Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were two Founding Fathers with contrasting backgrounds that shaped their views and desires for the new nation. Jefferson, an anti-federalist from a wealthy, agricultural background advocated for the protection of states’ rights and the limitation of federal power. Hamilton, a federalist born from a poor family and who established himself through the military, advocated for a strong, central government. Both Jefferson and Hamilton would find themselves at ends with one another on a multitude of issues when it came to how the new nation would be organized. One topic that caused much controversy between the two Founding Fathers was the establishment of federal banking system. After the Revolutionary War,
…show more content…
He opens his argument by stating, “[i]t is a fact well understood, that public [b]anks have found admission and patronage among the principal and most enlightened commercial nations,” and that, “[t]here exists not a question about their util[ity] in the countries in which they have been so long established.” (46). It is with this introductory statement that Hamilton suggests that the nation should lean less towards having an agriculturally-focused economy, to one that is more diverse. He also promotes “trade and industry” as more well-established nations have seen benefits of it to their economies. Hamilton proposes the following key points in support of a national bank: “the augmentation of the active of productive capital of a country…[g]reater facility to the Government in obtaining pecuniary aids, especially in sudden emergencies…and [t]he facilitating of payment of taxes,” (47-48). With the implementation of a national bank, the states can be unified through a national mint, and have more freedom for citizens as they can deposit their gold and silver in banks, invest in stocks, or obtain a loan from the bank. (47-48). Hamilton’s overall argument for the national bank is to provide more effective means for trade as well as implementing more effective means of taxing as both have the ability to boost national …show more content…
Jefferson states that a national bank cannot exist as it goes against the boundaries delegated by the Tenth Amendment. A key element that he argues against the bill to create a national bank is that the bill provides, “[a] power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the U.S. But no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, it’s origination in the Senate would condemn it by the constitution,” (51). He goes on to also state that Hamilton’s argument for taxation to provide for the general welfare contradicts itself as, “[t]hey are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union,” (52). The second point that Jefferson argues against is the notion that the bank is necessary and proper. He notes that, “[i]t has much been urged that a bank will give great facility, or convenience in the collection of taxes,” however, “the [C]onstitution allows for only the means which are ‘necessary’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’” (53). Jefferson’s argument that while a national bank may help facilitate taxes, it can still be done without it and that while, “[i]t may be said that a bank, whose bills would have currency all over the states, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single state. So it would be still more
He opens his argument by stating, “[i]t is a fact well understood, that public [b]anks have found admission and patronage among the principal and most enlightened commercial nations,” and that, “[t]here exists not a question about their util[ity] in the countries in which they have been so long established.” (46). It is with this introductory statement that Hamilton suggests that the nation should lean less towards having an agriculturally-focused economy, to one that is more diverse. He also promotes “trade and industry” as more well-established nations have seen benefits of it to their economies. Hamilton proposes the following key points in support of a national bank: “the augmentation of the active of productive capital of a country…[g]reater facility to the Government in obtaining pecuniary aids, especially in sudden emergencies…and [t]he facilitating of payment of taxes,” (47-48). With the implementation of a national bank, the states can be unified through a national mint, and have more freedom for citizens as they can deposit their gold and silver in banks, invest in stocks, or obtain a loan from the bank. (47-48). Hamilton’s overall argument for the national bank is to provide more effective means for trade as well as implementing more effective means of taxing as both have the ability to boost national …show more content…
Jefferson states that a national bank cannot exist as it goes against the boundaries delegated by the Tenth Amendment. A key element that he argues against the bill to create a national bank is that the bill provides, “[a] power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the U.S. But no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tax laid. Were it a bill to raise money, it’s origination in the Senate would condemn it by the constitution,” (51). He goes on to also state that Hamilton’s argument for taxation to provide for the general welfare contradicts itself as, “[t]hey are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union,” (52). The second point that Jefferson argues against is the notion that the bank is necessary and proper. He notes that, “[i]t has much been urged that a bank will give great facility, or convenience in the collection of taxes,” however, “the [C]onstitution allows for only the means which are ‘necessary’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’” (53). Jefferson’s argument that while a national bank may help facilitate taxes, it can still be done without it and that while, “[i]t may be said that a bank, whose bills would have currency all over the states, would be more convenient than one whose currency is limited to a single state. So it would be still more