Washington approved the bill to create a national bank based on Hamilton’s loose-construction argument over Jefferson’s strict-construction argument. We can look back at how Hamilton lied between the Philadelphia Convention, the ratification debates, and in Washington’s cabinet and that all seems solid. What I don’t understand is Washington. He was PRESIDING at the Philadelphia Convention when the idea of the national bank was discussed and REJECTED. It would seem obvious to me that if you were there for that then the truth would be that the formation of a national bank is unconstitutional. Everything I’ve seen of Washington (with all his other faults) points to his outstanding integrity. If he wasn’t abandoning honest behavior in this conduct, the only conclusion is that he is almost entirely oblivious or outright cognitively handicapped to catch the concepts with which he was presented.
Does anyone have any other insight into Washington’s character or cognitive capabilities that would clarify this seeming dichotomy?
.
