Why did Alexander Hamilton support debt repayment? Why did James Madison oppose it?

Alexander Hamilton supported debt repayment, because he had the urge to fix the problem he had faced of national debt. One of his first acts in government was to ask Congress to pass a tariff, or tax on imports, to pay for the government. Hamilton wanted the government to buy up all the bonds issued by both the national and state governments before 1789. He planned to issue new bonds to pay off the old debts. As the economy improved and income from the tariff increased, his plan allowed the government to pay off the new bonds. On the contrary James Madison opposed Alexander Hamilton's plans, because he argued that it would reward speculators, or people who invest in risky ventures in the hope of making large profits. He opposed the other part of Hamilton's plan, because most southern states had paid off their debts from the Revolution.

Hamilton believed this was necessary to establish the United States' credit and promote investment. ... Northern members supported it because their debts were largely unpaid but Southern members, including Madison, opposed it because southern states had paid off a significant portion of their debt.

Explanation:

a woodchuck would chuck 12.5 wood : 3

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is