Ernesto Hernández Rodríguez
Deacon Orr
Economics
October 9, 2012
President Andrew Jackson Vetoes Bank Bill—July 10, 1832
President Andrew Jackson veto against the bank bill is truly a communication to Congress but it is also like a political manifesto. He states that the privileges possessed by the bank are unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people.
In McCuloch v Maryland, the court turned to the "necessary" and "proper" clause which grants Congress enumerated powers which include the power to regulate collect taxes. President Jackson explains the necessity in regards to the functions that the bank is trying to fulfill: The "degree of its necessity,”
…show more content…
This act excludes the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth. The fourth section provision secures to the State banks a legal privilege in the Bank of the United States which is withheld from all private citizens. There was a lack of equality when paying with notes. A State bank that had notes by a particular branch could pay the dept to the Bank of the United States with those notes, but a citizen couldn’t pay with those notes but must have sold them at a discount or sent them to the branch to be cashed. This does not measure out equal justice to the high and the low, the rich and the poor. The president of the bank said that most of the State banks existed by its forbearance, the abstention of enforcing the payment of the debt. The influence of the self elected directory which is identified with those of the foreign stockholders may become concentered in a particular interest that could affect the purity of elections and the independence of the country when it goes to war. Their influence could have been so great as to influence elections and control the affairs of the nation.
Works Cited
Jackson, Andrew. «Miller Center.» 10 de July de 1832. Miller Center. Monday October 2012. <http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3636>.
McBride, Alex. «pbs.» s.f. The Supreme Court. Monday October 2012.
The Bank of the United States was designed to make money and build an economy. It was designed by men like Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris, but did not benefit the common citizen as much as wealthy investors. Why did a fledgling government need to borrow millions from overseas in order to invest in a “national” bank, to turn around and then borrow the same money back and pay interest on it? The banking system developed by Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris was prime pickings for speculators, and laid the groundwork for a history of unscrupulous activity regarding our nation’s money supply that continues to this day. The signatures on the Constitution were barely dry before corruption and
and thus pave the way for the modern national state that would emerge after the
He believed that the Bank has to be abolished due to several reasons. First of all, the bank concentrated the nation's wealth in a single institution which created an unhealthy for the economy monopoly. Second of all, he believed that the bank favored the wealthy over the common people. The third reason was that the bank had too much control over members of Congress. In other words, the subsidy of the bank to one particular party or the lack of the finance could influence the results of the elections at some point. And the bank also favored northeastern states over southern and western states. Thus, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833. This action led to federal money being put into state banks who then loaned it out freely leading to inflation. State banks were issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves which led to rapid inflation. Moreover, the expansion of credit and speculation took place. As a result, state banks collapsed which was a cause of the Panic of 1837. However, despite the crisis and depression, the liquidation of the Bank was an achievement of Jackson’s presidency and led to trivial of the economy later on.
Hamilton’s creation of the first bank in the United States continues to exist in today’s economic environment. However, at that time Hamilton’s proposal was met with widespread resistance from individuals such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson who considered the creation of a federal bank as unconstitutional. The analysis made by Gordon in his book is consistent with arguments made by to have a bank that would be effective in order to implement the powers authorized by the government as it was implied in the constitution
President Jackson acted undemocratically because of his actions against the national bank. On July 10th, 1832, Jackson sent a bank veto message to congress. The message was sent to remove the US National Bank because it was only helpful for a wealthier class for things like investments. Citizens from wealthier classes were outraged by Jackson’s actions. Former senator Daniel Webster replied to Jackson message saying, “It manifestly seeks to
In his veto message, Jackson wrote, "It is to be regretted that rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes." This was true, since the bank was used to provide for the interests of the rich and not the common men such as the small farmers and urban workers.
C). This Act completely cut off commerce with foreign nations until the British and the French repealed their trading restrictions on neutral shippers. As a result the American export trade and its profits dried up. Many people deemed this Act unconstitutional; the constitution only grants congress the power to regulate commerce, it does not however state that they have the power to completely cut it off. This by itself contradicts everything Jefferson stood up for. Albert Gallatin, one of the best financial minds in the Republican Party, convinced Jefferson that the Bank of the U.S. was essential for financial stability. Although the creation of the Bank of the U.S. reduced the nation’s debt from 83 million in 1800 to 57 million by 1809 , the creation in its self shows a great deal of broad constructionism. Although the bank was a reasonable means of carrying out powers related to taxation and the borrowing of funds, nowhere in the constitution does it state that congress has the power to charter a bank. John Randolph, a Republican congressman from Virginia, claimed that “this government (Jeffersonian) created and gave power to congress to regulate commerce and equalize duties in the whole of the U.S, and not to lay a duty but with a steady eye to revenue”. What John Randolph was trying to say was that
Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. His presidential term was from March 4, 1829 to March 4, 1837. Jackson was not about banks. Jackson hated the idea of the Second Bank charter renewal. One of Jackson’s famous quotes was; “The Bank… is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.” Jackson’s opinion of the Bank of the United States was that it was dangerous to the liberty of the people. Jackson’s opposition to banks became like an obsession. In 1832, Jackson vetoed the bill calling for an early renewal of the Second Bank’s charter even though the renewal was still possible when the charter expired in 1836. In order to prevent that from happening, Jackson set out to reduce the Bank’s economic power. Jackson acted against the advice of many congressional committees and several cabinet members. On October 1, 1833, Jackson announced that federal funds would no longer be deposited in the Bank of the United States. Jackson began placing the
The bank provided credit to growing enterprises, issued bank notes which served as a dependable medium of exchange throughout the country, and it exercised a restraining effect on the less well manages state banks. Nicholas Biddle, who ran the Bank, tried to put the institution on a sound and prosperous basis. But Andrew Jackson was always determined to destroy it (Brinkley, 249). The Bank had two opposition groups: the “soft-money” faction and the “hard-money” faction. Soft money advocates objected to the Bank of the United States because it restrained the state banks from issuing notes freely. Hard money advocates believed that coin was the only safe currency, and they condemned all banks that issued bank notes.
Moreover, Andrew Jackson greatly facilitated the transfer of power from “the few” to “the many” in the US. In Jackson’s Bank Veto Message to Congress in July of 1832, he stated that the rich were monopolizing the country’s domestic exchange by “bending the acts of government to their selfish purposes.” (Document 4). Jackson argued that with so much money and power, the corrupt rich were influencing the government to allow them domination over the many people who could not match their authority. The few, selfish rich citizens felt no duty or responsibility to their country so they committed great evils to promote their own status. For this reason, Jackson wanted the Bank of the United States vetoed so that this corruption could be ended at once and the rich would not be able to use the Bank for their egotistic intents. The BUS had been standing since Alexander Hamilton proposed it in the early 1800s, so it was outlandish for Jackson to propose its veto, but he was truly doing it for the people. The following day after Jackson’s message, Daniel Webster issued a reply to it. In his reply, Webster claimed that Jackson was controlling the poor and arousing them against the rich (Document 5). While this does seem like an immoral action for one to
Nicholas Biddle proved great opposition to President Jackson. He wanted to re-charter the National Bank; however, many people were against Biddle’s decision. This was particularly true of people in the west. They were still wary of a national bank, after the Panic of 1819, which involved mishaps in land speculation. Jackson shared the predominately western opinion that several small banks would be a better service to the nation than one, large bank would. A major problem with a national bank would lie in it’s willingness only to make loans to the wealthy. This would be of no use to the middleclass. Jackson would not allow Biddle to gain any more power than he already had.
In addition to creating a more democratic country, Jackson also tried to establish equal economic opportunity for the people of America. The best example of this is the vetoing of the charter of the Bank of the United States. The bank was a huge monopoly. It was ran by aristocrats, most of which were from England. Nicholas Biddle, who was the president of the bank, often used funds from the bank to lend money to the members of Congress, thus wining their support.
Jackson resented banks because he was a man who came from a family of poor farmers who paid with goods and crops. He saw banks as only useful to the wealthy, so when Henry Clay proposed “The Bank Bill”, which was in favor of the recharter, Jackson vetoed it. Andrew Jackson only thought about himself, and people who were like him, poor farmers. In total, vetoed twelve bills during his presidency, which was more than all of the preceding presidents combined. Again, Jackson set his mind to do something, and it was done.
Secondly, out of the twenty-five stockholders of the Bank, five of these were government owned. Thus showing support of the Bank by subscribing to one-fifth of its $35 million (Schlesinger 74). In addition, among the Bank’s functions was to hold all government money, sell all government bonds, and make commercial loans. However, no voters could dictate its policies or reign in its power, due to its privately owned status (Roughshod 2). Finally, the government also allowed bank notes to be used as payment for taxes.
The Purpose of this essay is to discuss the Andrew Jackson Administration. I will first talk about Jackson’s war on against the U.S. Bank. Second, I will talk about the Presidential election of 1824, 1828, and 1832. Third, I will talk about the Indian Removal Act as well as the Trail of Tears. Fourth, the ways in which Jackson expanded the power of the president. Fifth and final, the Nullification Crisis of 1832.