National bank veto

This article may incorporate text from a large language model. It may include hallucinated information, copyright violations, claims not verified in cited sources, original research, or fictitious references. Any such material should be removed, and content with an unencyclopedic tone should be rewritten. (February 2026) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Bank Veto of 1832

Part of the Bank War
General Jackson slaying the many headed monster (the bank)
Date	July 10, 1832
Location	Washington, D.C.
Participants	Andrew Jackson; Henry Clay; Nicholas Biddle
Outcome	Recharter bill vetoed; national bank dismantled

The national bank veto of July 10, 1832, was President Andrew Jackson's decision to reject the renewal of the Second Bank of the United States.[1][2] It was also one of the longest vetoes in American History. It became a major turning point in the "Bank War", a political conflict between Jackson and figures such as Senator Henry Clay and Bank President Nicholas Biddle over how much authority a national bank should have in the country's financial system.[3][4]

In his veto message, Jackson argued that the Bank was unconstitutional and that it gave special advantages to wealthy investors, including some from overseas, while ordinary Americans—such as farmers, mechanics, and laborers—did not benefit in the same way.[5][6] He also questioned the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, maintaining that the President had the right to interpret the Constitution independently.[7]

The veto expanded the influence of the presidency and was a central issue in Jackson's successful 1832 presidential election.[8] Jackson's administration withdrew federal funds from the national bank and placed them in state‑chartered "pet banks".[9][10] These changes contributed to the collapse of the national banking system and played a role in the financial instability that led to the Panic of 1837.[11][12]

the Second Bank of the United States

The Second Bank of the United States was established in 1816 following the financial instability that arose after the War of 1812.[13][14] Its 20-year charter granted it a pivotal role in regulating credit, stabilizing the currency, and managing federal funds.[15] By the late 1820s, the Bank had expanded into a significant financial institution with branches throughout the nation.[16] However, it also faced increasing criticism from political figures who considered it excessively powerful and insufficiently accountable to the public.[17]

Andrew Jackson assumed the presidency in 1829, harboring longstanding reservations about the Bank's constitutionality and its influence on the economy.[18] Numerous supporters, particularly from the South and West, believed the institution favored commercial and financial interests in the Northeast. Simultaneously, the Bank's president, Nicholas Biddle, and congressional allies, such as Senator Henry Clay, championed the Bank as crucial to maintaining national financial stability.[19]

Despite the Bank's charter not expiring until 1836, Clay and other proponents introduced a recharter bill in early 1832.[20] Their intention was to compel Jackson to publicly address the Bank's issue before the presidential election that year. The bill was approved by both houses of Congress in June and early July, setting the stage for Jackson's veto on July 10, 1832.[21]

Supporters of the Second Bank of the United States introduced a bill to renew the Bank's charter in January 1832, four years before its scheduled expiration.[22] Senator Henry Clay supported early recharter, viewing it as a means of ensuring the institution's continuity and prompting President Andrew Jackson to state his position during an election year.[16][23] The bill advanced through the Senate Committee on Finance and was brought before the full Senate for debate in the spring of 1832.[24]

The Senate passed the recharter bill on June 11, 1832, by a vote of 26 to 20.[25] The House of Representatives approved the measure on July 3, 1832, by a vote of 107 to 85.[26] After passage in both chambers, the bill was sent to President Jackson, who had ten days, excluding Sundays, to either sign or veto the legislation.[27][28]

The debate over the recharter bill reflected differing views on the role of a national bank in the American economy. Clay's support for early recharter placed the issue before the public during the presidential election year.[29] President Jackson opposed the bank, arguing that it concentrated financial power in a way he believed was harmful, contributing to the broader conflict over the Bank that occurred during his presidency.[30]

President Andrew Jackson returned the recharter bill to Congress with a detailed veto message on July 10, 1832.[31] In the document, he argued that the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional, despite the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland upholding its legitimacy.[32] Jackson maintained that each branch of government had an independent responsibility to interpret the Constitution.[33]

He also criticized the Bank's structure, claiming it granted exclusive economic privileges to a small group of stockholders, including some foreign investors.[34][35] Jackson argued that these advantages came at the expense of ordinary citizens and that the institution concentrated too much financial power in a single corporation.[36] The message framed the Bank as incompatible with principles of equal opportunity and republican government.[37]

After President Andrew Jackson issued his veto message regarding the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States, the matter returned to Congress for consideration.[38] The Senate engaged in an extended debate over whether to override the presidential veto, reflecting the deep political and economic divisions of the period.[39] When the vote was held on July 13, 1832, the result was 22 in favor of overriding the veto and 19 against.[40] Although a majority of senators supported the override, the total fell short of the two-thirds majority required by the Constitution to overturn a presidential veto. The House of Representatives, which shared similar partisan divisions, did not pursue an override vote.[41] As a result, the recharter bill failed to become law, and the existing charter of the Bank of the United States was set to expire in 1836, marking a significant moment in the ongoing conflict over federal economic policy and executive power.[42]

The veto of the Bank's recharter bill produced an immediate and widespread political response. Supporters of the Bank, particularly members of the National Republican Party, denounced President Jackson's action as an improper use of executive authority.[43] Figures such as Senator Henry Clay and Senator Daniel Webster argued that the Bank had contributed to national financial stability and that Jackson's objections were based on political considerations rather than constitutional or economic reasoning.[44] Many National Republican newspapers echoed these criticisms, portraying the veto as a threat to the country's credit system and an attempt to concentrate power in the presidency.[45]

Democratic leaders, by contrast, praised the veto as a defense of popular interests against what they viewed as an institution that favored commercial and financial elites.[46] Jackson's message was widely circulated in Democratic newspapers, which emphasized his arguments about monopoly, privilege, and the influence of foreign stockholders.[47] Supporters framed the veto as consistent with the principles of republican government and responsive to the concerns of farmers, laborers, and small producers.[48]

Public reaction varied by region and economic interest. Urban commercial centers, where the Bank's branches played a significant role in credit and currency regulation, tended to oppose the veto.[49] Many rural areas, particularly in the South and West, responded more favorably, reflecting longstanding suspicion of centralized financial power. The controversy deepened the emerging partisan divide between Jacksonian Democrats and their opponents, helping to solidify the political alignments that would shape the election of 1832 and the development of the Second Party System.[50]

Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832

The controversy over the Bank of the United States became one of the defining issues of the 1832 presidential election. President Andrew Jackson sought a second term as the nominee of the Democratic Party, while Senator Henry Clay emerged as the candidate of the National Republican Party.[51] Clay and his supporters hoped that Jackson's veto of the recharter bill would weaken the president politically by portraying him as hostile to economic stability and national financial institutions.[52]

The Bank issue shaped much of the campaign's rhetoric.[30] National Republican leaders argued that the Bank was essential for regulating currency and supporting commercial growth, and they criticized Jackson's veto as an abuse of executive power. Democrats, by contrast, defended the veto as a necessary stand against monopoly and special privilege. Jackson's campaign emphasized themes of popular sovereignty and opposition to concentrated economic influence, framing the Bank as an institution that favored wealthy elites.[53]

Despite Clay's efforts to make the Bank the central question of the election, Jackson maintained broad support among voters. He won a decisive victory in both the popular vote and the Electoral College, carrying most states outside New England.[54] The results were widely interpreted as public approval of Jackson's stance on the Bank and strengthened his position in the political struggle that followed.[citation needed]

Following his reelection in 1832, President Jackson moved to limit the influence of the Second Bank of the United States before its charter expired in 1836. In 1833, he directed Secretary of the Treasury William J. Duane to remove federal deposits from the Bank and place them in selected state‑chartered institutions, later known as "pet banks".[55] When Duane refused, Jackson dismissed him and appointed Roger B. Taney, who carried out the transfer of funds. The removal of deposits significantly reduced the Bank's financial authority and marked a major step in the administration's effort to dismantle the institution.[56][57]

Nicholas Biddle, president of the Bank, responded by contracting credit and calling in loans in an attempt to pressure Congress and the public to support the recharter.[58] These measures contributed to financial strain in several regions and intensified the political dispute over the Bank's role in the economy.[59] Although the Bank continued to operate under its federal charter until 1836, it did so with diminished resources and declining political support.[60]

After the charter expired, the institution briefly continued as a Pennsylvania‑chartered bank but soon faced mounting financial difficulties. It suspended payments in 1839 and failed completely in 1841.[61] The broader economic consequences of the Bank's decline, combined with rapid expansion of credit in state banks, contributed to the financial instability that culminated in the Panic of 1837. The controversy surrounding the Bank and its dissolution played a significant role in shaping debates over federal financial policy in the decades that followed.[62]

The veto of the Bank's recharter bill and the subsequent dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States had lasting political and economic consequences.[63] In the short term, Jackson's actions strengthened the authority of the presidency by asserting an independent executive role in constitutional interpretation and by demonstrating the president's ability to shape national financial policy without congressional approval.[64] The episode became an important precedent in debates over the balance of power among the branches of government.[63]

The conflict also contributed to the development of the Second Party System. Opposition to Jackson's veto and his removal of federal deposits helped unify various anti‑Jackson groups into the Whig Party, which adopted support for the Bank and broader federal economic programs as central elements of its platform.[65] The controversy thus played a significant role in defining the ideological boundaries between the Democratic and Whig parties during the 1830s and 1840s.[66]

Economically, the end of the national bank shifted financial authority to state‑chartered institutions, contributing to rapid credit expansion and speculative activity. These developments, combined with international economic pressures, played a part in the financial instability that culminated in the Panic of 1837.[67] Although historians debate the extent to which the Bank War directly caused the crisis, the absence of a central regulatory institution left the financial system more vulnerable to fluctuations in credit and currency.[1]

In the longer term, the demise of the Second Bank influenced later discussions about federal involvement in banking and monetary policy[68]. The United States would not establish another central banking institution until the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913, more than seventy years after the Bank War.[35] The events surrounding the veto thus shaped both the political landscape and the evolution of American financial institutions well into the twentieth century.[69]

Historians continue to examine the meaning and significance of Andrew Jackson's veto of the Bank recharter bill, and scholarly interpretations have evolved over time.[39] Early scholarship in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries tended to portray Jackson as a defender of popular democracy against entrenched financial privilege. Influenced by the Progressive school, historians such as Frederick Jackson Turner and Charles Beard emphasized the veto as a clash between agrarian interests and concentrated economic power, framing Jackson's action as a democratic response to elite control of credit and currency.[70]

Mid‑twentieth‑century biographers, most notably Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., reinforced this interpretation by presenting Jackson as the champion of the “common man.” Schlesinger argued that the veto represented a principled stand against monopoly and corruption, and he viewed the Bank War as a central episode in the rise of American democratic politics.[71] This sympathetic view dominated much of the popular and academic literature through the 1950s and 1960s.[63]

Beginning in the late twentieth century, however, historians increasingly questioned the democratic narrative.[4] Scholars such as Bray Hammond, Robert V. Remini, and Richard Hofstadter offered more nuanced assessments, noting that Jackson's constitutional reasoning departed sharply from established precedent and that his economic arguments were often inconsistent. Revisionist historians have emphasized the veto's role in expanding presidential power, arguing that Jackson's assertion of independent constitutional interpretation marked a significant shift in the balance between the executive and legislative branches.[13]

More recent work has focused on the economic consequences of the veto and the subsequent dismantling of the Bank. Some historians argue that Jackson's actions destabilized the financial system, contributed to speculative excesses, and helped set the stage for the Panic of 1837.[65] Others[who?] contend that the Bank's structural weaknesses and political entanglements made reform inevitable, and that Jackson's veto accelerated rather than caused broader economic transformations already underway.[citation needed]

Contemporary scholarship tends to situate the veto within the broader context of Jacksonian political ideology, party formation, and the development of the modern presidency. Historians continue to debate whether the veto was primarily a constitutional statement, a political maneuver, or an economic intervention. The diversity of interpretations reflects the Bank Veto's enduring significance as one of the most consequential presidential actions of the early republic.[72]

• List of United States presidential vetoes § Andrew Jackson