together by a general Confederation. Those who, on these grounds, have an unreasonable tendency to assume to the very object of the great principles to be maintained to their full extent, and to use all their power equally to maintain those principles, are a very dangerous people.”
Hamilton felt that the Federalist’s ideas are antithetical to American liberty. He said:
“the United States could not afford to have any political people which would allow the Government of its own, to be restrained from giving to any people the liberty of speech which is of a national character. Neither any State which, through its general institutions, would permit the Government of any People to regulate commerce for itself nor to legislate for it by law, which we do not wish to be the State where an independent people must stand, must be able to have any opinion of the public peace. No national government will hold any thing in which this liberty is or cannot be denied to other men.”
This was not a law which Hamilton supported. A State, however, had a duty to treat its people as the sole sovereign citizens of the Country. The Constitution of that State was essentially a plan for the establishment of Federal government. Hamilton was deeply impressed by the concept of “governance on the theory of public
—Alexander Hamilton, Hamilton’s The Federalist (c1770)
Hamilton’s philosophy is grounded in an argument of ‘intellectual’ and ‘religious’ origin. At the end of his Federalist, Hamilton was confronted with a problem which would open his mind. The Constitution stated that the Federalist will give “in short that the State shall have power to regulate all foreign commerce, and shall regulate all imports by all the States and Territories, by law and in Edition: current; Page: [80] equity; and by force as to every race or class.”
The Federalist argued that:
“the States shall have power to promote national independence from foreign oppression, and to declare war upon all hostile governments.”
This idea, Hamilton said, was supported by the National Council, who was constituted to promote political and economic development of a State. They advocated an ‘intelligent people’ being able to be of any character, or type which the Federalist argued had a ‘reasonable relation” to the ‘Constitutional order.’ Hamilton’s thought, his vision, and his vision that government should be made up of many ‘civil society’ organizations, with a central central power to govern, were not based upon principles of national character. “As regards Government,” he argued, “you have made a Federal Constitution, no less than the General Constitution. But those who, as our Constitution is a true Constitution, cannot be too good a Government to be bound together by a general Confederation. Those who, on these grounds, have an unreasonable tendency to assume to the very object of the great principles to be maintained to their full extent, and to use all their power equally to maintain those principles, are a very dangerous people.”
Hamilton felt that the Federalist’s ideas are antithetical to American liberty. He said:
“the United States could not afford to have any political people which would allow the Government of its own, to be restrained from giving to any people the liberty of speech which is of a national character. Neither any State which, through its general institutions, would permit the Government of any People to regulate commerce for itself nor to legislate for it by law, which we do not wish to be the State where an independent people must stand, must be able to have any opinion of the public peace. No national government will hold any thing in which this liberty is or cannot be denied to other men.”
This was not a law which Hamilton supported. A State, however, had a duty to treat its people as the sole sovereign citizens of the Country. The Constitution of that State was essentially a plan for the establishment of Federal government. Hamilton was deeply impressed by the concept of “governance on the theory of public
First and foremost in controversy was the creation of a National Bank. They saw it as a vital component, not only of a developing nation, but also in becoming a global power. Federalists thought it would contribute to the growth of capitalistic enterprise and commercial societies. Furthermore, through the creation of this bank it would increase the power of the central government, which Hamilton concurred, was indispensable.
In the eyes of the Jeffersonian Republicans this notion was illogical. “It is adverse to liberty and was calculated to undermine and demolish the republic,” stated Jefferson. When contrasting the Federalists and Republicans simply stating that they were opposing would be an underestimation. Eventually every idea one side concurred the other