Hamilton vs. Jefferson

[TheGreatOne]

Each political party in the United States likes to believe that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution supports their ideas of government and interpretations of law, but many do not realize that the Founding Fathers had many of the same debates that Americans continue to have this very day.  In the beginning of the 1800s, the country was split into two camps, the Alexander Hamilton Federalists, and the Thomas Jefferson Anti-Federalists.  Both Hamilton and Jefferson believed that the United States would become a burgeoning super power, although they had different ideas of how to get there. 

Jefferson favored a government in which the central government should have inferior or equal power as the states within its borders.  He believed that our nation’s power was in its agricultural roots, and that the people were the final authority in government.  Jefferson was also a believer in economic pressures rather than war.  He and Adams did their best to avoid war with Great Britain and France.  However, history has noted that his Embargo on British and French exports in order to coerce both nations to recognize America’s rights was a failure.

However, Hamilton believed in a strong Federal government that could keep order, allowing industry to grow and significantly strengthen without unpredictable interference.  He wanted to create a national bank and fund that national debt in order to establish new lines of credit.  He envisioned America as an industrial powerhouse that could rival any of the European nations.  He essentially laid the foundation for the United States to become a military superpower, and envisioned manifest destiny in order to gain superiority in the Western Hemisphere.  However, he almost dragged us into a war with France and Spain by suggesting a pre-emptive strike on Napoleon’s Louisiana and Spanish Florida. 

Who do you agree with?

[Free Palestine]

Jefferson.

Hamilton was a dick, IMO.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Jefferson seems far more agreeable to me than Hamilton, though I still have numerous disagreements with him. It is merely that a weak federal government seems preferable to a strong one & that economic pressure seems preferable to military pressure.

[TheGreatOne]

I would disagree with the contention that the embargo was a failure; on the contrary, it is a key part of the Jeffersonian legacy, I think.  Of course, Jefferson and Hamilton are probably closer to each other than the gulf between "Jeffersonianism" and "Hamiltonianism" would suggest, and, regardless, I think both philosophies contributed indispensably to America's ascension to world power.

The point of the embargo was to force France and Great Britain to respect America's rights.  Napoleon and the British Government continued to attack American vessels and confiscated their goods, and Jefferson received none of the the concession he asked for.   Economically, it showed France and Great Britain that they didn't really need the United States, whereas America's economy was almost completely ruined. 

[TheGreatOne]

Looks like you got your economic arguments directly out of contemporary Federalist newspapers.  In actuality, it directed massive amounts of capital into fledgling manufacturing industries.  The imperial powers of Europe still "needed" US markets, as evidenced by the cries of Whig politicians to the British government to negotiate an end to the embargo, they simply didn't receive them, after the war US raw materials (such as Southern cotton going to New England textile mills) became increasingly directed towards domestic manufacturing.

However, the United States repealed the act because many Northern businesses were suffering greatly.  From 1807 to 1808 our exports declined from 100 million to 20 million.  Agriculture did fine, but it the Act could not be sustained, and Northern States threatened to nullify the law. 

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Jefferson's presidency was mediocre, but Hamilton was truly one of the great villains of American history.

[Mechaman]

Jefferson's presidency was mediocre, but Hamilton was truly one of the great villains of American history.

^^^^^^^
This.
I would also like to add that I consider Aaron Burr America's unspoken hero for vanquishing this great threat before it had the opportunity to rise back up in stature.
Aaron Burr should be on the ten dollar bill actually.

[Bo]

I prefer Hamilton.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Jefferson's presidency was mediocre, but Hamilton was truly one of the great villains of American history.

^^^^^^^
This.
I would also like to add that I consider Aaron Burr America's unspoken hero for vanquishing this great threat before it had the opportunity to rise back up in stature.
Aaron Burr should be on the ten dollar bill actually.

Unfortunately, Hamilton and his ragtag gang of counter-revolutionaries had already by then succeeded in subverting the limited system of government created under the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the authoritarian Constitution.

[Mechaman]

Jefferson's presidency was mediocre, but Hamilton was truly one of the great villains of American history.

^^^^^^^
This.
I would also like to add that I consider Aaron Burr America's unspoken hero for vanquishing this great threat before it had the opportunity to rise back up in stature.
Aaron Burr should be on the ten dollar bill actually.

Unfortunately, Hamilton and his ragtag gang of counter-revolutionaries had already by then succeeded in subverting the limited system of government created under the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the authoritarian Constitution.

True, and the even sadder part is that today the offspring of those power pimps aren't even satisfied with having THAT.

[Jensen]

I would say Hamilton, but Jefferson and his lackeys ultimately contributed to the implementation of Hamilton's ideas. It was Jackson who finally broke the trend.

[The Mikado]

I'd be a Federalist, although Alexander Hamilton was occasionally a tad overreaching.

[TheGreatOne]

I'd be a Federalist, although Alexander Hamilton was occasionally a tad overreaching.

I would have liked Hamilton if he had been alittle more balanced.  The national bank was needed to grow the economy.  This is not to be confused with the Federal Reserve, which is a private entity.  He was just alittle too chummy with the British.

[Sewer]

Anti-Federalist, like my relatives of the time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The only reason the Embargo of 1807 didn't destroy our economy entirely was that first of all, our economy at that time was still largely very local, and that the embargo was flouted as much as possible, especially in areas near Canada.  The only way to get goods from New York to Charleston in a timely and economical manner was by ship, but in order to prevent shippers from claiming to be heading to a domestic port or coming from one when they'd actually ignored the embargo, Jefferson go Congress to pass a law allowing him to shut down the coastal trade.  When that didn't work, the great defender of Liberty had Congress pass a another law authorizing the seizure of cargoes without a warrant and he authorized port officials to prosecute shippers if they thought they had merely considered violating the embargo, even if they had never done so.

If Jefferson had stood for a third term, won, and tried to continue with the embargo, we'd have had a Civil War in 1809 as New England tried to escape the grasp of that domineering tyrant.  Fortunately, Madison wasn't nearly as bull-headed as Jefferson.

[TheGreatOne]

I agree with the above.  What I stated in my original post was the similarity betweem the arguments that were having today with the arguments the Founding Fathers had at the inception of the United States.  If both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson disregarded the text of the constitution, would that not give credence to the argument that the constitution is a living document that's meaning can change with time, and with the needs of future generations.  Even Jefferson stated that it is immoral for one generation to create laws that have to be abided by future generations.  I think its safe to say that the constitution was written in order to unify the country with a code of law, but nothing in the document was ever set in stone by the Founding Fathers.  This is evident by the disagreements in George Washington's cabinet between Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton. 

[Frink]

I suppose I'd be a Federalist, although their are aspects of both sides that I like and dislike.