Nullification/ Jackson vs National Bank
Nullification Crisis
On December 10, 1832 Andrew Jackson made a proclamation in response to the people of South Carolina that disputed a states' right to nullify a federal law. Jackson's proclamation was written in response to an ordinance issued by a South Carolina convention that declared that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 unlawfully unauthorized. Led by John C. Calhoun, the those in support of nullification felt that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 favored Northern-manufacturing interests at the expense of Southern farmers. After Jackson issued his proclamation, Congress passed the Force Act that authorized the use of military force against any state that resisted the tariff acts. In 1833, Henry Clay helped broker a compromise bill with Calhoun that slowly lowered tariffs over the next decade. The Compromise Tariff of 1833 was eventually accepted by South Carolina and ended the nullification crisis.
Jackson vs the National Bank Andrew Jackson was in full opposition of the National Bank for a numerous of reasons. He argued that the bank favored the wealthy. A westerner, he feared the expansion of eastern business interests. As a nationalist, he distrusted foreign members of the bank board and argued the bank could not be trusted in time of war. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (senators), disliked Jackson. They convinced Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Bank, to apply early for a new charter for the bank, even though the charter would not expire until 1836. Believing many Americans supported the bank, they intended to force Jackson to veto the renewal of the charter which might cause him to lose the election (an election that Henry Clay was running for against Jackson). This did not work. Jackson vetoed the charter and public opinion did not drop enough for Jackson to lose the election.
During this time Jackson decided put an end to the National Bank early. He ordered the Secretary of the Treasury to take the money out of the national bank and put it in "pet banks," which were state banks that were friends of Jackson. These banks gave the money to poor farmers, who could not pay the money back.
Jackon adversaries wanted to force him either to sign the bill for recharter, alienating voters hostile to the bank, or veto it, antagonizing conservative voters who favored a sound banking system. Jackson vetoed the bill in a forceful message that condemned the bank as a privileged “monopoly” created to make “rich men...richer by act of Congress.” The bank, he declared, was “unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people.”
Destroying Bank of the United States, he wanted to replace all bank notes with hard money.
To Jackson’s supporters, the presidential veto of the bank bill was prestigious and a very special privilege. His efforts destroy bank notes was an effort to rid the country of a tool used to hurt farmers and the working class. To his opposition, the veto was an act of economic ignorance that destroyed stability.
On December 10, 1832 Andrew Jackson made a proclamation in response to the people of South Carolina that disputed a states' right to nullify a federal law. Jackson's proclamation was written in response to an ordinance issued by a South Carolina convention that declared that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 unlawfully unauthorized. Led by John C. Calhoun, the those in support of nullification felt that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 favored Northern-manufacturing interests at the expense of Southern farmers. After Jackson issued his proclamation, Congress passed the Force Act that authorized the use of military force against any state that resisted the tariff acts. In 1833, Henry Clay helped broker a compromise bill with Calhoun that slowly lowered tariffs over the next decade. The Compromise Tariff of 1833 was eventually accepted by South Carolina and ended the nullification crisis.
Jackson vs the National Bank Andrew Jackson was in full opposition of the National Bank for a numerous of reasons. He argued that the bank favored the wealthy. A westerner, he feared the expansion of eastern business interests. As a nationalist, he distrusted foreign members of the bank board and argued the bank could not be trusted in time of war. Henry Clay and Daniel Webster (senators), disliked Jackson. They convinced Nicholas Biddle, the president of the Bank, to apply early for a new charter for the bank, even though the charter would not expire until 1836. Believing many Americans supported the bank, they intended to force Jackson to veto the renewal of the charter which might cause him to lose the election (an election that Henry Clay was running for against Jackson). This did not work. Jackson vetoed the charter and public opinion did not drop enough for Jackson to lose the election.
During this time Jackson decided put an end to the National Bank early. He ordered the Secretary of the Treasury to take the money out of the national bank and put it in "pet banks," which were state banks that were friends of Jackson. These banks gave the money to poor farmers, who could not pay the money back.
Jackon adversaries wanted to force him either to sign the bill for recharter, alienating voters hostile to the bank, or veto it, antagonizing conservative voters who favored a sound banking system. Jackson vetoed the bill in a forceful message that condemned the bank as a privileged “monopoly” created to make “rich men...richer by act of Congress.” The bank, he declared, was “unauthorized by the Constitution, subversive of the rights of the States, and dangerous to the liberties of the people.”
Destroying Bank of the United States, he wanted to replace all bank notes with hard money.
To Jackson’s supporters, the presidential veto of the bank bill was prestigious and a very special privilege. His efforts destroy bank notes was an effort to rid the country of a tool used to hurt farmers and the working class. To his opposition, the veto was an act of economic ignorance that destroyed stability.