Alexander Hamilton Vs. The Federalist And The Federalists

1543 Words 7 Pages
During the early, immature years of our nation’s history, the interests of north and south, rich and poor, and industry and agriculture were dealt with as compromises, upsetting both sides until two deeply different visions for the country arose. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton believed that our new country’s federal government should be more powerful. However, Hamilton 's views faced strong opposition by many, such as Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and House Representative James Madison. He believed it more wise to provide more power to individual states. The two emerging parties deemed themselves with names that reflected their most treasured values. The Federalists attached themselves to the flourishing campaign in favor …show more content…
Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, thinks James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republicans, are dangerous to our new nation. Hamilton states in Document 2, “In respect to our foreign politics, the views of these gentlemen are … unsound, and dangerous. They have a womanish attachment to France, and a womanish resentment against Great Britain”. Hamilton thinks Democratic-Republicans are too attached and “in love” with France and they are too bitter and spiteful to Great Britain to actually get anything done. Jefferson thinks differently, he thinks Federalists (Hamilton) are only about themselves and other wealthy people. Jefferson said in Document 1 that “Hamilton was not only a monarchist, but [in support] of a monarchy [based upon] corruption”. Federalists favor strong central government, which Democratic-Republicans often viewed as something that would turn into monarchy and we 'd have another King George all over again. Jefferson also stated in Document 5 that he thinks the Federalists are Aristocrats and monocrats. He thinks the Federalists are stuck up, and only in favor of themselves and other wealthy people. That they do not care about the poorer people in this country. Because of the differing views, it lead to a split in political …show more content…
The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans both spoke badly of one another. The Sedition Act was passed partially because of this. If something was published in the newspapers that was negative in any way directed towards the government, those people were prosecuted. Congressman John Allen, of Connecticut, was tired of the all the slander and hatred in the papers, so he agreed with this law. Stating in Document 6, “If ever there was a nation which required a law of this kind, it is this”. Congressman Allen agrees with the Sedition Act because he 's tired of all the lies and mean things being said about the government. He sides with the Federalists, that could be due to the fact that he is wealthy and higher up in the government. Democratic-Republicans were at the brunt of this act. They were the ones who were being prosecuted for publishing newspapers with the slander. George Hay, a member of Virginia State Legislature, points out in Document 7 that the Sedition Act was actually a violation of the Constitution. He states, “The freedom of the press … means the total exemption of the press from any kind of legislative control, and consequently the Sedition Bill … is an

Related Documents