Introduction
Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two political figures whose contrasting opinions about the United States’ politics and economy significantly affected America’s path of development. This division created a dual system the remnants of which exist to this day. The two men saw a very different future for the country based on the duties and powers of the federal and local governments. As a result, their influence on the industries and policies also varied.
Main body
Hamilton envisioned the U.S. under the guidance of a strong federal government that can interfere in and manage the economy of the country, believing that the concept of a single united nation is more important than the independence of its states (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Thus, he thought that a powerful central authority that could decide to support specific industries and improve local trade with import tariffs would create a stronger country. Jefferson, on the other hand, believed that states should have more power, leaving the central government virtually devoid of any major responsibilities. His focus on local governments, economies, and militaries was rooted in the notion that the needs of people in various states cannot be the same (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Thus, state laws should be able to accommodate specific needs as opposed to having one source of authority that leads the whole nation.
These views of political power also impacted the men’s economic philosophies. It should be noted that Hamilton’s supporters were of urban origin, while Jefferson’s followers mostly came from rural regions (Montgomery and Chirot 219). Therefore, it was beneficial for merchants and manufacturers to have local industries that were controlled and supported by the government. Hamilton believed that commerce in the U.S. would become stronger if local goods were favored by customers, while imported products would be disregarded. Thus, he introduced the idea of having additional tariffs for imports, driving the local industry forward (Bakija et al. 4). As a contrast, Jefferson’s views were inspired by farmers who sold their crops and wanted to buy cheap products in return. The politician opposed the tariffs declaring that it would be unfair to interfere with the market relations. Thus, he believed in the economy free of governmental support or control.
Two fundamentally different opinions affected the politicians’ views on domestic and foreign policy. As noted above, Hamilton wanted to focus on local investments and create a nation with one shared objective. Jefferson opposed such interference and argued that the economy would be the most stable if it could operate and guide itself. After comparing the men’s beliefs about the country, it can be assumed that both contributed to the country’s dual system. However, Hamilton’s philosophy was possibly more influential, leaving traces in the modern government’s decisions. Jefferson’s beliefs continue to stay relevant to many Americans as can be seen in states’ ability to have some autonomy over their actions. Nevertheless, Hamilton’s view of a nation became a driving force for the creation of the contemporary American culture. People’s self-identification as Americans and not New Yorkers or Texans is a great example of that. Moreover, the federal government has some power over separate states.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that Hamilton’s approach to the country’s economy helped it to establish itself in the world. While the two Founding Fathers created many ideas, most of which are still used by modern Americans, the impact of Hamilton could be viewed as more significant. Both men, however, influenced the country immensely, developing the concept of competitiveness that possibly drove the nation forward and continues to impact the politics and economy of the U.S.
Works Cited
Bakija, Jon, et al. How Big Should Our Government Be? University of California Press, 2016.
Montgomery, Scott L., and Daniel Chirot. The Shape of the New: Four Big Ideas and How They Made the Modern World. Princeton University Press, 2016.