1832 Andrew Jackson - Squandering the Treasure of the Country, Opposition to Henry Clay's American System

During Jackson's 8 years in office, he was continuously at odds with Henry Clay and the Whigs.  At the forefront of this opposition was Jackson's opposition to Henry Clay's "American System".   Henry Clay supported the use of tariffs to protect American industry, and federally funded internal improvements to nurture and support commerce and manufacturing within the United States.   Clay saw it as an indispensable tool to strengthen the United States manufacturing and agricultural power, while Jackson saw it as an unconstitutional overreach of power.   In Jackson's farewell address, he referred to it as "a constant effort to induce the General Government to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people."   Jackson believed that to the American people, the abuse of taxing power by the government was as plain as day.   Any money raised by Congress came directly out of the pockets of its people and Congress had no right under the constitution to take money from people unless it was required to execute some specific power delegated to them by the constitution.   

This struggle between Jackson and Clay over the taxing of the people to fund internal improvements came to head several times during Jackson's eight years as President.  In 1829, Jackson vetoed “the Maysville Road” that would have passed right through the hometown of Henry Clay, and in 1830 Jackson and Clay faced off on a proposal to have the federal government purchase stock in the Louisville and Portland Canal Company. Jackson argued that Henry Clay and is followers were being deceptive with this bill and open the door to a power grab that would lead to the expansion of federal government and the control of “every canal and each 60 or 100 miles of every important road.”   In Jackson's farewell address, he accused his opponents of succeeding "in obtaining a tariff of duties bearing most oppressively on the agricultural and laboring classes of society".  And when these tariffs brought in more revenue than the government needed to perform its constitutional duties, Congress cooked up "extravagant schemes of internal improvements" to "squander the money" on various local projects.   It was funding of these local projects, that Andrew Jackson believed to be unconstitutional.  Jackson was not opposed to public works projects and internal improvements, but only if they benefited the nation as a whole.  In Jackson's opinion, the projects pushed by Henry Clay and the Whigs benefited a few at the expense of many and were designed to sway elections by drumming up support for candidates who supported these projects.

Just one day before the final vote was counted in 1832 and Jackson could declare his victory over Henry Clay, he delivered his State of the Union address.  In that address, he slammed those who supported Henry Clay's suite of internal improvement projects. Jackson accused Clay and the Whigs of promoting a "mischievous and corrupting influence upon elections by holding out to the people the fallacious hope that the success of a certain candidate will make navigable their neighboring creek or river, bring commerce to their doors, and increase the value of their property."   Jackson said that such a system would "squander the treasure of the country" and destroy both the purity of men and a fair legal system.   This accusation of squandering our treasure became a recurring theme launched against Henry Clay and the Whigs by the Jackson administration and any such bills that came across his desk would surely be met by the veto pen.   In his address, Jackson suggested that if Congress wanted to take on these internal improvement projects they would have to go through the people.   Congress would need to pass an amendment to the constitution to take on such projects.  This in Jackson's mind was the best approach, because if more than one quarter of the states were unwilling to support the project than surely it was not something in the best interest of the whole nation. 

In 1832, Jackson advised Congress to refrain from exercising its power in any new cases of internal improvements unless they were clearly of benefit to the nation as a whole.   This would eliminate any canal improvement projects or roads which did not cross state lines.   To take on any of these projects would go against the best interest of the nation.  Jackson asked, "If the States feel themselves competent to these objects, why should this Government wish to assume the power?".   Finally, Jackson warned that of the dangers of patronage by allowing the federal government to get mixed up in funding state projects.

"In former messages I have expressed my conviction that the Constitution does not warrant the application of the funds of the General Government to objects of internal improvement which are not national in their character, and, both as a means of doing justice to all interests and putting an end to a course of legislation calculated to destroy the purity of the Government, have urged the necessity of reducing the whole subject to some fixed and certain rule. As there never will occur a period, perhaps, more propitious than the present to the accomplishment of this object, I beg leave to press the subject again upon your attention. 

Without some general and well-defined principles ascertaining those objects of internal improvement to which the means of the nation may be constitutionally applied, it is obvious that the exercise of the power can never be satisfactory. Besides the danger to which it exposes Congress of making hasty appropriations to works of the character of which they may be frequently ignorant, it promotes a mischievous and corrupting influence upon elections by holding out to the people the fallacious hope that the success of a certain candidate will make navigable their neighboring creek or river, bring commerce to their doors, and increase the value of their property. It thus favors combinations to squander the treasure of the country upon a multitude of local objects, as fatal to just legislation as to the purity of public men. 

If a system compatible with the Constitution can not be devised which is free from such tendencies, we should recollect that that instrument provides within itself the mode of its amendment, and that there is, therefore, no excuse for the assumption of doubtful powers by the General Government. If those which are clearly granted shall be found incompetent to the ends of its creation, it can at any time apply for their enlargement; and there is no probability that such an application, if founded on the public interest, will ever be refused. If the propriety of the proposed grant be not sufficiently apparent to command the assent of 3/4 of the States, the best possible reason why the power should not be assumed on doubtful authority is afforded; for if more than one quarter of the States are unwilling to make the grant its exercise will be productive of discontents which will far over-balance any advantages that could be derived from it. All must admit that there is nothing so worthy of the constant solicitude of this Government as the harmony and union of the people. 

Being solemnly impressed with the conviction that the extension of the power to make internal improvements beyond the limit I have suggested, even if it be deemed constitutional, is subversive of the best interests of our country, I earnestly recommend to Congress to refrain from its exercise in doubtful cases, except in relation to improvements already begun, unless they shall first procure from the States such an amendment of the Constitution as will define its character and prescribe its bounds. If the States feel themselves competent to these objects, why should this Government wish to assume the power? If they do not, then they will not hesitate to make the grant. Both Governments are the Governments of the people; improvements must be made with the money of the people, and if the money can be collected and applied by those more simple and economical political machines, the State governments, it will unquestionably be safer and better for the people than to add to the splendor, the patronage, and the power of the General Government. But if the people of the several States think otherwise they will amend the Constitution, and in their decision all ought cheerfully to acquiesce."

Now back to Jackson's farewell address.  Jackson was proud of his firm and strong stance against these projects and declared in the end that he and the people were victorious.   Jackson wrote that the "good sense and practical judgment of the people when the subject was brought before them sustained the course of the Executive, and this plan of unconstitutional expenditures for the purposes of corrupt influence is, I trust, finally overthrown.".   Unfortunately, whatever strides Jackson made in controlling the reins of spending and internal improvements were very much loosened after the civil war.  Today, it seems that no Congressman or Senator can win re-election in their state unless they demonstrated their ability to bring back federal funding to their state.   The plain truth "Congress has no right under the Constitution to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers entrusted to the Government" may have been forever lost.   In 2007, one project alone Boston's Big Dig costed nearly $15 billion, about half of which came from grants from the Federal Highway Administration.

References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Fourth Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/fourth-annual-message-3 [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].

Miller Center. (2019). March 4, 1837: Farewell Address | Miller Center. [online] Available at: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1837-farewell-address [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].

Wagner, D. (2019). 1830 Andrew Jackson - Veto of Louisville and Portland Canal Bill. [online] Stateoftheunionhistory.com. Available at: http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2019/02/1830-andrew-jackson-veto-of-louisville.html [Accessed 26 Nov. 2019].