Each person is responsible for posting ONE response and ONE peer comment.
Due Tuesday, April 7, 2009 by 7:45AM
In addition, you must also print out a copy of your response and bring it to class in order to get credit.
1) Compare and contrast Hamilton's view on the National Bank and Jefferson's view on the National Bank. Do you agree with Hamilton or Jefferson? Explain.
2) In class we discussed the "loose interpretation" and the "strict interpretation" of the constitution. Which do you agree with and why?
3) Who would be likely supporters of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans?
4) Who would be likely supporters of Hamilton and the Federalists?
5) If you were to join a political party in 1790, would you join the Federalists or the Democratic-Republicans? Explain your answer giving examples from the text.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
1) Views on National Bank
Hamilton view- hope that the bank would be founded with both the federal government and the wealthy private investors.
Jeffersons- thought that the National Bank was constitutional, and also belived in payment of only the national dept.
2) i will have to agree with the loose interpretation because it has greater federal power than the strict interpretation which has very limited powers.
3)The plain people will be the supporters of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.
4) The merchats, manufacturers, landowners, investors, lawyers,and clergy will be the supporters of Hamilton and the Federalists.
5) I will be part of the Democratic Republic because Jefferson will be the ruler. Also because its in favor of the constitution and supporst the plain people,cauase not everyone is born wealthy, only a few.
1)Hamilton viewed the National Bank as constitutional and that it would be funded by the federal government and wealthy investors.
Jefferson viewed the National Bank as unconstitutional.I agree with Hamilton because the National does seem like it would only be for the wealthy.
2)I believe that our constitution is loosely interpretated because not everything is followed in the constitution and people dont really mind that it is being defied.
3)Supporters would be the plain people such as farmers and tradespeople.
4)Supporters would be merchants, lawyers, clergy, manufactuers, landowners, and investors.
5)I would be a Federalist because they have more support from more groups of people and they have a loose interpretation of the constitution.
1) hamiltons point of view towards the national bank was to manage debts,and constitutional.
Jeffersons view was mostly the opposite of his unconstitutional. i agree more with hamilton because its better to manage debts.
2)i would hae to agree on the loose interpretation because not everyone does what they are suppose to do.
3)supporters for jefferson would most likely be the plain people, common men, framers, tradespeople.
4) suppoters for Hamilton would be wealthy business men, merchants, landowners,lawyers, etc...
5)i would like to be a federalist because they look more organized, they also have alot more people supporting.
1) Hamilton's idea will be supported because he wanted to tie wealthy investor to the country welfare. Which will also handle tax receipts and other government funds.
On the hand, the opponent claimed that the bank would forge an unhealthy alliance between the government and wealthy business interests.
2) I agree with the the Loose Interpretation because it has greater federal powers that can control the government on like the Strict Interpretation which federal government has limited power meaning they cannot control certain issues.
3) The supporters would be the "plain people" (farmers and tradespeople.)
4) The supporters will be landowners, merchants, manufactures, investors, clergy and lawyers.
5) I will join the Federalist because the federalist were educated and business people who knows how to run a government not like the Democratic-Republican who are just "common people" like farmers.
I agreed with Gen and Juliano because federalist are educated people not like farmer who only know how to cultivate lands not ruling a government.
1) Hamilton viewed the National Bank that would be funded by both the federal government and wealthy private investors. He believed the National bank was constitutional. Hamilton favored the upper class people.
Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. He believed the bank was unconstitutional. Jefferson believed in the "plain people," or lower class.
2) I agree with the loose interpretation because in today's society, people don't really stick to the constitution. Loose interpretation favors greater federal powers. I think in order to complete a strong government, the federal government has to have power.
3) The lower class and middle class people would likely be supporters of Jefferson. People that have lower income such as farmers, merchants, and traders.
4)The upper class rich people would likely be supporters of Hamilton. People such as lawyers, clergy, landowners, and investors would support this Federalist idea.
5) Depending on if i was born into wealth or limited money, I think i would overall choose to side with Jefferson. Even if i was wealthy, Jefferson believed in the people. Wealth would just be a plus for me, i still would want to help common people out, which was what Jefferson was trying to do.
Felix, Great point about Federalists being educated, but they really weren't for the people. I think they basically believed people were evil. In my opinion they were kind of selfish, and only looked to gain more wealth.
1.] THOMAS JEFFERSON: he thought the National Bank was unconstitutional, and that people should have to pay only the national debt, which favored those in debt.
ALEXANDER HAMILTON: thought that the National Bank was constitutional, and that people should have to pay national and state debts, favoring the creditors.
Though I don't like the idea of having to pay taxes to help other states, I think i agree with Hamilton's point of view, because in order for the United States to survive the states had to work together & help one another out. Otherwise, they probably would have failed.
2.]I agree with the loose interpretation, because, though it does give the government more power, our freedoms still remain there. I think that in order to run a country, in addition to thinking of the people's interests, there must be a strong central government.
3.] The "common man", such as farmers, and merchants. & of coarse, the southerners.
4.]Wealthy people, merchants, manufacturers, landowners, investors,lawyers, clergy men & northerners.
5.]Back in 1790, I probably would have joined the Federalists. Because the United States was just getting started what they mainly needed was a strong government and intelligent people to run it. The common people, for the most part, wouldn't be able to because the majority of them were uneducated. They were also more organized.
1)Hamilton saw the national bank as a place to make profit by getting rich investors he also favored people from the upper class of society.
In Jefferson point of view was that only the national bank would be used by the lower class people and it would structure the constitution or interpret it.
2) I agree with the loose interpretation because not everybody follows the federal because not everybody power is not limited.
3) The lower class people because since they have low wages they are receiving lower income.
4) The rich people because since it will benefit them and all the investments they made.
5) I would chose Jefferson side because he knew what people needed and how they need the amount of money.
1)Hamilton viewed tha National Bank as the perfect way for the nation and all the states to get out of debt. while Jefferson that it wasnt fair to the southern states who had already paid of their debts.
2)I agree with the loose interpretation of the constitution because if we followed with a strict interpretation then we would be held with limited power oppose to an loose interpretation.
3)Jefferson refers to the as the plain people, which are regular middle-class citizens.
4)The merchants, lawyers, landowners, manufactures, etc...
5)The democratic-republican because their forn of government is similiar to a democracy and thats the best kind of government.
everyone seems to like the loose interpretation of the constitution which is great and that means we all can agree on something.
1) Jefferson viewed the National Bank as unconstitutional and believed that the American people should be responsible to pay only the national debt. On the other hand Hamilton thought that the National Bank was constitutional and believed that people should have to pay both national and state debts. I agree with Hamilton's views on the National Bank because debt would be easier to manage and pay off. Although people without debt would oppose the idea of paying off someone else's debt, Hamilton's ideas would work out in their favor "when the ball is in their court".
2) I don't really understand this question. I'm not sure if the question is asking which interpretation of the constitution we agree with or which interpretation is used today. Based on what the answers I've read, I'm guessing that the question is asking us which interpretation is used today. Therefore, I agree with the loose interpretation of the constitution because although strict interpretations are implied, the government wants to have more power. Most of the constitution isn't followed to a "T" and people are constantly finding ways to get around the rules. In the same sense having strict interpretations would help control society, but that would also question whether society would be more controlled if the government didn't have as much power as it would if it were loosely interpreted.
3) Everyday people that lead "normal" lives. [Lower and Middle Class]
4) People that were wealthy and had more money than the average person. [Upper Class]
5) I would have most likely been a federalist because in the 1790's government was just beginning and I would've felt better having well educated business people representing me rather than your average Joe.
..........................
Thomas Jefferson thought that the National Bank was unconstitutional. He believed that the people should have to pay only the national debt. This favored those who were in debt and the lower class.
Hamilton thought that the National Bank was constitutional. He believed that the people should pay national debts, as well as state debts. This favored the creditors and upper class.
I would have to agree with Jefferson because the U.S. government functions with the consent of the people, or the majority, and if the National Bank idea is favorable towards the upper class, then the majority of the people, middle class and low class, would oppose the National Bank ideas from Hamilton’s point of view.
.......................
I agree with a loose interpretation of the constitution because if we lived under a strict interpretation of the constitution, it would be like living under a controlling government. With a loose interpretation, we still have our rights, and we still have a strong central government. There are more federal laws also.
...............................
The common people, middle and low classes, or the plain people, and the South would support Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans.
...........................
Lawyers, clergy, landowners, manufacturers, investors and merchants, and the North would support Hamilton and the Federalist.
...........................
I think it all depends in what kind of family you are born into, and where you live, but if I had to chose, I would join the Democratic-Republic party because I would think that if my country is finally free from an absolute ruler, why should the new nation have another one. I also think that a government does well when the majority of the people, and the middle and low classes are supporting the government.
1) Hamilton viewed the banks as being owned by federal governmet and wealthy private investors.
Jefferson viewed the banks as being unconstitutional.
i agree with Hamilton because i beleive the banks should be owned by the people around them .
2)I would agree with the "loose interpretaiton" because if we stuck to the constitution we wouldn't have as much power.
3) Middle class plain people would agree with Jefferson.
4) People who were more wealthy like landowners and lawyers would agree with Hamilton.
5) I would join the Democratic party because if i was middle classed i would want and need more help then people who are already wealthy and money to get what they need.
it seems that lots of people chose the loose interpretaion and good job with that.
1. Hamilton said that two of government should support the bank, so it makes a wealthy private investors.
jefferson was different. he did not wanted. he said he does not want the bank, because that is for the wealthy people.
2.stirict interpretation. because it will makes more strong government, and it makes more sense for them to build a new government.
3. most of them were farmer. they were middle class i believe.
4. i will support hamilton, because i believe he will make a strong government, that everyone can live well.
5. i will join in federalists. because they have more storonger government, and people who supports them were stronger too.
stacy!
i really like your answers, and you did best answers i believe.
1) Compare and contrast Hamilton's view on the National Bank and Jefferson's view on the National Bank. Do you agree with Hamilton or Jefferson? Explain.
Hamilton had a loose version on the constitution and wanted a federal bank that was mainly supported by rich people and would most likely provide more for the wealthy than the poor. It also stated that the people should pay for both the national and state debt even if they already had.
Jefferson had a strict interpretation on the constitution and believed the national bank was unconstitutional and the low class and rich people should be fair regardless of class. He also believed the people should pay national debt and those who states who still had to pay should pay for themselves.
I think that Hamilton idea was better because they were a country, an independent nation. Each of the states together had contributed to the position and debt they found themselves, and helped each other win a war. They should now stick together and pay off their debts, or else it wouldn’t be as if they were a country, but differing on which state is rich or poor.
2) In class we discussed the "loose interpretation" and the "strict interpretation" of the constitution. Which do you agree with and why?
I agree with the loose interpretation because for one thing, no rule is always going to be followed, and the constitution wasn’t a holy or perfect document. As long as they believed in doing what was necessary and proper for the citizens and protected their rights, I think a loose interpretation if better than sticking 24/7 to the handbook.
3) Who would be likely supporters of Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans?
The common people who based their whole life on farming and those states that felt like they had already paid war taxes, and don’t need to keep paying to help others.
4) Who would be likely supporters of Hamilton and the Federalists?
The rich people and debiting states would highly support this idea. The merchants and traders would also support Hamilton’s commerce believe for the nations economy.
5) If you were to join a political party in 1790, would you join the Federalists or the Democratic-Republicans? Explain your answer giving examples from the text.
I would go for the federalists because we got into the mess together, and it would be selfish and might break us apart if we don’t agree to help each other. Yes we got out of a war because of taxes, but now we must learn to cope with each other and mature because this is our country, and taxes are probably they only thing that will save us. Also, the rich people would come in handy to help us get out of debt through bonds too.
I think that Ximena did a greta job answering the questions correctly and explaining them. I agree with her on joining the Federalist party because it was really the only way out. Taxes may not sound like a great idea, but farmers don't know much about economy, and in the present day they don't really play a big role, it's mostly trading we live on.
I think Jessica's answer to number 2 did a great job of explain why a loose interpretation of the Constitution is better.
Post a Comment