Thomas Jefferson vs. Alexander Hamilton?

Question

The intro to my essay:

In Washington’s farewell address, he forewarned the future generation about the severe splitting of views in American government. Above all people, he probably meant it most for two men, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. The struggle for balance between liberty and power pervaded throughout the Adams administration, and we still strive for it today. Development of political factions in early America was the biggest challenge, which also prevented greater things from being done. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton fought over subjects of economy, power among the citizens, and the limits of government power, and this rivalry escalated to terrible distortions of each party’s intentions. If Hamilton and Jefferson had gotten together to discuss their interests, there wouldn’t be so much conflict, and they would have come to a conclusion sooner.

My question:

I just wanted to confirm that the two DID NOT get together and rationally try to come to a conclusion...or else my thesis wouldn't make any sense. thx.

Jelesais:
(i sent you an email that says this, but maybe you'll see it faster this way)

I was wondering how I could manipulate my thesis to accomodate the point you brought up. I was worried that my essay would conflict with actual fact, but do you think that my thesis is completely preposterous?

Thank you so much for you detailed answers!

You must understand that I am making a case against political factions, and not trying to critisize Hamilton and Jefferson specifically...that probably wasn't very clear by my introduction. Here is another portion of my essay that I have just written:

One argument as to why having two parties is a good thing is the fact that one could balance the other out. Plus, if there is only one opinion, it might be the wrong one. However, if there is a unified government, this would hardly ever happen. Politicians have the chance to debate and talk to each other to come to a conclusion; if there is one conclusion, it must be the best one! Political parties result in one side losing and the other side winning, with not much compromise. For example, Alexander Hamilton was an advocate for advancing manufacturing and creating a national bank. Thomas Jefferson was opposed to this and wanted a nation built upon agriculture. etc,etc..(no room)

Answer 1

You're right to conclude that Jefferson and Hamilton never resolved their differences; however, both were actutly aware of the other's position. I can tell by your question that you do not need a history lesson of each man's political platform. Yet, your thesis needs some work. Mainly, they were often in direct contact with one another.Regardless of effort, Jefferson and Hamilton had irreconsible differences. Secondly, they may have taken a different aproach if they could've seen the ill-consequences of a two party system.


Neither writing nor speech could bridge the gap between
the two ideologies.Both worked diligently to guide the infant government. Hind sight is 20/20; Jefferson would be apalled if he observed the widespread powers of federal government, maybe Hamilton would advocate caution as well. Washington's words were almost prophetic.

The end result has been tramatic towards our development as a progressive nation. Please do not misunderstand me, we have experienced unparrelled success. Yet, our success has been won in spite of a two party system. The two parties have served their purpose (Divide and Conquer). By pitting the two parties against one another, politicians have been able to garner support without addressing the problems that face their constituents. The two party system is so ingrained in American political culture that I'm afraid only revolution could replace it. Hopefully I'm entirely incorrect.

Nevertheless, until the two party system is replaced, politicians will continue to gain power by playing-up the assumed differences of their adversaries. In exchange for power, given by the citizens, the people will see little more than political favors and the mainteniance of the current balance of wealth. In short, we do not elect our representatives, their parties do.

If you wish to tackle the evils of a two party system, you may wish to rewrite your thesis statement. Maybe try:

Generations after the creation of a two party system, first illustrated by differences b/w Jefferson and Hamilton, one might wonder if both Jefferson and Hamilton would be willing to work together to avoid the devision caused by two factions.

I hope this is helpful.

Answer 2

I am sure that they had opportunities to discuss the matters endlessly while in Washington's cabinet. It was not ill will that caused the rise of factions but a fundamental disagreement about many significant issues.

Despite the disagreements between Hamilton and Jefferson, Hamilton did ultimately support Jefferson over Aaron Burr in the election dispute of 1800 which led to Hamilton's death at Burr's hands in a duel.

You also need to remember that by 1820, Jefferson's viewpoint had triumped and Hamilton's Federalist Party was a minor party at best (holding only one-sixth of the seats in the House and one-fifth of the seats in the Senate). Howerver, by 1836, Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party split into two separate parties -- the Democrats and the Whigs.

As both Hamilton and Madison recognized in the Federalist, factions are inevitable in a democracy. Many matters of political principles are guesses about the future and philosophical disagreements about the best form of government. While politicians do compromise as needed to pass legislation, compromises arise from pragmatism. It is hard to find a functioning democracy in which disagreements over policies has not resulted in, sometimes bitter, rivalry between political parties.

To take an issue from today as an example, some members of Congress believe that government has no business being involved in health insurance -- for any group. Some members of Congress believe that access to health care is a basic right. A third group believes that providing health care to certain groups serves the public health interests of the rest of Americans. While these disagreements have a rational basis, the ultimate philosophical bent behind these three positions are not easily assailable. If you believe that the role of the federal government is merely to defend the borders, there is no argument that I can make, no evidence that I can present to convince you otherwise. Likewise, if I believe that protecting the public from the impact of epidemics is a legitimate concern of the government, it is going to be difficult for you to convince me that it would not be beneficial to provide some form of health care to those who otherwise might become ill.

The bottom line is that Washington was a pragmatic moderate -- an essential head of a national unity government for a fragile young democracy. He was not, however, a political philosopher. On the issue of factions, Washington was simply wrong about the possibility of avoiding them. Factions are a necessary evil of democracy. Without factions, it is impossible to frame the political debate or to have a true democracy.

Answer 3

Thomas Jefferson

Answer 4

I personally don't know as much about Hamilton but as for Jefferson; For Against Against Against Against Against Against For Against

Answer 5

Actually, they had many opportunities to come together, and debated their sides several times in cabinet meetings. They were fundamentally opposed in their beliefs, so neither was likely to convince the other. Hamilton did respect Jefferson's integrity even though he didn't agree with his viewpoint. (He was the one who decided the election between Aaron Burr and Jefferson.)

Answer 6

Hope this helps!

Answer 7

hey that's pretty good! are you in 8th grade or something? cause i am and we're learning about jefferson and hamilton too. and i totally understand the message your trying to send across...don't change it. it's really good!