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

Federalist alexander hamilton wrote that those who fought the Revolution " sought to obtain liberty for no particular state, but for the whole Union... connected under one controlling and supreme head" do you agree with his position in this statement? Explain ur answer

2006-12-02 14:23:15 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

5 answers

Hey Crazy Dazy,

I think what Alexander was saying was that a President would be in charge of the Union. The whole frame and balance of the Judicial branch and the legislative branch of Government would be in balance with the power of the "supreme head", and the logic of that balance was debated in the Federalist papers in excruciating detail. George Washington was offered once to be the KING of the United States, but argued that the 'supreme head' should be chosen by the people for a limited time (terms of office), to avoid the pitfall of a potentially overbearing dictator.

2006-12-02 15:01:01 · answer #1 · answered by BuyTheSeaProperty 7 · 3 1

During the time of the American Revolution the (as near as can be determined) about a third of the population supported the crown, about a third of the people didn’t care, and about a third of the people supported revolution. Of that latter third most saw themselves as citizens of their own State. This is demonstrated in the Articles of Confederation in that unanimous support of the States was required for most actions of the general government, placing State desire as more important than the general government.

After the revolution the creating of the Constitution continued to reflect this perspective by defining the new general government only within the delegated powers. The original writing of the Constitution demonstated this with the members of the Senate being selected by State legislatures rather than the popular vote.

Alexander Hamilton represented a very specific perspective that didn’t represent most peoples of the founding time, or the Founders who wrote the Constitution. Hamilton even wanted to have the presidency and the senate to be hereditary. However, the Alexander Hamilton perspective continued to grow (within the general government) and saw an increase in the acts of that general government as intruding into the rights of the individual. The United States Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Marshall supported this Hamilton extra-constitutional point of view thereby changing the intent of the Founders.

2006-12-02 15:24:20 · answer #2 · answered by Randy 7 · 2 0

He was a Federalist and believed that the "whole is greater than its parts." When each colony took arms against Britain, it fought not only for itself but for the entire union. If each individual colony had fought against the crown, the result would not have been the same.

Soldiers from Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island and other colonies were under the leadership of a General from Virginia when overtaking New Jersey. This was a united effort against the strongest army on earth. The effort truly followed the axiom,"United we stand, divided we fall."

2006-12-02 20:12:53 · answer #3 · answered by tichur 7 · 2 0

supply the authorities unobstructed ability to administration the persons and then ask them to be thoughtful at the same time as they have that ability. What we've instead is a rustic the position companies have unobstructed ability to administration the persons and characteristic shown little concern for the regular public in doing so. Neither intense is reliable for us. it will be stated that Alexander Hamilton change into no longer nicely-loved with the aid of his friends and Abigail Adams, spouse of John Adams and revered with the aid of each of the Founding Fathers for her political perception, wrote in her diary that Alexander Hamilton change into an evil guy.

2016-11-23 13:37:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I suspect Alexander Hamilton was trying to say that we were fighting for a strong state of union, rather than a casual union of dissimilar states. I'm not familiar with this particular quote, but it sounds like it was part of his idea of having a national currency rather than each state having its own.

2006-12-02 16:20:01 · answer #5 · answered by PDY 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers