Would it have made a large difference had we gone Jeffersonian than Washingtonian?

Economics Economics Questions
1

If we had the 3 Anti-Federalist proposals (France alliance, no national bank, and agrarian economy) as Articles in the Constitution, would we be a lot better off today? I think so; of course, it didn’t happen because Washington was a federalist. The problems remaining still may have brought a problem (Congress may pass taxes, 2nd Amendment implies a state right, emininent domain, and right to an attorney at private expense.)

Did the Federalists accept not having a Constitutional alliance with Britain and no explicit guarantee of a national bank b/c they knew it would turn out the way it has today? Or was it truly so neither side would dominate the other? I know Washington warned against Alliances and Factions, but he created the first one–the Federalists were the first faction.

They should’ve just left the AoC as the Supreme Law. I honestly think the rest of the world would be a lot better off too, because the AoC would’ve set a much better example. I think the state constitutions would’ve eventually matched each other for more individual liberty, and I think slavery would’ve ended earlier. Revolutions would’ve been much easier.

2

I used to think, in my ignorance, that a strong central authority was our fate in order to be in a position to counter the dictatorships of the 20th century. After a proper education I have been able to reembrace my Jeffersonian roots. I agree that AoC would have set a better example for the world. Additionally, if we had not had our own Central Bank (The Fed) much of the financing of the World Wars would have been impossible. Thereby reducing them to minor border skirmishes, easily concluded through diplomacy if they even occurred at all. Many of the 20th century’s most repressive regimes were in fact supported by us. Such waste…