Supreme Court: The Worcester Vs. Georgia Case

The Bank War was the name given to the campaign begun by President Andrew Jackson in 1833 to destroy the Second Bank of the United States. The Second Bank had been established in 1816, as a successor to the First Bank of the United States, whose charter had been permitted to expire in 1811. In the veto message, President Jackson eagerly rejects a bill that leased the Bank of the United States. He argues that the Bank gives privilege and unfair advantage to a wealthy few at the expense of the public, and he opposes foreign ownership of Bank stock. The President claims the same right to interpret the Constitution as Congress and the Supreme Court when he questions the constitutionality of the Bank. The bank’s charter was unfair, Jackson argued in his veto message, that the bank was given significantly to much market power, specifically in the markets that moved financial properties from place to place in the country and into and out of additional nations. That market power enlarged the bank’s revenues and consequently its stock price, “which operated as a gratuity of many millions of dollars to the stockholders,”. Jackson proposed that it would be reasonable to the majority of

Economic Impacts The Bank Veto: After the original Bank of the United States expired in 1811 when the charter ran out, Congress chartered the Second Bank in 1816. However, when Jackson became elected, Jackson attacked the bank, claiming it unconstitutional, with its concentrated financial power representing a threat to popular liberty. Jackson vetoed the recharter bill on July 10, brought about by Nicholas Biddle. Removal of Deposits: Jackson wanted to withdraw the federal government’s own deposits from the Bank and place them in selected state-chartered banks but was not allowed because only the secretary of the treasury was allowed.

In the 1820s and 1830s, Georgia ordered a cruel battle to remove the Cherokees, who held dominion within the borders of Georgia, North Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee at the time. In 1827 the Cherokees fixed an basic government. The Cherokees were not only reshuffling their government but also declaring to the American public that they were a free nation that could not be removed without their permission. An angry Georgia legislature responded by intending to extend its authority over the Cherokees living in the states declared boundaries. The state took over the Cherokee lands; overthrew their government, courts, and laws; and settled a process for snatching Cherokee land and distributing it to the state's white citizens. In 1830 reps from Georgia and the other southern states pushed through Congress the Indian Removal Act, which gave U.S. president Andrew Jackson the ability to debate removal treaties with the Native American tribes.

The Bank War was a campaign made by Andrew Jackson to destroy the Second Bank of the United States in 1833. Jackson came up with this campaign because he was determined to end the bank. He did this by reducing the bank’s power. Jackson went against what the members of the bank said, he basically made their life miserable. On October 1, 1833, Jackson made a huge change and said that “federal funds would no longer be deposited in the Bank of the United States.” It was a crazy move because why would the federal funds of the country be deposited somewhere else than the country’s own bank?! Jackson deposited the funds throughout different banks in the United States. His plan was to keep those funds in the other banks until 1836, which was when the

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States. His presidential term was from March 4, 1829 to March 4, 1837. Jackson was not about banks. Jackson hated the idea of the Second Bank charter renewal. One of Jackson’s famous quotes was; “The Bank… is trying to kill me, but I will kill it.” Jackson’s opinion of the Bank of the United States was that it was dangerous to the liberty of the people. Jackson’s opposition to banks became like an obsession. In 1832, Jackson vetoed the bill calling for an early renewal of the Second Bank’s charter even though the renewal was still possible when the charter expired in 1836. In order to prevent that from happening, Jackson set out to reduce the Bank’s economic power. Jackson acted against the advice of many congressional committees and several cabinet members. On October 1, 1833, Jackson announced that federal funds would no longer be deposited in the Bank of the United States. Jackson began placing the

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

The Bank of the United States was technically the second bank of the U.S. since the first bank’s charter ended in 1811. The second bank held a monopoly over federal deposits, provided credit to growing enterprises, issued banknotes that served as a dependable medium of exchange, and used a restraining effect on the less well-managed state banks. Jackson didn’t trust the bank and thought it had too much power, so Jackson sought out to destroy it. There were two different groups when it came to opposition, “soft-money” and “hard-money”. Soft money supporters were progressive, they believed in economic growth and bank speculation. They supported the use of paper money and were mainly made up of bankers and allies to bankers. Hard money supporters were against expansion and bank speculation. They supported coinage only and rejected all banks that used paper money, which included the federal bank. Jackson was a hard money supporter although, he felt sympathy to the soft money supporters. Jackson could not legally end the bank before its charter expired. By removing the

James R. Sharp, "The Jacksonians versus the Banks: Politics in the States after the Panic of 1837" Columbia University Press 1970

Although Jackson was a hard money supporter, he was sensitive to his many soft money supporters, and made it clear that he would object to renewing the charter of the Bank of the United States, which was due to expire in 1836. When Jackson could not legally abolish the Bank of the United States before the expiration of its charter, he weakened it by removing the government’s deposits from the bank. Jackson fired two of his secretary of treasury when they refused to carry out the order because they believed that such an action would destabilize the financial system. Jackson got Roger Taney to carry out his order. Taney took the deposits out of the Bank of the

During the Jacksonian period of 1824-1848, America had great economic development that played a role in making this period known as the “common man,” live up to its expectations. The Bank War was one of Andrew Jackson's many attempts to lower the power of the federal government. The Bank of the United States was ran by Nicholas Biddle, and issued federal deposits, credit and bank notes. However, the main issue was that it restrained the power of state banks. The soft-money and hard-money were two groups, that opposed the Bank. The

In this case, Worcester vs. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with the Native Americans that the Americans couldn’t force the Natives off their land. However, President Andrew Jackson did not agree with John Marshall’s decision, since Andrew Jackson had anti-Native views. He scoffed at Marshall and ignored the Supreme Court’s decision. This case shows the unconstitutionality of President Andrew Jackson and Georgia’s actions in ignoring the decision made in Court. In addition, it shows an abuse of the Checks and Balances system – the President did not execute the decision made by the Supreme

With the Jackson administration into office, the Second Bank of the United States became threatened. President Jackson had a private prejudice that wasn’t party policy (Schlesinger 74). He hated banks, all banks, but he especially hated the Second Bank of the United States. He viewed all bankers as “little more than parasites who preyed upon the poor and honest working people of America” (Roughshod 2). The reason for his hatred most likely stemmed from his near ruin as a businessman (land speculator, merchant, and slaver trader) when in the 1790s he accepted some bank notes that turned out to be worthless. From then on, he never trusted anything but hard money, or specie (Roughshod 2).

In reading Alfred A. Caves’ article, it says that Jackson violated treaties that the U.S. had with the Indians in order to remove them from their land. It says that the government “misunderstood and often times misrepresent the provisions of the law” . Many times the treaties with the Indians were not seen as actual agreement that the government didn’t have to follow and abide by what was said in the agreement. When the Indian Removal Act came along in 1830, the act made things even more complicated. One of the

Nicholas Biddle proved great opposition to President Jackson. He wanted to re-charter the National Bank; however, many people were against Biddle’s decision. This was particularly true of people in the west. They were still wary of a national bank, after the Panic of 1819, which involved mishaps in land speculation. Jackson shared the predominately western opinion that several small banks would be a better service to the nation than one, large bank would. A major problem with a national bank would lie in it’s willingness only to make loans to the wealthy. This would be of no use to the middleclass. Jackson would not allow Biddle to gain any more power than he already had.

The Removal of Native Americans was unjustified because the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee have the right to stay in their territory and the Treaty of New Echota was not signed by all the Cherokee leaders. One reason the Native American Removal was unjust came from the Worcester v. Georgia case in 1832. The Cherokee nation challenges the Indian Removal Act and the Supreme Court served as judges. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case favors the Cherokee, they argued that the Cherokee nation was its own “distinct community...in which the laws of Georgia can have no force...but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves or in conformity with treaties and with the acts of Congress”(Supreme Court). This evidence suggest that the Cherokee nation owned the land they were on, not