Federalists vs. Republicans
To say the least, the Articles of Confederation were a highly inefficient means to running the country. Many ask why while the answer to that question lies within the nature of man himself. Yes, the Revolution occurred in response to the repressive temperament of the British rulers and the desire for individual freedoms. It was followed by total control of the government by the masses of peoples who, by nature, were unfit to rule
or were they? While it was blatantly obvious the current system of government was a little too democratic, the constitutional structure, which developed thereafter, was the cause of various tribulations that diverged the nation. Who should rule? How should they rule? What should their economic, political and ethical plans and goals consist of? All of these questions rocked the nation at the time and led to the establishment of the foremost "political parties."
Being most prominent because of the implications this party had (even on modern times) is the Hamiltonian Federalists. Consisting of vicinities of wealthy or "urban" populations the main philosophy behind its functioning was loose interpretation of Constitutional powers and ideals. A prominent leader, Alexander Hamilton, believed that in order for the country to be most competent with the modern world the "wealthy and well-educated" ought to have the most influential say in governing. His ideological foundation rested on the need for financial security. In order to gain this an instituting of various things must take place, which would serve as the basis of conflict. First and foremost in controversy was the creation of a National Bank. They saw it as a vital component, not only of a developing nation, but also in becoming a global power. Federalists thought it would contribute to the growth of capitalistic enterprise and commercial societies. Furthermore, through the creation of this bank it would increase the power of the central government,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document