Cunningham’s method of displaying these two men’s differences is uncomplicated. Cunningham presents the reader with over forty documents consisting of letters, reports and speeches. Jefferson’s and Hamilton’s documents are interwoven within each of the chapters so we can see each of their proposing arguments and responses to each argument. Cunningham does a good job of narrating the information between the documents, which is more informational background rather than commentary. Overall the nature of Cunningham’s book leaves the reader with speculation and room to draw their on conclusions upon the individuals and their interrelating arguments. Although Cunningham does a good job narrating and giving the information to the reader to make their own conclusions, he only seems to show Hamilton’s and Jefferson’s differences, mainly regarding the National Band and their view of financial/economic policies. His overall conclusion, stated in the title of the book, “Confrontations that shaped a Nation” is not fully presented and only possible hinted at in one brief part of the book where their contribution to the creation of political parties is addressed.
National Bank
For the newly formed nation, the result of the Revolution left an enormous debt hanging as first priority to Washington’s cabinet. Should the states equally be responsible for the debt? Should the debt be paid at once, or financed? Questions such as these were thorny for such a new nation “this was one of the most pressing issues facing the new government” (Cunningham, 2000, p.29). As Secretary of Treasury, Hamilton campaigned to find an answer to such questions through his report on the public credit and a proposal that was eventually adopted, a formation of a National Bank.
Cunningham makes it clear of the different view of Hamilton and Jefferson, concerning the National Bank. By including the address of Alexander Hamilton, given on January 14, 1790, “Report of the Secretary of the Treasury on the Public Credit”, Cunningham sets down the outlines for Hamilton main arguments for the formation of a National Bank. One important reason for such a move on Hamilton’s part was that a properly funded national debt "answers most of the purposes of money" (Cunningham, 2000, p.33). Hamilton then enumerated some of the attendant benefits of having established such stock.
Jefferson's objections to the national bank grew more vehement as he saw the national bank as a way for the “monarchists” to strengthen the federal government. In their plans of financing the debt--and, in his view, never paying it off--Jefferson saw a scheme to perpetually hold the states in extortion and thereby control legislation to their benefit. Cunningham includes an excerpt from papers written by Jefferson to demonstrate his opinions against the Bank. Cunningham presents Jefferson's argument in a lengthy excerpt from his Opinion on the Constitutionality of Establishing a National Bank, (Cunningham, 2000, p. 51) which Jefferson submitted to President Washington on February 15, 1791. Washington provided Hamilton with a copy, as well as a copy of Attorney General Edmund Randolph's opinion against the bank. Hamilton worked feverishly to respond to both, writing through the night so that he could present his counterarguments expeditiously. One week after Jefferson's submission, Hamilton presented his paper to the president. Cunningham offers Hamilton's lengthy and brilliant Opinion on the Constitutionality of Establishing a National Bank almost in full. Washington was persuaded by Hamilton and signed the bill to incorporate the bank just two days after receiving the report. Cunningham shows their differences concerning where they see the future going.
Through the documents, Cunningham does a good job narrating and using the articles to show what happened and how Hamilton and Jefferson differed, but he did not overwhelmingly prove his point that those aspects shaped the nation we have today.
Disagreements on Foreign Affairs
Cunningham continues to show the differences between Jefferson and Hamilton being as unlike as mountain and valley when addressing the foreign affairs addressing the nation. Cunningham exemplifies Jefferson and Hamilton’s positions on foreign affairs through different points. First Cunningham addresses their opinions with the French Revolution. Both sediments are expressed through letters. Alexander Hamilton in a letter to Marquis de Lafayette stating his apprehensions, while Thomas Jefferson in a letter to George Mason and to William Short. Through these letters, Cunningham points out that Jefferson, although he “deplores bloodshed” (Cunningham, 2000, p. 108), believed that the result of the French Revolution was worth it. Hamilton on the other hand, did not.
The French Revolution affected the U.S. because of the alliance that was formed with the French during the American Revolution. Washington decided to issue a proclamation of neutrality, but who to proclaim it was still to be decided and again here is where Jefferson and Hamilton differed. Cunningham explains that Jefferson believed “the president lacked the authority to issue a neutrality decree” and Hamilton believed “ argued that the president’s authority to conduct foreign affairs gave the president such power” (Cunningham, 2000, p.110).
The Sedition Acts are another point of difference that Cunningham brings up. The sedition acts “made it unlawful for any persons to combine or conspire to oppose any lawful measure of the government, to prevent any officer of the U.S. from performing his duty, or to aid or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot , or unlawful assembly. Cunningham showed Jefferson’s opposition to the Sedition Acts by showing Jefferson’s series of resolutions against the acts outlined in the Kentucky Resolutions. Cunningham then shows Hamilton’s differing views with a letter written by him to Theodore Sedwick. In the letter to Theodore Sedgwick, Hamilton clearly fed up with Virginia's anti-Federalism, angrily proposed to hold its feet to the fire. A powerful federal force should without delay be brought against Virginia and put that state to "the Test of resistance."
Again Cunningham clearly sets out and achieves showing the reader the differences of Hamilton and Jefferson, through many factors concerning foreign affairs, but does not fully address how theses differences of foreign affairs shaped the nation.
Creation of Political Parties
Lastly Cunningham outlines how the divergence between Hamilton and Jefferson, and it is briefly through showing these differences that Cunningham is able to prove his argument that their differences shaped the nation that we know of it through political parties. After the ratification of the Constitution, the anti-federalists and the federalists had not evolved into political parties and there were no clear party divisions. Divisions slowly began to form on different issues and Cunningham does a good job addressing this with the exerts of letters between Jefferson and Washington and Washington and Hamilton.
In Jefferson’s letter to Washington he explained concern and fear for the Federalists “sought to use the new government as a stepping stone to monarchy” while he then “professed his alignment with the republican party, who wish to preserve the government in it’s present form” (Cunningham, 2000, p. 78). Washington sensed the division of parties and send a letter to Hamilton addressing Hamilton’s policies and Jefferson’s concerns about them. Hamilton then replied to Washington refuting or denying the charges made towards his policies. The letters that were circled around these three political leaders disclose the emergence of political parties. Cunningham does show how Hamilton and Jefferson’s differences shaped the nation through the formation of differences in political parties.
Conclusion
As a historian of the conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton, Cunningham clearly defines his mission with as much detachment and objectivity as possible. He simply presents us with the evidence in the form of well-chosen primary documents. Let those readers speculate who will. Yet he does not seem to hit his main objective stated in his title for the book “Confrontations that shaped the nation”. Cunningham does not show the reader how Jefferson and Hamilton’s differences shaped the nation.
Cunningham, Noble E. Jr. (2000). Jefferson vs. Hamilton: Confrontations that shaped a Nation. Boston MA : Bedford/St. Martin’s.
