Andrew Jackson
Essay Preview: Andrew Jackson
Report this essay
When Andrew Jackson decided to make his veto message regarding the Bank of The United States on July 10, 1832 one thing was on his mind: killing the Bank of The United States forever!! This one event was the fuel Jackson used for his reconstruction of the U.S. It all started to unravel during his election of 1828. Several different “sects” within the different states were teaming up with one another to form a coalition of discontent for the President and his reconstruction. Like Thomas Jefferson before him, Andrew Jackson was a tried-and-true defender of American freedom committed to nothing so much as breaking the knot of political corruption and restoring integrity to republican institutions.
With the shattering and affirming dimensions of presidential action so well coordinated in his initial claim to legitimacy, Jacksons invoking of original understandings bore the makings of an entirely new government and politics. This dependent authority to disclaim would prove to be Jacksons most remarkable leadership resource. Yet, Jackson did not simply repeat Jeffersons performance, the essential elements of their shared leadership posture being reshaped by the worldly changes that intervened between their presidencies. Jacksons early course of action suggests that he would have liked nothing more than to have led in the expansive manner of Jefferson.
Reasons for this difference between these two reconstructions are not difficult to separate since both witnessed dramatic changes in both state and society. It is here-with an acknowledging authority bearing down on a more forceful set of institutions and a more complicated policy- that the two faces of Andrew Jackson merge into one. In this final analysis there is no choosing between the old Whig myth of Jackson “the tyrant who disregarded executive powers and ran steadfast into more extreme and irrational policies” and the old Democratic myth of Jackson “the Liberator”. The battles Jackson fought in the name of the “common man” were driven by his own unquenchable thirst for personal justification.
From the moment he took office, Jacksons effort to control the meaning of his place in history provoked incisive, inclined battles over political commitments and governmental design. As the President stiffened his undeniable posture in response to ever more formidable resistance, each confrontation deepened the stakes of sustaining his actions. Jacksons reconstruction is quite unique in American history because it transformed the mores of American government as dramatically as it changed basic governmental commitments. For these accomplishments, each of the incumbents that followed Jackson would be dubbed with more arduous resources for independent action, more power than their counterparts had in previous eras.
Jacksons first annual message to Congress redeemed the promise of his election with a forthright plunge on intrigue and detachment. With this biting implication of the Washington establishment, Jackson stepped out in front of the regional leaders who had arranged his election and asserted himself as the voice of opposition as a whole. Beyond that, his initial assault into reform was most notable for its moderation. Jacksons deepest assaults on the old order reflected his experience in the election of 1824 and the problems he now faces in staffing his branch with his own loyalists. In the rest of his message, where he dealt more directly with the issues of material interest, the President indicated the enthusiasm to incorporate a good deal of the old order within his reform project.
In all, Jacksons message sketched an update to a new consensus, while attacking recent practice on virtually all fronts; he did not threaten any abrupt reversal of course. He offered instead to accept the general shape of the commercial republic bestowed upon him by his predecessors- such as protective tariffs, internal improvements, national banking, and a national judicial system. A struggle had been going on within the Jackson administration almost from the moment Jackson announced his cabinet members. V.P. Calhoun and Secretary of State Van Buren, equal partners in forging the Jackson coalition, were facing off against each other for influence over the expansion of the new privilege and ultimately for the favor of succession. As secret author of South Carolinas tariff protest, Calhoun simply could not reconcile the Presidents self-control with the radical resistance of tariff policy.
The break between Calhoun and Jackson is especially helpful in showing how the noble mode of governance was shifted and a new one less dependent on personal respect formed in its stead. Distrusting his V.P.s loyalties every bit as much as his vice president distrusted his, Jackson