In a new nation, independent of Great Britain’s control and under the authorization of a carefully crafted and ratified Constitution, one might assume the people were of similar mind regarding the future of the republic. However, that was not the reality. Just as the debate was heated during the Second Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, the debate on establishing the federalist system created by the Constitution was fiery, and political factions began to appear.

While Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson both served as advisors to President George Washington, their advice differed. Hamilton, an advocate of “loose construction” in interpreting constitutional mandates, frequently found himself arguing with Thomas Jefferson in print and in the presidential cabinet meetings. Jefferson worried that a loose interpretation would allow the federal government to gradually increase power by identifying a proposed action as “necessary and proper.” He advocated for a true balance of power between the national government and the state governments as the best practice for preserving individual rights for a free people.

How I wish I could have witnessed those debates! The two brilliant men, both passionate about the nation that they had served during and following the Revolution, did not hesitate to advance their own positions. I can envision President Washington’s gaze shifting between his two favorite young advisors as he weighed the merits of their arguments.

The ideas advanced by their debates divided the nation. Each represented a different way of thinking — and lifestyle — that attracted followers across the 13 states and territories.

Jefferson, the well-traveled and well-read Virginia planter who had authored the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, was considered perhaps the most intellectual of the Founding Fathers. He preferred a small government that would never have the power to override the personal freedoms guaranteed by the governing documents, which provided only minimal restraints for the common good. Jefferson believed that man was governed best when governed least and feared that the human nature of government leaders might fall prey to the thrill of power. By focusing on the cultivation of the land and those who “labor in the earth … the chosen people of God,” he believed that individuals and families would become self-sufficient and strong.

Hamilton, an advocate for business interests, visualized a nation whose economic growth, fueled by manufacturing and international trade, would guarantee a prosperous future for all citizens. For that vision to come to fruition, a strong national government was critical. He believed that the energy of the people was vested in the cities where people came together to debate ideas and promote progress and growth.

Interestingly, the two men also disagreed about the role of the United States in international affairs, and nowhere was that different view more evident than in the U.S.‘s reaction to the French Revolution. Jefferson, a devotee of French culture and political ideology, watched the struggles of the French with a sympathetic eye and promoted support for the revolution. Having always viewed the British government as one that was ripe with corruption and a blatant disregard for the common man, Jefferson viewed France as the young nation’s ideal “best friend.” Hamilton disliked what he viewed as a revolution based on shared ideas but one that had plunged into chaos and unrestrained violence. He had long considered the French to be ruled by emotion and unrestrained by reason; in contrast, Great Britain was his preferred partner on the international scene.

Again, imagine Washington’s position, standing strong between his two most vocal advisors.

While Washington ultimately did not completely align himself with either man — steering the United States toward a neutral position as the French Revolution expanded into a war between France and the united coalition of Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, and Austria — Jefferson interpreted that neutrality as a sign that the U.S. was subtly supporting Great Britain and resigned as secretary of state. The division between the two men mirrored the growing division between the informed citizens. (Hamilton viewed Jefferson’s resignation as an emotional action that demonstrated his “French” nature.)

Had we fought a revolution only to turn on each other and destroy the promises of the republic? Could the young nation deliver on the promises of liberty, equality, and justice if it could not agree on what those concepts looked like in practice?

The story continues…