Federalist Vs Hamiltonian Democracy

807 Words 4 Pages
I am persuaded that the Federalist [Hamiltonian] political approach toward governing the young United States had stronger ideas versus the Republican [Jeffersonian] position, which lacked in forward thinking, suppressed free marketing and trade, sought to reduce the national army, and yet supported virtue of the common people. The American Revolution caused high war-debt issues, requiring immediate and effective attention, which in my opinion demanded a strong centralized government. Hamilton’s group, the Federalists, were made up of mostly educated bankers, merchants, and manufactures with some wealthy plantation owners interested in securing the future of the Union by force of “big government”. They believed that government control should be in the hands of the elite and wealthy, that there should be a National Bank, and the establishment of public credit, saying it was authorized by the constitution as “necessary and proper”. Hamilton wrote, “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men the great difficulty lies in this: You must first …show more content…
We have the federal Government that controls our foreign policies, taxation policies, State Laws, the national army, and promotes political war-fare throughout the States; along with State legislature, that controls local taxation, local law enforcement, and education. This two party system that America has adopted as the political leaders of the government simultaneously creates conflict between the rich and middle-class/poor populations by denoting the opinions of the other. Both parties convince voters of their own legitimacy by participating in debates with each other even though neither are an official part of our government. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are at an all time low in congress and could be replaced with a more individualistic approach that could possibly strengthen the middle/lower

Related Documents