Free Republic

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?

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.

No, he was not for big government. He vetoed several acts from congress designed to build roads etc. in the country. Moreover, most knew him as a states rights’ politician,someone against a larger federal government, or as we might say today, a big government advocate. The only thing he did do, which can be considered a win for big government was the Nullification Proclamation. And at the time it was a good thing because secession and nullification needed to be refuted. Moreover, he is the only president to ever pay off the national debt. Big government people don’t pay off debt. What makes you think he was a big government adovacte?

He was certainly not an early FDR. Jackson would never have advocated federal aid programs like the New Deal. FDR admired Jackson, but the two men were very different.

Tis true....and he was hard headed. Personally I believe he was too much of a politician to have done the right thing in such a sectional crisis as the Nullification crisis. I don’t think Clay would have done something which would have hurt him politically.

Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation did hurt him politically. It’s message of a perpetual Union, claiming secession is treason, was damaging to the Democratic party, and to Jackson’s reputation as a “states rights’” man. As a matter if fact when one of Jackson’s aides asked him to remove some statements in the proclamation that stated secession was treason....Jackson stated: “Those are my words, and I will not have them removed or striked out.” Some actually thought the nation was experiencing a political revolution with Jackson and the likes of Daniel Webster actually agreeing on where soverignty truly resided in the U.S.

Believing Clay could have put down Nullification successfully is a “what if.” Jackson proved he could do what was necessary, wheras during the Crisis Clay was too concerned with working with Calhoun to end the crisis in such a way as to make Jackson look impotent.

I have to disagree with your belief that Clay was capable of stopping Nullification in South Carolina. South Carolina was finally stopped in March 1833; and Clay’s Compromise tariff wrongly gets a lot of credit for this. Known as the compromise tariff of 1833, many historians believe this is what ended the crisis. This helped, but it only worked with the passage also, of Jackson’s Force Bill, which gave the president the ability to put down insurrections in states. That Jackson as president already had precedent for doing this, and yet still sought congressional approval, is testament to his shrewdness. Further support for this is found in the fact that Jackson had already offered a lower tariff to South Carolina than Clay’s....which they refused. This of course was before the Nullification Proclamation; and this document, with national acclaim it garnered, is a major reason South Carolina finally backed down.....and Henry Clay was most certainly not capable of envisioning the Union as Jackson does in this proclamation.

Also, Jackson’s military background and his notorious hot headed nature (which, as president, this latter characteristic was used for effect more than anything) led many in South Carolina to believe Jackson would come to the Palmetto state with Federal troops. People were afraid of Jackson, and while his correspondence reveals no desire to go down to the state and make war, he certainly made South Carolinians feel it was a possibility.

Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation is what stopped Nullification in 1833; and in 1861, Lincoln will look to this document for inspiration in his struggle. Clay was incapable of concieving of a nation were secession was impossible. Had Clay been President, the federal government at that time would have lost the Nullification debate, and the county would have been much different.

Also, Jackson being a southerner, and a known decentralist, made his beliefs in the Nullification Proclamation easier to believe as genuine all over the country, and made South Carolinians seem small and petty. Adams would have had a harder time because he was a northerner, and very pro-tariff.

In response to an earlier post about Jackson’s veto of the Maysville Road bill and his caring about world opinion, let me say a few things.

First of all, Jackson opposed the Maysville Road bill because in his view of the constitution, spending federal money on a project in one state was an abuse. Jackson was not for government waste or big government. His dislike for Henry Clay (which was well founded) not withstanding, he did not veto it simply out of dislike for the man. To say so, would be to say that he declared war on South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis just so he could punish John C. Calhoun. Of course this did not happen.

Secondly, you are right, Jackson didn’t care as much about world opinion...he cared more about what Americans believed. And he didn’t always do the most popular thing, but the right thing. His denounciation of nullification was certainly not popular in his own party, and his destrcution of the bank was not popular in some circles. No, Jackson was not a people pleaser, he was not someone serving because it made him look good....as many of our politicians do today. Jackson served because people wanted him too, and believing he had a mandate, he actually did what few politicians in our time do today....he lead! Great leaders do not bend in the wind, and occasionally their decisions will be unpopular. My last example here: In 1833, Jackson was in the process of destroying the national bank. When one of confidants asked him if he was worried about the what the bank war would do to his reputation, he stated he believed he was doing what the people wanted...and if they asked him to leave...he would do it. By the way, when folks asked him to take out parts of his Nullification Proclamation that would damn the idea of secession, Jackson stated: “These are more words...and I will not have them removed, or stricken out.” Jackson and his cabinent knew that idea wasn’t going to be popular. And Jackson stuck to his views, despite the anxiety of those around him. Thats leadership.

Lastly I’d like to address Jackson’s “not caring what others thought of his actions.” This is not true either. To get Jackson, you have to look past what he did before President, and you have to look past what he said he would ‘like’ to do in private. Let me use the example of the Nullification Crisis. Most folks at the time, thinking back to things like Jackson’s duels, the Battle of New Orleans, and his impromtu invasion of Spanish Florida, believed he would blindly strike out against South Carolina and Calhoun. Nothing is further from the truth. Jackson methodically beefed up fortifications in Charleston, and day after day in January 1833, he denied request by his agent in the state, Joel R. Poinsett, to insert federal troops into the area for fear of inflamming the Nullifiers. That same month, a response from Jackson to Poinsett’s pleas for a federal presence demonstrates how much Jackson actually did care about what others thought of him. He told Poinsett: “Were I to act without the permission of Congress, I would be branded with the epithet, tyrant.” The Jackson that most people have in their head, would not care if he was called a tyrant or not. And that is the wrong idea of the man. The Force Bill his party members finally shoved through the House, would make it possible for the President to call upon Congress to allow him to put down an insurrection. And if thats not enough to prove to you that he cared about what folks thought of him, consider this: Jackson didn’t need congress’s approval in the first place, President Washington had already established precedent for the executive to unilaterally put down rebellion in a state, without first asking Congress. Jackson being a military man, knew this, and yet he still went the extra mile. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking this man did not care about what others thought of him. His honor, a novel idea to us today, meant everything to him.

Allow me to clear some things up about Andrew Jackson. First, many in our society blame Andrew Jackson for the Trail of Tears, otherwise known simply as Cherokee Removal from Georgia. It is innacurate to blame Jackson for this for one major reason; it occured in 1839, Jackson was no longer president. His hand-picked successor, Martin Van Buren, was president at the time. What Jackson was responsible for was the 1830 Indian Removal Act, which did make something like the Trail of Tears a possibility. This act was not something Jackson conjured up just because of a fear of Indians being pawns of European powers, it was the fulfilment of a promise made to the state of Georgia by President Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson could not bring himself to do it, and neither could Madison, Monroe, or Adams. And after 30 years of waiting, people in north Georgia were tired of waiting. People are quick to judge Jackson, but they can’t even state the year Cherokee Removal occurred, and they certainly don’t think that the actual residents of north Georgia might have actually had something to do with it all. Jackson also had the Nullification issue in South Carolina to be concerned with. By not following through on this 30 year promise, that state might have been encourgaed to go along with the nullifiers in SC.

Something else I’ve noticed here I want to address: Jackson would HATE our government today. He would most definatley not like big government, and let me explain why. Big government means big spending. As president Jackson vetoed almost every bill that we would consider today as a works progress act. For example, the same year he signed the Indian Removal Act into law, he vetoed a bill called the Maysville Road bill. It was to be an extension of the national road through Kentucky (which happened to be the home state of one of his greatest poltical rivals, Henry Clay), but only through that state. Jackson vetoed the bill on the basis that federal money should not be spent on something benefitting one state. Other examples that Jackson is not a proponent of big government: He is the only president to pay off the national debt. He destroyed the national bank. In many ways Jackson was a decentralist.

While he would not have been a proponent of big government, he was certainly the first president to expand the power of the executive branch. He vetoed more laws than all presidents before him combined. He was not afraid as president, to express his views on goverment and the constitution. Strong Presidents after Jackson admired him. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, all admirers of Jackson’s use of executive office.

I think most people realize the Democratic Party Jackson created was not the same as the one FDR created, or the one in existance today. However, Democrats do still hold an annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. This tradition goes all the way back to Jackson’s time when it was only known as the Jefferson Day Dinner. As a matter of fact, it was at this dinner in 1830, that Jackson and another political opponent of his, John C. Calhoun, had an interesting moment which most historians include when discussing the Nullification Crisis.

Which leads me to my final say on Jackson. It has been stated that Jackson did not care for the constitution. This could not be farther from the truth. As I said, most people know Jackson erronously for the Trail of Tears. Some people might know about the bank, or the Battle of New Orleans. What most people don’t know about, is Jackson’s most important role, and that was President during the Nullification Crisis of 1830-1832. South Carolina in Nov 1832 nullified a federal tariff. A conflict was brewing between the federal government and that state. It very well could have come to civil war 30 years before 1860.

Jackson was masterful in not only avoiding conflict, but winning the philosophical debate against a very smart politician, John C. Calhoun, the author of nullification. Most people would have expected Jackson during this moment to act brash and reactionary. Most people living at the time thought this as well. Few people living today or then, give him credit for the shrewdness he displayed here. Jackson did not strike out; he methodically built up the defenses in the harbor around Charleston (where most thought the issue of not paying the tariff would come to blows), and through Joel R. Poinsett, had militias created in the state. And had he tried tariff reform? Yes, he had, and the Palmetto state would not budge.

Jackson’s answer to the doctrine of Nullification was his Nullification Proclamation of December 10, 1832. In this document, Jackson becomes the first President to publicly state secession and nullification are treason. With that, not only does he win the majority of Americans to his side, he aptly defends the constitution and accomplishes something most don’t give him credit for....and that is he had a better understanding of the constitution than anyone at the time, save Daniel Webster and Joel Poinsett. Moreover, Jackson refused during this crisis to strike the first blow at South Carolina...its all in his papers.

Jackson had personal flaws, and his role in the removal of native americans is a stain on his record. However, he was not the first, or the last President to remove Indians, and thus should be seen that way. He was not a mass murderer; he like many Americans, wanted their land, even if they had become farmers. Being racist or greedy doesn’t make one a murderer. Jackson’s crowning achievement is his belief in an inseperable Union. Lincoln even stated this in his first inagural address.

Lastly, Jackson was the people’s President. He was the first man to be elected from the west. Every other president had been from Virginia or Massachussets. He was not formerly educated, yet he was a shrewd operator with a keen intellect, but a bad speller. People loved him because they could identify with him, and Jackson connected with them. It’s not unlike Reagan’s connection, or FDR’s to folks living in the Depression. Jackson wasn’t someone who seemed untouchable or unnaproachable. People trusted him for this. The love the nation had for him combined with his past is what caused many of his contemporaries to fear him as president. Yet, for all the trust he was given, Jackson never abused his power.