Chapter 10- Essay Questions

I. Conflict in the Infant Republic
 B. Alexander Hamilton Versus Thomas Jefferson on Popular Rule (1780s-1820s)
 1. To what extent were Hamilton and Jefferson both right in the light of
subsequent history? Who, on balance, was the more sound?
 Based on subsequent history, Hamilton seems to make the more
concurrent argument. Jefferson is right in his belief that the masses of
people have the majority of the say, but his complete dependence on
the people does not reflect the values and standards of subsequent
history. Hamilton clearly identifies that, “All communities divide
themselves into the few and the many.” In America, the then present
and subsequent history, prove this. By giving them set power, the
process is actually beneficial because these people hold power in
society through wealthy and influence, and should deserve a spot in the
democratic assembly. When Hamilton goes to the extreme that
depending on the people would be completely harmful to the nation
because they are not trustworthy and are not smart enough to run the
nation. This shows Hamilton’s love for the development of the nation
more than its people. It is true that men are governed by their passions,
but it can also be said that the aristocrats are governed by greed.
Subsequent history shows though, that the upper class do end up
possessing set positions of power in government. This move is
beneficial because the upper class are in power, and deserve a say as
they have money and influence over society to back it up. The masses
on the other hand do dictate the wants of the whole nation, although
they might not be the smartest decisions in the long run. Hamilton
finds a bridge between the both although somewhat leaning towards
aristocratic power. Through his opinions, he is more sound because in
subsequent history the powerful in society are also powerful in
government. Although his views are leaning towards the side of
aristocratic power, the decision to allow the upper class to maintain a
share of power is tactful.

B. The Clash over States’ Rights (1780s-1820s)
 2. Which of the two men was closer to the truth in the light of subsequent
history, particularly in the matter of grass-roots supervision of government?
 Although Hamilton proposes an idea that seems to represent what
would make for a powerful nature, he does not take into account that
the nation is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single
government. To focus in on state issues, state governments are
necessary to help regulate state affairs directly. Overall, Jefferson is
closer to the truth in the light of subsequent history, because although
he too focuses in on solely one aspect, state governments, he accepts
that there should be a government with minimal intervention.
Hamilton states that state governments will intrude in the affairs of a
national government. But Jefferson, proposes the idea that both will
work for each other if the states maintain their governments over their
land to regulate affairs directly and to the people’s needs, whereas
Hamilton’s idea is indirect and mainly held by the aristocratic
population. Both seem to provide extreme solutions, whereas
subsequent history proved to be a bridge between both men’s opinions.
The state governments work for a better national government, as they
help solve problems and maintain order within the states. These
capable states can then participate in an even stronger government in a
cooperative effort. Jefferson explains that the general government
should be reduced to foreign affairs only, which is somewhat of an
overstatement. But overall, the national government is composed of
people from the states, and to have this type of rule, there needs to be
direct regulation over the states. Grass-roots supervision of
government is rule is derived from people or society at a local level
rather than at the center of major political activity. This relates more to
Jefferson’s idea of rule from the general people, where affairs can be
taken care of through the state governments.

II. State Debts and the National Bank
 A. Jefferson Duped (?) by Hamilton (1790)
 1. Was he fair in his analysis of Hamilton’s motives? What was the
significance of the early talk of secession? Why should southern congressmen
have been parties to this logrolling operation?
Jefferson was not completely fair in his analysis of Hamilton’s motives.
There was much significance to the early talk of secession because it made
a reason to go without Hamilton’s idea. The creditor states did not want to
be under the burden of the whole nation and some haphazard plan. The
southern congressmen should have been parties in the logrolling operation
because the plan of assumption would be particularly harsh on them debtwise. The congressmen should have been involved in accounting for some
sort of reimbursement for the southern colonies. Jefferson starts off by
saying that he arrived at the scene [New York] ignorant and unknowing of
the situation and plans that were taking place. To immediately judge that
the plan truly had negative motives was not fair in the analysis of
Hamilton’s motives. On the other hand, Jefferson does bring up some
important points on how Hamilton forced the rejected proposal for
Assumption into affect for the supposed better good of the majority of
people, although he was a man not to care for the masses. Jefferson also
brings up the point about how the incurring debts of the states were chosen
at will, with no logical process. This therefore favored some states over
others, and compensations had to be made. Yet, overall, the plan of
Assumption proved to be effective in subsequent history for the nation.
Jefferson did actually do a good job on interpreting the situation and
inferring things from it immediately, although possibly not the complete
truth of Hamilton’s motives for the nation and its people. But, because of
the lack of experience in the plan of Assumption, and the lack of
knowledge of the true motives and goals of Hamilton’s plan, Jefferson was
doing his duty as an opposing party, but was not fair in his analysis of
Hamilton’s motives.

III. Overawing the Whiskey Boys
 A. Hamilton Upholds Law Enforcement (1794)
 1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of his arguments?
 Hamilton’s argument in favor of the excise tax on whiskey, clearly
reflects his political views as a hypocrite somewhat, but also as a man
to his beliefs in his policies. First he starts off by explaining the clause
in the Constitution which allows the Congress to lay down excise
taxes. This goes against his loose constructionist way of using the
Constitution as he uses it strictly to be in agreement with the situation.
One of his strengths is that he dictates what the conditions are and
what they have been. The masses themselves have dictated the law,
and have not changed it any way since then. To complain about the tax
now would be unjust, and would be dealt with the equivalent of swords
by the national government. Hamilton has the strength in his argument
of being unmoved in a situation where rebellion was taking place
because of an excise tax that he was supporting. He does state what it
true, and cannot be refuted. One of the strengths of his arguments is his
clarity and evidence. He states that the representatives the people
elected have revised it in accordance to what was best for the majority.
The actions taken on behalf of the Congress were to help the majority.
Although his arguments ring true, there are also weaknesses in it. By
using force as the initial solution instead of the final, hostilities grow
within the people. Hamilton then goes on to say that if the masses use
force, foreign powers will be brought in to help, in this case, Britain.
After the Revolution, there was still hatred remaining against Britain.
To use them as a solution doesn’t quiet solve the problem. The calls of
the masses, or even the affected poor farmers, shows that the excise
taxes were hard to be kept up with. Change in representation was not a
quick process, and these people’s problems were not being directly
voiced for change. So when Hamilton defends his position with
representation, there are still many loopholes in the system, creating a
weakness in his argument.

B. Jefferson Deplores Undue Force (1794)
 2. Hamilton’s show of sledgehammer force no doubt helped the prestige of the
national government, but in the light of Jefferson’s letter, how did the
government probably hurt itself?

In light of Jefferson’s letter, the government did hurt itself through the
indifference towards its people. Jefferson proves that the excise tax
was one that aggravated the people of the nation, and in turn,
aggravated them against the government. In failing to recognize this,
Hamilton used force to intimidate the opposition instead of trying to
solve the problem. Although the problem was once applying only to
the poor Pennsylvanian farmers, later on the detestation against the
excise tax became universal. Hamilton’s rash decision would then lead
to a civil war, which would harm the government and it’s goal form a
stronger national government. In looking for the outer interests of the
country, Hamilton and the government failed to recognize and work
for the interests of the people. Jefferson mocks how the government
takes the kicks and scoffs of British enemies, whereas they jump to add
a million to the public debts. The government actually wanted to help
the prestige of the national government, but by turning poor farmers,
initially, and then the masses of the nation against them, the
consequence was actually detrimental. The government, as well as
Hamilton, were abusing their privileges of power, and using force
instead of discussion to solve the issue that was prodding the nation.