No one wants their freedoms muted, stolen, seized, or threatened. Our nation struggled for eight years in the American Revolution, to break the choke hold of Britain on Americans. After the war was over and America was independent, there had to be a plan. Where were all these free people going to go? Were they going to settle across the land and live like the indians that inhabited the places around them? That might have not been a bad idea, but just as the indians were kicked out of their home by Americans, any other foreign power would have eventually done the same to Americans. Helen Keller makes a good point when she says: “The most pathetic person in the world is the one who has sight but no vision.” According to Karl Walling, Hamilton had vision, and his vision was to establish “a new order of the ages, a republican empire, which would supply an effectual moral alternative to the genuine machiavellian regimes of his day.” This quote could be interpreted in negative or positive way. The negative would be that Hamilton wanted a monarchy in form of the new United States. The Positive would be that in that time period every other nation or tribe was using a type of monarchy in their own regions; everyone around the Americans worked as machiavellian people. America had to be different. The word machiavellian stands for someone who tries to achieve their goals by cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous methods. (Parliament and the King really only sought to benefit themselves.) A republican empire was to show that we were no longer just a small insignificant colony. The reason Hamilton chose to use the British example, was because they had endured the test of time. Hamilton used traces of the British monarchy as bases that struck f... ... middle of paper ... ...’t branch across state lines, no one really wanted to trust that again because of what happened with Jefferson. Although not all of Hamilton’s ideas are work for many people, the fact can’t be ignored that there needed to be some sort of leadership, and Hamilton provided that. Hamilton helped our nation become what is today, weather it be for good or bad, but we are still standing. There needed to be order and strong bases so that America could endure the test of time. Works Cited Gordon, John Steele. "The Founding Father of American Financial Disaster." American History Vol.44 No.1 2009: 30-7. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. Roark, James L., Michael P. Johnson, Patricia C. Cohen, Sarah Stage, and Susan M. Hartman. "Turbulent Times: Election and Rebellion." THE American Promise: A History of The United States. 5th Edition ed. Vol. 1. Boston | New York: Bedford/St.
...ke George Washington especially had veritable fortunes personally vested in the outcome. His work makes it apparent also that this was not a localized protest comprised of a mere handful of ardent participants from what was then the extreme fringe of American civilization, but rather the dissent was in fact a wide-spread crisis, which very much had the potential to be the undoing of the new nation. Slaughter reveals the extreme sectionalism which plagued the nation throughout its first century of existence was well established prior to the dawn of the nineteenth century. He asserts also that the precedent was set regarding the question of national versus state or local authority, which has continued in effect since.
In the book Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis, the author relates the stories of six crucial historic events that manage to capture the flavor and fervor of the revolutionary generation and its great leaders. While each chapter or story can be read separately and completely understood, they do relate to a broader common theme. One of Ellis' main purposes in writing the book was to illustrate the early stages and tribulations of the American government and its system through his use of well blended stories. The idea that a republican government of this nature was completely unprecedented is emphasized through out the book. Ellis discusses the unique problems that the revolutionary generation experienced as a result of governing under the new concept of a democracy. These problems included- the interpretation of constitutional powers, the regulation of governmental power through checks and balances, the first presidential elections, the surprising emergence of political parties, states rights vs. federal authority, and the issue of slavery in a otherwise free society. Ellis dives even deeper into the subject by exposing the readers to true insight of the major players of the founding generation. The book attempts to capture the ideals of the early revolutionary generation leaders and their conflicting political viewpoints. The personalities of Hamilton, Burr, Adams, Washington, Madison, and Jefferson are presented in great detail. Ellis exposes the reality of the internal and partisan conflict endured by each of these figures in relation to each other. Ellis emphasizes that despite these difficult hurdles, the young American nation survived its early stages because of its great collection of charismatic leaders and their ability to ...
Finally, Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become. Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become because he was a Federalist and believed in a strong central government. Also because of the way he viewed national debt, and the way he viewed foreign affairs. These are all ways that prove Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would
In the winter of 1786-1787, many farmers protesting the foreclosure of their farms took up arms and stormed county courthouses across Massachusetts. All over New England, there existed a growing frustration with the American postwar situation under the Articles of Confederation. Massachusetts farmers’ disconnection from the Boston government rendered the situation more volatile than anywhere else. “Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont instituted harsh laws to stem the growth of insurrection. But inland Massachusetts was so heavily agrarian that the rebellion gathered steam.”[2] Backcountry farmers banded together in mobs of up to one thousand men and marched to different cities, rioting in front of prominent shops and courthouses in order to make their frustrations heard.
Alexander Hamilton, on the other side, distrusted popular rule and emphasized law, order, authority and property. Alexander Hamilton wanted to promote commerce and industry through a strong central government. He also would diversify American economic life by encouraging shipping and creating manufacturing by legislative directive. Hamilton also believed that a ...
Hamilton believed in a strong central government and to acquire this, wealth was the key. He wanted to make the United States rich in order for it to become a very powerful government. Hamilton learned first hand what it is like to earn a living, and that is why he believed, that wealth was the foundation in building a strong nation. He felt that those with wealth, merchants known now as businessman, would launch the U.S. into wealth and power. He also believed that with wealth came knowledge. When Hamilton started his journey as Secretary of Treasury, he was faced with many difficulties; The National Debt was such an obstacle. However, he considered it a necessary one, “A national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. It will be a powerful cement of our Union.” (From Thomas Jefferson to James Duane September 3, 1781) He felt the utmost importance in paying off all of our debts. This was significant in order to build exemplary credit and creating our first National Bank, the Bank of the United States. On the other hand, Jefferson’s idea of America was one built by farmers and not merchants. He thought the only person who was truly free were indeed the farmers. In a letter he says, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” (From Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart December
The discourse of America, a nation built upon the foundations written by men, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton contributed a great ordeal of their lives into the creation of it. From similar childhoods to conflicting perceptions of government, Jefferson and Hamilton paved the way for the future of the nation. Through the comparison of Jefferson and Hamilton, by using factors of character, politics, and legacy, it is beyond question that Hamilton’s ambitious personality, politically involved nature, and estate truly resonates with history on a higher account compared to Jefferson.
In the initial stages of independence, the United States was still a weak and vulnerable country. Thus, it was necessary to implement plans that not only had the goal of a bright future, but would help the United States survive to that point. Due to the countries weak state, and his influential position atop the United States treasury, Hamilton was able to implement most of his economic policies. The biggest of which were his consolidation of international and domestic debt and creating a national bank. Republics were seen as weak back then, they very rarely succeeded and the U.S. was already in a vulnerable state because of the revolutionary war. Hamilton’s national bank and centralized government was a good idea in this aspect because it not only would create a sense of unification and power among the U.S. but it also put foreign debts first, which was
Everyone has heard the name Alexander Hamilton, but few are familiar with his views and actions regarding the survival of the young American republic. He could be recognized for anything from serving our fledgling country by fighting in the New York militia; to serving his community as a lawyer and as a national tax agent; to beginning his political career as a representative for New York at the National Congress. Though most would agree his most important contribution to our struggling republic was to spearhead the project which formed the doctrine helping to establish the foundation in which modern democracy is based, the Articles of Confederation.
While Hamilton was an arrogant man who people did not enjoy the company of, his political and economical plans were more important issues than his eccentric personality. Hamilton's personality issues were strictly personal, and were so trivial that they rarely interfered with his political affairs. The immediate opposition of the Federalists ideas by the Republicans served to prove that the attacks against these ideas were rooted solely in the varying opinions of how the U.S. government should be structured. Because of this evidence, it is conclusive that the attacks made by Jefferson and his party were based exclusively on the views and opinions that Hamilton and his party supported and not Hamilton's personality issues.
...der Hamilton shaped the New World and the way in which policies were managed. Today’s United States government mirrors more the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, but it seems the majority of her people prefer the vision of Thomas Jefferson; the idealistic dream of true freedom and of the ability to shape one’s own destiny. Would it be the other way around if the current state of government was turned? For sure, if one vision had prevailed wholly over the other, the outcome would be substantial in modern society; Hamilton’s vision would have created another England and Jefferson’s – who knows?
Hamilton is a very strong member of the Founding Fathers by founding the National Bank, and the U.S. Mint. Allowing the use of currency allows every American to trade goods for a set amount of currency. Another act Hamilton did was convincing the people of New York to ratify the constitution. Without their help, the constitution would not have a ratification at that time. The next significant act Hamilton did was become Washington’s assistant. Hamilton aided Washington by becoming the major general of the army during the Quasi War with France. The last piece Hamilton was able to be significant to the new world was his role as the Secretary of Treasury. This was important because the newly founded government needed to find ways to pay national debt that had been accumulated during the Revolution. Hamilton is significant to the new world by establishing a financial foundation for the federal
Roark, J. L. (2012). The American promise a history of the United States (Fifth edition, Value ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Roark, J.L., Johnson, M.P., Cohen, P.C., Stage, S., Lawson, A., Hartmann, S.M. (2009). The american promise: A history of the united states (4th ed.), The New West and Free North 1840-1860, The slave south, 1820-1860, The house divided 1846-1861 (Vol. 1, pp. 279-354).
In 1962, Milton Friedman wrote the essay “Should There Be An Independent Central Bank?” Since then, half a century has passed. Nowadays, many countries in the world have their independent central banks. But the discussion about whether central banks should be independent does not end. This paper will try to 1) provide the arguments on both pros and cons whether central banks should be independent; 2) provides evidence about the relationship between central bank independence and inflation in developed countries, developing countries and transition countries.