Yes, I am sure. The opponents of a National Bank did not primarily use the concept of states' rights to support their arguments. Instead, they argued against a National Bank on grounds of constitutionality, personal liberty, and the potential for abuse of power by the federal government.
I got told it was true
I apologize for the confusion. While there were some individuals who opposed a National Bank and used states' rights as an argument, it was not the primary argument or a widespread belief among the opponents. The main concerns of those against a National Bank were related to issues of constitutional interpretation, economic policy, and the concentration of power.
Then what is the correct response
The correct response is: False. Though some individuals may have used the idea of states' rights to support their arguments against a National Bank, it was not the primary or widespread argument among the opponents.
