Non-fiction: Veto Message on the Bank Bill (Veto of the Second Bank of the United States)

Overview

Andrew Jackson’s 1832 veto message rejecting the recharter of the Second Bank of the United States is both a constitutional brief and a populist manifesto. Sent to Congress after it passed a bill to renew the Bank’s charter ahead of schedule, the message argues that the institution is unauthorized by the Constitution as proposed, dangerous to political equality, and detrimental to state sovereignty and the broader public interest. Jackson insists the presidency has an independent duty to judge constitutionality, and he portrays the Bank as a privileged monopoly that concentrates economic power in private hands, including foreigners, at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Context

The Second Bank, chartered in 1816 to stabilize currency and serve as the federal government’s fiscal agent, had become a lightning rod in the 1820s and early 1830s. Supporters credited it with financial discipline and uniform currency; opponents accused it of favoritism, political interference, and excessive influence. Henry Clay and allies pressed Congress to recharter the Bank early to force the issue in an election year. Jackson’s veto transformed the question into a national referendum on financial power and democratic governance.

Constitutional Reasoning

Jackson rejects the notion that prior congressional practice or Supreme Court decisions alone bind the executive. Each branch, he argues, must interpret the Constitution within its own sphere. He contends that a national bank is not “necessary and proper” in the sense required to justify exclusive privileges and immunities. The proposed charter, he says, exceeds constitutional limits by creating a federally protected monopoly, elevating one corporation above all others, and curtailing states’ taxing powers over branches operating within their borders. The President emphasizes that equality of rights and burdens is a constitutional principle, not merely a policy preference.

Economic and Political Critiques

The message attacks the Bank as a special-interest engine. By making its notes receivable for public dues and employing it as fiscal agent, the federal government confers unique advantages that crowd out state banks and local credit. The charter shields the institution from ordinary market discipline and from meaningful state taxation, tilting the financial system toward a single, centralized corporation. Jackson warns that a significant portion of the Bank’s stock is owned by foreigners, meaning that public privileges and American revenues would enrich persons beyond the reach of U.S. laws. He portrays this arrangement as an inversion of republican priorities: “the rich and powerful” gain systemwide benefits while “the humble members of society” bear the costs.

Standards for Legitimate Finance

Jackson does not deny that government needs reliable fiscal operations and a sound currency. He argues these ends can be achieved without a privileged monopoly, either through a differently structured institution consistent with constitutional limits or through a decentralized system of state banks and stricter Treasury oversight. Any national arrangement, he suggests, should exclude foreign ownership, avoid exclusive privileges, and preserve states’ rights to regulate and tax corporate activity within their jurisdiction.

Vision and Tone

The message blends legal analysis with moral-political rhetoric. It frames the veto as a defense of equal rights and a warning against consolidations of financial power that can sway elections, influence legislation, and intimidate the public. Jackson casts executive resistance to the Bank as fidelity to the people’s sovereignty and to the Constitution’s spirit as much as its text.

Aftermath and Significance

Congress failed to override the veto. The dispute defined the 1832 campaign, helped secure Jackson’s reelection, and set the stage for the subsequent removal of federal deposits and the Bank’s eventual demise as a national institution. The message endures as a foundational statement of executive constitutionalism, anti-monopoly republicanism, and suspicion of concentrated financial power in American political life.