Political And Economic Differences Between Hamilton And Alexander Hamilton

994 Words 4 Pages
Shortly after the ratification of the Constitution, George Washington unanimously won the presidential election of 1789. Striving towards a nation of unity, Washington set up a cabinet of four strong individuals in order to inaugurate a system of both balance and credibility. Although Washington was strongly against political parties, it wasn’t long until they began to emerge. Filling the cabinet with tension, Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, brought upon new challenges for American politics in the eighteenth century, when they brought two very incompatible visions of what they hoped America’s future would look like to the plate. Additionally, their political and economic differences greatly …show more content…
While both men served prominent roles in the emergence of a two party system, Alexander Hamilton held a greater impact in molding our nation’s history.
George Washington felt that choosing an ambitious man of intelligence was a very important decision when selecting Alexander Hamilton as his Secretary of Treasury. Hamilton believed that the future of America’s economy lay in the hands of those with capital because they were reliable with the government. Envisioning an industrial powered nation, Hamilton favored a strong central government and believed that the only way to economically flourish was through a government-assisted society. To enforce his ideology, Hamilton outlined a plan to Congress that consisted of three pathbreaking reports on public credit, a national bank, and manufactures (America A Concise History 194). Nonetheless, Hamilton’s plan created a rather permanent national debt, which he believed was a good thing. Unfortunately, Hamilton held the viewpoint that “Mr. Jefferson is an avowed enemy to funded debt” (Sources for America’s History 166) because Thomas Jefferson had a different roadmap in approaching the
…show more content…
England and France went back into war during 1793. However, both Hamilton and Jefferson wanted America to remain neutral; the only problem was that both individuals held their own biases towards the situation. On one end of the spectrum, Jefferson held a soft spot for the french after serving in France as an ambassador during the American Revolution and because he didn’t want to announce America’s neutrality, he wanted to keep the British guessing what America’s next move would be as a source of leverage. Hamilton on the other hand, felt that they should be upfront about their neutrality because he not only looked up to, but also appreciated the British and if their neutrality wasn’t clear, the British would automatically assume that America would sign with the French, therefore, they would have to protect Canada. Trying to prove that our neutrality was nothing but a weakness, the British proposed that they were going to violate the Treaty of Paris, as well as implement the Council of Orders. Fortunately, Jefferson proved his point of leverage when the U.S. entertained joining the Scandinavian countries against the British. John Jay met with the British to negotiate a treaty until Hamilton compromised Jay’s position. The Spanish then feared that Spanish possessions would be invaded as a result of Jay’s Treaty of 1794. Resulting in a

Related Documents