## **Overview** #### **Andrew Jackson <> 1829-1837 (7th President)** - **Good:** - The French Spoliation Claims - {*1831-1836*} - (Long-standing diplomatic and legal issues involving American citizens’ property losses due to French naval actions in the 1790s. For context, during the Quasi-War, French privateers seized hundreds of American merchant ships and cargoes, many of these seizures occurred after 1793 when France claimed American ships were violating neutrality by trading with Britain. The U.S. and France signed the Treaty of Mortefontaine which ended hostilities but left the spoliation claims unresolved. In that treaty, the U.S. agreed to waive these citizens’ claims in exchange for ending the alliance and normalizing relations-so technically, the U.S. took on the responsibility to eventually compensate its own citizens for their losses. Jackson’s administration negotiated a treaty with France to resolve more recent commercial disputes and also included an agreement for France to pay $5 million for various American claims, including the old spoliation claims. The treaty was ratified, but then France delayed payment sparking tension. Jackson responded with a tough diplomatic stance, including the threat of reprisals in his 1835 message to Congress, which eventually pressured France to pay by 1836. It secured justice for American citizens who had suffered financial loss decades earlier, Jackson was firm and effective in pressing France to follow through on the agreement, it strengthened American diplomatic standing by showing we wouldn’t tolerate broken treaties or payment delays, but also risked reigniting tensions. Overall it was a great negotiation that helped bring justice for Americans who lost money to France, sadly it took decades and Jackson used a bit of brinkmanship but everything worked out well in the end.   - The Nullification Proclamation - {*1832*} - (For context, South Carolina declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 to be null and void within the state, claiming states had the right to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional. In Jackson’s proclamation he rejected the idea that a state could nullify federal law, he reaffirmed federal supremacy and warned that disunion by armed force is treason, and he made clear that he would enforce the law, even if it meant using the military. This proclamation he defended the Union and the supremacy of federal law, prevented South Carolina from undermining nation authority, delayed secession and potential civil war for several decades, and demonstrated that states couldn’t simply pick and choose which federal laws to follow. Overall one of the few times I agree with Jackson acting very militaristic and authoritative due to the need to try to avoid civil war, preserve the union, and stop states from trying to overstep their power.) - The Force Bill - {*1833*} - (A response to the Nullification Crisis and directly supported Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation. It authorized Jackson to use the army and navy if necessary to enforce federal tariffs, declared nullification illegal and reaffirmed federal supremacy, was aimed completely at South Carolina, which had declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void and was threatening secession. It passed alongside the Compromise Tariff of 1833 which it worked in tandem with to avoid bloodshed and de-escalate a crisis that could’ve led to civil war decades earlier. Overall it was a necessary bill that was needed to crush the idea of opposing federal law and trying to put state law first especially during this tense time in history with sectional tensions growing by the day.)  - Commission of Edmund Roberts - {*1832-1836*} - (A diplomatic initiative in which he appointed Roberts as a “special agent of the United States” to negotiate commercial treaties with Asian and Pacific nations. Jackson authorized Roberts to negotiate trade agreements and establish formal diplomatic relations in regions where the U.S. had no presence. This marked the first formal U.S. diplomatic missions to many Asian states. Resulted in successful treaties with Muscat [Oman] and Siam [Thailand]. A mission to Vietnam was unsuccessful. A second Roberts mission in 1835 ended with his death in Macao in 1836, but his work laid a diplomatic foundation in Asia. His missions expanded U.S. influence and trade in Asia without imperialism or military force, reflected a forward-looking foreign policy which was unusual for the Jackson administration which was mostly focused domestically, strengthened economic opportunities for American merchants in the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia, and Set the groundwork for later U.S. treaties with Japan and China. The only flaws could be Roberts not being a seasoned diplomat though he did a good job, the failed Vietnam mission, and minimal impact beyond opening doors which isn’t actually a bad thing necessarily. Overall a very solid groundwork for Asian-U.S. relations and diplomacy which was done peacefully which is a nice change pace of pace compared to most of Jackson’s policies and rhetoric. - **Slightly Good:** - The Compromise Tariff - {*1833*} - (Legislation crafted by Henry Clay and supported by John C. Calhoun even though he's the one who led the Nullification movement. It passed alongside the Force Bill to resolve the Nullification Crisis peacefully. The compromise gradually reduced tariff rates over a 10-year period, bringing them down to pre-1816 level, specifically targeting the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832, which Southern states - especially South Carolina - had called the “Tariff of Abominations.” It was designed to give Southern states a face-saving way out while preserving federal authority. The compromise helped defuse a national crisis without bloodshed and South Carolina repealed its nullification ordinance shortly after its passage, preserved the Union and avoided what could have been a violent secession 30 years before the Civil War, and it showed a rare moment of political compromise between major figures like Clay, Calhoun, and Jackson. The only flaws of this compromise it gave the impression that nullification and threats worked which encouraged future defiance of federal authority, hurt northern manufacturers who benefited from higher protectionist tariffs, and was a band-aid solution and another kick the can down the road policy. Overall the compromise combined with the force bill was a good way of ending the conflict and even though there are a couple downsides to the compromise, the benefits of avoiding extremes like civil war and a violent conflict outweigh them.) - **Neutral/Mixed:** - Termination of the National Debt - {*1829-1835*} - (For a brief time, the United States was entirely debt-free, the only time in U.S. history that has happened. When Jackson took office in 1829, the national debt was around $58 million. He prioritized “fiscal discipline”, limited government, and no borrowing. He vetoed spending bills [like the Maysville Road], sold western land, and pushed aggressive repayment policies; by 1835 under Jackson and Treasury Secretary Levi Woodbury, the debt was fully paid off. It was a symbolic victory for Jacksonian ideals of small government and anti-elitism. Showed strong fiscal discipline and responsible budgeting during a time of government surpluses, Reduced federal reliance on financiers and bondholders whom Jackson distrusted, and Made Jackson wildly popular among hard-money advocates who feared federal overreach. On the downside Jackson dismantled the Second Bank of the U.S., which helped manage debt and stabilize currency -- creating economic chaos and allowing him more control over where federal money went. His vetoing of infrastructure spending like the aforementioned Maysville Road which helped him keep the spending low, but at the cost of infrastructure progression and economic growth. He sold off lots of Western Land cheaply to settlers bringing in tons of revenue for the government, except most of this was Native Land that we “acquired” after the Indian Removal Act. His hard money stance and the Specie Circular destabilized currency and harmed the poor and frontier economies, the Specie Circular slowed speculation temporarily which kept federal revenue stable helping reduce debt, but of course this triggered a liquidity crisis and worsened the financial panic.) - Use of the Presidential Veto - {*1829-1837*} - (For context, before Jackson, the veto was used very sparingly and only when a president believed a law unconstitutional. The idea was that the president was acting as a guardian of the Constitution. Jackson flipped that. He believed the president was the direct representative of the people and had every right to veto legislation he disagreed with politically or philosophically, not just constitutionally. He issued 12 vetoes during his presidency -- more than all previous presidents combined though by today's standards that isn’t really that much. It strengthened the presidency which is a good or bad thing depending on who you are and as someone who is a big government guy I prefer the President to have a lot of power as long as checks and balances still exist. I have to put some sort of blame on Jackson for setting a precedent that while I wouldn’t consider dangerous on its own, has been used for bad things after Jackson set the new standard.) - **Slightly Bad:** - Veto of The Maysville Road Bill - {*1830*} - (The bill proposed federal funding for a road to be constructed entirely within the state of Kentucky on the Ohio River to Lexington. The road would have been part of the larger National Road infrastructure push, improving internal commerce. Jackson vetoed on grounds that the project was entirely intrastate and therefore not a federal responsibility. He also said federal funds should only be used on projects of national scope, not purely local or state benefit, and he believed it violated the Constitution’s limitations on federal spending. There is a political side to this as well. It was a swipe at Henry Clay who was Jackson’s political rival and from Kentucky and also one of the bill's biggest supporters. Overall Jackson’s veto had solid grounds but also prevented important infrastructure that would have led to economic benefit from being built. - Petticoat Affair - {*1829-1831*} - (Margaret Eaton was the wife of John Eaton [Jackson’s Secretary of War].She married Eaton shortly after the death of her first husband, who some suspected died by suicide over her rumored affair with Eaton. Washington’s elite-particularly the wives of Jackson’s Cabinet members led by Floride Calhoun (wife of Vice President John C. Calhoun)-refused to socially accept her. They shunned her from events, refused to call on her, and basically froze her out of polite society. Jackson, whose own late wife Rachel had been similarly attacked during the 1828 campaign, took this very personally and fiercely defended Margaret Eaton and blamed the political elite-especially Calhoun’s circle- for what he saw as character assassination. This created massive tension and paralyzed the cabinets ability to function. Ultimately Jackson reorganized his entire Cabinet with nearly every member resigning in 1831. This led to the rise of Martin Van Buren who had remained neutral and ended up earning Jackson’s favor. Jackson was trying to defend a woman from harsh, often sexist judgement and stood by her on moral grounds and based on personal empathy. It also wrecked his cabinet, distracted from actual governance and caused dysfunction. It intensified factionalism and personal politics at a time when major national issues loomed. Jackson’s fixation arguably hurt national focus and turned an internal social scandal into a full-blown political crisis. Overall I give him credit for standing by her on moral grounds and actual empathy, but it also hurt the nation due to its spotlight in the political sphere, and it showed how Jackson had emotional decision-making and how he let personal grudges influence governance.) - Economy - {*1829-1837*} - (Jackson’s economy was kind of a rollercoaster -- and while it had some short term positives, the long-term consequences were disastrous largely because of his own policies. The Boom years during the early 1830s the U.S. experienced strong economic growth during much of Jackson’s presidency -- land sales were booming, government revenue was high, and trade was strong. Government ran a surplus, and he paid off the national debt in 1835, his hard-money policies briefly helped curb reckless federal borrowing. Increased land sales equals increased revenue which we see when he sold off vast amounts of Western land much of which was taken because of the Native Removal which flooded the Treasury with cash. The problem with this is that even though short term was good and long term was bad normally I would put it in mixed except the way he achieved this good economy short term wise was so bad for the country with thing such as the destruction of the Second Bank of the U.S., “Pet Banks” and unregulated credit,and the Specie Circular. Overall the short term economic boom was good with strong trade, debt paid off, and government surpluses, but the long term was bad with the Panic of 1837 right after he leaves office and the long term effects of dismantling the central bank and switching the hard money for federal land purchases, and the way he achieved the short term was bad which is why it hurt us in the long term.) - Bad: - Indian Removal Act - {*1830*} - (Authorized the president to negotiate treaties with Native American tribes in southeastern U.S. to exchange their ancestral homelands for land west of the Mississippi River primarily in present-day Oklahoma. Though the law claimed it would involve voluntary treaties, in practice it enabled forced removal of tens of thousands of Native Americans. Jackson framed it as a humanitarian solution-saying it would protect Natives from state violence and allow them to maintain their culture elsewhere, while in reality the act gave legal cover for dispossession, broken treaties, and massive forced migrations. It led to the removal of the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole tribes-many of which under brutal conditions. Ethically, morally, and humanely indefensible. Violated treaties and tribal sovereignty, led to massive human suffering and death, justified on racist, expansionist, and populist grounds, and set a precedent for further Native dispossession and American imperialism. Overall one of the worst policies in American History and probably the worst policy in the horrible American history with Native Americans. - The Bank War - {*1832-1836*} - (Political and ideological battle between Andrew Jackson and the Second Bank of the United States. For context the Second Bank of the U.S. was chartered in 1816 after the financial mess of the War of 1812 and acted as a central bank that regulated currency, controlled inflation, held federal deposits, and issued a stable national currency. Under Jackson it was run by Nicholas Biddle, who was smart and effective, but had a bit of an aristocratic air--easy for Jackson to cast as elitist. The end of the central bank destabilized the economy because without a central bank, state banks issued unstable paper money, fueling inflation and speculation, led to the Panic of 1837 which hit under Van Buren but the root causes were because of Jackson, Jackson tore down the Bank but offered no alternative and the U.S. didn’t have another central bank again until the Federal Reserve in 1913, he used populist rhetoric turning a nuanced economic issue into a political war of good vs. evil elites, Jackson overrode Cabinet members and basically acted unilaterally, undermining checks and balances for example when he fired multiple treasury secretaries until one of them would do what he wanted in removing federal deposits. The only positives of this all was it raised awareness of elite financial power and some worried the bank was too powerful and politically entangled--which wasn’t entirely false, but none of that even comes close to justifying this terrible economic policy. Overall The Bank War weakened U.S. financial stability for decades. Jackson's destruction of the Bank without a plan was irresponsible, it hurt the economy, damaged trust in institutions, and consolidated too much power in the presidency.) - Veto of Recharter - {*1832*} - (Congress passed a bill to recharter the Bank early, its charter was set to expire in 1836. Jackson vetoed it, calling it unconstitutional, elitist, and dangerous. He framed it as a battle between the people and the privileged elite.) - Removal of Federal Deposits - {*1833*} - (jackson ordered the removal of all federal money from the Bank. He placed it in state-chartered “pet banks” that were loyal to his administration. His own Treasury Secretaries refused to do it, so he fired them until he found someone who would [Roger B, Taney--Future Chief Justice]). - The Bank Fights Back - {*1833-1834*} - (Biddle retaliated by calling in loans and tightening credit, trying to force a financial crisis to pressure Congress to act. Jackson accused him of using the Bank to manipulate the economy.) - Death of the Bank - {*1836*} - (The Bank's federal charter was not renewed. It became a state bank under Pennsylvania law but faded quickly.) - Specie Circular - {*1836*} - (Required all payments for federal land must be made in specie [gold or silver coins] not paper banknotes issued by state banks. It was Jackson’s response to the wild speculation in western lands, which he believed was being fueled by easy credit and unbacked paper money from state “pet bank” [banks where he had redirected federal funds after dismantling the Second Bank of the U.S.], and a real estate bubble inflating due to land purchases using unstable currency. His intentions as a hard money advocate were to curb inflation, stop land speculation, force more responsible banking, and rein in the consequences of his own “Bank War”. He believed land should be bought with real, stable value not with risky, inflated paper. This was economically bad for a multitude of reasons such as it drained gold and silver from Eastern banks, which led to a credit crunch, crushed land sales causing land values to plummet, contributed directly to the Panic of 1837 which began under Van Buren but was rooted in Jackson’s policies, hurt small farmers, settlers, and merchants who didn’t have access to specie, and banks began failing as they couldn’t neet demands for hard currency. It did slow speculation temporarily and he was trying to address real problems though they are problems he created. Overall it was a good intentioned policy that backfired hard due to the flaws that come with using hard money such as it being limited in access and finite in a much more restricting way than paper, caused banks to fail due to limited amount of hard money, hurt the low class who didn’t have access to this type of currency readily, and led to wider economic crisis.) - Recognition of Texas as an Independent Republic - {*1837*} - (For context, Texas had declared independence from Mexico in 1836 after a violent conflict. The U.S had been watching closely, and many American settlers and pro-slavery advocates supported Texas independence. Jackson waited months before recognizing the new Republic of Texas, likely to avoid angering Mexico or provoking war -- until finally recognizing Texas on his last full day in office, likely to avoid political backlash. Some things you can argue that might be good about it are it was very popular to support Texas among Americans, and it did maintain peace for the time being since Jackson did not pursue annexation right away helping avoid immediate war with Mexico. That's about all for the good. The bad is it had a very expansionist motive with recognition being deeply tied to pro-slavery interests. Many Southerners hoped Texas would become a slave state and boost Southern power in Congress. It did provoke Mexico even without annexation hurting relations between the U.S. and Mexico. Doing it on his final day in office can be seen as a bit cowardice to avoid the political backlash. Overall I agree with recognizing sovereign nations who were being opposed, except the biggest reason for Texas wanting separation from Mexico was Slavery reasons. Of course there were other factors like Mexico’s shift from a federalist to a centalist government and the want for autonomy, but when the main reason and biggest reason is Slavery our motives become clear when you look at who in the U.S. supported it [southern slave owners and pro-slavery citizens]. Overall the recognition of Texas was a slavery fueled decision which outweighs any good intentions tenfold.) - Worcester v. Georgia and Jackson’s Response - {*1832*} - (In the supreme court case, Samuel Worcester, a white missionary, was arrested by the state of Georgia for living on Cherokee land without a state permit which Georgia required after it passed laws to assert control over Cherokee territory. Worcester challenged the arrest, and the case made it to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of Worcester and the Cherokee Nation stating that the Cherokee Nation was a distinct political community with its own sovereign rights, the state of Georgia had no authority to enforce laws on Cherokee territory, and only the federal government had the power to negotiate with Native nations. This was a huge legal win for the Cherokee people. Despite the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokee, Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the decision. While the infamous quote “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it” is likely apocryphal, it does reflect Jackson’s attitude. Jackson allowed Georgia to completely ignore the ruling, continuing to seize Cherokee lands, and expel Native Americans in direct violation of the decision. His inaction undermined the rule of law, the judiciary, and Native American sovereignty. He proceeded with Indian Removal anyway, leading directly to the Trail of Tears. This all violated separation of powers with Jackson's refusal to enforce the decision is a blatant disregard for judicial authority and checks and balances. This betrayed the legal protections for Native American since Jackson let Georgia steamroll through the sovereignty of the Cherokee. It sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and undermines the rule of law. Overall one of the worst moments in U.S. legal history with the supreme court decision being great and Jackson's response being horrific with him refusing to enforce it directly led to the destruction of Cherokee lands, culture, and lives.) ###### **Conclusion:**  A hardline populist who at his best dealt well with the Nullification Crisis and the French Spoliation Claims, while at his worst he had arguably not just the worst anti-native policy in U.S. history but one of the most egregious policies overall in U.S. history. He also had his response to Worcester v. Georgia which is one of the worst law disasters in U.S. history, and finally his bank war which was disastrous. ###### **Final Rating:** **1.5/10**