What were the dissagreements between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton that led to political parties?

Answer 1

This is a lecture from my U.S. history class at Miracosta college. Posted by: Arturo Arevalos, my history teacher.
It would be hard to imagine how Americans could govern themselves without political parties constantly vying for the voters' support by formulating alternative policies and offering different leaders to deal with the vital public business. Yet these institutions for democratic decision-making did not exist at the birth of the Republic. Those who designed the Federal Constitution in 1788 made no provision for parties and indeed the founding fathers increasingly denounced groups seeking political power as "factions-scheming, narrow, selfish elements pursuing goals contrary to the common good, the bane of all experiments in free government". Nevertheless in the decade immediately following the adoption of the federal constitution, modern political parties began to appear in the United States. For over a decade the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans competed for power. Federalist dominance during the 1790s generated a strong Republican counter-attack that captured the national government in 1801 and steadily overcame opposition in the states. Rarely has partisan conflict engendered so much fear, hatred and bitterness as in the 1790s. Each party accused the other of desiring to subvert the established order and of harboring dangerous partiality for foreign nations and alien ideologies. Each denounced the other as factious and challenged the legitimacy of opposition. It seemed for a while that the worst fears of the framers of the Constitution were realized: the nation was torn apart by corrosive rivalries that were destroying the unity indispensable for national survival. Charles Beard was the most influential exponent of an economic interpretation of American history. For him it unlocked the secret of the origin of American political parties. He argued that rivalry between conservative merchants, capitalists and other large property owners and radical mechanics, workers, planters, and small farmers shaped American political experience. Those radicals who opposed the Constitution did so because they believed it served the interests of the wealthy. They became known as Anti-Federalists and later Jeffersonian Republicans. Conservative supporters of the Constitution believed it served their interests and sought to reap the rewards under the banner of the Federalist Party. For a decade the Federalists ruled for the benefit of merchants, manufacturers and holders of public securities until the rural masses led by some planters organized the Republican Party as a vehicle for recapturing government from the moneyed aristocracy. Success came in the revolution of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson, champion of agrarian democracy, was elected President. It is argued that class conflict gave rise to the two-party system. We begin by customarily separating American political history into three periods, using changes in party names as the basis of division. According to this scheme, there have been three great party alignments since the formation of the Constitution: Federalist versus Republican/Democrats 1789-1816, Whigs against the Democrats 1830-1856, and Republicans against Democrats 1856-present. These alignments have been merely phases of one broken conflict originating in the age of George Washington and continuing to our own time (the only difference is that what once Republicans argued for is now being placed at the steps of Democrats who wish to rid themselves of this new stigma- that of supporting a strong centralist government). The first of these alignments was connected more or less directly with the contest over framing and adoption of the Federal Constitution. Authorities generally agree that the main support for the Constitution came from merchants, manufacturers, government bondholders and other people of substantial property interests. The opposition came mainly from inland farmers, debtors and less prosperous families of the country. The feelings aroused by the contest over the Constitution had not disappeared when the first administration was organized in 1789 with Washington at the helm. It was the economic measures of Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, which in time divided the country into two parties. Seven of his policies deserve attention. The first was the funding of the national debt. All the old bonds, certificates and other evidences of indebtedness issued by the Continental Congress during the Revolution were called in. New bonds for face value given to the holders angered some Americans for this benefited only a handful. The assumption of the revolutionary debts of the states was the second issue. The Federal government called in the revolutionary debts of the states and issued new federal bonds; that is, the Federal government assumed the obligations of the states and added them to the general debt of the nation. Thus the common people, not the wealthy, paid for the war. These two operations, funding and assumption, deeply affected the purses of the masses. Before Hamilton began his work, the old bonds and notes issued during the Revolution had been selling at from ten to twenty cents on the dollar, because the national government and several states had failed to meet their obligations. During the dark days of uncertainty a large part of this paper had been bought at low prices with a view to profit making. In the end, funding and assumption increased the value of the depreciated securities to the amount of forty million dollars. To raise the money to pay the interest on the debt, the federal government had to lay heavy taxes on the people, most of who were farmers, not bondholders. The third cause was the passing of protective tariffs. This measure was for the protection of American industries by the imposition of custom duties on imports coming into competition with American products. Hamilton openly favored an elaborate system of protectionism. Although his plans were not adopted in full, the first revenue bill passed in 1789 was mildly protective and in time other protective features were added. Consumers always pay more when tariffs are added, while manufactures charge higher prices without fear of foreign competition. This angered the masses. The idea of a United States Bank was the next measure. Under Hamilton's leadership, Congress chartered a banking corporation. Three-fourths of its securities were new federal bonds. It was empowered to issue currency and do general business. Who was allowed to hold these bonds and who made handsome profits only angered the masses against the privileged elites. A sound national currency benefited one class at the expense of another. Under the new Constitution, the states had to stop issuing paper money. The gold and silver coin of the United States now provided by law became the money of the country, with the notes of the U.S. Bank circulating on parity. Can you figure out how a sound national currency helps one class at the expense of another? Hamilton favored American shipping to encourage the construction of an American Merchant Marine. Congress provided that the tonnage duties on foreign-built and foreign-owned ships should be five times as high as the duties on American ships. In line with this, other concessions were made to native shipping, especially that engaged in the China trade. Once again the masses would pay for the huge gains of the few owners of American shipping. The seventh measure, the creation of a national defense, which could be used against the people of the United States, really angered the public (one might argue it was the creation of our modern National Guard which gives the executive branch of a state or nation the power to use an army against the people). In creating a navy and a standing army, Congress had more in mind than the mere defense of the country against foreign foes. The navy was useful in protecting commerce on the high sea and the army in suppressing uprisings such as had occurred in Mass. in 1786. In other words, economic factors as well as patriotism were involved in the process. Who paid for the military, and who served in the forces and who benefited were questions which when answered angered the masses. In foreign affairs, most Americans stood with France. But when the wars of the French Revolution broke out in Europe, the Washington administration, largely inspired by Hamilton, sympathized with England as opposed to France. It looked as if the United States had abandoned the French. It was the French who helped the United States obtain its independence and many Americans disliked the Federalists. Now these measures were not excursions in theory. They were acts of power involving the pocketbooks of groups, affecting the distribution of wealth and the weight of classes in politics. Certainly six of them bore directly upon the economic interest of citizens (which six do you think?). Under these laws, large sums of money were paid to holders of government bonds who had been receiving little or nothing; people who were moderately off one day found themselves rich the next. Under these laws, stockholders in the U.S. Bank earned handsome profits on their investment, protected manufacturers entered upon a period of prosperity, and merchants and moneylenders were enabled, by the sound national currency system, to carry on their operations safely in all parts of the country. Under these laws heavy taxes were collected to pay the interest on the bonds to maintain a new government. Were these things done for the beneficiaries at the expense of other classes, notably the farmers, or did the increased production caused by the operations more than cover the cost? On this point economists disagree and historians cannot answer the question mathematically. In any event, however, a considerable proportion of the American people came to the conclusion that the Federalist measures and policies enumerated above in part transferred money to investors, merchants, manufacturers and the capitalistic interests in general at the expense of the masses, a majority of whom were farmers and planters. In time the citizens who took this view of the Hamiltonian programs were called Anti-Federalists and later Democrat/Republicans under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson who once stated that the "cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, and they are tied to their country and webbed to its liberty and interests by lasting bonds." In logical relation he had a low opinion of commerce and industry, which created urban masses. "The mobs of great cities" he asserted, "add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body." Holding such opinions, Jefferson set out to enlist a large following in his struggle against the capitalistic measures of Hamilton. He made his strongest appeal to the agriculturalists of the country. And when his party was fully organized he took pride in saying that the whole landed interest is Republican. Appealing to the farmers and the masses in general against the large capitalistic interest, Jefferson's party inevitably took a popular, that is, a democratic turn. This was in keeping with his theories, for he thought that kings, clergy, nobles and other ruling classes of Europe had filled their countries with poverty and misery and kept the world in turmoil with useless wars. The common people, he reasoned, if given liberty and left alone would be happier under their own government than under any ruling class. Thus his party became a democratic-republican form of government. Economic issues alone did not create the new party. The Anti-Federalists also had ideological differences, which helped formulate the second party. At the center of the theoretical expression of the Anti-Federalist opposition was increased centralization of power in the national government. The Anti-Federalists believed that a republican government could only work for a relatively small territory and a relatively small and homogeneous population. Associated with the argument regarding size was the assumption that any people who were to govern themselves must be relatively homogeneous in interest, opinion, habits and mores. They also argued that the way Federalists had set up the national government precluded the common person from running for office for it was too highly elevated and distinguished. They wanted a government run by the common man not just a government of the rich. Plus associated with a government of the rich was the argument that the Constitution did not deal with human nature. Anti-Federalists chided the Federalists for their excessive confidence in the future virtue of elected officials and criticized the Constitution for its failure to provide adequate protection against the operation of "Bad Drives." Absolute power corrupts Absolutely if there are no safeguards. It is to be noted that this dreadful lust for power was regarded as a universal characteristic of man, which could be controlled but not eradicated. They charged the authors of the Constitution failed to put up strong barriers to block this corruption. They were also upset at the exclusion of religious tests as dangerous and impolitic. For without such, they supposed pagans, deists and others might obtain offices among us and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans, etc. They wanted a more rigid system of separation of powers, more numerous and more effective checks and balances than the Federalists. And they argued that their biggest fear was with the Senate more than the Presidency. They wanted the Senate checked. The power to recall should be made easier. The Anti-Federalists also wanted the Constitution to have a bill of rights for the security of the common man's liberties. They therefore argued for a bill of rights as well as making the Constitution easily understood by the common man. The Constitution was far too brief. They wanted a constitution, which was detailed and easy to read. Finally, they too shared with the authors of the Federalist Papers the fear of parties and factions. Paradoxically, their differences with the Federalists created the two-party system. It was a system that existed since the beginning of the revolution within the revolution and was made possible by Hamilton's economic programs and their ideological differences. The two-party system was created with the third presidential election. In this election, the party alignment was complete. Jefferson, the leader of the Republicans, was roundly denounced as an atheist; Adams, the Federalist, was condemned by his opponents as the Monarchist. So sharply drawn was the contest that Adams was chosen by the narrow margin of three electoral votes. This only unified the Republicans as the second party. The two-party system was created and from 1801 to 1829 presidents calling themselves Republican occupied the White House. Although the Federalists would suffer a lingering death and after 1816 would disappear from the national theater, the precedent of two national parties had been established. The philosophical and economic issues that divided the two parties then are still debated today.

Answer 2

What were the disagreements between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton that led to political parties ?

The two disagreed on whether there should be a national bank established or not not to focus on paying off the national debt as a result of the Revolutionary War. Hamilton won and the Bank of the United States was created.

.

Answer 3

The two men had vastly differing views on the role of the government, and just about everything. While Alexander Hamilton held basically patrician views of big government, a national bank, and friendly terms with Great Britain, Jefferson was the exact opposite. He did not want too much power in the hands of the government, preferring more power to the states. He did not favor Britain, but France.

Answer 4

In George Washington's first term, Jefferson was Sec. of State and Hamilton was Sec of Treasury. Washington and Hamilton saw things very consistently. Jefferson had a different view of things and went about trying to stop the progress of Hamilton's plans that Washington supported. After a while Jefferson couldn't take it any more, so he resigned from the cabinet. Although he professed that he just wanted to go back to his farm and leave politics, he never did. He encouraged surrogates, like James Madison to fight Hamilton/Washington's plans. Eventually, Jefferson took actions that made it clear that like-minded people needed to band together into a party to stop this implementation of plans that they disagreed with.

Hamilton had to defend his plans; and distortions that were making traction had to be addressed, so it did lead to two philosophical parties of thought. HamiltonRand@gmail.com