“Jackson himself was fiercely committed to democracy. And by democracy he meant majoritarian rule” (“Andrew Jackson: Man of the People?” 30). This statement summarized what President Jackson represented. He packaged himself as a champion for the people whom he believed deserved a larger voice in government. Even though he professed democracy, the question remains whether he really functioned as a democratic or autocratic leader. As shown by the quote, he confused democracy with majoritarianism, also known as mob rule. One would expect a heavily democratic leader to abide by the rules of government that had already been set up, but Jackson was very much in contrast, ignoring the system of checks and balances and amplifying his own power. During Jackson’s presidency, he faced many challenges such as the Bank war, the nullification crisis, and the removal of Indian tribes from their homes. Based on Jackson’s actions concerning these issues, Jackson was more of an autocratic leader than a democratic leader.

Jackson functioned as an autocratic president during the Bank war because he abused the power of the veto by not using it for its traditional use regarding unconstitutionality, but for personal disagreement. Jackson distrusted big banks, especially the Bank of the United States (BUS or Bank). To Jackson, the Bank was a means for the rich to get wealthier. For example, legislators and other associates of Nicholas Biddle, president of the BUS, were lent U.S. funds. Even with this unwise practice, the Bank, with its financial soundness, performed several important functions such as reduced bank failures, issued sound notes, promoted economic expansion by providing abundant credit, and was a safe depository for federal funds. With Jackson’s opposition to the BUS and an upcoming election, Henry Clay made this an issue by promoting the re-chartering of the BUS four years early. This was a gimmick to decrease Jackson’s popularity, because if he signed it Clay felt he would lose his “common man” followers of the West and South; whereas if he vetoed it, he would lose the support of the wealthy in the East. After the easy passage of the re-charter bill through Congress, Jackson vetoed it because he thought that the Bank was unconstitutional. He did this despite the U.S. Supreme’s Court’s ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) that the Bank was constitutional. One may ask whether Jackson has the authority to decide the constitutionality of any issue. According to Daniel Webster, “The President may say a law is unconstitutional, but he is not the judge…The judiciary alone possesses this unquestionable and hitherto unquestioned right” (“Daniel Webster’s Reply, July 11, 1832” 38). Authors Bailey, Kennedy, and Cohen state that Jackson’s veto “not only squashed the bank bill but vastly amplified the power of the presidency“ (276). In addition, these authors state that:

“He essentially argued that he was vetoing the bill because he personally found it harmful to the nation. In effect, he was claiming for the president alone a power equivalent to two-thirds of the votes in Congress. If the legislative and executive branches were partners…he implied, the president was unmistakably the senior partner.” (Bailey 276-277)

Thus, Jackson’s veto of this bill clearly demonstrated that he was an autocratic president because he ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s prior ruling of the Bank’s constitutionality, but also by not considering the bill’s easy passage through Congress. After his 1832 reelection, Jackson “decided to kill the Second National Bank.” He did this by taking over a responsibility that the secretary of the treasury was only authorized to do, removing federal deposits (“Andrew Jackson: Man of the People?” 37-38). After his treasury secretary refused to remove the deposits, Jackson fired him.

“There was some question whether the president had this authority. … the cabinet positions were created by Congress and appointment required the consent of the Senate. Did that not imply that removal also required senatorial consent—particularly the treasury secretary, since he handled public funds?” (“Andrew Jackson: Man of the People?” 38)

By firing and replacing his treasury secretary with someone who would be his puppet, Jackson once again acted as an autocratic president by acting without approval from the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. Furthermore, according to Benjamin Rader, Jackson’s issues with the BUS were not significant issues for the common man. Rader, for instance, writes, “For most voters…other social issues were more paramount than the Bank issue” (44). Therefore, Jackson’s actions regarding the Bank demonstrate that he was an autocratic president by functioning independently of the voices of not only the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, but also operating outside of the voice of the common man, of which the Bank was no pressing issue.

P.S.-The Works Cited for this will be located in the last installment of Andrew Jackson: Autocrat or Democrat?