Alexander Hamilton argued that the new U.S. government should have a national bank to make tax collection, trade regulation, and national defense easier. Thomas Jefferson disagreed, arguing that a bank was unnecessary since it was not explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Hamilton believed a bank was implied as necessary to process tax money and store funds for defense. Jefferson maintained that the Constitution did not require a bank and those functions could be carried out without one. Overall, Hamilton's argument was seen as more logical and convincing since he explained how a bank could support the government, while Jefferson simply stated a bank wasn't mentioned without alternatives.

1. Sandra Cash<br />Mailbox 108<br />Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson argue about whether or not there should be a national bank. Alexander Hamilton is of the opinion that the new government should have a national bank, because it would make taxing, regulating trade, and providing common defense easier. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson argues that since a bank is not necessary, the Constitution does not allow for a national bank. <br />Alexander Hamilton is saying that since new government has power to tax, regulate trade, etc, it is implied that the new government should be able to have a bank. If the new government is going to tax and regulate trade there must be a place to process the money, and to store the money for the common defense. Even though the bank is not directly mentioned, it is implied that the new government would have the means to carry out taxing, regulating trade, and providing for the common defense. <br />Thomas Jefferson is saying that first, the Constitution does not call for a bank, nor says there needs to be a bank. All the Constitution says is that we can make taxes, regulate trade, and provide for the common defense by only necessary actions. These actions can be carried out perfectly without a bank, meaning it is unnecessary. <br />The more convincing argument is Alexander Hamilton; he uses logic and explains how a bank would work for the new government. He also explains that sometimes not everything is said because it is a given. You have to have a place in which you are going to put the money you get from taxing. Whereas Thomas Jefferson’s argument is less convincing, just because something is not said does not mean you do not need it. Not to mention with a bank taxing, regulating trade, providing common defense, would be easier if they had a bank, if they did not have a bank where are they going to keep their money. He really does not explain why it would not work or how it would work without a bank. <br />