Who was correct about their thoughts of the creation of a national bank - Jefferson or Hamilton?

Interestingly, while Alexander Hamilton had more to do with the writing and ratification of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson was correct in his interpretation of the Constitution on that subject and at that time. Jefferson’s opinion on this subject is best demonstrated in two of his writings, the first being “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” [dated 15 February 1791]. The other writing is the “Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions [dated October 1798].

The former document has (in part) the following points:
“The Bill for the establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things: -
To Form the subscribers into a corporation.
To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of Mortmain.
To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of Alienage.
To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of Descents.
To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and so far is against the laws of Forfeiture and Escheat.
To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far that is against the laws of Distribution.
To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is against the laws of Monopoly.
To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for so far they must be construed, to protect the institution from the control of the State legislatures; and so, probably, they will be construed.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” (Tenth ratified Amendment.) To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

(Note: there is far more to this document and it is well worth reading.)

In resolve 2 of the draft of the Kentucky Resolutions Jefferson stated in part when referring to an act of congress as “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of a right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

(Note: this document is also well worth the read.)

Even with such foundation of Constitutional correctness, such opinions of Jefferson relative to the National Bank became moot with the intervention of the court (or should we more correctly state, with the intervention opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall) in McCulloch v. Maryland [1819], “Congress may create corporations as appropriate means of executing the powers of government; as, for instance, a bank for the purpose of carrying on the fiscal operations of the United States. . . . “ This perspective of the power of the Congress was carried on in future cases. It was also in this case where John Marshall pronounced that the words “necessary” and “proper” of the 18 Clause of the 8th Section of Article I had the same meaning and thereby provided the Congress with the power to do nearly anything they desired.

Jefferson was, of course right; but great-great-great uncle Al was a typical politician and found a loop-hole. By the way, Hamilton also believe in a oligarchy rather than a true republic.