Hamilton Pros And Cons

The debate over the function and definition of the state that would best uphold American liberty began during the Constitutional convention, when the Federalist and Anti-Federalist factions emerged as the bulwarks of their respective ideologies. After the Constitution was ratified, these factions intensified into political parties, justifying their own arguments with varying interpretations of the Constitution. The Federalist party, embodying the Federalist faction, was led by Alexander Hamilton, while the Democratic-Republican party, carrying on many of the ideals of the Anti-Federalist party, was led by Thomas Jefferson. As Madison had noted in Federalist 10, “liberty is to faction what air is to fire…” Both of these men hoisted the preservation

In 1790, Hamilton presented his financial plan to lift the nation of out its foreign and domestic debts, which included creating the Bank of the United States, also known as the federal bank. The creation of the federal bank proved to be Hamilton’s most contentious policy. The bank advanced Hamilton’s policy of regulating the economy through the federal government, which, in turn, would empower the federal government with greater political power to uphold liberty. Fearing the cronyism and bureaucracy that the federal bank would bring to the American government, Jefferson argued that the creation of the federal bank was, in itself, unconstitutional, as “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, were reserved to the states…To take a single step beyond the boundaries specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power.” This argument shows Jefferson’s complaint of Hamilton’s policies on a larger scale. He believed that the federal government had no jurisdiction in creating a federal bank, as it was not specified in the Constitution. The precedent Hamilton would set through the federal bank would allow the federal government to pass whatever they deemed “convenient” not only what was “necessary,” the word specifically used in the elastic clause. Jefferson argued that giving the federal government widespread lawmaking power would create a slippery slope of power abuse, leading to oppression. Hamilton countered that the end goal of the policy had to be outlined in the Constitution, but means to achieve this end, if not forbidden in the Constitution,