The country has been under attack from the beginning. The Constitution was specifically written to RESTRAIN the federal government, essentially allowing it to maintain an Army/Navy, courts, post roads, and very little else. It was implied (and later outright stated as per the 10th Amendment) that the federal government would only have the powers EXPRESSLY granted to it and that all others were reserved to the states or the people.
Pretty much everyone in the federalist camp (who were a very broad group) made these arguments for ratification and even stated that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because the federal government was not specifically granted the power to take any of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights! This was the key to many that were on the fence. The federal government was LIMITED and had only expressed powers.
Yet you had many of the same people arguing after the Constitution was ratified that the government had implied powers such as the ability to create a central bank. The more power the federal government gave itself, the less important states and localities became and the greater the government ignored or brushed aside the original intention of the Constitution.
Your post contains many errors of fact, typical claims bandied about but false none the less.
The Constitution was written to restrain the STATES and increase federal power. This is indisputable.
The Tenth amendment says only that powers not delegated are retain but says nothing about the means used to implement the expressed powers.
The Founders deliberately rejected the argument that the Constitution was confined to expressed powers. Not even Jefferson consistently claimed that though he was not a Founder per se. They accepted the fact that there was a need for implied powers to be utilized as long as they did not conflict with the reservations or spirit of the Constitution.
So it is easily shown to be false that the federal government was confined to expressed powers. Hamilton’s explication of what is constitutional is in his Essay on the National Bank. Its logic has never been seriously challenged. Basically it is that the sovereign power of the government allows it to create instruments with which to attain the goals of expressed powers. The National Bank was just such an instrument allowing the government to more expeditiously handle tax revenues, fund the govenment, fund National Defense and control the money supply for starters. There was no need to spell out the power to create a National Bank anymore than there was to spell out the right to control borders or create an Air Force.
The idea that a modern war can be funded without a national bank is ludcrious to anyone who has studied these issues.