American History
Lecture 6
JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY
(1825 - 1837)



KEY THEMES:

   * To what degree does Jacksonian Democracy represent the achievement of
     the ideals of the American revolution? To what degree does it
     represent the destruction of the checks and balances envisaged by the
     Founding Fathers?

THE STATUS QUO IN 1824

Population (1820):

   * 9,640,000
   * The territory of the United States still did not include Texas,
     Colorado, or any of the territory lying to the west of the Rocky
     Mountains. The United States jointly occupied the "Oregon Country"
     (the present-day states of Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and parts of
     British Columbia, Montana and Wyoming) with Britain. Other than this,
     the territory of the U.S. was the same as it is today.

Political:

   * There were 24 states in 1824.
   * The Union was increasingly divided into a rural, agricultural south in
     which the economy was highly dependent on slave labour, and an
     urbanizing, industrializing north in which slavery had been abolished.
     However, in the period under discussion today, the slave issue does
     not dominate the political agenda as it will from 1840-1865.
   * The Federalist Party has collapsed and disappeared. Jefferson and
     Madison's Republican Party dominates federal politics---so much so
     that its candidate, James Monroe, runs unopposed in the 1820
     presidential election.

Military:

   * The United States is a minor power in a world dominated by a single
     enormous power more dominant than any nation since the time of Rome:
     Great Britain and the mighty British Empire.
   * In the Western Hemisphere, Britain and the United States have come to
     an informal understanding that suits the interest that both have in
     the maintenance of free trade and an end to mercantilism. This takes
     the form of the Monroe Doctrine opposing new European imperialism in
     the Americas, which is enforced by the Royal Navy.

THE TREND TOWARDS DEMOCRACY

The presidency of Andrew Jackson represents a dividing point in American
19th-Century history second in importance only to that of Abraham Lincoln.
The main trend in this period is an enormous upsurge in democracy, at the
expense of the old, elite-driven system of government. Therefore this new
system has come to be referred to as "Jacksonian Democracy." With some
modifications, it is still in effect today.

The key respects in which Jacksonian democracy differs from the
pre-existing elite system are as follows:
1. The popular election of the president. Prior to 1824, presidents were
selected by an electoral college appointed by the state legislatures. From
1824 onwards, presidents are elected by popular vote.
2. By 1828, with a strong competition, high-profile competition between
Jackson and Adams for the presidency, voter turnout soared to around 80%
(up from around 20-25% who had voted for delegates to the state ratifying
conventions in 1788).
3. Selection of candidates for the presidency by means of party conventions
rather than by caucuses.
4. The willingness of presidents to exercise their powers (particularly the
veto) to the full extent described in the Constitution, thereby making
themselves equal participants in the legislative process.
5. The awarding of patronage positions to partisans and supporters of the
party that wins the presidential election, and the canceling of
appointments held by supporters of the losing party (the "spoils system").
6. The democratization (and partisanization) of the legislative arm of
government. This happens partly through the extension of suffrage to a
larger proportion of the population, and partly through internal reforms
Therefore, while it is still true that his presidency represents the culmination of this
process, it is incorrect to say that Andrew Jackson actually caused it to
develop, or that it would not have happened in his absence. In a sense, all
of American history, starting in 1787, is the story of the removal of
barriers to direct citizen participation in the business of governing.

For example, the Senate was democratizing. When it first met in 1789, the
Senate had been a secretive, pomp-encrusted institution that conferred
directly and collegially with the President. But, as John F. Kennedy
observes in his book Profiles in Courage,

"Gradually the Senate assumed more of the aspects of a legislative body. In
1794 public galleries were authorized for regular legislative sessions; in
1801 newspaper correspondents were admitted; and by 1803 the Senate was
debating who should have the privilege of coming upon the Senate floor".1

Mind you, it would not be until 1913 that Senators would be popularly
elected.

Similarly, the period witnesses another development that has little to do
with Jackson personally: The development of an aggressive party system in
the House (and later, the Senate) in which the rules and internal
institutions, such as the speakership, become highly partisan, rather than
consensual. This innovation dates from the period in the 1810s when the
charismatic Kentuckian, Henry Clay, entered the House and became its
speaker, but refused to serve as a politically neutral adjudicator.

THE JACKSONIAN IDEOLOGY

The best way to understand what Jackson and his supporters believed is to
understand what it was that they were reacting against.

The Constitution of 1787 had created a political system that was intended
to merge the best elements of monarchy (the presidency), aristocracy (the
Senate and Supreme Court) and democracy (the House of Representatives).
Whenever one element in this mix became too powerful, it would be checked
by the influence of the others. This system is known as "checks and
balances." Its clearest purpose was to avoid a so-called "tyranny of the
majority," in which the democratic element in the mix, acting through the
House of Representatives, might enact legislation that would strip certain
minorities of their rights. In particular, there was a fear that
property-owners might be exploited and stripped of their wealth.

In practice, the new system was enormously successful. Not only was the
House of Representatives effectively neutralized by the other branches of
the federal government, but these other branches were all dominated by
members of either the merchant elite and its allies (the Federalist Party)
or the landed elite and its allies (the Republican Party). The Supreme
Court as well was dominated by an elite of wealthy judges, and most notably
by the Virginia patrician, John Marshall.

To the extent that "the people"---meaning the majority of the population,
with limited wealth and other privileges---had been able to express a
preference, it had been for the small-government policies of Jefferson. But
after the election of 1800, which Jefferson had referred to as the
"Revolution" of 1800, there had been no additional upsurges in popular
discontent. This was the case even though the "American System" initiated
by Henry Clay in the Senate and accepted by the Madison and Monroe
administrations had gradually led to bigger government, higher prices due
to tariffs, and a growing number of tax-funded government jobs for members
of the educated elite.

By modern standards, the federal government seems tiny and the
opportunities that it afforded for corruption seem even more minute.
Nevertheless, the level of popular discontent was growing. It is
particularly significant to note that at the state level, popular pressure
for reform had been creating a gradually more democratic arrangement.
Property qualifications for voting were being removed in almost every state
(a pattern which has a parallel at this time in Britain as well). It was
through popular pressure at the state level that the de facto
constitutional amendment leading to the direct election of the President
took place.

The key to the Madisonian system of constitutional, representative
government is the belief that the people are often wrong, and that
therefore they ought to be limited in their ability to make decisions
unchallenged. Part of this limitation is that which is imposed by the
system of checks and balances. Part of this limitation is imposed by the
Courts, which may strike down any laws that are found to be in violation of
the Constitution, and particularly those that are in violation of the Bill
of Rights.

But Jackson believed something very different. He once said, "Never for a
moment believe that the great body of the citizens . . . can deliberately
intend to do wrong." In a sense, what he was saying was that government
ought to be conducted in the interest of the people, and that the people
themselves are the only group that can be trusted never to be in a conflict
of interest with themselves. No other group---such as Hamilton's
much-trusted lawyers, for example---can be guaranteed not to favour its own
interests whenever they do not coincide with those of the people.

This much seems to be absolutely true. However, mediating
institutions can also serve a secondary role of slowing down the
decision-making process. One of the great fears of the Founding Fathers,
based on their observations of democracy at work in the Swiss cantons, in
Renaissance Italy, and in ancient Greece, was that the tyranny of the
majority is at its worst when decisions are reached in a great hurry,
without pause for reflection. One of the great advantages of a system of
government in which every law must be enacted by two separate legislative
chambers and then approved by a separate executive is that it slows down
the process of approving legislation, so that sober second thought can take
place prior to any really dangerous or tyrannical legislation being
enacted. While the people may never knowingly impose tyranny upon
themselves, it is conceivable that they might do so unreflectively, when
motivated by panic.

[MARSHALL'S COURT / AMERICAN SYSTEM]

THE END OF THE "ERA OF GOOD FEELINGS"

In the fifty years following the selection of George Washington as the
first President of the United States, a system had arisen for the selection
of the new presidential candidate for the ruling party: Each retiring
president would choose his successor, and secret congressional caucuses
would then ratify this choice. Jefferson had chosen Madison, and Madison
chose Monroe. For the party that was out of power, the caucus---known as
"King Caucus"---made this selection on its own. The Federalist Party caucus
nominated Charles Pinckney as its candidate in 1804 and 1808, followed by
DeWitt Clinton in 1812 and Rufus King in 1816.

By 1820, the Federalists, who had long been in a slow and steady decline,
were unable to field a candidate, and James Monroe was selected by all but
one of the appointed members of the Electoral College. But this was the end
of an era. For the 1824 election, James Monroe tried to nominate his own
successor, as Jefferson and Madison had. But now that there was no party to
oppose the Republicans, an unexpected thing happened: The Republicans
themselves split along regional lines (called "sectional" lines in the
United States), and four candidates presented themselves, all claiming to
be Republicans. One of these candidates was Monroe's choice, Treasury
Secretary William Crawford. A second candidate, who did not have Monroe's
blessing, was Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. Henry Clay, the Speaker
of the House, was a third candidate. And finally, from outside the system
came Andrew Jackson, who, as discussed in the previous lecture, was a
military leader in the War of 1812.

"King Caucus" did as instructed and supported Crawford, winning him a total
of 41 votes in an electoral college of 261. But in the period between the
elections of 1820 and 1824, most states had enacted laws requiring that the
state's legislature appoint a slate of electors to the College who had been
chosen by popular vote. Since all electors declared themselves in advance
to be in favour of one or another of the presidential candidates, this
amounted to a system of direct election of the president.

However, there were some wrinkles to this system. One is that almost every
state, in almost every election since 1824, has appointed an entire slate
of electors for a single presidential candidate, rather than appointing a
number which corresponds with the percentage of votes cast for each
candidate. But in fact what is normally done is that ten
electors supporting Candidate "A" will be appointed.

This distorts the election results terribly, and tends to give lopsided
victories to Presidential candidates who have won narrow popular
majorities. For example, in 1868, Ulysses S. Grant, running for President
for the Republicans, won 53% of the vote and 73% of the votes in the
Electoral College. In 1872, he won 56% of the vote and 81% of the Electoral
College.

On the other hand, this system can also result in a candidate becoming
President, even though he has lost the popular vote. For example, in 1892
Republican Benjamin Harrison was elected with a margin of 233 electoral
votes to 168 for the Democratic candidate, Grover Cleveland, despite the
fact that Harrison had won 90,000 fewer votes.

In 1824, when most states had adopted this system but a few had not, the
results were particularly confusing:

  Candidate                  Popular        Total Electoral Vote
                                     Vote            Total
  Andrew Jackson       151,271           99
  John Q. Adams         113,122           84
  Henry Clay                47,531             37
  William Crawford      40,865             41

Because there was no clear majority for any candidate, the election was
thrown to the House of Representatives, just as it had been in 1800. But
this time there was an added complication. The bottom candidate, in terms
of number of electoral votes, was stricken off the ballot. This was Henry
Clay, who just happened to be the Speaker of the House, and thus the most
powerful man in that institution. And Clay therefore was in a position to
play kingmaker among the remaining candidates.

It was obvious that Crawford was not a contender. He had won less than 12%
of the popular vote, and he was very ill anyway. So Clay let it be known to
Jackson and Adams that he was open to bids for his services. Whoever bid
higher would be rewarded by being made President. Jackson refused to engage
in this kind of horse-trading, since he was of the view that it was
precisely this kind of intra-elite bargaining that was keeping America from
achieving its potential as a democratic nation. Besides, he had won a much
larger share (41% to 31%) of the popular vote and a somewhat smaller
plurality in the Electoral College than had Adams, so it seemed obvious to
him that he would be chosen.

But Adams had no such qualms, and he offered to make Clay his Secretary of
State. So Clay used his influence on the casting of other states'
votes---and cast his own vote---in favour of Adams. Whenever an election is
dealt with through the House, each state delegation must cast a single
ballot, just like under the old Articles of Confederation. In this vote,
Adams was chosen by the narrowest possible margin: 13 votes to 11 for
Jackson. Adams became president, Clay got his reward, and there were howls
of protest about the "Corrupt Bargain" between them. This would serve to
taint Adams' entire administration. But it was clear that the Era of Good
Feelings was over, and that consensus rule among a wealthy elite was
drawing to a close.

As an interesting side note, only one man had been on the ballot as a
Vice-Presidential candidate. This was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina.
Therefore, even though Calhoun was a prickly and strong-willed man, he made
no enemies and would not only serve as Adams' VP, but also as VP to
Jackson, when he won the election of 1828.

Following the 1824 election, the remaining states moved to the popular
election system for appointing electors. The final state to make the move
was South Carolina, which finally switched over in time for the 1836
election.

THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

John Q. Adams was born in 1767, the son of John and Abigail Adams, and
therefore was born into the most privileged background imaginable. His
parents were not extremely wealthy, but he enjoyed considerable material
comfort. More importantly, his mother was brilliant and his father was a
prominent man whose career led him first into the law, then into diplomacy,
and finally to the Presidency. Young John Q. thus mingled in the highest
circles from an early age. He was educated at Harvard, lived in Europe with
his parents, and met all the major figures of the revolutionary period upon
his return to the United States.

He was selected to sit in the U.S. Senate during the presidency of Thomas
Jefferson, but was removed when he refused to vote against his conscience
in favour of the Embargo Act in 1807. This action showed enough courage to
earn him a chapter in John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage. His
career was not permanently damaged; in 1814 he led the American team that
negotiated the Treaty of Ghent, ending the War of 1812. He then became
Secretary of State under James Monroe, and played a key role in developing
the Monroe Doctrine. He also successfully negotiated the treaty purchasing
Florida from Spain and defining the boundary with Mexico, which was
approved in the 1819 Adams-Onis treaty.

As president, Adams was an enthusiastic supporter of the neo-Federalist
policies of Henry Clay's "American System": an aggressive federal
government which would spend money where needed for internal improvements,
without an excessively legalistic concern for the limits of federal
jurisdiction. He hoped to establish a national university, national weather
stations, expeditions to explore the Pacific coast, and to subsidize roads
and canals. Scientific and artistic subsidies were also part of his agenda.
However, he had never been terribly popular, and the House of
Representatives came to be increasingly filled with the supporters of
Jackson, who were advocates of a minimalist Jeffersonian government. As a
result, very few of his proposals were enacted during his presidency.

As Johnson's colourful retelling makes clear, the most interesting event to
take place during Adams' presidency was the endless battle for the election
of 1828. From the beginning it was clear that Jackson would run again in
1828 (the Tennessee legislature announced as early as 1825 that he was its
choice for the election 3 1/2 years hence), and that Adams would be well
prepared for the rematch. In an era when newspapers were fiercely partisan
and fact-checking was nearly impossible, a four-year campaign of this sort
inevitably became shockingly personal and vicious. The allegations of
Jackson's supporters against Adams were preposterous and offensive, and
Adams' supporters made so many outrageous statements about Jackson's
intense evil that children were left with the impression that he was a
demon. One story holds that a New England schoolboy, when asked by his
teacher who had killed Abel in the Bible, replied "General Jackson,
Ma'am."2

Nonetheless, there were some actual issues in the election campaign.
Essentially, it was the first real contest in years between the advocates
of Hamiltonian mercantilism and conservatism against the supporters of
Jeffersonian libertarianism and small government. In particular, Jackson
indicated a support of low tariffs and no federal subsidies for internal
improvements. In the state and local elections taking place at the same
time, the issue was largely bankruptcy law and debtor relief law, which was
just then being modernized into a form that we would recognize today.

In the event, Jackson won in a landslide, taking 642,000 votes to 500,000
for Adams, and 178 electoral votes to 83 for Adams. Johnson describes the
frenzy that took place when the new president was inaugurated. Crowds
poured into the capital, cheering on the hero of the common man, then
flooding into the White House and destroying much of the furniture.
President Jackson himself had to escape from his followers by climbing out
a window and spending the night in a hotel.

A footnote: Following his defeat in 1828, Adams sought election to the
House of Representatives and gave distinguished service there for seventeen
years, including a long battle in favour of freedom of speech and against
the "gag rule" restricting the right of citizens to petition on the subject
of slavery.

JACKSON IN POWER

Introduction: Jackson the man.
Andrew Jackson is almost certainly the most colourful character ever to
assume the presidency.
Jackson was not the first president to come from a non-privileged
background (John Q. Adams' father was the son of a cobbler) but it would
certainly be hard to imagine anyone who had risen from quite such wretched
beginnings as he. He was born in conditions of poverty in a mountainous
area on the border between North and South Carolina in 1767. His father had
died prior to his birth. Although far too young to be a regular soldier, he
served in the War of Independence. The war in the Carolinas was
particularly bloody and cruel; both of Andrew's older brothers died
fighting the Tories and his mother died of an illness contracted while
nursing soldiers, leaving him an orphan at the age of 15. But he was
already an adult in practice, having been captured and then beaten with an
officer's sword for insubordination.

Following the war, young Jackson moved west to the Tennessee frontier,
where he educated himself sufficiently to practice the law and then
politics. He made his fortune in real estate speculation and built a great
mansion, "The Hermitage," as his country estate on a plantation tended by
slaves. In 1796-7 he served a single term in the House of Representatives,
and in 1797-8 he spent a year as a Senator. During this period he fought a
series of duels, which Johnson describes with great enthusiasm.

His real fame came when, as leader of the Tennessee militia in the war of
1812, he led his troops to victory over the Creek Indians in the Battle of
Horseshoe Bend, and then conducted the successful defence of New Orleans
against the British in January 1815. His actions led to the securing of the
south-western frontier and to decisive American victory in this theatre of
the war. After the end of the war, Jackson horrified his superiors by
simply marching his troops into Florida, which was still owned by Spain, in
order to engage in a war with the Seminole Indians. This action was part of
the impetus to Spain to finally sell the province to the United States in
1819, and Jackson was made the territorial governor in 1821. As America's
most successful military figure since George Washington, he was a national
hero and the peoples' choice for president.

Although he was no intellectual, Jackson was an intelligent man who
believed that ordinary people like those who had fought with him in the
revolution and again on the frontier were being kept out of political
power. Jackson had a well-deserved reputation for being incorruptible, and
for doing what he believed was best and most honourable, regardless of the
personal consequences. His men called him "Old Hickory" because Hickory is
the hardest wood found in America. When he went to Washington in 1824 and
again in 1828, it was with the conviction that the people were always
right, and that as long as he personally stayed true to his ideals, he
could serve as a direct conduit between the people and the levers of power,
allowing him to dispense with Madison's carefully-constructed system of
checks and balances. Therefore, he can be regarded as the first "populist"
in the White House.

The Spoils System:
Jackson's most famous initiative was the creation of the "spoils" system,
under which his supporters were given offices as a reward for their
actions. This system developed its name when Jackson's opponents seized
upon the unwise declaration of one of his most enthusiastic supporters:

     "[Jacksonians] boldly preach what they practice. When they are
     contending for victory, they allow their intention of enjoying
     the fruits of it. If they are defeated, they expect to retire
     from office. If they are successful, they claim, as a matter of
     right, the advantages of success. They see nothing wrong in the
     rule that to the VICTOR belongs the spoils of the ENEMY."3

He has been criticized for this initiative ever since, on the implication
that he disrupted a smoothly-running and professional civil service.
Nothing could be further from the truth. To start, he did not touch 80% of
the office-holders under his control, in the course of an eight-year
presidency. Of those he did remove, many were corrupt or lazy and deserved
to go. Later administrations exercised far less self-restraint than Jackson
did, when it came to clearing out the previous incumbents to make way for
the new arrivals.

Moreover, he was acting on the basis of a deeply held belief that the best
way to keep the civil service honest was to rotate it regularly, so that
all office-holders would be regular citizens doing a term of public
service, rather than professionals with increasingly divergent personal
interests. He also did not believe that government required much
specialized expertise (a belief that may have sprung from his own ability
to master the law, politics and military science without the benefit of
formal instruction in any of them).

Indeed, the attacks on him sound just a little too hysterica to be taken
very seriously.  When none of the other charges would stick (because the
people agreed with him rather than with his critics in the elite that he
was threatening), the old charge of "patronage" was used, and it really did
stick, undeservedly.

A New Party System:
Jackson's administration also marks the commencement of a new party system.
His party claimed to be the natural successor to Jefferson's Republicans.
Since the Republicans had also been known as Democrats, the new party
called itself the "Democratic Party."  In response to this party, a new force was
created out of those who held faith with the old Federalist credo. This
group called itself the "Whig" party, after the eighteenth-century party in
England which had fought against the Tories and the monarchical tyranny of
the Hanovers. President Jackson was well-known for his liberal use of
vetoes over legislation that sought to spend money or extend federal
jurisdiction, so the "Whigs" called him "King Andy" or "King Andrew I" and
declared themselves to be the true democrats.

The Whigs successfully elected several candidates to the presidency in the
1840s and 1850s, but they eventually were destroyed by sectional disputes
over slavery. However, they were replaced by a new party , the Republicans,
who are with us to this day.

In a very general sense, the party system in the United States can be
regarded as having a series of parties that fill the same niches, even if
the party name is sometimes different. Thus, the Federalist tradition of
conservatism, big government, centralism and mercantilism can be traced
through the Whig Party to the Republican Party. The Jeffersonian tradition
of libertarianism, small government, decentralization and free markets can
be traced through the early Republicans (or Republican-Democrats) through
the Jacksonian Democrats. The most unusual shift takes place during the
administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt, when the Democrats effectively
take over the traditional Republican niche, and the Republicans are forced
into the traditional Democratic niche, so that today, the Jeffersonian
tradition is probably more at home (or at any rate, less completely
ignored) in the Republicans than in the Democratic Party.

The Nullification Crisis:
The great "sectional" (i.e. regional) crisis of Andrew Jackson's presidency
took place in 1832, when South Carolina threatened to "nullify" certain
federal laws, thereby effecting a sort of partial secession from the
Union---at least insofar as the effect of that law was concerned. Jackson's
reaction to this crisis identified him as a hard-line defender of the
Union, although he remained a states' rights man at heart.

In 1828, a very high tariff was imposed at the behest of Henry Clay, as a
part of his "American System" of protectionist tariffs and government
spending on infrastructure. In the South, where much of the cost would be
borne and very little of the benefit would be distributed, it was referred
to as the "Tariff of Abominations." Realizing that this was merely a
stepping-stone on the way to more measures of the same sort---both in
regard of tariffs and in respect of slavery---Vice President John Calhoun
wrote a lengthy essay, titled The South Carolina Exposition and Protest,
which was published anonymously by the South Carolina legislature. He then
arranged to have South Carolina's senior Senator, Robert Hayne, argue the
merits of the thesis presented in the essay on the floor of the Senate, as
a way of boosting interest and support from other small agricultural
states, and particularly from other parts of the South. As Vice President,
Calhoun was also President of the Senate, it meant that he would preside
over these debates and make sure that they were widely heard by their
intended audience. By spreading his manifesto now, he could call on the
support of these other states in some future crisis over tariffs or
slavery, thereby beating back these policies.

The thesis presented in the Exposition and Protest is as follows:
1. Prior to 1787, the states had been sovereign nations;
2. In ratifying the Constitution in 1787/90, they had not surrendered their
sovereignty, but rather had formed a compact among themselves, creating a
new federal level of government which would be their agent with limited
powers.
3. The Supreme Court, like all the rest of the federal government, is
subordinate to the states. Hence it has no right to determine what powers
have or have not been surrendered by the states as a part of the compact.
This power is retained by the states themselves.
4. This power can be exercised by means of enacting a state law to block
enforcement of any federal law that a state legislature judges to be in
violation of the Constitution.
In order to make this work in practice, the Exposition and Protest lays out
a plan of action. The legislature would order the election of a state
convention, which would determine whether the federal act in question was
unconstitutional. At this point, the federal government could either accept
the judgment of the people, or it could attempt to gain a constitutional
amendment to permit the action that had been nullified.

This, of course, was a formalization of the nullification doctrine that
Madison had presented in the Virginia Resolutions and that Jefferson had
presented in the Kentucky Resolutions back in the 1790s, when the Sedition
Act had been in force. Although it seems to be a radical proposal from our
perspective, nullification was actually regarded by Calhoun as a moderate
alternative to the other solution that he could imagine as a response to
federal tyranny: secession. If secession represents an act of revolution
against a tyrannical central government, nullification represented a
practical, limited and systematic method of flouting or disobeying a single
tyrannical law without actually engaging in full-fledged revolution.

The debate over the nullification doctrine presented by Hayne in the Senate
was one of the most dramatic in its history. Daniel Webster, the Senator
from Massachusetts, led the attack against the doctrine, arguing in
Hamiltonian tones that the United States was a single unit with a single
destiny, and that the states were and should be subordinate entities within
that single destiny.

In 1832, the crisis that Calhoun had been anticipating finally took place.
A new tariff act was put in place. It actually lowered tariffs somewhat
from the level of the "Tariff of Abominations," but the South had been
hoping for much more. Therefore Calhoun openly announced that he was the
author of the Exposition and Protest, and resigned the Vice-Presidency to
become a Senator from South Carolina. At the same time, in a coordinated
move, Hayne resigned as Senator to become the governor of South Carolina.
The South Carolina legislature then began to follow the procedures outlined
in the Exposition and Protest: In October it called a convention that met
in November and declared the tariffs to be unconstitutional. Both the new
tariff and the earlier Tariff of Abominations were declared by the
Convention to be nullified, and therefore to be of no force or effect,
effective a few months hence, in early 1833. Moreover, penalties were put
in place for any state or federal officer attempting to enforce the tariff
laws in violation of this act of nullification. And for good measure, it
was declared that any attempt to coerce South Carolina into paying the
tariffs would lead to the secession of the state.

President Jackson reacted by sending warships to the harbour at Charleston
(the main South Carolina port) and by declaring that he would himself lead
an army to the state, in order to force it to comply with the tariff laws.
It is worth repeating that Jackson was no lover of high tariffs or of the
American system. He took these drastic measures because he was concerned
that South Carolina's action could lead to a sort of domino effect causing
the breakup of the Union.

The crisis was settled through the leadership of Henry Clay in the Senate.
There, the "Great Pacificator", as he was known, proposed a two-pronged
solution. On one hand, a force bill would be enacted, giving the President
the means that he required to put down any state effort to nullify federal
laws. On the other, the 1832 tariff would be replaced by a new tariff law,
that would gradually lower tariff rates over the next eight years. Perhaps
a more significant consequence of these actions in the Senate was the fact
that by involving all of the states in the efforts to find a compromise, he
prevented any others from following South Carolina's example. Presumably
Jackson's vociferous reaction also had its effect: Very few states would
have wanted to face down an army led by the formidable ex-general.

Due to the Senate's compromise solution, South Carolina was provided with
the means to submit to federal tariff enforcement without actually having
to rescind its nullification of the earlier tariff acts, or to renounce the
doctrine of nullification. In fact, the state legislature was able to
maintain sufficient defiance to declare that it was nullifying the Force
Bill.

The Second Bank of the United States and the Panic of 1837:
The banking crisis that took place during Jackson's administration is often
presented as an example of his lack of economic sophistication and as a
warning of what can happen when the management of the economy is removed
from the hands of experts and taken over by the foolish advocates of
laissez faire. In fact, the opposite is true. Shortly after Jackson left
office, there was a financial panic, characterized by a sudden dramatic
shortage of credit and the failure of many enterprises, including banks and
several state governments.

This was the result of excessive Hamilton-style government-led or
government-subsidized investment in infrastructure (mostly roads and
canals). Much of this was overvalued and had very little real economic
value. When this real value (or lack thereof) was revealed, its nominal
value dropped to more realistic levels, and much paper wealth simply
vanished. Jackson is blamed for having caused the contraction in the money
supply that led to this crisis, which he did. In July 1836, he issued a
"specie circular", stating that henceforth, the United States land office
would accept only specie (in other words, silver or gold) in payment for
public lands. This had the effect of greatly curtailing land speculation,
and as a result land prices in general dropped to more realistic levels.
But land was being used to secure loans, and so the specie circular led to
a general contraction in the money supply.

What Jackson did not do was to give any support at all to the initial
misinvestments. That was the work of Henry Clay, J.Q. Adams, Daniel
Webster, and the other advocates of the "American System," at both the
federal and state level. It is at their door that the blame for the Panic
of 1837 should be laid.

Another event that took place at this time was the complete termination of
the indebtedness of the United States government. For the first and only
time in its history, the government paid off its entire debt. It now had an
annual surplus of $40 million and nothing to spend it on, so it made the
decision to hand over the money to the states in the form of a subsidy. The
logical thing to do would in fact have been to reduce tariffs, since the
revenue was no longer needed. But this would have put an end to the
"American System", and so there was insufficient Congressional support for
the option. Federal subsidies of state governments, however, fit nicely
into the American System, and immediately caused many state governments to
engage in a rash of poorly-conceived capital improvements. When the surplus
suddenly dried up following the Panic of 1837, these states found
themselves incapable of keeping up with their new obligations, and they
were forced to default on their bond obligations (in other words, to go
bankrupt).

Entirely separate from this, but normally treated as if it were a part of
the same crisis, was a political battle over the Second Bank of the United
States. In the early 19th Century, the modern concept of a state-run
government-owned central bank did not yet exist in the English-speaking
world. Yet every government, like any large enterprise, needed to use
banking services. When taxes were paid, they had to be deposited somewhere,
and when government cheques were issued, there had to be some institution
holding the funds that would be used in order to honour those cheques. So
what was typically done was that a single very large private bank would
receive a charter from the government (a charter simply being a licence
authorizing the bank to carry out its business), and would enjoy a monopoly
on the government's transactions. Naturally, this was a guarantee of a very
profitable business, so the shareholders invariably enjoyed monopoly
profits and the public paid the price for this through their taxes. In
typical mercantilist fashion, wealth was transferred from the public as a
whole to a class of well-connected individuals.

Alexander Hamilton had established a Bank of the United States, and upon
the expiry of its charter, a second Bank of the United States had also been
established. It carried out a very large number of private banking
transactions in addition to its government business. Indeed, the profits
from its government business were the basis on which it made a very large
series of rather unwise loans, which would eventually drive it out of
business.

One consequence of the bank's close connection to the government was that
it needed to stay in the good graces of the politicians in order to stay in
business. As a result, it was always ready with money for loans to key
Senators and other political figures on easy terms, or to direct loans to
pet enterprises of the politicians. As well, a certain number of outright
bribes took place. The great Daniel Webster, for example, was a borrower
and was also legal counsel to the bank. Apparently his retainer was paid
whenever he issued a veiled threat to the bank, as this excerpt from a
letter to Bank president Nicholas Biddle makes clear: "I believe my
retainer has not been renewed or refreshed as usual. If it be wished that
my relation to the Bank should be continued, it may be well to send me the
usual retainer."4

The Bank's charter was due to expire in 1836, but as early as 1829
President Jackson made it clear that he would veto any bill to issue a new
charter for the bank. So in 1832, anticipating a long struggle, the Bank
made an application for a new charter. The legislation renewing the charter
was duly enacted by both houses of Congress, but Jackson vetoed the law,
describing the bank as an unconstitutional entity and a monopoly designed
to help the rich. The veto became the major issue in the 1832 election,
when Jackson soundly trounced Henry Clay.

Following the election, Nicholas Biddle began to campaign openly against
the president, so Jackson reacted by withdrawing federal funds from the
Bank. He did this by paying government obligations out of federal funds
held by the Bank, while depositing new federal moneys in an assortment of
89 other banks. His opponents accused him of favouritism and referred to
these 89 banks as his "pet banks." Many of them proved to be unstable and
went out of business during the Panic of 1837. On the other hand, the Bank
of the United States, armed with a state charter from the Pennsylvania
legislature, was equally unstable, and went out of business in 1841.

One view of the Jacksonian banking reforms is summarized nicely in this
quotation from historian Jeffrey Rogers Hummel:

     Although traditional historians have subjected this era of
     unregulated banking to trumped-up charges of financial
     instability, many economists are coming to agree that it was
     probably the best monetary system the United States has ever had.
     The alleged excesses of the fraudulent, insolvent or hightly
     speculative "wildcat" banks were highly exaggerated. Total losses
     that bank note holders suffered throughout the entire antebellum
     period in all states that enacted free-banking laws would not
     equal the losses for one year from today's rate of inflation (2
     percent), if superimposed onto the economy of 1860. Moreover,
     most of these losses resulted from too much regulation, not too
     little. Lingering at the state level were prohibitions on branch
     banking, mandates for minimum specie reserves, restrictions on the
     issue of small-denomination bank notes, and requirements that
     banks purchase state bonds, which at this time were among the
     most dubious investments. The banks were also vulnerable to
     international flows of specie, especially as orchestrated by the
     British government's Bank of England, and so the country suffered
     major bank runs in 1837 and 1857. But no monetary system is
     perfect. By any objective comparison this one was relatively
     stable and crisis free.5

The Trail of Tears:
No American president is more hated by the Indians than Andrew Jackson. His
defeat of the Creeks in 1812 was followed by a series of one-sided treaties
in which he forced the Indians to agree to surrender most of their land in
what is now Alabama and Mississippi. Jackson is also responsible for the
prosecution of the Seminole Wars, in which he simply invaded Florida on his
own authority and then, following annexation, forced the Seminole Indians
to disarm. This ended the use of Florida as a haven for escaped slaves.

As president, Jackson made the decision to move the Indians to the western
side of the Mississippi River, where they would be permitted to retain the
lands of the "Great American Desert" permanently. Indian tribes were
induced to sign treaties giving up their lands in the eastern states in
exchange for lands in the trans-Mississippi. In a series of removals, they
were evacuated and marched west. Much property and wealth, of course, had
to be abandoned, as many of these tribes were farmers and in some cases
even slaveholders. They could take with them only as much as they could
carry in their wagons. Many died (particularly the elderly and the very
young) in transit. This is probably the worst mass abuse of human rights in
American history, with the sole exception of slavery itself.

Nonetheless, the issue is not as simple as it first appears. Jackson seems
to have genuinely believed that he was doing the right thing for the
Indians, since it seemed to be the case that the lands across the
Mississippi would never be coveted by Whites. Therefore the Indians would
be assured a homeland that would never again be stolen from them. Certainly
it is the case that the lands were being stolen, on a piecemeal basis, even
before Jackson embarked on his policy of removal. Although the treaties
justifying the removals were induced, and this is inexcusable, there was
not a solid wall of opposition by all Indians to the removal policy. Some
agreed with Jackson's logic, and felt that they really would be better off
in a land not coveted by Whites, and thus participated as genuine
negotiators in the treaty process. And most importantly of all, much of the
White opposition to Jackson's policy was hypocritical, in that it sounded
fine on paper, but in practice amounted to a self-conscious wringing of
hands, in the sure knowledge that the removals would take place anyway. The
most notable example of this was Chief Justice John Marshall's decision
regarding the Cherokees, which appeared to defend their rights, but which
was so constructed as to be unenforceable. One Cherokee chief actually made
the decision to participate voluntarily in the removals when he saw that
the Chief Justice intended only to issue fine-sounding words, and not to
actually take any real action.

A final note with respect to Jackson's personal sentiments. There can be no
doubt that he, like most other slave-owners of the period, held views on
race that today would be regarded as scandalous. His views on Blacks were
as unenlightened as those of any of his contemporaries. His views on the
Indians as a race (as opposed to his views on them as an impediment to the
expansion and greater glory of the United States) are unclear. During the
War of 1812, he had rescued an Indian boy that his own troops had orphaned,
and adopted him. So it appears that such prejudices as he had were directed
at Indian culture rather than at the Indian race, which he did not seem to
regard as being genetically inferior.

MINOR JACKSONIAN TRENDS

Andrew Jackson proved to be such a popular candidate in the three elections
that he contested that ever since his day, leading political parties have
consistently tried, whenever possible, to replicate his success by
nominating ex-generals as their presidential candidates:
     

Ex-general             What War Made       Elections               Party            Did he win
                              him famous?                                                              the election?

William Harrison    War of 1821            1836; 1840            Whig              No; Yes
         
Zachary Taylor      Mexican War              1848                   Whig              Yes
                              
Lewis Cass           War of 1812                1848                   Democrat       No
         
Franklin Pierce      Mexican War               1852                   Democrat       Yes

Winfield Scott       Mexican War               1852                   Whig              No

George McClellan     Civil War                 1864                   Democrat       No

Ulysses S. Grant       Civil War               1868; 1872           Republican      Yes; Yes

Rutherford Hayes     Civil War                  1876                   Republican      Yes

James  Garfield        Civil War                   1880                   Republican      Yes

D. Eisenhower         WW II                   1952; 1956            Republican       Yes; Yes

In general, this strategy has been a success. Of the thirteen presidential
candidacies noted above, nine have led to the White House, and in two of
the four cases of failure (1848 and 1852) it was inevitable that a general
would lose, given that more than one party had fielded a general as its
candidate.

Another, less happy "first" for Jackson is the fact that he was the first
president to be the target of an assassination attempt. The assailant used
old-fashioned pistols, which misfired, and Jackson was able to beat him off
unassisted. However, the trend toward violence against presidents and
candidates for the presidency has continued since that date:

                                      
    President or                    Year            Was the attempt
     candidate                                           successful?
           
  Abraham Lincoln             1865                 Yes
  James Garfield                 1881                 Yes
  William McKinley            1901                 Yes
  Theodore Roosevelt         1912                 No
  Franklin Roosevelt           1933                 No 6
  Harry S Truman               1948                 No
  John F. Kennedy             1963                 Yes
  Robert Kennedy              1968                 Yes
  George Wallace               1972                 No
  Gerald Ford              (twice) 1977            No
  Ronald Reagan                1981                 No


---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Suggested Readings:

Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1997, pp. 271-298, 425-435.
Pages 271-298 deal with Andrew Jackson. Pages 425-435 discuss the Indians.

Aaron, Daniel, Richard Hofstadter, and William Miller, The United States.
Third edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1972. (pp.
240-289)
A solid, factual account of the period, and a good supplement to Johnson's
livelier but more opinionated version.

Bancroft, George. "The Office of the People," in Bernard Brown (ed.), Great
American Political Thinkers. New York: Avon Books, 1983, pp. 413-420.
Bancroft was one of Jackson's intellectual supporters. In this essay,
published at the height of the Jackson era, he defends democracy from the
same perspective that Jackson himself would have used.

Billington, R.A., B.J. Loewenberg, and S.H. Brockunier, The Making of
American Democracy: Readings and Documents. Volume 1. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1960. The following documents are of interest:
Chapter VIII, Documents #1, #6-24.
Original documents from the period, and brief analytical essays from the
classic historiography of the period.

Commager, Henry Steele (ed.). Documents of American History, Seventh
edition, vol. I. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1963. The following
original documents are of interest: #124 (speech of Chancellor Kent to the
New York Constitutional Assembly, 1821, condemning universal suffrage),
#128 (Tennessee legislature's protest against the caucus system of
presidential nomination), #130 (John Q. Adams' message to Congress, 1825,
outlining his neo-Federalist vision of the country), #135, 143-146
(documents relating to the South Carolina Nullification crisis), #138
(Andrew Jackson's veto of the Maysville Road Bill, 1830), #139 (the speech
in which the phrase "the spoils of power" originates), #140-142 (court
decisions relating to the forced removal of the Cherokees from Georgia),
#147, 148, 153, 154 (documents relating to the battle over the Bank of the
United States and the Panic of 1837), #304 (President Arthur's comments on
the "Indian problem", 1881), #315 (the Dawes Act, 1887).
Original documents from the period.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Excerpts from "Politics," in Bernard Brown (ed.),
Great American Political Thinkers, vol. II. New York: Avon, 1983, pp.
133-145.
The greatest intellectual of the Jacksonian era and the entire antebellum
period, Emerson here expresses his views on republican and popular
self-government.

Farrand, Max. The Development of the United States from Colonies to a World
Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918. (Pages 176-187 only, which describe
the default of the states in 1837.)
An account of the fiscal crisis of 1837 and its impact on state finances.

Jackson, Andrew. "Farewell Address," in Bernard Brown (ed.), Great American
Political Thinkers. New York: Avon Books, 1983, pp. 400-412.
This speech nicely summarizes Jackson's political philosophy, particularly
with regard to small government, decentralization, and his battle with the
Bank of the United States.

Merrill, Dennis and Thomas Paterson, Problems in American Foreign Policy.
Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1995. (Chapter VII on dealings with
the Indians).
Each chapter includes both original documents and quotes from key essays in
the historiography of the relevant period.

Nies, Judith. Native American History. New York: Random House, 1996.
A strict chronology of highlight events is used, in order to relate the
many stories of the various different Indian nations with as great a level
of precision as is possible, given the disparate subject-matter.

Ostrogorski, Moisei. Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties.
Two volumes, 1902.
Although this book is now over ninety years old, it is the best account of
the operation of modern political parties from the age of Jackson onwards.

de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Numerous editions.
This book, written by a visiting French aristocrat during the Jacksonian
era, is considered by most Americans to be the most insightful study ever
written of American mass society and of the unique forms taken by American
representative democracy.

Zetterbaum, Marvin. "Alexis de Tocqueville," in Leo Strauss and Joseph
Cropsey (eds.), History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1981, pp. 715-736.
An introduction to the classic analysis of American society and politics in
the age of Jackson.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

1. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, p. 23.

2. This story originates with Harriet Martineau and is repeated by Johnson
in A History of the American People, p. 278.

3. This quote was made in a speech by William Marcy, recorded in Niles'
Register on September 8, 1832, and was intended as a defence of Andrew
Jackson's appointment of Martin van Buren as Minister to England. It is
reprintedin Commager, Henry Steele (ed.). Documents of American History,
Seventh edition, vol. I. New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1963, p. 255.
The italics and capitalizations are in the original.

4. Webster is quoted in Blum, Catton, Morgan, Schlesinger, Stampp and
Woodward, The National Experience: A History of the United States. New
York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963, p. 227. Italics in the original.

5. Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men: A History
of the American Civil War. Chicago: Open Court, 1996, p. 224.

6. Roosevelt was unharmed, but the mayor of Miami, who was sitting beside
him, was shot and killed.


----------------------------------------------------------------