One of the primary flaws of the Articles of Confederation was the absence of a powerful executive, and except for a small group of the very strongest opponents of the Constitution, the Founders disagreed little about the need for the creation of an executive branch. Beyond this general agreement, however, there was no consensus on the proper extent of presidential authority. This disagreement did not derail the development of the Constitution, but ratification did not end the controversy. As we know from Chapter 3, the most prominent and important leaders of the early Republic – including Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – had contentious debates about the question of the proper extent of presidential power and authority. These conflicts played an important role in the disintegration of the Federalists and the growth of the first formal political party (the Democratic–Republicans).

Why did this particular issue (only one of many) engender such and conflict? One possibility is that the nature of presidential power was viewed – accurately or not – as the linchpin of the success of the federal system of government. One may reasonably argue that the success of the American political “experiment” depended most specifically on the creation of an effective executive authority. The Founders' concern for creating an executive branch with the proper power and authority certainly suggests that the role of the executive branch – and the presidency, more specifically – was deemed crucial to the efforts to forge and maintain the new government.