- We tend to think of the
Founding Fathers as comrades,
best buddies, fighting together
against an oppressive
British government that sought
to enslave them.
It is true that the men we think
of as the Founding Fathers
cooperated in the struggle to
gain independence from England.
However, they did not
necessarily like each other.
They did not all think alike.
In fact, once America gained
independence and especially
once the national government
gained significant power
with the ratification
of the Constitution in 1789,
it became clear that many
of the founders had deep
and abiding differences
with each other.
In other words, they hated each
other's guts.
Perhaps no two early American
leaders exemplify this better
than the first Secretary of
State and later third President,
Thomas Jefferson, and his
ideological antagonist,
Alexander Hamilton, the nation's
first Secretary of the Treasury.
Jefferson feared
strong government.
He believed the governments,
if given too much power,
would inevitably oppress
the people.
Hamilton, on the other hand,
believed that the United States
needed a powerful national
government not only
to defend itself against
other nations, but to drive
the American economy forward.
Jefferson believed in the
virtues of the small
land-owning rural farmer
while Hamilton celebrated
urban merchants
and manufacturers.
Not surprisingly, these two men
and the political parties
that formed around them,
the Democratic Republicans
and the Federalists,
also differed over
how to properly interpret
the American Constitution.
Jefferson believed in what he
called "strict construction."
That is, unless the text
of the Constitution specifically
grants a particular power
or right
to the national government,
it is prohibited
from exercising this power.
This power is reserved
to the state governments.
For example, the text
of the Constitution
says nothing about
creating a national bank.
Therefore, Jefferson insisted
the national government,
Congress, had no power
to create one.
Only the individual states
possessed this right.
Hamilton, on the other hand,
thought this was absurd.
He believed in what we might
call "loose construction."
In other words, if the text
of the Constitution
did not specifically
prohibit a power
to the national government,
then it was free
to exercise such power.
Hamilton argued, for example,
that since the Constitution
did not expressly prohibit
Congress from creating
a national bank, it was free
to do so.
This may sound boring and arcane
to many of you,
but it has absolutely
crucial consequences
for how we understand
and continue to debate
the American Constitution today.
To over-simplify, Jefferson's
interpretation
of the Constitution favored
a limited national government
while Hamilton's vision was
quite comfortable with
a government of undefined
and potentially
ever-expanding powers.
This debate would fundamentally
shape the course
of American politics
for the first generation
under the Constitution.
