The National Banking Act Of 1863

Hamilton drew inspiration from the “British national banking system” and saw fit a federal bank to aid the Union with war debts, establishing a national currency, securing taxes and enforcing “government subsidies to encourage American manufactures” (Pearson). Naturally, Jefferson and his Republicans were horrified by the idea of granting the national government more authority, claiming that endorsing a bank charter would mirror British

The banking industry has over the years evolved from simple to large and complex organization. They have grown from one street building into having multiple branches some of which are international. Their clients range from individual and institutions to governments and other banks. Banks do not manufacture physical things. Their work is simply services for money (Koch & MacDonald 2010). Such services include storing, lending and managing money. All people and institutions, as well as governments, need money to operate accordingly.

The Bank of the United States had the most power out of all the banks in America and it was the primary depository for the funds of the Washington government. Although, it controlled and minted much of the nation’s gold and silver, it did not distribute paper money. Unlike many smaller banks, the national bank was stable in value and vital to expanding the nations economy. However, the Bank of the United States was a private institution, not accountable to the people rather just to its wealthy moneyed investors. Nicholas Biddle, the banks president, held an immense and unconstitutional amount of power over the nations financial affairs. Some, including Jackson believed that the bank’s existence was against the equality advocated through American democracy. The Bank War began in 1832, when Daniel Webster and Henry Clay presented Congress with a bill to renew the Bank’s charter, even though it was not set to expire until 1836. Clay’s motive for pushing the bill four years earlier was to cause an election issue, however many had the same views on the bank as Jackson. The bill was passed and immediately vetoed by Jackson. His veto message resonated with constitutional consequences and increased the power of presidency, yet Jackson vetoed this bill because he believed the federal government did not have the power to control the nations

There have been many controversies since the United States declared independence in 1776. One of the many domestic issues that divided American citizens was developing the First National Bank in the late 1700s. Hamilton was in favor, while Jefferson opposed and American citizens chose their side based on what they believed what was best for the country. Hamilton proposed a Report on a National Bank in December of 1790 announcing what the National Bank would include. Hamilton’s proposal included, “The bank’s stock would be worth $10,000,000. 20,000 shares would be sold privately at $400 per share ... 5,000 shares or $2,000,000 of bank stock would be bought by the U.S. government. The bank would be run by a 25-man board of directors - 20 chosen by the shareholders and 5 by the government. The bank’s president would be elected by the board of directors. Notes and bills (money) issued by the bank would be redeemable on demand ... and would be accepted by the U.S. government for all payments due. The bank’s charter would run for 20 years and would be subject to renewal by Congress. The bank would be allowed to establish branch offices in other cities; its main branch would be in Philadelphia, the nation’s capital” (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/teachers/lesson_plans/pdfs/unit3_ 4.pdf). Although the first part of the bank bill, establishing a national mint, did pass with ease, supporters and opposers debated the rest of the bill, which included the development of

The bank provided credit to growing enterprises, issued bank notes which served as a dependable medium of exchange throughout the country, and it exercised a restraining effect on the less well manages state banks. Nicholas Biddle, who ran the Bank, tried to put the institution on a sound and prosperous basis. But Andrew Jackson was always determined to destroy it (Brinkley, 249). The Bank had two opposition groups: the “soft-money” faction and the “hard-money” faction. Soft money advocates objected to the Bank of the United States because it restrained the state banks from issuing notes freely. Hard money advocates believed that coin was the only safe currency, and they condemned all banks that issued bank notes.

Alexander Hamilton, first Treasury Secretary of the United States, was a financial genius who had great visions for the economy of the new nation. In order to reach economic greatness, he developed a plan to launch the country off the ground. This included a strategic method involving assuming state debts, customs duties and excise taxes, and establishing the Bank of the United States. Hamilton believed that if all these portions were carried out correctly, America was destined for economic success and international admiration. This plan clearly showed off Hamilton’s favoring of the wealthy and his belief in “trickle down economics.” The bank was established in 1791

The Bank of the United States was designed to make money and build an economy. It was designed by men like Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris, but did not benefit the common citizen as much as wealthy investors. Why did a fledgling government need to borrow millions from overseas in order to invest in a “national” bank, to turn around and then borrow the same money back and pay interest on it? The banking system developed by Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris was prime pickings for speculators, and laid the groundwork for a history of unscrupulous activity regarding our nation’s money supply that continues to this day. The signatures on the Constitution were barely dry before corruption and

The installment of the Second National Bank(SNB) into the American Economy was a response to the economic damage caused by the War of 1812. Chartered by James Madison in 1816, the goals of the SNB were to lower inflation, create a steady economy, and assist the government in loaning money out, but also borrowing money when needed(4). During the SNB’s twenty year life, it helped raise the economy to new heights, and was a tool used towards national prosperity. Notorious for his indian removal policy, otherwise known as the “trail of tears”, President Andrew Jackson’s initiative to destroy the SNB is often overlooked(2). The economic system implemented by Jackson not only decentralized our economy and demonstrated the power the President held,

During the Jacksonian period of 1824-1848, America had great economic development that played a role in making this period known as the “common man,” live up to its expectations. The Bank War was one of Andrew Jackson's many attempts to lower the power of the federal government. The Bank of the United States was ran by Nicholas Biddle, and issued federal deposits, credit and bank notes. However, the main issue was that it restrained the power of state banks. The soft-money and hard-money were two groups, that opposed the Bank. The

The Morrill Act of 1862 and 1890 was the beginning of American Public Education. This trend was designed to provide equal opportunity to the different socioeconomic groups.

Some background: In the wake of the 1929 stock market crash and the subsequent Great Depression, Congress was concerned that commercial banking operations and the payments system were incurring

Hamilton’s creation of the first bank in the United States continues to exist in today’s economic environment. However, at that time Hamilton’s proposal was met with widespread resistance from individuals such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who considered the creation of a federal bank as unconstitutional. The analysis made by Gordon in his book is consistent with arguments made by to have a bank that would be effective in order to implement the powers authorized by the government as it was implied in the constitution

With this knowledge Congress passed Major General Benjamin F. Butler quick thinking into a policy, the First Confiscation Act, in August of 1861 which stated that the federal government had authority to seize any property owned by the Confederates which included slaves. By March the following year, an Article of War was produced which prohibited any military or naval services from returning run-away or fugitive slaves to their respective masters, nullifying the Fugitive Acts all together. When the Second Confiscation Act was announced in July of 1862 it “declared ‘forever free’ Confederate-owned slaves who made their way to federal lines or who resided in rebellious territory that fell to federal forces” (Luke and Smith 2014, 14). Also in the bill, was the legitimisation of the “president to utilise ‘persons of African descent’ in any way that he considered ‘necessary and proper for the suppression of the rebellion’” (Luke and Smith 2014, 14). Thus the Militia Act of July 1862, which “gave Lincoln carte blanche” (Luke and Smith 2014, 14) to make use of black resources. Although these acts were issued with the intention of blacks serving as military labour it gave way to many possibilities.

The stock of the bank was bought and held mainly by the US government and numerous businessmen among the states of the Union. It paid interest on public debt, issue a national currency, dealt in foreign exchange, paid government officials, and numerous other tasks. It was both a private and public institution but if asked by the Treasury, it would have to open its books to inspection.

Before the advent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in 1933 and the general conception of government safety nets, the United States banking industry was quite different than it is today. Depositors assumed substantial default risk and even the slightest changes in consumer confidence could result in complete turmoil within the banking world. In addition, bank managers had almost complete discretion over operations. However, today the financial system is among the most heavily government- regulated sectors of the U.S. economy. This drastic change in public policy resulted directly from the industry’s numerous pre-regulatory failures and major disruptions that produced severe economic and social