Discussion: National Bank Issue

Question

In 100-200 words, explain who you agree with most regarding the formation of a national bank in Philadelphia. Do you agree with Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton? Moke sure that your response includes each of the following

Summary of the cabinet member's argument

Explanation of why you agree

Use quotes from the excepts from your notes to state your claim

Tomorrow (October 22), you will respond to at least 2 peers. Your response should be 50-100 words and add to the discussion (ie, reflect on their response, ask questions, etc)

Copy and paste your response to the worm-up page for Monday, October 21st

Copy and Paste responses to the warm-up page for Tuesday, October 22nd

Be respectful in your replies. You may disagree with a peer, but DO NOT attack their intelligence.

How should I respond to my classmate, disagreeing with them? I agree w/ Alexander Hamilton. Here's their response:

I agree with Thomas Jefferson. He argued that establishing a national bank is pointless because the United states will still be in debt and "borrowed money" won't be guaranteed to get it back since the bill doesn't ensure these rules For example in Thomas Jefferson's argument written on February 15, 1791 it stotes A power to lay taxes for the purpose of paying the debts of the United Sates; but no debt is paid by this bill, nor any tox laid..." This evidence shows that any debt that the United States is in will still be in debt since the bill doesn't borrow money nor does it ensure borrowing it. It makes it pointless.

Answer 1

I respectfully disagree with your point of view regarding Thomas Jefferson's argument against the national bank. While Jefferson raises valid concerns about debt and the immediate implications of borrowing, Alexander Hamilton presents a compelling case for the bank's necessity in stabilizing and strengthening the young nation’s economy. Hamilton believed a national bank would facilitate the federal government’s ability to manage its finances more effectively. He argued that it would "take on the debts of the states" and create a unified financial system, which is crucial for a fledgling country struggling with its credit. By establishing credit in this way, Hamilton anticipated that it could bring financial stability and attract investment, ultimately aiding in reducing the nation’s debt. Therefore, I align with Hamilton’s vision that a national bank is essential for promoting economic growth and trust in the country's financial system.

In your response, I appreciate your emphasis on the importance of debt management. However, do you think that having a centralized bank could have actually helped the nation better manage its debts in the long run, as Hamilton suggested?

Answer 2

Can you make this shorter? And like a 9th grader wrote it?

Answer 3

I respectfully disagree with your view on Thomas Jefferson's argument against the national bank. While he raises some valid points about debt, I believe Alexander Hamilton's perspective is stronger. Hamilton argued that a national bank would help manage the federal government’s finances and "take on the debts of the states," which is important for a new nation. He suggested that a unified financial system would create stability and attract investments, ultimately reducing debt over time. I agree with Hamilton because I think the national bank would help the U.S. grow economically.

I appreciate your focus on debt management, but do you think that a bank could have helped manage those debts better, as Hamilton suggested?