Disagree entirely. A veto is NOT a “small government” act. Quite the contrary, in the antebellum world, which had a Whig view of the legislature, a veto was viewed as a big-government activist executive act. He overrode the USSC on the Cherokees; he tasked his SecTreas to create a new GOVERNMENT bank (not the mostly private BUS); he tried to outlaw all private small bank notes. He killed the mostly private BUS. Everything Jackson did increased the power of the federal government. The budget in real and per capita terms grew under Jackson, at times quite rapidly. He used the Post Office as his own fiefdom to control state politics, and expanded the Post Office. He was FDR writ small.
I can understand how one could make the case for the veto to be designated as an example of federal power expansion through the executive. Certainly the legislature in the U.S. was seen in the Whig interpretation as a barrier to tyrannical authority in one person.
However, in Jackson’s case, the Maysville Road veto for example, was used to thwart big government, at least to Jackson and other decentralists. In the Cherokee case, I think most folks, especially in today’s society, believe the Supreme Court to be the ultimate moral authority. This of course is wrong. I cannot defend Jackson’s refusal to enforce the Worchester v. Georgia decision, except to say his inaction may have been guided in some way to avoid Georgia siding with the Nullifiers in South Carolina.
I would argue that allowing the Supreme Court to be the final say on any arguement is big goverment. There are checks and balances, and Presidents can, have, and should when necessary, ignore the Supreme Court’s decisions. As at least two cases can show, the Dred Scott case and Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court can be very immoral and wrong on occasion.
I don’t think his overiding the Supreme Court on the Cherokee case was an example of big government; however it was a black mark on his record.
He didn’t just try to outlaw bank notes, but all paper currency period. This would allow for almost no uniform currency, which I would deem very anti-big government.
The BUS wasn’t totally private, it was created by the government. I won’t argue the post office situation with you. He actually made it illegal to send abolitionist material through the mail.
Lastly, how do you pay off the national debt, and grow the budget at the same time?
I still don’t see the FDR comparison. I really can’t imagine Jackson using the federal government to create programs designed to create temporary jobs. I also can’t imagine him spending the country into a deficit to do so....when as president, he was fiscally the exact opposite of this. Jackson might have defined the power of executive in a way that frightened Whig minded individuals in the antebellum period, but he didn’t abuse his power, and he wasn’t a spend thrift.
FDR admired Jackson for the man’s style of presidency. If you want to see where our current government became a bloated, disfunctional, money eating machine....FDR is the beginning.