Essay On Thomas Jefferson And Alexander Hamilton

From the advent of their political careers, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were notable adversaries who could never agree fully on matters of state. Both wanted what was most advantageous for their newly conceived Union of States and they argued that their method best encapsulated the correct means of achieving that goal. One area of particularly high contention involved the interpretation of the Constitution and the extent of the powers listed within. Jefferson rooted himself deeply in the strict constructionist view –he asserted that no government official or branch should have any power not expressly delegated to them by the text. On the other hand, Hamilton pressed for a “looser” understanding. There were clearly defined limits that one should not overstep, but within those bounds, Constitutional shackles need not bind officers from carrying out their duties. Thus, …show more content…
A solidified Union could do a plethora of things that a comparatively weak confederation could never hope to accomplish. Defense could be more easily secured with one army, trade deals would only have to be made a single time, and public debt could be securely managed. For example, in his “Report on Public Credit”, Hamilton advocated strongly for the assumption of all debt by the general government. He had noticed most states were struggling to pay back wartime debts to foreign nations and it was making the country seem untrustworthy in the eyes of its overseas allies (21). To remedy this, the federal government had to purchase all the loans and then tax its people uniformly to begin to pay it back. This would assure good credit and trust for future financial endeavors. Eventually this plan was adopted, and it was a smashing success. As revenue poured in from investors, Alexander Hamilton shifted his focus to the institution of a national