Introduction
In today’s world the role of United States Presidents is of tremendous importance. The way they relate to different issues can determine the way that issue will develop. And here we are talking not only to issues confined within the United States but also to issues of international importance, impacting different countries and societies. Such importance has the United States presidency in this era.
We tend to forget that many of the ideas and ways on how to resolve issues originate in the early years of the presidency. Many of the presidents of the twentieth century, including President Bush and President Obama, have used concepts and ways of responding to problems that originate from the writings and actions of the first presidents of this country. Such two presidents are President Alexander Hamilton and President Thomas Jefferson. These two are considered to be among the so called ‘founding fathers’ of American nationhood. In this short essay we will tend to make a comparison of the way how these two presidents viewed a certain issue and how they responded to them. What were their ideas concerning specific issues. We will compare their views not only between them but also with the ideas and actions that the United States Administration has undertaken during these last two or three decades.
This way we will try to see if many of the policies today are conducted according to the principles and morals of the founding fathers of this nation. We have listened time and time again the presidents of this country to reference their actions to past actions of previous presidents.
Now we will attempt to test this statements and see whether how would have responded Hamilton and Jefferson to those issues (Cunningham, 4).
On financial issues
Alexander Hamilton was the first United States Secretary of Treasury under the presidency of George Washington. During last year there has been a financial crisis of proportions not seen since the financial breakdown of 1929 and the subsequent Great Depression. Public credit has been shaken and crediting of new businesses also. The stakeholders of this financial shock has been, foremost, the above two mentioned categories; the public and new and small businesses. The office of the Secretary of Treasury responded to this crisis by a series of ‘bail out’ programs in which it relocated taxpayers money to ‘save’ the needy companies and corporations. This was seen as a controversial policy and had many critics. Many thought that this was a kind of ‘state ownership’ policy which would significantly increase the financial and economic importance of the federal government of the United States not only on the national market but internationally also.
But Hamilton as secretary of treasury had done a similar proposition and envisioned a similar plan. In his famous ‘Report on Public Credit’, Hamilton made a very controversial proposition. He argued that the federal government should assume responsibility for state debts incurred during the Revolution. This would, in effect, give the federal government much more power by placing the country’s most serious financial obligation in the hands of the federal, rather than the state governments (Taylor, 34).
Another interesting proposal of Secretary Hamilton was that to cut the rate of interest and postpone payments on federal debt. But these propositions encountered on harsh criticism from other leaders of the time. Two of them were James Madison and the Secretary of State at the time, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson argued that many of the member states of the Union, like his home state Virginia, had paid almost half of their debts. He felt that their taxpayers should not be assessed again to bail out the less provident. According to Jefferson this would be immoral and unethical as well as illegal since It would mean that this portion of the population (the less provident) would live on the sweat of other hard working people (Joyce & Terence, 66).
Both, he and Madison further argued that the plan passed beyond the scope of the federal government (Sloan, 46). In fact, these are the critics made even today for the governmental bail outs made during 2008 and this year. Unfortunately, this debate, this criticism, has been going on outside of Congress and the political spectrum in general. At the time of Hamilton and Jefferson this was the debate going on in Congress sessions. This is an argument in favor of democracy at the time and of the lack of democratic expression in today’s political spectrum of our society.
Foreign relations
Both Jefferson and Hamilton agreed on the policy that the United States should remain neutral to all matters that pertained to foreign powers and that did not directly threaten the United States (Lefkowitz, 8). They were both patriots of the ‘neutrality’ doctrine of the American government.
Even in the quasi war period of 1796 with France they still did not make the first move but waited for the other party to do it. In fact, they did not initiate any war on their behalf. If we compare this policy of neutrality of the government and of ‘restraint’ of the United States armed forces, we will find it completely contradictory to the existing policy. Since World War Two, the policy of the United States government has not been that of neutrality but that of military intervention all around the world. During the years that Both Hamilton and Jefferson were in office they never sent the army to fight a preemptive war, on a far situated ‘enemy’ that threatened the national interest of the United States. But they had their controversies on foreign policy. For example, during the great war between France and Britain, the Federalist with Hamilton leading them, were in favor of trade increase with Britain in order to gain more from the trade tariffs. On the other hand, the Democrat-Republican were in favor of a boycott of trade with Britain until it changed its attitude and pretentions toward the American soil and remove its bases as established by the Paris Treaty (Rahe, 122).
On slavery
Slavery was an important issue at the time of Jefferson and Hamilton. In the southern states of the United States it was the principal mode of conduct for social and economical affairs. Slaves provided a cheap source of labor among other things. But slavery was not viewed only in terms of the relations of ‘white’ to ‘non-white’ Americans. “Hamilton’s first polemic against King George’s ministers contains a paragraph which speaks of the evils which “slavery” to the British would bring upon the Americans.” (Chan, 12)
In continuing his points of view regarding slavery Hamilton argued that natural faculties of black people were as good as those of white people. Later he even attacked his political opponents as demanding freedom for themselves and refusing to allow it to blacks (Chan, 13).
On the other hand Jefferson was a controversial figure on the issues of slavery. He had publicly declared he was an abolitionist and yet had owned many slaves during his life.
“We have the wolf by the ears; and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” (Miller, 146)
But he took concrete steps in the freeing of slaves in America. For example, in 1769, as a member of the House of Burgesses, Jefferson proposed for that body to emancipate slaves in Virginia (Perry, 14).
Conclusions
As a conclusion I can say that both of the figures analyzed above have had significant impact on the political arena of American society. As we might have seen from the above presented facts they had a conduct quite different from the late presidents of this country. It might be the case that we learn more from our founding fathers and not just cite them when it is more appropriate for us.
Works cited
Cunningham, Edward. Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations that Shaped a Nation. New York, Penguin Press, 2000.
Chan, Michael. “Alexander Hamilton on Slavery”, Review of Politics 66, 2004.
Joyce, Arti. & Terence, Boil. (eds.) Thomas Jefferson, Political Writings. Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Knott, Stephen F. Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2002.
Lefkowitz, Andre. George Washington’s Indispensable Men: The 32 Aides-de-Camp Who Helped Win the Revolution, Stackpole Books, 2003.
Melton, Buckner F.: The Quotable Founding Fathers, Potomac Books, Washington D.C. 2004.
Miller, John Chester. The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. New York: Free Press, 1977.
Perry, Berry. “Jefferson’s Legacy to the Supreme Court: Freedom of Religion.” Journal of Supreme Court History, 31(2). 2006.
Rahe, Philip. “Thomas Jefferson’s Machiavellian Political Science”. Review of Politics 57(3): 449–481, 1995.
Sloan, Joan. Principle and Interest: Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Debt, 1995.
Taylor, George Rogers, ed., Hamilton and the National Debt, New York, Penguin, 1950.