Final answer:
The opponents of the National Bank relied on the idea of states' rights to bolster their arguments against it, as they believed it was an overreach of federal power and infringed on states' autonomy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The opponents of the National Bank relied on the idea of states' rights to bolster their arguments. They argued that the establishment of a national bank was an overreach of federal power and encroached on the rights of individual states to control their own finances. By appealing to states' rights, they sought to limit the influence of the national government and maintain greater autonomy for each state.
For example, Thomas Jefferson, a prominent opponent of the National Bank, believed that the Constitution did not specifically grant the federal government the power to create a national bank. He argued that such powers not explicitly granted to the national government should be reserved for the states. Others who opposed the National Bank also feared that it would give too much power to the wealthy elite and create a system of concentrated wealth and privilege.
Overall, the idea of states' rights provided a framework for those who opposed the National Bank to argue against centralization of power and advocate for greater autonomy for individual states.
Learn more about Opponents of the National Bank and their argument based on states' rights