Jefferson and Hamilton had different thoughts for America and the power for the people. Hamilton thought of a strong central government and though most people were self-ignorant and untrustworthy and they wanted to establish a national bank. He wanted to give money to business men to start companies and be successful. Hamilton’s view saw large corporations that could offer many jobs and increase trade with other countries. The trade would give us money to pay our dept.
The Whig Party on the other hand opposed the ideology of the Jackson Democrats and wanted more federal power. The Jacksonian Democrats support of more states’ rights was depicted in Jackson’s veto of the recharter of the 2nd National Bank. This veto of the recharter was planned by the Henry Clay in attempts to position him as the next president. However, this plan only revealed whom the people of the United States supported as President. Because Jacksonian Democrats commanded the support of the common people, they had more support than the Whig Party.
He brought to public life a love of efficiency, order and organization. In response to the call of the House of Representatives for a plan for the "adequate support of public credit," he lay down and supported principles not only of the public economy, but of effective government Jefferson advocated a decentralized agrarian republic. He recognized the value of a strong central government in foreign relations, but he did not want it strong in other respects. Hamilton's great aim was more efficient organization, whereas Jefferson once said "I am not a friend to a very energetic government." Hamilton feared anarchy and thought in terms of order; Jefferson feared tyranny and thought in terms of freedom Hamilton pointed out that America must have credit for industrial development, commercial activity and the operations of government.
I believe the most important conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson is the issue on the interpretation of the Constitution and whether the state government or national government should hold more power. Hamilton believed in a strong central/national government while Jefferson supported the power of the states. Hamilton concluded that a national government was beneficial for the country because in his opinion the only people who were fit to govern a nation are aristocrats, landowners, and the well educated. As you can see, Hamilton’s views on the Constitution were loose. “If the end be clearly comprehended within any of of the specified powers, and if the measure have an obvious relation to that end, and is not forbidden by an particular provision of the Constitution, it may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority.” (Document G).
The two great leaders just differed too greatly in their views over a few fundamental areas at the time, thus making the development of political parties inevitable. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson differed greatly in their opinions over who, exactly, should lead the government, and how, exactly, the Constitution should be interpreted. Hamilton, on one hand, thought that the common people that composed the vast majority of the population of the United States were utterly incapable of self-government. Said Hamilton in 1792, “Your people, sir, is a great beast,” thus exemplifying the Federalist belief that
Both Thomas Jefferson’s and Andrew Hamilton’s beliefs and views helped to shape the United States into the country it is today. Although both men had excellent intentions for the future of America, their desires for America and its government conflicted in numerous ways. One important conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton was their opinion on the type of government the United States should have. Jefferson felt that a government run by the majority would be the most ideal form of government. He says, “After all, it is my principle that the will of the Majority should always prevail.
Many, like George Washington, were Federalists. This meant they wanted a strong federal government that would unite the states as one nation. Many Federalists were educated, wealthy men like those who had drawn up the Declaration of Independence. Others opposed the creation of a national government that would have power over the states. They were called Anti-Federalists.
Name U.S History Instructors name 10/14/14 Federalist Vs Anti-federalist From 1787-1790 the development of the American Constitution was a battle between two opposing political philosophies. America’s best political minds gathered in Philadelphia and other cities in the Northeast in order to find common ground in a governmental structure. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists had both some political thoughts that agreed as well as some political thoughts that disagreed. However, both parties would compromise and ultimately come together. The Federalist Party, led by James Madison, was in favor of the newly formed Constitution.
However, due to the methods presented for American success, each party contradicted their opinions on the common man, democracy, and the constitution which foreshadows a great unstable nation. The viewpoint of the common man, perceived by the federalists and the republicans, split a rift between two oppositions. The federalists supported the rich and wealthy people so they could grow and trickle down their prosperity to the lower classes. Alexander Hamilton believed that the rich and prosperous should handle the nation due to the majority of the first class being well educated. He points out that while his population of supporters had the resources and knowledge to run the government, the lower classes basically had small or no resources at all.
At the Constitutional Convention the Federalists drew up plans for a new constitution while the Anti-Federalists complained and picked apart their plan, even though the Anti-Federalists had no plan of their own. The main issue the Anti-Federalists had with the new constitution was that they thought that it would not protect the rights of states and individuals. Federalists argued that a stronger government was necessary, not to impede individual rights, but to be able to pass and enforce laws. Federalists also argued a stronger bond between states was needed to improve the economic state of the country. Under the Articles of Confederation each state printed their own currency which became worthless in any other