A Comparison of Hamiltons and Madisons Account of Republicanism and the Design of American Government - Coursework Example

A Comparison of Hamilton’s and Madison’s Account of Republicanism and the Design of American Government Introduction This paper discusses the issues that brought disagreements in the views of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton regarding republicanism and the design of the American government in terms of power and its limits. Madison believed that republicanism is based on participatory politics that led to the recognition of the sovereignty public opinions. On the other hand, Hamilton argued for the independence of the political heavyweights and submissiveness of the general public. The contradictory ideas by the two individuals led to the development of first American parties and it is still appreciated to this date. The arguments are still contradictory to scholars up to this date due to the nature of the opposing ideas (Sheehan, 38). Hamilton was not clear about the cause and reasons for the arguments expressing his surprise at the opposing ideologies by Madison. Hamilton tried to show his counterpart, Madison that there existed no differences between their ideas. In the commencement of the new government, he stated that there were differences in his opinions with those of Madison. In spite of their colliding views on state debts and debts discrimination, Hamilton appreciated and recognized Madison’s goodwill and honesty. It was until 1792, when Hamilton changed his ideas about Madison. He came to believe that Madison was driven by political and personal interests and was cooperating with Jefferson. However, differences were evident from their previous arguments. The statement is challenging to scholars while interpreting their opinions and ideas. Scholars analyze the contradictory ideas from different perspectives. Some indicate that the quarrels could be political while others state that they must have occurred due to personal differences. Analyzing Madison’s Attack on Hamilton’s Policies Madison’s philosophy was based on sovereignty of public opinions. Madison based his arguments on the support of the government to manufacturers, the national bank, and the debt discrimination on this philosophy. Madison also based many other arguments on the same philosophy. The arguments include The Sedation and Alien Acts as well as the Proclamation of Neutrality. Madison advocated for the implementation of the Constitution in a manner that considered the people who ratified and called for its adoption. He disregarded public participation in determining the supremacy of the Constitution. He further wanted government issues to be questioned by only the enlightened public. Madison’s view on public participatory was intended to involve the public in decision making as it expresses its concerns on the government’s activities (Coenen, 43-48). Hamilton wanted an independent executive of his administration to control submissive citizens who would be less active in shaping the directions and operations of the independent government. He considered public opinion as a way of expressing the citizen’s confidence in the government. The ideology by Hamilton faced opposition by Madison who recognized the potential of the enlightened people in the society as well as political leaders in raising critical issues that required the attention of the government. Both Madison and Hamilton considered the fact that the conflicting ideologies between the Federalists and Republicans would shape the future of the American republicanism. Republicans victory as foreseen by Madison meant that the sovereignty of the public opinion found its place in the republicanism of the United States (Hamilton, 14). Madison believed in his philosophy and expressed it through different methods. For instance, Madison published nineteen articles from 1791 to 1792 to criticize some policies of the administration. In the articles, he indicated that the policies were not republican and suggested that his policies that would make the administration republican. The articles did not directly mention Hamilton but they were descriptive of his ideas about debts, the support of the government for manufacturers, and the national bank. Madison was perceptive enough to recognize that Hamilton’s policies had some resemblance to the British administration system that gave strong powers to the government. He knew that the move was intended to move the American system of governance to aristocracy or monarchy. The system of governance then as indicated by Madison’s report supported the thriving of few rich and very powerful individuals who would thwart any efforts by the public to question the government. Republicanism as defined by Madison was not about a few people controlling submissive citizens but rather a form of governance that involved the citizens (Richard, 135-139). In view of Madison’s perspectives on planning and controlling of finances, Hamilton’s policies were aimed at using the power vested within the government to control resources that affected all American citizens. He opposed the development of the government system as way of bypassing the sovereignty of the Constitution. His arguments were based on the prospects that a few industrialists would be favored by the national bank. The industrialists would become extremely rich at the expense of the vast majority of American citizens. In the process, powers would be vested in the few rich Americans thus losing the sense of republicanism where the public voice is involved in decision making. The arguments by Madison suggest that he suspected that Hamilton was not straight in the perpetuation of debt (Richard, 135-139). The system of public finance developed by Hamilton was favorable to the public officials. In this system of governance, public officials had the opportunity to enrich themselves through the policies that favored the top officials of the government. Madison questioned the system of public finance claiming that it supported the British trade policies. The British trade policies were discriminatory and would facilitate the treatment of the America as a colonial territory. Madison identified that Hamilton’s policies and measures had the intension of introducing or inheriting the British model of governance. The system also enabled the rich people who controlled the manufacturing industry channeled the public funds into the manufacturing industry at the expense of other sectors such as the agriculture (Richard, 135-139). In the British model of administration, land owners would be burdened with taxes while rich stakeholders of the industrial sector would control the national wealth. Madison’s arguments were focused on the future of the nation. The policies initiated by Hamilton skewed the nation to a state of widening gap between the rich and the poor with lots of power to prosper given to the wealthy few. Moreover, the system would encourage corruption since the wealthy few were in a position to influence the actions of the public officials. Madison argued that the liberty and stability of the American government could not be obtained by involving another government in solving national matters. He accused the system of failing to distribute powers but instead concentrating it in centralized position. The highly centralized form of governance gives powers to few people while limiting public opinion. It is not in accordance to the ideal aspects of republicanism as highlighted by Madison. Madison stated that it was usual for every political sphere to have different and conflicting parties. Therefore, he sensitized Americans on the fuss that was associated with parties that brought divisions instead of uniting them. He further indicated that legislators and politicians should find ways of going out of their political interests and accommodate the wellbeing of the society and nation at large. He attacked the intension of giving more power to the existing parties or creating new ones. He argued that this would result into more problems in the nation rather than increasing diversity in the nation (Richard, 135-139). Analyzing Hamilton’s Defense Hamilton’s policies on public finances were based on strategies that aimed at acquiring and distributing wealth fairly. However, the strategies had some flaws that would accommodate corruption and enrichment few people at the expense of the vast majority of the Americans. Hamilton’s intension was to develop a public credit that would serve the citizens of America. The strategy behind the public credit was the establishment of a system that would gradually fund the national debt. The unfunded debt caused suspicion as expressed by Madison. It would drain capital from the productive industries and transfer it to few people. At that time, the country was experiencing deficiencies in capital. Such measures were critical to the future of the country’s economy. Hamilton envisioned that once the public capital becomes excess it would be transferred to the manufacturing industry and the rest would be used as public credit (Coenan, 18). Hamilton defended the depreciated state of landed property by indicating that there was scarcity of funds that time. He further argued that increased and continuous circulation of money would result into the development and growth of agricultural sector. He stated that the commerce was clogged and it would thrive once debts are settled. The measures taken by Hamilton were based on optimism that that the strategy would be successful. However, the risks involved in concentrating public funds in particular sectors of development could hinder the Hamilton’s policies. This was the reason of the criticism by Madison. He called for growth of the country in all sectors instead of developing particular sectors in view of developing other sectors in the future. The strategies had little involvement of the public voices thus the criticism from Madison. Hamilton did not consider the involvement of the citizens in the planning of public finances. For this reason, he faced criticism from Madison because the strategies demonstrated little aspects of fair governance. Hamilton’s defense for his adoption of the British systems of governance was based on the effectiveness of the system to enforce fair governance. He supported a lifelong Senate indicated that it would sufficiently answer its purposes. He opposed the seven-year Senate period supported by Madison and some delegates. It can be argued that Hamilton supported republicanism in some aspects. He wanted a House of Representatives that was elected directly by citizens after every three years. He also believed that diversity of the two branches of legislature in terms of numbers, protection of rights, and inertia would result into fair governance and thus federalism. Hamilton tried to show his colleagues the essence of identifying and rectifying the differences between the minority and majority in America. He believed that ironing out the differences would result into understanding of the government efforts by the citizens. The motive was good since it would enhance commitment of people to the efforts put by the government thus supporting development activities. However, people cannot support wrong doing or ineffectiveness of the government (Sheehan, 33-36). The British political system advocated by Hamilton was intended to neutralize factors that destabilized the society. It was also aimed at reducing or eliminating the rivalry that existed between different functions hence increasing the stability of the nation. Hamilton believed that the success of the American republic was dependent on the measures that would take advantage of personal interests of some Americans and utilize their efforts in supporting the government. This was achievable through the design of a political system that would identify and control the elements in American that have massive influence on the nation and use them to streamline the nation. The success of these measures devised by Hamilton depended on the cooperation by the public. The public would only follow the measures of the government and accepting that they were right and driving the country in the right direction. This is risky since not all public officials have the sense of the direction of the government. During the war between Britain and France, Hamilton was fearful of the fact that the financial program would be distorted or destroyed. He advocated for the development of a constitution that would clearly cater for international policies. It can be suggested that Hamilton was committed to the success of the financial program that he defended strongly. The idea of a constitution that outlines international policies was brilliant since American republic did not have clear relations with other countries (Richard, 135-139). In view of Madison’s view of the relations of America with Britain, it can be argued that Madison had foreseen the instability of the relations. The relations were prone to failure in the event of international wars and instability. Madison wanted little dependency on Britain such that America would be stable in case of wars between Britain and other countries. Too much dependency on Britain was very risky as portrayed by the war between France and Britain. Britain provided a large market for agricultural products produced in America. Hamilton was in a difficult position to justify his support for the trade relations with the Britain since the war proved to be critical moment for the American economy. Madison had previously attacked the system of trade and overdependence on one country. The criticism can be considered right since Madison’s view was that the nation could practice dependence on the domestic economy and continuously reduce dependence on the international markets to boost the economy of the country (Richard, 135-139). As Hamilton tried to defend his policies he also attacked his critics. He argued that those who opposed his measures had little knowledge of the measures. It can be argued that Hamilton was hitting back at his critics after realizing that some of his measures were unsuccessful. He thought that his political rivals were taking advantage of the failure of some measures such as in the case of the French-Britain war. However, he came to realize that Madison was sincere in his criticism and that he intended no harm to the government. Madison believed in the restructuring of government policies to enhance republicanism. His support for public opinion in handling critical matters such as finance can be used to identify his position on constitutionalism. However, Madison criticism for the system of governance can be considered a way taking advantage of his elite status in the society to bypass majoritarian politics. Conclusion Both Madison and Hamilton had the intension of enhancing the success of America. Hamilton believed in a government with little if no criticism from the public. The government can thus concentrate on its core business with high stability. He wanted the general public to be submissive and cooperative with the policies and measures taken the government. In that case public voices are only meant to show support and confidence in the government. On the other hand, Madison advocated for a government that involved the public in making decisions by taking into account the issues raised by the public. Though his arguments can be supported by his sincerity and clarity, his policies could encourage the enlightened people in the society as well as politicians to destabilize the nation. For instance, involvement of the public consisting of elites with ill motives can stall and distort development measures (Richard, 135-139). Hamilton’s measures faced challenges at some points as evidenced by the British-French war. Moreover, leaving everything to the government is risky especially if it comprises of officials with questionable characters. Madison’s perspective on the American government is better in terms of involving the public in development activities. The top officials in the government cannot make wrong decisions since they are guided by the opinion and views of the public. Work Cited Coenen, Dan T. The Story Of The Federalist. New York: Twelve Tables Press, 2007. Print. Hamilton, Alexander et al. The Federalist. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print. Hamilton, Alexander et al. The Federalist. New York: Modern Library, 2000. Print. Richard, Carl J. Alexander Hamilton (Pacificus) & James Madison (Helvidius), The Pacificus-Helvidius Debates Of 1793-1794, Edited And With An Introduction By Morton J. Frisch (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., 2007), XVIII + 121 Pp.. Int class trad 16.1 (2009): 135-139. Web. SHEEHAN, COLLEEN A. Madison V. Hamilton: The Battle Over Republicanism And The Role Of Public Opinion. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 98.03 (2004): n. pag. Web. Read More