(This is an old short essay comparing the constitutional philosophies of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Enjoy).
By way of introducing them, I would provide some brief, broad points about each. Jefferson saw America as a pastoral, agricultural country with a weak, yeoman federal republican government. On the other hand, Hamilton envisioned an America that was a powerful industrial nation united through a common economic interest which obliterated state boundaries with a strong, energetic national republican government.
The conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson’s constitutional philosophies came to a head over the constitutionality of the national bank. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury submitted a report to Congress on a plan for a national bank modeled on the Bank of England. “The Bank of the United States was designed to meet the special needs of the American economy as Hamilton understood them, the chief ones being a dependable source of credit and a substantial circulating medium based on a minimum of scarce specie.”[1] Thus, Hamilton’s goals for the Bank were twofold: 1) to unleash the underlying strength of America’s industry and economy by providing “a large, stable, but flexible money supply for the financing of ordinary business and general economic development”[2]; and 2) the more revolutionary end of creating a nation, rather than a confederacy of states (one people, instead of many).
The support for the Bank in Congress had a two to one advantage over the opposition[3]; however, the opposition to the bank was strong, and James Madison was the leader of the questioning of the constitutionality of the Bank before Congress, although his motivations, as well as Jefferson’s, have be suspect. Madison charged that Congress did not have the power to incorporate a bank based on a strict reading of the Constitution. Unfortunately for him, Madison was challenged by Mr. Boudinot with his precious statements in favour of broad constructionism in the Federalist Papers, although at the time the authors were not publicly known.[4]
Despite Madison’s objections, the plan passed, and its opponents now had to rely on the possibility of Washington’s veto, which he had not used, so they set about the task of attempting to persuade Washington of the unconstitutionality of the Bank. In turn, Washington consulted his cabinet on the question; the two most important and defining reports were those of Hamilton and Jefferson.
Jefferson’s report on the Bank has become the defining political statement on strict constructionism, a philosophy which ties the hand of government to prevent actions which have not been specifically enumerated in the Constitution. He began his argument with against the constitutionality of the Bank by going through the list of enumerated clauses to demonstrate that the incorporation of a bank was not one Congress’ delegated powers. After this demonstration, Jefferson proceeded to the general clauses of the Constitution: the “general welfare” clause and the “necessary and proper” clause. According to Jefferson, the “general welfare” clause was not a distinct power of Congress, but “a statement of the purpose for which the specific power of the laying taxes was to be exercised.”[5] The necessary and proper clause found in Article 1, section 8 posed peculiar problems for Jefferson. Jefferson could not deny that the clause was a distinct power given to Congress, so he had to show how it did not apply to the incorporation of the Bank as a means for carrying out the other powers. Thus Jefferson had to argue that the bank was not necessary, because it was not indispensable, since the enumerated powers could be carried out by other means than the Bank.[6] A final argument against the Bank was his concern that it would violate the common law of the states[7]: “To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed”[8]; which his support for states’ rights would not stand.
Hamilton had the advantage of being able to review the objections of Jefferson before Washington asked for his opinion, and when it was asked, he struck at the weak points of Jefferson’s argument. Hamilton wasted no time on the irrelevant positions on the 10th Amendment, which Jefferson had cited in his report, or the “general welfare” clause, and instead focused on the meaning and interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause. He rejected Jefferson’s narrow interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, which Jefferson had said meant absolutely and indispensably necessary[9], a position even Jefferson knew was difficult to maintain[10], by noting that necessary should not be defined so narrowly: “According to both [grammatical and popular sense], necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to.”[11] As evidence of this meaning and interpretation, Hamilton cited the state constitutions and their governments’ incorporation of towns and the Congressional incorporation of lighthouses, etc., whose constitutionality was not questioned; either of which would fail Jefferson’s indispensability test.[12] Following upon this, Hamilton proceeded to demonstrate the relationship between the Bank and Congress’ delegated powers.
In sum, if taken seriously and acted upon, Jefferson’s philosophy has a paralyzing effect upon government, which Jefferson was clearly cognizant of and which he ignored on more than one occasion. The philosophy of Hamilton allows for a government of energy and action in accordance with the essential, defining principle inherent in government: “that every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by and exceptions in the constitution; or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.”[13] Even Libertarians can surely recognise and acknowledge the wisdom of such a philosophy.
[1] Elkins, Stanley and McKitrick, Eric. The Age of Federalism: the Early American Republic, 1788-1800. Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 1993. p. 227
[2] McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton: a Biography. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY. 1982.
[3] Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 228
[4] Ibid., p. 231
[5] Mayer, David N. The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson. University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, VA. 1994. p. 191
[6] Ibid., 192
[7] Ibid., 193
[8] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/bank-tj.htm
[9] Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 233
[10] Mayer, David N. The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson. p. 193
[11] Hamilton, Alexander. Writings. ed. Joanne B. Freeman. Library of America: New York, NY. 2001. p. 618
[12] McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton. pp. 206-07
[13] Hamilton, Alexander. Writings. p. 613
The conflict between Hamilton and Jefferson’s constitutional philosophies came to a head over the constitutionality of the national bank. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury submitted a report to Congress on a plan for a national bank modeled on the Bank of England. “The Bank of the United States was designed to meet the special needs of the American economy as Hamilton understood them, the chief ones being a dependable source of credit and a substantial circulating medium based on a minimum of scarce specie.”[1] Thus, Hamilton’s goals for the Bank were twofold: 1) to unleash the underlying strength of America’s industry and economy by providing “a large, stable, but flexible money supply for the financing of ordinary business and general economic development”[2]; and 2) the more revolutionary end of creating a nation, rather than a confederacy of states (one people, instead of many).
The support for the Bank in Congress had a two to one advantage over the opposition[3]; however, the opposition to the bank was strong, and James Madison was the leader of the questioning of the constitutionality of the Bank before Congress, although his motivations, as well as Jefferson’s, have be suspect. Madison charged that Congress did not have the power to incorporate a bank based on a strict reading of the Constitution. Unfortunately for him, Madison was challenged by Mr. Boudinot with his precious statements in favour of broad constructionism in the Federalist Papers, although at the time the authors were not publicly known.[4]
Despite Madison’s objections, the plan passed, and its opponents now had to rely on the possibility of Washington’s veto, which he had not used, so they set about the task of attempting to persuade Washington of the unconstitutionality of the Bank. In turn, Washington consulted his cabinet on the question; the two most important and defining reports were those of Hamilton and Jefferson.
Jefferson’s report on the Bank has become the defining political statement on strict constructionism, a philosophy which ties the hand of government to prevent actions which have not been specifically enumerated in the Constitution. He began his argument with against the constitutionality of the Bank by going through the list of enumerated clauses to demonstrate that the incorporation of a bank was not one Congress’ delegated powers. After this demonstration, Jefferson proceeded to the general clauses of the Constitution: the “general welfare” clause and the “necessary and proper” clause. According to Jefferson, the “general welfare” clause was not a distinct power of Congress, but “a statement of the purpose for which the specific power of the laying taxes was to be exercised.”[5] The necessary and proper clause found in Article 1, section 8 posed peculiar problems for Jefferson. Jefferson could not deny that the clause was a distinct power given to Congress, so he had to show how it did not apply to the incorporation of the Bank as a means for carrying out the other powers. Thus Jefferson had to argue that the bank was not necessary, because it was not indispensable, since the enumerated powers could be carried out by other means than the Bank.[6] A final argument against the Bank was his concern that it would violate the common law of the states[7]: “To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures, and so, probably, they will be construed”[8]; which his support for states’ rights would not stand.
Hamilton had the advantage of being able to review the objections of Jefferson before Washington asked for his opinion, and when it was asked, he struck at the weak points of Jefferson’s argument. Hamilton wasted no time on the irrelevant positions on the 10th Amendment, which Jefferson had cited in his report, or the “general welfare” clause, and instead focused on the meaning and interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause. He rejected Jefferson’s narrow interpretation of the “necessary and proper” clause, which Jefferson had said meant absolutely and indispensably necessary[9], a position even Jefferson knew was difficult to maintain[10], by noting that necessary should not be defined so narrowly: “According to both [grammatical and popular sense], necessary often means no more than needful, requisite, incidental, useful, or conducive to.”[11] As evidence of this meaning and interpretation, Hamilton cited the state constitutions and their governments’ incorporation of towns and the Congressional incorporation of lighthouses, etc., whose constitutionality was not questioned; either of which would fail Jefferson’s indispensability test.[12] Following upon this, Hamilton proceeded to demonstrate the relationship between the Bank and Congress’ delegated powers.
In sum, if taken seriously and acted upon, Jefferson’s philosophy has a paralyzing effect upon government, which Jefferson was clearly cognizant of and which he ignored on more than one occasion. The philosophy of Hamilton allows for a government of energy and action in accordance with the essential, defining principle inherent in government: “that every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes by force of the term, a right to employ all means requisite, and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are not precluded by and exceptions in the constitution; or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society.”[13] Even Libertarians can surely recognise and acknowledge the wisdom of such a philosophy.
[1] Elkins, Stanley and McKitrick, Eric. The Age of Federalism: the Early American Republic, 1788-1800. Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 1993. p. 227
[2] McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton: a Biography. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY. 1982.
[3] Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 228
[4] Ibid., p. 231
[5] Mayer, David N. The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson. University Press of Virginia: Charlottesville, VA. 1994. p. 191
[6] Ibid., 192
[7] Ibid., 193
[8] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/bank-tj.htm
[9] Elkins and McKitrick. The Age of Federalism. p. 233
[10] Mayer, David N. The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson. p. 193
[11] Hamilton, Alexander. Writings. ed. Joanne B. Freeman. Library of America: New York, NY. 2001. p. 618
[12] McDonald, Forrest. Alexander Hamilton. pp. 206-07
[13] Hamilton, Alexander. Writings. p. 613
0 comments:
Post a Comment