Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay - Essay Example

Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay were both well-known politicians in the course of United States history, often because of their differing views on politics and policy. Both had strong wills and even stronger ideals about the way that the country should be run, advocating different paths for the growth and development of the country. Both men had the power to curry favor with various politicians. Both came into politics during the 1820s, an era when the United States was growing rapidly, voters had increased, and the country was trying to find out and come into its own as a country, still leaving behind the stigma of once being a colony of Great Britain while establishing itself as a world power (Davidson, and Stoff 330). Both men also served in the War of 1812, with Andrew Jackson commanding forces at New Orleans and Henry Clay acting as a War Hawk from Kentucky (Davidson, and Stoff 333). However, it was through their political sparring and verbal fencing that Jackson and Clay would gain historical fame, each man trying to defend their views of what they thought best for the country. Clay supported a strong federal government with what he called the “American System”, a system of proposals that would have meant a national bank and high tariffs, along with using sale proceeds from public lands to finance improved roadways and canals, while Andrew Jackson supported the opposite, calling for a federal government with limited powers, lower tariffs, and a banking system that would be controlled by gold and silver, not paper banknotes, but most importantly, it would belong to the states. Henry Clay, in short, advocated a path for the development of America that would have kept power in the hands of the federal government, with very little of that power belonging to any state, while Jackson advocated for the rights of states and their citizens. Both Clay and Jackson are remembered for what is commonly known as the Bank War. Henry Clay was a staunch supporter for the Bank of the United States, and he incorporated the bank into his American System, by “interlocking” it with all stages of the proposals, including high tariffs and land sales (Watson 83). Andrew Jackson, however, did not only hate the bank, but he also loathed the bank. First and foremost, he thought that the bank was far too powerful, as well as undemocratic, as it was controlled by private bankers (Davidson, and Stoff 335). Even after Congress renewed the charter, Jackson vetoed it harshly, stating that only states should charter banks, not the federal government (Davidson, and Stoff 335). With the power of the presidential office behind Jackson, Henry Clay had lost a great proposal piece of his American System, and Jackson had asserted his authority to keep power in the hands of the states. Jackson and Clay both waged another type of war, over tariffs, which caused both men political agony. Clay was in favor of high tariffs, especially on imported goods, using those tariffs to protect domestic, or American-made, products and manufacturers (Watson 21). American manufacturers were considered to be a profitable competition for British manufacturers, and Clay wanted nothing more than to see America produce all of the goods that it needed on its own (Heidler, and Heidler 125). It soon became clear, though, that the South hated the tariff, as it put taxes on everything that they had to buy, and nothing of what they had to sell (Brands 433). The tariffs threatened rifts within the nation at a time when they could not be afforded; South Carolina even threatened nullification, or the right to refuse the tariff, as they thought it was unconstitutional (Davidson, and Stoff 337). Jackson, as a Southerner, did not care for the high tariffs, but as a politician, he knew his stance must be careful; therefore, he advocated an approach that would keep the interests of the country at the forefront, and stated that most of his sympathies lay with the agricultural aspects, not the manufacturing aspects (Brands 433). In a spectacular, double-edged move, he supported a compromise tariff that would lower the tariffs, but asked Congress to pass a “Force Bill”, which would allow him army support to enforce tariffs in South Carolina (Davidson, and Stoff 338). Tariffs became lower, to the great relief of the nation, but tensions between Jackson and Clay were far from over. One other big issue at hand, that affected the whole nation, was what to do with the proceeds from tracts of land held for sale throughout the country. Clay advocated and promoted a system that he referred to as distribution, whereby those proceeds were put back into federal funding for use in building and modernizing roadways and canals (Watson 85). Congress even sent his land redistribution bill to Jackson for signature; however, the way it was presented was alongside the Force Bill, making it seem as though Jackson had to sign one to have the other (Heidler, and Heidler 255). Jackson willingly signed the Force Bill, but used the extraordinary measure of “pocket veto” on the land bill (Heidler, and Heidler 245). Henry Clay had, therefore, lost the last part of his American System, and Jackson prevailed overall. In retrospect, both men were doing what they thought was correct for the nation at the time, but went about it in a different way. It is my opinion that Henry Clay was more successful over the long term, because he had the national interests at heart, and not just his own personal views. There can be no doubt that the nation needed what Clay was proposing; new roadways would have helped commerce, and a national bank would have helped avoid, rather than precipitate, the panics that were brought on by land speculation and purchase. Looking around today, the success of Henry Clay is plain in the interstate roadways and the banking system of the nation, while Jackson is remembered only as a roaring bully who loved his veto power. Both Clay and Jackson, while being bitter political rivals, had the interests of the nation at heart. Though they took widely different paths to see those interests realized, they both deserve a place in the books of history as venerable, successful politicians, who were not afraid to stand up for what they believed in and what they felt the nation could achieve. Works Cited Brands, H.W. Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. First Anchor Books Edition. New York: Doubleday, 2006. Print. Davidson, James W., and Michael B. Stoff. The American Nation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. Print. Heidler, David S., and Jeanne T. Heidler. Henry Clay: The Essential American. First Edition. New York : Random House, Inc., 2010. Print. Watson, Harry L. Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay: Democracy and Development in Antebellum America (The Bedford Series in History and Culture). Boston, MA: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998. Print. Read More