Before the beginning of the Revolutionary War, parties of individuals with common interests and goals ran the government according to what suited their parties’ needs. The colonists saw how this corrupted the government and after separating themselves from the English in the war, strove for this to never occur within their own government. But as we have seen time and time again, History is doomed to repeat itself, and the first party system formed with the re-emergence of differing views of what America should be. From the Federalist side, led predominantly by Alexander Hamilton, came the idea of a self-supporting, industrialized America fueled by the strength of a strong economy and the wealthy upper class, Hamilton’s intended audience for his message. The Republicans on the other hand wanted a society based on equality of opportunity for all men, but also for our society to be based off of the effort of the workingman. The Republicans saw Hamilton’s views as a return to the ways of old, back when Parliament was looking for financial gain from the colonies. But was this really so bad?
Let’s imagine a situation. George Washington, instead of naming Hamilton to be his Secretary of the Treasury, he names Madison. Washington, assuming his position of political indifference, allows Madison to implement his ideas for the nation. Madison creates a series of bills, plans and taxes that will eventually lead to the nation becoming a country fueled by agriculture and based off of the workingman mentality that the Republican Party advocated. Imagine the America that we live in today, except instead of being based off of the Federalist mentality of economic power and self-industry, it’s based off of the early Republican idea of the workingman’s paradise.
(A little outdated, but you get the point)
Going back to the original point, what was so wrong with Hamilton’s goal of economic power and self-sufficiency of goods by giving the wealthy a reason to support the party that gave fruition to these ideas? The wealthy had power and wealth, things that Hamilton and the Federalist Party needed in order for their goals for the nation to succeed. What was so wrong with giving them a reason to support these ideas by giving them a stake in the government? Why do people support candidates nowadays? Is it because they agree with their idea’s and standpoints completely and entirely? Maybe, but most likely the candidate that they support has some sort of plan, idea or action that will benefit the voter in some way or another. That is how advertising works and fund raising works: You give the intended audience a reason to care.
Without Hamilton’s vision for the country, would America be the economic superpower and semi-self sufficient country that we are today? So, do you think that the Republican Parties claims that the Federalist Party tending to the will of the wealthy in order to attain a government that was returning to the ways of old, was in fact wrong? Feel free to share your ideas.
Jayson, while I agree with your idea that the wealthy do play a significant part during elections, the Republican Party (Antifederalists) was worried that the United States of America, when run by the Federalists, would become like England . Their government supposedly believed that sovereignty lay in the people, but Federalists (particularly Alexander Hamilton) wanted to give power to the wealthy. While the wealthy are crucial in any nation, the government should represent all people.
ReplyDeleteYou believe that without Alexander Hamilton’s industrial vision the States would rely only on farming? I disagree. Industry cannot be avoided; it is crucial when nations increase revenue, trade internationally, create job opportunities, and fuel the economy. If Alexander Hamilton never existed, industry would eventually have been created.
I totally and completely agree with your views that the wealthy have a significant amount of power in government. I understand that government, especially today, relies heavily on the donations of the wealthy. With this being said, I have to point out one thing. Hamilton's federalist plan was not to give the wealthy some power, but rather to give them all power. He believed that "a stable government required an elite ruling class". Doesn't this sound like parliament? At this time when America still has postwar debt to payoff, very few can be part of the wealthy and elite. This situation creates a rule by a powerful minority. This is what the Republicans were trying to avoid, more rule by highly, in fact, too powerful people. This does not mean that I agree with the Republican ideology because a system run by the working class can be volatile as well. Mainly because everyone, poor or rich, is looking for government to appeal to their personal needs so if anyone group was left with superiority in government, the result could be a one-sided government that provides for only a part of its nation. My opinion is that neither plan was totally right and essentially both parties needed to find a "happy medium".
ReplyDeleteWith all this being said, however I totally agree with Hamilton's plans for the future of America. His plans to build America into a commercial nation were beneficial to America in that era and both the future. He managed to foresee an America that could eventually overcome its war debt and create more opportunities that would only further enrich the policy of "equal opportunity" on which America prided itself on. With the commercial center that Hamilton envisioned, more money would come to America and there would be a more prosperous economy. This is where Madison's republican plan fell short. It did not have a bigger, better picture for America.
Jayson, I couldn't agree more with your idea that Hamilton gave the wealthy a reason to invest in the government. However, we have to remember who the largest percentage of the American population was: the common people. Because they represented the American people at large, their sentiments should be remembered in order to have balance in the government. So Danielle and Tola, I also agree with you that there should be a balance of who has a say in the government. But that balance can never truly be acheived because the wealthy will always have more power in the government, since they are the ones investing in it, which is fair for the most part.
ReplyDeleteEmma,
ReplyDeleteThat makes government sound like a business--the more you invest in it (the more taxes, the more shares), the more you should get out of it. But doesn't that seem to violate the ideal of equality?
Hamilton wanted the wealthy to buy into the country & to gain the support of the wealthy. This was controversial because 1. the wealthy had more of a part of the gov’t so the gov’t would help out the wealthy more & 2. there would always be a debt if we just paid back the bonds – but it would keep the wealthy relying on the gov’t. The tariffs and the excise tax would help from going deeply into debt. But Hamilton didn't mind a little debt. Without Hamilton’s vision for the country i don't think that America be the economic superpower and semi-self sufficient country that we are today. While it is an unfortunate truth, it is a truth non the less that the wealthy have more power in gov't, even to this day. When you think about it, the wealthy are the ones who finance and support the running candidates, without that some of the candidates could have lost enabling another one to become president. Even though the common people are the majority and their votes counts the most-- once the president who won is in office, those who helped him get there will have much more of a say than the common people who voted for him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point that Emma brought up about the fact that the majority of the population was indeed comprised of the common people. Therefore I also feel that the government should be designed to take into account their ideas in order to fully represent the majority. I also feel that the government should seek to strike a balance between the beliefs of both the common people and the small percentage of wealthy citizens. While you can argue that the wealthy should have more of a say because they are the ones contributing the most money to the government, I think that the common people deserve just as much say as they do, not just because of their vast numbers, but because every citizen should be given the same basic rights. Unfortunately though, money tends to be directly related to power and influence in politics, so I agree that it will always be in the favor of the wealthy to some extent. However, I do agree that this violates the ideal of equality in government despite the fact that the wealthy are the larger contributors.
ReplyDeleteIf for nothing but to be the devil's advocate, I think the colonists had to put a "band-aid" on slavery and the other issues, otherwise the United States of America would not exist. When the idea of abolishing slavery finally came around, so did the civil war. Both the North's and the South's beliefs on slavery were so firm that they were willing to kill their brothers over it (their sisters didn't really fight). If the colonial leaders had forced the debate on slavery, the already brittle Constitutional Convention was likely to shatter on top of the already broken Articles of Confederation, leaving the United States of America divided. On top of that, if war broke out, the anti-slavery side wouldn't stand a chance. Even in the northern states that banned the slave trade, there were too many people who still had slaves to recruit the necessary numbers for war, let alone their fiscal issues. Slavery is a terrible thing, but if the colonial leaders had jumped the gun, the bullet would have hit them. All that America's revolution had been for (originally fair or not), would have been for nothing. If America had broken up back then, there is a fair chance that America would no longer be America, but England, France or Spain.
ReplyDelete