Perspective: How the conflicts between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton resulted in the emergence of two political parties. Introduction: George Washington’s time as President of the United States of America was surrounded by political debate. Today, we assume that a President will face a debate on every issue they make. It seems obvious that Democrats and Republicans will argue different sides of any given issue, and that both with try to make their collective voice heard. This was not obvious to George Washington or our nation’s first “leaders”. A look at Washington’s writings shows that he truly thought political arguments could split his country apart. A close study of Washington’s cabinet can help us understand how political debate went from “revolutionary” in the 1790s to “common” in the 2010s. Many times, George Washington’s Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, gave him conflicting advice concerning the welfare of the United States. Such differences in opinion became arguments that made Washington’s Cabinet meetings a hostile place. Members of Congress, the press, and interested members of the public became aware of Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s seemingly opposite political philosophies, their perspectives on government’s role in society. By the end of the 1790s, private citizens and organizations were choosing sides, Hamilton’s or Jefferson’s, and this resulted in the emergence, a gradual growth in strength, of our nation’s first two political parties: the Federalists who were “led” by Hamilton and the Democratic Republicans who were led by Jefferson. Let’s take a look at several issues that faced our young nation, and try and see if we can see how the first two political parties developed. Issue #1: Economic Policy Alexander Hamilton studied at King’s College in New York City (known today as Columbia). If we were to simplify his economic policy, think about the city where he went to college; Wall Street, merchants, some say the banking and manufacturing capital of the world. He believed that an energetic American government should link the interests of wealthy citizens with the government’s success. In essence, he argued that the better the wealthy are doing the better the country is doing: “Industry is increased, commodities are multiplied, agriculture and manufacturers flourish: and herein consists the true wealth and prosperity of a state.” Alexander Hamilton, Report on a National Bank, December 13, 1790 Thomas Jefferson became extremely wealthy at birth. As a member of one of Virginia’s most powerful families, his higher education combined with great intelligence gave him a unique perspective on life. Jefferson’s writings showed that he valued a simple life. A life where books and philosophy held as much importance as bank accounts did. Some called him the “Farmer Philosopher” because to him the ideal place for a man’s hands was in the soil by day and books by night. Economically, Jefferson mistrusted organizations that restricted the farmers’ lifestyle, such as banks and a government that placed too many restrictions on its people. Issue #2: Funding and Assumption of the Revolutionary Debt The most pressing problems facing the new government were economic. As a result of the revolution, the federal government had acquired a huge debt: $54 million including interest. The states owed another $25 million. Paper money issued under the Continental Congresses and Articles of Confederation was worthless. Foreign credit was unavailable. Hamilton’s advice to the President was to assume all debts owed by Americans into one place, the federal government. He argued that this action would encourage foreign investment in the United States, because it would show other countries that America was one country and not 13 small independent ones. It would also show the world that we would take steps to repay our debts. Jefferson’s advised George Washington that such a step would create a division along geographical lines within the country. Many southern states had already repaid their debts, and thus they would see a “national debt” as showing favoritism towards northern interests. Jefferson, remember he distrusted banks, warned that a national debt would make farmers have to pay unfair taxes that pulled northern manufacturers out of debt. Issue #3: National Bank The next issue that divided Washington’s cabinet was Hamilton's next objective, the creation of a Bank of the United States, modeled after the Bank of England. A national bank would collect taxes, hold government funds, and make loans to the government and borrowers. One criticism directed against the bank was "un-republican"--it would encourage speculation and corruption. The bank was also opposed on constitutional grounds. Adopting a position known as "strict constructionism," Thomas Jefferson and James Madison charged that a national bank was unconstitutional since the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to create a bank. Hamilton responded to the charge that a bank was unconstitutional by formulating the doctrine of "implied powers." He argued that Congress had the power to create a bank because the Constitution granted the federal government authority to do anything "necessary and proper" to carry out its constitutional functions (in this case its fiscal duties). In 1791, Congress passed a bill creating a national bank for a term of 20 years, leaving the question of the bank's constitutionality up to President Washington. The president reluctantly decided to sign the measure out of a conviction that a bank was necessary for the nation's financial success. Issue #4: Foreign Policy War between England and France left the United States in quite a bind. If they kept their existing alliance with France they would distance themselves from their largest trading partner, Great Britain. On the other hand, France helped the United States win their revolution. Additionally, the French had overthrown their monarch just like the Americans. Did not they deserve the same type of help they gave the Americans? Jefferson’s advice was characterized by our textbook as pro-French, while Hamilton’s was termed as pro-British. Why was that so? Well, we have to remember their cabinet positions. As Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton was most concerned with our nation’s economy. As Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson dealt with foreign relations. The people of the United States, like Jefferson, saw the similarities in the French and American causes: romance, “common sense”, liberty. Issue #5: Alien and Sedition Acts In 1796, Washington finished his second term in office and the United States had its first Presidential election with political parties. The Federalists choose John Adams as their candidate, Alexander Hamilton was too controversial of a choice, and the Democratic-Republicans choose Thomas Jefferson as their candidate. Adams won with 71 votes versus Jefferson’s 68 votes. In 1797, Adams first year as president, French warships attacked over 300 US ships. Still, Adams choose to maintain a policy of neutrality between France and Britain. Newspapers across the country mocked Adams, his party, and their policies. To silence these critics the Federalist led Congress passed a series of laws called the Alien and Sedition Acts. These acts targeted aliens, immigrants who were not yet citizens (Fear, spies, etc.). One act outlawed sedition, saying or writing anything false or harmful about the government. Jefferson and his party responded to the Alien and Sedition Acts by writing the “Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions”, which argued that States did not have to follow national laws that the state declared unconstitutional. This statement was unconstitutional, but it did not matter because two years later a Democratic-Republican led Congress would repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts.