AP United States History

## Learning Outcomes

- Explain how Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs differed over the proper use of federal power
- Identify the significance of the Second Bank of the United States, the Bank War, and the Panic of 1837
- Understand why Jackson could oppose federal economic activism while expanding presidential power
- Compare Democratic and Whig views on tariffs, internal improvements, and congressional versus executive leadership
- Analyse how the Nullification Crisis revealed limits and contradictions in Jacksonian ideas
- Use this topic in APUSH SAQ, LEQ, and DBQ arguments about causation, comparison, and continuity and change over time

## AP United States History Syllabus

For the AP United States History, you are expected to understand party conflict over federal power in the Jacksonian era, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

- Know that the **Democratic Party** formed around Andrew Jackson and generally favored limited federal involvement in the economy
- Identify the **Whig Party** as an anti-Jackson coalition that supported a more active federal role in economic development
- Explain the significance of the **Second Bank of the United States**, Jackson’s **1832 veto**, and the **Bank War**
- Understand how Jackson’s use of the veto and removal of deposits expanded **executive power**
- Explain the **Nullification Crisis** of **1832–1833**, including South Carolina’s challenge to the tariff and Jackson’s defense of federal supremacy
- Distinguish between support for limited federal economic activism and support for a weak national government overall
- Understand cause and effect from the Bank War, **pet banks**, and the **Specie Circular** to the **Panic of 1837**
- Compare Democratic and Whig positions on the **American System**, internal improvements, tariffs, and national banking

## Test Your Knowledge

_Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, look more closely at that area during your revision._

1. Why did Andrew Jackson oppose the Second Bank of the United States?
2. How did Democrats and Whigs differ on the use of federal power in the economy?
3. Why is Jackson sometimes described as both a defender of limited government and an expander of presidential power?
4. What happened in the Nullification Crisis, and why did it matter for the Union?
5. How did the Bank War help contribute to the Panic of 1837?

## Introduction

In Period 4, one of the biggest political arguments in the United States was not whether the federal government should exist, but **how it should be used**. Andrew Jackson’s Democrats distrusted concentrated economic privilege and usually opposed federal action that seemed to help bankers, corporations, or local improvement schemes. At the same time, Jackson used presidential power more aggressively than earlier presidents and strongly defended the Union against state resistance.

This tension produced the **Second Party System**: Democrats versus Whigs. For APUSH, this topic matters because it connects politics and power to economic change, sectional conflict, and the rise of mass democracy for white men. It also works well in essays because it rewards students who can explain contradiction rather than oversimplify.

> **Key Term: federal power**
> The authority exercised by the national government under the Constitution, including power over economic policy, law enforcement, and the Union.

### Democrats, Whigs, and competing visions of the federal government

Jacksonian politics is often reduced to “Democrats wanted small government, Whigs wanted big government.” That is too simple for APUSH. A better comparison is this: both parties accepted an important national government, but they disagreed sharply about **what it should do**.

The **Democratic Party** built around Andrew Jackson claimed to defend the “common man,” especially white farmers, frontier settlers, and workers suspicious of eastern financial elites. Democrats generally opposed a national bank, disliked federally funded internal improvements, and often preferred lower tariffs. They feared that government-backed economic institutions would favor the wealthy at the expense of ordinary citizens.

> **Key Term: Jacksonian Democrats**
> Supporters of Andrew Jackson who favored limited federal involvement in the economy, opposed concentrated financial power, and claimed to represent the common white man.

The **Whig Party** emerged in the 1830s from anti-Jackson groups, including National Republicans and others angered by Jackson’s style of rule. Whigs favored a more active federal role in economic growth. They usually supported **Henry Clay’s American System**: a protective tariff, a national bank, and federal funding for roads, canals, and other internal improvements.

> **Key Term: American System**
> Henry Clay’s economic program calling for a protective tariff, a national bank, and federal support for internal improvements.

Why did the Whigs support these policies? They believed national development needed coordination. A stable currency helped business. Roads and canals linked regions and lowered transport costs. Protective tariffs sheltered U.S. manufacturing from foreign competition. In their view, federal action would strengthen national unity and prosperity.

Democrats saw the same policies differently. A national bank looked like a monopoly. Internal improvements often looked local rather than national. Protective tariffs looked sectional, helping northern manufacturers more than southern consumers and exporters. So the argument was never just about abstract theory. It was about **who benefited** from federal policy.

Regional and social bases mattered here. Whigs were often stronger among merchants, manufacturers, and reform-minded Protestants, especially in parts of the North. Democrats were often stronger among southern planters, western settlers, and others hostile to concentrated economic power. These alignments were not perfect, but they help explain why each party talked about federal power in such different ways.

> **Test Tip:** In an SAQ or LEQ, avoid saying “Whigs supported federal power and Democrats opposed it.” A stronger answer says Whigs supported federal power for economic development, while Democrats opposed federal economic privilege but still accepted strong national authority in some areas.

### The Bank War and the growth of executive power

The clearest example of this debate was the struggle over the **Second Bank of the United States**, chartered in **1816** for twenty years. The Bank held federal deposits and helped regulate credit and currency. Supporters argued that it restrained reckless lending by state banks and provided financial stability. Critics saw it as an institution that concentrated economic power in too few hands.

> **Key Term: Second Bank of the United States**
> A federally chartered bank created in 1816 to hold federal deposits and regulate credit and currency.

The Bank had already been upheld as constitutional in **McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)**. That matters because Jackson’s attack on the Bank was not simply about legality in the narrow court sense. He argued that the president could make an independent constitutional and political judgement, not merely accept the Supreme Court’s reasoning as final for executive action.

In **1832**, Bank president **Nicholas Biddle** and allies such as **Henry Clay** pushed for an early recharter bill. Clay believed this would trap Jackson politically: if Jackson signed it, he would disappoint anti-Bank supporters; if he vetoed it, he might alienate voters who wanted financial stability.

Jackson vetoed the bill. His veto message attacked the Bank as a privileged monopoly and warned that it served wealthy interests, including foreign stockholders. This was powerful politics. Jackson presented himself as the defender of ordinary Americans against entrenched privilege.

> **Key Term: Bank War**
> The political struggle in the early 1830s over Andrew Jackson’s campaign to destroy the Second Bank of the United States.

But the Bank War also shows Jackson’s contradiction. He used anti-elitist language to oppose concentrated national economic power, yet in doing so he expanded the presidency. Earlier presidents usually used the veto mainly on constitutional grounds. Jackson used it as a broad policy weapon. That is why opponents called him **“King Andrew.”** They believed he was ruling like a monarch, ignoring the balance among branches.

The story did not end with the veto. In **1833**, Jackson ordered federal deposits removed from the Bank and placed in selected state banks. Two treasury secretaries resisted, so Jackson eventually relied on **Roger B. Taney** to carry out the order.

> **Key Term: pet banks**
> State banks chosen to receive federal deposits after Jackson removed them from the Second Bank of the United States.

This move angered many Whigs because Jackson acted aggressively against an institution Congress had not abolished. The Senate even censured him in **1834**. For Whigs, the real danger was not only the destruction of the Bank but the president’s willingness to act against Congress in the name of popular support.

Economically, the destruction of the Bank weakened federal control over credit. State banks expanded lending, often recklessly. More paper money circulated. Speculation grew. Jackson’s supporters saw this as liberation from monopoly; critics saw it as the removal of a stabilising check.

> **Test Tip:** If a question asks whether Jackson was a defender of the common man or an enlarger of executive power, do not choose only one. The highest-level response explains that he was both: anti-Bank and anti-elite in rhetoric, but also highly aggressive in presidential action.

### Internal improvements, tariffs, and the Whig response

The Bank War was not the only issue dividing the parties. Another major argument concerned **internal improvements** such as roads and canals. Here too, Jackson limited federal economic activism. His **Maysville Road veto** in **1830** rejected federal funding for a Kentucky road project because he considered it local rather than national.

That veto mattered because it showed Jackson was not attacking only the Bank. He also rejected the idea that Washington should routinely fund local development projects. In Democratic thinking, many such projects should be handled by states or private enterprise, not by the national government.

Whigs disagreed. To them, roads and canals did more than help one locality. They connected regions, encouraged trade, and integrated the national market. This is where Henry Clay’s vision was strongest. Whigs wanted the federal government to shape long-term growth, not just stand aside.

Tariffs created another dividing line. Whigs generally supported protective tariffs because they helped manufacturers. Democrats often preferred lower tariffs, especially where their support depended on regions that exported staple crops and imported finished goods. High tariffs could therefore intensify sectional resentment.

This matters for APUSH because the debate was not simply party versus party. It also reflected deeper differences between a more industrialising North and a more agrarian South and West. A strong essay links party beliefs to the changing economy.

The Whig Party’s rise itself came from these conflicts. It was not originally a tightly unified ideological party. It was a coalition united above all by opposition to Jackson. Some Whigs cared most about economic modernisation. Others cared most about resisting executive overreach. Others were drawn by reform causes. But Jackson’s style made it easier for them to work together.

### Nullification, Union, and the limits of “states’ rights”

The **Nullification Crisis** shows why students must be careful with the phrase **states’ rights**. Jacksonian Democrats often favored limited federal economic activism, but Jackson did **not** accept state resistance whenever it challenged federal authority.

The crisis began over the tariff issue. South Carolina, deeply hostile to high tariffs, adopted the doctrine of **nullification**: the idea that a state could declare a federal law unconstitutional and therefore void within its borders. This position was associated with **John C. Calhoun**.

> **Key Term: nullification**
> The doctrine that a state could declare a federal law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it within that state.

In **1832**, South Carolina declared federal tariff laws null and void. Jackson responded forcefully. He rejected nullification as a threat to the Union and backed the **Force Bill (1833)**, which authorised military enforcement of federal law if necessary. At the same time, **Henry Clay** helped defuse the crisis through the **Compromise Tariff of 1833**, which gradually lowered rates.

This episode is crucial because it reveals Jackson’s selective use of federal power. He opposed a national bank and many internal improvements, yet he strongly defended federal supremacy when he believed the Union itself was at stake. So it is inaccurate to describe him as simply pro–states’ rights.

That distinction often appears in AP questions. Jackson did not believe every state could decide for itself whether to obey federal law. He believed states had an important place in the system, but he drew a hard line at disunion. In his view, the national government could not survive if each state acted as final judge of federal authority.

The crisis also foreshadowed later sectional conflict. South Carolina’s arguments about state sovereignty would reappear in more extreme form in the secession crisis of **1860–1861**. For that reason, the Nullification Crisis is not just a Jackson topic. It is also part of the road to the Civil War.

### From the Bank War to the Panic of 1837

A final piece of this subtopic is causation. APUSH often asks students to connect policy decisions to later outcomes. The most important chain here runs from Jackson’s financial policies to the **Panic of 1837**, which struck during **Martin Van Buren’s** presidency.

After the removal of federal deposits, the **pet banks** expanded lending. More money and credit encouraged land purchases and speculation. Jackson then issued the **Specie Circular** in **1836**, requiring payment for public land in gold or silver rather than paper notes.

> **Key Term: Specie Circular**
> An 1836 order requiring buyers of federal land to pay in gold or silver rather than paper money.

This policy tightened credit sharply. Buyers who had relied on paper money now needed hard currency. At the same time, the financial system was already unstable because the national bank no longer restrained reckless state banking. The result was a fragile economy vulnerable to collapse.

> **Key Term: Panic of 1837**
> A major economic depression that began in 1837, linked to speculative lending, unstable banking, and Jacksonian financial policies.

The Panic of 1837 hurt Van Buren badly because it began just as he took office. He continued Democratic “hard money” principles and resisted the kind of activist federal response many critics wanted. Instead, he supported the **Independent Treasury**, created in **1840**, which separated federal funds from private banks.

> **Key Term: Independent Treasury**
> A system established in 1840 that kept federal funds in government vaults rather than private banks.

This response reflected Democratic thinking: if private banks were unstable and corrupting, the solution was not a new national bank but separation of government finance from banking altogether. Whigs, by contrast, viewed the crisis as evidence that Jacksonian hostility to national economic management had gone too far.

So the Panic of 1837 became political evidence for both sides. Democrats said reckless speculation by banks was the problem. Whigs said the destruction of stabilising national institutions had created the disorder. On the exam, strong answers explain both interpretations before judging which is more convincing.

## Key Point Checklist

_This article has covered the following key knowledge points:_

- Jacksonian Democrats generally opposed federal economic privilege, especially a national bank and many internal improvements
- Whigs supported a more active federal role in economic growth through Henry Clay’s American System
- The Second Bank of the United States was chartered in 1816 and helped regulate credit and currency
- Jackson vetoed the Bank’s recharter in 1832 and used the veto as a broad policy tool
- The Bank War helped expand presidential power even as Jackson attacked concentrated economic power
- Federal deposits were removed from the Bank in 1833 and placed in state pet banks
- Jackson’s Maysville Road veto showed his opposition to federal funding for local internal improvements
- The Nullification Crisis of 1832–1833 began when South Carolina rejected federal tariff laws
- Jackson rejected nullification, supported the Force Bill, and defended federal supremacy and the Union
- The destruction of the Bank, speculative lending, and the Specie Circular helped contribute to the Panic of 1837
- Van Buren’s Independent Treasury reflected continued Democratic distrust of private banking
- The Whig Party rose largely in opposition to Jackson’s policies and what critics called executive overreach

## Key Terms and Concepts

- federal power
- Jacksonian Democrats
- American System
- Second Bank of the United States
- Bank War
- pet banks
- nullification
- Specie Circular
- Panic of 1837
- Independent Treasury


Jackson and Federal Power - Democrats, Whigs, and federal power