Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Bankster Cronies Censure Jackson

March 29, 2012 by  

A battle over the Bank of the United States between President Andrew Jackson and Congress turned into a Constitutional issue when Congress sought to censure Jackson for not turning over classified documents he used in his decision to veto Congress’ vote to renew the bank’s charter.

The Senate, led by Jackson’s nemesis Henry Clay, passed a resolution demanding to see Jackson’s papers. When Jackson refused, Clay introduced a resolution to censure Jackson.

Clay, by the way, helped form the Whig Party, which believed in the Hamiltonian, big government, British mercantilism-style of government and was the forerunner to Abraham Lincoln’s big government Republican Party. Lincoln considered Clay a mentor.

Congress debated the censure for 10 weeks, while Jackson protested that since the Constitution did not provide for guidance regarding censure, the action was unConstitutional. Congress ignored his protests and issued its censure on March 28, 1831. It amounted to a public scolding. Congress also overrode Jackson’s veto.

The bank issue became central to Jackson’s re-election bid in 1832; and in 1836, the bank’s charter expired. In 1837, Democrats gained control of the Senate and had Jackson’s censure expunged from the record.

After his Presidency ended, Jackson was asked what things he thought he had left undone. He replied: “I didn’t shoot Henry Clay and I didn’t hang John Calhoun.”

Bob Livingston

is an ultra-conservative American and author of The Bob Livingston Letter™, founded in 1969. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Bankster Cronies Censure Jackson”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Vigilant

    Jackson was no friend of state’s righters and Libertarians.

    “At the April 13, 1830, Jefferson Day dinner, involving after-dinner toasts. Robert Hayne began by toasting to “The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States.” Jackson then rose, and in a booming voice added “Our federal Union: It must be preserved!” – a clear challenge to Calhoun. Calhoun clarified his position by responding “The Union: Next to our Liberty, the most dear!”

    “In response to South Carolina’s nullification claim, Jackson vowed to send troops to South Carolina to enforce the laws. In December, 1832, he issued a resounding proclamation against the “nullifiers”, stating that he considered “the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”

    “South Carolina, the President declared, stood on “the brink of insurrection and treason,” and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Jackson also denied the right of secession: “The Constitution… forms a government not a league… To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation.”

    • Vigilant

      Source for above: Wikipedia

      • Vigilant

        “Following Jefferson, Jackson supported an “agricultural republic” and felt the Bank improved the fortunes of an “elite circle” of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the Bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833.

        “The bank’s money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This increased credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed. Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in “specie” (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed. This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.”

        -Wikipedia

    • flajim

      Technically, the US is not a nation. It’s a confederation of sovereign states whose authority has been either seized or ceded over the years. Two of the worst cessions were passage of Amendment XVI, authorizing federal income tax, and Amendment XVII, providing for election of Senators by popular vote.

      The federal income tax allowed the feds to have the money to coerce states. Popular election of Senators took away power from State governments. Senators up till then had been beholden to the states they represented, not to coercion in DC or the fickle whims of the electorate.

      Still, I admire Jackson for balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and his disdain for both big government Whigs and the Supreme Court.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        flajim:

        Actually, in the context of your post, the US isn’t a nation at all, but a corporation….

      • Vigilant

        The USA is NOT a corporation. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 incorporated the Dictrict, not the USA.

        Any Elvis sightings recently?

      • Vigilant

        “Technically, the US is not a nation. It’s a confederation of sovereign states whose authority has been either seized or ceded over the years.”

        The first part of the statement is wrong. Under the Articles of Confederation, the sovereignty of the states was paramount. It was largely due to the ineffectiveness of the central government that the Constitution was necessary.

        The major principle of the Constitution was federalism. The central government was given few and defined powers, but in those powers it is supreme. The powers not given to the Feds are retained by the states or the people.

        It is very true that the authority of the states has been unconstitutionally overridden over time, That’s another question altogether.

        Nullification was settled on March 1, 1833, and the “right” to secede was put to bed in 1865.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Vigilant wrote: “The USA is NOT a corporation. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 incorporated the Dictrict, not the USA.”

        You are right, but irrelevant. Please stay in the context of the conversation. My comment to flajim was: “Actually, IN THE CONTEXT OF YOUR POST, the US isn’t a nation at all, but a corporation….” [emphasis mine] Flajim had written about whether “the US” was a nation or not, and then he immediately went on to write about the income tax amendment and the direct election of Senators amendment. Since the federal Constitution of our nation, our Union of States, doesn’t have any such amendments, the context obviously indicates that flajim is writing about the Constitution of the incorporated District of Columbia. That entity has trademarked the trade names “US,” “USA,” “United States,” etc., so when flajim mentioned “the US,” it wasn’t clear whether he was referring to the Republic or to the Corporation, until he started writing about amendments that are only in the corporate Constitution.

        So, to be quite technical and literal with you, you are correct that “the USA is NOT a corporation” — at least, if by “USA” you’re referring to our national Republic. Yes, we still have a national Republic, and it isn’t a corporation. The reason for that is, as you said, “The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 incorporated the Dictrict [sic], not the USA.” (Again, if by “the USA” you mean the Republic.) Unfortunately, since your comments seem to assume that flajim and I were talking about the Republic and we were not, they are irrelevant regardless of their literal accuracy.

        I’m a big Elvis fan, but unfortunately I’m not old enough to have seen him in person. What about you?

      • dale bennet

        The “Good Guy” Interview

        http://www.roadtoroota.com/public/857.cfm

        u all need to listen to this , it will go viral soon

      • Vigilant

        Sorry, Jazzabelle, the sophistry is just that.

        TIME and yourself both buy into the fiction of a corporate vs. republican Constitution. The Team Law site and others have preyed on the gullibility of the folks to propagate the lie for some time now.

        Have you actually read the Organic Act? I have, and there is nothing to it that’s different from the incorporation documents of thousands of US municipallities.

        To claim that our Constitution “for” the United States of America has only 15 amendments and not 26 is absolutely ludicrous.

  • jb1138

    There’s a fundamental question here: how much authority do individual States surrender to the Federal government when they become states – or, in the case of the original 13 colonies-which-became-states, when they ratified the constitution? Do they have the right to secede from the Union?
    In the case of the Bank of the United States, this was applied to government finances and the national economy. Some background may be in order here: before the Constitution was adopted, there was no national currency; each state minted its own coins and printed its own money. You could work at a job in New York, get paid in New York money, and live in another state – New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, etc. – but then you would have to pay your landlord (if you rented your dwelling) or the bank (if you had a mortgage) in the currency of that state, which would mean going through the exchange rate. Depending on how much gold – or possibly silver – a state had on hand, its currency would be worth more or less. Interstate commerce was a nightmare.
    Furthermore, the federal government had to pay its employees in the money of the state where they worked; imagine trying to figure out a federal budget when you have to depend so heavily on the exchange rates between the money of the 13 different states, over which the Federal government had no control. (By “no control” here, I mean that the Federal government could not regulate the fiscal policy of the individual states, and therefore they could not depend – to pick on New York and Pennsylvania – on the exchange rate between New York money and Pennsylvania money tomorrow being the same as it is today. Any state could spend state money on something foolish, and the value of their currency would go down suddenly.)
    This was one cause of the Civil War: the Southern states maintained that they had the right to run their lives, and their state governments, as they saw fit. (The other cause of the Civil War was, of course, slavery – but this immediately comes back to the states’ rights issue: does the federal government have the authority to dictate things like whether or not slavery should be legal? Personally, I think that slavery, especially as practiced in the Southern U.S., was, and still would be today if it were still in force, immoral, very bad, and just plain not right, and did I mention “bad”? But the issue here is whether or not the federal government has the power to say so and make individual states straighten up and fly right.)
    Obviously, with the victory of the Union in 1865, the decision was that the federal government does have such authority, at least to some degree.
    Other nations around the world have dealt with the question, and some of them have done so much more peacefully.
    Moldavia is a very small country which split off from Romania; it has its own (Slavic) language and its own culture. (Romanian, as you might guess by its name, is a Romance language, deriving from Latin; it is most closely related to French, Italian, etc.) A proposal was written up, and voted on in both Romania and Moldavia; it was approved by a majority in Romania, and by a majority in Moldavia. Moldavia is located on the shore of the Black Sea, between Romania and Ukraine.
    Czechoslovakia was created at the end of World War Two. Although it had a history going back centuries, it was never very well organized, which is why it doesn’t get much mention in history books outside of what is now the Czech republic and Slovakia. Again, it became apparent that, while the two groups of people were friendly with each other, they did have two distinct cultures and languages, although both languages were (and still are) Slavic. Again, a proposal was written up in Czech and in Slovakian, voted on and approved by a majority in what is now the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

    • rob

      There was NO CIVIL WAR! This was a war between sovereing nations or STATES.

    • Vigilant

      “…this immediately comes back to the states’ rights issue: does the federal government have the authority to dictate things like whether or not slavery should be legal?”

      The Feds had a long history of deciding precisely that issue in the decades leading up to the Civil War.

      “In 1784, Jefferson offered a proposal to prohibit slavery in any new state after 1800. The Continental Congress defeated this measure by a single vote. Just six years later, in stark contrast, Congress omitted any mention of slavery when it set up territorial governments in the Southwest.” (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=301)

      Northwest Ordinance, 1787:

      “Article the Sixth. There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary Servitude in the said territory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; Provided always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.”

      “The Missouri Compromise was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States Congress, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. Prior to the agreement, the House of Representatives had refused to accept this compromise, and a conference committee was appointed.” (Wikipedia)

      From americanhistory.about.com/od/beforethewar/g/compromise1850.htm

      The Compromise of 1850 was a series of five bills that were intended to stave off sectional strife. Its goal was to deal with the spread of slavery to territories in order to keep northern and southern interests in balance.

      • http://teamlaw.org Jazzabelle

        Vigilant: The federal government has more power over territories than over States. Didn’t you know?

      • Vigilant

        The Federal Government has as much power over the states to outlaw slavery as it does over territories. It was called the 13th Amendment. Didn’t you know?

  • s c

    Jackson’s remarks about Clay and Calhoun remind me of a similar claim made by a Navy admiral in the direction of a Taxachusetts useful idiot [aka 'Democrat'] named Kerry. Some things don’t change. I wouldn’t be surprised if we’d get a better class of people in Congress and the W H if we still had ‘politicians’ who were willing to take part in duels.
    Now, instead of standing toe-to-toe with a scummer, we ship people off to foreign wars or accuse the of being insensitive to b s issues. At least people in the 18th century were HONEST about their beliefs. How many politicians have ANY real beliefs today?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=745534442 Irina Krasnyuk

    A sense sheep. She rattles and battles and battles and rattles to envision the outcome. To no vain. She is ignored and later overridden. Who then gains control? The first who like the roast.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.