How Two Founders Shaped The Presidency, Parties, And Foreign Policy

A young republic rarely gets to choose its identity in peace and quiet. We step into the charged crossroads where Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton wrestled over what “self-government” should actually look like, and how much power the federal center needs to keep a sprawling nation intact. Their clash was not just personal—it was a blueprint fight that forged the first party system and set the tone for the American presidency.

We draw a vivid line from biography to belief: Hamilton, the wartime aide who saw national weakness up close, built a program of public credit, a national bank, and executive energy to bind the union. Jefferson, anchored in Virginia’s agrarian life, warned that concentrated finance and a robust executive would eclipse local liberty and corrode civic virtue. Those instincts were tested by four pivotal moments: the bank battle, Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation amid the French Revolution, the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Jay Treaty with Britain. Along the way, we revisit the Pacificus–Helvidius debate over war powers, examine how the federal government proved it could enforce law without sliding into tyranny, and unpack why a controversial treaty arguably protected American independence more than any speech could.

What emerges is a set of living questions at the heart of constitutional government: Who leads on foreign policy? How far do implied powers reach? When does national purpose outrank state preference? And can a president belong to a party yet still serve all citizens? With Tocqueville’s insight—liberty articulated through structure versus equality pursued through decentralization—we find that America’s strength lies in weaving the two. Washington’s quiet genius was to harness Hamilton’s energy without surrendering to faction, inviting Congress into the big decisions while keeping the executive capable of acting when the country needed it most.

If you care about war powers, federalism, the presidency, political parties, and the path to America 250, this conversation offers clarity without the noise. Listen, share with a friend who loves history and civics, and tell us where you land: Hamilton’s nation-first engine or Jefferson’s states-first compass? And if this moved your thinking, subscribe and leave a review so others can find the show.

Check Out the Civic Literacy Curriculum!

School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership

Center for American Civics

Transcript

Setting The Stage: Founders’ Divide

SPEAKER_00 0:48

Welcome back to Civics in a year. We are continuing our conversation on political parties, and we're still in kind of a Jefferson Hamilton era. So if you haven't listened to the past couple episodes, I highly suggest it. It is good to just kind of go in order. And we have Dr. Curies back with us today. And Dr. Kreese, today we're really diving into two figures specifically: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. So my question is: why did Jefferson and Hamilton disagree about Republican government and little R Republican and the trajectory of the new United States?

Hamilton’s National Vision

Jefferson’s Agrarian Skepticism

SPEAKER_01 1:28

Great. Thank you. I think there are issues of biography and their different experiences up to the point that, let's say, 1789, when they're both joining George Washington's first cabinet as first president of the United States. And those different experiences, dimensions of their biography, so to speak, also are connected to different philosophical views they have about the meaning of Republican government and liberty and equality and self-government. So to start with biography, of course, we all know Alexander Hamilton, Broadway star. He is an immigrant who comes to a city and makes his way. And part of making his way is not only being at King's College, now Columbia University is succeeding, but he is an advocate for the revolution, for independence from Britain, forms an artillery company, is successful and seen as heroic fighting in the war, and then gets noticed by General Washington. And then he's on General Washington's staff, and he ends up being a crucial aide to Washington. They have a bit of a tempestuous relationship because they're both kind of strong-willed people. But, you know, Washington and Hamilton stick together to the end. And that view of America that Hamilton develops over the years of the war is one in which America is more important than any state or any region. And America needs a strong national federal government, and that America nearly loses the revolution because it doesn't have a real government in the center. It's sort of George Washington, you know, asking Congress, you know, where's the money and where are the troops and where's the, you know, where okay, fine, you pass resolutions or you claim you're going to do something, but what actually happens, you know? So this is the Hamiltonian view that there needs to be a stronger federal government for all of America, and that America is a national character and a strong American public is so important. On the biography side, for Thomas Jefferson, he's born in Virginia. He doesn't come to America later. He's born, and Virginia is his identity, and being part of the planter slaveholding caste, so to speak, in Virginia. And he is a supporter of the revolution, obviously, lead drafter of the declaration. He is a diplomat for the United States. He agrees to join Washington's cabinet. He's not so excited about the Constitution, but doesn't really loudly oppose its ratification. But in 1789, he comes to Washington's cabinet from this very different route than what Hamilton had experienced. And in Jefferson's view, he was wary of a too strong federal government eclipsing the states. And he's wary of eclipsing also the agrarian character that he thinks is so essentially connected to a self-governing yeoman citizenry. And he's wary of military power. Yes, he agrees there needs to be a stronger federal government, stronger than the Articles, but it's really stronger for coordinating kind of trade policy and diplomacy. And you don't really need a lot of taxation from that federal government. You don't need a strong military, and that would be threatening to liberty. So those are the two different paths that they bring, and in a way, the two different philosophies. I mentioned in an earlier episode Tocqueville, and I'll mention this a bit later, Tocqueville, writing in the 1830s, looks back and sees the birth of this party system, and he identifies Hamilton versus Jefferson as really the kind of philosophical difference leading to the two parties. And he says that the Federalists and Hamilton Adams are the party of liberty, understood in this constitutional way, and the Democratic-Republican Party is the party of equality. So the Federalist Party standing for liberty in the constitutional sense, you need a strong government in the center, a strong federal government that has to have hierarchical offices to it, a strong presidency, a strong judiciary, the Senate working together with the president on foreign policy, versus the party of equality, the Democratic-Republican equality, that the states really should be dominant. Yes, there has to be a federal government, a real government in the center, but the states are dominant, and the American political character in the American political economy is more agrarian. You're suspicious of cities and banks and finance and merchants and industrial production and things like that. Yes, it is a paradox that the two slaveholders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, stand for the party of equality, but Tocqueville sort of puts that aside. So so again, this combination of different biographies, Hamilton versus Jefferson, and the different sort of philosophies about Republican government and America. How should America develop? What does America really mean? How do you implement the ideas of the Declaration of Independence? These are the big differences.

Liberty Versus Equality Frames

SPEAKER_00 6:56

So beyond these larger, larger philosophical and biographical differences, there are several domestic and international affairs that kind of unfold from 1789 onward during Washington's two terms that really heighten the disagreements between Jefferson and Hamilton and really launch, you know, these two political parties. Can you speak more on these events?

The Capital Deal And Debt

The National Bank Fight

SPEAKER_01 7:20

Sure. Here I'm going to mention four of them. And it's interesting to think, we talked about this in an earlier episode, that Hamilton and Jefferson are able to make a deal, a grand deal, about the placement of the national capital. When Jefferson's going to swallow the fact that he he accepts Hamilton's plan for how to deal with the national debt and also the state debts coming from the Revolutionary War, mostly. And those are going to be assumed by the federal government, which gives prominence to the federal government, but Jefferson's willing to swallow that and accept it as long as the new national capital, permanent capital, is going to be, if not in the South, very close to the South, right? On the Potomac River. But shortly after that, these events start to sort of cascade in a way, and Jefferson is not going to make deals anymore. And the differences between the Hamiltonian view, so to speak, and the Jeffersonian view, on the other hand, really start to harden. So one is the bank, right? That the bank was not part of that deal in 1790 between Hamilton and Jefferson about the placement of the capital and the question of the national debts. And the bank is about more than the bank for Jefferson, and then eventually Hamilton joins in. The proposal from Alexander Hamilton to establish a national bank, which Washington largely supports and then ultimately supports, that stands for the executive taking the lead in setting national policy and seeming to make America more like Britain. Britain had invented the idea of a national bank and using it as a powerful national government, its foreign policy and domestic policy all wrapped up in this national state institution that's setting the, you know, what's what's the character of the currency and debts and credits and all that kind of stuff. So the this bank institution is the executive taking the lead, the federal government being strong, rather than a kind of an agrarian politics and political economy, rather than Congress being in the lead, all of these are threatening. It suggests this kind of Hamiltonian spirit that both Jefferson and then Madison want to oppose. The second event that comes along is the French Revolution. Late in 1789, the Americans are dealing with the reality of and in in 1790 of how radical the French Revolution has become. So Washington takes as one of his steps in in the cabinet over some disagreement with Jefferson that he he wants to proclaim neutrality. He wants by by 1792 into 1793, Washington wants to make a declaration. This is not our fight. The fight that's brewing between revolutionary France and the British monarchy. And war is basically about to break out. This is not our fight. We should invoke a principle of international law that we are neutrals. We're not in the conflict. We should be respected by both sides and not dragged into it in any way. And this provokes a controversy. Jefferson is very worried about it. James Madison joins him being worried about it. Who is the executive and the president to be making such a proclamation? Because this involves questions of war, and Congress declares war, or in effect doesn't declare war, right? But also it's about interpreting a treaty. We have a treaty with France from settling the revolutionary war that says we should be supporting France. Well, in the Washington and Hamilton views, wait a minute, that was a different government. That was the monarchy of France that we made a treaty with. This is this different government and this radical revolutionary government as it's taking shape. So there's a disagreement about who's in charge of foreign policy and questions of war in a way. Can the executive make a proclamation like this alone? Or does it have to be jointly with the Congress, or should Congress take the lead? And so what happens, in effect, by 1793 is that Hamilton and Madison are publicly writing in opposition on these different points of view under the same principle that held in the ratification debate. They're writing under pen names. So the team that was publius Publius, excuse me, Publius, writing the Federalists, they've now split Hamilton's writing as Pacificus, Madison writing as Helvidious, so this is called the Pacificus Helvidious debate, 173, about these questions of executive power under the Constitution and foreign policy and war, and also in the background, Britain versus France. Where should America's real, you know, America's a republic, shouldn't we be loyal to the new French revolutionary republic? So the this ends up being rather spirited exchange of differences. Eventually, Washington sides with the Hamiltonian view, and that there should be an executive neutrality proclamation. So now I want to go into the third one. This is a domestic one, the whiskey rebellion. Part of the Hamiltonian finance and credit system and economic scheme is to have federal taxes. And there's a tax on booze. Who wouldn't want to tax booze, right? You've got sort of the Christian moral argument, alcohol is a bad thing. We call it a sin tax, still sort of to this day, right? And the federal government needs money, so you want to pick something that you could say, you know, it's not going to be too controversial. You're not taxing motherhood and apple pie, you're taxing booze, right? Whiskey. Well, this is controversial in an agricultural and a rural area. This is a major source of the economy. And so a kind of rebellion, soft rebellion, so to speak, breaks out in western Pennsylvania. These farmers are not going to pay this tax. And the federal tax collectors, agents of the federal government coming around, they start to get harassed and then beaten up and threatened. So Washington deals with it very slowly and gradually, but he is going to stay on this and be firm about it. And finally, Washington calls out the militia of several states. He can't get it resolved after all kinds of olive branches and all kinds of efforts to show he's being fair-minded. He finally calls out the troops. And it works in a way that kind of peace-through strength effort works in that the rebellion dissolves. The fact that there are militias with governors at the lead of troops massing and moving westward in Pennsylvania, the rebellion just dissolves and the taxes get paid. About 20 people are arrested, and Washington showing his moderation. After the people are arrested, they're put on trial. Two people are convicted for, you know, in effect, rebellion against the government. Washington pardons them, right? But the show of strength from the federal government and from the executive, Washington doesn't lead the troops in person, but he shows up at the place where the different state militias are gathering. He shows up in person, not in uniform, but he shows up. All of this is kind of freaking out the Jeffersonian spirit, the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans, you know, this strong quasi-monarchical uh government. So that's the third one. And then the fourth one, just quickly, is the Jay Treaty, as we call it now, the treaty of amity and commerce between Britain and the United States. Washington just sends Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, over to London to negotiate this treaty. Because, you know, in 1794, satellite service was not very good, the faxes were off and down, et cetera. You've got to send off somebody you really trust, right? It takes a month to get back and forth by ships, and you know, you've got to somebody you so he asked the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to negotiate a treaty for him. Jay comes back with a pretty darn good treaty, given that America is kind of weak. The British are freaked out by the Napoleon and the French Revolutionary Government and this war that's breaking out. So the Americans get some pretty good terms about the fact that Britain's gonna stick to the terms of the 1783 Paris Treaty and be more respectful of the Americans. But it doesn't get everything, all the grievances from the American side, settled. But Washington thinks it's a good deal because it keeps us out of war, keeps us neutral, the British are respecting some things, but it causes a controversy because a the substance of it, that we seem to be siding up closer to Britain than for revolutionary France. B, the the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican folks say this involves implementation, which involve legislation needing to be passed and financial instruments. The House should be involved in this. It shouldn't just be the Senate ratifying a treaty. And we want to see the treaty documents. And and third, this is a brand, you know, it's a brand new thing, treaties. Who takes the lead in treaties? Shouldn't it be Congress jointly with the President rather than the President negotiating a treaty, in effect, and then asking her if it ratified the Senate? So it ends up being very controversial. John Jay has burned an effigy around the country, but eventually Washington persuades, by the closest of margins, two-thirds of the Senate to vote to support the treaty. But even you could say that it's a policy victory, foreign policy victory for Washington, it stokes the controversy in the country about this Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian Federalist Party versus Democratic-Republican Party difference of parties and philosophical views.

Neutrality And Executive Power

SPEAKER_00 17:14

You know, what can we take and become a more let me start that again? Sorry. What are the larger and enduring lessons about these debates between Jefferson and Hamilton and their opposing arguments? What is particularly relevant for understanding American politics, being an informed American citizen, especially as we enter, you know, America 250?

Pacificus–Helvidius Showdown

SPEAKER_01 17:46

Yes. Well, what one is to understand that some of these issues are not merely historical, so to speak. Liz, you and I, and many people listening to podcasts like this, we think that history really matters, even if the issues themselves are settled and long gone. But but also that some of the issues actually are not long gone, right? Differences about the executive power taking the lead in foreign policy and questions of war versus Congress. And then even if the executives in the lead, shouldn't the executive inform Congress and collaborate with Congress? Well, those are very, very live issues. I mean, largely the Washington-Hamilton view has won out, largely over a 200-year period, but not exclusively. And as issues arise, these same questions come up. How do you interpret the Constitution, which then gets back to how do you interpret the principles of the Declaration of Independence? So a larger lesson is to know history informs you and helps you to keep a little bit of distance and be a little bit more calm about controversies that arise today. Another one is that, as I sort of just mentioned, even though the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party wins the election of 1800, and Jefferson wants to call it the revolution of 1800, right? Big, big deal, and it is a big deal. On the other hand, the legacy of George Washington and John Adams, that's 12 years of that view of the presidency and building America, and the Hamiltonian spirit in much of what Washington and Adams did, that endures as well. So a lesson from these first two decades or more of founding the American Constitutional Republic is that complexity, this sort of warp and woof, this weaving of different views, that is America. The complexity is America. It isn't just the Hamiltonian view, the John Adams view on the one side, the Jefferson-Madison view on the other. We have been a complex democratic constitutional republic from the beginning. And I've mentioned several times already Tocqueville's eulogy about the Federalist Party, Tocqueville's comments about the party system being born in America in Washington's presidency. And he he says it was fortunate that the Federalist Party ever existed. Because by the time he writes in the 1830s, it's basically gone. But it was fortunate that it existed, because it did establish the constitutional order and the complexity we have and certain constitutional principles that shape our the American character and American politics that Tookville thinks are good. So that's another thing to keep in mind that we we are still living out our Historical development, but very much shaped by decisions and arguments in these first decades. And then finally, I'll add something that Tocqueville doesn't literally say, but I think it's implicit and it's in the spirit of it. It's not only fortunate that the Federalist Party existed, it's even more fortunate that Washington was there. Not to make too much of one person, but Washington is presiding over the birth of this party conflict and the birth of Hamilton versus Jefferson. They're in his cabinet. He wants to hold the two of them together as much as possible, learn from their disagreement so that he can hear out the arguments and make the best final decision. But he he, while he sides more often with Hamilton on the actual policy questions, he's never quite as sharp and never takes the arguments as far as Hamilton does, and he never labels himself a Federalist to the end. He thinks parties are, we've talked about this before, parties are more of a problem than not, even though he accepts they're going to be reality. And one of the points of difference is just take on the neutrality proclamation. He does agree with the Pacificus argument, so to speak, from Hamilton about the executive being able to take the lead on this and the larger policy issues, but he never says that Congress has no role here. He says Congress could pass a law and overturn the Neutrality Proclamation. And he seeks actual congressional ratification, and he gets it in the Neutrality Act of 1794. He wants Congress and the President to be together in this. He just thinks the executive, the single executive, it's the reason why you have Article II, should be able to take the lead on something like that. So a third deeper point again is that the presidency in particular has got to be a nonpartisan office. In a way, I don't I'm not sure that Washington ever wrote this down anywhere, but I'm interpreting it. It makes sense in a way that the legislative branch would have parties rising. It's a large number of people, they're elected from all over the place, they're in two houses, the branches, the House and the Senate, so to speak. It makes sense that parties might form. But the executive, the executive's got to be the single executive for all Americans. It's supposed to faithfully execute the laws, not this party's laws and that party's laws, and not the laws for this part of the country or that part of the country. That's the laws for everybody. So that is a tension to this day about the presidency. We expect the president to be representing all Americans and speaking for all Americans and executing and interpreting laws faithfully for all Americans, while also the reality that presidents are elected by parties, or they're elected in a party contest. So it's fortunate that we had Washington there to try and hold this whole package together. And I mentioned this in an earlier episode that the Washingtonian view, the Constitution is more important than any party. As important as the party principles and disagreements, are that's a reality. The Constitution is more important, the whole republic is more important, and therefore governing, making compromises, making deals, even while you are of this party versus that party, that's more important than your identity as being a partisan of some sort. That's an enduring lesson I think we can take from this whole period and the Hamilton-Jefferson disagreements.

The Whiskey Rebellion Test

SPEAKER_00 24:21

I really appreciate how much nuance there is, right? I think human nature wants to pit two, you know, Hamilton versus Jefferson, but there is so much that goes into it. And I I really appreciate the whole, you know, you talked about this in prior episodes as well of Washington not belonging to a political party. I think modern Americans were so used to, especially now, you're a Democrat, you're a Republican. I mean, it's been that way for a while. But the fact that Washington was not because he was just the executive for America. I just I find that so cool for lack of a better word, especially as we kind of enter this America 250. So, Dr. Caris, again, thank you so much.

SPEAKER_01 25:07

Thank you, Liz.