If I was a citizen in the United States of America back in 1790, I would want to be part of the Federalist Party. The Federalist Party was created by Alexander Hamilton, and his party wants a strong central government in America with power given to the wealthy and political leaders. The only other party back then was the justly named Anti-Federalist party. The Anti-Federalist party was started by Thomas Jefferson and this party had completely opposite views to the Federalists. Anti-Federalists focused on power among the individual states, as opposed to having a powerful central government. I would rather be a part of the Federalist Party because I agree with their decisions on the Bank of the United States, future American economy, changes to the Constitution, and their debate on which people should be allowed to participate in government decisions. The Bank of the United States was an idea proposed by Alexander Hamilton. This bank would be used to create a unified currency, handle the government treasury, pay off federal debts, and give out loans to businesses that would stimulate commerce in the country. Overall, the bank would stabilize America’s problem with its finances. This idea was opposed by the Anti-Federalists because they believed the bank would only give loans to the wealthy and be of no benefit to the common man. The Federalists saw this proposal as a great way to improve economy and establish good credit with other countries. Also, the money given out in loans would trickle down as savings for all people and in reality, would end up benefiting everyone. I would agree with the Federalist decision to create a bank due to the improvements it would bring to America. Another perspective that I agree on with the Feder... ... middle of paper ... ... This thought is based off the belief that each state knows what is best for itself and shouldn’t interfere in the affairs of different states. An idea like that is flawed because the entire country would be unable to advance in any way and therefore that is why I would again choose to be a Federalist. In conclusion, if I was to choose between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Party it would be a very clear choice to me. Their belief that a successful nation lies in a powerful, centralized government, appeals to me. I also agree with their views on the Constitution, future American economy, the Bank of the United States, and especially the qualifications you need to participate in government politics. The Federalist way of government shaped the future of America to be one of the most successful countries in the world and I would definitely want to be one of them.
There are many differences between the Democratic-Republic party and the Federalist Party. Especially in the last decade of the 18th century which is late 1700’s, early 1800’s. They have different views on foreign relations and their beliefs on the war between France and Britain, their Federal government and vision for America. Their leaders are completely different people.
Federalists were supporters of the Constitution and wanted a stronger government. The leaders of the Federalists were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. This group had more advantages because the leaders were already members of the constitutional convention. Since they were a part of the constitutional convention, they were well-known with the issues the document had to offer. They were also organized
In Federalist Paper No. 6, one of the points it discussed was that it is dangerous if the states were left ...
The Jeffersonian-Republicans (also known as the Democratic-Republicans) were opposed to the Federalists from before 1801-1817. Leaders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison created the party in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party. The Democratic-Republicans supported the French, whereas the Federalists supported the British. Each party had its set of views. The Federalists supported a loose interpretation of the Constitution, a strong central government, high tariffs, a navy, military spending, a national debt, and a national bank (all ideas of the Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton). The Democratic-Republicans opposed all of the said ideas and fought for states' rights and the citizens to govern the nation. Originally, each of these parties stuck to their own views and ideas, but eventually would accept eachother's views and use them as their own.
In my point of view, the Democratic-Republican’s Party is the best side to join. As compared to the Democratic-Republican Party, the Federalist Party’s doctrine is grounded on fewer ideologies. This party is not outwardly strong, and its supporters lack the sense of boldness since in political arena, the spirit of boldness is highly beneficial. It helps to determine whether the party will move in a positive or negative direction.
Federalists called for a national debt to be funded and hoped to create a large national bank credited by wealthy men. He defended it in a plan presented to Congress by claiming "where the authority of the government is general it can create corp...
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.
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
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.
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.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
The First Party System consisted of Federalists versus Republican-Democrats (Republicans) from 1789 to 1816. This system can be considered to have developed as a result of the factions in the George Washington administration. The two factions were Alexander Hamilton and John Adams with Federalists and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison with the Republican Party. The Federalists argued for a strong national government, to push for aggressive economic development with a greater emphasis on farmers and states’ rights. They preferred to practice loose constructionism (loose interpretations of the Constitution) to argue that government power should be used to promote economic development through the creation of a national bank, federally financed roads, harbors, and bridges. Federalists believed that America’s economic future depended on the cultivation of strong commercial ties with Great Britain. The Republicans on the other hand wanted a small and weak national government to leave the citizens mostly free of taxation and government interference. Unlike the Federalists, the Republicans supported a philosophy of strict constructionism (strict interpretation of the Constitution) in order to avoid the economy benefitting only a few wealthy northeasterners. They also believed that agriculture, instead of manufacturing, should remain the country’s economic base and so they opposed closer relationships with Great B...
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
Federalism, by definition, is the division of government authority between at least two levels of government. In the United States, authority is divided between the state and national government. “Advocates of a strong federal system believe that the state and local governments do not have the sophistication to deal with the major problems facing the country” (Encarta.com).
I believe that the advantages that Federalism provides far outweigh those of the anti-federalist movement. Our founding fathers wisely perceived that the idea of a centralized government was a big concern for abuse of power. Federalism represents many of the values of modern Democracy and grants individual states the power to make decisions that best suit their needs. Local government understands local issues better than a centralized government that often sees the nation as one big piece of land instead of smaller areas, each with distinct demographics and problems. For instance, issues concerning illegal immigration in Texas would be best handled by local authorities rather than by someone in Kansas, a non border state. By the same token, representatives of communities with different aspirations, ethnicity and cultures should be handled locally as the federal government might overlook the needs of these groups. One perfect example of the above mentioned scenario is the public school system. In a federalist system the local government decides what kind of schools will operate. Therefore, they might make better decisions when it comes to opening schools among large immigrant populations, perhaps creating a few bi-lingual schools to fulfill the population’s needs.