Hamilton's Theory Of Government

823 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Jeffersonian vs hamilton

government securities. The creation of a national bank was deemed a necessity by Hamilton for the collection of taxes. First indirectly by the increased production of a uniformed national currency as well as rapid circulation of the currency to stimulate the economy and secondly it was a direct influence as it created a convenient medium for business to be conducted. Hamilton was met with strong opposition towards his ideals of taxation, uniform currency and a national bank with claims that such institutions were violating the rights of the states. Hamilton argued his theory of constitutional interpretation and believed that the implied powers of the government are equally as valid as expressed powers highlighted in the Constitution. “It is that which declares that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it shall be the laws on the land. Under these threats large sums of money are wanted and needed on a sudden notice, taxation is effective in obtaining money but requires time and loans from individuals is a slow process. When there are great consequences riding on the line the ability to take advances from the bank is an indispensable asset. The constitution was not met with resistance simply because of economic reform it was largely opposed due to the fear that the constitution violated individual liberty and the American spirit in which the country was founded. Patrick Henry, a Revolutionary War Hero believed that the constitution would result in a consolidated government. “The fate of the question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, The states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government...We the people instead of the states, of America. Henry had difficult categorizing the government that would rise from the adoption of the constitution.

Show More
Related

  • Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists

    348 Words  | 1 Pages

    The Anti-Federalist Party, led by Patrick Henry, objected to the constitution. They objected to it for a few basic reasons. Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.

    Read More

  • The Argument that the US Constitution Favors the Elite

    1466 Words  | 3 Pages

    Beard, Charles Austin. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1998. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed February 23, 2014

    Read More

  • Alexander Hamilton: Strong Central Government

    468 Words  | 1 Pages

    Finally, Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become. Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become because he was a Federalist and believed in a strong central government. Also because of the way he viewed national debt, and the way he viewed foreign affairs. These are all ways that prove Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would

    Read More

  • Articles of Confederation Remedied by The Constitution

    1723 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Bill of Rights To Protect From Tyranny

    768 Words  | 2 Pages

    When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste.

    Read More

  • Patrick Henry: Fight against the Constitution

    515 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Constitution took away the power from the states, ignored the South, and didn't protect the people it represented. To Patrick Henry, these were big mistakes and couldn't put his support behind them. When the power is taken away from the states, it makes the federal government very strong. He knew that there had to be a strong central government, but felt that the Constitution went too far. Henry wanted to protect the South. After all, at that time the South was more than half the country. If the country at that time was compared to a human body, the South was the heart of the country.

    Read More

  • The Inefficiency of the U.S. Constitution

    1287 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Constitution of the United States set up an intricate government with a very brief document. The Constitution is actually shorter than this essay, but was still able to set up all of the procedures that make our government act so slowly today. One process that takes an especially long time is passing a bill to make a law. Every governmental action has to be put into writing and then passed by the Congress and the Supreme Court. Too many government agencies have to examine every bill. The United States government only starts at the national level with the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches. Everything breaks down into more areas such as the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Federal government's semi-equal is the state government. State government breaks down into several subsidiaries as well. The court system is an excellent example of how a government system breaks down from a national to a community level. For instance, the high court in America is the U.S. Supreme Court. The step down from ther...

    Read More

  • Articles Of Confederation Dbq Analysis

    841 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in

    Read More

  • Federalist Alexander Hamilton

    672 Words  | 2 Pages

    Federalists such as Hamilton supported ratification. But Anti-Federalists, who feared that the document gave too much power to the federal government, worked to convince the states to reject it. Hamilton believed that the ratification was necessary because giving more power to the central government was essential for the nation's survival. In The Federalist Papers Hamilton sets the stage for those that would follow, entitling that "The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty." The essay...

    Read More

  • The Issues Of George Washington

    668 Words  | 2 Pages

    One such issue was that of the National debt and creating a National Bank. In 1790, Alexander Hamilton proposed that Congress should establish a national bank, in which private investors could buy stock, could print paper money, and keep government finances safe. Washington signed the bill establishing a national bank and started a strong foundation for a thriving economy and a stable currency.

    Read More

  • Jeffersonian Era

    1285 Words  | 3 Pages

    After the first War for Independence, The United States was approximately $52 million in debt. Due to having such bad financial problems, the United States created a national Bank to create one unified currency, to take away all state debts, and to issue loans to the people to promote growth. This National Bank was created by Alexander Hamilton who was a Federalist, and once Jefferson came to be the President, he continued the idea of the national bank because it was helping to reduce the national debt. The primary reason for the National Bank being a representation of a Federalist idea was because since it was issuing loans to people it was able to promote industrial growth which was one of the main goals of the Federalist party. From Jefferson continuing the use of the National Bank thru his presidency he demonstrates his need to continue a loose constructionist idea.

    Read More

  • Federalists and Anti-Federalists

    1659 Words  | 4 Pages

    Patrick Henry makes his views very clear in his Letter. He is obviously against ratifying the Constitution. His main argument's consists of the sovereignty of the states, the system of checks and balances and the senate, the leaning towards a monarchy, and absolute power. Henry thinks that the uniting of all the states under one government would take away the sovereignty of the states. He states that, "Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sove...

    Read More

  • Democracy In The 19th Century

    1358 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • American Revolution and its Aftermath

    1157 Words  | 3 Pages

    The American Revolution stirred political unity and motivated the need for change in the nation. Because many Americans fought for a more balanced government in the Revolutionary War, they initially created a weak national government that hampered the country's growth and expansion. In the Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, Mrs. Adams complained about the inadequacy of power that the American government had to regulate domestic affairs. The Articles of Confederation was created to be weak because many had feared a similar governing experience that they had just eliminated with Britain. The alliance of states united the 13 local governments but lacked power to deal with important issues or to regulate diplomatic affairs. Congress did not have the power to tax, regulate trade, or draft people for war. This put the American citizens at stake because States had the power to refuse requests for taxes and troops (Document G). The weakened national government could not do anything about uprisings or small-scale protests because it did not have the power to put together an army. The deficiencies of the confederation government inspired the drafting of the American Constitution. The document itself embodied the principle of a national government prepared to deal with the nation's problems. In James Madison's Federalist Paper, he persuades the American public to adopt the Constitution so that the government can protect humans from their nature and keep them out of conflicts.

    Read More

  • Anti-Federalist vs Federalist

    2017 Words  | 5 Pages

    After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.

    Read More

More about Hamilton's Theory Of Government

Open Document