English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

3 answers

The following paragraph is the first of several (read on in the link) that lays it all out rather nicely.

"The root of the problem appears to have been one of perceived economic interest. Southerners wanted states rights and an agricultural economy, while northerners sought a relatively strong national government and an economy rooted in commerce and manufacturing. Indeed, Hamilton's funding system brought to the surface the recurring issue of states' rights, the rights of the colonies or states versus the rights of the imperial or federal government. Most observers thought of the question as if it were a "zero sum" game. In other words, what one government gained the other necessarily lost. Although Congress ultimately held the purse strings, many viewed Hamilton with suspicion because he headed the powerful Treasury Department. The agrarian Republican forces feared a Treasury-dominated central government, noting that in Britain prime ministers bent on uncontested power first co-opted the Exchequer, the British treasury. Agrarian Republicans also believed that Hamilton's cronies, speculators and merchants congregated in the northern cities, favored English interests. Parts of the agrarian Republican critique contained language that suggested that the real struggle pitted merchant capitalism against agrarianism."
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/910687.html


Summary points:

1. general: sectional tensions between the merchant North (including their pro-British stance) and agrarian south (pro-French, esp. Jefferson)

2. 'states rights' vs. centralized power of the federal government -- Hamilton's financial plans, southerners felt, concentrated power in the federal government (true). They believed that any increase in power of the federal goverment would mean DECREASED power of each state government (which need not be true... paying off all the states' debts, for instance, improved the creditworthiness of them all and so freed them up to do more)

3. Virginia especially objected to the federal government taking on all the Revolutionary War debts of the states (a key part of Hamilton's plan to estalibsh the financial credit of the U.S.) because:
a. it centralized FINANCIAL power (see #2), a power that is often abused (also a MONOPOLY)
b. Virginia had done well at paying off its own debts, and was not eager to help pay off the debts of other states that had not been as prudent

4. partly related to previoius points -- PERSONAL antagonism to Hamlilton (esp as a northerner) by the Virginians, and fear of his wielding great power. Actually, ANY Northerner gaining significant power was of concern to them.
(The same fear, esp. by Jefferson, whose hand-picked successors were likewise from Virginia, was expressed in Jefferson's animosity to Aaron Burr. Burr's political talents delivered New York to the Republicans and so helped Jefferson win the Presidency, but he was for that very reason feared and suspected of plotting to take the office himself. [In fact, when a flaw in the Constitution caused a tie in the electoral vote between Jefferson & Burr, Burr did NOT take advantage of a clear opportunity to gain the office for himself when Federalists were willing to give it to him, though he was accused of doing so.])

2006-11-10 06:38:31 · answer #1 · answered by bruhaha 7 · 0 0

Hamilton's fiscal policies strengthened the central government and he helped institute the Bank of the United States. Because Hamilton was one of the first United States Presidents, most of his work was basically to bring the nation together and develop a stable internal economy.

2016-05-21 22:57:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

He was very loudly against slavery, way before that view was popular. He stated that he believed that Black men were in every way equal to white men. He proposed freeing slaves and forming Army units with them. He supported the black-run gov't in Haiti after the French were overthrown. He believed the problem of slavery should have been settled at the time of the Revolutionary War..was one of few who believed that slavery should have been abolished when the nation was formed.

2006-11-08 13:31:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers