Sunday, August 4, 2019
Andrew Jacksons Campaign to Destroy the Bank of the United States Essa
When Andrew Jackson decided to make his veto message regarding the Bank of The United States on July 10, 1832 one thing was on his mind: killing the Bank of The United States forever! This one event was the fuel Jackson used for his reconstruction of the U.S. It all started to unravel during his election of 1828. Several different "sects" within the different states were teaming up with one another to form a coalition of discontent for the President and his reconstruction. Like Thomas Jefferson before him, Andrew Jackson was a tried-and-true defender of American freedom committed to nothing so much as breaking the knot of political corruption and restoring integrity to republican institutions. With the shattering and affirming dimensions of presidential action so well coordinated in his initial claim to legitimacy, Jackson's invoking of original understandings bore the makings of an entirely new government and politics. This dependent authority to disclaim would prove to be Jackson's most remarkable leadership resource. Yet, Jackson did not simply repeat Jefferson's performance, the essential elements of their shared leadership posture being reshaped by the worldly changes that intervened between their presidencies. Jackson's early course of action suggests that he would have liked nothing more than to have led in the expansive manner of Jefferson. Reasons for this difference between these two reconstructions are not difficult to separate since both witnessed dramatic changes in both state and society. It is here-with an acknowledging authority bearing down on a more forceful set of institutions and a more complicated policy- that the two faces of Andrew Jackson merge into one. In this final analysis there is no c... ...ress, the Court, the cabinet, the states, the party, and the electorate. The executive officer gained political foundations positively more independent than it had enjoyed before, and a new regime of governmental commitments and political priorities held convinced. In the process of moving behind his campaign to destroy the bank, Congress had begun to see for itself the special attractions of the new system. Democrats now criticized the President's efforts to control the state banks through national regulation as identical to the imposition of a new national bank. In effect then, Jackson had merely substituted one irresponsible and uncontrollable financial system for another. Jackson left office just as the new order was taking on a political life of its own. It was left to his successor to brush aside his failed experiment while affirming his basic course.