Between now and Friday morning you must make a minimum of three posts. Be sure your posts include evidence and try to build on the comments of your peers.
Do you think Alexander Hamilton's or Thomas Jefferson's ideas were the best to bring greatness to America? Why?
Shelbie McCormack: In 1790, both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson wanted the United States to be a prosperous country that would survive throughout the ages. Whether this included new political strategies or economic plans, they both had ideas to expand and grow the current government. Our textbook, America: Past and Present, explained Jefferson and Hamilton’s methods to achieve this greatness. It stated, “The secretary of state (Thomas Jefferson) assumed that the strength of the American economy lay not in its industrial potential but in its agricultural productivity. The “immensity of land” represented the country’s major economic source” (America: Past and Present, 160). Their ideas reflected two extremely different methods, but I believe Hamilton was correct in his idea to use manufacturing and not agriculture. The people of the United States had depended on agriculture and the land all throughout the period when the British ruled over them. They mastered this process, but a new plan, Hamilton’s plan to use manufacturing, provided a new outlet and more room for growth. They learned from the British ways and could invent new tools that would make everyday life easier. Hamilton's other ideas for a national bank and a funding and assumption plan were essential to the success and management of manufacturing in the United States. For this reason, I believe Alexander Hamilton's ideas were the best to bring America to greatness.
ReplyDeleteI think that Hamilton's ideas were the best to bring America to greatness too, Shelbie, but i mainly focused on the economical side of his points. I think this because he was striving to do what had not been done under the Articles of Confederation, and that he was trying to help the economy of the Union. He did this by creating the first National Bank. This bank helped the government get money and gain the support of the people but Hamilton also supports his reason for doing this. He says in the Jefferson vs. Hamilton Packet we received in class on page 200 it says, "...the bank has a natural relation to the power of collecting taxes- to that of regulating trade- to that of providing for the common defense..." Hamilton supports his ideas very well and gives very good reason as to why his ideas should become the reality which is why I think Hamilton's ideas were the best to bring greatness to America.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Brad and Shelbie, I think that Hamilton’s ideas were the best to bring America to greatness. An important view of Hamilton’s was that the wealthy class should run the government, as opposed to Jefferson’s view that the common man should run the country. In one of the primary source documents, Hamilton stated, “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government.” In the same document, Jefferson expressed his view that, “whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government…,” (Alexander Hamilton Versus Thomas Jefferson on Popular Rule). Up to this period in American history, the rich made all of the decisions for the country including writing the Constitution and leading the American Revolutionary War. Therefore, they knew about politics and what occurred in this country. On the other hand, contrary to Jefferson’s statement of the people being well-informed, the common man did not know about the politics and the running of the government; they simply carried out the orders of the rich. This indicates that the common man would not have the experience or ability to consistently judge what was right for the country, causing the country to not prosper. Success of the country was the main goal of Hamilton, Jefferson and the rest of the people and the rich in office would help accomplish this goal best.
ReplyDeleteShelbie, while I understand your opinion, I disagree with it. I think that Jefferson's ideas would have led America to greatness rather than Hamilton's. Hamilton's ideas would lead to great financial success, but they would favor the rich not only financially, but also federally by indirectly giving more prosperous men more control of the government. While the rich may be more politically savvy, they also, by accepting Hamilton's economical plan, are making money and gaining power. If men such as these are apt to act this way once, I think that they won't falter to act that way again, and harm the common man in doing so. Jefferson agrees, and said on page 193 in the Jefferson/Hamilton packet, "Public servants, at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste..." When Jefferson talks about distance here, he is not only talking about the physical distance between the people and the Capitol, but also about the financial distance between the common man and their representatives. If only a privileged few are in power, they are extremely susceptible to corruption, and are more likely make choices that benefit only themselves, and not the country. I agree with Jefferson here that the people themselves will be able to better judge what is right for themselves than a select few from the upper class.
DeleteOren, even though the rich-poor gap might widen, it's not necessarily a bad thing because everyone would be better off when the economy as a whole improves. Take China for example; even though inequality in China has dramatically increased over the last few decades, ordinary Chinese are much happier economically now.
DeleteMeanwhile, I would not put so much trust in the common men like Jefferson did. Jefferson's sympathy lay with the common people and he strove for whatever they desired. However, what the ordinary people wanted might not be the best for the country.
For instance, when the excise tax was passed, people in the south opposed it furiously, as demonstrated by the Whiskey Rebellion. People disliked taxation because they perceived taxation as a violation of their liberty, given that they just fought off the British. However, taxation was indispensable to stabling the new country's economy. Without a stable economy, the Union would be as vulnerable as the one under Articles of Confederation. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." Even when the Constitution granted Congress the power to tax, people still refused to give up some of their money to help the country and thus themselves. This unwillingness to pay taxes clearly shows the shortsightedness of common men.
Hence, in terms of who should govern, I agree with Hamilton that the educated upper class was more capable of running the country. Because it's always in the best interest of the wealthy to be in a country with good economic conditions, their self-interests translate into the incentives to help bolster the nation's economy and thereby improve the lives of ordinary Americans.
Gary, that is a valid point, but I would consider it an opinion. My opinion, backed by the evidence I gave in my first post, is this: if the wealthy govern, they will take any opportunity that will benefit them rather than the common people. Even though helping the economy helps the rich and the poor, if the rich are given the chance to make more money without helping the rest of the country, I believe they will take it.
DeleteOn a related topic, I agree with Jefferson mostly because I agree with his beliefs. The morals of Hamilton's government bother me, and even if I were in the upper class I could not possibly have a clean conscience. On page 191 of the Jefferson/Hamilton packet, Jefferson says, "The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred..." I agree with this point completely. It is the same idea that the founding fathers had when they first declared independence: all men are created equal. To take away a man's right to equal representation is to take his freedom. While they may make bad choices, it is the right of each and every citizen, educated or not, rich or poor, black or white or asian or whatever they may be, to have a say in how they are governed. Men naturally make the wrong decisions sometimes: there is no way to avoid that. However, it is my opinion (and Jefferson's) that it will be better for the common people to stray as a whole, discover their mistake, and correct it than for the upper class to make decisions for them. With a group of people as large as the population of the United States, it will be hard for them to make a decision they will not be able to fix.
I am not saying that the common people will never be wrong; they will probably be wrong more often than they are right. However, I would rather see a government where the people as a whole are able to fix their mistakes than an aristocracy that may or may not end up benefitting the country as a whole.
For America to truly achieve “greatness”, America as a whole needed to gain stability both in its economy and its government. As Gary stated earlier, the wealthy upper class will only benefit from helping to establish a stable economy in the United States, because their passion for more money is always there. On stabilizing the American government, Oren (as well as Jefferson) said that he would rather risk having the common people of America decide on America’s future and making a mistake, than allowing the people who are more informed and have influence (as well as who the common people voted for to represent them) to make the decisions for America’s future, with less of a risk of a mistake.
DeleteWhat the American government needs is stability. With the “misinformed” commoners making all the decisions, the American government and America as a whole are unlikely to benefit much to their cause of making America “great”. In the packet, Hamilton states that “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right”(191), people come and go as they wish, one day they could be thinking one thing and the next day they will think another. Hamilton, in the packet, said that “Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their (common people) turbulence and uncontrolling disposition requires checks ” (191), in this sense he is supporting the idea that the common people can suggest or vote on ideas that they think will benefit the country, however it is up to the people who are well informed to decide whether if the idea will be executed or not. The importance of having a permanent group is so that the country can set out upon a plan over a lengthy duration, while a temporary group may set out upon one plan one day, and then decide to abandon that one and go for another plan. The importance of consistency must be strained here.
While I agree that the upper class cannot make all the decisions for the country, Hamilton did not necessarily say that either. His goal was to encompass the commoner’s ideas, and place them as suggestions (or bills?) to the upper class (or congress?) for them to either execute or veto.
Hannah: While I appreciate all of Oren and Gary’s discussions, I think Oren is right to explore the role that equality plays in a democracy. Examining the fundamental principles that created our democracy might reveal best whether Jefferson or Hamilton brought greatness to America. Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." It seems to me that it did not matter whether an American was rich or poor, an aristocrat or a farmer, uninformed or politically shrewd, an elected official or an ordinary citizen, each American had the right to actively participate in his/her democratic government. Having fought hard to gain independence, I believe that most Americans, trusted that he had a right to vote, to serve, to elect representatives, to live his/her life freely, to pursue happiness and to have representation. Therefore, it didn’t matter who was temporarily in charge, but that the government Jefferson or Hamilton helped to establish, was obligated to protect every American’s essential rights. I say “temporarily in charge” because as elected officials, they were always at risk of being voted out of office; therefore, the “privileged few” inherent honesty or lack of it, in the new democracy shouldn’t have mattered. The crucial point was whose vision led to protecting the individual’s rights best. I agree with Oren that Jefferson’s faith in the people and his commitment to a government in the hands of the people, contributed more to ensuring that basic American principles were maintained. Jefferson’s statement, “My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual (1816)” (p 192 of the packet) demonstrated his belief in the ability of the popular, meaning the people, to govern themselves in a lasting manner so that democracy would be perpetual.
DeleteOren, if you continue to believe in the Jefferson's tactics to raise America to greatness, then, how can America achieve this greatness you discuss if the uneducated common man is constantly making mistakes? The country was supposed to build up their economy and political power, not diminish it.
DeleteYou also discuss the common man fixing their mistakes, but if they do not fully understand the political situations occurring, how would they have had better judgment to act on the cause the second time? As Hamilton said and Jack reiterated, "One great error is that we suppose mankind more honest than they are. Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest; and it will be the duty of a wise government to avail itself of those passions, in order to make them subservient to the public good" (Jefferson/Hamilton, 192). The government officials, although they were the ones who held the power, took the opinions of the public into consideration when creating laws. Whether the issues at hand concerned the national bank or an excise tax, these delegates had the information and education to help them make proper decisions.
Shelbie, I will answer your questions one by one.
Delete"How can America achieve greatness if the uneducated common man is constantly making mistakes? The country was supposed to build up their economy and political power, not diminish it."
Here is my answer: First of all, I did not say the common man was uneducated, nor did I say he would constantly make mistakes. I acknowledged that he does not always know everything that is going on, and I admitted that he will make mistakes. Also, who said that the country was supposed to build up economy and political power? I will tell you who: Hamilton. Different people have different goals. There's nothing the country was "supposed to do." And who said that making mistakes would diminish that? I don't want to answer a question with questions, though, so I will give you a straight answer: Shelbie, as I said earlier, making mistakes will lead to fixing those mistakes. The common man will continue to try until they get it right. I consider this better than the rich simply doing as they wish with the government. If the common man wants the economy to be improved, then it will be so.
"If the common man does not fully understand the political situations occurring, how would they have had better judgement to act on the cause the second time?"
Here is my answer: It is unlikely that the common man will not fully understand the current political situation if they are the cause of it. And here is how they will have better judgement the second time: if it affects them negatively, they will change it; If it does not affect them, it does not need to be changed. The people who need something to be changed will change it.
And finally, I will discuss the piece of evidence you yourself used: "One great error is that we suppose mankind more honest than they are. Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest..."
Here is my interpretation: Hamilton is making a statement about man in general, not simply the common man. Rich men were equally dishonest, equally ruled by ambition and interest. Thus, would you consider it better to have a small group of such conceited individuals at the head of the government, directing the country towards their particular interests? I know that I would not. I would rather have, as Jefferson suggested, every common man, equal to the rich, according to Hamilton, in terms of their passions and lack of honesty, directing the country. If the rich really do have the common good in mind, then we will end up in the same place either way! I would prefer to let America do the work, and not to leave it to the chance that Hamilton was right. Do you not think that the combined will of not just the common man but every man in America is for America to be great? If we accomplish as a government the common will of the people, have we not achieved greatness?
Shelbie, you and everyone else have mentioned the “uneducated common man,” and discussed whether he was competent to manage his own government as Jefferson argued, or whether he was more likely, as Hamilton insisted, to watch out for his own self-interest only. Your questions to Oren above made sense if you believed, as Hamilton did, that mankind was selfish. I am puzzled why everyone thinks the common man was so incompetent. Just because the farmers were uneducated doesn’t mean they did not know the best way to govern themselves. They were smart enough to fight against England in order to obtain their freedom, which makes me think they comprehended exactly what kind of government they wanted. I’m not understanding why Hamilton would dismiss their ability to govern, to work cohesively and to be able to have participated fully in a new government if they had just worked together successfully to defeat England. I am wondering if we realize that the common men Hamilton spoke negatively of would actually be similar to regular Americans today. We would be the people that Hamilton refers to on page 191 in the packet, “Take mankind in general, they are vicious--their passions may be operated upon. . . . Take mankind as they are, and what are they governed by? Their passions." Personally, had it been said about me or my family at the time, I would have found that statement insulting. Hamilton makes the common man sound like an unpredictable emotional brute. He doesn’t indicate why passion is a bad thing, just that he considers mankind unable to control it. I believe people are and were perfectly capable of keeping their emotions under control. Thinking about 1780’s, and looking at what happened recently with the government shutdown, there are a number of parallels. There were and are two opposing philosophies; a strong central government versus leaving power in the hands of the individuals or the states. We still haven’t resolved the issue of whether more or less central government works best. However, I believe, as Jefferson did, that the common man, whether educated or not, could have been relied on to govern the right way because they were smarter than Hamilton gave them credit for. As Jefferson says on page 191, "I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. . . . They may be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves," people (common men) are human and will make mistakes, but in the end they will make adjustments do the right thing.
DeleteShelbie, I completely agree with your point of trying to build up a government, and not diminish it. On page 193 of our packet, Hamilton states, "As to the destruction of state governments, the great and real anxiety is to be able to preserve the nation government," (193). Here he is saying that to be a great government and to be successful, you can't hurt your own government. Though Hamilton was a big supporter of mainly power in the central government, he was also spot on with this point. What he is trying to explain to us is that wrecking, or diminishing of our government will only bring down the country and not help build a strong government. In order to achieve the greatness the United States is longing for, they can't hurt their own government.
DeleteI think Shelby makes a very good point here. Jefferson has the right idea in thinking that a well-informed population can be trusted with there own government, However, I don't believe that the people of the United States at that time were informed enough to be making serious decisions. That's one of the main reasons I would follow Hamilton in this situation. He understands that the common people aren't as well-informed as the upper-class. As Hamilton said on page 191 of the packet, "give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government.They will check the steadiness of the second; And as they cannot receive any advantage by change, they therefore will ever maintain good government." I think that in this way, the common man will still have a say in the government, while the well-informed upper-class will be there to check their decisions.
ReplyDeleteJust like Shelbie, Brad and Shelby, I believe that Hamilton's ideas would best lead America to success. Jefferson viewed the common man as the future of the country, on page 191 of the Hamilton vs. Jefferson packet, Jefferson states "I have such reliance on the good sense of the body of the people and the honesty of their leaders that I am not afraid of their letting things go wrong to any length in any cause. (1788)" Jefferson's stand offish approach would not lead to the success of America. In this quote he is essentially saying that his trust in the people allows him not to be concerned or take control of the federal government. Jefferson's way of governing would not bring America any progress. Hamilton, however, took charge of his position in the government and immediately began to create new concepts in the financial section of the government. He began with the funding and assumption plans and then moved toward the creation of an American bank. His innovative ideas prove that his attitude and hard work would lead America to great success.
ReplyDeleteCailey Mastrangelo: Along with the Hamilton supporters, I also believe that his ideas were the best to bring greatness to America because, like Kristina's example, Hamilton was able to have the government take control. In the Hamilton-Jefferson packet, Hamilton states, "One great error is that we suppose mankind more honest than they are. Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest; and it will be the duty of a wise government to avail itself of those passions, in order to make them subservient to the public good," (192). In Jefferson's ideas he watches and tries to involve the common man more often than not, which Hamilton is saying is a problem: trusting mankind. Jefferson's, as Kristina put it, "stand offish approach", wasn't going to help the United States. Hamilton said that these rich people are going to have power, and as Connor explained, they were well informed too. This government would be able to resolve problems and benefit the common good of the people. Instead of being behind the scenes more like Jefferson, Hamilton and his wealthy men would have been in the government and would be able to fulfill their duties with their control.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brad that Hamilton’s ideas were the most ideal to bring greatness to America, by stabilizing the US economy when it was weak. By establishing a bank, Hamilton provided ways for people to trade for essential products and get loans to improve their own living conditions. Shelbie M. also stated earlier that Hamilton’s plan to increase manufacturing would help produce more tools that could improve living conditions, as well as keeping the economy going without relying on foreign produce. This allowed the American economy to prosper and America to become more self-sufficient. Hamilton’s ambition was to entice the rich people to invest in the US by seducing them with “their passions” (Hamilton, pg 191), which was more money. By allowing the rich people to constantly invest in and make money off of the bonds and securities, the American economy grows stronger and stronger, because the government gains more short term cash they can use to fund more projects. An example that demonstrates that the people’s passion is to money was when the Assumption was passed and “twenty millions of stock divided among favored states, and thrown in as a pabulum to the stock-jobbing herd” (pg 197). By injecting stock into the economy for people to invest in, the government essentially guarantees itself constant support and money in the future, as people are more likely to support something where they can make money from. In this way, I believe that Hamilton’s ideas were the best to bring greatness to America because it strengthened the economy, advocated self sufficiency, and inspired people to support and invest in the USA.
ReplyDeleteShelby and Connor pointed out that the common man was not well enough informed at the time of the debating between Hamilton and Jefferson. But I don't agree that this meant that they were unfit to have a say in the running of the government. We read in Birth of the Republic that the reason they weren't well enough informed was because the rich people were the ones who owned the newspapers and controlled what information people got about the government. We also talked in class about how the leaders may have been purposefully keeping things from the common men so that they would have certain opinions and so that they would be more easily controlled. In the packet we were given, Alexander Hamilton Versus Thomas Jefferson on Popular Rule says of Hamilton, "I have an indifferent [low] opinion of the honesty of this country, and ill forebodings as to its future system." (192). This shows how skeptical of the citizens of the country he was. Hamilton's plans for the future of America included a government full of rich northerners, and his ideas for the funding and assumption would hurt the common people but help his friends. He seemed to be selfish and wanted what was best for himself. In contrast, Jefferson seems to me to have a better view of the country. He believed that he could trust the common American, which is exactly what a country needs to survive, especially such a young country. The government must trust its citizens, or there would always be a disconnect.
ReplyDeleteRelating to the point that Heather made about Hamilton not trusting the common people and Jefferson having a more trusting view of the people as a whole, I would agree that Hamilton's views certainly did include some selfish motives, as he felt the rich and educated should lead the country, however I would not agree that his plans were based on self interest or that he felt the people were unfit to "have a say" in government. Further down in the document that Shelby cited, Hamilton said, "Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrolling disposition requires checks."(Alexander Hamilton Versus Thomas Jefferson on Popular Rule). Here, Hamilton states that a permanent body (of the rich and well educated) is required to check the "imprudence of democracy", or monitor the views of the people to make sure they are not being extreme. Hamilton does not however say that the people were unfit to have a say in government, but simply that the say of the people had to be watched and reviewed by those who were more informed and familiar with government. Based on this I would say that Hamilton's ideas would best lead the country to greatness as he still allowed the voice of the people to be heard, but along with that created a plan in which the randomness of the opinions of the people could be controlled and focused in the most beneficial directions by those with more experience with government.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important to bring up more arguments from Jefferson's side here, though I'll knock this one down. The core of Hamilton's theory is a stronger national government, which hasn't yet been mentioned.
ReplyDeleteOn page 193 in the packet, Jefferson states, "Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants, at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the citizens."
Some of you talked about access to information and how the rich were better informed. Also consider that this was back in the 1790s, and communication was a huge problem back then: Americans didn't have Internet, telephone, or planes like we do today. A national government was too distant to know about the need of constituents living in certain states. Therefore, Jefferson opposed a strong national government by arguing that a strong national government lacking means to communicate would lead to inefficiency. However, the US must ensure peace and unity before it can function effectively and satisfy other needs of its citizens. Under federalism, the states had sufficient powers for them to run efficiently by themselves, and the failure of Articles of Confederation reflected a desperate need for a strong national government to unite the sharply divided states. A stronger national government that Hamilton championed could protect the fragile union and unite the states to work toward the common good of the nation.
Nick Schutz- I agree with Gary. I believe having a very strong central government, like Hamilton wanted, can be nearly impossible to run successfully with the lack of communication during this time. A powerful central government absolutely can be run efficiently (as it is today), but that's because we use our ability to communicate with the rest of the country in every situation. In the packet Mr. Sheehan gave us, Jefferson wrote in 1822 that "if ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption" (192). Hamilton's idea of a strong central government is the hub of corruption, and that is why I think Jefferson's ideas were the best to bring greatness to America.
ReplyDeleteJefferson believed we needed a government that was run by the people, and I think that is the most efficient form. He stated in 1787 that "every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers... alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories" (191). Jefferson is correct in saying that governments degenerate when they put all their trust into rulers. For example, Britain's government put their trust into few powerful people and that is why they failed. Jefferson's idea of a government is the perfect way of running a government because it allows all of the people to have a say. The citizens don't have to worry about having a tyrant in Jefferson's government. Jefferson's ideas brought greatness to America.
I think Gary makes a great point here, something I almost forgot about when thinking about the two sides of the debate, which is that there was a lack of communication. I think there needed to be an appropriate balance between the state governments and the federal government, so that communication would become less of an issue. On page 193 of the packet, Jefferson said, "Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations". In order to have a unified nation, you can't only give the government power over foreign concerns. Isn't that what they learned with the Articles of Confederation? That the federal government needs more power? By reducing its power, Jefferson would've only been repeating what had already been done. The government needs to protect the rights and safety of its citizens, as well as protect the country and deal with foreign relations.
ReplyDeleteI agree that communication in a large central government would become an issue, however, like Connor, I would say that despite communication being an issue, a strong national government is still necessary for leading America to "greatness".
ReplyDeleteIn the Birth of the Republic, while talking about the observations of America's leaders during the Critical Period, Morgan says that the leaders, "became increasingly convinced that greatness would never attend a country whose government rested so helplessly on the capricious sufferance of thirteen superior state governments." (Morgan, 123). Under the Articles of Confederation, America's leaders saw that the views of states had so much power, and their views were so insufficiently aligned that it was impossible for the states to come together as a country in order to push towards greatness.
As Connor said, under Jefferson's views, the national government would serve no purpose except to represent the nation in foreign affair and negotiations, which was even less power than the national government had under the Articles of Confederation, which, when in place, had an issue with the national government having an insufficient amount of power in comparison to the power of the state governments.
On page 193 of the packet, Hamilton gave his view on what the relationship between the state and national governments should be, "As to the state governments, the prevailing bias of my judgement is that if they can be circumscribed within the bounds consistent with the preservation of the national government, they will prove useful and salutary." (193). Under Hamilton's views, the state governments would act to support the national government, and have whatever powers it could possess without disrupting the national government, however, the state governments would not possess so much power that they could not be controlled, or at least led by the national government. With Hamilton's ideas on the relationship between the state and national governments America would be able to focus the powers of the people and the states on common goals and move towards achieving "greatness".
I agree with Hamilton's beliefs of having a strong central government would help bring greatness to the U.S. By establishing a strong government, the government would be able to make decisions on running the country faster than having the states discuss about certain decisions, like the economy and domestic forces. In the Hamilton-Jefferson packet, Hamilton stated, "A firm Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the states, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection," (192). By having a strong federal government, fighting between different states wouldn't happen very often. Since the U.S was just getting started, any type of conflict between states or federal government could cause the country to fall apart. By having a strong federal government, the states wouldn't be able to fight against each other as the federal government would be able to end fighting between states either by using the Constitution, or by using force. It would also help protect human rights all the states had by preventing states from making laws deemed unconstitutional. Supporting Hamilton meant people's right would be ensured and states would be able to come to agreements easier.
ReplyDeleteA few people have mentioned, especially Edward, that Jefferson had a lot more faith in the people than Hamilton did. However, I agree with Hamilton that there needs to be a balance between the complete control of the government and the complete freedom of the people. In the primary source packet, Jefferson stated, “…Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” In the same document, Hamilton disagreed by stating, “Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments,” (The Spectrum of Disagreement). The people revolted against Britain because they wanted liberty and because they felt like the British were exercising too much power. This indicates that the “despotic” form of government, as also seen with the French in the French Revolution, didn’t work. On the other hand, a pure democracy has never worked either. As Hamilton says, “Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest,” (Alexander Hamilton Versus Thomas Jefferson on Popular Rule). There would be no boundaries by an authority of what the selfish people could and couldn’t do, so they would all would be attempting to do what only they wanted. This would lead to violence and corruption, the same effect of despotism. Therefore, if there was a balance, there would be some control over the selfish people to prevent them from doing whatever they wanted, but this amount of control would still allow them to possess the main thing that they wanted, liberty. Conclusively, the balance would lead to a long-lasting and secure government. More importantly though, this balance would lead to the common goal of a prosperous government because everyone could now be worried, instead of fighting with one another, about what they could do to help.
ReplyDeleteLike the others before me, I too believe that Hamilton’s ideas on how to fix the economy are the best way for the government to succeed. One of Hamilton’s ideas to fix the economy was to assume all debt from the states. In the Hamilton-Jefferson packet, Hamilton states, “If all the public creditors receive their dues from one source… their interest will be the same. And having the same interests they will unite in support of the fiscal arrangements of the government” (Pg. 194). Hamilton here believes that if the federal government is the only part of the government that is in debt then all the creditors will have a common interest in seeing it succeed. If these public creditors depend on the government succeeding in order to be able to pay them back then they will be more generous in investing in it and keeping it afloat. Hamilton’s idea on how to improve the economy and thus allow the new government to succeed is why I agree with him.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCraig I agree with that point that Hamilton's ideas would bring the country to success. I think that the quote you used really supports the idea of economical improvement, but Hamilton also had ideas to greatly improve the government.
ReplyDeleteHamilton provided solid ideas for fixing the problems the central government had under the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton’s idea for a central government is on the same page you used, Craig, and it is the paragraph directly below what you used above. The paragraph states, " Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.” Hamilton is putting his idea out there that the liberty of the people does not rest in a central government that is overly strict or one that is weak-like the Articles of Confederation created. Hamilton later goes on to specifically say that the Articles of Confederation are poor when on the same page of the packet (194) he says, “it must be by this time evident to all men of reflection…that it [Articles of Confederation] is a system so radically vicious and unsound as to admit not of amendment but by an entire change in its leading features and characters.” The Articles of Confederation gave the government little power, and Hamilton wanted to get rid of the entire set of Articles of Confederation. I think that this new change to the government was good for America because it had gone through the stages of monarchy, which entirely ruled over the land, and it had gone through the Articles of Confederation too. Now Hamilton proposed a medium for which the government should operate and I think that his ideas for a central government were a very good way to bring America to greatness. Hamilton wanted a government that America hadn’t tried yet, which is in the middle of the very loose and very strict types of government, which seemed like a good next choice because it hadn’t been done yet.
I agree with Brad about Hamilton suggesting a good compromise where the central government was not too overpowering but not too weak, as it clearly was under the Articles of Confederation. To support this point, but using the views of Jefferson, it says on the same page that we've been quoting from often in the packet, "But with all the imperfections of our present government [Articles of Confederation], it is without comparison the best existing or that ever did exist...."(194). Jefferson is saying that he believed the Articles of Confederation were the best form of government, and they could be fixed with a few new articles added, he continues to say. We have talked about the Articles enough to know that they were sufficient at the time of the Revolution, but after 1789, the government needed to change. It's obvious to us now that the system of the Congress being so weak was detrimental to America. It couldn't tax, it had no court system, and was overall not holding the country together well. Jefferson believed that the States were better off separate, as is clear when he says "that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations"(193). His opinions about the structure of the government would not lead America to greatness because the states needed to be joined in a close union with a strong central government to keep them together as one country cooperating and coexisting. If they were separate, as Jefferson wanted, they would constantly be arguing as they had when they were the thirteen colonies. Because of the faults I have found in Jefferson's opinion of the structure of the government, I believe that Hamilton's ideas would lead America to greatness. And by what our country is today, it is clear that a strong central government has worked out well.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brad, I think Hamilton did provide solid ideas for the government in addition to his point about creating a "medium" government. Hamilton favored a loose interpretation of the Constitution. On page 199 in the packet, Hamilton is talking about the Constitution and what qualifies something to be "necessary and proper" in order to change the constitution. He states "'Necessary' often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to... restrictive interpretation of the word "necessary" is also contrary to this sound maxim of construction: namely that the powers contained in a constitution... ought to be construed liberally in advancement of the public good." He believed that the Constitution needed the ability to be viewed "loosely", because a strict interpretation could prevent the government and the nation from progressing soundly. One example of Hamilton favoring a loose interpretation was when he fought for a national bank. The Constitution never stated anything about a bank, so Jefferson said that there shouldn't be a bank. Hamilton argued that it never states there should NOT be a bank. In the packet, on page 200 Hamilton says that a "bank has a natural relation to the power of collecting taxes--to that of regulating trade--to that of providing for the common defense..." Hamilton knew there would be significant benefits for the betterment of the country if a national bank was established, so he fought for there to be a bank. He "loosely" viewed the Constitution because that was the best way for the nation to be progressive. His ability to view the Constitution "loosely" helped bring greatness to America.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Schutz that Hamilton's loose interpretation would better help America achieve greatness. Hamilton's plan to establish a national bank was undoubtedly beneficial to the nation. Jefferson opposed it merely because the Constitution did not specifically granted the power to the federal government.
DeleteHe stated, "If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it [the latitude] will go to every one; for there is not one [power] which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience, in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated power."(p. 200)
Jefferson feared that a loose interpretation of the Constitution would ultimately be used to justify actions that endanger liberties. However, it should be noted that there's a fundamental difference between acts that violate liberties and those do not. Establishing a national bank did not violated the rights of states or individuals; the Constitution prohibits acts that endanger Americans' liberties, no matter whatever advantages those acts have.
On the other hand, a national bank was absolutely essential to the country's vulnerable economy at this point. When a plan is beneficial and does not violate people's freedom fails just because the Constitution does not specifically enumerate it, Americans' ability to prosper is hindered by the Constitution. Following a strict interpretation, many more advantageous plans like this can't be realized just because of the Constitution. A great country should focus on how much progress it makes, not be confined by the few words on several pieces of paper (the Constitution). Therefore, Hamilton's adaptive approach toward interpreting the Constitution would be better in leading America toward greatness.
Hamilton could not have introduced an idea that was more essential to the United States than a national banking system. Nick Schutz has already discussed the advantages to this national bank as having “the power of collecting taxes---to that of regulating trade---to that of providing for the common defense” (Jefferson Versus Hamilton on the Bank (1791), 200). This banking system would also have the responsibility of issuing money to the people, which was essential in Hamilton’s manufacturing plan in bringing America to the “greatness” we have been discussing. With the bank having to handle these specific tasks, other branches of the government and government officials could put their minds to more crucial problems, such as who should have the power in the country the federal government or the state governments. By clearly defining the tasks of the national bank, Hamilton also created an organized system that all people could rely on and not only the rich. Jefferson claimed “that a bank will give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes” (Jefferson Versus Hamilton on the Bank (1791), 200). This “convenience” that he refers to would not only be beneficial to the wealthy, but the common man, who he wanted to be equal to the rich. He was fighting for a cause that made all men equal. Jefferson continued on saying, “It would swallow up all the delegated powers [of the states], and reduce the whole to one power….” (Jefferson Versus Hamilton on the Bank (1791), 200). According to the Constitution, Jefferson did not have to worry about one branch gaining too much power because of the system of checks and balances. Similarly, the Constitution discussed the process of a bill becoming a law and that it has to be approved by more than one representative body. It stated, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it” (Morgan, 174). The President, the key leader of the Executive Branch, has the power to veto any bills that pass through from the legislative branch. Congress also has the ability to impeach the President to ensure that his power does not grow out of control, just as the President can veto laws of Congress. As you can see, the country already had a plan in place to ensure that one part of the government would not have too much power over the other. Each state already had representatives in the higher body, so with checks and balances, Jefferson was fretting about an issue that could more easily be resolved. All of these aspects further prove that Hamilton’s national banking system was beneficial in bringing America to greatness.
DeleteI agree with Nick and Gary on their agreement with Hamilton, who favored a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Like both of them said, Hamilton proposed a National Bank. There was a lot of controversy between Jefferson and Hamilton if this bank was constitutional or not. In the Hamilton-Jefferson packet Hamilton defends his views by stating, “There is also this further criterion, which may materially assist the decision: Does the proposed measure abridge a pre-existing right of any state or of any individual? If it does not there is a strong presumption in favor of its constitutionality…” (Jefferson Versus Hamilton on the Bank). Hamilton also supports the constitutionality of the bank with the Elastic Clause which states that the government has the authority to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States,” (Morgan 175). At this point in time, America was in need of a successful economic plan as they had accumulated a huge debt and Great Britain no longer guided them. The National Bank provided America with a foundation for this successful economic plan because it helped the government store and organize its money. This National Bank, also, as Hamilton mentioned, did not violate any of the rights the Constitution provided for. A thriving economy would help the people enjoy their liberties, not help suppress them. With strict interpretation, the Constitution did not allow, as the Jeffersonians argued, for this National Bank to be created. However, Hamilton’s loose interpretation of the Constitution allowed many proposals to be accepted, such as a National Bank, which would continue to help the success of the country. As mentioned by many people in earlier posts, including myself, success is what the people of America wanted.
DeleteOne idea that I feel hasn't been brought up yet is that when considering who's ideas would be the best to lead the country to "greatness", it has to be considered what exactly "greatness" encompasses. For Jefferson, who often spoke with a support for the people and a trust in the population, his idea of America becoming great would not necessarily strictly include economic success for America, or a large amount of international respect, but rather the becoming of a model nation, where all of the values that were discussed during the revolution were apparent. While discussing the role of people and the government, on page 192 of the packet, Jefferson said, "My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual." (192). Here Jefferson expresses that he will believe that our government will be "pure and perpetual", or have obtained "greatness", when the government is ruled as much by the general public as is possible. When Jefferson says this, he shows that his dream, or his view of the ideal state of the country is one of achieving democracy, or some form close to it. With this, I would say that Jefferson's views would be the best for achieving "greatness", when the view of "greatness" is one of a model country that is enriched with values and ruled by the general public.
ReplyDeleteEdward raises exactly the issue that is critical to answering the question of whether Hamilton or Jefferson's ideas were the best to bring greatness to America, which is, how is “greatness” defined? Edward mentions that it might go beyond economic success and international respect, and has more to do with Jefferson’s vision of a model nation. However, I would like to take it a step further and figure out exactly how a model nation can lead to greatness. Edward suggests a model nation has “all of the values that were discussed during the revolution,” which is true, a model nation should be based on those principles, but what is needed for it to operate so successfully that it becomes great? In the quote from page 192 that Edward included in his blog post, which I also used in my first post, I agree with Edward’s analysis of it, but I also think Jefferson was implying that the ideal government would be creative, exciting, adaptable, and able to operate to the fullest of its capacity, or as Jefferson says, “pushed to the maximum of its practicable exercise.” Hamilton’s desire for a strong union composed of a group of rich, educated men, who reside over an orderly central government was the opposite of what Jefferson was seeking. Hamilton’s kind of government could never operate to the maximum of its possible mandates because it was more about controlling and imposing laws and taxes on people as opposed to having the government emerge out of the people. In fact, it is Hamilton who describes Jefferson’s idea of government best, “Can a democratic assembly, who annually [through annual elections] evolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrolling disposition requires checks. (1787)” (p 191) Hamilton makes the assumption that turbulence and freewill or unrestricted attitudes (which is what I think he means by uncontrolling disposition) would lead to chaos, and therefore, the people had to be controlled. Jefferson’s government, on the other hand, would embrace the disorder and conflict because it would lead to a better government, whereby it is one created by the people for the people. Hamilton’s check on behavior and power comes from a strong central government, but Jefferson’s checks come from the individuals and from the states. I think Jefferson’s viewpoint led to a greatness in America because it accommodated flexibility, disharmony, and individual freedom all at the same time. Jefferson referred to the people’s ability to do the right thing when he said, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights. (1789) (p 192). Jefferson has faith in people to do the right thing. Hamilton has faith in a strong central government to do the right thing for the people. It is interesting that many of the blog comments and Jefferson and Hamilton, too, are making a judgment call about the character of men. Oren mentioned that he thought the privileged would only serve themselves and not do what is best for poorer people. Jefferson in his quote had faith that people will set things right. Hamilton thought people were basically incompetent when he explained, “The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right.” (p 191) All of these comments predict how men will act. Human nature plays a role in the establishment of a government, which then impacts how a nation operates. I am thinking that a model nation, therefore, should be based on a positive trust of mankind, and that Jefferson’s confidence in the people led to greatness in America because his faith in people translated to a model nation that allowed people to govern themselves.
DeleteI think that Edward brought up a really good topic which Hamilton and Jefferson definitely disagreed about. We know that they were similar in the fact that they were both in support of a strong republic, but what they thought that meant for the future of the new country of America is important to discern.
DeleteTo discuss Jefferson first, he believed that the ideas of the common men were what the country needed to base its government's decisions off of. As Edward said in his comment, Jefferson thought that the ideal form of government was as close to a democracy as possible. He wanted every voice to be heard. I believe that in this way his idea was absolutely necessary in order for the country to improve itself. Focusing on the fact that it was a very new country, America needed the support and cooperation of all of its citizens and representatives in government. Without it, the people would be unhappy right off the bat with their amount of say in issues that involved all of them. If they couldn't trust a small group of rich men in the government, how much better off were they than when they were being controlled by Parliament? They would have representatives, but how would the people be assured, under Hamilton's government, that their best interest would always be the priority?
To look at it a different way, the goal of Hamilton's form of government would be to ensure that the government was always in the best hands by putting it under the power of the upper class. They were, as we've established, more capable of succeeding in the position. Hannah said it well when she said that Hamilton's government was more about controlling and imposing laws and taxes than "having the government emerge out of the people." Hamilton wasn't afraid to make plans and stick to them, but he didn't take into consideration the common people in his plans. In class, while talking about Hamilton's plans for Funding and Assumption, Mr. Sheehan mentioned that the common men where dead-set against it. Hamilton was unconcerned with the fact that he would be upsetting the very large majority of a new country. Not only was this selfish, because he would be making his rich friends richer by establishing new bonds, but I think it just wasn't very smart. The states were threatening to leave the union over the matter, and Hamilton still suggested that the common people be screwed over by the new bond system. In the Hamilton/Jefferson packet, in Hamilton Defends Assumption (1792), Hamilton writes of the Southerners selling their bonds, "They parted with it voluntarily, and in most cases, upon fair terms, without surprise, or deception - in many cases for more than its value. 'Tis their own fault if the purchase money has not been beneficial to them; and, the presumption is, it has been so in a material degree" (198). Hamilton defended his own Northerner friends while throwing the Southerners under the bus. He was trying to make it look like the Southerners knew what they were doing, and gained money by the selling of their bonds to the rich. Hamilton clearly didn't care that he would be starting off the new government with an act that would anger a large majority of the country. Overall, I think that Hamilton's plans based on pleasing the upper class, which is not the most important aspect of a country. Hamilton would not be the best person to lead America to greatness because his decisions were not based on the best interest of the majority of the citizens.
Something that I just wanted to mention after reading your posts, Hannah and Heather, is that although I think it is true that Jefferson's idea of a government that was as close to a democracy as was possible would be the most effective in terms of leading America to be "great" in the form of a national based on morals, it still has to be considered that the United States was a new country and was not perfectly stable. When establishing new government, or anything new, I would say that it would be best to err on the side of caution, and under Hamilton's form of government, there would be sufficient checks to stabilize the actions of the people. Hamilton expressed this need for the checking of the people when he said, "Can a democratic assembly, who annually [through annual elections] revolve in the mass of the people. be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of the people. Their turbulent and uncontrolled disposition requires checks." (191). In this, Hamilton expresses a good thought, that when dealing with a large mass of people, checks are required, since, with human nature, of which Hannah talked about, the entire body of the people would never act completely apart from their passions and personal-interests, which made the people "turbulent". So, with this, I would say that although Jefferson's ideas would be the most effective for leading the country to a form of greatness that involves a country based on morals, and would be perfect for leading a country in a perfect world, some of Hamilton's ideas of the people would have to be utilized and taken into consideration for the sake of having safeguards when establishing a new nation.
DeleteI agree with previous comments about Hamilton's push for economic strength. The agricultural prosperity brought great success to the American people while under British rule. Jefferson adamantly believed in the sole power of agriculture to bring America success. Agriculture was still an import part of the success of America, however, Hamilton advocated for the start of manufacturing. On pages 162-163 of America: Past and Present, the author discusses the ideas Hamilton had on manufacturing and how it would lead to more self-sufficiency in the country. "If the country wanted to free itself from dependence on European imports, Hamilton observed, then it had to develop its own industry, textile mills for example. (page 162, Divine, Breen, Williams, Gross, Brands)" Although this quote is from the section named "Setback for Hamilton" I believe that he was headed in the right direction. A lot of the current economic problems in our country today are based on the fact that we import much more then we export. Hamilton's drive for economic strength is exactly what the country needed. His ideas would lead the country to success because of his forward thinking.
ReplyDeleteEdward, I like your idea of what "greatness" is to these men. With Jefferson, I agree with your point of him wanting to become a "model nation", and I think his ideal nation includes keeping their freedom and supporting his trust of the common man. Also on page 192 of the Hamilton-Jefferson packet, Jefferson explained his ideas. He stated, "I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom," (192). These thoughts include his faith in the common man and his goal of freedom. Jefferson believes that a "model nation" is one that strongly involves the common man, giving them power. He has a lot of confidence in the common man and believes than can handle themselves in running a nation. Jefferson also thinks that a "model nation" is one that can sustain their own freedom. This was something the United States had just earned. After defeating the British and gaining freedom, Jefferson is saying that a "model nation", or a nation of greatness, will have success by maintaining that freedom. By trusting the common man and continuing to have freedom, Jefferson's "greatness" would then be achieved.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with what most people said before me about Hamilton. Yes he had great ideas for fixing the economy, but like what Oren said earlier, it only benefitted the rich. It didn't help the middle class very well.By letting the rich get more powerful, it would have damaged the government rather than help it prosper. In the Jefferson-Hamilton packet, Hamilton talked about how the buyers of new government issued bonds would benefit more than the sellers. It stated, "Each made his calculations of chances, and founded upon it an exchange of money for certificates. It has turned out generally that the buyer had the best of the bargain, but the seller got the value of his commodity according to his estimate of it," (198) Here, hamilton is talking about the selling of the government bonds. Hamilton is basically stating that the people who bought these government bonds which was the upper class at the time would be able to benefit much more the the sellers, which was the middle to lower classes. Since the rich benefitted more from the new bonds, it gave the rich more power as they bought many government bonds from the poor, whom they were in desperate need for money due to the debt from the American Revolution. by letting the rich benefit from selling the bonds back towards the government, it gave the rich more power inside of the government as it gave the government a source of income. It made the government a little dependent on the government at the beginning. Since the rich were a minority and they had the power, the rich would be able to persuade the government to support their ideals in return for funding, which would corrupt the true role of the federal government, which was to represent the people of the U.S. With Hamilton's beliefs, it would cause the federal government to be too dependent towards the rich, hurting the government at the beginning.
ReplyDeleteBaron this is a great example of how Hamilton was right about how you cannot trust the common man. The common man gave away his money, which shows how they focus on their wants and desires. Hamilton describes how the common man is like this when in the packet on page 191 it states, “ Take mankind in general, they are vicious-their passions may be operated upon…Take mankind as they are, and what are they governed by? Their passions.” Baron, the people throw away their money so how could putting them in charge of the government be a positive thing based on what you said? If the poor do this then they deserve what they get, they sold the bonds and they suffered from their desire for money. Hamilton later goes on to say, “their turbulent and uncontrolling disposition requires checks” on the same page of the packet. The people who could check these people are the rich. The rich are more educated and did not pitch away their possessions for money, so therefore it is a good thing that the rich would have a part in the government, Baron. If it came down to it Baron, I would rather have rich, intelligent, more fiscally responsible people checking the government, than people who gave away their bonds just for money.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with the majority of Hamilton's ideas, I think Jefferson also had many strong arguments in his push for American greatness. Brad explains that the common man is driven by passions. I believe that this is true but in the government Hamilton proposes the rich men are in charge. The rich are also just men and a most often driven by their own passions. On page 192 of the Hamilton vs. Jefferson packet, Jefferson states "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. It places the governors indeed more at their ease, at the expense of the people." Jefferson explains that the governors in this government Hamilton pushed for would be "at ease" meaning their money and needs would come before the peoples. Jefferson's idea was imperative to contemplate because even today many governors appear to be more concerned with reelection then the interests of the people. Putting the passions of the rich in front of the needs of the common man could have created a corrupt government where the leaders are only interested in their own progress instead nationwide progress and without the common man's necessities met America would not be able to reach greatness.
DeleteAs one can see, the common man’s interest to sell his bond to the rich was a solution for the present, but what about the future? As Brad shared with us, the common man was driven by his/her passions to fuel the decisions that they made in life. In the Hamilton/ Jefferson packet on page 192, Jefferson exclaimed, “I have great confidence in the common sense of mankind in general” (Alexander Hamilton Versus Thomas Jefferson on the Popular Rule (1780s-1820s), 192). As Hamilton proved with the common man’s selling of their bonds, the common man could not be trusted to keep his own money and be wise in the ways he sold the bonds. When the decision was made to pay back the bonds at full face value, the common man easily lost out, but this was their own fault. If they cannot be trusted with their own money, they cannot be trusted in making decisions for the rest of the country.
DeleteBaron I disagree with your point because what you are saying is that because the rich are benefiting then it is hurting the government. The rich are the ones who are the more educated and knowledgeable about the problems that the national government are facing and more apt to be able to lead the government to greatness. You said that they would corrupt the government because they are the minority and that they would use their wealth to convince the government to support their ideals. The rich however wanted only for the government to succeed. In the Hamilton-Jefferson packet, Hamilton is giving his opinion to popular rule, “There may be in every government a few choice spirits, who may act from more worthy motives” (Pg. 191). Hamilton here is referring to the rich as “a few choice spirits” and that they should be given control in the government as they have the countries best interests at heart. By letting the rich get more powerful in the government, as you said, they are able to control the government more and since they have the countries best interests in mind then they will help the country achieve greatness and become an economic superpower.
ReplyDeleteWhile I can see the logic and support for Hamilton, I have to disagree with what most of you are saying about how the rich should be trusted in running the government. Yes, the rich are able to be more informed, but they might make corrupted decisions that might help protect their money rather than the good of the country. In the Hamilton-Jefferson packet, Jefferson talked how the common people can be trusted if well informed. Jefferson stated, "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government,"(192). We all know that the rich are able to be informed more easily. But, the rich don't know everything about what's going on in the country. The rich only know about how the government should run, not what's actually happening around the nation. The common people are the ones that really know what's going on, like how the economy's affecting the U.S. They also run our government as they help with our nation in terms of job growth and they can choose whom's in Congress.In the end, the rich and the common people are all just people. The rich are more likely to be corrupted as their motives are more likely to protect their investments, while the common people are more likely to worry about what to do to help improve the nation. By not informing the common people, it shows how by letting the rich people run the nation, the people can't help the government as they have no idea on what's going on in the capitol.
ReplyDeleteBaron, while i think you bring up a valid point about if only the rich were to run the government, then there is a possibility that they could become corrupt and make decisions for their own personal gain instead of what is best for the United States as a nation. However, i disagree with your idea that the rich only know about how the government should be run, and that the common people know what is happening with the economy. Using the same quote from Jefferson "Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government,"(192) I believe that the wealthy are the ones that are more knowledgeable and better informed with the economy. I believe this because many rich people gained their wealth from trading. These people in particular had to be well informed in order to become rich, making them good candidates to help run the government. However, Baron, I do agree with you that these people who are very successful, are vulnerable to corruption because they would to use their power to obtain even more wealth.
DeleteI agree with what Baron is saying. The rich people have a different motive than what is necessary for the government to prosper; the rich people will create a government that is based on keeping money for themselves. In addition, the rich people are a minority, meaning the common man is the majority. This poses a significant problem to the country because the minority doesn't know what is happening in the country. The rich people don't know the common desires, or necessities for the country to prosper. In the Birth of the Republic, Morgan said, " but what seems to have worried the opponents of the Constitution the most was the scale of representation" (146). The common man in America would not be represented in the government that Hamilton preferred. The Americans just fought a war for the individual rights of every man, and the only possible way of every citizen getting a say is in Jeffersons ideal government. The Americans needed to have representation, and the only way was if the majority ran the country.
ReplyDeleteI like your point, Nick, but I think the problem is that neither side of the argument is perfect. The issue is, if you try to make everything equal, and give everyone equal say, nothing will get done, because people won't agree. By giving the ability to make decisions to a small group of educated individuals who, for the most part, have the best interests of the country at hand, then you are more likely to get things done. On page 194 in the packet, Hamilton pointed out, "Real liberty is neither found in depotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments". So, they've agreed that a dictator or monarchy wouldn't work for their country, but they've also realized that a pure democracy, where everyone has a say, wouldn't work for them either. They needed a balance, a system of representatives, and the best representatives for the people would be those who were well educated. As it happens, a majority of the well educated were wealthy. Yes, the wealthy surely had goals of their own, but wouldn't anyone in that authority?
ReplyDeleteI can see how this could work, shutziee18, after looking at page 191 in the packet we received in class. I think that it is true that the government could be run by the people because of the way that Jefferson describes them. On that page of the packet he says, “ Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if ever he had a chosen, whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue.” These hard working lower and lower-middle class Americans did just work for their own independence as you stated. And because that hard work Jefferson talked about was shown off by that Revolution I suppose that if the people put their passions toward what we define as “greatness” then they could run the government better than the rich.
DeleteAlso, Connor, I do agree with that point that monarchy nor Articles of Confederation would not work to bring America to greatness (I used the same quote about 24 hours ago) but think about this: The people just fought on their own land for so long, won independence, the Constitution has been created and all the people want is some representation. I am agreeing with Nick, and Jefferson on this mainly because I believe that Jefferson supports the common man the most. Jefferson supports them more than Hamilton and I think that by empowering these people who won their own independence and have now drafted a Constitution, they can do even more to get America to greatness.
I agree on your arguments that the people did work hard to gain independence, freedom, liberty etc. and that they are entitled to make decisions on America’s future. However, the common people are described to be “turbulent and changing” (Packet, pg 191) as described by Hamilton. They constantly shift their opinions and ideas, and with so many people involved, they would rarely get anything accomplished. The mass of the people set their sights on getting short term results, such as when they sold their bonds to get instant cash from the rich upper class rather than to wait and get more cash later, as pointed out by Brad earlier. And when they realized that upper class was receiving more money from the bonds, they complained that they had been cheated and wanted their bonds back. This proves how short sighted the common people were at the time. They cannot make up their minds and see the bigger picture. They did not plan for the future, all they see how much money they can make now and benefit from it at this moment. Hamilton suggests that they establish a permanent body of people who can listen to the people and decide what is best for America. This group of people from the upper class would have clearly demonstrated that they had the foresight of investing and planning for the future. Hamilton’s trust in these people who can plan for the future, surely must demonstrate that, at least in this aspect, his ideas will lead to greatness.
DeleteConnor, that is a fantastic point my friend. You've convinced me. In addition to your point, there is another aspect of Hamilton's that I particularly admire. Hamilton had a low opinion of the common man. On page 192 of Mr Sheehan's packet, Hamilton says "I have an indifferent [low] opinion of the honesty of this country, and ill forebodings as to its future system." Hamilton thinks that if the current government continues, then he predicts that the nation would not prosper. The part that I appreciate most is his perspective of the country. Hamilton has a strong desire for the country to prosper, but he recognizes that the country can't be trusted. He doesn't think the country has enough honesty to be run by itself. His government, a republic, is the best way of solving this problem. Hamilton is a great leader for America because he knows what needs to be done for the country to prosper.
ReplyDeleteBefore the Constitution was ratified and followed by the country, the Articles of Confederation were in use. The Articles gave power to the local state governments rather than too the nation central government. These times under the Articles were unstable to say the least and this was because the national government was rendered incapable by the states through checks that were in the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton saw how by giving the states more power then the federal government then the federal government would be unable to operate and accomplish its duties. Hamilton, in the Hamilton- Jefferson packet, is giving his opinion on how the states need to be given a role with lesser power. “A State government will ever be the rival power of the general government” (Pg. 192). Hamilton, after seeing how giving the states too much power crippled the nation, knew that the states would always be the rival of the central government if they were put on equal or upper ground. If a government was to be run successfully then there cannot be a rivalry between portions of it and in order to prevent that Hamilton would give the national government more power. Hamilton, again on the subject of the power of states, also states, “As the thing now is (referring to the states), however, I acknowledge the most serious apprehensions that the government of the United States will not be able to maintain itself against their influence. I see that influence already penetrating into the nation governments and preventing their direction” (Pg. 193). Hamilton knew that if the states were too powerful then they would slowly influence the national government and make their decisions benefit only themselves rather then the good of the people. I agree with Hamilton on this point because he understood that national government needed to be given more power in order for the United States to succeed as a nation.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to Edward’s post on greatness. Both Alexander Hamilton and John Adams wanted to bring greatness to The United States. Hamilton and Jefferson both wanted American Democracy to be a success. Hamilton said “I said that I was affectionately attached to the republican theory… I add that I have strong hopes of the success of that theory; but in candor I ought also to add that I am far from being without doubts. I consider its success as yet a problem.”(192) Jefferson stated: “My most earnest wish is to see the republican element of popular control pushed to the maximum of its practical exercise. I shall then believe that our government may be pure and perpetual.”(192) While both Hamilton and Jefferson wanted for America to achieve greatness, they had different methods of how greatness to be achieved. I think that Hamilton’s ideas or Jefferson’s alone would lead America to greatness because they both had strong ideas on how to make America great in different areas. I believe that Thomas Jefferson had better ideas when it came to who should run the country. On page 192 of the Hamilton vs. Jefferson packet, Jefferson states “Whenever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” I think that for America to achieve greatness, it must live out the values that are stated in the documents that America is based on. That is why I believe Jefferson was correct on who should govern the country.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is very important to discuss whether or not the rich should have control over the government, I think it is important that greatness in America is not just about who should control the government. There are other factors that need to exist for America to be great. One factor that I believe is important for America to achieve greatness is the economy. It is in this area that I believe that the ideas of Alexander Hamilton would be more effective for America to achieve greatness. One idea is good credit. On page 194 of the handout on Hamilton vs. Jefferson, Hamilton states: “A national debt, if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing.” Jefferson shared a different view on debt “No man is more ardently intent to see the public debt soon and sacredly paid off than I am. This exactly marks the difference between Colonel Hamilton’s views and mine, that I would wish the debt paid tomorrow” (194) I believe that Hamilton’s idea on always having a national debt is a good for the country because America could make consistent payments on this debt creating good credit. Having a good credit is important for America to achieve greatness because it would show foreign countries that it is safe to invest in the America, strengthening the economy and helping the United States achieve greatness.
ReplyDelete