The Constitutionality Of The Bank Of The United States, 1791 By Thomas Jefferson
The two documentssuch 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 sametimes 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 letterswritten to answer the request of Washington.
However, in the two documents, Hamilton is said to have drawn his answer to Washington’s requestmuch more deliberately than Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton was able to give the best answer becausehe had paperswritten from Virginians Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Edmund Randolph against the creation of the Bank of the United States henceallowing him to have arguments on what he was to answer. According to Thomas Jefferson, hequotes 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 thepeople, to whom it properly belongs,” (Hamilton, Alexander & Jefferson, pg. 103).
Researchshows that Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton have been the moststudied and beloved figures in the American history. And today, standardbearers of conservatism, radicalism as well as liberalism are utilizing their complex views to legitimize their arguments. The study alsoshows that variouslaws, values and customs haveshaped 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 economiccollapse which took place in 2008, it may be critical to understand how the two documentdebate have become institutionalized into the America political fabric. For instancethe Federalist and the anti-Federalist debate concerning the creation of the central bank as well as, theregulation of financial institutions created a yes or a no framework which up-to-date still dominatesthe American national political debate (Hamilton, Alexander & Jefferson, pg. 103).
The two documents were written for differentreasons. It is true that, eachauthor 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 bankingdebate was largely rooted in anti-federalist as well as, federalist tensions, thesecond reason why the debatewas controversial was that, thebattle 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 effectivecentral government as well as a national power. However, according to Jefferson, he argued “thefoundation 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 thepeople…” 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 wherehe wanted to persuade George Washington by opposingthe establishment of national banks in the U.S (Hamilton, Alexander & Jefferson, pg. 103).
In theletter 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” futuregenerations. 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 thepeople, to whom it properly belongs.” From this quote, I believed that Jefferson indeed had nolove for privatebanks, and thatwas actually what he wanted to accomplish by writing it down in a document. He goes on andsays; “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 washappening 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 socialcontract did not give the Parliament a complete political authority over its colonists and thus allthe 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 thenation, however, Hamilton on the other hand,wanted a balanced economy of agriculture finance, manufacturing and trade makingthe two differ in their opinions.
To movethe debate towards a more and goodconstructive framework as well as, to better manage these creativetensions; I therefore, propose thatthe bankers, the public, along with the politicians should do the following; First, they should develop a deliberate effort of identifying and understandingthe complexities which may exist in guiding the fiscal policy. Second, the public along with their elected officials should ensure that theytake 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 thetrust and understanding of the American people. Conversely, reframing the debate in approach that is transparent will give politicians understand and feelcomfortable with the Federal and thus utilizethe Federal in the best way possible.
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>.