B.S. anyone? Your interpretations are totally bogus in virually every respect. In addition, you should have not tried to hide the fact that not only was the ability of the fedgov to issue paper voted down but so was the prohibition against the fedgov being allowed to issue paper. Isn't hiding such a fact a little dishonest?
Hamilton's ingenuity with regard to the Bank was so massive that even those who opposed it most vociferously could not dispute the great success it achieved in spurring the development of the country. Nor did they hesitate to avail themselves of the services it provided. Without the Bank Jefferson could not have purchased Louisiana.
Far from being a monopoly banks sprang up all over the nation following its incorporation. Except in the South and this proved to be a huge weakness leaving the Planters at the mercy of the NY and Boston banks for the next century. Fortunately, this helped lead to the defeat of the Slaverocratic traitors in 1861 and, like most of Hamilton's achievements, was a great benefit to mankind.
There were state chartered banks in NY, Penn, Mass, RI, and Maryland in 1791. They continued to exist. By the end of Washington's admininstration there were 24 within the US. The number tripled during Adams' and Jefferson's administrations. So monopoly clearly does not describe the Bank of the United States. What a surprise.
There is no doubt of a right to form a corporation in order to carry out the powers granted the federal government. It is disingeneous to claim the means to an end are prohibited to the fedgov. Corporations are mere means to an end. Just institutions and implements.
Righteous reasoning for the benefit and protection of freedom was Hamilton's stock in trade and his influence was as great as any American in creating the greatest nation known to man. Too bad certain people believe it to be no better than Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union. It is also unfortunate that no man has ever given more to the cause of Liberty than Hamilton and suffered such malignant and odious attacks for those gifts.
You should have not tried to hide the fact that not only was the ability of the fedgov to issue paper voted down but so was the prohibition against the fedgov being allowed to issue paper. Isn't hiding such a fact a little dishonest? I was not aware of it. Was the prohibition in an early draft and removed? Was it actively considered and rejected? If so, I stand corrected (please provide whatever info you have on this). Were you aware of both? Using your own criteria, doesn’t that make you a little dishonest in prior posts?
Those who opposed [the Bank] most vociferously could not dispute the great success it achieved in spurring the development of the country.
Check your premises. The First Bank was defeated for renewal; Years later, the Second finally passed and was not renewed.
Far from being a monopoly….
How many of those had national charters? How many of those had the power of government as partner? How many of those had exclusive claim to the federal government's banking needs? How many of those had charters that forbade the federal government from incorporating other similar institutions?
Righteous reasoning for the benefit and protection of freedom was Hamilton's stock in trade …. It is also unfortunate that no man has ever given more to the cause of Liberty than Hamilton and suffered such malignant and odious attacks for those gifts
In the light of those attacks, shouldn't you check your premises? Many Republicans and Democrats proudly claim their Jeffersonian roots while ZERO politicians proudly proclaim their Hamiltonian roots? This gives you no pause?