The year was 1789 and George Washington took the oath and became the first President of the United States. Although the country now had a president there was still much work that needed to be done. This was the beginning framework of the three branches of government we now have today. The signing of the Constitution created the judicial, legislative and executive branch. Still today, this is how the government is ran. Once the framework was complete there was still much uneasiness and disagreement with how the country should be ran. The Federalists were for big government and the anti-federalists wanted to keep it at the state level. I will compare the two groups and what they stand for.
Even though the majority of people were in favor
…show more content…
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who thought that the national government should be restricted to the powers given to them in the Constitution. However Alexander Hamilton and the people who followed him thought that there was a better way of reading the Constitution which was classified as loose reading, especially of the elastic clause which grants congress power. “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States.” “There can be no time, no state of things, in which credit is not essential to a nation…” “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our union.” The way Alexander Hamilton looked at and how he read the Constitution led him to believe that the clause gave congress the power to do anything that is not restricted in the Constitution. The loose reading of the Constitution is what was feared the most. This included the national bank which he thought could be formed because it does not say that it can not be done. After much debate between the looser reading and the tighter reading of the Constitution by the government, Congress approved the bank by a thin margin granting it a 20 year charter in February
Both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had different opinions on how the First National Bank of The United States should be set up and if it goes by what is stated in the Constitution, which led to an argument between federalist and antifederalist in 1791. Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, was a strong believer in the development of a strong central government and broad a interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand anti-federalist, Thomas Jefferson, was convinced that the government should have to undergo a strict interpretation of the Constitution and that the government shouldn't interfere, more than needed to, in the lives of the American people. Hamilton recommended that the government should in fact make the Bank of the
They wanted a more centralized government. They had an open mind and wanted people's voice to be heard. In federalism the power is constitutionally divided between a central government and that of states or provinces. Each level of the government has its’ own obligation and power. It's different from Confederations because it gives the federal systems the central authority some amount of control over its citizens, thus endowing it with a level of sovereignty.
In 1787, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to establish a new, stronger government for the United States. During George Washington’s presidency in the 1790s, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson argued over the role of the government as dictated by the Constitution. As a result, a two party system consisting of the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans emerged. To some extent, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson reflected the policies and beliefs of the Federalist Hamilton.
Lectures Lecture 14 “Questions to Consider #1”: Why did the Anti Federalists object so strongly to the Preamble to the Constitution? The Anti-Federalists objected so strongly to Preamble to the Constitution due to the fact the Preamble establishes powers for the three branches of government, states’ relations, mode of amendment, debts, national supremacy, oath of office, and amendment ratification. This group felts as though when the federalists wanting to create a strong central government would not be strong enough if the Preamble was not put into place. Lecture 14 states, “Anti-federalists suspicious of central power fought the new Constitution tenaciously…..
Gordon 's premise in Hamilton 's Blessing is that the national debt can be used positively in order to boost the economy of a country like the United States. In the book, Gordon uses economic history and theory to examine the start, rise and decline of the United States debt. The author opens his book by stating that this country was born in debt, and this debt has become so high that concerned individuals no longer think about it. Hamilton 's Blessing charts the history of the national debt since when the central bank of the United States was founded in 1971, up to modern days. The intellectual architect of this creation was Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury Secretary as well as a central figure who had a deep impact on the economic
Before I state my opinion, I must lay out the two opposing sides between the federalists and the anti Federalists. To put it simply, federalists were people who supported the ratification of the constitution. On the other side of the spectrum the anti-Federalists were people who opposed the ratification of the constitution. If I was living in the in the 1780’s I probably would have voted and supported the ratification of the constitution. I am the type of person that wants a strong and unified central government.
When it came to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists the differences are many and at times very complex, due to the beliefs that the Federalists are nationalist at heart. The Federalists had an incredibly big role in shaping the new Constitution, which the Federalists used to create a stronger Constitution at great cost to the Anti-Federalists. If you ask the Anti-Federalists They believe that should be a ratification of the US Constitution in every state. But due to the Anti-Federalists being poor at organizing they really didn’t gain any ground. Although they didn’t achieve their goals of ratification of the US Constitution, but they did force the first congress under a new Constitution along with the bill of rights.
Hamilton interpreted it loosely while Jefferson was strict. This led to an argument about whether the creation of a national bank was constitutional; Hamilton stated it was while Jefferson claimed it wasn’t. Another issue that they clashed
“Federalists vs Anti-Federalists” The title of the article is “The Antifederalists were right” it was written on Sept. 27, 2006 by Gary Galles. The article was about the reasons why antifederalists were right. The Federalists wanted a strong central government.
The ideals and arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the late eighteenth century have many similarities to the Democrats and Republicans of today. Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the first two American political parties, debated over how the country would be shaped. First when developing the Articles of Confederation, then when developing the Constitution, the two parties argued how powerful the central government should be in comparison to the states. Federalists believed in a strong federal government. They believed that to have a country that functions well, there must be one authority that can arbitrate disagreements and make decisions to move the country forward.
The Federalist main argument was stated based off the opinion that the government would never have complete power over the citizens, but the citizens would also have a little more power and a say in the things that involve them. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists believed in limited powers specifically stated, they wanted strong state governments, and wanted a Bill of Rights added to the Constitution to protect the people from the government (Document 4). This was their point of view due to the fact that they believed that the individual states know and can act more based on their people that on federal government can. They focused their argument on the rights of the citizens. For the Federalists and Anti-Federalists to agree on a new government, they created a compromise that combined each of their ideas.
Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists Federalists were mostly merchants, bankers manufacturers, and wealthy farm owners. They basically owned land or some type of property and were well-educated. Most of these people lived in urban areas. Anti-Federalists were mostly artisans, shopkeepers, frontier settlers, and poor farmers. They were mostly uneducated and illiterate and most of them lived in rural areas.
The argument between the Federalists and the Antifederalists principally centre on the Artivles of Confederation-Consitution. The Federalists and the Antifederalists have thier interpretions wheather the fedel government necessarliy exits or not. The Federalists believe that the relationship between fedel government and fifty states governments is stable and helpful. In contrast, the Antifederalists oppose this political struture and democratic goals, so that they think that the exitence of fedel government suppose to get corrupt. On the other hand, the Federalists and the Antifederalists also have different views about slaveries.
Hamilton wanted to create public credit with a treasury system, a national bank, a mint, and increase manufacturing which would help unify the country. On the other hand, there was Jefferson, who opposed a strong central government. He argued that the “wealthy would gain at the expense of ordinary Americans and that Hamilton’s political economy would corrupt the morality of citizens and undermine the social conditions essential to republican government”(Powerpoint). The country would opt for an approach closer to Hamilton’s views. One of the first acts was the National Banking Act.
Hamilton vs. Jefferson Visions to Reality Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton both had very defined visions of the scope and power of the new federal government, how they saw the future of the economic development, and what the United States society should become. In my opinion Alexander Hamilton had more of an impact on the United States during the 1820’s and on contemporary government when compared to Thomas Jefferson. His policies did not strictly work during that time and many of his ideas are still seen in today’s society. Jefferson’s views and ideas on/of the national bank, higher tariffs, debt assumption, The Federalist Party, and his support of the ratification of the Constitution are all reasons in why his policies and visions came closer to becoming a reality. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, molded the gatherings that provoked to the twofold party system under which the U.S. works today.