Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian Democracies

Federalist and the Democratic Republican parties, respectively. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, advocated the importance of a strong central government in leading the country forward, while the Democratic Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson, promoted increasing the common man’s role in government. Although both political parties had good intentions for the future of the United States, the Federalist Party was much more effective at uniting the American people, avoiding domestic faction, and keeping the best interests in mind for the future of the United States.

Hamilton said the few, and Jefferson said the many. This is fact that the policies and strategies of Thomas Jefferson served and facilitated a vital equilibrium to ideas of Hamilton. Support of Jefferson of states’ rights and farming assisted to balance the influence of the Hamilton-helping mercantilists and companies. Though, in the absence of Hamilton’s offset, the policies of Jefferson may become the administration weak and unsuccessful to treat with huge domestic and international crises. Alexander Hamilton

Academic anxiety?
Get original paper in 3 hours and nail the task
Get your paper price

124 experts online

Hamilton, however, believed that Washington should publicly declare that the United States would remain out of the war, Washington did eventually deny Genet’s request, but he did not declare the 1778 treaty void, as Hamilton suggested. Genet was allowed to continue his recruitment campaign, which nearly prompted Great Britain to declare war on the United States. Washington ordered Genet to return to France, but Genet asked not to be sent home because he believed that he would lose his head on the guillotine if he returned. Washington allowed him to stay in America.

The British, angry with America’s borderline participation in the wars, began taking measures into their own hands. Great Britain still maintained military outposts in the westernmost lands of the United States, and refused to remove these soldiers. British soldiers also began to impress American civilians and merchant sailors into serving on British warships, and the British navy seized hundreds of American merchant ships. To prevent war with Great Britain, Hamilton encouraged Washington to send Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay to London to sign a treaty with the English.

Jay left for England in 1794 with instructions from Hamilton that outlined American goals for the diplomatic talks. In his instructions, Hamilton insisted that British impressments of Americans cease, that all British forts be removed from American territory, and that the random seizure of American ships come to a full stop. Jay signed a treaty in the fall of 1794, but Jay’s Treaty, as it came to be known, was a disappointment for Hamilton. Very few American goals were met, but Hamilton urged Washington and the Senate to ratify the treaty because he believed that war between Great Britain and the United States would otherwise be inevitable.

Hamilton wrote a series of essays under the pseudonym “Camillus” that defended Jay’s Treaty line by line. His efforts convinced the public, and the Senate ratified the treaty. Hamilton also helped Washington draft his famous Farewell Address, which Washington delivered in 1796 when he announced that he would not seek a third term as president. In the Farewell Address addressed several important issues, Washington asked the American people not to divide themselves into political parties, and called upon them to maintain and uphold their republican ideals and morality.

Furthermore, Washington encouraged the United States not to meddle in European affairs. Many historians believe that Hamilton actually wrote many of the key passages of the speech, even though its tone is distinctly Washington’s. Washington retired from public life in 1796, and Vice-President John Adams was elected President, much to Hamilton’s dismay. The French government responded violently to Jay’s Treaty, which they saw as an Anglo-American alliance against France. Between the years 1796 and 1800, the French Navy seized or destroyed hundreds of American ships and cut off all formal diplomatic relations with the United States.

Hamilton petitioned President Adams to send John Jay to Paris to negotiate another treaty with France. Adams agreed, but when the ambassadors arrived in France, the French government demanded a bribe of a quarter of a million dollars before it would even talk with the Americans. The demand for the bribe became known as the XYZ Affair, named after the three unnamed French diplomats who had demanded payment. Americans were shocked and many demanded war. Hamilton did not want war at this time, but agreed that the U. S. should begin preparing its military.

The Federalist Party sought to destroy the threat of failure by strengthening the United States’ central government. As Alexander Hamilton said, “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. ” In Hamilton’s mind, strengthening the central government would ensure freedom for every American citizen by uniting the people to think and speak with a single voice. Hamilton had witnessed firsthand the political and economic confusion caused by states’ conflicting interests and corrupt taxation policies under the Articles of Confederation.

He realized that the only way for the Union to survive and prosper was for the Federal government to take control of the country’s political and economic decision-making. With a strong Federal power in place, troublesome interstate conflicts could be solved swiftly and decisively, before they gained any steam and threatened the future of the United States. In order to accomplish this under the restrictive Constitution, the Federal government needed a justification to stretch its powers.

The Federalists adopted the philosophy of loose construction: a flexible interpretation of the United States Constitution that granted the Federal government “implied powers”, powers that were not specifically granted to them by the Constitution. Hamilton believed that allowing the Federal government such freedoms was important to the well-being of the country because this allowed the government to act in whatever manner would best serve the country’s interests—even if the actions stretched (or, in some cases, violated) the limits of power set in the Constitution.

One Federalist action that the Democratic Republicans opposed was the establishment of the Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England. The Bank stored excess money, printed paper money that was valuable, and circulated cash to stimulate American businesses. The National Bank was largely beneficial to the American people, and yet it was strongly opposed by Jefferson and his followers. Was a National Bank really so bad for the United States? According to the Democratic Republicans, banks should be state-controlled on account of the 9thAmendment.

However, as the past had proven, states should not be trusted to develop independent banks; such banks would circulate conflicting state currencies and create widespread economic confusion. Hamilton once said, “If all the public creditors receive their dues from one source [the government]…their interest[s] will [be] the same. And having the same interests, they will unite in support of the fiscal arrangements of the government. ” Hamilton believed that if there was one bank for the entire United States, then all of the American creditors would unite in support of the government.

This would bolster the American economy and eliminate domestic faction. Hamilton’s belief that “[what] is not forbidden by any particular provision of the constitution…may safely be deemed to come within the compass of the national authority” (Syrett) was ultimately the best policy for the United States; it allowed the Federal government to maintain control over interstate issues and establish a strong banking system, both of which increased the power of the central government, the effectiveness of this government, and the freedoms, securities, and comforts of the American people.

In contrast, the Democratic Republicans put large amounts of power directly in the hands of the people. Jefferson believed “in the common sense of mankind in general” and distrusted the central government. Democratic Republicans feared the tyranny of an all-powerful national government capable of operating unchecked and unchallenged without the consent of the people. However, their fears were largely unwarranted; the Constitution would not allow for such an oppressive government to exist—even if interpreted loosely—because of the numerous checks and balances put into place by the Founding Fathers.

They ensured that the Federal government would always perform the will of the people. However, Jefferson would not compromise and insisted on preaching his outmoded conspiracy theories. Jefferson even went so far as to say, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers…alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. ” Unfortunately, this apprehensive philosophy did not work very well for the American people at all; it encouraged the development of factions, an apparent conflict of interests, and little room for compromise.

Jefferson’s flawed philosophy planted the seeds of the future Nullification Crisis where southern advocates of sectionalism believed that state legislatures had the right to “pick and choose” which Federal laws were effective in their states. Many prominent politicians at the time believed this crisis would be the end of the Union. In this situation, Jefferson’s philosophies were used to encourage conflicts between South Carolina and the Federal government. Jefferson’s agitation did not stop there.

He once said “…It is her [England’s] government which is so corrupt, and which has destroyed the nation—it was certainly the most corrupt and unprincipled government on earth. ” This statement insulted many Federalists, loyalists, and New Englanders. The Democratic Republicans showed time and time again that they were most adept at causing internal strife rather than solving anything. Clearly Jefferson’s uncompromising and accusatory philosophies only served to divide Americans, amplify interstate conflicts, and damage the strength of the United States.

Although both the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans did their best to lead Americans in a positive direction towards a bright future, it is evident that the Federalist Party was much more effective at accomplishing this goal. With their far-sighted yet prudent use of Federal power to control states issues and establish a strong banking system, the Federalists united the American people, resolved internal divisions within the country, and kept the best interests in mind for the future of the United States.

The Federalists’ relentless belief in protecting American freedoms, securities, and comforts allowed them to accommodate nearly every American and provide for the future of this great country. With no money or family connections to help him rise in the world, he made his way on ability ambition, and charm. George Washington spotted Hamilton’s talents early in the Revolutionary War. Washington made the young man his aide-de-camp or personal assistant. Near the end of the war, Hamilton improved his fortunes by marrying Elizabeth Schuyler.

His new wife came from one of New York’s richest and most powerful families. With her family’s political backing, Hamilton was elected to represent New York in Congress after the war. Later, he served as a delegate from New York to the Constitutional Convention. View of Human Nature – (human nature – human behavior that does not change over time) Hamilton’s view of human nature was shaped by his wartime experiences. All too often, he had seen people put their own interests and personal profit above patriotism and the needs of the country.

Most Federalists shared Hamilton’s view that people were basically selfish and out for themselves. For this reason, they distrusted any system of government that gave too much power to “the mob,” or the common people. Such a system, said Hamilton, could only lead to “error, confusion, and instability. ” Best Form of Government Federalists believed that the country should be ruled by “best people” – educated, wealthy, public-spirited men like themselves. Such people had the time, education, and background to run the country wisely. “Those who own the country,” said Federalist John Jay bluntly, “ought to govern it.

” Federalists favored a strong national government, they believed in loose construction, a broad or flexible interpretation of the Constitution. They hoped to use the new government’s powers under the Constitution to unite the quarreling states and keep order among the people. In their view, the rights of the states were not nearly as important as national power and unity. Ideal Economy Hamilton’s dream of national greatness depended on the United States developing a strong economy. In 1790, the nation’s economy was still based mainly on agriculture.

Hamilton wanted to expand the economy and increase the nation’s wealth by using the power of the federal government to promote business, manufacturing, and trade. In 1790, Hamilton presented Congress with a plan to pay off all war debts as quickly as possible. If the debts were not promptly paid, he warned, the government would lose respect both at home and abroad. Hamilton’s plan for repaying the debts was opposed by many Americans, especially in the South. Most southern states had already paid their war debts. They saw little reason to help states in the North pay off what they still owed.

Hamilton believed the government should play a strong role in individuals’ lives; that the collective, consolidated national identity should be primary. By issuing huge amounts of debt, he hoped to involve the Treasury in the day-to-day operations of the economy, and so give the government a certain purchase over citizen’s private lives. For Hamilton, America’s strength lay in its commerce. Hamilton’s America was an America of businessmen, entrepreneurs, bankers and financiers. The government needed to help these people compete in a global marketplace. And only the national government could do that.

Hamilton was suspicious of state governments, beholden as they were to narrow local interests. Alexander Hamilton wanted a very powerful federal government working in the wellbeing of trade and commerce (Lodge, 133-142). This approach was very effective for the American nation. He developed in American nation a love of efficiency, regulate and organization. When the House of Representatives responded regarding a strategy for the “sufficient assistance of public credit” (Lodge, 133-142), he contributed and greatly supported the rules not only of the economy of nation, but of effective and successful administration.

He strongly indicated that American nation must have credit for the development of industry and trade, business activity and government operations. It should also have the total trust and strongly support of the whole nation. On that time, many people who wanted to reject the debt of nation or pay just its part. Hamilton though importuned on complete payment as well as insisted on a strategy in which the central government took over the states debts those are unpaid incurred throughout the Revolution (Higgins, 78-87).

Hamilton also suggested and planned a central Bank of the United States, Hamilton argued that due to the bunch of compulsory aspect, a huge body of supremacy had to be connoted by common sections, and one of such official Congress to “create all rules and regulations that shall be essential and appropriate” for completing different other powers specially established. The American Constitution endorsed the central government to charge and gather taxes and pay liabilities. A central bank would significantly assist in working such operations professionally.

Congress, thus, was allowed, in its authorities, to make a central bank. Both the Congress and Washington totally confessed the great view of Hamilton, and a vital precedent for a liberal understanding of the central government’s power (Higgins, 78-87). He developed with the right to set up branches of bank in many areas of America. He also sponsored a national mint, and conversed in support of tariffs, with an account of an “infant industry” argument: that short-term security of fresh organizations can assist serve the growth of competitive nationwide businesses.

Such great and successful initiatives, arranging the central government’s credit on a firm foundation and providing funds it needed, he gave confidence to business industry, and maintained a well educated and powerful force of professional persons who stood determinedly at the back of American government. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, wanted a strong federal government in order to increase commerce and help restrain mob violence such as the Whiskey Rebellion. Hamilton also felt that having a strong federal government would also make it easier to solve national problem.

Hamilton favored a loose interpretation of the Constitution. He argued that since the Constitution gave Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry out its duties, it was constitutional for the Bank of the United States to collect taxes and pay its bills. Hamilton also thought only the well educated should lead the nation, and only those who owned property should be able to vote. Hamilton favored the British because many imports were from the British, and he wanted the United States to model itself on Britain because it was a very powerful country.

Additionally, Hamilton wanted to have an industrial economy because he favored the growth of cities and the merchant class. Hamilton had the best vision for America. While Jefferson was too busy making sure that there would be no tyranny, Hamilton set out to make a government that would be both fair and effective to rule the people. He focused on keeping order, and not on things already taken care of, like tyranny, which was already taken care of by the Bill of Rights. At the time and all the way up until today, there are more important things to focus on than tyranny, like money and foreign affairs.

It is better to have a strong national government than to have a strong state government. The Articles of Confederation failed, because it gave too much power to the states. Is it wise to make that mistake again? Since having a strong state government was a failure, he obvious solution is to have a strong federal government to keep the nation together, or else it the "United" States would only be a loose confederation of states held together by just a border. Hamilton was right to have the educated rule because they have learned what is best for the nation.

No one would want a government run by people who have not even received an education and who know nothing about the government. The educated are more familiar with the way that the government should be run and will therefore make the better decisions than the less informed. Also, he was right to believe only the people who owned property should be allowed to vote because it is more likely for them to know who would take care of their property tax wisely, if there were any property tax at the time. Also, they are most likely to know who the better candidate is because they live in the land, and who they vote for will affect their lives.

It is wiser to become allies with Britain than with France because since Britain and the United States often trade, and the United States will benefit from it more than it will benefit from becoming allies with France. Britain is also a good country for America to model itself on because that way, America will also become a very powerful nation. An industrial economy would also be good for the nation, because it would make the nation richer from trading with foreign countries, and American would also gain resources it would not have had without trading.

Jefferson’s idea that everyone should become farmers is not smart because some people do not want to become farmers. In conclusion, Hamilton had the better vision for America because he focused on making America a powerful, rich nation, and he wanted the best for its citizens Differences between First Political Parties FederalistsLeader: Alexander HamiltonFavored: • Rule by the wealthy class • Strong federal government • Emphasis on manufacturing • Loose interpretation of the Constitution| Democratic-RepublicansLeader: Thomas JeffersonFavored: • Rule by the people • Strong state governments

• Emphasis on agriculture • Strict interpretation of the Constitution| Thomas Jefferson Jefferson served in Washington’s cabinet as his secretary of state, and so participated in all policy discussions, foreign and domestic. It was the perfect space in which to air his new ideas about democracy. He thought he might have a chance to shape government policy. He couldn’t have realized that he would instead shape what is usually considered the most important conflict in American politics. Jefferson preferred farms and rural life. Hamilton lived for New York City competing visions of government.

Jefferson imagined a government that was strong and centralized on foreign policy, but was as hands-off and restrained as it could be on domestic matters. He was inherently suspicious of anything that compromised individual self-sufficiency and was positively horrified at the thought of Americans depending on their government. A citizenry dependent on the government couldn’t be independent. It would mean that the government had compromised individual private life. Personal Background Jefferson was born in Virginia to an wealthy and respected family.

With land inherited from his father, Jefferson set himself up as a Virginia tobacco planter. Once he was established as a planter, Jefferson entered Virginia politics. As a politician, he lacked the ability to make stirring speeches. Instead, Jefferson spoke eloquently with his pen. His words in the Declaration of Independence and other writings are still read and admired today. View of Human Nature Jefferson’s view of human nature was much more hopeful than Hamilton’s. He assumed that informed citizens could make good decisions for themselves and their country. “I have so much confidence in the good sense of men.

” Jefferson wrote when revolution broke out in France, “that I am never afraid of the issue where reason is left free to exert her force. ” Jefferson had great faith in the goodness and wisdom of people who worked the soil – farmers and planters like himself. “State a problem to a ploughman and a professor,” he said, and “the former will decide it often better than the latter. ” Best Form of Government Democratic-Republicans had no patience with the Federalists’ view that only the “best people” should rule. To Democratic-Republicans, this view came close to monarchy, or rule by a king.

Democratic-Republicans believed that the best government was the one that governed the least. A small government with limited powers was most likely to leave the people alone to enjoy the blessings of liberty. To keep the national government small, they insisted on a strict construction, or interpretation, of the Constitution. The Constitution, they insisted, meant exactly what it said, no more and no less. Any addition to the powers listed there, was unconstitutional (against the law) and dangerous. Ideal Economy Like most Americans in the 1790s, Jefferson was a country man.

He believed that the nation’s future lay not with Federalist bankers and merchants, but with plain, Democratic-Republican farm folk. “Those who labor in the earth,” he wrote, “are the chosen people of God, if ever He had a chosen people. ” Democratic-Republicans favored an economy based on agriculture. They opposed any measures designed to encourage the growth of business and manufacturing. (to make something into a product using raw materials) While, Thomas Jefferson was also a great person but he failed to stand out within the nation; so, many people of America observed this as a deficiency of objective.

They were very extremely wrong, because Jefferson was not trying to quench a thirst for authority; he was looking for a path to quench his wish for a chance to move forward the principles of self-governing, he had expressively describe in the Declaration of Independence. He strongly considered that the power of economy depend on agriculture sector. However, he distinguished the requirement of change and supported the farmers to become more engaged in the extending global market.

He demonstrated trust in the capability of nation to form strategy; he believed the American nation and worried that unnecessary power of government would damage the freedom of nation. He debated that the nation’s weakness lay with the fake lords who located the security of “possessions” and “civil order” almost greater than the conservation and protection of “freedom. ” To Jefferson, investors, bankers, producers, and pioneers felt hazardous to the American society, because Jefferson strongly condemned the formation of a central bank and he calling it illegal (Scott, 99-110).

Washington and Hamilton shared with each other several primary principles; both desired they were employing great effort in the direction of the organization of an effective nation. Though, the two personalities had suddenly and rapidly conflicting visions for the American nation. Because of the huge achievement of his thoughts and policies, Alexander Hamilton may have had a little higher than the visions of Thomas Jefferson. Though, his unique dreams have been changed gradually, a central system of banking and national credit system still possessed by America (Scott, 99-110).

Jefferson profoundly disagreed with Hamilton about the basic make-up of the American people. Hamilton’s financiers, Jefferson claimed, were parasitic commercial elites, dependent for their success on the virtuous labor of independent yeoman farmers. The government, Jefferson believed, had no responsibility to help them. If the government was going to help anyone, it should be helping those farmers on whom the commercialists preyed. And the best way to help those farmers, Jefferson argued, was to leave real power close to them, in their state governments, and keep the federal government out of their way.

His fight with Hamilton was, at least as Jefferson saw it, a disagreement about who should rule in the name of the people: Thomas Jefferson was a man who felt that a strong federal government was dangerous to the nation, as he strongly feared tyranny. He felt that a strong state government would protect individual rights and individual freedom. Jefferson was very cautious about how the new government should be run, and he wanted it to closely follow the Constitutional. For example, Jefferson didn’t want a national bank because he worried that it would give too much power to the wealthy investors who would run it and to the government.

He argued that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to create a national bank. Instead, amendments 9 and 10 stated that any power not specifically listed in the Constitution was granted to the states. Because of this, he thought that having a Bank of the United States was unconstitutional. He also believed it was unconstitutional because it only made the rich, richer. Another example that demonstrates his fear of tyranny was that he believed everyone of voting age should be allowed to vote, and the people should have the political power.

Jefferson favored the French, who were their aid during the Revolution and were fighting to become a democracy themselves. In addition, Jefferson thought life was better on a farm, and he emphasized agriculture. In fact, he wanted everyone to become a farmer, so everyone would be equal. He feared that a manufacturing economy would give all the power to a small group of Americans; in other words, he felt that even having a national bank would lead to tyranny. Differences between First Political Parties FederalistsLeader: Alexander HamiltonFavored:

• Rule by the wealthy class • Strong federal government • Emphasis on manufacturing • Loose interpretation of the Constitution| Democratic-RepublicansLeader: Thomas JeffersonFavored:Rule by the people • Strong state governments • Emphasis on agriculture • Strict interpretation of the Constitution| Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the Federalist Party, and Thomas Jefferson, the leader of the new Democratic Republicans, shared many different visions for the future of America, stemming back from their days on George Washington’s cabinet.

As the country flourished, and these two became leaders of America’s political parties, their views on foreign policy, the federal government versus state governments, and economic policies contrasted even more. Hamilton, a lax Constitutionalist, wanted an organized strong central government, fearing anarchy without a central power. He felt one strong government would be able to deal with national problems much more efficiently than many state and local governments, in which strong divisions might arise. Jefferson wanted things to stay the way they were with the state and local governments in charge, fearing another monarchy.

This caused him to become a strict Constitutionalist. By doing carefully analyzing the Constitution, Jefferson would be able to see any loopholes in it, allowing the state laws to override the federal laws. Foreign Policy Ranking: first term, good; second term, disastrous Barbary War Jefferson was the first president to commit US forces to a foreign war. Barbary pirates, sailing from Tripoli (now the capital of Libya), and other places in North Africa, had long demanded tribute payments from American merchant ships plying the Mediterranean Sea.

In 1801, however, they raised their demands, and Jefferson demanded an end to the practice of bribe payments. Jefferson sent US Navy ships and a contingent of Marines to Tripoli, where a brief engagement with pirates marked the United States’ first successful overseas venture. The conflict also helped convince Jefferson, never a supporter of large standing armies, that the United States needed a professionally trained military officer cadre. As such, he signed legislation to create the United States Military Academy at West Point. Louisiana Purchase In 1763, France lost the French and Indian War to Great Britain.

Before the Treaty of Paris of 1763 stripped it permanently of all territory in North America, France ceded Louisiana (a roughly defined territory west of the Mississippi River and south of the 49th Parallel) to Spain for diplomatic “safe-keeping. ” France planned to retrieve it from Spain in the future. The deal made Spain nervous as it feared losing the territory, first to Great Britain, then to the United States after 1783. To prevent incursions, Spain periodically shut down the Mississippi to Anglo-American trade. President Washington, through Pinckney’s Treaty in 1796, negotiated an end to Spanish interference on the river.

In 1802, Napoleon, now emperor of France, made plans to reclaim Louisiana from Spain. Jefferson recognized that French reacquisition of Louisiana would negate Pinckney’s Treaty, and he sent a diplomatic delegation to Paris to renegotiate it. In the meantime, a military corps that Napoleon had sent to reoccupy New Orleans had run afoul of disease and revolution in Haiti. It subsequently abandoned its mission, causing Napoleon to consider Louisiana too costly and cumbersome to maintain. Upon meeting the US delegation, Napoleon’s ministers offered to sell the United States all of Louisiana for $15 million.

The diplomats did not have the authority to make the purchase, so they wrote to Jefferson and waited weeks for a response. Jefferson favored strict interpretation of the Constitution; that is, he did not favor wide latitude in interpreting the document. He abruptly switched to a loose constitutional interpretation of executive authority and okayed the purchase. In doing so, he doubled the size of the United States cheaply and without warfare. The Louisiana Purchase was Jefferson’s greatest diplomatic and foreign policy achievement. Embargo Act

When fighting between France and England intensified, Jefferson tried to craft a foreign policy that allowed the United States to trade with both belligerents without taking sides in their war. That was impossible, given that both sides considered trade with the other a defacto act of war. While both countries violated American “neutral trade rights” with a series of trade restrictions, the United States considered Great Britain to be the biggest violator because of its practice of impressment — kidnapping US sailors from American ships to serve in the British navy.

In 1806, Congress — now controlled by Democrat-Republicans — passed the Non-Importation Act, which prohibited the import of certain goods from the British Empire. The act did no good, and both Great Britain and France continued to deny American neutral rights. Congress and Jefferson ultimately responded with the Embargo Act in 1807. The act, believe it or not, prohibited American trade with all nations — period. Certainly, the act contained loopholes, and some foreign goods came in while smugglers got some American goods out.

But the act stopped the bulk of American trade, hurting the nation’s economy. In fact, it wrecked the economy of New England, which relied almost exclusively on trade to support its economy. The act rested in part on Jefferson’s inability to craft a creative foreign policy for the situation. It also pointed out American arrogance which believed the major European nations would cave in without American goods. The Embargo Act failed, and Jefferson ended it just days before he left office in March 1809. It marked the lowest point of his foreign policy attempts.

Jefferson and Hamilton also did not agree on foreign policy. During the beginnings of the French Revolution both were glad the French were using America’s independence as an example to improve their country. When things got bloody, Jefferson still supported the French cause, stating the violence was necessary. Hamilton, along with the other Federalists were frightened and opposed to the situation. Afterwards, when Britain and France went to war, Jefferson and his party strongly stayed on the side of the French. Works Cited: Shmoop Editorial Team. “Thomas Jefferson: vs.

Alexander Hamilton” Shmoop. com. Shmoop University, Inc. , 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. http://www. shmoop. com/thomas-jefferson/vs-alexander-hamilton. html Kash. “Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. ” Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. N. p. , 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. http://mrkash. com/activities/hamiltonjefferson. html http://usforeignpolicy. about. com/od/introtoforeignpolicy/a/Foreign-Policy-Under-Thomas-Jefferson. htm http://www. sparknotes. com/biography/hamilton/section9. rhtml http://www. learner. org/biographyofamerica/prog05/index. html

This essay was written by a fellow student. You may use it as a guide or sample for writing your own paper, but remember to cite it correctly. Don’t submit it as your own as it will be considered plagiarism.

Need a custom essay sample written specially to meet your requirements?

Choose skilled expert on your subject and get original paper with free plagiarism report

Order custom paper Without paying upfront

Hamiltonian vs Jeffersonian Democracies. (2016, Sep 03). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/hamiltonian-vs-jeffersonian-democracies/