The Concept of Liberty in US Political History: An Analytical Essay

After the colonies gained independence, the founding fathers soon found that becoming a new independent nation was going to be a difficult task. The biggest task was deciding on the division of power in the government. This issue divided the people into two groups, the federalists and the Jeffersonian republicans. Alexander Hamilton led the federalists and Thomas Jefferson led the republicans. These two important men in history would later show how the challenges of becoming a new nation. In this essay I will be analyzing the ideas of Linda K. Kerber’s “The Fears of the Federalists,” to Drew R. McCoy’s “The Fears of the Jeffersonian Republicans.” Furthermore, comparisons will be made about both essays to gain a better understanding of the struggles of government in early America.

There exist similarities between both the federalists and the anti-federalists. Both felt that government was necessary because ‘men were not “angels”’ (Bryner, 1987). However, they disagreed on the size of government appropriate in a republic. The federalists wanted a large republic with a central government while the anti-federalists wanted a small republic with a state government. Both the federalists and anti-federalists were liberals and republicans. Republicanism refers to a political theory of government that advocates for the participation of the people for the common good of the community (Rawls, 1993). It focuses on the importance of virtue. Virtue is important because it encourages ‘personal restraint and willingness to contribute to the common good’ (Bryner, 1987, p. 2).

America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.

Richard Hofstadter examines the political beliefs of the founding fathers in the first chapter of the American Political Tradition. Ideas thought about by most Americans to be the center of our organization, our founders viewed liberty, democracy, and property, as evil. The composition can be depicted to be vicious as well, because liberty, democracy, and property are linked to the United States Constitution.

The book A Magnificent Catastrophe, by Edward J. Larson, narrates a story about how dirty and devious America’s first presidential campaign of 1800, how it became the most powerful election and how it molded America’s future in today’s society. Adams and Jefferson two great friends that shared one common goal. It is to obtain America’s freedom against the motherland Great Britain. They have remained close coworkers and friends throughout the American Revolution, but then in the 1800 each went thru their separate ways and had their own political parties and different ideologies. One believed that solitary “effective central government led by a powerful president could forge a stable, secure nation from a multiple of weak, wrangling states” (Larson, 2007, 17) and called themselves Federalist led by John Adams. Adams believed that America should have only one strong influential president that is in control of the nation. He does not want to give people too much power because he does not want them to have a lot of freedom. On the other hand, one wants America to be the “land of free, prosperous farmers and workers” (Larson, 2007, 17) called themselves Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson saw America as a country that is for the people. The people of the U.S is the President and that all people are born with individual rights. An individual rights that the government couldn’t restrict just because they wanted to control the people and create a central government. The

First, when the political parties emerged in the 1790’s it was evident that their ideologies were vastly different. The Republican Party wanted a representative form of government that functioned “in the interest of the people.” This party, led by Thomas Jefferson, supported a limited central government, with individual states retaining a majority of the control. Jefferson’s vision was for a nation of farmers, and farmers do not need big government to survive. They feared a large central government would take away the rights of the people. On the other hand, the Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, supported a strong central government that would pursue policies in support of economic growth, which in turn would provide the freedom the people wanted. Hamilton’s followers also supported a diverse economy.1 It is important to note here however, that both parties knew they would have to become national parties in order to win any elections and both parties had followers in the north and in the south. There was no sectional divide in the parties.

More than personality fueled the political crisis of the 1790’s; two strong individuals dominated the era. (Reader, 165) The federalist split into two factions over financial policy and the French Revolution, and their leaders, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, offered contrasting visions of the future. (Textbook, 193) The conflict gave rise to political parties by creating factions on opposite political sides. Both saw a great future for the nation but very different approaches.

The democratization of American society that started in 1820s has led to a significant change of relations between government and people. These changes include growing equality of opportunities for white men and possibility for people to influence political processes taking place in the US. While people gained new rights and chances to start another life, government was, on the one hand, set under the growing pressure of society, and on the other hand, could be constructed by people.

In the article The Fears of the Federalist by Linda K. Kerber and The Fears of the Jeffersonian Republic by Drew R. McCoy, both draws the ideals of the federalist and the Republicans distant conflict of opposing ideas in the political field. Kerber expresses, in her article, how federalist were carefully placed people with leadership from the top minds of wealthy society. As for McCoy shined the Republicans in his article as a bright blue collar society of united people that were more willing to change with more of rebellious mindset. Yet these groups seem to have ideas on different spectrums of the political layout. A vision of what America should become, both feared that the effects of each other's assembly would have on the public and influence for change in the future of the United States stability at home and foreign.

Despite the fact the founding fathers advised contrary to the establishment of political factions as the Constitution withstood the ratification process, a rift amongst men in President George Washington’s cabinet instituted the move toward the conception of political party. During the time period between 1791 and 1833, a two-party system had begun that demonstrated the philosophy of the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. Although these two political groups were unyielding in their original ideas and beliefs, both had to change a few of their initial standpoints on numerous topics as they dealt with the truth of the government.

The early years of the Constitution of the United States were full of political strife. The two prominent political ideals were complete opposites. The Jeffersonian Republicans were focused on giving power to the people and maintaining a pastoral economy, while the Federalists supported the control of the government by the elite class, and maintaining “positive” democracy. Both parties feared the influence and effect the other party would have on the public. In Linda K. Kerber's article, “The Fears of the Federalists”, the major concerns Federalists held in the early 19th century are described. Ever since the war with and separation from England, the citizens of America were seen to be continually drive to “patriotic rebellion” as a way to

From 1815 to 1840, American was graced with an expansion of democracy. With every position comes winners and losers, just as this one. This era caused for an uproar in political controversy and disagreement.

During the late 17th and early 18th centuries, Americans had created a unique system of government with revolutionary ideals that were never seen anywhere in the world before. Americans had adopted a representative government along with democratic principles which allowed each person to have a say in the decisions about their country. With this new atmosphere of ideas and political rights, a growing sense of a unique American identity was on the rise. However, this uprising was plagued with petty disagreements between major political leaders and discouraged by a large population still clinging to their Loyalists roots, thus America was not able to effectively unite as a Nation.

Whose side would you have been on in the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson’s or Alexander Hamilton’s? Both of these men served under George Washington in the first presidential cabinet, yet they had very different views of what government should be (Davis 86). My objective in this research essay is to inform the reader of why there was so much controversy between these two founding fathers, and to determine which side had the better views for our newly forming country.

Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.