Anti-Navalists Vs Anti Navalists

Words: 581
Pages: 3

Americans were lucky that they were living right next to the ocean, and this made them think about how to use this opportunity on behalf of themselves. They also had good resources to build ships such as tall pines and strong oaks. Through time, they became good fishermen, whalers and merchants. On the other hand, they had a problem which was the need to keep safe their ships and especially their land. In order to make this happen they started thinking about some ways, such as creating a navy. But there were two opinions and groups of people opposes each other, “The Navalists” and “Anti-Navalists”.
As the Americans tried to expand themselves through the continent, their interactions between other countries developed. They started trading more, and this trade should have been protected. According to Hamilton, union would benefit American commerce. The growth of American trade made other countries worry. Hamilton thought that the creation of a navy having enough strength to protect the trade and make it felt among other countries was essential. Having an armed naval forces would help the country be involved in world power balance. Hamilton thought that the growth of American economy requires a navy to
…show more content…
Symonds argued that the Americans did not need a strong navy at all. The Anti-Navalists emphasized that the size of the navy should be dependent on the needs of Americans. The argument between the Navalists and the Anti-Navalists was not about economy at all, but the mission of the navy. The Navalists saw the navy as a tool to raise American prestige in the worlds power balance. The Anti-Navalists recognized that the strong naval power brings political risks as well as advantages, but the risks could outweigh the advantages. The Navalists were aware of the risks and opportunities that a strong naval power could bring, and believed that a strong enough navy could get out of the risks and make Americans more prestigious in the world’s