HIS K 7 Essay

Another provision in the Constitution that was used to defend the constitutionalist of a national bank was the ‘regulate commerce with foreign nations’ clause. Jefferson argues that this is again unnecessary because the creation of the bank and the regulating commerce are two very different propositions. One is making something to be bought and sold while another is regulating things that are being bought and sold. Jefferson makes it clear that a bank is not necessary to regulate commerce in the United States or in foreign nations with a national bank. (1)

The bank provided credit to growing enterprises, issued bank notes which served as a dependable medium of exchange throughout the country, and it exercised a restraining effect on the less well manages state banks. Nicholas Biddle, who ran the Bank, tried to put the institution on a sound and prosperous basis. But Andrew Jackson was always determined to destroy it (Brinkley, 249). The Bank had two opposition groups: the “soft-money” faction and the “hard-money” faction. Soft money advocates objected to the Bank of the United States because it restrained the state banks from issuing notes freely. Hard money advocates believed that coin was the only safe currency, and they condemned all banks that issued bank notes.

Please address each question below with complete sentences and clear, specific explanation. The total word count of your writing should be between 750-1,250 words.

Though both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson served as members of President Washington’s cabinet, the two held very different views on the newly founded U.S. government, interpretation of its constitution, and the role of the “masses” in that government. These conflicting views would develop in two political parties, the Federalists led by Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Although both political parties presented enticing aspects, Hamilton’s views were much more reasonable and fruitful when compared Jefferson’s views; idealistic and too strict in reference to the constitution.

Did you know that American leaders after the Rev. War didn’t always have the same view on government. Two leaders that had different views were Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. First a little background about both of these leaders. Jefferson was born in Virginia in an old and respected family. Jefferson entered college at the age of 16, knowing Latin and Greek. After that he become a tobacco farmer with many slaves. Then he became a politicians, he was a man who liked to speak with a pen. Now for Hamilton, he was born in West Indies and raised in St. Croix island. A hurricane at his island caused him to go to New York for education. He was a very intelligent man, and Washington spotted him and gave him a position in government. So how were their views different?

There have been many controversies since the United States declared independence in 1776. One of the many domestic issues that divided American citizens was developing the First National Bank in the late 1700s. Hamilton was in favor, while Jefferson opposed and American citizens chose their side based on what they believed what was best for the country. Hamilton proposed a Report on a National Bank in December of 1790 announcing what the National Bank would include. Hamilton’s proposal included, “The bank’s stock would be worth $10,000,000. 20,000 shares would be sold privately at $400 per share ... 5,000 shares or $2,000,000 of bank stock would be bought by the U.S. government. The bank would be run by a 25-man board of directors - 20 chosen by the shareholders and 5 by the government. The bank’s president would be elected by the board of directors. Notes and bills (money) issued by the bank would be redeemable on demand ... and would be accepted by the U.S. government for all payments due. The bank’s charter would run for 20 years and would be subject to renewal by Congress. The bank would be allowed to establish branch offices in other cities; its main branch would be in Philadelphia, the nation’s capital” (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit3_ 4.pdf). Although the first part of the bank bill, establishing a national mint, did pass with ease, supporters and opposers debated the rest of the bill, which included the development of

oppositions to this plan were revealed in a memo to the president by saying “ To give [it] the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority… is against the laws of monopoly… to [grant it] a power to make laws [superior] to the laws of the states… [is wrong].” (Doc 2). Jefferson’s oppositions to a banking monopoly were shared by many others and made Washington’s decision more difficult.

6. Your evaluation of various perspectives on this topic expressed by justices of the Supreme Court, leaders in other branches of government, and commentators in both the academic and popular media. Your assessment should consider several perspectives on this topic, including :

In Jefferson’s opinion of national banks, he stated that they are unconstitutional. He states two main points “They are not among the powers specially enumerated” and “Nor are they within either of the general phrases”. Under the first supporting point, he states that it is there to be able to pay a debt with taxes, but their were no taxes given and there is also no debt to be paid. His second supporting statement is the bank would not be “borrowing” money but, it will just be a payment. “The operation proposed in the bill, first, to lend them two millions, and then to borrow them back again, cannot change the nature of the latter act, which will still be a payment, and not a loan, call it by what name you please.” It also states that the holder

Discuss Hamilton’s economic program, the beliefs and assumptions it reflected, the opposition it aroused, and its fate in Congress.

The interpretation of the constitution was very different between the first secretary of the treasury and the first secretary of state. The first secretary of treasury was Alexander Hamilton. He supported a loose construction of the constitution. Then the first secretary of state was Thomas Jefferson. He insisted on a strict construction of the constitution.

In early 1790, Alexander Hamilton presented an idea that initially established the National Bank. While Hamilton’s plan was the best solution to the financial difficulties the United States faced, it received a large amount of criticism. Thomas Jefferson vehemently objected to Hamilton’s proposal mainly regarding the constitutionality of the National Bank. In this paper, I argue that Alexander Hamilton’s proposal for the National Bank was better than Thomas Jefferson’s because it created a path to a self-sufficient economy, potential for a thriving economy, and expanded the interpretation of the Constitution.

He also pointed out that making a bank goes against the 10th amendment in the Constitution which says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” He thought the only source that might be able to get the bank a charter was Article I, Section 8, clause 18 of the United States Constitution which states “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” But he thought if that clause could be interpreted so broadly then there wouldn’t really be any limit to congress’s power. Jefferson fought against the bank and argued that it was not right, but he lost the argument and the bank was

After you have led your discussion, please reflect on and answer the following three questions (2-4 sentences per question):

When money controls politics, all anyone would have to do is control the money. The founding fathers had a fear of central banks due to the history of banks devaluing currency by inflation and deflation. Thomas Jefferson feared the power that central bank could gain, and claimed it was unconstitutional. Jim Marrs, a political researcher, reminds us of Jefferson’s feelings, “To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power” …” banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies” (Marrs, The Trillion-dollar Conspiracy, 61).1 They knew a central bank is against the interest