# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  Andrew Jackson and the Bank War by Robert V. Remini

## disorderlyvision

Just got this in the mail today from Bookmooch.com. It looks interesting, should be a good read.

From the back cover:




> One of the most controversial issues during the presidency of Andrew Jackson centered around the future of the Secon Bank of the United States. During the changing economic and social conditions of the 1820's and 1830's there was much hostility between the Bank on the one hand, and rising capitalists, urban workers, and farmerson the other. In this context, Jackson aimed to do away with the Bank. The Bank's supporters, however, struck back. In a move intended to wrench political support from Jackson, Henry Clay forced a bill through the Senate to recharter the bank. Jackson vetoed the bill, beginning the long struggle which has become known as 'The Bank War.' Jackson defeated Clay in the presidential election of 1832 despite Clay's efforts. Taking his political victory as a mandate from the people to destroy the Bank, he withdrew federal deposits, thereby setting the stage for the Bank's eventual death in 1836. 
>      In this book, Robert V Remini begins by discussing the antagonists in the Bank War: Jackson and Biddle. He states that 'the destruction of the bank occured because it got caught between two willful, proud, and stubborn men...' He then goes on to the details of the struggle, 'emphasizing the ways in which the War transformed the presidential office: how Jackson capitalized on the struggle to stengthen the executive branch of the government and infuse it with much of the power it enjoys today."


Anyone here read this?

http://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Jackson...6303146&sr=8-1

----------


## disorderlyvision

> Remini comes to the conclusion that the Bank was not all bad, it was simply a political struggle between Jackson and Biddle. I don't agree. It's a good detailed acount of the events, and I'd recommend it for such, but if you're a supporter of hard money (the Jackson position) you may consider looking elsewhere or complementing this reading. I'd recommend Murray Rothbard.





> In particular, Remini argues that the Bank War is directly responsible for three areas of enhanced presidential power: 1) the use of the veto to reject legislation for purely political rather than constitutional reasons, thus inserting the president into the legislative process and, in effect, making his opinion count for two-thirds of both Houses of Congress; 2) even though Remini believes that the majority of Americans didn't support the president's stance on the BUS, Jackson made the election of 1832 a referendum on the bank issue and claimed henceforth that he represented the will of the people and was there one representative; and 3) Jackson's sacking of Secretary of the Treasury Duane for his refusal to remove the government deposits from the BUS exerted the president's right to remove Cabinet members at will, further strengthening the executive's grip over the government.


excerpts from a couple reviews on amazon

----------


## Kraig

I actually have it but I didn't finish it!  The author seemed to be quite sure that Jackson was a moron for not wanting a central bank, and threw in enough sensational lines with nothing to back them up to make me lose my taste for it.  

Let me know if you finish it, maybe I'll give it another shot if I'm bored someday, it's really short.

----------


## disorderlyvision

> At eight the next morning the Colonel informed the president his work was done. "What have you said about the bank," came the quick response.
> 
> "Very Little," was the reply.
> 
> There was an annoyed look on Jackson's face.


That made me giggle

----------


## Uriel999

Hey here is a perfect place to take my comments from part of my 3rd test in Jacksonian America. 

2.  Explain the Bank War

	In 1836 the charter to the BUS was going to end. Jackson hated the bank as Americans at this point had long associated bankers with an aristocracy. This resentment went back to the Revolutionary war with British banks. Jacksons detestation of the bank was common knowledge. In his first annual address he discussed some form of alteration of the BUS was in order. Eventually Jackson would ultimately destroy the BUS. This was all part of his program of reform, retrenchment, and economy. The BUS would ultimately make Jackson seek a second term because Jackson he came to the conclusion it needed to be destroyed.
	In 1831 McLane went to the White House in attempt to convince Jackson of his policy he had formed. It was a five part plan:
The central feature of his plan was to pay off the national debt in 2 years
Sell all government stock in bank and was good to Jackson
All government surplus revenue would go to national defense purposes
Adjust the tariff to bring it down
Sell all public lands in the states they are in and distribute that money to the states. 
Andrew Jackson was very pleased with these ideas, however, there was a catch. In return McLane asked Jackson to refrain from mentioning the Bank in his next annual message. He wanted instead to let McLane recommend the banks re-charter at a proper time with appropriate modifications. Jackson was so caught up with the first five parts he agreed with McLane. Immediately Jacksons supporter Taney informed the President that backing McLanes plan would make it look like Jackson had changed his position on the BUS. McLane delivered his annual report to Congress and they were stunned at what they heard. They thought Jackson had switched sides in support of the BUS. Jackson felt McLane had betrayed him. McLane also tried to launch a conspiracy to get Blaire fired from the Globe. Jackson told McLane he was done essentially. He would no longer support Jacksons plan and his power in the cabinet would wane after this.
	The bank war would start in January 1832. This started when Biddle the president of the BUS decided to push for its re-charter early in 1832 instead of waiting until it ended. He was going against the advice of some powerful people though. Clay the most outspoken bank supporter in the country, McLane and Lewis all desired to wait for the banks re-charter. Biddle had instead listened to McDuffie, Daniel Webster, and most damning of all Peter Livingston, brother of Edward Livingston who was Secretary of State at the time. Livingstons younger brother told Biddle that he was talking to Lewis and Secretary of War, Cass and that Jackson would never veto the re-charter bill. McLane and others advised not to do this at the time, but nevertheless in 1832, a bill to re-charter the 2nd Bank of America was submitted to Congress commencing the Bank War. Nickolas Biddle started the Bank War thus testing President Jackson. 
	Blaire and his Globe would launch a massive anti-BUS propaganda campaign. Congress investigated the bank. Despite most Congressmen were for the bank, Jackson pulled a coup. The investigation was run by anti-bank congressmen. This was filled with lies, and the Globe used it to run a propaganda campaign. This anti-bank attack would continue into spring 1832. The anti-bank force was growing and slowly gaining in power. Benton (Senator) and James Polk (Speaker of the House at this time) led the attack in the House. Blaire also was working diligently with his Globe to spread the anti-BUS message. Attorney General Roger Taney was also an important ally to Jackson. The people in the middle usually were pro-bank democrats and favored re-charter but dared not make Jackson angry at them. Biddle lobbied Congress and played dirty politics. 
	The Bank Bill was pashed in July 1832 in the House and Senate. Jackson would veto the bank in July 1832 ignoring the advice of his cabinet. This was the greatest veto ever by a president. The nation was shocked. Essentially in the document Jackson said the government did not have the power, nor ever should be allowed to give special privileges to anyone or institution. He believed the control of the bank was firmly in the hands of the wealthy, and no such class should ever hold power. The second part was more important with Jackson arguing both Houses and the President should decide what is and isnt constitutional. He argued for the equality and independence of each branch of government. He was essentially ignoring the Supreme Court.  Jackson believed a president could veto a bill for any reason whatsoever if he felt it endangered the nation. By doing this he gave the president the right to participate in the legislative process. This sent a message to Congress that if they wanted to legislate successfully they had to do what the president wanted. 
	Clay and Webster attempted to fight Jacksons veto but could gain enough votes to overturn the veto. This did not destroy the bank, it would just not be re-chartered in 1832. In 1836 the bank was still around. Jackson had still won because he had laid the bank issue directly on the American people. The bank veto in July 1832 placed people in one of two camps, you where either for or against the BUS. Jackson realized people would choose the president on how they felt about the BUS. A vote for Henry Clay was a vote for the BUS and a vote for Jackson was a vote against the BUS. Three parties ran in the 1832 election. The National Republicans with Clay as their candidate, the Anti-Masonic Party with William Wort representing them, and of course the Democrats with Jackson seeking a second term with intent on utterly destroying the bank. The Democrats had a convention electing Van Buren to be Jacksons Vice President. The issue of the BUS was the most central most powerful issue of the election of 1832. This campaign was a journalistic free for all. The language and tone of the bank veto set the stage. 
	The Bank War would escalate when in Jacksons 4th Annual Message in December 1832 he stated he wanted to pull out all the government deposits in the BUS out. The federal government had the most deposits in the BUS and if they took out all the deposits the bank would most likely fail. Jackson questioned the safety of the deposits and called for a Congressional investigation. The House reported in March 1833 that the deposits were safe, but there was a 4 to 3 man majority against the BUS. Polk decided to publish a 170 page dissent against the BUS and pointed to the BUSs recent improprieties and illegal actions taken by Biddle. They were finding real problems and inconsistencies with Biddles management of the BUS. They violated US law and the BUS charter. This showed improprieties in the bank and Amos Kendal who was anti-bank wanted immediate removal of deposits out it. On the other end, Sec. of Treasury McLane was outright opposed to the removal of the deposits. Van Buren had negative feelings over removal but didnt want to anger Jackson, so he just waited things out.
	Jackson reshuffled the cabinet. He had planned on doing this before the Bank War but now was the time for action. McLane was removed from his position and Livingston was sent on a mission to France. This reshuffling of the cabinet didnt even make the news. Nobody was being fired or dismissed with this event. McLane was replaced in the Treasury with William James Duan. Jackson had needed to reward Pennsylvania as well and Duan was from there. This would turn out to be a horrible appointment.
	However, removal of the deposits was now certain. It was argued over how to remove the deposits, did they want to do things immediately or wait. Would they gradually remove the deposits or wait? This split the cabinet.. Jackson was for pulling deposits to pay government bills until finally all the money was gone. This policy was the one adopted. Writing checks over time until it was all gone. After they pulled out all the money they decided to put them in state banks, but there was an unwillingness of state banks to accept federal money because they feared the power of the federal government and thought Biddle would retaliate.  As a result, Jackson sent Kendal to pull state banks. He would go talk to state banks that would be willing to accept federal deposits. He immediately found seven very strong state banks that had been chartered from the colonial period that had clout and power to accept the risk of fighting Biddle. They were potent, respected, and sound economically. 
	Jackson started worrying about Van Buren not being as firmly in place as should be. Blaire and Kendal were pushing immediate removal, but Van Buren proposed postponing the issue. He had three thoughts in his mind. One was somewhat selfish, which was his chances to be Democratic president after Jackson. It was known he was Jacksons heir, but Buren was afraid the bank war could ruin his chance to be president. He was also afraid it would divide the Democratic Party. He was afraid of hurting the party. The third issue was that he was afraid that the removal policy would appear as a ploy to remove the financial capital of the U.S. from Chestnut Street to another street. The financial capital of the day was Chestnut Street. The financial capital was in Philadelphia, who cares if it moved to Wall street in New York? Van Buren was from New York. It could look like he was trying to bring the financial capital to his state, and ironically this is what happened. He eventually argued with several other cabinet members to wait for Congress to reconvene in September. Jackson said no, he wanted to start immediately. 
	Jackson rejected Van Burens recommendations because it was the reason he was re-elected. He wanted to restore equality. It would restore freedom and promote democracy. He would kill the bank as soon as possible, but the Sec. of Treasury Duane was a roadblock to this. On the day Jackson went to Duane about starting the policy Duane said no because Duane had the power over deposits, and not the president straight to Jacksons face. Jackson then directly ordered him to remove the deposits or resign. Duane said he would do neither. Jackson was beside himself. Duane refused to leave. As a result, Jackson fires him and it became a constitutional crisis. No president had ever fired a cabinet member. This ushered in the modern presidency. Jackson argued that the cabinet was to obey the President, not Congress. Congress screamed bloody murder over this. He assumed total authority to remove cabinet members without notifying Congress. 
	Jackson then appointed Roger Brooke Taney as Sec. of Treasury without even bothering to confirm it with the Senate. Taney was staunchly anti-bank and this would help Jackson get his way. McLane and Louis Cass almost resigned over this. They were shocked. They actually wrote letters of resignation but Jackson convinced them not to leave. Removal was now under way with Taney and Kendal announcing as of Sept. 25, 1833, removal of deposits from the BUS would commence. As well they announced officially the U.S. governments transition from national banking to deposit banking. National banking was over. Deposit banking would put money in state banks. By the end of 1833 almost all US money was pulled out of BUS and the state deposits went from seven to twenty-two and by the end of Jacksons presidency ninety more were added. Many of these banks were not all sound at this point, just Democrat.
	Biddle was not finished, and he decided to counteract Jacksons policy in the only way he could. He decided to restrict the BUSs lending operations. This curtailing of loans filtered through to other banks and caused the U.S. to enter an economic recession that he would blame on Jackson.  Quickly banks assets swelled to ungodly numbers. He did this to force Jackson to redeposit money in the BUS. The business community erupted with howls of complaint against Jackson for endangering the financial fabric of the nation. Jacksons political opponents did as well. The unity of the Democratic Party was incredibly splintered. Several powerful businessmen came to petition Jackson to restore the deposits, Jackson said to them dont see me, go see Biddle hes the one destroying the economy. Biddle continued to intensify the recession. He decided America needed a full blown depression. By 1834 the prosperity that had built under Jackson suffered a serious setback. 
	Jackson unified the executive branch to his policies, by keeping McLane and ridding of Duane. This would rid of all dissent in his cabinet. The Democratic Party was strengthened by being able to make the BUS look bad. The power of the BUS threatened liberty. Jackson also solidified his position as leader of the Democratic party. As a result, Jackson and the party battled Biddle.
	In Taneys report to Congress he justified removal. He pointed to the issue of the BUS using its funds to influence elections, many elections were not thrown but influenced by the BUS. Biddle bought candidates to an extent. They also pointed to Biddles personal control of the funds of the BUS. He controlled all of it. When the federal government tried to get money from Biddle, he wouldnt give it up. He pointed to loans to Congressmen that tended to vote pro-bank. There was also interference of payment of the national debt. On two occasions Biddle didnt let the government use the money to pay its own bills. Clay, Calhoun, and others denounced Jackson, calling him King Andrew I. This was the birth of the Whig party. They were against this power of the Executive Branch. Benton and Forsyth equally went after these men. As a result the Senate called a vote on Censure. They voted 26 to 20 to Censure President Jackson. By a vote of 28-18 they rejected Taneys report. 
	Jacksons protest challenged Whig ideology. He boldly reasserted the power of the president. He said the country was no longer a republic but a democracy, he argued power of appointment belonged to the president, and argued the Senate doesnt have power to appoint. He also said all the presidents men can only be removed by the president. He also said the President is the sole representative of the American people and is responsible only to the people. Since this was democracy, this meant the majority. Beforehand the president was responsible to Congress, now the American people. The Senate voted on Jacksons protest and upheld the censure 27-16. The Senate upheld the Censure of the President. At this time the tables started turning against Biddle, but not from the national government whatsoever. It came from the states.
	Suddenly after Jacksons protest governors of Pennsylvania and New York went before their state legislatures and denounced the BUS. Those states had been pro-bank previously. They realized it was Biddle and the BUS hurting the nation. Immediately both legislatures started supporting that view. The two financial capitals of the U.S.A turned against the BUS. This was a powerful statement. Newspapers, that had once been against  Jackson started supporting him. Biddle was in trouble. Not only did the states go after Biddle, but Congress started once they saw that everybody was turning against Biddle, picked up the mantle. Polk who was Speaker of the House called for a vote to approve Jacksons bank policy and to nullify the Censure on the President. By 184 to 82 on (April 1834) they voted against re-chartering the BUS. By a vote of 118 to 103 (April 1834) the House of Representatives agreed that the deposits would never be restored. By a vote of 117 to 105 the House recommended that state banks continue as places of deposit for federal funds. These three sweeping votes would: not re-charter the BUS, not restore deposits to the BUS, and would support using state banks for deposits. With a vote of 175 to 42 the House authorized a full fledged investigation into the BUS.
	The Bank war would continue. In January 1836 Van Buren was the new president and both houses were solid democratic majorities. In 1837 they expunged the records from the Senate over Jacksons Censure. Biddle refused to obey the subpoenas of the investigations of the House. He refused to hand over records and locked the doors of the bank to Congress. Biddle held Congress in contempt, but Congress got to the records and found much evidence of the BUSs consistent and regular violations of the banks charter. The public outcry against Biddle was deafening. The BUS lost its charter and became the Bank of Philadelphia, and it went bankrupt and had its charter revoked. Two years later Biddle died still a young man.

----------


## disorderlyvision

> I actually have it but I didn't finish it!  The author seemed to be quite sure that Jackson was a moron for not wanting a central bank, and threw in enough sensational lines with nothing to back them up to make me lose my taste for it.  
> 
> Let me know if you finish it, maybe I'll give it another shot if I'm bored someday, it's really short.


I am about 70 pages into it, and so far I think it is a very good read. Big drama almost like a soap opera. I agree he has made many anti-jackson/pro-BUS comments, But he has also made nearly as many anti-biddle/anti-BUS statements. so it seems he is trying to keep it balanced from both views. 

The hyperbole can get a little thick in spots, but if you sift it out there is actually a lot of information to be gleaned. He has a lot of footnotes. it seems he backs up most of his claims at least. He also had Murray Rothbard in a footnote.

----------


## Kraig

> I am about 70 pages into it, and so far I think it is a very good read. Big drama almost like a soap opera. I agree he has made many anti-jackson/pro-BUS comments, But he has also made nearly as many anti-biddle/anti-BUS statements. so it seems he is trying to keep it balanced from both views. 
> 
> The hyperbole can get a little thick in spots, but if you sift it out there is actually a lot of information to be gleaned. He has a lot of footnotes. it seems he backs up most of his claims at least. He also had Murray Rothbard in a footnote.


Yeah I wasn't so worried about it being unbalanced as I just didn't care for the soap opera style writing, let me know what you think after you finish it though!

----------


## disorderlyvision

> Yeah I wasn't so worried about it being unbalanced as I just didn't care for the soap opera style writing, let me know what you think after you finish it though!


Finally got it finished up. I've had family in from out of town, so it took me a couple extra days.

I thought it was worth reading.  It kept me interested all the way through. It focused a lot on the personalities of Jackson and Biddle, which, I think, makes it good for casual reading, because it leaves out a lot of the technical jargon. It stays fairly balanced throughout, (says positive and negative things about Jackson/Biddle and the bank) and it uses a lot of source material. The bank War is presented as more of a batlle of wills, than a strong conviction of Jackson to rid the country of central banking. In fact Jackson wasn't necesarily opposed to central banks, initially he just felt that the bank needed a few modifications. Biddle refused, and the rest ,as they say, is history. It is a pretty short book, less than 200 pages, and if you own it you might as well give it a go.

It is also interesting, because another focus of the book is the expansion of presedential powers under the Jackson administration, mostly gained because of the Bank War.

----------

