How was Andrew Jackson's veto of the Second Bank of the United States tyrannical?
I am doing an essay about whether Andrew Jackson was a champion of the common man or a ruthless tyrant. I just want to know what about the Bank of the United States made him tyrannical or how you could defend that. Please and thank you! :)
- redunicornLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
I think it is much easier to use the Trail of Tears to show Jackson was tyrannical. However Jackson's veto of the bank led to the Panic of 1837.
The destruction of the Bank loosed American enterprise from its only central restraint. Gorged with federal deposits and with no one to control their note issues, state banks went on a lending spree that built up a speculative bubble and ended, just as Jackson left office in 1837, in a sickening crash. Jackson's culpability for the ensuing depression is still debated. Jackson himself came to oppose all chartered banks and banknotes, state as well as federal, and to favor a return to gold and silver “hard money”—a radical deflation which Whigs charged would throw progress back a century. In Jackson's farewell address on retiring from office, he elaborated the language of the Veto, condemning bank paper as an engine of oppression and warning of the insidious "money power" and of the growing control exerted by faceless corporations over ordinary citizens' lives.Source(s): http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jackson/sectio... http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2008/januaryfebruary...