Andrew JacksonThe Defender of “the Union” or “the Common Man”

Rant Quiz:1) The Tariff of 1828 is sometime referred to as the Tariff

of _________________________.

2) He was Andrew Jackson’s Vice-President until wrote the “South Carolina Exposition” and openly fought with the President.

3) John C Calhoun’s theory of ___________________ would allow individual states to nullify, or reject, a federal law it considered unconstitutional.

4) Robert Hayne of South Carolina and this Senator from Massachusetts engaged in a week-long debate over states’ rights, nullification and the tariff question.

5) A compromise tariff was proposed by this Kentucky Congressman in 1833 that helped to avoid a civil war with South Carolina.

Jackson’s dilemma An unintended consequence of increased democratic

practice was a renewed call for more power at the state and local level (sectionalism), not the central government (nationalism).

What explains this?

As the power of the “common man” increases, the emphasis for politicians changes from national priorities to local problems. The smaller financial resources of the average voter increased the impact of local economic conditions.

Why might this pose a problem for Jackson?

Jackson, as head of the Executive Branch, needs to keep the central government strong and the states unified while trying to support the will and power of the “common man.”

Jackson’s View of “Union”

Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party believed democracy could only be preserved when order was maintained. This order required a strong “Union” between the states and equity among individuals.

According to Jackson, maintaining the “Union” depended on a strict adherence to the rules and “supremacy” of the US Constitution.

How might Jackson’s background explain this belief?

As a child, he grew up the son of a poor Southern farmer within a wealthy plantation system. This experience made him hate the “privilege” of the upper classes.

As a General, following orders and keeping the “Union” meant the same thing.

To Jackson - Any person or idea that threatened the “Union” and “equity” was seen as dangerous.

Jackson’s War on the Bank

Although Jackson willing to fight for Union, he did not always support national institutions over the “common man.” This was especially true when he saw “privileged elites” taking advantage of “national interest.”

Jackson was determined to end abuses he saw in programs like Clay’s American System. (Maysville Road Bill veto)

Another very public example of this fact was Andrew Jackson’s opposition to the Second Bank of the United States (BUS).

Jackson believed the BUS was:

Undemocratic (not everyone could deposit money and get loans)

Unfair (State banks could not compete with it)

Unethical (Nicholas Biddle gave cheap loans to influential Congressmen

Playing in traffic with the BUS

During the Election of 1832, Henry Clay was selected by the National-Republicans to run against Andrew Jackson.

In an effort to trap Jackson into openly attacking the BUS during the election, Clay and Daniel Webster decided to pass a bill re-chartering the BUS (four years before its original charter would expire).

Jackson vetoed it!

Jackson won the election of 1832 in a landslide: 219 to 49

Jackson used the win as a “mandate” to “kill the bank”

How to Kill a Bank Although the re-chartering scheme failed, the BUS still

operated under its original charter.

Jackson did not have the constitutional power to legally end the BUS, but it did not mean he could try ways to weaken it.

Jackson decided to remove all government deposits from the BUS and put them in “pet banks” (politically loyal state banks).

After firing two Secretaries of the Treasury who refused to de-fund the BUS, Jackson finally turned to his Attorney General, Roger B. Taney, to do the job.

Biddle viciously responded to this attack. By calling in loans and reducing credit, Biddle worsen a slight economic recession for which he, not Jackson, took the blame.

The BUS closed shortly after its chartered was refused in 1836.

Sectionalism threatens Union

By 1828, the spirit of nationalism that existed among the states was beginning to erode.

Henry Clay’s American System and especially its protective tariff on imported goods contributed to the rise of sectionalism.

Why? How did tariff affect the states differently?

Every four years the tariff rates rose. The Tariff of 1828 became so objectionable to Southern politicians that they referred to it as the

Tariff of Abominations

Nullification and John C. Calhoun

John C. Calhoun, Jackson’s Vice-President, was from the state of South Carolina. Although he supported the tariff in 1816, the concerns of the voters in his state helped to change his opinion by 1828.

In response to the Tariff of Abominations, Calhoun revived the theory of “nullification.” (IS THIS NEW?)

Calhoun secretly advocated for this theory in an essay entitled “The South Carolina Exposition and Protest.” (WHY?)

In Jan. 1830, the theory of nullification and states’ rights were debated in the Senate between Robert Hayne (SC) and Daniel Webster (MA). WEBSTER-HAYNE DEBATES

Calhoun’s obvious support of Hayne caused a major problem between Jackson and his Vice-President.

The Nullification Crisis In 1832, the Tariff of 1828 was set to expire. Congress

approved of a new tariff with rates as low as the Tariff of 1824.

Despite the lower rate, South Carolina’s state legislature declared the tariff as “null, void and no law” within its borders.

Jackson was furious --- “I will hang the first “nullie” I see from the first tree I can find!”

Congress passes the Force Bill of 1833 which would give Jackson the power to use the Army and Navy to enforce the tariff.

Luckily, Henry Clay is able to avert a civil war by proposing the Compromise Tariff of 1833 which gradually lower tariff rates for the next ten years.