Chapter 10: Launching the New Ship of State 1789-1800 Flashcards
Memory Aid for Hamilton’s Financial Plan: “BE FAT”
Bank of the U.S. Excise Taxes Funding at Par Assumption of State Debts Tariffs
- Did the Bill of Rights satisfy the Anti-Federalists concerns? Was individual liberty and state sovereignty protected by the new amendments? What about assaults on the new Bill of Rights such as the national bank and the Alien and Sedition Acts?
The Bill of Rights did help to satisfy Anti-Federalist concerns. They were not completely satisfied, as many Anti-Federalists still would have preferred a government with less power, but they were somewhat appeased knowing that their rights such as freedom of religion, speech, and the press were protected. Other individual liberties were assured as well, for example, the right to bear arms, the right to a jury trial, and the right to petition the government for grievances. It also prohibited cruel and unusual punishments. Some such as Thomas Jefferson saw the national bank as an assault on the Bill of Rights. He believed that it was unconstitutional and gave too much power to the government. Others like Alexander Hamilton argued that the Constitution never said that there could not be a national bank, and therefore the creation of one would not be unconstitutional. The Alien and Sedition Acts were seen as a violation of rights as well. They limited freedom of speech and forced immigrants out of the country, which were seen to be a direct contrast to the ideals of the Constitution at that time.
- Why did Hamilton move so rapidly to create large financial commitments by the federal government? Since we normally think of the federal debt as something bad, why did Hamilton think of it as something good and necessary for the national welfare?
Alexander Hamilton wanted to boost the national credit. He was passionate about his country and believed that the best way to improve it was to improve its credit. Hamilton believed that the best way to do this was to have Congress fund the national debt. The government would pay off the combined debt of the states, which added up to more than 54 million dollars. Hamilton was eager for the government to take on even more burdens. Normally we associate debt with negative consequences, but Alexander Hamilton saw it as a way to strengthen the national government. If the government paid off the states’ debts, then they would be in debt to the government. In this way the states would be tied together and the government would become more centralized and powerful, which was exactly what Hamilton wanted. He believed that a centralized government was best for the welfare of the country.
- Why were political parties viewed as so dangerous by the Founding Fathers? Why did parties come into being at all, and why did they come to be accepted as legitimate ways to express political disagreement?
When George Washington took office, there were no political parties. There were factions, but nothing to the extent of the Hamiltonian-Jeffersonian debate that later ensued. Many founders saw political parties such as these to be dangerous because they were afraid that rival groups would slight national unity and encourage disloyalty. Because of this, in the 1790s political parties were a very new idea. Parties began to form when Jefferson and Madison first organized their opposition to Hamilton’s program. Both Jefferson and Hamilton gained many followers and formed the beginnings of two of the two party system we have today. Jeffersonians became democratic-republicans and Hamiltonians became federalists. Despite early suspicions regarding parties, they came to be accepted as legitimate ways to express political disagreement. The competition between viewpoints showed itself to be invaluable to the success of America as a democracy. The differing viewpoints helped to make sure that the government followed the wishes of the people and did not turn into a dictatorship.
- How wise was Washington’s insistence on neutrality? What about the fact that, while this foreign policy stance may not have violated the letter of the alliance with France, it did violate the spirit of the alliance? Do you agree that, as the authors contend, “self-interest is the basic cement of alliances”? Does a nation have an obligation to maintain alliances previously established even when it is no longer in that nation’s self-interest?
Washington’s insistence on neutrality with regards to the French war was wise. In 1793, America was still weak. Its military was small, the economy was new, and the political system was not unified. Washington chose to do what he felt was best for his newborn country. The spirit of the alliance between the French and Americans was not violated, in my opinion. The Americans were actually able to do more good for the French by maintaining neutrality because they were able to provide them with supplies that otherwise would have been cut off by the British.
I agree with the author’s statement that “self-interest is the basic cement of alliances” because in most cases it is true. Because the government of a country is (or should be) looking out for the best interests of its people, it will make alliances that benefit them. Also, if a country chooses to join in an alliance that benefits the other country more than itself, often citizens will begin to complain about the costs. This is not the case all of the time, but selfish human nature combined with nationalism more often than not backs up this statement. In terms of obligations to uphold alliances, I feel like the circumstances must be taken into account. If a nation has the ability to help, it should, but in some cases, like this one, upholding the alliance wouldn’t have benefitted either country very much.
- Contrast the Hamiltonian Federalist belief that the wealthy and well educated ought to run the government with the Jeffersonian Republican belief that the common person, if educated, could be trusted to manage public affairs.
Hamiltonian Federalists believed that the wealthy were better educated and therefore better equipped than the common folk to take part in government. They felt that a government should be governed by the “best” and that the benefits reaped by the wealthy would soon spread to the lower end of the spectrum. Jeffersonian Republicans, however, believed that the educated common person would do just as well as the rich. Jefferson and Hamilton may have disagreed in terms of wealth and class, but they both agreed that only the educated should take part in government.
