With America’s independence solidly affirmed, it was time for national assembly to figure out what America really stood for. Many brilliant minds assembled in a crowded room, and thus the Constitution was born. Designed to define what America was and symbolised, The Constitution began creating dissonance from before it even made it outside the walls of Independence Hall. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton came to represent two groups in conflict over what exactly the constitution -- that they both wrote -- truly meant. The Jeffersonian Democratic Republican (Republican) and Hamiltonian Federalist parties would lead America to the two party system that we all know today. While the two parties essentially grew from the same stem, they evolved
…show more content…
The Republican ideology favored a similar approach to government as the colonies had once maintained -- each state was to run their legislative system how they saw fit in order to cater to their population. Republicans saw the future America as a patchwork of political spectrums -- all patches sewn together with a strong common appreciation for American values of liberty and freedom. While the Federalists believed in such pursuits, they reasoned that they could do better. Federalist perspective recognised the need for state legislatures, but saw a powerful (and large) central government as a means to better homogenize as many patches as possible. Their philosophy could be described as qualified freedom -- individual views were supported as long as they were in line with party views. The Republicans and Federalists also disagreed on exactly who should make important decisions. While the Republicans favoured a more “power to the people” approach, the Federalists worried that the people would make poor decisions, and reserved greater decision-making authority for themselves, creating a more bureaucratic …show more content…
If it was not directly stated that something could be done, it could not. Alexander Hamilton saw it differently -- if the constitution did not directly state that something could not be done, it could. This distinction gave the Federalist party exponentially more federal power than the Republicans. It also led to the Federalist National Banking system, which sought to help unify all state finance and currency, largely so that it was easier to access funds and trade with other countries - including Britain. It was well known that Hamilton and his Federalist troupe were pro-Tory.2,6 This created discord coming from Jefferson’s pro-French Revolutionary attitude, which is exemplified by Jefferson’s outrage at the Proclamation of Neutrality in
The Republican ideology favored a similar approach to government as the colonies had once maintained -- each state was to run their legislative system how they saw fit in order to cater to their population. Republicans saw the future America as a patchwork of political spectrums -- all patches sewn together with a strong common appreciation for American values of liberty and freedom. While the Federalists believed in such pursuits, they reasoned that they could do better. Federalist perspective recognised the need for state legislatures, but saw a powerful (and large) central government as a means to better homogenize as many patches as possible. Their philosophy could be described as qualified freedom -- individual views were supported as long as they were in line with party views. The Republicans and Federalists also disagreed on exactly who should make important decisions. While the Republicans favoured a more “power to the people” approach, the Federalists worried that the people would make poor decisions, and reserved greater decision-making authority for themselves, creating a more bureaucratic …show more content…
If it was not directly stated that something could be done, it could not. Alexander Hamilton saw it differently -- if the constitution did not directly state that something could not be done, it could. This distinction gave the Federalist party exponentially more federal power than the Republicans. It also led to the Federalist National Banking system, which sought to help unify all state finance and currency, largely so that it was easier to access funds and trade with other countries - including Britain. It was well known that Hamilton and his Federalist troupe were pro-Tory.2,6 This created discord coming from Jefferson’s pro-French Revolutionary attitude, which is exemplified by Jefferson’s outrage at the Proclamation of Neutrality in