The Main Differences Between Alexander Hamilton And Thomas Jefferson

Improved Essays
The main differences between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson lie behind what they thought the principle of government was. According to Hamilton, government was needed to protect individual liberties. Hamilton was the leader of the Federalist Party also known as the Hamiltonians, who strongly supported his ideas. They believed in order for Americans to be free they needed a strong central government ran by well-educated people such as Hamilton himself, to protect individual liberty. “He advocated a strong central government, and refused to be bound by the strict wording of the constitution” (PG. 159). Hamilton was concerned about the role of people who would shape public policy, he distrusted common man. Hamilton also pushed for industrial …show more content…
It gave them a chance to start a new form of government without a king. The only problem was Hamilton and Jefferson did not have the same idea of the type of government they wanted to accomplish for their new nation. Hamilton wanted to accomplish a strong central government. He wanted a government that would be able to control the people’s behavior. He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this. Hamilton wanted to form a national government to help them get out of debt resulting from the American Revolution, he planned to borrow money from European banks then pay it back. He believed our national government had to be strong enough in order to defend ourselves. Jefferson completely disagreed with Hamilton’s ideas of government. Jefferson wanted to accomplish a small, weak government that is not to powerful. He wanted the nation to consist of only independent Yeomen farmers. 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 …show more content…
He also favored a low spending federal government. Before Jefferson became president he “ordered substantial cuts in the national budge.” (PG. 184) He also reduced the size of the army by 50%, leaving only 3,000 soldiers left to guard the frontier. Not to mention, he also retired most of the Navy’s warships, leaving us a weak army. Once Jefferson becomes president congressmen alerts Jefferson to prepare for a war against France. In addition, “Spanish officials who still governed New Orleans announced the closing of that port to American commerce (October 1802).” (PG. 184) Leaving Jefferson in a tough position he preferred to negotiate rather than going to war. This negotiation resulted in the Louisiana Purchase. The American people were enthusiastic about the new state but Jefferson “worried that the purchase might be unconstitutional. The president pointed out that the Constitution did not specifically authorize the acquisition of vast new territories and the incorporation of thousands of foreign citizens.” (PG. 185) Although he felt his act was unconstitutional he still sent Lewis and Clark to explore the vast territory. Also once he became president he realized we needed a stronger government to take on unexpected challenges, leading him to put money back into the army, which goes against his low spending

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Jefferson wanted states to be independent within themselves, but united when dealing with foreign affairs. The federal government was only for dealing with foreign concerns. On the contrary, not only did Hamilton want to model the American economy after England’s, but he wanted to shape the government after them as well. Hamilton believed state power will be the enemy of the federal government. State governments will make it too difficult to maintain the national government, they are bias, and Americans should have a firm union in this new nation.…

    • 1205 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Federalists were for the constitution and a strong national government, whereas Anti-Federalists were opposed to both. With the success of the Federalists, these factions only grew into political parties as our country began implementing the Constitution. Differences in policies, leadership, and beliefs can certainly be held responsible…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Henry argued that the constitution would jeopardize state sovereignty and the rights of the people. He also did not support it because it did not contain a Bill of Rights. Other arguments made by Henry were that Congress may destroy suffrage and elections will soon not matter and those in Congress would not follow same laws that the citizens would have to follow. Henry stated, “ If you make citizens of this country agree to become subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together.” James Madison argued back with popular opinions because states were ready for a change. He argued that an army was necessary, and argued taxes was not for the direct taxation but for tariffs and indirect taxes.…

    • 813 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The Federalists strategy was to strengthen the economic ties with Britain. They wanted to settle the pre-war claims and debts with them before anything got out of hand. The Democratic-Republicans did not agree with this treaty because they believed nothing was accomplished and they did not want to become allies with Britain after they just broke free from them. The point of view of this treaty was that the Federalists wanted to…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They believed that power should not be trusted in the common man, the wealthy elite should support the government more so than the common man, and America need to become an economic powerhouse in order to succeed. The Democratic-Republicans believed the opposite. They believed in states rights, in opposition to the strong centralized government that Federalists wanted, Also, they represented the common man and trusted them with the nation 's decisions, more so than the elites. Their economic approach reflected the needs of small businesses owners, farmers and individuals rather than of wealthy merchants and large commercial businesses.…

    • 1169 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hamilton was a Federalist thus he trusted the Articles of Confederation were imperfect and unproductive as a legitimate government. He was for a more grounded dominant government, and was a supporter for the selection of the Constitution. For the most part the Federalists were for a free elucidation of the constitution. Jefferson was an anti-Federalist. He was essentially against sanctioning the Constitution since he thought it gave the legislature an excessive amount of force.…

    • 90 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Each of the founders proposed a different issue with the Constitution, but overall the main concern was among them involved the fear of too much power. The United States Constitution gives power most of the power to the people because it is based off of a democratic outline of government, but still requires a leader. At this time, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued democracy was the best governmental system outline to follow because they believed that advocating for the majority should be a higher priority . They wholeheartedly supported the ideas of the people and wanted to let everyone have a say. Some of the men in the Ant-Federalist Party disagreed with the idea of democracy because they favored they favored the idea of rule of the few elite.…

    • 1004 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote The Social Contract post-French Revolution because he wanted to create a system of government he thought to be legitimate. Rousseau explains throughout The Social Contract that for a government to be legitimate, the power must lie in the hands of the general will, which represents the whole body politic. Rousseau’s idea sounds great, that is until it is put into practice and, alongside the strengths, you can also see the weakness of it. His philosophy of governance is not one that I can fully support. I cannot support his idea of a legitimate government because I do not think the people can properly govern themselves.…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    However, they did not think of the long term implications of the colonization of these islands, and the United-States did not want the populations to be American for racial reasons. Hence, the United-States started to be seen as a rising imperial power. In 1917, Wilson is a constructivist president, he is a former history professor and sees the world as global. Wilson had a great vision for a world maintained peace: a league of nations ruled by 14 points. He softly tried to implement it without going to war by proposing a “peace without victory”.…

    • 1709 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Congress decided their current form of government, the Articles of Confederation, had many flaws. It was too weak to stop things such as Shay’s Rebellion. Because of this they organized a convention, many state representatives showed up, but some did not because they were pleased with how it was and didn’t want to change this. The people who were against changing the Articles of Confederation are called Anti-Federalists, and people that were for this are called Federalists. As a Federalist I believe the people of the United States should ratify the Constitution because we would fall to pieces without it.…

    • 693 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays