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. Before Hamilton's plan, America was having financial problems. There were war debts that were unpaid and individual states and even Congress issued worthless paper money. Hamilton created a plan that would first pay down the national debt and then assume the debt of the states. This was called the Assumption Plan.
The strength of the economy encouraged Americans to take out more loans and buy more stocks, making them susceptible to future changes in the economy. The freedom caused financial markets to crash globally which helped power the Great Depression. Another example of lack of government intervention was the robber barons, a term referring to the wealthy and powerful businessmen in the 18th century. They were also known as “pure capitalists”, because they believed in an economic system that involved minimal interference from the government. Those working for robber barons were beaten and threatened, and the working conditions were terrible.
In the early 1790’s Washington was elected for president and Alexander Hamilton came along with him. Hamilton quickly established himself as a huge influence in every domestic affair and used his role as Secretary of Treasury to institute controversial plans. While Hamilton’s reports did repay the United States’ debts, they forced tensions between the north and south in terms of state money assumption. He also came up with the idea of a national bank, which he believed would help pay off all the debts America owed to other countries. He assumed that if they did not repay their dues to the other countries, then in time of need they will not come support and help them.
Because some populations are so high in certain areas, a large amount of the representatives elected to the House, anti-federalists feared, would be only the prominent and wealthy men of the area. This meant that even more power would be given to the government with the titles the men already had before being elected. Not only did the power of the government make the anti-federalists nervous, the lack of a bill of rights kept them agreeing with the constitution. They wanted a set rights guaranteed so that the central government didn’t have all the power that the anti-federalists were afraid of. The anti-federalist’s opposition to the constitution was
Hamilton and Jefferson’s plans differed opinionated, economically, and politically. Hamilton and his federalist standpoint were based on a strong central government, Strong national bank and an alliance with Britain. Jefferson however could be considered opposite. The anti-federalists opposed a strong central government and instead focused on a state government. They also opposed a national bank nervous it would give too much power to t he central government.
One major point made during the session was that the government should have invested in a larger, more stable company, rather than small startups who lacked the capability to compete with China’s large-scale operations and massive subsidies. However, I think the U.S. government’s decision can be defended using the Infant Industry argument and the Strategic Trade policy. The Infant Industry argument states, “An industry should be protected until it can develop and be viable and competitive internationally”. Clearly, the government was just trying to protect the industry. However, if the U.S. was ever to compete, the companies they selected should have already been capable of raising the funds.
According to the Federalists, if the Constitution had parts to it that didn't work, it could be amended. This doesn't seem right, because if it was written by a group of Federalists, then clearly amending it will favor their views. At the Philadelphia Convention, the only type of people who could afford to make the trip was wealthy Americans, and the wealthy generally shared the views of Federalists. Federalists upheld that the Constitution provided a strong central government by the people; however, this was only partly true. The people of the United
Anti-Federalist felt that the Constitution gave more power to central government and less to the states. They also argued that the constitution would become too weak because the central government wouldn’t be able to run all states as a result of being too distant and removed from interest of common citizens and farmers. They feared that the Federalists' new government would be too similar to the harsh regimes of Europe which held great power and thus repressed the people. Anti-Feds were extremely scared of a strong central government and the fact that under the new Constitution, the federal government was more powerful than individual states. Another argument was that the states could not print money
When the Republican party became a more solid party, they wanted a strong and noble symbol to represent them so they choose the elephant (Fact monster, 2013). The Democrats and Republicans believe in different ways to help the country, also they have opposing opinions on problems for the economy. One of the most well-known debates that the Democrats and the Republicans have is on
It is often considered that the Democratic party is more for the people and the Republican party is for the wealthy and those able to provide for themselves through free enterprise. Based upon economics, the Republican party feels as though the United States has established its dominance and greatness through free enterprise. They believe that innovation and economic growth has come from it. The Democratic party views the economy as too complicated for the everyday person hence why they feel the government should aid in all business decisions through the establishment of labor unions. The main contrast here is that