The "small change bill" (I've written about it: “Jacksonian Ideology, Currency Control, and `Central Banking': A Reappraisal,” The Historian, November 1988, pp. 78−102) was ONLY about small change notes, and I (and economic historian David Martin) explain the significance of that. Martin has a three- or four-article series on Jackson's big-government anti-money impulses. But NO ONE has ever challenged my discoveries of Jackson's national bank plan---and it was a "national bank," not a subtreasury as some apologists suggest. They NEVER cite the actual documents I found.
On Maysville, most historians I know agree that this was specifically done out of spite against Clay, and had nothing to do with his "small government" tendencies.
Paying off the debt? I dunno, but look at the data. It's irrefutable.
Most of all---and here, you have to examine more than one or two of his acts---Jackson was the child of Van Buren's system whose very CHARACTER was to grow government through giving out government jobs. (See my chapter in "Seven Events that Made America America"). Van Buren also politicized (and Jackson approved of his doing so) the newspapers and controlled them (hardly small government). And it's hard to argue that an institution that is 4/5s private is "public." No government official---not a SecTreas, not a President---EVER tried to tell the BUS what to do or whom to loan to. Even Jackson didn't---he just killed it.
I have not read your material, so I’m going to read this article, and I’m going to read your chapter concerning Van Buren’s creation of a national political party in seven events that changed america. And after that, I’ll get back to you! My MA was on Jackson and the Nullification Crisis; my knowledge of the Bank war is decent, and my knowledge of Jackson historiography is really good, but not necessarily on the bank war. After I’ve read, I’ll let you know what I think.
By your last post, are you suggesting that Van Buren was more of a creator of the Democratic Party than Jackson himself?