AP® United States History review sheet from Aim for Five (aimforfive.com/us-history/units/4/4-8)
Unit 4 · Topic 4.8
4.8 Jackson and Federal Power
Andrew Jackson used federal and presidential power forcefully, but selectively. He pushed through the removal of Southeastern Native nations, defied a Supreme Court ruling in the Cherokees' favor, threatened force against South Carolina's nullification of the tariff, and destroyed the Second Bank of the United States.
Key terms
- Indian Removal Act
- Trail of Tears
- Worcester v. Georgia
- Nullification Crisis
- Bank War
- spoils system
Indian removal
Several Southeastern nations, including the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw and Seminole, held land that cotton planters wanted. Many Cherokees had adopted farming methods, a written language (created by Sequoyah), a newspaper and a written constitution (1827), hoping to keep their land by showing they could live alongside white Americans.
Georgia passed laws claiming authority over Cherokee land. Jackson supported Georgia, and Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, which let the president negotiate treaties exchanging Eastern Native land for land west of the Mississippi, in what became Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma).
The Cherokee went to court. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), the Supreme Court called the Cherokee a 'domestic dependent nation' and declined to hear the case. In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), it ruled that Georgia's laws had no force in Cherokee territory, because only the federal government could deal with Native nations. Jackson refused to enforce the ruling. (The famous line 'John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it' is probably not his actual words, but it reflects his position.)
In the Treaty of New Echota (1835), a small faction of Cherokees, without the approval of the Cherokee government, signed away the nation's land. In 1838–1839 the US Army forced about 16,000 Cherokees west. Roughly 4,000 died on what became known as the Trail of Tears. Other nations were also removed; the Seminoles fought the Second Seminole War (1835–1842) in Florida, and some were never removed.
The Nullification Crisis
Nullification is the idea that a state can declare a federal law void within its borders. Southern planters hated the high Tariff of 1828, which they called the 'Tariff of Abominations'. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, vice president under John Quincy Adams and then under Jackson, secretly wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828), arguing that states could nullify unconstitutional laws, building on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (3.10).
In 1832, unsatisfied by a modest tariff cut, South Carolina passed an Ordinance of Nullification declaring the tariffs void and threatened secession if the federal government used force. Jackson, though a believer in limited government and a slaveholder, insisted the Union came first. He issued a proclamation declaring nullification unconstitutional and warning that disunion by force was treason, and Congress passed the Force Bill (1833), authorizing military force to collect tariffs. At the same time, Henry Clay brokered the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which lowered rates gradually. South Carolina withdrew its nullification of the tariff but then 'nullified' the Force Bill to save face.
The Bank War
Jackson saw the Second Bank of the United States, led by Nicholas Biddle, as an unconstitutional monopoly that served wealthy Eastern investors. In 1832 Clay and Biddle pushed a bill to renew the bank's charter four years early, hoping to make it an election issue. Jackson vetoed it, calling the bank a tool of the rich and powerful against 'the humble members of society', and won reelection.
Jackson then moved federal deposits to state banks, which his critics called 'pet banks'. Those banks lent freely, fueling land speculation. In 1836 Jackson's Specie Circular required that public land be paid for in gold or silver. Together with international problems, this helped bring on the Panic of 1837, which struck soon after Van Buren took office.
Presidential power and the spoils system
Jackson vetoed more bills than all previous presidents combined, using the veto over policy disagreements rather than only constitutional ones. He also embraced the spoils system, rewarding loyal supporters with government jobs, which he defended as rotation in office that kept government open to ordinary men. Critics named the Whig Party after the British party that had opposed royal power, to cast him as 'King Andrew I'.
Worked examples
Try each one yourself first, then open the solution.
- Example 1
Applying a court case
Short-answer practice: Briefly explain ONE way the outcome of Worcester v. Georgia (1832) shows the limits of the Supreme Court's power in the 1830s.
Show the solutionHide the solution
- Step 1: State the ruling accurately.
- Step 2: Explain what happened next.
- Step 3: Draw the conclusion about the Court's power.
Answer: Model answer: In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had no authority over Cherokee land because only the federal government could deal with Native nations. However, President Jackson refused to enforce the decision, and the Cherokees were forcibly removed on the Trail of Tears in 1838–1839. This shows that the Court depends on the executive branch to enforce its rulings and could not protect the Cherokees when the president opposed them.
Common mistakes
- Saying the Supreme Court approved Cherokee removal. In Worcester v. Georgia it ruled for the Cherokees; Jackson did not enforce it.
- Thinking Jackson supported nullification because he favored states' rights. He firmly opposed it and threatened force.
- Mixing up which president carried out the Trail of Tears. Jackson's policy and the Treaty of New Echota set it up; the forced march happened under Van Buren in 1838–1839.
On the exam
- Jackson is a favorite for 'evaluate the extent' prompts about presidential or federal power. Show where he expanded federal power (nullification, removal) and where he limited it (the bank, the Maysville Road veto of federal road funding).
- Expect sources from the Cherokee petitions or Jackson's bank veto message.
Connected topics
Videos
Check yourself
4 questions on 4.8 Jackson and Federal Power. Pick an answer to see if you got it, and why.
Source 1: "It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly 30 years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation. . . . It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage hunters. . . . What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms . . . ?"
Source 2: "We wish to remain on the land of our fathers. We have a perfect and original right to remain without interruption or molestation. The treaties with us, and laws of the United States made in pursuance of treaties, guaranty our residence and our privileges, and secure us against intruders. Our only request is, that these treaties may be fulfilled, and these laws executed. . . . [The western land] is not the land of our birth, nor of our affections. It contains neither the scenes of our childhood, nor the graves of our fathers."
Source 1: President Andrew Jackson, Second Annual Message to Congress, December 6, 1830. Source 2: General Council of the Cherokee Nation, Address to the People of the United States, July 1830.
In Source 1, Jackson justifies Indian removal mainly by arguing that it
The authors of Source 2 base their case for remaining in their homeland mainly on
Which of the following best describes what happened after the Supreme Court sided with the Cherokee in Worcester v. Georgia (1832)?
Jackson's position on Georgia's authority over the Cherokee differed most from his position in which other conflict of his presidency?
0 of 4 answered