Introduction:
In July 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued his remarkable veto message following the decision of Congress to recharter the Second Bank of the U.S. This incident occurred in a broader controversy over the function of the Bank in American politics and at the societal and economic level (Corbett et al., 2014, p. 518). Jackson’s presidency (1829 – 1837) was linked to his populist rejection of bank power and belief in individual states’ rights. The message of the veto is an alert, which provides good insight into Jackson’s ardent hostility to the Bank, his arguments against its constitutionality, and his attempts to convince the American people. This essay will explore the historical background of Jackson’s veto message, particularly his arguments against the Bank, rhetorical devices, and views about the Constitution.
Historical Background:
The Second Bank of the United States was established in 1816 when the charter of the First Bank was finally expiring in 1811. Initially set up to maintain the stability of the currency and control credit, the Second Bank finally turned out to be a conflicting institution (Corbett et al., 2014, p. 520). They argued, however, that it was required for a system of economic equilibrium and efficiency. Conversely, with Jackson in their lead, the Jacksonians criticized the Bank as a center of excessive financial power and corruption. Jackson’s administration set a benchmark for the bank controversy. An avid supporter of populism and states’ rights, Andrew Jackson harbored deep suspicions of centralized banking and its possible negative influence on democratic principles. The Bank’s charter expiration date was set to fall in 1836, but its supporters called for its recharter early in 1832. Congress passed the renewing law, leading to nothing more for Jackson than to confront the veto.
Arguments Against the Bank:
One of the main points made by Jackson in his veto letter was his opposition to the Bank. He argued that the Bank’s existence infringed upon the constitutional principles. Jackson espoused a strict constructionism of the Constitution, asserting that it did not delegate Congress the power to charter a centripetal bank. He argued that the Constitution only spelled out the powers of the central government, and none included banking (Corbett et al., 2014, p. 522). This endorses Jackson’s idea that the states are sovereign and the federal government has constrained powers.
Another critical point of Jackson’s attack was that he considered that the Bank’s privileges and powers led it to have an unequal status in the nation’s economy and politics. He painted the Bank as a tool of the wealthy class, furthering their interests and often at the cost of ordinary citizens. Jackson emphasized that the problems of concentrated wealth, corruption, and partiality in the Bank’s operation were some of the major ones (Corbett et al., 2014, p. 522). He portrayed the Bank as contradictory in principle to democracy and the good of the people so that the public would side with him on his veto.
Persuasive Techniques:
Jackson adopted diverse stylistic approaches in his veto message to make his case. He used the appeal to the masses, portraying the Bank as a threat to the ordinary people’s economic prosperity. Jackson repeatedly appealed to the ideas of democracy and equality when he placed the Bank in the category of institutions serving only a few privileged people (Corbett et al., 2014, p. 518). In addition, Jackson concentrated on debunking the Bank’s supporters, whom he characterized as self-serving elites who loved their wealth more than the country’s welfare. Herein, the motive behind Jackson’s veto message was political and a tactical attempt to change public perception. He justified his opposition to the Bank as a protection of democracy and the voice of the ordinary citizen. Jackson portrayed himself as a champion of people’s faith against entrenched vested interests to legitimize his leadership and weaken the Bank’s supporters.
Constitutional Rationale:
Jackson opposed the Bank’s constitutionality based on his interpretation of which powers were enumerated in the Constitution. He said the Constitution gave Congress no power to open a national bank because that power was not enumerated in the Constitution. In contrast to the broad constructionist perspective of the Constitution adopted by Jackson, the latter upheld state autonomy and restraints of the federal power. By presenting the Bank as unconstitutional, Jackson strived to take its existence’s legitimacy and rally public support behind his veto (Corbett et al., 2014, p. 523).
Conclusion
The veto message of Andrew Jackson concerning the Bank of the United States indicates a critical point in forming American history, where the conflict between populist ideals and established economic concerns is demonstrated. The bank charter, Jackson’s peculiar ways of arguing against the Bank, his persuasive techniques, and his constitutional rationale support Jackson’s more comprehensive concept of American democracy. This hangover of conflict is, to a great extent, illustrated in debates as to the government’s role in regulating the economy and preserving democratic principles.
Reference
Corbett, P. S., Janssen, V., Lund, J. M., Pfannestiel, T., Waskiewicz, S., & Vickery, P. (2014, December 30). Ch. 1 Introduction – U.S. History | OpenStax.
write