I had intended to post Part II of the WWI question last night, but got caught up doing movie reviews on Life of Ando. So to slake your ravenous historical thirst in the meantime, here is my assignment from my history class this past week. If you’re really into American history and how the politics of the early Republic shook out, Jefferson vs. Hamilton is a great study. It’s also a little, I guess comforting, to know that as bad as we think today’s politicians are, politics was always a very dirty game. Like Bismarck said, “Laws are like sausages. Better to not see them being made.” And as Ecclesiastes says, “There’s nothing new under the sun.”
1) How did the political philosophies of these men differ?
Most clear thinking Americans could probably tell you at least the rudimentary facts of who Thomas Jefferson was. Far fewer would likely have a definite idea of who Alexander Hamilton was and what his contributions as a Founding Father were. Yet his conception of an American government was just as important as that of Jefferson. Both founders foresaw the new nation as a great future power, and both had very different maps of how to get it there.
Jefferson believed the nation’s strength lay in its agricultural roots. He favored an agrarian nation with most powers reserved for the states. He was very opposed to a strong central authority and believed that the people were the final authority in government. Jefferson also encouraged active support for the French Revolution
Hamilton favored a strong central authority. He believed a strong government was necessary to provide order so that business and industry could grow. He envisioned America becoming an industrial power. To this end he sought to establish a national bank and fund the national debt in order to establish firm base for national credit. Hamilton believed that the government should be run by those who were educated and wealthy rather than by “the mob.” He opposed involvement in the French Revolution and worried Jeffersonians by appearing, and maybe even being, too cozy with Britain.
2) How was the conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton a significant factor in the emergence of political parties?
The Jefferson/Hamilton conflict helped give rise to political parties by polarizing factions on opposite political sides. Those who backed Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans supported states rights, a strict reading of the Constitution, and support for the French Revolution. Those who back Hamilton’s Federalists preferred a much stronger central government, an “elastic” reading of the Constitution, and a hands-off approach to the French Revolution.
3) Which view do you think was best for the US – Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s – and why? [This part should be several paragraphs long]
I don’t know if either view could be considered better or worse for America. Forced to choose, I would probably lean toward Hamiltonian ideas, but I believe both served a vital and necessary role in forming the government. Hamilton was a visionary and saw the potential of a great industrial power. His support of a strong central authority was a key reason the young nation was able to sustain itself in the early days, especially in such crises like Shayes Rebellion. One reason he may have felt as strongly as he did was his service in the Revolutionary War. Being one of Washington’s staff, he experienced first hand the difficulty the Continental army had with an ineffectual congress to keep it fed and supplied. The weak congress was not able to raise funds to pay for supplies because it had no real power.
For all his vision and innovation, Hamilton’s ambition may have carried him too far if left unchecked. The federal government may have become too powerful and curbed the rights of citizens, which in fact did happen to a degree during the Adams administration. Jefferson and his policies provided an important counter balance to Hamilton. Jefferson’s support of states’ rights and agriculture helped to offset the influence of the Hamilton-supporting merchants and manufacturers. However, without Hamilton’s counter-balance Jefferson’s policies may have left the government weak and ineffectual to deal with major crises both at home and abroad.
Each viewpoint needed the other to create a government that would be strong enough to protect itself and it’s people from internal and external strife, but not so strong that it would infringe on the rights of the people as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and in the Revolutionary spirit. These issues, of course, weren’t resolved or ceased to be relevant after Hamilton and Jefferson left the scene. These are still very much the issues we deal with even now, over 200 years later. As much as we might dislike, or even hate, the position of the “other” party, without some balance both sides would undoubtedly abuse their power…more than they already do.
4) List at least 3 sources in proper bibliographic format. No Wiki sources.
Frank, Mitch. “Jefferson vs. Hamilton or Group Hug.” American Partisan. Dec. 28 2006. http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/frank/111799.htm
“Hamilton vs. Jefferson.” Dec. 28 2006. http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-41.htm
Kennedy, David, Lizabeth Cohen, Thomas A. Bailey. The American Pageant. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
[digg=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Hamilton_vs_Jefferson]
Interesting post, as usual very well stated. I didn’t actually know that Hamilton was a Federalist. I would have to lean to a more Jeffersonian viewpoint myself.
This is quite interesting to me. Thanks for the history knowlege. I think I’ll start calling you Aaron Burr by the way you’re dropping Hamiltons
Hey Ando,
I added this one to my links so I’ll remember to check it. Your statement about understanding how our democracy has become was it is was interestesting to me since I watched several “value” debates in San Diego that tried to answer whether or not the U.S. over-values democracy.
BTW, when will that teacher assign a NATO question?
The democracy question was a big one at the time of the founding. For obvious reasons the more aristocratic folks were more than a little concerned about a mob-ocracy. These disagreements are what make the checks and balances so important.
I doubt I’ll have any NATO assignments anytime soon. My current classes end in a couple weeks and next session I’m taking Ancient Rome and a photography class. Probably not a lot of NATO there.
I agree on the jefferson side because the frech helped them, they should help them. Right? Hamilton was to –can’t the think of the word. but oh yes he thought this country should’ve been ran by the rich and money. And i don’t agree. this might not make complete sense to you but it does to me.
Thanks for dropping Brandi by, I appreciate your comments.
Left to his devices, I think Hamilton would have gone too far in his desire to see only the wealthy have a strong voice in the government. However, I think Jefferson was relying far too heavily on human nature to keep law and order and showed a surprisingly naive lack of vision for the future of the nation. The combination of the two ideologies was the best possible scenario, in my opinion.
As to support for the French Revolution, while it may have been idealistic and noble to lend support to those seeking to throw off the yoke of the Bourbon monarchy, practically speaking the United States was not in the strongest position to do so. Getting itself tangled in a civil war on the other side of the globe would have been costly, monetarily to be sure, but potentially in the survival of the nation itself. Britain no doubt would have taken advantage of the situation to reclaim at least a part of their lost colonies. Neutrality was in the best interest of the country.
this didnt help me.
lol im gonna use this as a source XD
This was interesting.
This was an interesting outlook. Yes I agress that it would have hurt the US to go and defend the French simply because as a country the US was in debt and after our war we needed to get ourselves established first before we go tearing off and starting something else. Its nice to think they should have helped with the French but it just wasn’t practical at the time.
Thank you for that, I have a essay to write and this helps loads!
Thanks for this! i am actually doing an essay comparing the two and this helped loads! Now im just having trouble with there oppinion on the bank of the united states
[...] how many visits I get and how many times a particular post is viewed. For a while my post on Hamilton vs. Jefferson was getting a lot of hits, and recently my Essentially What Ended the Cold War post has been a [...]
this didnt help me at all
Hamilton was an elitist who admitted that he was(unlike Jefferson – an elitist who was always talking about ‘the People’) one and he had a realistic view of human nature: people with money would act in their self-interest always if allowed to do so. Hamilton’s idea with the National Bank was to harness this well-monied influence to that of developing the economic infrastructure of the new United States.Hamilton had the forsight to know that the USA w/o industry would always be at the mercy of the European colonial powers, namely Great Britain. He was one of the few in the 1790s who realized that political independence from Great Britain would be nullified without economic independence.His sense of Federalism was that of community, a harmony of interests in the Republic – the base what became the American System of economics, something that we have long lost here today.
Another interesting point should be made: the people who are gaga on Jefferson presently are focusing on the early views of Jefferson before he became President. In the White House, and later as elder Statesman, TJ came to accept and endorce the main policies of Hamilton from the National Bank to the need for protected industry& national internal improvements. Jefferson’s Presidency is ironically Hamilton triumphant.
Hamilton did admire the British financial system and also the policies of the French mercantilist, Colbert, who he had studied a great deal. But some who assert today that Hamilton is the godfather of this global corporate free-market edifice are in error, because Hamilton’s prime concern was for the utilitarian wealth of the nation, the USA, as is the basis of national political economy. Hamilton was very much for statist influence in developing the economy which is something that free-market crusaders hold as anthema. Hamilton would had been revolted by the cosmopolitan corporations in their pursuit of pushing out the Public sector from the economies in the nation/states of today.
As Michael Lind hinted in his works, Hamilton would had probably had been a New Dealer if he were around in the 1930s, for example. The Early Jefferson, at least, would had found more common ground with supply-sider Reaganomics of the 20th Century and what we have presently in circa 2007. So I always laugh a bit when people who call themselves liberals or social democrats today praise Jefferson so highly.
i thuink you guys are weird who talks about history anyway
thanks it helped alot
Tony is not as cute as I am…or as smart
this helped
Thanks for this, I’m doing a report upon these two parties and this helped me a ton.
this was a good source. lots of info and im glad you took a side because i was chosen to lead a debate on why hamilton’s views were superior than jefferson’s and your ideas really were helpful.
i hate you Caesar. im going to plot against you and turn Brutus against you and along with the conspirators and overthrow your power. peace, ho!
this does not help at all
thanks for the help i really needed somethin like this
i really hated it a lot i dont like history at all well at least you wasted ur time writing it
i am a dictator and i will not stand for
this nonsence and you live obey me
and if you dont then i will tourcher you for lige
your cool
this is very interesting and tough since you can’t really be in the middle of both Jefferson and Hamilton it really brought my views to the political scene and i have learned from this;……….
I agree with anyone who agrees with Jefferson and Hamilton. By that I mean
Jefferson Hamilton Mix
I LOVE FIRST PER.;]
hey! sup? kk tnx for posting this essay thingy, it helped me allott.. in my Social Studies homework! We’re doing a Hamilton vs Jefferson poster! Thanks alllllloott….
very interesting. i’m adding in RSS Reader
very intersting but i think that hamilton is tight and that jefferson is actually a little better than hamilton so hamilton might be better in terms that jefferson is sometimes even better!
HI. That was good
i agree with aksbar Jefferson rocks
This helped alot with a US history project.
im wondering y did u guys start this website?
Thanks for this!! I am doing a report and it helped so much!!!
hamilton hamilton wooooo yaaaa
hey this article was the best but u need to add the Similarities between the two men
to all the kids that said somtin bad ur imature
totally helped
thanks this did help me to understand the difference between the two
[...] last bastions of populist democracy in American society, New Media lend a fresh perspective to this age old debate. With the advent of Website optimization, blogging, pay-per-click campaigns, viral videos, and [...]
nice report, it helped me for an essay test!!!! =^_^=
I have been having so much trouble trying to write an essay about Jefferson’s ideas versus Hamilton’s. I really wasn’t sure if I fully supported one over the other. Even though I still don’t know, this site really helped me to understand their views and how the country may have turned out. I don’t know why some people don’t think this site helped, but it definitely helped me!
This was a really interesting essay, very insightful.
Hamilton was an elitist snob who believed that the common citizens of the United States not intelligent enough to be given the responsibilities of self-government. He wasn’t born in the colonies, he admired the English social structure (classism), and I’m totallly convinced that his banking set up is directly responsible for globalization by world bankers (mainly British) today. Those who say otherwise are in total denial.
Hamilton was not an elist snob and embraced the ideas of a strong central government not because he wanted the rich and powerful to rule the minons, but because he saw first hand how the Articles of Confefderacy were not working with a weak, central government ( from his days in the revoluntionary army and as a member of the Continental congress ). He was a patriot of the highest order for this country. He was a complete visionary who knew that the best way to bring peace and prosperity to ALL was to create a wealthy nation (via a strong, central government) that would allow the individual the ability to use their creativity and bring the best minds in the world to this country – he said so in his writings. In my estimation that makes him the greatest of the founding fathers because of his unassailable genius and foresight that has helped this country become the greatest the world has ever seen.
Its ok but needs more on the events that happened and the effect it has on todays government.
This article sucks it didnt help me at all make something usefull of your life dont ever write an article again u useless waste of space
i need to find the website
gyusagFDS HCUD9S DYDSPA7g xdgidugduy cdjh
Hamilton did admire the British financial system and also the policies of the French mercantilist, Colbert, who he had studied a great deal. But some who assert today that Hamilton is the godfather of this global corporate free-market edifice are in error, because Hamilton’s prime concern was for the utilitarian wealth of the nation, the USA, as is the basis of national political economy. Hamilton was very much for statist influence in developing the economy which is something that free-market crusaders hold as anthema. Hamilton would had been revolted by the cosmopolitan corporations in their pursuit of pushing out the Public sector from the economies in the nation/states of today.
As Michael Lind hinted in his works, Hamilton would had probably had been a New Dealer if he were around in the 1930s, for example. The Early Jefferson, at least, would had found more common ground with supply-sider Reaganomics of the 20th Century and what we have presently in circa 2007. So I always laugh a bit when people who call themselves liberals or social democrats today praise Jefferson so highly.
Hamilton was not an elist snob and embraced the ideas of a strong central government not because he wanted the rich and powerful to rule the minons, but because he saw first hand how the Articles of Confefderacy were not working with a weak, central government ( from his days in the revoluntionary army and as a member of the Continental congress ). He was a patriot of the highest order for this country. He was a complete visionary who knew that the best way to bring peace and prosperity to ALL was to create a wealthy nation (via a strong, central government) that would allow the individual the ability to use their creativity and bring the best minds in the world to this country – he said so in his writings. In my estimation that makes him the greatest of the founding fathers because of his unassailable genius and foresight that has helped this country become the greatest the world has ever seen.
I don’t know if either view could be considered better or worse for America. Forced to choose, I would probably lean toward Hamiltonian ideas, but I believe both served a vital and necessary role in forming the government. Hamilton was a visionary and saw the potential of a great industrial power. His support of a strong central authority was a key reason the young nation was able to sustain itself in the early days, especially in such crises like Shayes Rebellion. One reason he may have felt as strongly as he did was his service in the Revolutionary War. Being one of Washington’s staff, he experienced first hand the difficulty the Continental army had with an ineffectual congress to keep it fed and supplied. The weak congress was not able to raise funds to pay for supplies because it had no real power.
For all his vision and innovation, Hamilton’s ambition may have carried him too far if left unchecked. The federal government may have become too powerful and curbed the rights of citizens, which in fact did happen to a degree during the Adams administration. Jefferson and his policies provided an important counter balance to Hamilton. Jefferson’s support of states’ rights and agriculture helped to offset the influence of the Hamilton-supporting merchants and manufacturers. However, without Hamilton’s counter-balance Jefferson’s policies may have left the government weak and ineffectual to deal with major crises both at home and abroad.
Each viewpoint needed the other to create a government that would be strong enough to protect itself and it’s people from internal and external strife, but not so strong that it would infringe on the rights of the people as enumerated in the Bill of Rights and in the Revolutionary spirit. These issues, of course, weren’t resolved or ceased to be relevant after Hamilton and Jefferson left the scene. These are still very much the issues we deal with even now, over 200 years later. As much as we might dislike, or even hate, the position of the “other” party, without some balance both sides would undoubtedly abuse their power…more than they already do.
Neither Jefferson or Hamilton’s intellectual efforts would have benefited any of us had not Frodo Baggins destroyed the ring.
On a side note:
Wouldn’t it be interesting to compare western European history against J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterpieces? I bet you can dig out striking parallels.
njihbfuponhkmg bygtvkiadrs
this site is poopy
thnx xD
hey ando…
did you make this site? if so, when?
Hamilton contended that because of the mass of necessary detail, a vast body of powers had to be implied by general clauses, and one of these authorized Congress to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” for carrying out other powers specifically granted. The Constitution authorized the national government to levy and collect taxes, pay debts and borrow money. A national bank would materially help in performing these functions efficiently. Congress, therefore, was entitled, under its implied powers, to create such a bank. Washington and the Congress accepted Hamilton’s view — and an important precedent for an expansive interpretation of the federal government’s authority.
going to use for my research paper!
Hamilton believed that the government should be run by those who were educated and wealthy rather than by “the mob.”
So if we are not healthy and educated we belong to the mob? Wrong! What about honesty?
Not healthy but wealthy.
Hamilton idea of establishing a Central Bank was just a private bank selected from where United States could borrow money. By just selecting a specific bank to borrow from without regards to other banks is just not fair and violate the Free Market. Today the Feds are just composed of european private banks belonging to a powerful family of bankers who are collecting from us interest on the huge debt of our country. Hamilton was an elitist since the beginning who consedered the common people as “the mob”. The government could have borrow money from different banks within United States based on the lowest bid.
Jefferson must be turning over in his grave during these economic times
Thank you for posting this, it’s very insightful and has helped me with history paper I’m writing. Overall I completely agree with you that Hamilton’s views were better for America at that time and that a balance between Jefferson’s ideas and Hamilton’s was needed as well. Hamilton believed that the common people were too governed by “passions” and were so “turbulent and changing” (Hamilton said this) that they weren’t able to govern themselves. However Jefferson argued that “every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers…alone” (Jefferson said this). Much of what Jefferson said though was more the ideal rather than the reality of a government run by the common people.
Thanks again for posting this. And to those who said this didn’t help, why did you bother typing out the words when you could have been looking for something that DID help?