Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009
Question:
Andrew Jackson and his supporters have been criticized for upholding
the principles of majority rule and supremacy of the Federal
government inconsistently. Assess the validity of his criticism in the
cases of the recharter of the National Bank, the nullification of the Tariff
of Abominations, and the removal of the Native Americans from the
East.
TRUE
#1 Sometimes Jackson
favored majority rule
and other times he
supported the
supremacy of the
federal gov't.
"Flip-flopper"
#2 What was (were)
Jackson's
motivation(s)
that drove his
actions?
Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009
Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009
VETO
["I reject."]
Nicholas Biddle
(President of the National Bank)
The "Captain"
disagreed with
Jackson's attempt to
veto giving the
National Bank a
new charter
The Hydra – a mythical beast that grew back
two heads each time a head was cut off.
President Andrew Jackson considered himself a heroic figure
fighting against the National Bank and its directors with his veto
(the sword in his hand).
Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009
Andrew Jackson presented his view of the U.S. system of government
when he vetoed the recharter of the Bank of the United States. The
following is an excerpt from his veto message of 1832.
It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts
of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will
always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of
education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the
full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry,
economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law;
but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages
artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges,
to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble
members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have
neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves,
have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are
no necessary evils in government.
(“Digital History: Political Battles of the Jacksonian Era: The Bank
War.” http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us13.cfm.)
Jackson's second term as President. (1832)
First Term was in 1828.
The National Bank's charter expires in
1836.
Jackson is doing what the people want ;
he should be doing what's good for the
country.
After Jackson vetoed the rechartering of the National Bank,
he opened "pet banks" within the different states. These
banks made credit easy for farmers to get at lower interest
rates. This caused a rush on the banks which gave too many
loans out and the value of the money went down. The result
was inflation and a panic on the state banks when they ran
out of money to lend.
Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009
John C. Calhoun – Jackson's first VP
from S. Carolina
(TARIFFS)
NULLIFICATION
a law does not exist (the states can ignore a law)
We hold, then, that on their separation from the Crown of Great Britain,
the several colonies became free and independent States, each enjoying
the separate and independent right of self-government: and that no
authority can be exercised over them or within their limits, but by their
consent, respectively given as States. It is equally true that the
Constitution of the United States is a compact formed between the several
self-ruling States, acting as sovereign communities; that the government created by it
is a joint agency of the States, appointed to execute the powers
enumerated…
Heiskell, S.G. Andrew Jackson and Early Tennessee. Nashville, TN:
Ambrose Printing Co., 1921.
Calhoun and the South view the
government as a Confederation – a compact or agreement to help as
long as it is beneficial to both groups.
Jackson viewed the government as
a Union å binding contract that cannot be broken
SECEDE – to leave a group
Why might President Jackson reject
John C. Calhoun's opinion? [Look at pages 374 and 375]
In this case –
Jackson seems to view the power of the
Federal Government to be supreme over the
States.
BUT is this the motive that drives him???
Jackson DBQ Essay
Present day Oklahoma
May 19, 2009
Mississippi River
Present-day TEXAS
A TREATY is an agreement between two or more countries.
It is like a law.
A treaty is approved by Congress.
Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009
INDIAN REMOVAL
The Cherokee nation...is a distinct community, occupying its own territories, with
boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force, and
which the citizens of Georgia have no right to enter.
--Chief Justice John Marshall
(“Digital History: Indian Removal.” http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/
us12.cfm.)
"...this honourable Court, be declared unconstitutional and
void; and that the State of Georgia, and all her officers,
agents, and servants may be forever enjoined from
interfering with the lands, mines and other property, real
and personal, of the Cherokee Nation, or with the persons
of the Cherokee people, for or on account of anything done
by them within the limits of the Cherokee territory; that the
pretended right of the State of Georgia to the possession,
government, or control of the lands, mines, and other
property of the Cherokee Nation within their territory may,
by this honourable Court, be declared to be unfounded and
void, and that the Cherokees may be left in the undisturbed
possession, use, and enjoyment of the same, according to
their own sovereign right and pleasure, and their own laws,
usages, and customs, free from any hindrance,
molestation, or interruption by the State of Georgia ..."
Digital History: Cherokee Nation v Georgia
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0030_0001_ZS.html
By supporting the State of Georgia over the
rule of law established by the Supreme Court
decision that favored the Cherokee Nation,
Jackson seems to consider the power of the
States to be supreme over the authority of the
Federal Government. He seems to support
"States' Rights" to nullify a federal law
Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009
Was Jackson inconsistent with his decisions?
Did he favor the power of the States over the
Federal Government in the case of the
National Bank?
Or was there another motive?
Did he favor the power of the Federal
Government over the States in the issue of
nullifying the Tariff of Abomination?
Or was there another motive?
Did he favor the power of the States over the
authority of the Federal Government in the issue
of the Indian Removal?
Or was there another motive?
Jackson DBQ Essay
May 19, 2009