The Constitutionality Of The Bank Of The United States, 1791 By Thomas Jefferson
The two documents such as the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791 by Thomas Jefferson to Washington and document 5; Alexander Hamilton, Opinion on the constitutionality of the Bank was written in same times but with different authors. Thomas Jefferson happened to be the author of the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States which was written in 1791, and Alexander Hamilton as well was the author of opinions on the constitutionality of the Bank written in the same year. All the two documents were letters written to answer the request of Washington.
However, in the two documents, Hamilton is said to have drawn his answer to Washington’s request much more deliberately than Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton was able to give the best answer because he had papers written from Virginians Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Edmund Randolph against the creation of the Bank of the United States hence allowing him to have arguments on what he was to answer. According to Thomas Jefferson, he quotes that; “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs,” (Hamilton, Alexander & Jefferson, pg. 103).Research shows that Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton have been the most studied and beloved figures in the American history. And today, standard bearers of conservatism, radicalism as well as liberalism are utilizing their complex views to legitimize their arguments. The study also shows that various laws, values and customs have shaped the development of banking institutions in the United States in a distinctive way; however, it is evident that none has done so more than the vicious debate between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson over the development of the bank in 1791. Conversely, as the United States look toward banking reforms as a result of the economic collapse which took place in 2008, it may be critical to understand how the two document debate have become institutionalized into the America political fabric. For instance the Federalist and the anti-Federalist debate concerning the creation of the central bank as well as, the regulation of financial institutions created a yes or a no framework which up-to-date still dominates the American national political debate (Hamilton, Alexander & Jefferson, pg. 103).The two documents were written for different reasons. It is true that, each author wanted to accomplish something important by writing them down in a document format. The 1791 debate over central banking in the two documents were controversial. This is because, the central banking debate was largely rooted in anti-federalist as well as, federalist tensions, the second reason why the debate was controversial was that, the battle over the bank became an overly simplistic debate that was founded on its constitutionality which left no room for negotiation.Hamiltons’ opinion on the bank laid classical arguments of the people who favored an effective central government as well as a national power. However, according to Jefferson, he argued “the foundation of the constitution stated that all powers not delegated to the United States, by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people…” The main reason as to why Jefferson wrote a letter to Washington was that, Jefferson was Washington’s Secretary of State as part of Washington’s cabinet where he wanted to persuade George Washington by opposing the establishment of national banks in the U.S (Hamilton, Alexander & Jefferson, pg. 103).In the letter written by Thomas Jefferson, he condemned the system of banking as being “a blot” on the constitution, as corrupt, and that long-term government debt was “swindling” future generations. He quotes “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” From this quote, I believed that Jefferson indeed had no love for private banks, and that was actually what he wanted to accomplish by writing it down in a document. He goes on and says; “It is not easy to estimate the obstacles which, in the beginning, we should encounter in ousting the banks from their possession of the circulation; but a steady and judicious alternation of emissions and loans, would reduce them in time” (Hamilton, Alexander & Jefferson, pg. 103).The two documents actually revealed what was happening in America society in regards to the central banking debate. There were various events that took place to which the two documents referred to directly, first, the social contract did not give the Parliament a complete political authority over its colonists and thus all the powers of government, legislative, executive, and judiciary, were all resulting into a legislative body. Conversely, in economic matters, Jefferson believed that agriculture should be the backbone of the nation, however, Hamilton on the other hand, wanted a balanced economy of agriculture finance, manufacturing and trade making the two differ in their opinions.
ConclusionTo move the debate towards a more and good constructive framework as well as, to better manage these creative tensions; I therefore, propose that the bankers, the public, along with the politicians should do the following; First, they should develop a deliberate effort of identifying and understanding the complexities which may exist in guiding the fiscal policy. Second, the public along with their elected officials should ensure that they take ownership of the issue as well as, understand that central banks are limited in their capacity so as to prevent on the economic calamities. Lastly, the government should achieve an unprecedented level of transparency in the process in order to gain the trust and understanding of the American people. Conversely, reframing the debate in approach that is transparent will give politicians understand and feel comfortable with the Federal and thus utilize the Federal in the best way possible.
Daniels, Jonathan. Ordeal of ambition; Jefferson, Hamilton, Burr.. [1st ed. New York: Doubleday, 2009. Print.
Hamilton, Alexander, Thomas Jefferson, and Frederick Clarke Prescott. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson; representative selections,. New York: American Book Co., 2008. Print.
McDonald, Forrest. “The Rhetoric of Alexander Hamilton.” The Imaginative Conservative. N.p., 2006 Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2012/06/rhetoric-of-alexander-hamilton.html>.