Supporters believed that under the Articles of Confederation the government did not hold enough power. The leading figure in this party was Alexander Hamilton who had served as Secretary of Treasury for George Washington’s first term as president. Hamilton proposed the state debts that had come from the revolutionary war, which had created a national debt for the U.S. Hamilton answered this with the idea of the first bank of the United States. The main goal of the idea Hamilton had proposed, of state debts was to avoid unnecessary and possible destructive competition between state and federal governments. Which also allowed the federal government the opportunity for revenue.
Hamilton created his Federalist party to help promote his goals for the United States. Jefferson’s opposition party, the Republicans, “opposed Hamilton's urban, financial, industrial goals for the United States, and his promotion of extensive trade and friendly relations with Britain.” Their interpretation of the Constitution also was very different. Hamilton interpreted it very loosely and used the elastic clause to get what he wanted out of it, while Jefferson read and followed if very strictly. This is a reason Jefferson was against Hamilton’s plans. Thomas Jefferson didn’t like the idea of building a National Bank in the United States.
The Democratic-Republicans sought to limit federal control and preferred local power as the dominant force. Chiefly, the emergence of the American two-party system arose from strongly opposed political views, but also developed out of experience and a struggle for power. As previously stated, the main reason for the development of the party system in the United States, or any political party for that matter, is a difference in beliefs on how a government should be operated. The Federalists, formed by Alexander Hamilton – Washington’s Treasury Secretary – in 1794, favored federalism with government having the power to control commerce, tax, declare war, and make treaties among other powers.
Professor of history Gordon S. Wood views the struggle for a new constitution in 1787-1788 as a social conflict between upper-class Federalists who desired a stronger central government and the “humbler” Anti-Federalists who controlled the state assemblies. He says that the writers and supporters of the Constitution were Federalists and they believed that the Constitution was a fulfillment. Which basically means, that those Federalists didn’t see anything wrong with the Constitution. Antifederalists said the Constitution was a denial of the principles of 1776. They were saying that the Constitution was didn’t honor the liberty nor the self-government.
One particular dispute among these men was between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Their differences between the two were drastic that led to a deadly duel. These two men have been rivals due to the interferences of Hamilton preventing Burr from becoming the governor of the New York and also the president of the United States. Hamilton interfered in the election of 1800, when both Jefferson and Burr were tied for the presidency. The Electoral College had to make a decision and vote on which candidate will be president.
During the late 1700s and early 1800s, the different viewpoints over foreign relations in America became a controversy when it was believed that the wrong decision could lead to a loss of independence. The two major sides of the bitter disagreement were the federalist and the anti-federalists. The argument between the two factions became a bitter controversy, especially once the XYZ affair came into play. Both parties believed that if America formed an alliance with the wrong nation, that America would eventually be taken over and lose its independence. The federalist wanted to become allies with Britain, while the anti-federalist wanted to become allies with the French, who had helped them in the Revolutionary War.
The United States should not have become involved in the fighting of the eastern hemisphere, and should not have become a part of the fighting in Europe between the two warring nations of Britain and Germany. The Monroe Doctrine was a “policy that opposed European colonies of interfering with independent nations in the western hemisphere”, and why should any
France wasn’t part of the colonies like America was, America was sick of being treated badly, and unfairly so they decided to fight. But as for France they were having trouble with their government and needed to create a new one witch they did. And to me it seems like America had much more at stake. The American and French Revolution both worked out in favor of France and for America they both got what they wanted France got the government they fought for, and America parted ways with Britain. The two revolutions were a big part in both America’s history, and a big part in Frances history.
The controversy of the argument was on the basis that, “there was an inherent connection between the states and the preservation of individual liberty, which is the end of any legitimate government.” Their own argument have invariably created a national government instead of a federal government. This is because “the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states, instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the states.” Anti-federalists were against constructing a new constitution and they agreed that without valid amendments the constitution would give the government too much power. This power would then lead to confusion according to the (Centinel 1787) “ The new constitution instead of being panacea or cure of every grievance so delusively represented by its advocated will be found upon examination like Pandora’s box replete with every
The Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were influential in spurring the American people on to the idea of a stronger central government. The major Anti-Federalists were Patrick Henry and Sam Adams, who vehemently opposed a new Constitution being ratified until the Bill of Rights was introduced. All in all the Anti-Federalist argument was weakly put together and failed to convince the public to stick with a revised version of the Articles of Confederation. All of these various factors contributed to the new Constitution because of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation the strengths of the new Constitution and the Federalists versus Anti-Federalists debate. Though we no longer go by the Articles of Confederation in today’s government this essay shows the many ways it was a major building block in today’s