Non-fiction: Message on the Removal of Deposits (Bank Deposits Controversy)

Context and purpose
Andrew Jackson’s 1833 message on the removal of federal deposits from the Bank of the United States is both a constitutional brief and a political indictment. Issued at the height of the Bank War, it explains why the administration would cease placing new government revenues in the national bank and instead use selected state institutions. Jackson situates the move within the bank’s impending 1836 charter expiration and an urgent need to prevent a powerful corporation from leveraging public funds to coerce policy and elections in its favor.

Executive authority and legal foundation
Jackson grounds the decision in the bank’s own charter, which places deposits in the Bank unless the Secretary of the Treasury orders otherwise and reports reasons to Congress. That clause, he argues, vests discretion in the executive branch as part of its duty to safeguard the public purse. He rejects the view that Congress must first authorize removal or that waiting until its next session is prudent. Execution of the laws belongs to the executive, he insists, and the responsible officer must act when safety, convenience, or the public interest so require, later accounting to the legislature.

Indictment of the Bank’s power and conduct
The message depicts the Bank as a monopolistic entity with privileges inconsistent with republican equality. Jackson highlights the concentration of financial power in private hands, including foreign stockholders, and the capacity to expand or contract credit in ways that sway markets and politics. He accuses the institution of using its resources to influence public opinion and elections, of restricting information to frustrate oversight, and of threatening economic distress to force recharter. Such behavior, he argues, confirms the Bank’s danger to liberty: any corporation that can menace the economy to obtain political ends should not be the government’s depository.

Necessity and timing of removal
Jackson contends that delay would entrench the Bank’s leverage as the charter winds down. If the executive waits until Congress meets, the Bank can manipulate credit and marshal allies to extract concessions. Removal is framed not as punishment but as prudence: to begin disentangling public finances from an expiring charter and to prevent the government from being held hostage by a private lender. He stresses that authority to act now is clear, that accountability to Congress will be honored through formal reporting, and that the decision is reversible by law if the people’s representatives so choose.

Plan and safeguards for state depositories
To minimize disruption, Jackson outlines a gradual transfer. Existing balances at the Bank would be used to meet current government drafts, while new revenues would flow into selected state banks judged on solvency, specie discipline, geographic reach, and readiness to perform public services. He anticipates agreements requiring secure custody, prompt transfers without charge, regular reporting, and restraint in issuing paper. The aim is to diversify risk, promote a sound currency anchored in specie payments, and deny any single institution the means to coerce the government.

Answer to objections and broader principles
To the charge that removal will cause a panic, Jackson replies that the Bank’s threats of contraction reveal why its power must be broken. Economic distress, if manufactured to defend special privilege, is an argument against the monopoly, not for it. He denies personal animus and frames the controversy as a test of constitutional balance: whether a national corporation may command the public treasury and overawe the political branches, or whether elected officers remain custodians of public money, accountable to the people. The message closes on the claim that republican government cannot tolerate exclusive, hereditary-like privileges in finance. By dispersing the deposits and restoring executive responsibility for their safety, Jackson asserts he is vindicating equal rights and preserving both fiscal independence and political liberty.