Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to Western Sieve Episode five and eighteen.
Speaker 1: The Age of Jackson. The Age of Andrew Jackson was
Speaker 1: an Arab that was allowed to be honest with you.
Speaker 1: There was argument, there was motion. It was a time
Speaker 1: when American politics finally burst beyond the marbleholes of elites
Speaker 1: and spilled into American taverns, newspapers, parades, and polling places.
Speaker 1: It was messy, democratic, and often brutal, an age defined
Speaker 1: as much by expansion and participation as it was by
Speaker 1: exclusion and violence. And to understand it we have to
Speaker 1: first start not in water Ishington, but on the frontier,
Speaker 1: where our central figure first makes his name. When Andrew
Speaker 1: Jackson emerged as a national figure after the War of
Speaker 1: eighteen twelve, he did so not as a polished statesman,
Speaker 1: but as a soldier. His victory at the Battle of
Speaker 1: New Orleans in January five eighteen transformed him into a
Speaker 1: symbol of American toughness and defiance. Of course, the war
Speaker 1: itself had ended inconclusively in a draw or an American loss,
Speaker 1: depending how you want to see it, but Jackson's triumph,
Speaker 1: fought after the peace treaty had technically been signed, felt
Speaker 1: decisive in the public. He became Old Hickory, a man
Speaker 1: of iron will forged in the frontier hardship Now. Jackson's
Speaker 1: appeal lay in part in his story. Born in poverty
Speaker 1: on the Carolina Frontier, orphaned young, scarred physically and emotionally
Speaker 1: by violence, He embodied a narrative many white Americans found irresistible,
Speaker 1: the self made man who had fought his way upward.
Speaker 1: In an age when property requirements for voting were falling away,
Speaker 1: more white men than ever could participate in politics, and
Speaker 1: many saw Jackson as one of their own. The election
Speaker 1: of eighteen twenty eight marked a turning point in American
Speaker 1: political life. Campaigning was now raucous and personal. Newspapers aligned
Speaker 1: openly with parties. Mass rallies, slogans, and symbolic imagery replaced
Speaker 1: deferential silence. Jackson's supporters painted him as a champion of
Speaker 1: the people, while his opponents decried him as dangerous, impulsive,
Speaker 1: and maybe even tyrannical. This was the essence of Jackson
Speaker 1: in democracy, the belief that political power should rest with
Speaker 1: the majority of ordinary white men, not with entrenched elites.
Speaker 1: Jackson distrust institutions that he believed insulated power from popular control.
Speaker 1: He celebrated rotation in office what critics called the spoils system,
Speaker 1: arguing that government jobs should circulate among citizens rather than
Speaker 1: to simply crystallize into a permanent ruling class. But this democracy,
Speaker 1: of course, had major boundaries, and they were sharp and
Speaker 1: well delineated. Women, Native Americans and African Americans free or enslaved,
Speaker 1: were entirely excluded. Jacksonian democracy expanded participation for some by
Speaker 1: hardening exclusion for others. No conflict better reveals Jackson's governing
Speaker 1: style than his war against the Second Bank of the
Speaker 1: United States. The Bank War was not a single battle,
Speaker 1: but it was a long, grinding political campaign, one fought
Speaker 1: with vetos and speeches, pamphlets and cartoons, bank deposits, and
Speaker 1: critically banked withdrawals. It was a struggle over money and power,
Speaker 1: over who controlled the nation's economy and therefore truly spoke
Speaker 1: for quote unquote the people. At its center stood Andrew Jackson,
Speaker 1: wielding the presidency like a weapon, and across him the
Speaker 1: most powerful financial institution in the United States. Now, by
Speaker 1: the eighteen twenties, the Second Bank of the United States
Speaker 1: stood at the very heart of America's economy. It had
Speaker 1: been chartered by Congress in eighteen sixteen, and it regulated
Speaker 1: the nation's currency, restrained what it saw as reckless banks,
Speaker 1: and provided stability in a rapidly expanding economy. To many merchants, creditors,
Speaker 1: and politicians, the Second Bank of the United States was
Speaker 1: considered indispensable. But to Andrew Jackson, the bank was dangerous.
Speaker 1: He saw it as a symbol of entrenched privilege, a
Speaker 1: private corporation backed by government power, dominated by wealthy shareholders,
Speaker 1: some of them foreign. Jackson's suspicion ran deep and per arsenal.
Speaker 1: Early in life he had been ruined by debt and
Speaker 1: speculative finance, and he never forgot about it. To him,
Speaker 1: paper money, banks and credit just kind of smelled of
Speaker 1: corruption and manipulation. Jackson believed that the bank did not
Speaker 1: merely influence politics, it was actually distorting democracy itself. Now
Speaker 1: I want to back up for just a quick second here,
Speaker 1: because it had been disputed, really since the days of
Speaker 1: Alexander Hamilton's fights with Thomas Jefferson over whether or not
Speaker 1: Congress had the authority under the Constitution to actually create
Speaker 1: a Bank of the United States, and America is going
Speaker 1: to go through these throws over and over and over
Speaker 1: again until we arrived at the Federal Reserve, which is
Speaker 1: actually in twenty twenty six currently actually again under attack
Speaker 1: by a different populist president. So the more things change,
Speaker 1: sometimes the more things stay the same. Now, well, the
Speaker 1: Constitution doesn't expressly say that Congress has the power to
Speaker 1: create a bank. It does have the power to regulate
Speaker 1: interstate commerce, and so the question becomes, does Congress have
Speaker 1: an implied power to create the bank? Doesn't say it expressly,
Speaker 1: but in order to regulate commerce, can you create something
Speaker 1: that allows you to do so? Let me give you
Speaker 1: an example of an implied power. Now, certainly Congress has
Speaker 1: the ability to declare war and to regulate a standing army,
Speaker 1: but doesn't technically say anywhere in the Constitution that you
Speaker 1: can create uniforms for your army. Now our uniforms necessary
Speaker 1: for an army. Some would argue yes, someone I suppose,
Speaker 1: argue no. And that's the question of can you do
Speaker 1: something which is implied under the constitution or can you
Speaker 1: only do things which are expressly stated. It's a debate
Speaker 1: that we've had since the beginning of this country, and
Speaker 1: we still have it today. But let's get back to
Speaker 1: the Second Bank of the United States. The bank's president,
Speaker 1: Nicholas Biddle, was everything Jackson was not. He was refined, aristocratic,
Speaker 1: and intellectually brilliant, which Jackson wasn't. Biddell believed sincerely that
Speaker 1: the bank was essential to national prosperity. He viewed himself
Speaker 1: not as a political operator, but as a steward of
Speaker 1: economic order and growth. Yet Biddle underestimated Jackson and misunderstood
Speaker 1: the mood of the country. The very sophistication that reassured
Speaker 1: elites alarmed many ordinary Americans. Biddle's confidence in the bank's
Speaker 1: necessity came across as arrogance in a democracy increasingly suspicious
Speaker 1: of concentrated power. This was a fatal miscalculation. Now, by law,
Speaker 1: the Bank's charter would expire in eighteen thirty six, but
Speaker 1: in eighteen thirty two, four years earlier, bank supporters pushed
Speaker 1: a bill through Congress to renew it. The move was political.
Speaker 1: Jackson was up for reelection, and his opponents believed he
Speaker 1: would not dare to vet up such a popular institution
Speaker 1: in an election year. They were wrong. When the bill
Speaker 1: reached his desk, Jackson seized the moment. His veto message
Speaker 1: was not a technical legal document. It was a manifesto.
Speaker 1: Not only did he veto the bill, but he denounced
Speaker 1: the bank as unconstitutional, monopolistic, and hostile to liberty. He
Speaker 1: declared that government should not grant special privileges to the
Speaker 1: wealthy few at the expense of the many. And Jackson
Speaker 1: did something radical. He appealed directly to the voters over
Speaker 1: the heads of Congress, and so the veto transformed the
Speaker 1: election of eighteen thirty two into a referendum on the
Speaker 1: second Bank of the United States. Jackson's opponent, Henry Clay,
Speaker 1: championed the institution as a pillar of national stability. Jackson
Speaker 1: cast himself as the defender of democracy against a corrupt
Speaker 1: financial elite. Ultimately, the public sided with Jackson decisively. His
Speaker 1: victory at the polls in eighteen thirty two was as
Speaker 1: overwhelming as it had been in eighteen twenty eight. To Jackson,
Speaker 1: it was proof that the people had spoken, and they
Speaker 1: had spoken against the bank, and so now he meant
Speaker 1: not just to veto the renewing of it, but to
Speaker 1: destroy it completely. In fact, Jackson did not wait for
Speaker 1: the charter to expire. In eighteen thirty three, he ordered
Speaker 1: federal deposits withdrawn from the bank and placed them in
Speaker 1: selected state banks. His critics derisively call them pet banks.
Speaker 1: When his Treasury secretary refused, Jackson fired him. When the
Speaker 1: next secretary hesitated, Jackson fired him too. Only when he
Speaker 1: found someone willing to do what he wanted did the
Speaker 1: plan proceed. This was executive power exercise to its absolute limit.
Speaker 1: Congress protested, The Senate censured Jackson, the first time in
Speaker 1: US history. Jackson was defiant. He bel leave the president
Speaker 1: was the direct representative of the people and that the
Speaker 1: popular will outweighed institutional resistance. Now, Biddle fought back the
Speaker 1: only way that he knew how, with money. He tightened credit.
Speaker 1: He called in loans, and he triggered a financial contraction
Speaker 1: that meant to prove the bank's necessity. Business has failed.
Speaker 1: Unemployment rose, but the strategy backfired. Instead of blaming Jackson,
Speaker 1: most Americans blamed the bank. By eighteen thirty six, the
Speaker 1: Second Bank of the United States was finished. Its federal
Speaker 1: charter expired, and it limped on briefly as a state
Speaker 1: bank before collapsing entirely. Indeed, Jackson had won the bank war,
Speaker 1: but his victory came at a cost. Without a central bank,
Speaker 1: to regulate credit. Speculation literally exploded. State banks issued paper
Speaker 1: money freely, fueling land bubbles and reckless investment. Just after
Speaker 1: Jackson left office, the economy crashed into the Panic of
Speaker 1: eighteen thirty seven, a devastating depression that will haunt his successors. Now.
Speaker 1: Jackson never accepted responsibility for any of this. He believed
Speaker 1: the bank's destruction was necessary and just, even if it
Speaker 1: had been temporarily painful, and the bank wiar permanently changed
Speaker 1: American politics. It strengthened the presidency, heart and political divisions,
Speaker 1: and embedded a deep suspicion of centralized financial power into
Speaker 1: American political culture that persists today. It also raised enduring
Speaker 1: questions can democracy safely restrain economic elites, or does at
Speaker 1: risk destroying the very institutions that sustained prosperity. In Jackson's mind,
Speaker 1: the answer had been clear. The bank was a threat
Speaker 1: to liberty, and liberty however imperfect was worth the risk.
Speaker 1: But the question of federal authority and the States didn't
Speaker 1: come to a head in the bank warp. It came
Speaker 1: to a head in the Nullification crisis of eighteen thirty two.
Speaker 1: The nullification crisis of eighteen thirty two to eighteen thirty
Speaker 1: three was the moment when the American Union came perilously
Speaker 1: close to fracturing, this time not over slavery directly, but
Speaker 1: over a deeper, and I guess much more difficult question.
Speaker 1: Who held ultimate authority in the republic. Was the United
Speaker 1: States a nation of people bound together by a supreme
Speaker 1: federal government, or was it a compact of sovereign states
Speaker 1: free to reject federal law at will. In this confrontation,
Speaker 1: rhetoric hardened into defiance, and political theory threatened to become
Speaker 1: civil war. The roots of the crisis lay in economics.
Speaker 1: In the early nineteenth century, Congress passed a series of
Speaker 1: protective tariffs designed to shield American manufacturers from foreign competition.
Speaker 1: These tariffs benefited northern industry, but they enraged Southern planters,
Speaker 1: who relied on imported goods and the export of cotton
Speaker 1: to them. Tariffs raised prices at home and invited retaliation abroad.
Speaker 1: The Tariff of eighteen twenty eight, denounced in the South
Speaker 1: as the Tariff of Abominations, became a symbol of federal injustice.
Speaker 1: No state felt the grievance more acutely than South Carolina.
Speaker 1: Where economic distress fused with a long tradition of suspicion
Speaker 1: towards centralized authority. The intellectual architect of the resistance was
Speaker 1: John C. Calhoun, ironically then serving as Vice President of
Speaker 1: the United States. Calhoun anonymously authored the South Carolina Exposition
Speaker 1: and Protest, arguing that the Constitution was, in its end,
Speaker 1: a compact or agreement among sovereign states. If the federal
Speaker 1: government exceeded its delegated powers, a state had the right
Speaker 1: declare a federal law null and void within its boundaries.
Speaker 1: Now this was, of course, not just simple theory. It
Speaker 1: was revolution and this revolutionary doctrine challenged the supremacy of
Speaker 1: federal law and hinted at the idea that a state
Speaker 1: could secede from the Union if it didn't like what
Speaker 1: it was getting. Calhoun believed nullification was a constitutional safeguard,
Speaker 1: a peaceful mechanism to protect minority interests. Critics saw it
Speaker 1: as legalized rebellion. In eighteen thirty two, Congress slightly reduced
Speaker 1: the tariff rates, but not enough to satisfy South Carolina.
Speaker 1: That November, a specially elected state convention adopted an ordinance
Speaker 1: of nullification, declaring the tariffs of eighteen twenty eight and
Speaker 1: eighteen thirty two unconstitutional and unenforceable within the state. After
Speaker 1: February first, eighteen thirty three, South Carolina then began preparations
Speaker 1: to resist federal enforcement by fois if it was necessary.
Speaker 1: State militias were drilled and unionists were intimidated. This language
Speaker 1: of sovereignty now quickly replaced the language of compromise. The
Speaker 1: crisis was no longer theoretical, it was real and imminent.
Speaker 1: This was looking very much like a dress rehearsal for
Speaker 1: civil war. And now, of course, many assumed President Andrew Jackson,
Speaker 1: who was both a Southerner and a slaveholder, was sympathized
Speaker 1: with South Carolina. But they were wrong, and they misunderstood Jackson. Honestly,
Speaker 1: Jackson despised the concept of nullification. To him, it was
Speaker 1: treason masquerading as a constitutional principle. In December of eighteen
Speaker 1: thirty two, Jackson issued his Proclamation to the People of
Speaker 1: South Carolina, a thunderous defense of the Union. He rejected
Speaker 1: the compact theory outright and insisted that the Constitution derived
Speaker 1: its authority from the people and not from the states. Secession,
Speaker 1: he warned, was incompatible with liberty and would be met
Speaker 1: with military force. Privately, Jackson was even more blunt. He
Speaker 1: reportedly toasted with John C. Calhoun in the room, our
Speaker 1: federal union must be preserved. Jackson asked Congress for authority
Speaker 1: to enforce federal law. The resulting Force Bill empowered the
Speaker 1: President to use military force to collect tariffs. It was
Speaker 1: an unmistakable threat. Warships were sent out to Charleston Harbor,
Speaker 1: and federal troops stood ready. The nation held its breath.
Speaker 1: For the first time since ratification, a state openly denied
Speaker 1: federal authority under threat of arms. The crisis quickly exposed
Speaker 1: how fragile the Union truly was, and how easily constitutional
Speaker 1: disagreement could become armed conflict. Salvation ultimately came through compromise.
Speaker 1: Henry Clay, the great broker of legislative peace, as he
Speaker 1: will be throughout the years, proposed a gradual reduction of
Speaker 1: tariff rates over ten years. The Compromised Tariff of eighteen
Speaker 1: thirty three gave South Carolina a face saving exit while
Speaker 1: preserving federal authority. South Carolina then repealed its ordinance of nullification,
Speaker 1: but in a final symbolic act of defiance, it nullified
Speaker 1: the Force Bill. The immediate crisis was over, that's true,
Speaker 1: but the constitutional questions definitely remained unresolved. The nullification crisis
Speaker 1: also set a few dangerous precedents. It affirmed federal supremacy
Speaker 1: in practice, but it also legitimized the language of state resistance.
Speaker 1: The doctrine of nullification had failed, but the idea that
Speaker 1: a state might interpose itself against federal authority did not disappear.
Speaker 1: For Jackson, the crisis was a victory for the Union
Speaker 1: and the presidency. He had demonstrated that popular democracy did
Speaker 1: not require a weak federal government. For Calhoun, it was
Speaker 1: a warning Southern interests could not rely on national majorities
Speaker 1: for protection. His focus would soon turn toward more directly
Speaker 1: defending slavery. The crisis of eighteen thirty two to eighteen
Speaker 1: thirty three did not break the Union, but it revealed
Speaker 1: the fault lines that would three decades later tear it apart. Yet,
Speaker 1: what Jackson remains most famous, or I guess infamous for
Speaker 1: today in American history isn't the nullification crisis, and it's
Speaker 1: not the Bank War. It is Indian removal. The story
Speaker 1: of Indian removal during the Jackson era is one of
Speaker 1: law cloaked in the language of progress of democracy, as
Speaker 1: we discussed at the beginning of this episode, advance for some,
Speaker 1: in this case unpropertied white men, while catastrophe unfolded for
Speaker 1: others ie just about everyone else. It is a story
Speaker 1: not of actually sudden violence, as it not been portrayed,
Speaker 1: but of relentless pressure, both political, military, and legal, that
Speaker 1: culminated one of the most devastating force migrations in American history,
Speaker 1: the Trail of Tears. By the eighteen twenties, the United
Speaker 1: States was a land constantly obsessed with territory. Cotton cultivation
Speaker 1: was spreading rapidly across the Deep South, driven by the
Speaker 1: invention of the cotton gin and by sustained by enslaved labor.
Speaker 1: White settlers poorered westward, and state governments, especially in Georgia, Alabama,
Speaker 1: and Mississippi, looked hungrily at native lands that stood in
Speaker 1: the way of expansion. Five native nations in the Southeast,
Speaker 1: the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole, occupied millions of acres.
Speaker 1: These were not nomadic societies. By an he stretched the imagination.
Speaker 1: They farmed, traded, published their own newspapers, adopted written constitutions,
Speaker 1: and in some cases owned enslaved people themselves. But to
Speaker 1: the white Americans, this only sharpened the resentment civilization. They
Speaker 1: believed had not erased Native claims to the land, it
Speaker 1: had simply made them competitors. And into this moment stepped
Speaker 1: Andrew Jackson, the man who, of course, entire career, as
Speaker 1: I mentioned at the very beginning of this episode, had
Speaker 1: been forged on the frontier. That was his identity. Jackson
Speaker 1: had fought Native nations as a general and governed former
Speaker 1: Native lands as a territorial administrator. He didn't see Indian
Speaker 1: removal as cruelty. He saw it as an inevitability. To him,
Speaker 1: Native peoples could not coexist alongside American expansion, one side
Speaker 1: he believed had to give way. In eighteen thirty, Jackson
Speaker 1: pushed through Congress the Indian Removal Act. The law authorized
Speaker 1: the federal government to negotiate treaties exchanging Native lands east
Speaker 1: of the Mississippi River for territory in the west what
Speaker 1: would later become the state of Oklahoma. Supporters framed removal
Speaker 1: as humane. They spoke of protecting Native nations from extinction
Speaker 1: by relocating them beyond the reach of settlers. Jackson himself
Speaker 1: claimed that removal would be voluntary and beneficial. Of course,
Speaker 1: in reality it was neither. The vote in Congress was close,
Speaker 1: actually revealing the deep unease on the issue over at
Speaker 1: the time, but once passed, the machinery of removal began
Speaker 1: to grind forward with terrifying momentum. Nowhere was the conflict
Speaker 1: more visible than in Georgia, where gold had been discovered
Speaker 1: on Cherokee land. The state moved aggressively, extending its laws
Speaker 1: over Cherochoe territory, dissolving the tribal government and seizing land.
Speaker 1: The Cherokee fought back, not with weapons this time, but
Speaker 1: with the law. They appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting
Speaker 1: their sovereignty. In Worcester versus Georgia in eighteen thirty two,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Georgia's
Speaker 1: actions were unconstitutional and affirmed that Native nations were distinct
Speaker 1: political communities. That decision should have protected the Cherokee, but
Speaker 1: it did not. Jackson refused to enforce the ruling, whether
Speaker 1: or not he actually uttered the infamous line that is
Speaker 1: now attributed to him. Quote John Marshall has made his decision.
Speaker 1: Now let him enforce it. End quote. His actions spoke clearly.
Speaker 1: Federal power would not be used to defend Native sovereignty. Instead,
Speaker 1: it would be used to dismantle it. Federal agents pressed
Speaker 1: Native leaders designed removal treaties, often negotiating with small factions
Speaker 1: rather than legitimate governments. Promises of compensation and protection were
Speaker 1: made and then routinely broken. Some Native nations did ultimately
Speaker 1: resist militarily. The Seminole fought a brutal guerrilla war in Florida.
Speaker 1: Others tried to negotiate survival. The Cherokee split bitterly as
Speaker 1: a small group signed the Treaty of a Chodah in
Speaker 1: eighteen thirty five, agreeing to removal without authorization from the
Speaker 1: tribal government, and then that treaty ultimately became the legal
Speaker 1: pretext for expulsion. In eighteen thirty eight, after Jackson had
Speaker 1: now left office, but under the authority of the policies
Speaker 1: he had put in motion, US troops rounded up Cherokee
Speaker 1: families at gunpoint. Homes were looted, fields were abandoned. Thousands
Speaker 1: were quickly herded into stockades. The forced march West began
Speaker 1: in freezing conditions. Disease spread, food was scarce. The officials
Speaker 1: who were supposed to be managing the march were woefully corrupt.
Speaker 1: Children and elders died among the roads, in camps, and
Speaker 1: in shallow graves. By the time the journey was over,
Speaker 1: roughly one quarter of the Cherokee population, about four thousand people,
Speaker 1: were all dead. Similar tragedies unfolded for other nations. Collectively,
Speaker 1: these removals became known as the Trail of Tears, a
Speaker 1: phrase that captures only a fraction of the suffering that
Speaker 1: was endured. This was not an unintended consequence of the policy.
Speaker 1: It was, frankly a predictable outcome. Now. Jackson, throughout his life,
Speaker 1: never wavered in his defense of Indian removal. He believed
Speaker 1: he acted in the nation's interest and even in the
Speaker 1: interest of the Native peoples themselves. History has rendered a
Speaker 1: harsher verdict. Indian removal was, to many, state sponsored ethnic cleansing,
Speaker 1: carried out through law, coercion, and ultimately force. It expanded
Speaker 1: American democracy and economic opportunity unity for white settlers, while
Speaker 1: annihilating Native sovereignty and communities across the Southeast. The Jackson
Speaker 1: era celebrated the will of the people, but Indian removal
Speaker 1: forces us to ask which people and at what cost.
Speaker 1: The Trail of Tears stands as one of the clearest
Speaker 1: reminders that American expansion was not only a story of
Speaker 1: opportunity and growth. It was also a story of dispossession, suffering,
Speaker 1: and lives erased, all in the name of progress. We're
Speaker 1: going to see a very similar phenomenon in the imperialistic
Speaker 1: era in Europe. By the time Jackson left office in
Speaker 1: eighteen thirty seven, the United States was transformed. Politics was louder,
Speaker 1: it was much more participatory, and it was much more partisan.
Speaker 1: The presidency was stronger, it was more personal, and it
Speaker 1: was more powerful. Ordinary white men now felt a new
Speaker 1: sense of ownership over the republic. But the costs had
Speaker 1: been immense. Democracy had been expanded unevenly. Economic instability followed
Speaker 1: the destruction of the bank. Native nations were shattered, enslaved
Speaker 1: people remained bound in chains, even as the language of
Speaker 1: liberty echoed more and more loudly. The age of Andrew Jackson,
Speaker 1: of course, was not simply the story of one man.
Speaker 1: It was the story of a nation wrestling with who
Speaker 1: counted as the people, How power would be wielded and
Speaker 1: what democracy was willing to sacrifice in its own name.
Speaker 1: It left a legacy that still shapes American politics today,
Speaker 1: populist energy, executive assertiveness, and a democracy forever struggling with
Speaker 1: the limits of its promises. Now next week we're actually
Speaker 1: going to go back across the pond to Europe and
Speaker 1: catch up with affairs there as the eighteen thirties to
Speaker 1: eighteen forties become a raucous affair, indeed own the world.