Bank Recharter Bill Of 1832

Another reason why Andrew Jackson’s presidency was different was because of his attack on the Bank of the United States. In 1832, Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill to recharter the bank. Jackson believed the bank had an unfair advantage over the other banks. The national bank would get all the federal tax revenues instead of the state or private banks. Also the bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle would extend loans to the men in the congress at lower rates of interest than he would do to regular people. Because Jackson thought the bank was unjust he took away its federal charter and the bank became a state bank. Jackson appointed a secretary of treasury after his reelection in 1832. The secretary of treasury placed all government funds in certain state banks, otherwise known as the pet banks. The national bank became the Philadelphia bank for a while until it went out of business.

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

Similarly, the Jacksonian age affected the economy both in accordance with the Jacksonian ideal of equal economic opportunity and against it; an executive branch act and a judicial branch decision were made with the intent of favoring the people, but substantial opposition highlighted the negative side effects that undermined the Jacksonian goal. President Jackson represented the executive branch with his bold move of vetoing a bill which proposed a rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States.

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 This Act completely cut off commerce with foreign nations until the British and the French repealed their trading restrictions on neutral shippers.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

Jackson’s reelection convinced him that his opposition to the bank won all of the national support. The Second Bank was established in 1816, as a success from the First Bank of the United States, whose charter was permitted to expire in 1811. The name “The Bank War” was given to the campaign, started by President Andrew Jackson in 1833, to destroy the Second Bank of the United States, this was the start to a very hateful Bank War.

Although Jackson was a hard money supporter, he was sensitive to his many soft money supporters, and made it clear that he would object to renewing the charter of the Bank of the United States, which was due to expire in 1836. When Jackson could not legally abolish the Bank of the United States before the expiration of its charter, he weakened it by removing the government’s deposits from the bank. Jackson fired two of his secretary of treasury when they refused to carry out the order because they believed that such an action would destabilize the financial system. Jackson got Roger Taney to carry out his order. Taney took the deposits out of the Bank of the

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.

Despite being an advocate of the hard-money faction, which condemned all banks that issued banknotes, Jackson also opposed the bank because it went against his basic views. It restrained state banks from issuing notes freely and most advocates believed in rapid economic growth, which was the opposite of what Jackson believed in. Not being able to abolish the Bank before the expiration of its charter, Jackson weakened the bank by withdrawing the government’s deposits from it. Nicholas Biddle carried the contraction of credit too far and having to reverse himself, his hopes of winning a recharter of the Bank died. After the destruction of the Bank, Jackson then went after the most powerful remaining institution of economic nationalism: the Supreme Court.

Banking system and believed that it wasn’t a necessary component of the Union. He argued that the system was flawed and that the officials that worked the system were corrupt. Jackson also stated that the banking system favored the rich and gave them excessive power. In 1832, Sam Biddle proposed a re-charter bill to re-establish the banking system which passed through the House, however, Jackson was against it and thus used his presidential power to veto the bill. As a repercussion, he triggered an issue that outweighed the corruption of the banking system and thus gave birth to hundreds of individual state banks which gave rise to an array of new

the veto of the United States Bank. Jackson could notably be criticized as stubborn and

Andrew Jackson rejected the renewal of the bank charter because Andrew Jackson believed that the bank was corrupt and was harmful to the common people as shown when he stated in his bank veto message that, “the present Bank of the United States… enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking… almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange.” Andrew Jackson is showcasing his disgust for the Second National Bank as he is implying that the bank is a corrupt system which only help the rich and the bank itself while hurting the common folk. Andrew Jackson further showcases this mentality by writing that, “ it is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.” Andrew Jackson is saying to Congress that he views the Second National Bank of the U.S. as corrupt. Furthermore, Andrew Jackson believed he was protecting the common people from a corrupt enterprise by rejecting the charter of the Second National Bank of the U.S. as he believed that multiple state banks would be much more helpful to the common people. Andrew Jackson is also suggesting that his idea for the pet banks, however misguided it may have been, was for the good of the common

But Daniel Webster’s response postulates that the veto message “sows…the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against the government of which its author is the official head” and that it “puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of”. However, given the vast amount of influence the government had in the bank, the President would have had equally vast power. Additionally, these “powers heretofore unknown and unheard of” must also apply to the establishment of a National Bank, which on several occasions has been accused of being a grossly unconstitutional use of federal power. Therefore, Jackson’s actions indeed represented honorable goals of economic equality.

One article states that Jackson believed that “The Second Bank centralized financial might, jeopardizing economic stability; it served as a monopoly on fiscal policy, but it did not answer to anyone within the government. “ Jackson felt that the nation bank was a threat to national funds and by the time Jackson came to power the bank had over twenty branches opened. Jackson felt that the bank had grown too powerful and it was inevitable to seperate the bank for politics.But when the whole idea of shutting down the national bank was threating the relection of the democratic party the article states that “Jackson and his advisors carefully crafted a veto that would not anger the public and therefore would not cost the Democrats support in the fall

Andrew Jackson was a formidable opponent to the continued existence of the Bank of the United States. The motion to extend a new charter to the Bank of the United States became a topic of great concern for President Jackson during the election year of 1832. The bill was sent to Jackson, to either sign his approval, or veto. The president vetoed the bill, therefore, depriving the Bank of the United States a new charter and its continued existence after 1836. In Jackson’s veto message to the United States Senate, he declared that the Bank of the United States was a menace to the institution of equal rights. Jackson stated in his communication with the Senate, that the risk presented by the Bank of the United States was that it enabled vast and large sums of money to be handled by only a few stockholders, who out of greed or possibly temptation, would be more inclined to see to their own needs and whims than see