More handpicked essays just for you.
Alexander hamilton's impact on america
Alexander hamilton's impact on america
Alexander hamilton contribution to america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As long as governments have existed, arguments about the delegation of power have occurred. Time and time again, the highest level of power goes to the highest classes, whether or not the founders of the government decided for it to be that way or not. One such government is that of the United States. Many ideas and suggestions were presented by state representatives during the debate over the principles that would lead to the Constitution. Although this new country was founded on supposedly sound fundamentals, this has still led to some terrible misuses of power. A quote from Alexander Hamilton during debate shows that he believed that the rich deserve an enduring, definite share in the government, and the New York Times article “Too Much Power for the …show more content…
He says that “all communities divide themselves into the few and the many.” This establishes the splitting of a society as an inevitable truth, showing that he believed that nothing can be done to prevent that specific outcome. His actual suggestion is to “give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government.” This proposition is in fact a method of using the division of a society for its benefit. According to Hamilton, his idea is reasonable due to his statement that “nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.” In Hamilton’s perspective, only a rigid government will be efficient. “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” This quote from his proposal shows that the people will never get anything done or have much ambition to. Essentially, Hamilton believed that a society in which everyone has an equal voice in the government would not perform well because the masses are not adept at judging worthiness of changes; therefore the rich deserve a place in the government to help keep the masses in
·Hamilton’s plan to establish a permanent national debt violated the principle of equality among citizens; it seemed to favor the interests of public creditors over those of other Americans. Hamilton’s critics also denounced his proposal for a national band, interpreting it as a dangerous scheme that would give a small, elite group special power to influence the government.
The U.S government has operated for about 200 years on the basis of Constitution written in 1787 and since then, there have been several debates as to whether the framing of this document was an elitist or democratic process. The framers, collectively were an elite, but the reason for why they wrote the Constitution is not fully known. John P. Roche suggests the Constitution was written upon the idea to establish an effective and controlled national government that would overcome the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation and not so much to limit the power of popular majorities and protect their own property interests.
Howard Zinn agrees with the notion that the United States Constitution was created largely with the economic interests of the upper classes. He cites early 20th century historian Charles Beard’s book, “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution,” to bolster his point that the Constitution was drafted in such a way to predominantly benefit the upper class. In his book, Beard claimed that the wealthy must either control government directly or influence its laws to protect their interests (150). That claim makes sense when looking at the constituency gathered in Philadelphia in 1787; a large majority of the 55 men present were wealthy and owned capital of some sort.
In 1787 there was a large tension between the elites and the underdogs over debt and tax relief. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia worked to remedy this tension; however, they did so at the expense of the underdog, the indebted, suffering farmer, and for the benefit of the wealthy, who gained from the underdogs’ suffering. How did the delegates manage to design a constitution so biased towards the elite and how exactly did the document benefit the wealthy? Section I examines the interests of the indebted farmers and the wealth. Section II explains how the delegates came to design a constitution that benefited the upper class. Section III Provides examples from the Constitution that show its bias towards the elite and the outcome that was in their benefit.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
Hamilton uses fears of past despotism in monarchies and encroachments in representative bodies to persuade people to see that this essential law of good behavior “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” (Hamilton.Jay.Madison 100)
“It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” Alexander Hamilton. When Hamilton said this he was expressing the way he felt about central government. Hamilton and Jefferson both had very different views on government. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and Jefferson wanted all of the power to belong to the states. Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become.
Can you imagine president controlling your life? The constitution use three different forms to make a group or a person from getting too much power on his hands. The are three types of power that each contusion have in order to keep power equal. One of them is Legislative Branch Congress “Can approve Presidential nominations”(Document C). It’s a example how governments try to keep power equal.
...der Hamilton shaped the New World and the way in which policies were managed. Today’s United States government mirrors more the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, but it seems the majority of her people prefer the vision of Thomas Jefferson; the idealistic dream of true freedom and of the ability to shape one’s own destiny. Would it be the other way around if the current state of government was turned? For sure, if one vision had prevailed wholly over the other, the outcome would be substantial in modern society; Hamilton’s vision would have created another England and Jefferson’s – who knows?
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
Between 1787 and 1791 the Framers of the US Constitution established a system of government upon principles that had been discussed and partially implemented in many countries over the course of several centuries, but never before in such a pure and complete design, which we call a constitutional republic. Since then, the design has often been imitated, but important principles have often been ignored in those imitations, with the result that their governments fall short of being true republics or truly constitutional. The Framers of the Constitution tried very hard to design a system that would not allow any one person or group within the government to gain too much power. Personally, I think they succeeded. In order to guard against what one of the Founding Fathers called an "excess of democracy," the Constitution was built with many ways to limit the government's power. Among these methods were separating the three branches, splitting the legislature so laws are carefully considered, and requiring members of Congress to meet certain criteria to qualify for office. The Founders did leave a few problems along with their system.
As a young child and throughout his entire life, Hamilton was known for his brilliance. Hamilton was unbelievably smart and he showed this through his several published writings. The writing he authorized were all very important to America, and without them, our world could be flipped completely opposite. Alexander Hamilton is in charge of 60% of all writings that make up The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are, “A series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the essays originally appeared anonymously in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788.” says www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/federalist.html. Hamilton’s writings were immaculate and really brought fame upon
In both Hamilton: An American Musical and Gone Girl, the main characters leave their hometowns to go to unfamiliar places, and this is significant because the changes in location cause the characters to reinvent themselves, almost to a point where they become unrecognizable from their past selves. In Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton grows up in the middle of the Caribbean, and he faces many hardships, such as his mother dying and a giant hurricane. He writes and makes enough money to make it off of the Island, and he sails to New York City. Throughout the song “Alexander Hamilton”, the phrase “in New York you can be a new man” is repeated, and this statement is true for Hamilton. His father left
He fears this because of one person gets to much power it also can destroy that nation. A earlier experience that would cause him to fear this is Napolena over France and how it almost completely destroyed France. Hamilton on the other hand had very different views on how the nation should be. According to Hamilton rich men should have all the power of the government. He believed that only rich men had the ability to run the government because he believed everyone else acted out of self-interest. A strong national government would allow the constitution to change by the government having the most say in politics. A way the constitution has changed since its been written are the Amendments. In the first quote on document F Hamilton is referring to Jefferson because their views differ so much. These arguments might be used to prove the argument of the Federalist by saying that they believed most people act on impulse and not so much on thought. In document G I think Jefferson is being portrayed as a man you only follows the rules and never breaks them. He is constantly double checking himself to prove he has done nothing
Before the war, Parliament and the King of Britain were in control of the political affairs in America and kept the ruling power with the wealthy loyalists. Once the Americans won the war, some type of government needed to be instituted for the new nation to function. Rather than have everyone participate in the formation of the Constitution, there was a an unequal balance between the rich and poor. As Zinn states, “...by studying the economic backgrounds and political ideas of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution. He [Beard] found that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves manufacturing, or shipping…” The groups that weren’t represented in the Constitutional Convention were the slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property. Instead of the wealthy British ruling, this time it’s the wealthy Americans, but still the wealthy have control in the government. Even in Maryland during 1776, to be governor one had to have 5,000 pounds of property and 1,000 pounds to be senator. As a result, “90 percent of the p...