His main point was that credit expansion would finance industrialization. Yeoman farmers didn’t need cheap credit. Empirically, it seems he was correct. The credit expansion in the north went to infrastructure and manufacturing. In the south it financed capital projects on large plantations. Jefferson was more troubled by the former since it fostered urbanization, which he thought was a life of dependence, at the expense of rural life, which he thought was a life of independence.
In reporting to President Washington, Jefferson made constitutional objections to the Bank of the United States, not economic objections:
While I didn’t understand all the arguments Jefferson made it is enlightening to see how articulate and meticulous he was. From my novice understanding of US History it seems almost no matter how logical the Constitutional arguments are against Federal Government growth and intrusion they generally lose. In the Rothbard article it is interesting to note the tension between being self sufficient and the benefits of the division of labor. I think this tension is played out in so many fields, local versus global, independence versus interdependence, Taoism versus Confucianism, solo artist versus symphony. But I think in the end a Jack of all trades doesn’t even beat a pair of deuces.