Thomas Jefferson vs Alexander Hamilton - Essay Example

  Thomas Jefferson is arguably the most vocal critic of Alexander Hamilton. Their differences firmly hook on the fundamental principals and beliefs of their political affiliations. Hamilton is a Federalist whereas Jefferson a Republican. The two hold with a passion fidelity to their parties as well as what they stand for. They differ vehemently in many areas of politics and economics. Their views pertain foreign and domestic debts, matters pertaining to economy and military, banking, constitutional dispensation, political reforms and human rights, just to mention but a few. The purpose of this paper is to underscore the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson’s views on politics, society and economics. Both luminaries contributed immensely towards these subjects. Introduction Finseth lays bare the political wrangles that existed between Hamilton and Alexander. The Constitutional Convention of June 18, 1787 expressed Hamilton’s radicalism. Hamilton differed vehemently with the Republicans who did not agree with his ideas of establishing social and political strata. His view is that the noble and rich fellows of society belong to a class of the intelligent. They have both foresight and far-sight and are therefore more qualified to execute the measures put in place to rule the public. The others, Hamilton purports, are petty self-seekers who cannot be entrusted with the running of the state affairs. He proposed to have a president for life, one who could not be subject to the erratic and indecisive electorate. This political philosophy was very distinctive. Hamiltons other success sprung from his plan that the central government clear all the debts that states had sustained during the war. He argued that this war was for the whole union and it was incumbent upon the union to take up responsibility to settle it for its good. This assumption invited a series of criticism threatening to overcome the entire plan. The whole idea was deemed to fail and lead to the disintegration of the union, thanks to an informal dinner arranged by Jefferson. In an alleged and economic conspiracy, Hamilton’s assumption was passed with an agreement to have the Federalists consent to set the national capital on the Potomac. The bill was passed and Hamilton’s plans carried the day. He went in full favor of the plan for he believed that it was the best thing that ever happened to the United States, the best hope for an efficient union. He was not alone in believing that the potential consequences of rejecting the Constitution would breed less than civil war (Finseth, para11). Federalism has not held much love and respect for its pioneer. The Federalist, very important in enhancing Hamilton’s ideals, revealed some of the bizarre beliefs that Hamilton held. He held a view that human beings are egocentric by nature, untrustworthy and susceptible to manipulation and corruption. However, Hamilton commends humankind and their capacity to reason, although with reservations that reasoning is also a sure impetus for immoral pursuits. Jefferson differs firmly with him in this view. He criticized Hamilton calling him an arrogant aristocrat and public enemy. He envisaged a centralized economy to which all the states are answerable and providing a primary model for a system that has led the United States of America to this day. This tainted Hamilton’s name and reputation as secretary of the treasury and has created a near permanent impression on those belonging to the next generations about him and his policies (Finseth, para13&14). In Beyond the Growth Fetish, Hamilton’s thesis asserts that development does not necessarily lead to good life. Ben-Ami points out that Hamilton divorces happiness from economic development. Hamilton says that growth of the economy breeds unhappiness. He makes this argument on the premise that people are becoming more miserable and unhappy with the improvement of the economy. An economically unstable future makes people more stressed and psychologically disturbed. Hamilton further argues that the free marketers who can do all they could to improve the economy have inherited the world. He promises to stand poised in full support of those ideals that defend the course of humanity (Ben-Ami, para1&2). Jefferson and other critics condemn Hamilton’s orthodox view, which underplays the positive effects of economic development and promoting the alleged negative effects. Problems such as environmental dilapidation, social inequality and unhappiness are far much nobler to address compared to those of a foolish and feeble-minded consumer. The consumer is vulnerable and gullible to even simple delusion. Cowen gives a highlight that led to a further disagreement in opinion and difference in principle between Hamilton and Jefferson. After twenty years of serious negotiations and pressure, the First Bank of the United States received its charter in 1791. It was a semi-public national bank; the bank was Hamilton’s broad economic plan. It was very important in building the U.S economy. The bank was conspicuous in its businesses and its fame spread everywhere. The submission of this economic plan saw him deliver numerous state economic and political papers. Some of the papers that he drew include a proposal to the establishment of the sinking fund and the National Bank, whose benefit was provision of a ready source of loans and being the main reservoir for the federal monies. Jefferson, who argued that the Constitution had not granted the government the mandate to integrate a Bank and thus he should not sign the bill, resisted this plan. However, Hamilton in his reply to the demands of the congress for explanation gave out a report that is the benchmark of a broad and vivid interpretation of the Constitution. Hamilton turned the tables on his opposition. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Edmund Randolph argued that Hamilton was out of mandate in his operations because there was no constitutional allowance for the incorporation. To their amazement, Washington received Hamiltons logic as valid and pended signatures to the bill to warrant the incorporation of the first national Bank on February 25, 1791 (Cowen, para6 & 7). Hamilton also hubs on the idea that the United States of America was created on the premise that the government has a duty to provide for people is a fallacy and does not hold any water. Rather, to him, government is founded on the basic rights of people, which are otherwise inalienable. A just government must protect these rights for they are the standpoints upon which a free society is built. This is the unfaltering position of Jefferson (Coates, para2). Jefferson’s most notable socio-economic and political reform was the revision of the laws of Virginia in the autumn of 1776. Together with Madison, an astute legislature and friend, they laid a strategy to concoct the constitution of Virginia State, formulating new laws and deleting others. His malicious critics, saying that it lacked utmost consensus, resisted this gesture. By establishing a model state constitution, he gave out a design for other states to follow suit. What is more, many of his policies concerning states were later take on at a federal level, to the embarrassment of the Hamiltonians (Sparknotes.com, para1). Mayer observes that Jefferson has stood out as a firm regulator of the U.S. politicians and political thinkers. He is undisputedly the man who gives America a definition. The same Jefferson defends religion by saying that without religious faith; a free society will crumple or fall into the hands of tyrannical leaders. However, he resisted the concept of an almighty deity. In politics, Jefferson was no doubt a radical, as his enemies purported. He had confidence in the people to govern and manage their own affairs contrary to his Federalist counterparts who felt that the people had no ability to rule themselves but to be led by members of the nobility class. It was fundamentally his principle that people be given legitimacy over their own rights and nobody has any moral right to transgress them. Conclusion Jefferson is arguably the most vigorous critic of the Hamiltonian system. Worthy noting is the fact that Hamilton started to restructure the economy of American and in the event that he exposed himself to various critics of his policies as well as those who were only imposing an attack on his person. Hamilton indeed tried the much he could to sell his political as well as economic policies using his position as the treasury secretary, but the challenge he met left an indelible mark on the history of America. Works Cited Ben-Ami, D. (2006). Beyond the Growth Fetish: Is money really making us miserable? Retrieved 8th June, 2010 from http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA483.htm Coates, E. R. (2001). Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government. Retrieved 8th June, 2010 from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm Cowen, D. (2010). The First Bank of the United States. Retrieved 7th June, 2010 from http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/cowen.banking.first_bank.us Finseth, I. (1998). Political Battles. Retrieved 8th June, 2010 from http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/ham/hampltcs.html Mayer, D.N. (2009). The Forgotten Essentials of Jeffersons Philosophy. Retrieved 8th June, 2010 from http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--7- Sparknotes.com, (2010). Economic, Social, and Political Reforms 1776-1796. Retrieved 7th June, 2010 from http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jefferson/section6.rhtml Read More