Andrew Jackson: Federal Law Breaker Or Maverick?

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, was a controversial figure who left a lasting impact on the country's history. One of the most consequential presidents, Jackson's actions as president were guided by his belief in states' rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. However, he also made several decisions that contradicted the law and raised questions about the limits of executive power. Jackson's most notable break from federal law was his implementation of the Indian Removal Act, which authorised the forced relocation of Native American tribes from their lands east of the Mississippi River. This act directly contradicted existing treaties and Supreme Court rulings upholding tribal sovereignty. Jackson also attempted to suppress freedom of speech and the press during the War of 1812, declaring martial law in New Orleans and trying to prevent the publication of a peace treaty. Additionally, he supported censorship of anti-slavery literature, going against the First Amendment. In terms of economic policy, Jackson's Bank War against the Second Bank of the United States led to the removal of federal deposits from the bank, despite Congress's intent and the Treasury Secretary's refusal to comply. This action was deemed unconstitutional and led to Jackson being censured by the Senate, although the censure was later repealed.

Andrew Jackson's censorship of mail containing anti-slavery literature

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, was a slave owner and defender of the institution of slavery. During his presidency, he opposed and attempted to censor the distribution of anti-slavery literature through the mail.

In the summer of 1835, anti-slavery forces organised a campaign to distribute propaganda tracts through the mails to the South. This action was met with resistance from Southern state legislatures, who passed laws to prevent the entry of such "incendiary literature". Many Southern postmasters refused to deliver abolitionist mail, and in some cases, mobs formed to seize the literature.

In his 1835 annual message to Congress, Jackson expressed concern about the distribution of anti-slavery literature, stating that it caused "painful excitement" in the South. He recommended that Congress prohibit the circulation of such literature, arguing that it was "inflammatory" and "repugnant to the principles of our national compact and to the dictates of humanity and religion".

Despite Jackson's recommendation, Congress did not adopt legislation to censor the mail. However, postmasters appointed by Jackson often acted as censors, preventing the delivery of abolitionist mail. This action was not limited to the South, as similar incidents occurred in other parts of the country.

Jackson's stance on censorship was influenced by his belief in maintaining sectional calm and preserving the Union. He viewed the growing slavery controversy as artificial and political, believing that both abolitionists and Southern extremists were seeking to divide the Union for their own gain. Jackson's administration sought to placate Southern worries while resisting extreme pro-slavery demands.

While Jackson denounced the "spirit of mob-law" evident in incidents like the Charleston riot, he did not support the complete interdiction of abolitionist mailings. He suggested that the papers should only be delivered to "really subscribers" and that their names should be recorded and exposed in public newspapers.

The controversy over the mails became a significant issue when Congress convened in December 1835, leading to a heated debate in the Senate. Despite Jackson's proposal, Congress failed to adopt his recommendation, and the controversy eventually subsided as Southern states quietly nullified federal law without resorting to federal legislation.

In addition to his censorship of the mail, Jackson's administration also adopted "gag rules" to suppress discussion of anti-slavery petitions in Congress. These rules were strongly opposed by John Quincy Adams and other northern Whigs, who argued that they violated freedom of the press.

His suppression of Native American sovereignty

Andrew Jackson's suppression of Native American sovereignty was a key feature of his presidency. Jackson's actions in this area were underpinned by his belief that Native American civilisations were inferior to those of white Americans, and that the survival of Native tribes depended on their assimilation or removal to the west. Jackson's views on the sovereignty of Native Americans were clear: he did not believe that they could constitute sovereign states, as this would violate the Constitution. Instead, he saw them as "wards of the government and tenants-at-will".

Jackson's suppression of Native American sovereignty was most clearly demonstrated through his signing of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This Act authorised the President to negotiate removal treaties with Native tribes living east of the Mississippi River, with the goal of removing all Native Americans living in existing states and territories and sending them to unsettled land in the west. Jackson himself stated that removal would "incalculably strengthen the southwestern frontier". By the end of his presidency, Jackson had negotiated almost 70 removal treaties, resulting in the relocation of nearly 50,000 eastern Native Americans to what later became eastern Oklahoma.

Jackson's suppression of Native sovereignty was also evident in his refusal to abide by Supreme Court rulings on the matter. In 1831, the Supreme Court upheld the Cherokee Nation's independence from state authority in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. The following year, the Court further affirmed the sovereignty of Native tribes in Worcester v. Georgia. However, Jackson refused to heed these rulings, instead signing the Treaty of New Echota with a faction of the Cherokee in 1835. The majority of the Cherokee rejected the treaty, but they were ultimately forced to comply under the threat of federal troops and Georgia state militia. This forced relocation became known as the Trail of Tears, with approximately 4,000 out of 16,000 Cherokees dying en route.

In addition to his support for the Indian Removal Act and his disregard for Supreme Court rulings, Jackson also suppressed Native sovereignty through his encouragement of the destruction of Native presses. Jackson's followers destroyed the press of The Cherokee Phoenix, a newspaper that expressed opposition to Jackson's Indian Removal policies. Jackson also supported the censorship of anti-slavery literature, which was often distributed to southern clergy and officials by mail.

Overall, Jackson's suppression of Native American sovereignty was a central aspect of his presidency and had devastating consequences for Native tribes, particularly the Cherokee.

Jackson's 'spoils system' of partisan manipulation

Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, is known for his extension of patronage, known as the "spoils system." This system involved rewarding supporters with governmental jobs, which, while making the government more politically responsive, also bred corruption and inefficiency.

Jackson's spoils system was a form of partisan manipulation, where he used governmental appointments as a tool to reward his supporters and exclude his opponents. Jackson initiated sweeping removals of high-ranking government officials, including Washington bureau chiefs, land and customs officers, federal marshals, and attorneys. He justified these removals as a way to purge corruption and restore opportunities for government service to the citizenry through "rotation in office." However, his haste and gullibility confused his purpose, and many offices were given out as rewards for political services.

Newspaper editors who had supported Jackson's cause received special favour, and some of his appointees were unsavoury characters. One of his most appalling appointees was Samuel Swartwout, an old army comrade who Jackson made the collector of the New York City customhouse, despite advice against it. In 1838, Swartwout absconded with over $1 million, an enormous sum at the time. Jackson denied that his appointments were politically motivated, claiming that honesty and efficiency were his only goals. However, he accepted an officeholder's support for his opponent, John Adams, as evidence of unfitness and relied exclusively on recommendations from his partisans for replacements.

Jackson's spoils system was defended by New York Senator William L. Marcy, who, in 1832, proclaimed that "to the victor belong the spoils of the enemy." While Jackson himself was never so candid, his actions created a system of partisan manipulation of patronage. This system, while not his conscious intention, was a result of his policies.

The spoils system, also known as a patronage system, was a practice where a political party rewarded its supporters, friends, and relatives with government jobs after winning an election. It contrasted with a merit system, where appointments were based on qualifications and merit rather than political affiliation. The spoils system was introduced to U.S. politics during the administration of George Washington and continued until the Pendleton Act was passed in 1883 due to civil service reform movements. While Jackson is often associated with the spoils system, it existed before his presidency and continued to evolve after him.

His veto of the Maysville Road bill

In 1830, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the Maysville Road bill, which would have allowed the federal government to purchase stock for the creation of a road entirely within Kentucky, the home state of his longtime foe Henry Clay. Jackson considered the project a local matter and believed that funding for it should come from local sources. This veto marked a shift in how the federal government intended to pay for internal improvements.

Jackson's veto message to the House of Representatives began with an expression of his support for improving the country through roads and canals. He acknowledged the diversity of opinions on the mode of contributing to this cause and emphasised the importance of the subject, as well as his respect for the House. Jackson then discussed the constitutional power of Congress to appropriate funds for internal improvements, presenting two points of view. The first point concerned the sovereignty of states, and Jackson argued that the federal government did not have the power to construct or promote works of internal improvement within state limits. The second point acknowledged the right of Congress to appropriate money from the National Treasury to aid in such works when undertaken by state authority.

Jackson's veto message also addressed the history of appropriations for internal improvements, including the Cumberland Road and the Louisiana Purchase under President Jefferson, as well as President Madison's support for constructing roads and canals within state limits. He noted that previous administrations had recognised and exercised the appropriating power for internal improvements. However, Jackson believed that the federal government should not be involved in a system of internal improvements without a prior amendment to the Constitution. He argued that the right to exercise jurisdiction and raise funds through tolls was necessary for the preservation of such works. He used the Cumberland Road as an example, highlighting the difficulties in obtaining necessary appropriations due to fluctuations in Congressional opinion.

Jackson concluded his veto message by emphasising the need for a constitutional adjustment of the power to appropriate funds for internal improvements. He suggested that the occasion, manner, and extent of appropriations should be made the subject of constitutional regulation to ensure equity among the states and harmony between different sections of the Union. He expressed his belief that a well-regulated system of internal improvement was preferable to a continuance of the national debt or a resort to additional taxes.

Jackson's opposition to the Second Bank of the United States

Andrew Jackson's opposition to the Second Bank of the United States (B.U.S.) was a significant aspect of his presidency and had a lasting impact on the country's banking system. Jackson believed that the B.U.S., established in 1816 as a private organisation with a 20-year charter, posed a threat to the country's economy and individual liberty. Here is a detailed overview of Jackson's opposition to the Second Bank:

Jackson's Distrust of Banks and the B.U.S.

Jackson had a general distrust of banks, stemming from a personal land deal that had gone sour decades earlier. In this deal, Jackson accepted paper notes as payment, but when the buyers went bankrupt, the paper became worthless, and Jackson nearly faced financial ruin. As a result, he believed that only gold or silver coins were acceptable for transactions and distrusted paper currency and credit, which were integral to banking practices. Jackson also held a strong belief that if any government institution became too powerful, it would threaten states' rights and individual liberty.

Jackson's Philosophy and the B.U.S.

Jackson viewed the B.U.S. as an institution that put too much power in the hands of a few wealthy private citizens, many of whom were foreign investors. He argued that the B.U.S. created artificial distinctions and granted exclusive privileges to the rich and powerful, while the humble members of society - the farmers, mechanics, and labourers - had a right to complain about the injustice of their government. Jackson's philosophy pitted the plain republican and the real people against the powerful financial institution, which he saw as a monster bank.

Jackson's Actions Against the B.U.S.

Jackson's opposition to the B.U.S. was not just philosophical but also resulted in concrete actions. In 1832, he vetoed a bill to re-charter the B.U.S., which had been passed by Congress. This veto was a significant moment in his presidency and demonstrated his commitment to challenging the power of the bank. Additionally, Jackson ordered the removal of federal deposits from the B.U.S. and placed them in state-chartered banks, despite heavy criticism from members of his administration. This action weakened the B.U.S. and reduced its ability to influence the nation's currency and credit.

The Impact of Jackson's Opposition

Jackson's opposition to the B.U.S. ultimately led to the shutdown of the bank and its replacement by state banks. The B.U.S. ceased to exist after its charter expired in 1836, and Jackson's actions contributed to a shift towards a decentralised banking system. However, Jackson's economic policies, including his opposition to the B.U.S., have been blamed for contributing to the Panic of 1837, a major financial crisis.

Frequently asked questions