Foreign Policy Conflict Between Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians in 1790's - Term Paper Example

?The politics of the early American republic provide a framework for understanding modern public policy issues, including foreign policy. It is appealing, for instance, to seek answers for America’s problems today in the writings of the Founding Fathers, who seemed to have principled stances on most issues. However, a principled stance on every issue necessarily creates partisanship and gridlock in attempting to create legislation in response to problems. In the 1790s, one could clearly see a polarized American government, divided between two major competing factions: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. In this environment, the two positions were antithetical and their opposition extended into the darkest corner of every issue, foreign policy included. Thomas Jefferson, the most well known proponent of Anti-Federalism, along with Alexander Hamilton, the most well known proponent of Federalism, often made their views clear in letters written to friends and associates. From these first-hand accounts, historians can piece together the political divides that fragmented early American politics, placing them in context and measuring the relevance of what they had to say to today’s heated discussions. Indeed, any study of 1790s American politics will reveal a deeply polarized discourse. In fact, one historian has remarked that today’s polarized politics is “mild by historical standards” (Rawls 89). Indeed, from its inception, American democracy saw the rise of fundamentally opposed political parties, in particular the Federalists and Anti-Federals. Just from the names ascribed to these political groups, one can tell that their beliefs were opposites on many levels. Deeply opposed convictions spurred vicious trading of barbs between politicians and newspapers, which we highly critical of their opponents (Daniel 6). However, as historians today note, the strength and productivity of American democracy “also comes from the parties” (Rawls 95). This is a valuable insight to keep in mind when thinking about the usefulness of the schisms occurring in the 1970s. The philosophical divide alluded to earlier between the Anti-Federalists and their Federalist counterparts existed with respect to their divergent beliefs about the nature and role of government. Anti-Federalists strongly opposed to the Constitution, believing that it gave too much power to a central governmental institution—a federal government. The president, whom they branded as a “military king,” they believed, would become a tyrant who would rule over “the lives, the liberties, and property of every citizen of America” with “uncontrolled power” (Marshall 251). This fear was based primarily on the ideal that liberties should not be swallowed up to build a more powerful, glorious nation. In arguing for a stronger federal government, the Federalists relied on two powerful arguments in favor of the Constitution: first, that Congress had no leverage against the empires of France, Britain, and Spain because it could not regulate foreign commerce, and second, that restrictions on Congress interfered with its basic duty to provide for a national defense (Marshall 234). Both of these arguments are germane to a nation’s foreign affairs, which places the topic of foreign affairs central to the debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists raging in the 1790s. The most visible face of Federalism in the United States during this period was Alexander Hamilton, who took part in organizing a forceful defense of the Constitution in The Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 essays designed to convince the people of New York to ratify the new Constitution. After the Federalist movement, which was intended primarily to see the Constitution ratified (which it was in 1789), the Federalist Party emerged—guided by the policies of Hamilton in the early 1790s (Berkin 208). John Adams, the second President of the United States and only President elected from the Federalist platform, took office in 1789. The election of Adams and the rising prominence of Hamilton in the final decade of the 18th century represented an increase in the popular appeal of a Federalist philosophy. However, Federalism largely gained steam through its opposition to Anti-Federalism, another nascent movement in early American politics. Like the Federalists, the Anti-Federalist movement began in response to the proposal of the Constitution, attempted to convince the public with a series of papers (The Anti-Federalist Papers), and was led by a charismatic figurehead in Patrick Henry of Virginia. Henry frequently insistent on the irreconcilability of freedom and empire, which is an implicit opposition to imperialism (Marshall 248). The Anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful in their opposition to the Constitution; however, they did lobby for and achieve a Bill of Rights, designed to protect the individual liberties of American citizens. This principled commitment to individual freedom represents the essence of the Anti-Federalist coalition of concerned citizens making themselves heard throughout the early American republic (Marshall 252). Foreign policy, like the national debt and domestic issues, was another battleground on which the supporters of Hamilton and Jefferson respectively waged intellectual combat (Wilentz, Earle and Paterson 60). Even the Federalist case for the Constitution, as noted earlier, was based on appeals to strengthening the federal government’s ability to regulate foreign commerce and defend America against foreign powers. The Articles of Confederation were, for the most part, defeated based on foreign menaces that would not be repelled without solving foreign policy problems. “Is there a man in this state,” cried the State Gazette of North Carolina, “who believes it is possible for us to continue under such a government?” (402). Anti-Federalists saw the replacement of the British government—with respect to its oppression of individuals and its imperial foreign policy—with an American copy as an affront to the efforts and sacrifices made during the American Revolution. This is the foreign policy vision that Anti-Federalists sought to oppose, even if it did not perhaps represent the true Federalist argument (Robertson 101). The Federalist argument for more involvement in foreign affairs was spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton who, from September 1789 to January 1795, served as George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury. Around the time he took office, the French Revolution broke out in Paris. While Jefferson was appreciative of the republican fiber of the rebellion, Hamilton was disgusted by its bloodiness and opposition to state (Chernow 479). This divergence in perspective between Hamilton and Jefferson in response to the French Revolution embodied the philosophical frameworks in which they analyzed the bloody events occurring in France, and it is reflected in their respective views of foreign policy problems. In 1793, however, the two men found some degree of agreement in declaring neutrality to the Napoleonic Wars in Europe. However, they disagreed about whether the President or Congress should declare national neutrality, with Hamilton taking the former view and Jefferson the latter view. Hamilton supported the Neutrality Proclamation in 1793, issued by President Washington (Chernow 452). Hamilton and Washington allowed some French army recruitment efforts on American soil during the early 1790s, which upset the British, who were fighting Napoleon and his armies. In response to growing tension between Britain and America, Hamilton sent Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to London to negotiate a peace, which included removing British military presence in America, impressments of Americans for military service, and random capturing of American ships. The Treaty, signed in 1794, was defended by Hamilton and expressed his effort to outline the growing role of the federal government in foreign affairs—negotiating peace agreements, issuing proclamations of neutrality, and commanding the standing army. After foreign relations with France began to break down after 1800 due to Jay’s Treaty, Hamilton urged that the United States begin preparing its military in response to threats from the French and calls for war from American citizens (Chernow 522). In addition, Hamilton’s influence and foreign policy directives are detectable in President George Washington’s Farewell Address at the end of his second term, announcing that he would not pursue a third (Chernow 547). The Address appealed to the American people not to split themselves into political factions, to live up to republican standards of action, and to meddle less in the affairs of Europe. He writes in defense of the federal government, against permanent foreign alliances, and against a large standing army (Washington). To its core a statement of favoritism toward federalist beliefs, Washington’s Address exists in a context that is itself an argument in favor of federalism: his “patriotic” act of stepping down as president after two terms. The Anti-Federalists, who worried the president would become a monarch, were assuaged to learn that instead of spending his life embedded in the “throne,” Washington was committing a characteristically American act by stepping down from power. Thomas Jefferson, who became the third President of the United States in 1801, differed in significant ways from the Federalists like Hamilton and Washington. Among other disagreements were foreign relations stances toward Great Britain and toward France. Jefferson, who served as an American delegate in France and generally supportive of the French Revolution, was naturally inclined to support French in matters of state. In contrast, Hamilton, who was appalled by the French Revolution and engineered Jay’s Treaty with England, naturally favored Britain at the expense of France. The result of this division was dissatisfaction on Thomas Jefferson’s part in the Washington Administration cabinet, from which Jefferson eventually resigned in 1793 (O'Brien 178). These different personal alliances reflect different political philosophies: for Jefferson, the value of rebellion and the consent of the governed; for Hamilton, the value of republican statehood and the opposition to bloody revolt. This antithesis took the shape of a polarized political landscape throughout the 1790s. Another disagreement between Jefferson and Hamilton is equally expressive of the fundamental differences in philosophical premises between the two men. The Neutrality Proclamation, declared by President Washington in 1793, gave precedent to a more powerful presidential office and executive branch. Despite Jefferson’s argument that since the Congress is imbued, according to the Constitution, with the power to declare war, it should be the power of the Congress to issue formal notices of neutrality with respect to foreign wars. However, at Hamilton’s advice, Washington issued the notice, making it the President’s duty to speak on behalf of the military in issues of foreign policy. Jefferson most likely took this as a defeat for Anti-Federalism in general, and its timing proximate to his resignation from the cabinet is most likely not a coincidence (O'Brien 178). Jefferson and Hamilton did not reconcile their differences while both were working in the same administration. Thomas Jefferson, in his letters and speeches, argued fervently against involvement in the affairs of other nations. In his First Inaugural Address, he said, “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration” (Jefferson). However, Jefferson’s time as President seemed to be defined by entanglements with foreign powers. During his first term, he authorized an attack on Barbary pirates, which served both to establish the United States as a threatening force and to convince Jefferson of the necessity of a trained standing army (evidenced by his legislation to create the Military Academy at West Point). During his second term, Jefferson loosened his strict interpretation of the Constitution to complete the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the United States overnight. Later in his second term, Jefferson’s Democrat-Republicans in Congress passed the Non-Importation Act, restricting the import of goods from Britain as a means of trying to maintain trade channels with France. However, when this did not work, Jefferson and Congress passed the Embargo Act of 1807, restricting trade from all nations (including Britain and France). Devastating to the economy, Jefferson repealed the Act just before leaving office in 1809. The lesson learned from Thomas Jefferson’s presidency was that his Anti-Federalist policies did not fit with the new role of the federal government after the ratification of the Constitution. The federal government, which had now taken on a greater role in foreign affairs, could not be limited according to Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans’ wishes. The ultimate result, one could say, is that Hamilton and Washington (during the first presidential administration) lived up to Anti-Federalist ideals better while in power than Jefferson himself did while in power. This contradiction gives the impression that Jefferson and Hamilton were closer in their fundamental beliefs than one should think from their respective writings; however, this convergence in thinking and action is better thought of as an accident of Jefferson’s foreign affairs incompetence as president (Randall 333-4). Of course, the failure of the Non-Importation Act and the Embargo Act falls also on the Jeffersonian Democrat-Republicans as well. The differences between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson (as well as their respective followers) reduce to fundamental disagreements in their political philosophies and orientations. While Hamilton favored a stronger federal government for the national defense and economy, Jefferson favored individual liberty and rebellion as the right of citizens to change their government. Political polarization that began with the Constitutional debates in the late 1780s culminated in the emergence of political parties in the 1790s and a Jeffersonian presidency in the first decade of the 19th century. An understanding of these historical, intellectual developments provides a necessary component of the early American political context. Works Cited Berkin, Carol. A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution. New York: Mariner Books, 2003. Chernow, Ron. Alexander Hamilton. New York: Penguin, 2005. Daniel, Marcus. Scandal and Civility: Journalism and the Birth of American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Farewell Address To the People of the United States. By President George Washington. The Independent Chronicle, Boston, MA. 26 September 1796. Marshall, Jonathan. "Empire or Liberty: The Antifederalists and Foreign Policy, 1787-1788." The Journal of Libertarian Studies, IV (1980): 233-254. O'Brien, Conor Cruise. The Long Affair: Thomas Jefferson and the French Revolution, 1785-1800. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1998. Presidential Inaugural Address. By Thomas Jefferson. The White House, Washington, D.C. 4 March 1801. Randall, Willard Sterne. Thomas Jefferson: A Life. New York: Harper Perennial, 1994. Rawls, W. Lee. In Praise of Deadlock: How Partisan Struggle Makes Better Laws. New York: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. Robertson, Andrew W. The Language of Democracy: Political Rhetoric in the United States and Britain, 1790-1900. Richmond, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2005. State Gazette of North Carolina. Ford, Paul Leicester. Essays on the Constitution of the United States, 1787-1788. New York: Historical Printing Club, 1892. 402-403. Wilentz, Sean, Jonathan Earle and Thomas Paterson. Major Problems in the Early Republic. 2nd. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. Read More