Alexander Hamilton vs. Thomas Jefferson

Philosophically speaking, Thomas Jefferson based his governmental ideals from the literary works of John Locke who assumed that the function of the regime (as a trustee of the great deal) is to protect the rights, property, and liberty of the individual, in the seeking of happiness. Thomas Jefferson post this primary axiom when he wrote the Declaration of Independence, stating that governments created by men ought to protect the rights and liberties of an individual, moreso of the prolificacy of both put forwards under the protection of the United States compact (that the state is the trustee of its citizens.If the government indeed fails its duty, the people have the right to overthrow it. The implication of this doctrine is to establish a truly representative government a government ruled by separated precedents (to ensure the stability of the state) the executive, legislative, and judiciary, as in their case, the national and state government. It was necessary for Jefferson to ensure that every state be given equal amounts of freedom, unconstrained by the functions of the national government. This is not the case with Alexander Hamilton.This two-star world(a) and secretary of Treasury saw the future of political stability lying in the hands of a vigorous government, represented by a strong leader (accompanied in governance by an manufacture elected by the people). In his words, An executive for feel has not this causality for forgetting his fidelity and will hence be a safer depository of power (Zaide 392) He was in effect suggesting an executive elected for brio, for which it is for the most part unconstrained by the rudiments of politicking.Thus, in every occasion to which he was asked to explain his fancys for the newly-born republic, he eternally made it clear that an elected executive for life is not tantamount to a monarch. Nevertheless, in the last mentioned part of his life, he abandoned the idea, focusing kinda on stre ngthening the powers of the federal official government, often devising many enemies at the state governments. On the ascribe System When Hamilton became secretary of treasury, he had a desexualise made plan for trans course of instructioning Americas scrimping into a credit-based prudence, unhampered by the problems of agricultural wargon (land based miserliness).Basing his policies from David Hume, an English economist, he argued that the only authority for the private celestial sphere to participate in the economy is in the credit strategy. Private wealth would be converted into bonds, used as paper capital, which could be lent to unusual states. In much(prenominal) case, both the public and the government would wellbeing. Money would float in the economy, lowering invade rates, and hastening capital accumulation.Although, the credit system has some advantages, Hume warned the dangers of this system (which Hamilton disregarded), included of which is an oppressive v aluate system, vulnerability to indebtedness, and of course wealth gap among the citizens. Jefferson dismiss Hamiltons action in writing, claiming that such(prenominal) economical policies will put the nation in a state of limbo, hampered by the lack of respectability in the arts of economics, and infiltration of economic principles in the form and nature of the government to which they established.He also noted that such schemes implemented by Hamilton where in themselves the representation of his interests the totalism to which he was and was always represented. Together with Madison, Jefferson indicated his concerned as to who should be paid and how much by the federal government a proposition that Hamilton left wing without wellnessy measures. Nevertheless, a public credit policy would left the government at the mercy of the public sector via in the court of law, for which contracts are well-established to be untroubled and sincere.On the National Bank Hamilton was on the idea of establishing a national chamfer, governed by private individuals. He argued that force would be the lasting mark of a brink ruled by the private sector (based from rapture Smith). Corruption would be a no-no for this group of entrepreneurs. chapiter accumulation would hasten, giving the federal government revenues to pay its activities.In his words, It is in therefore in the interest of the federal government to give the private sector a freehand in the economy for an economy intimately governed by the government seemed to be inefficient and lacked the motive to accumulate capital, be it in monetary monetary and discretionary forms( Zaide 392). The bank then would be a safe haven of federal banks, for the governing proboscis is itself not corrupt. Jefferson, on the other hand advocated for the origination of a national bank, but unlike Hamilton, this bank will be predominantly governed by the federal government, with some representation from the private sector.This would ensure check to him the efficacy of the federal governments power over fiscal matters. Nonetheless, together with Madison, he argued that if such bank governed by the private sector is established, what are the chances then that such bank would represent the interest of the nation (Toynbee 359). On Taxation Hamilton implemented strict excise tax on strong drinks arguing that liquors was a good source of revenue, as it is dangerous for the health and morality of the citizens of the nations.It was liquor that destroyed the dignity of the American nation during the Continental war (indiscipline broke among the soldiers of the alteration because of liquor). Nevertheless, economically, taxes on liquor would serve as the percentage point of capital accumulation for other industries developing in the United States. Because of his policies, a peaceful Whiskey anarchy followed. Although the citizens of Pennsylvania did not resist (when Washington and Hamilton came in with the mil itia), Hamilton ordered the detention of suspected dissidents.Jefferson bitterly criticized the actions of monument Hamilton claiming that such acts were acts of tyranny. The tax on liquor itself was hit the right of every citizen to the pursuit of common happiness. He put his views into action when he abolished taxes on liquor during his presidency. He simply backslide the policies of Hamilton, putting force per unit area on congress to adopt his own scheme, which Jefferson claimed would benefit the nation. Policies on War Hamilton did not support the cut revolution and its ideals claiming that such revolution was too fore and dangerous for the nation of America.Jefferson bitterly opposed his plan to declare war on France, claiming that such actions would put the United States in the same footing as the Western imperial powers of which represented the pinning of a tyrant and oppressive monarchical system of government. Jefferson however, back up the war against the Barbary St ates in North Africa, claiming that the pirates residing in the utter states were harassing American shipping in the Mediterranean. Prospect for the futurity of America Hamilton believed that the future of the United States lies in its economy and military strength.The economic success of America would uprise the status of the United States to a position of power. Thus, to fight down its status as a power, the United States then should maintain or create a large armed force capable of pressuring other nations to obedience, which is, chase its political and economic agenda. Jefferson, during his presidency slashed the reckon of the army and navy. War and aggression had no channelise in Jeffersons policies. For him, prosperity lies in foreign diplomacy and fair trading.There was definitely no mode for imperialism. References Declaration of Independence. US news report. Org. http//www. ushistory. org/declaration/document/index. htm. June 28, 2007. Johnson, Paul. A History of t he American People. Chapter V, VI. Harper Publishers. 1963. Thomas Jefferson. The ovalbumin House. http//www. whitehouse. gov/history/presidents/tj3. html. June 28, 2007. Toynbee, Arnold. A Study of History. (Abridged) Oxford University Press, 1987). Zaide, Gregorio. World History. manila Rex Publishing House, 1965.