Jeffersonian anti-federalism triumphs Hamilton's Federalism

Pro claims: the Jeffersonian economic system trumps the Hamiltonian system First, we need to be clear about the economic system Jefferson favored. Jefferson’s economic vision was one of agrarian self-reliance, one largely designed to suit the needs of farmers and the self-employed. Such a system, feasible in the past but is not viable today. Richard Lehne, a professor at Rutgers that specializes in government and business, notes in his popular textbook that the early years of the American experience most Americans “were in business for themselves—they were entrepreneurs rather than employees.”[1] Lehne goes on to say “The United States was still a rural society, and as late as 1850, 20 million of the 23 million Americans lived in rural areas. The great majority were farmers, and most owned the farms they worked. Those who manufactured goods did so by hand at home or in small shop.”[2] When the largest businesses had fifty employees or less and most people were farmers or self-employed, maybe an agrarian economy would work. But frankly it would not be a viable way to run the economy. We have to remember the Constitution was pre-capitalists and pre-industrial. However, of the two men, Hamilton saw the need to structure a country about finance, industry, and manufacturing rather than an economy based largely on agriculture. Their economic vision stemmed largely from their familiarly with their states. Hamilton lived in New York. Jefferson lived in Virginia. The northern economy relied on manufacturing, shipping, and high finance. The southern economy in contrast relied on agricultural based on the labor of slaves. Even though the Hamiltonian economic system remains imperfect, no one disputes it won out over the vision of Jefferson. Hamilton’s plan to deal with debt After the Revolution War, every state and every citizen benefitted equally from the Revolution. Therefore, since the benefits were collective, so too should be the debt. If state debts were unequal, so were the sacrifices made during the fighting. Ron Chernow, Hamilton also made a subtle, sophisticated argument that without assumption, indebted states would have to raise their taxes, while healthy states would lighten their tax loads. This would trigger a dangerous exodus of people from high-tax to low-tax states, producing “a violent dislocation of the population of particular states.”[3] Hamilton economic trumped over Jeffersonian system The problems left in the wake of the Revolutionary War were serious. However, Hamilton as Secretary of Treasury, helped organize and rational economic system out of the chaos. His success is not speculative; you can look at the economic data when Hamilton left office in 1795. Dr. Robert E. Wright points out, that Hamilton’s “policies, combined with the political stability provided by the Constitution, had dramatically transformed the U.S. economy.”[4] He also goes on to say the Hamiltonian economic system, keep allowed farming to “predominated…banks, bridges, canal and harbor companies; insurers; manufacturers; mining companies; and turnpikes—increasingly dotted the countryside.”[5] Jefferson’s election and presidency = TRIUMP of Hamiltonian economic policy Hamilton advocated from the beginning the use of government bonds to strengthen in national government. He argued government bonds would keep the country together. Jefferson’s presidency shows that while philosophical he quibbled with such policies; in reality, he came to see their necessity as demonstrated by the use Hamiltonian-style bonds to purchase the Louisiana. Hamilton economic system favored neutrality in trade and predicted any trade war with countries like Britain would wreck the economy. Jefferson disagreed, using the Embargo Act to start a trade war, a policy that almost single-handedly ruined the American economy. Later the trade war, the main contributor to the War of 1812, proved disastrous. Hamiltonian Banking: examples of its triumph Pro derides central banking; he claims it is antithetical to the Jeffersonian vision. We agree here. However, again there is no reason to conjecture as to whether the Bank of the United States led to good or bad outcomes, given the result of what occurred when its charter expired. In 1811, the First Bank of the United States expired, making it difficult for the government to raise enough revenue to fight an invading British army and navy. And in the years following its expiration, the national debt grew while monetary policy fragmented and disorganized. Jefferson’s successor, James Madison, who initially vetoed chartering the Second Bank of the United States in 1814, eventually came to see its value, signing into law a bill that charted the Second Bank of the United States. Is nullification an example of triumph? In Round 3, Pro defended nullification but again failed to develop how it speaks to a Jeffersonian triumph. First, US history and specifically the US Civil War is a perfect case in point of trying of problems likely to arise if nullification became a legitimate principal. Again, Hamilton’s view expressed in Federalist No. 80 for why countries with multiple territories and regions fair better, when there is an impartial institution to resolve disputes. Here is Hamilton’s appeal to reason: “History gives us a horrid picture of the dissensions and private wars which distracted and desolated Germany prior to the institution of the Imperial Chamber by Maximilian...inform[ing] us, at the same time, of the vast influence of that institution in appeasing the disorders and establishing the tranquility of an empire.”[6] Thankfully, the periods of violence and uprising, conquest and aggression witnessed throughout Europe over centuries not threatened the Union of the United States, with the exception of the Civil War, an event that tested the soundness, even the sanity of nullification as an actual legal principal. Questions Pro failed to resolve: Pro states he is not concerned about Jefferson’s own contradictions: If Pro’s argument rest on showing Jeffersonian anti-federalism triumphs over Hamiltonian Federalism it would seem Jefferson’s contradictions and/or adoption of Hamiltonian economic principles as President would be an area that deserves at the very least a counter argument. However, Pro avoids what I consider a serious flaw in his argument. Pro states that State government and local government are imperfect, susceptible to the same problems of the federal government, and then he claims this is still preferable than opening the door to the tyranny of the federal government. As already made clear, the system of dual federalism built from the ideas of Hamilton in the Federalist Papers ensures the federal government and state governments will act to provide a balance. Pro states he believes the role of the federal government should protect property rights and national security. However, when a state can nullify federal law it believes are unconstitutional, then the Union is threatened by the same problems experienced during the Civil War. Southern States said the federal government infringed on their right to property, specifically human beings. As a result, they left the union, unsuccessful and at a great cost. Nullification is a system that failed. What do you do if the national security problem is a state or states threatening another state or states? It is easy to think of hypotheticals: imagine if states could nullify. Say Florida for example, at some point in the past seceded. And for the sake of the argument imagine because of hostility from other states it joined an alliance with neighboring Cuba and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Then with the help of the USSR, Florida gained access to several nuclear weapons and threatened to use them if the remaining states of the Union attempt to invade or enforce economic sanctions. How would the system purposed by work fix such problems? It is unclear. Fortunately, at least according to Con, the US has avoided the complications that would inevitably occur under a system of nullification. The reason, at least in part, derives from a realistic outlook espoused by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalists—and the history of the United States clearly demonstrates the Hamiltonian vision triumphed. Please vote Con! [1] Richard Lehne, Government and Business: American Political Economy in Comparative Perspective Third Edition (New York: CQ Press, 2013), 5. [2] Richard Lehne, Government and Business: American Political Economy in Comparative Perspective Third Edition (New York: CQ Press, 2013), 5. [3] Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton (New York: Penguin Group, 2005), 323, Kindle. [4] Robert E. Wright. “The Framers and the Roots of Economic Prosperity.” Insights On Law & Society 10, no. 1 (Fall 2009): 4-7. [5] Ibid. [6] Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. Edited by Clinton Rossiter (New York, N.Y.: Signet Classic, 2003). 476