The Side Of Jefferson vs Hamilton Historians Won't Tell You

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two of the most influential figures in early American politics, and they were also bitter rivals. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was a Democratic-Republican and believed in a limited federal government with power being held by the states and the people. Hamilton, on the other hand, was a Federalist and believed in a strong central government with a powerful executive branch. The two men had vastly different visions for the future of the country, and their rivalry played out in the formation of the first two political parties in the United States, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Their differing views on governance and the role of the national government, economic policies and the interpretation of the Constitution led to the development of the two-party system in the United States that continues to this day.

Watch the Majority Report live MondayFriday at 12 p.m. EST on YouTube OR listen via daily podcast at

#SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal

SUPPORT the show by becoming a member

Download TMR's FREE app

CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew:

Matt Binder DOOMED

Brandon Sutton DISCOURSE

Emma Vigeland ESVN

Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING

OTHER LINKS:

Check out more from the MR crew:

Matt Binder DOOMED

Brandon Sutton THE DISCOURSE

Emma Vigeland ESVN

Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING

Image Credit, Rembrandt Peale

)(cropped).jpg

Image has been cropped and color has been altered.

Image Credit, John Trumbull

Image has been cropped and color has been altered.

I am fascinated by these different moments of realignment that you speak about in your book. we can start early on with the early days of the country when Jeffersonians were that was much more dominant. what created a period of realignment after that one at least in terms of the ruling class the people in government. There was a much broader consensus than ended up being the case. Yeah, so the book really starts with the Constitution. The drafting of the Constitution. And the reason why you have to understand the law of bringing to our constitution I think more than anything the most lasting effect and why the system is so stable is one at a time when even they sort of modest democracy of the kind that existed back then where it's like enfranchisement mostly for white dudes who meet a basic property threshold. That's still a radical Democrat turn compared to the global Norm at the time. But two that the system lasts. we have the Constitution today. we have this system. Not so much because of checks and balances or the stuff that people learn about in social studies. But just because resting a government on the authority of the people on the consent of the government turns out to be a really really effective way of guaranteeing legitimacy for the system. But the thing that the founders hoped would happen. One they did want that legitimacy. They want to say okay if we can't have a king to point to we need to have the people. But they really hope that people would shut up between elections. The idea was that they would Empower what was called a natural aristocracy. And in fact, you know there's been a lot of talk in the last few years about the Electoral College and all the problems with it. Including I think in Lefty circles that I run in a sense that well one of the big Knox County electoral colleges is that it's established to protect slavery. That it's soaked in white supremacy it's like with so much else in American history. And to my mind, that's actually not as cynical enough reading of the Electoral College.