More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the importance of the US constitution
Essays on the importance of the US constitution
Thomas jeffersons influence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Strong Centralized Government VS Individualism
Generation after generation and for hundreds of years, there has been an ongoing feud between the ideas of a strong centralized government or individualism and which of the two is more beneficial to creating a strong unified country. A centralized government is the idea that the nation or country is controlled mainly by a central figure (King or President) while individualism supports an individual persons right to vote on what’s best for themselves and limits the governments control. Throughout the three pieces The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and “Thomas Jefferson: The Best of Enemies”, a constant debate between a strong centralized government and individualism is supported
…show more content…
This article discusses a feud between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Alexander was the first Treasury Secretary of the United States and “…he advocated a vigorous central government marked by a strong president” (Chernow 22-23). Hamilton also believed in independent judiciary and a liberal reading of the constitution. He supported that money borrowed by the U.S. from citizens for the Revolutionary War should be paid back at face value with no interest. Hamilton is described as “a crypto-monarchist” (Chernow 81), which is a person who secretly supports government rule by the King. On the other hand, Jefferson was the first Secretary of State and “believed that liberty was jeopardized by concentrated federal power” (Chernow 24-25). He believed in state rights, a central role of congress, and a weak judiciary system. In opposition to Hamilton’s stance, Jefferson believed that the individuals, who loaned the money to the U.S. to support the Revolutionary War, should earn interest. Ironically, Hamilton was an abolitionist and Jefferson owned slaves which is contradictory to their predominant belief system. Even more ironic, in 1801 Hamilton helped in Jefferson’s bid for President citing that Jefferson was the “lesser of two evils” (Chernow 185-186), when running against Aaron …show more content…
In modern times, this debate is ongoing and currently represented by the democratic and republican parties. Democrats believe in a strong centralized government while Republicans favor individualist rights. As illustrated in the texts of The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and “Thomas Jefferson: The Best of Enemies”, there is a strong desire to separate the United States of America from the rule of the King of Great Britain but then establish a new government . Upon the establishment of this new government begins (again) the debate over a stronger centralized government or stronger individual rights. Ultimately, a compromise was met with the use of the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights that established the people’s majority vote was needed to pass new rules and
“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.
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
"Teaching History.org, Home of the National History Education Clearinghouse." Jefferson versus Hamilton. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. .
Everyone has heard the name Alexander Hamilton, but few are familiar with his views and actions regarding the survival of the young American republic. He could be recognized for anything from serving our fledgling country by fighting in the New York militia; to serving his community as a lawyer and as a national tax agent; to beginning his political career as a representative for New York at the National Congress. Though most would agree his most important contribution to our struggling republic was to spearhead the project which formed the doctrine helping to establish the foundation in which modern democracy is based, the Articles of Confederation.
The Republicans and Federalists views differed drastically, so much so that the president George Washington had accusations of favoring Alexander Hamilton and The Federalists, as his accuser was clearly Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Republicans were the minority among Federalists, however, they were strong-willed in their beliefs. Thomas Jefferson coined life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that is what he and the Republicans hoped for from the government. In conclusion, Jefferson and The Republicans finally achieved harmony when Jefferson became vice president in 1796, and admirably in 1801 citizens elected Jefferson as president, in which he served until 1809. Jefferson and the Republicans fought long and hard for the government rule to be limited, which in “The Declaration of Independence” Jefferson writes about unalienable rights, although the government was not directly controlling the citizens anymore, they made laws and continue today to make laws that secretly ensure that the citizens are obeying official
However the federalist lost out to a new Republican government. Federalist saw a government that would be defined by expansive state power and public submission to the rule of elites however; Jefferson (a republican) said the American nation drew energy and strength from the confidence of a reasonable and rational people. “Once the legitimate party prevailed, Madison and his allies believed, the “monocratic” crisis would end, parties would be rendered unnecessary, and the high-minded decision of enlightened natural leaders would, at last, guide the nation.” (Wilentz, pg. 65). A strong central government would be one with checks and balances to keep fairness as well as branches to represent different parts of government. A strong government would also help to prevent riots and chaos in America when people did not like the decisions made. However, it still upheld the ideals of a weak central government where fairness of the people was in place. Incompletion the formation of the Republican opposition in the 1790’s continued the legacy of the American Revolution through inclusion of all Americans and fairness in the
During the period 1800-1817, the Jeffersonians to a great extent compromised their political principles and essentially “out Federalized the Federalists”. While traditional Jeffersonian Republicanism advocated a strict interpretation of the Constitution and an emphasis on an agrarian economic system, the actual policies of Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were markedly different from their theoretical principles. This obvious compromise of Jeffersonian principles is evident in the Federal government’s assumption of broad-based political powers and institution of capitalistic Hamiltonian economic reforms, both of which stemmed from Jefferson and Madison’s adoption of broad constructionist policies.
As the young colonies of America broke away from their mother country and began to grow and develop into an effective democratic nation, many changes occurred. As the democracy began to grow, two main political parties developed, the Jeffersonian Republicans and the Federalists. Each party had different views on how the government should be run. The Jeffersonian Republicans believed in strong state governments, a weak central government, and a strict construction of the Constitution. The Federalists opted for a powerful central government with weaker state governments, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Throughout the years, the political parties have grown, developed, and even dispersed into totally new factions. Many of the inconsistencies and changes can be noted throughout the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Of the many figures in American History, Alexander Hamilton has proven himself one of the most versatile and influential. His policies and ideals have helped the United States blossom into a prosperous world power. Through his power as secretary of Treasury and his convincing intellectual efforts, he was able to dominate the nations early political environment. Hamilton’s patriotic endeavors have proven themselves to be durable and in the best interests of the United States.
...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?
In today's day in age, the Democratic and Republican parties seem to be completely diverse. These two parties have completely opposing views on topics ranging from social issues, health care, tax policy, labor and free trade, foreign policy, crime and capital punishment, energy and environmental issues, and even education. Once upon a time however, these two groups were not as polarized as they have become. Both were once a single party known as the Democratic-Republican Party, formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791. This sole party favored the idea of a decentralized, democratic government. They despised the idea of the U.S government becoming anything similar to England's monarchy system at the time. They also supported states’ rights as well as the literal and strict interpretation of the U.S Constitution. The group's purpose was to stand against the Federalists who were
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
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.
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
Collectivism and individualism, both have a fair share of issues. The articles that exemplify both collectivism and individuality are “1984”, “Anthem” and a poem called “Unknown Citizen”. Collectivism and individualism have an even amount of dilemmas, both collectivism and individualism come from totally different perspectives. The Struggles associated with a collectivism is that everything, every action, every thought, every person acts as a whole in unison, so there isn’t any room for different opinions and thoughts, as for an individualist society people have to sacrifice themselves both physically, mentally and overcome their