The whole point of America becoming its own sovereign country was Britain’s overbearing control on the colonies. Many early Americans had concerns and feared a government in which, by design, could become too strong. Consequentially, the Democratic – Republican party (later known to historians simply as the Republican Party) was formed with ideas of smaller government and thusly, less control. A semblance of the rivalry between the parties in the United States could be seen in the French Revolution. The Republicans supported the popular forces in the French Revolt and wanted America to assist.
Federalists, on the other hand, believed in broadly adhering to constitution, characterizing them as broad constructionists. This allowed the Federalists to make decisions that were not clearly supported by the constitution, ultimately giving the government more power than the constitution. While the Federalists and Republicans were thought as very diverse parties, their beliefs ended up crossing during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. Therefore, from 1801 to 1817 while the Federalists were considered to be broad constructionists and Republicans strict constructionists, they both went astray from their beliefs so each party could do what was best for themselves and, most importantly, the country. From 1801 to 1809, during the presidency of Jefferson, it was the first time that the Republicans and Federalists didn't abide by the ordinary ideals each group previously followed.
Jefferson and the Jeffersonian Republicans believed that the authority of the federal government was based on a strict constitution. The Federalists believed in the opposite. Federalists believed that the constitution should be interpreted in a loose and broader way. The Federalists were able to make decisions that were not written word for word in the constitution. Jefferson states his disagreements with James Madison when he says, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government.” (Document A).
Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation. How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out?
Issues like the role of the government, the people’s rights, and international affairs were some of the more major aspects that prompted the evolution of the first American political party system. The administration of Washington and Adam’s dueled it out with their contributions to the solving of these national problems in the midst of deciding whether such things as state power and people’s rights were dangerous to the state of the national government. After all these things forming throughout their legacy, factions known as the Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian transformed into political parties that gave opposing views on our nation. As the new American government began to form, because of the division between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, Washington realized there needed to be a President in charge who could balance the nation with power and release to the people. He stood for a strong federal government because he strongly struggled with giving states too much power, thinking they would start a rebellion in which could not be controlled.
The Articles of Confederation were created as a new central government form after the American Revolution. The Articles still consisted of problems, specifically financial ones. Hamilton proposed a plan that would put U.S. finances on a stable foundation. He planned to lower national debt and strengthen the national credit because he believed that "a national debt was a national blessing". However, some people, such as Jefferson and small farmers opposed his ideas, because they believed in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the constitution, which led to the split of two different political parties.
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 AMERICAN AND FRENCH REVOLUTION The revolution between the French and Americans were being forced by liberty and equality. Both wanting to obtain freedom by the high ranking monarchs. Differences were mainly visible between these two revolutions, such as the Americans wanting to get some sort of freedom from the taxes and laws that were forced buy Great Britain. Great Britain was a strong and powerful “group”. Whereas the French wanted a revolution to be freed from the monarchs that were implementing things in France.
The Presidency Review 1. The framers of the Constitution both admired and feared centralized leadership. Although they knew that a strong president was needed to protect the nation against foreign and domestic threats, they also worried about the potential abuse of power. The framers believed that having given a much longer list of powers to Congress, they saw the president as a powerful check on legislative action, and as essential to the administration of government. 2.
In Alexander Hamilton’s written opinion for president George Washington, he said “it is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones”. The Federalist wanted stronger federal power and therefore believed in the loose interpretation of the United States constitution, and the Democratic-Republicans wanted less federal power and therefore believed in a strict interpretation of the constitution. Alexander Hamilton was a federalist, and his economic plan involved the creation of the National Bank, however the Democratic-Republicans believed that the constitution did not give the government the right to do such a thing. This was a difference in views of the two parties, in the matters of how the constitution should be interpreted. Moreover, the Federalist and Democratic-Republicans differed in their views on foreign affairs.