NationStates Jolt Archive

I have heard alot of debate on here about ideology but very little on governmental structure. So im curious, do you support the ideas of Jefferson "State rights, weak federal government, individual states control own policies" or Hamilton " strong unified federal government, weaker state governments, Federal government decides policy" ?

Jeffersonian, definitely.

I have heard alot of debate on here about ideology but very little on governmental structure. So im curious, do you support the ideas of Jefferson "State rights, weak federal government, individual states control own policies" or Hamilton " strong unified federal government, weaker state governments, Federal government decides policy" ?

one nation, one government, the idea of "states rights" is a long outdated concept.

As I said before, when Florida fights a war I'll consider Florida to have some autonomy. Until then it is one area that is part of a larger government, and vaguely resembles a penis.

I have heard alot of debate on here about ideology but very little on governmental structure. So im curious, do you support the ideas of Jefferson "State rights, weak federal government, individual states control own policies" or Hamilton " strong unified federal government, weaker state governments, Federal government decides policy" ?

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Jefferson understood the weaknesses of States rights, such as in the economy, and compromised on many issues were important(National Bank, for example, and the Louisiana Purchase). Neither is more important than the other, they both are needed, and a middle ground must be taken.

one nation, one government, the idea of "states rights" is a long outdated concept.

As I said before, when Florida fights a war I'll consider Florida to have some autonomy. Until then it is one area that is part of a larger government, and vaguely resembles a penis.

Did Florida join the Confederacy in the Civil War?

I approve of a strong federally-controlled military, but other than that, I agree with Jefferson. Local goverments are better able to respond to their constituents, due to there being fewer to respond to than on the federal level, and in general have less apathy and more interest in them.

Sorta mixed. States' Rights is great and each state should have the ultimate authority over matters that are its own and not the nation at large (which keeps things simpler and the size of the Federal government at large. However, the Federal government does have certain responsibilities that it must attend to and needs to be in-shape for it (I say in-shape because, in its current state, the government is bloated and needs to be trimmed down).

I side with Jefferson, a small decentralized government is a good way to go.

I find it a little annoying that the debates between Hamilton and Jefferson are so often narrowed down to the question of states' rights. There were other issues in play.

Well then bring those other issues into play. The debate between Hamilton and Jefferson is a interesting one, especially as Hamilton has a tendency to be overlooked.

The problem I have with the states rights doctrine is that it has a tendency to divide the country. 50 different states, 50 different laws. IWouldnt it be more efficient to have a uniform law code? Also if the state governments have more power, what will stop them from simply ignoring federal laws and the constitution?

Well then bring those other issues into play. The debate between Hamilton and Jefferson is a interesting one, especially as Hamilton has a tendency to be overlooked.

Well the federal bank is a big one...

The problem I have with the states rights doctrine is that it has a tendency to divide the country. 50 different states, 50 different laws. IWouldnt it be more efficient to have a uniform law code?

Is a problem I have with it top

Also if the state governments have more power, what will stop them from simply ignoring federal laws and the constitution?

Well that's kinda sorta exactly what the confederacy did. Ask them how it turned out.

And these days a civil war would be largely a joke. All the fun weapons are in the hands of the federal government.

And these days a civil war would be largely a joke. All the fun weapons are in the hands of the federal government.

Well, the original was mostly a joke. The Confederacy had exactly one weapons manufacturer(If I remember correctly), and most of it's funding was from British banks and lenders, many of whom pulled out later in the war, due to it being rather obvious that the Confederates were going to lose. They then used this money to buy weapons from France and Britain, which in turn meant that they had to wait for them. Also, they had a pathetic railroad system compared to the north, fewer men, almost no infrastructure, could barely feed their men(As most of the farm land was used for cash crops and not food crops), and many other problems. Their only saving grace was decent generals, compared to their Union forces incompetent generals early on.

As a citizen (sorry, subject) of a very centralised state, I can say that there are a lot of advantages in maintaining a federal system. Among other things it helps maintain a pluralistic society, which is very advantageous.

Hamilton is the godfather of modern fascism.

Jefferson > Hamilton

I side with Jefferson, a small decentralized government is a good way to go.

Hamilton by three points, he has the home field advantage given that his philosophy has more or less prevailed.

A small, decentralized government is not workable in a country the size of the US, in this day and age. Unless you want to argue about the definition of "small."

A small, decentralized government is not workable in a country the size of the US, in this day and age. Unless you want to argue about the definition of "small."

Actually, I think that a large centralized government can't work very well in a country the size of the US. A federal system with the states having control over their own domestic issues (as long as they do not violate civil rights as defined by the US) is the only way I see things working even remotely well. As it is Uncle Sam wastes ludicrous amounts of money and we get very little bang for our buck from Federal programs. I know that my state is far better with money than Uncle Sam, and I would much rather they spend my tax money to provide me with social services.

Actually, I think that a large centralized government can't work very well in a country the size of the US. A federal system with the states having control over their own domestic issues (as long as they do not violate civil rights as defined by the US) is the only way I see things working even remotely well. As it is Uncle Sam wastes ludicrous amounts of money and we get very little bang for our buck from Federal programs. I know that my state is far better with money than Uncle Sam, and I would much rather they spend my tax money to provide me with social services.

Well, that may be true in Michigan but in Colorado we have the Taxpayer's Bill Of Rights, which basically puts the state government on a starvation diet (or did until the people passed a referendum allowing some relief for the next five years). You can control the Federal government by getting the right people elected (according to your political views, naturally). People seem to forget that we've always had term limits, they go into effect each time someone has to run for office. If your representative hasn't done right by you, vote the sucker out and get a new one. Look, Ted Stevens, an twit of the first water, at least got that bridge to nowhere approved (I can't recall if it was ever built). If he can do that, surely a better person is available to you in Michigan.

I'd like to point out there is a difference between a strong federal government and huge one. You can have a federal government that is strong in the functions it does but small in the scope of things it covers. I dont think Alexander Hamilton would be pleased at the modern size and ineffcieny of the government either.

If Hamilton is the goddfather of facism "which is completely untrue" then Jefferson is the godfather of African Amercan oppression in this country, especially in light of the doctrine of states rights being used so frequently to preserve slavery and then segregation afterwards.

Did Florida join the Confederacy in the Civil War?

Yes, it did.


I know that we did a Jefferson vs. Hamilton debate in AP US History this year. I was debating on the Hamilton side, although we didn't get to choose which side we wanted to be on. I'm not entirely sure which I would choose if I had to choose between one.

Hamilton favored a massive centralized government, an intimate and incestuous relationship between the state and big business, mercantalism, empire, central banking, inflationary paper money, and much worse. The Hamiltonians preceded the followers of Henry Clay's "American School" who preceded the fascists and neoconservatives of the 20th century. Read all about it in The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

I find it a little annoying that the debates between Hamilton and Jefferson are so often narrowed down to the question of states' rights. There were other issues in play.

Most importantly, matters of whether pro-business trade policies or pro-farmer trade policies were the best course. Hamilton, of course, being pro-business, and Jefferson pro-farmer.

Most importantly, matters of whether pro-business trade policies or pro-farmer trade policies were the best course. Hamilton, of course, being pro-business, and Jefferson pro-farmer.

Hamilton was a corporate whore.

Well, that may be true in Michigan but in Colorado we have the Taxpayer's Bill Of Rights, which basically puts the state government on a starvation diet (or did until the people passed a referendum allowing some relief for the next five years). You can control the Federal government by getting the right people elected (according to your political views, naturally). People seem to forget that we've always had term limits, they go into effect each time someone has to run for office. If your representative hasn't done right by you, vote the sucker out and get a new one. Look, Ted Stevens, an twit of the first water, at least got that bridge to nowhere approved (I can't recall if it was ever built). If he can do that, surely a better person is available to you in Michigan.

The problem with the Federal government is precisely that people like Ted Stevens can get multimillion dollar projects approved. If they were limited to wasting their own state's money they wouldn't be quite so bothersome.

Hamilton was a corporate whore.

And Massa Tom was down the slave quarters every week, rummaging among the dusky women ...

Now that we've managed to slander two of the country's founders, what would you like to talk about?

And Massa Tom was down the slave quarters every week, rummaging among the dusky women ...

Now that we've managed to slander two of the country's founders, what would you like to talk about?

Okay, they were both assholes. But I find myself agreeing with Tom far more than Alex.

Let's talk about crumpets.

Hamilton was a corporate whore.

Well, I was trying to be value-free, but yes, he was a corporate whore.

And Massa Tom was down the slave quarters every week, rummaging among the dusky women ...

Now that we've managed to slander two of the country's founders, what would you like to talk about?

Its not slander if its true. Truth is absolute defense to slander.

In the long run, Hamilton won.

Ha! We might aswell slander the rest of them!

Fascists? No offense but that seems to be a bit of a stretch. A federal bank to fund the government and pay revolutionary war debts? Yes. Policies to build up american industry? Yes. Strong military in the years of massive European power? Yes.

Not to mention that building up american industry proved to be more pragmatic than favoring agriculture like Jefferson. I'd also like to point out that although Jefferson was a state rights advocate, he obviously found time during his admistration to buy louisiana and lets not forget the embargo act of 1807. Both were huge exercises of federal power. A bit hippocritical eh?

He was widely criticized for the Embargo, and he doubted the legality of the Louisiana Purchase (no where in the Constitution did it strictly state that the government has the power to purchase foreign land), and he was an advocate of Strict Constructionalism. In the end, he admitted that some of Hamilton's ideas (strong central bank and industrial independence) made the nation better off, and, for a short time, the US had only one party. Then the Whigs came along.

Okay, they were both assholes. But I find myself agreeing with Tom far more than Alex.

Let's talk about crumpets.

Crumpets I don't know from but I make a pretty reasonable batch of scones. :p

We can't go back to the late 18th century society of Southern gentleman farmers, nascent industry in the North and pioneers pushing West every year. I think both Jefferson and Hamilton would be both gratified and appalled by what the country has become. Could the Federal government be leaner and work more efficiently? I do not doubt it. Should we throw much of the social welfare functions back on the States? I doubt they could afford it. Unfunded mandates have tried to do that, with dubious success.

I think I admire Jefferson personally more than Hamilton but Hamilton's descendants, such as they are, have prevailed as far as I see.

Im afraid that Jefferson didn't even agree with Jefferson. Im not aware of how up to date you all are on the Jefferson Presidencies, but he was in effect, very much in favor of centralized authority, and displayed it on numerous occasions. He was officially for 'states rights', but in reality, he acted quite on the contrary.

Where do you find the right of the government to purchase land in the idea of states rights? Why should the states be forced to pay for an federal acquisition? Under the 'States Rights' attitude, the states would never be forced to fund such Federal Projects unless they all agreed to it. Well, Jefferson had the Federal Govt. pay 20~ Million for the Louisiana Territory. He took money from states that did not want to pay, and spent it acquiring Federal Land. States Rights Proponent? Right there he seems as Federalist as Adams.

Where do you see the right of the Federal Govt. to lay embargo's in the state's rights ideology? According to State's Rights, each individual state would be responsible for who they traded with, and how. The Federal Government could not regulate such matters... however... In the Napoleanic Wars, Jefferson set an embargo on both France and Britain, barring all trade with them both. Quite the Federalist position... to set federal embargo's on each state, especially when most state's opposed the embargo.

If one based Jefferson's Ideological Position off of his Presidency, he would most definitely be labeled a 'Federalist'.

Should we throw much of the social welfare functions back on the States? I doubt they could afford it. Unfunded mandates have tried to do that, with dubious success.

The idea is to reduce the amount of taxes the Federal government takes in, and increase the amount the states take in (if they so choose).

I think I admire Jefferson personally more than Hamilton but Hamilton's descendants, such as they are, have prevailed as far as I see.

That they have. Jefferson's vision of a nation of yeoman farmers never was all that realistic.

He was officially for 'states rights', but in reality, he acted quite on the contrary.

Quite so. While I admire Jefferson as a philospher, he didn't really act on the principles he espoused. I think he did what he thought was right, but I happen to disagree with some of those things.

According to State's Rights, each individual state would be responsible for who they traded with, and how.

Actually no, the Constitution quite clearly delegates trade to the Federal government. Even hard core states' rights supporters recognize that this is somewhere the Federal government should have primacy. States' rights supporters (generally) seek to work within the Constitution, and (again, generally) see the explicitly delegated powers in Art 1 Sec 9 as being legitimate. Of course, there's considerable debate over what constitutes "necessary and proper" and "the general welfare".

Unless one lived in the South, where they wanted the right of Nullification (among other things).

Unless one lived in the South, where they wanted the right of Nullification (among other things).

Yes, nullification was rather silly. I agree with the right of a state to leave the Union if they like, but while they're in said Union they need to follow it's rules.

Paraphrasing the words of Abraham Lincoln (who began his career as a lawyer), the Articles of Confederation permanently bonded the states together and since the Constitution was the successor of the Articles, and stated that it was forming a more perfect union, that the States did not have the right to secede. And even then, he went on to say, the Constitution is a binding contract to which the states (through their elected representatives) were signatory and could only be released through the universal consent of all others (which was not going to happen, and will never).

It's my belief that the South, had they miraculously won the war (which was doubtful since most of its population was forbidden to fight, had nothing to back up their scrip, lacked any industry - save for the Tredegar Iron Works -, and Lee didn't take advantage of the Mississippi), they would've fallen apart after a while, becoming independent nations (a possibility with Texas), rejoining the US, or forming a new government that finally put a limit on States' Rights (doubtful). They would've never prospered as the Confederate government was forbidden from creating tariffs (which would've put Tredegar out of business as it would be cheaper to import from abroad, especially the U.S.), and didn't have any real authority to enforce its laws.

Also they had an interstate passport system. Dumbest move if there ever was one. . .

I have heard alot of debate on here about ideology but very little on governmental structure. So im curious, do you support the ideas of Jefferson "State rights, weak federal government, individual states control own policies" or Hamilton " strong unified federal government, weaker state governments, Federal government decides policy" ?

I favor Jefferson's ideas, but I think Hamilton's ideas were more practical and expedient for what the United States needed at the time. A strong centralized government supporting was the best way for the United States to demonstrate its legitimacy abroad, establish good credit, and to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient. This could not have happened by going with Jefferson's strategy.

May I do a sidenote?

WHen I was stationed in DC I got the chance to take an applied Anth class at Georgetown and the Army paid for it. We dug in the midden at Monticello. Oddly, it was about 75 yards from the front porch, right off from the front yard. Tons of wine bottles. And some corks. And then tons of wine bottles. NOt many corks really but some. I guess they were in the empties. All these anthropologists with big degrees and shit stood around pointificating on why the wine bottle pile would be that far away from the house. And why a wine bottle midden? YOu can reuse glass, right? BOttle stuff in it and the like....

for w week at lest they argued about it being a glass storage area cause Jefferson was giong to take up glasswares. But that didn't pan out. I think there was a guy who said it was a bottling area for food storage, but no fire pit around. So no...

Well one night late in the dig, we ran late, and I had a bottle of 2 buck chuck in the yard, and we drank it (didn't go far cause there were ten or twelve of us. And the old guy in the group, when it was empty (he was doing it for fun while we were actually trying to become archeologists one day...He took the bottle and hucked it out into the yard as far away from the house as it would go. about 75 yards.

It seems old JEfferson and Co. were sitting on the front porch drinking till the wee hours of the morning, and when they finished a bottle....THey chucked it to see who could get it the farthest. Drunk men never change.

True story of archeology in the making.

Drinking games are as old as drinks :D

I have heard alot of debate on here about ideology but very little on governmental structure. So im curious, do you support the ideas of Jefferson "State rights, weak federal government, individual states control own policies" or Hamilton " strong unified federal government, weaker state governments, Federal government decides policy" ?

Jefferson, however the Civil War ended any thoughts of "State rights, weak federal government, individual states control own policies." :(

Thats a pretty good story. Just goes to prove that even the people who found countries, get wasted and have fun.

...SNIP... You can control the Federal government by getting the right people elected (according to your political views, naturally).

I respectfully disagree with you. The problem is you can not control the Federal Government. Your state has only a limited number of Representatives and only two Senators. You, and it doesn't matter what State you are from, start out in the minority. It is very difficult for your two Senators and a handfull of your representatives to get the whole country to get something done that might be benificial for your State.

People seem to forget that we've always had term limits, they go into effect each time someone has to run for office. If your representative hasn't done right by you, vote the sucker out and get a new one.

While the people can always vote their Congressman or Senator out of office, it seldom happens. The incumbant has a huge advantage. Also, those we send to Washington have a tendancy to think more about what they need to do to get re-elected than what is best for the country or their state after they get there.. For some insight in this I recommend Dr. Coburn's book on the subject titled Breach of Trust: "How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders "Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders."

Yes, it did.

Here is a little history on that http://www.drbronsontours.com/bronsonhistorypageamericanstaugustinecivilwar.html

Hamilton was a corporate whore.

http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/taz.gif Why do you say that?

Could the Federal government be leaner and work more efficiently? I do not doubt it. Should we throw much of the social welfare functions back on the States? I doubt they could afford it. Unfunded mandates have tried to do that, with dubious success.

It might work if the Federal Government cut taxes by the same dollar amount as the social welfare & educational programs and the States increased taxes by the the same amount as the Federal subsidies. It would be dollar neutral for the tax payer.

According to State's Rights, each individual state would be responsible for who they traded with, and how. The Federal Government could not regulate such matters... however...

Isn't foreign trade religated to the Federal Government by the Constitution?

Yep, foreign and interstate commerce are the responsibility of the federal government.

Jeffersonian, definitely.

I second this, though I argue his compromise on the National Bank was one of the worst blunders of his Presidency.