Ye Olde Bank o the US

By Liam Power
A dark day in the history of the fine nation of the United States of America occurred on July 10, 1832. On that dreadful day, the incompetent former president known as Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of the grand institution of the National Bank, thus eliminating one of the greatest and most beneficial organizations of this country. He claimed that the bank was in total opposition to the dictates of the Constitution, a statement that is completely ignorant of the previous history of the esteemed office of the presidency. After all, if Jefferson had strictly followed the Constitution, the United States would still be a much smaller nation, for nothing in the Constituion actually states the president may buy land from foreign powers. Surely Mr. Jackson would not oppose the purchase of the Louisiana Territory, were the option to have been presented to him during his presidency? However, this is not the worst of Jacksons offences. He also claims that the Bank is an instrument of injustice that is used by the rich and privileged to enforce their dominance of the lower classes. Anyone with a mite of intelligence can easily see that this is not so. Rather than the daemonic many-headed beast he makes out this grand and useful Bank to be, the National Bank is

beneficial to all, rich and poor alike. For 40 years, the bank in its first and second incarnations provided numerous benefits to the citizens of the United States by providing unbiased loans and financial aid for everyone. Furthermore, the Bank ensured the stability and economic strength of the country during its time of needs, first under Hamilton when solving the post-Revolutionary War debt crisis, and then after the War of 1812, when the nation was in desperate need of money after that vicious and harrowing war. Finally, Jackson claims that the bank is filled with corruption and greed. While it would be both nave and thoroughly incorrect to state that the Bank is completely pure, one can safely say that all branches of the government have at least some

corruption, ranging from the post offices all the way to the executive branch itself. Considering this, it is surely obvious that Mr. Jacksons statements are certainly hypocritical. Would he shut down the Congress because some of its members have been accused of taking bribes? Of course not! Therefore, it is simple to state that the same logic can then be applied to the National Bank. Yes, there may be a few bad apples, but why let that spoil the bunch? In conclusion, the actions of Jackson in response to the National Bank were unjustified, unnecessary, and unworthy of the esteemed office of the presidency. With but one signature, former President Jackson could have guaranteed the stability of the nation for at least another 20 years.