1829 Andrew Jackson - Champion of States' Rights?

When you think of Andrew Jackson, perhaps the first thing that comes to mind is the Indian Removal Act of 1830, or maybe the Nullification Crisis which declared that states cannot nullify federal law.  These are not policies of a man who is championing states' rights.  On the other-hand, Andrew Jackson did boldly refuse to re-charter the Second National Bank and was known for his hands-off policies that did often promote states' rights.   So was Andrew Jackson a champion of states' rights?  In Jackson's first State of the Union Address, he wrote some words that definitely support this, but a deeper look reveals that perhaps these words were actually those of Martin Van Buren, his secretary of State, and not Andrew Jackson himself.   It's just a theory but let me explain.

Buried in the middle of President Andrew Jackson's first Annual address to Congress were nuggets of support for the Jeffersonian principles of limited government, and states' rights.   Jackson concluded the section by stating that nothing was more important to the success of the Constitution than "watchful and auxiliary operation of the State authorities", and a warning against "encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State sovereignty".  Here is the full excerpt:

"Upon this country more than any other has, in the providence of God, been cast the special guardianship of the great principle of adherence to written constitutions. If it fail here, all hope in regard to it will be extinguished. 

That this was intended to be a government of limited and specific, and not general, powers must be admitted by all, and it is our duty to preserve for it the character intended by its framers. If experience points out the necessity for an enlargement of these powers, let us apply for it to those for whose benefit it is to be exercised, and not under-mine the whole system by a resort to over-strained constructions. The scheme has worked well. It has exceeded the hopes of those who devised it, and become an object of admiration to the world. We are responsible to our country and to the glorious cause of self-government for the preservation of so great a good. 

The great mass of legislation relating to our internal affairs was intended to be left where the Federal Convention found it -- in the State governments. Nothing is clearer, in my view, than that we are chiefly indebted for the success of the Constitution under which we are now acting to the watchful and auxiliary operation of the State authorities. This is not the reflection of a day, but belongs to the most deeply rooted convictions of my mind. I can not, therefore, too strongly or too earnestly, for my own sense of its importance, warn you against all encroachments upon the legitimate sphere of State sovereignty. Sustained by its healthful and invigorating influence the federal system can never fall."

Why do I think these are the words of Martin Van Buren?  When I first read these words, I was excited to see such a strong conviction of limited government and states' rights, but what struck me as odd, is that they seemed out of context.   Perhaps, they were just a continuation of Jackson's defense of his Maysville Road Veto, but this seemed to be a stretch.   Jackson vetoed the Maysville Road bill because he believed it would unconstitutionally expand federal power, and would benefit only one state, not all.  In general, Jackson was not opposed to internal improvements, but wanted Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to authorize it.  While this section on states' rights is related, it seems to be pointing to some other event or policy.   I thought perhaps it was related to Jackson's support of Georgia extending their state laws into Cherokee territory and setting up a confrontation leading to the Indian Removal Act of 1830.  Jackson did take a strong stance on states' rights when he refused to accept the appeal of the Cherokee Nation and advised them to leave the state, but this was not mentioned until much later in the address.   In general, it just seemed out of place.  Then I realized, that this was the last few paragraphs before Jackson dove into the report from his Secretary of the Treasury.  That's when it hit me.   President's don't write their Annual addresses, rather they are compilations of reports from their cabinet members.  Perhaps, these were the closing remarks from the Secretary of State, Martin Van Buren's report.   One thing is for certain, they were not the opening remarks of the Secretary of the Treasury, Samuel D. Ingham.  That report is available online and much of it is included in Jackson's Annual Address, but it contained no comments about limited government or states' rights.  Unfortunately, I could not find any report from Secretary of State Martin Van Buren from 1829, but a review of the principles and policies of Martin Van Buren do back up my hypothesis.

Martin Van Buren was a man who was alarmed by the grandiose federalist agenda of John Quincy Adams and was convinced that Republicans had strayed from the Jeffersonian creed of limited government, opposition to aristocracy and reliance on the hard-working, land-owning farmers.  In 1827, he became Andrew Jackson's campaign manager and took this message directly to the people.  When he became Secretary of State, Van Buren was easily one of the most capable members of the early Jackson administration and played a pivotal role in some of his more controversial actions such as vetoing the Maysville Road Act.   Van Buren like Jackson opposed the grand strategic vision of Henry Clay believing that his support for internal improvements, protective tariffs and a strong central bank was unconstitutional.  Van Buren was not a pure populist, but like Thomas Jefferson, he supported the dedication of the land-owning farmers who were self-reliant and with a self-interest to be demonstrably on the side of democracy. Like Jefferson, Van Buren often upheld the "landed interests" of the southern states over the commercial and manufacturing classes in the North.   Van Buren believed that the Federalists, who represented the "landed interests" were advocating a strong national government with special privileges for the rich.  As a Jeffersonian, Van Buren insisted upon the separation of powers, but in practice leaned on the supremacy of legislation as the only way to protect the rights of the people.  Van Buren believed that the federal government had a role very limited in scope and constrained to those powers that are explicitly enumerated in the constitution.  He looked to Congress, not the executive branch nor the courts to define new powers as illustrated by his support of Jackson's veto over the Maysville road.

As a traditional Jeffersonian, Van Buren upheld the concept of states' rights as an ideal framework to restrain the power of the federal government.  By advocating states' rights, he believed it would encourage activism at the state level to keep a watchful eye on the federal government.  It was this message that seemed to be the most prominent one in those concluding delivered to Congress under Jackson's name.  It was a principle, that transcended politics and even morality.   For example, on moral grounds, Van Buren always opposed slavery, but he did not openly denounce the institution until 1848 when he stated that it was an institution "inconsistent with the great principles of human liberty and natural right on which it was founded".  Before then, he treated the issue of slavery as one of states' rights and would not interfere. Thus, it is my opinion that these juggernaut words of states' rights were not just a few words related to one policy, but rather they were words that would not only define the policy direction of Jackson's first term, but also those of Martin Van Buren and a generation of Jacksonian Democrats up until the civil war.

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2018). Andrew Jackson: First Annual Message. [online] Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29471 [Accessed 22 Oct. 2018].

MINTZ, MAX M. “THE POLITICAL IDEAS OF MARTIN VAN BUREN.” New York History, vol. 30, no. 4, 1949, pp. 422–448. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23149456.

JSTOR Daily. (2018). Was Andrew Jackson Really a States' Rights Champion? | JSTOR Daily. [online] Available at: https://daily.jstor.org/was-andrew-jackson-really-a-states-rights-champion/ [Accessed 22 Oct. 2018].

Presidentprofiles.com. (2018). Early career - Martin Van Buren - policy, war, election, second. [online] Available at: http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Martin-Van-Buren-Early-career.html [Accessed 22 Oct. 2018].

Senate.gov. (2018). U.S. Senate: Martin Van Buren, 8th Vice President (1833-1837). [online] Available at: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Martin_VanBuren.htm [Accessed 22 Oct. 2018].