Similarities Between Jefferson And Machiavelli

Improved Essays
Jefferson and Machiavelli had two very different ideas in terms of the right way to rule. The two were essentially complete opposites. Jefferson thought it should be the mass who ruled the ruler, that the moral thing should always be done in order to live in a efficient and equality-driven government. Machiavelli, on the other hand, thought it would be the ruler who ruled the masses, that the Prince should put aside the “right thing to do” and use the ideology of functionalism to decide what is best for the government. However, it is hardly useful to compare the two ideas. Jefferson’s idea only works in a democratic government, where he writes for how the masses should act to run the government. Machiavelli’s idea only works in a more aristocratic,

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    He, like Hamilton, understood that the rebellion in France would soon spread throughout Europe and abroad. Unlike Hamilton, however, Jefferson believed that the spread of radical French ideologies was tantamount to preserving the American constitution, “I consider the establishment and success of their government as necessary to stay up our own and to prevent it from falling back to that kind of Halfway-house, the English constitution” (108). Comparatively speaking though, Jefferson’s idealistic stance on American and French relations proved more dangerous to the U.S. than Hamilton’s. His initial views were, in retrospect, Machiavellian in that he believed that the ends would ultimately justify the means, “The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood?” (109).…

    • 1398 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Jefferson had a very different idea for the future of America when compared to the views and ideas of A Slave and James Forten. Thomas Jefferson seemed to be very two-sided when deciding America’s future. Although he did not mention slavery with his Indian Policy, Jefferson and many other leaders were unsure of how to deal with african americans and indians. His Indian Policy was different depending on who he was talking to. This is shown through his letters to the governor of the Indiana Territory and to the Mandan Nation.…

    • 336 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Jefferson wanted the government to have little control over people’s lives due to his distrust. He wanted the majority to have a say on how the government was ran and what was important to the masses by giving States Rights over Federal power. Jefferson was a people’s president but still wanted only the wealthy to hold government potions. Andrew Jackson also wanted states to have their own rights with limits on Federal interference. Jackson wanted to start a new democratic era to restore government to “the people” and take away power from the Eastern elite (Shi and Tindall, 419).…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This change, be it a minor modification or a reconstruction altogether, must be with the “foundation of such principles” in order to ensure safety and happiness among the rest. The dalliance of the moral aspects of humankind evokes different emotions with different people. Nonetheless, the perception of responsibility plays with us all in some way. Furthermore, Jefferson maintains this energy and directs it towards the King of Great Britain by using adroit diction. “For cutting off our trade… For imposing Taxes….…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Lesly Juarez Professor Nolan English 1A 25 March 2017 Systems of Government Thomas Jefferson and Hannah Arendt had different and similar perspectives on the way a government should govern its people. They both agreed that people should be free of tyranny. In both of their views, people were being controlled by people who would only cause harm and fear. Jefferson stated in the Declaration of Independence “A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People” (121).…

    • 1069 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jefferson’s idea of an ideal society was revolved around the common man. (MP 165) He praised the “yeoman farmer” and trusted in their discretion about what America could become. “He felt that urbanization, industrial factories, and financial speculation would serve to rob the common man of his independence and economic freedom.” (MP165) Jefferson feared the opposite of what Hamilton did, he feared the national government gaining power.…

    • 890 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The difference of Machiavelli and Thoreau’s view on governing comes from the fact that they both are taking opposite perspectives on the same issue. Both discuss harsh governing. Machiavelli views it as necessary, while Thoreau views it as unjust, however Machiavelli is writing as one who governs, while Thoreau is writing as one being governed. The difference in audience is the cause for the differences between Machiavelli and Thoreau’s understanding of morality, humanity, and efficiency.…

    • 792 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Jefferson’s Rule is that you do not have to agree with governmental ideas. It is perfectly acceptable to have conflicting viewpoints and you should have the freedom to voice your opinion and fight for what you believe. Thomas Jefferson was the voice for conflict in the United States. Jefferson desired federal state power, to keep the Articles of Confederation with a few amendments so that way, the government was not completely weakened and the citizens still had a few laws to live by.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Niccolò Machiavelli and Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca went through different experiences that led them to have their own perspectives in human nature and create their ideals for good governance. The simple fact that Cabeza de Vaca was unfortunate enough to have a hard time throughout the expedition made him more open minded about human nature, while Machiavelli had a set idea of what human nature was and how it ties to good governance. Machiavelli's view on human nature is the same as what is a good governance a good leader and a good human being is someone who knows how to be respected and feared without being hated and how that leads to have the people the Prince governs happy and on his side. Cabeza de Vaca has a more down to earth view on human nature but that differs…

    • 2016 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    What society is unaware of is that Jefferson’s philosophies are from the 18th century. Thus Jefferson’s universal ideals on liberty and equality rights are influential on the world of today and his opinions should be critiqued not by present day standards but rather by his own time period’s standards.…

    • 1423 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He also believed a national bank would be corrupt and should be avoided. Jefferson thought a strong national government would be dangerous to the people’s protection and security. He thought government needed to be watched closely and cut in its…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Benjamin Franklin was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. He was the first general Postmaster of the United States as well as the first diplomat to France and England and greatly increased America’s relationship with these countries. Both Machiavelli, the Italian politician who wrote The Prince, and Sun Tzu, the Chinese war philosopher who wrote The Art of War, write about what it means to be a good leader. Although, Benjamin Franklin was a great leader he could have still received some advice from Sun Tzu and Machiavelli.…

    • 1091 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli, both grappling with regional instability and constant war, arrive at different frameworks for handling man’s inherent propensity for conflict from very similar models of human behavior. Hobbes, watching his fellow countrymen fight each other during the English Civil War, decided that humans perpetually desire more power to secure their well-being and therefore incline toward warfare as a means to achieve this. Machiavelli, similarly accustomed to the restless Italian Peninsula, also labeled man as power-hungry and self-centered, always striving for enough freedom to ensure one’s prosperity. In the absence of the structure and organization provided by a government, a situation dubbed mankind’s ‘natural…

    • 1255 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although Machiavelli and Socrates both lived during times of uncertainty, political fragmentation and violence, their philosophies about how the state should conduct itself are in direct contrast with one another. Machiavelli’s the Prince is founded on the principal that if a ruler wishes to maintain power, he should embody the ideology of pragmatism, while Socrates believes the state should follow him in his commitment to moral purity and justice. The inherent dissonance between these philosophies would lead Socrates to be unsupportive of Machiavelli’s concept of a prince, and consequently the political system Machiavelli would recommend he install, despite his apparent change in rhetoric from the Apology to the Crito. Throughout Plato’s interpretation…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    look at John Locke and Niccole Machiavelli John Locke and Niccole Machiavelli are two philosophers from the Renaissance period, who focused their work on creating a better society and government. Their work consists of theories of how rulers should rule their land and how they can get their subjects support. Locke’s Two Treaties of Government of Civil Government, is contrary to Machiavelli’s book The Prince. Whereas, Locke’s book is to justify the revolution of when King James II was removed from power, Machiavelli’s book is about how a ruler should exercise his power and gain control. Machiavelli’s theory is similar to dictatorship and Locke’s theory is the basis for classical liberalism.…

    • 880 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays