What Is The Difference Between Thomas Jefferson And Hamilton

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. He had faith in the privilege of every states should have separate power, however joined

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers. I support a support a system within the government that allows only for each branch to review and be responsible for their own decisions. The Constitution does allow for one branch to check up on the actions of another, however to allow the judges to simply have the full perspective not only for themselves but for all the other branches as well, I fear will lead to a judicial despotism that will be damaging to us…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent 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.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Democratic-Republicans felt that there should be a strict interpretation, which meant that the Constitution should be followed word for word. Both parties also had different views on the government. “Therefore it was that the Constitution restrained them to the necessary means, that is to say, to those means without the grant of the power would be nugatory (useless)” (Document A). Thomas Jefferson’s strict interpretation is demonstrated in this statement. He does not believe that the collection of taxes is necessary because it was not specifically stated in the Constitution.…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Anti-Federalists thought that the new government would turn into a tyranny. The Anti-Federalists argued that the necessary and proper clause was too broad. In the first column in the second box of the “Positions of the Constitution” paper it states that “It is dangerous not to list the powers of the government in order to put clear limits on them”. This quote expresses the uncertainty that the Anti-Federalist have with the necessary and proper clause. They think that the government may use this power to do what is…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    During the ratification debates of the US Constitution, there was conversation over the necessity of a bill of rights to define people’s rights and limit the government’s powers. Many federalists believed such a bill of rights would not only be unnecessary, but would weaken the constitution and the people, and give the government powers they should have. Noah Webster, Alexander Hamilton, and James Wilson each make arguments against a bill of rights. Webster argues that a bill of rights may be irrelevant in future generations, but people will be reluctant to change or add to it. Hamilton believes that the bill of rights is unnecessary because the constitution itself is in terms a bill of rights.…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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. Overall, he was completely against state governments. He favored a strong federal government made of many wealthy members. Moreover, Hamilton held a loose interpretation of the Constitution. He even supported sometimes restrictions on speech and press under certain circumstances.…

    • 1205 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    As leaders in their parties, Hamilton and Jefferson only served to encourage the partisan divisions. The two members of Washington’s cabinet had different views on government. From as early as the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton was clearly a Federalist and Jefferson was clearly an Anti-Federalist. These philosophical differences between the two only served as a catalyst for their disputes during Washington’s presidency. Fearing that Hamilton’s economic plans would cause tyranny similar to the British rule, Jefferson created the Democratic-Republican Party to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party.…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The main argument against this was if one man was in charge, the government would be far too similar to a monarchy. In defence to this Hamilton enforced the idea that if the office holder was deemed irresponsible, removal from office would be supported. Jefferson was in complete opposition to this, as he stated if one man was to be put in executive order, trouble was destined to occur. He believed that the executive power should consist of a single man and his office, to allow for the regulation of the single man. The conclusion drawn was a split between both Hamilton’s views and Jefferson’s views, “a single executive of limited…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    After the American War for Independence, the Americans were under the control of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation set up a weak national government. This system was highly ineffective because the creators of it did not want to restrict the rights of the people as the tyrannical British leaders had in the past. Certain events, such as Shays’ Rebellions, stressed the need for a stronger centralized government. In place of the Articles of Confederation was the US Constitution, the supporters of the Constitution were called the Federalists and the people against it were called the Anti-Federalists.…

    • 747 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    It became clear soon after the Articles of Confederation were implemented that the document had certain flaws that weakened the newly created United States. A new document, the Constitution, was drafted to replace the Articles. Many people supported the Constitution, but some disagreed with it. Both the Federalists and the anti-Federalists provided valuable insight into the creation of the Constitution. Some of the arguments presented by the anti-Federalists were that it lacked a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee citizens freedoms; that the strong central government would be unable to govern such a large territory; and that the government that was established was too close to the British system they had just overcome.…

    • 1330 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays