Jeffersonian anti-federalism triumphs Hamilton's Federalism

So let me concede a couple of important points to my opponent by way of contrasting Jefferson and Hamilton and their legacies. Jefferson: Jefferson was a brilliant writer; the continued interest among academics speaks to both his political and his literary genius. The Declaration of Independence stands out as a document that appeals to everyone that believes in universal rights. Jefferson’s eloquence and articulation of liberty and freedom explains why both liberals and conservatives have both attempted to claim Jefferson as their own. Thomas Jefferson’s embodies, and his best writing embraces liberty, democracy, and equality. People continue to visit Jefferson's residence at Monticello and monuments at our capital honor his legacy. Suffice to say, I like Jefferson as a political theorist and believe hold him in the highest regard. Hamilton: Hamilton by contrast lacks the appeal. Critics accused of aristocratic sympathies, even sympathetic to monarchy. Hamilton’s writing is very direct and devoid of any accolades for the masses. Hamilton saw human nature as mercurial, and he distrusted the masses, believing they were ignorant and prone to support despotism or anarchism. Hamilton had little appetite for lofty ideals. Hamilton wrote about the concrete. His writing focuses on the concrete, rather than abstract. Hamilton was a man of policy, how to devise it, how to best implement and best administer it in an imperfect world. With all that said, Jefferson’s anti-federalism is problematic, and even more problematic is the assertion it trumps Hamilton’s Federalism. First, there is the contradiction between Jefferson and Jefferson’s ideals, best exemplified by record as Secretary of State, Vice President, and President. Amendments to Constitution Before getting into Jefferson’s record, we need to be clear about what Hamiltonian Federalism is and what Hamiltonian Federalism is not. Now my opponent claims the Tenth Amendment embodies the Jeffersonian ideal. At best, this claim is a partial truth. Although, initially the Federalists and here I am talking about Hamilton specifically, did not consider the Bill of Rights necessary. Not because adding the Bill of Rights conceded too much to the government, but rather because he worried the Bill of Rights would mean these are the only rights people. His attitude is discernable in Federalist No. 84, when Hamilton/Publius asks, “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? Hamilton says that while personally he does not believe would confer a regulatory power, but….as he goes on to say “but it is evident that it would furnish to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.” [1] Hamilton, a practical political theorist was more interested in the ratification of the Constitution than he was preventing the Bill of Rights on grounds of potential threats to liberty itself. Competing Vision in Practice: Or Why Hamilton had the Upper Hand Hamilton as a practitioner of [Dual] Federalism vs. Jefferson’s KY & VA Resolution [Nullification] [Dual] Federalism is an arrangement, a balancing act between the power of the Federal government and state governments. This is manifest in the Federalist in the Federalist Papers No. 28. Federalism believes that states have do have rights and independence but from the federalist perspective; each individual state has the right to resist the federal government but is opposed to the idea states have the right to nullify federal law or act as its interpreter. Who then has the power to resolve issues related what is Constitutional or Unconstitutional. For Hamilton said in Federalist, No. 78, this responsibility rests on the courts, with the final arbiter being the highest court, The Supreme Court. In Federalist, No. 80 Hamilton rejects the idea that states have the authority to declare a law unconstitutional. He rejects the notion states have the power nullify federal law. And Hamilton’s view was upheld by the Supreme Court under Justice Marshall in influential decisions including, McCulloch v. Maryland. However, Jefferson did not share this belief, as evidenced in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions that held the states have the authority to review and nullify federal law. Federalism is about a compromise, now no one most attractive thing or often inspire a defense but nonetheless has proven in the long-term in maintaining balance and stability while acknowledging its faults. Jefferson: Contradictions in Action Their familiarity reveals itself during the first controversies that erupted in Jefferson's administration. Unlike other federalists, Hamilton has not surprised when Jefferson seemed to turn away from his early ideals and notion of limited government. When Jefferson did not dismantle the Bank of the United States, an institution he condemned as unconstitutional, Hamilton was not surprised. When Jefferson used executive power to squire the Louisiana Purchase, many were awed or perplexed but bit Hamilton. When The Embargo Act used by Jefferson during his presidency causing the entire northeastern economy to collapse because of the government enforcement killed commerce and brought trade to a standstill, again Hamilton was not surprised but then again Hamilton was not a man that was easily won over by idealism, rather he was the man whose primary interest was knowing how it worked. He was a man who knew that there is a fundamental difference between making sausages and the marketing of sausages. And let’s be honest: no one cares about process, but they do care about the product, the thing you buy. [1] Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, John Jay, Clinton Rossiter, and Charles R. Kesler.The Federalist Papers. New York, N.Y.: Signet Classic, 2003.