The Republicans claimed, correctly, that the Constitution nowhere granted Congress the power to grant charters. Any claim that Congress could create the Bank of the United States relied upon a loose reading of the Constitution, especially the elastic clause, which states that Congress shall have the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution...powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States." The so-called strict constructionists, advocating a strict reading of the Constitution, focused on the latter part of the clause, claiming that the Constitution did not give Congress the power to grant the bank a charter, so that the passing of the bank charter could not be considered necessary and proper. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, focused on the beginning of the clause, claiming it gave Congress the power to do anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

Furthermore, reactions to the prospect of a national bank foreshadowed the widening rift between North and South. The North was, in general, very much in favor of the bank, while the South was very much opposed. The debate over the bank thus demonstrated both the growing ideological divisions in the United States and hinted at the geographical sources of those divisions.

The founding fathers were no doubt influenced by the traditions and habits of the past, as well as eager to create a new form of government based on the republican values which rose to the fore during the revolution. The first area in which this tension may be seen is during the formation of state constitutions. Despite the chance to radically alter the form of government, states more often than not maintained the practices of the past, including establishing bicameral legislatures, a direct parallel to the structure of British Parliament, and maintaining property ownership as a necessity for voters and office holders. Though the spirit of government was markedly more liberal than that of the British government, these traditions survived the ideological transition. The impact of tradition in the United States did not weaken with time, even in the face of the creation of a new government under the Constitution. This is best exhibited in the creation of the federal-court system. In response to widespread fears that a national justice system would wipe out the legal traditions that had operated in the states for decades, Congress established a federal-court system which placed federal district courts in each state which ran according to local custom. This compromise represented a balance between access to the newly created federal justice system and a preservation of tradition. Throughout its history, the United States has found reason to strike similar balances in countless political arenas as it has evolved.

More than anything else, the division of the nation into political parties exemplified the growing rift between North and South. The conservative industrial North was decidedly federalist, while the more liberal agricultural South was overwhelmingly Republican. Historians most often attribute this split to the differing economic modalities of the regions. Perhaps most important in the division into parties were the differing social concerns which grew out of industrial and agricultural economies. In the North, as in every industrial economy, those with economic power sought to protect that power from those who did not have as much, namely the masses in the workforce. Thus, to the powerful businessmen of the North, an ideology that closely linked the wealthy to the government and put political power in the hands of elites, free from the influence of the masses, sounded very attractive. In contrast, the workforce in the South was made up primarily of slaves, with no chance to rise in the economic ranks and vie for the power of the plantation owners. Moreover, southern plantation owners did not have an antagonistic relationship with small farmers. To the contrary, they trusted their abilities to be elected by the small farmers and to lead them in peace, should they be given the chance to. Thus, for southerners, an ideology that placed the power of the government in the hands of the people did not seem dangerous, but logical.