The Spoil System
When a political party comes to power, its leaders tend to place many of their faithful followers into
important public offices. The use of public offices as rewards for political party work is known as the "Spoils
System." The Spoils System is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government
jobs to its voters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party—
as opposed to a merit system, where offices are awarded on the basis of some measure of merit,
independent of political activity.The system is popular in numerous nations.
Many consider this practice warranted when capable persons are appointed to high places where policy is
made. They hold that the party in power must craft policy to meet its constituents' needs. On the other
hand, it is unwarranted when political leaders dismiss able persons from positions that do not make policy.
They do this to haul aboard others whose merit consists merely of party loyalty, thus compromising
governmental effectiveness.
Previous to March 4, 1829, moderation had prevailed in the transfer of political power from one presidency
to another. President Andrew Jackson's inauguration signaled a sharp departure from past presidencies. An
unruly mob of office seekers made something of a shambles of the March inauguration, and though some
tried to explain this as democratic enthusiasm, the real truth was Jackson supporters had been lavished with
promises of positions in return for political support. These promises were honored by an astonishing number
of removals after Jackson assumed power. Fully 919 officials were removed from government positions,
amounting to near 10 percent of all government post.
The Troubles with Tariffs
Before income taxation became standardized in the early 20th century, the federal government made most
of its money through a tariff, or tax on imports. A tariff served two main purposes. Firstly, it raised money
for the federal government, and secondly, it promoted American-made goods by making imports more
expensive. In theory, this was ideal for the United States. Unfortunately, it ignored economic
realities. The South had never made a system of roads and therefore it was therefore more economically
connected with England than it was with the Northern states. Although a tariff will help northern factories,
it will hurt Southern states that import manufactured goods.
During John Quincy Adams' term, a "tariff of abominations" was passed. The tariff was originally proposed
by Northern congressmen. In order to win the loyalties of both the North and the South, Jackson's
supporters added amendment after amendment to the bill. Ultimately, the tariffs were so high that it was
considered too abominable to pass (Jackson could therefore claim to support northerners while claiming that
he did not hurt the South). It passed anyway and although Jackson will not be blamed by either side, it will
put North against South.
Following the passing of the protective Tariff of
1828, South Carolinians began arguing that
individual states process the ability to void or
“nullify” federal laws, which they deemed to
represent a blatant violation of the
Constitutional compact. In late 1832, South
Carolina acted on these threats. On November
1832, a convention was held for the purpose of
formally nullifying the Tariff laws of 1828 and
1832, and vowed they would not enforce that law
within South Carolina.
After South Carolina formally “nullified” federal laws taxing imports, South Carolina threatened to withdraw
from the Union if the federal government attempted to force South Carolina to follow the Tariff laws. Civil
War seemed imminent: the state militia was called up, Charleston Harbor was fortified and the federal army
was prepared to march on South Carolina. It was up to Jackson to resolve this crisis. Instead of reacting
with anger, as he has so many times before, he wrote a “Proclamation,” a personal appeal directed to the
people of South Carolina. He reminded them that the union was composed not of states, but of “the people.”
The Bank War
The Second Bank of the United States chartered in 1816 for a term of 20 years. The time limitation
reflected the concerns of many in Congress about the concentration of financial power in a private
corporation. The Bank of the United States was a depository for federal funds and paid national debts, but
it was answerable only to its directors and stockholders and not to the electorate.
The supporters of a central bank were those involved in industrial and commercial ventures. They wanted a
strong currency and central control of the economy. The opponents, principally farmers, were distrustful of
the federal government. The critical question — with whom would President Jackson side?
At the time Jackson became President in 1828, the Bank of the United States was ably run by Nicholas
Biddle, a Philadelphian. But Biddle was more an astute businessman than politician. His underestimation of the
power of a strong and popular President caused his downfall and the demise of the financial institution he
commanded.
Jackson had been financially damaged by speculation and a tightening of bank credit early in his business
career. He retained a distrust of financial institutions throughout his life. At first, however, Jackson's
position on the Bank was not outwardly antagonistic. He was concerned about the Bank's constitutionality and
the general soundness of paper money in place of gold and silver. Jackson was also sympathetic to supporters
from the west who wanted access to easy credit.
In January 1832, Biddle's supporters in Congress, principally Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, introduced
Bank re-charter legislation. Even though the charter was not due to expire for four more years, they felt
that the current Congress would re-charter the Bank. They felt that Jackson would not risk losing votes in
Pennsylvania and other commercial states by vetoing it. Jackson reacted by saying to his vice-president,
Martin Van Buren, "The Bank is trying to kill me, Sir, but I shall kill it!"
Jackson's opposition to the Bank became almost an obsession. Accompanied by strong attacks against the
Bank in the press, Jackson vetoed the bank re-chartering. Jackson also ordered the federal government's
deposits removed from
the Bank of the United
States and placed in
state or “Pet Banks”.
The people were with
Jackson, and he was
overwhelmingly elected
to a second term. Biddle
retaliated by making it
more difficult for
businesses and others
to get the money they
needed. This caused an
economic contraction at
the end of 1833 and into
1834. The bank charter
expired in 1836.
Indian Removal
One of the most important aspect’s of Andrew Jackson’s Presidency was his policy towards the Native
Americans. Some Americans hoped to assimilate (integrate) Native Americans, or bring them into mainstream
American culture. In fact some Southeastern tribes did begin to adopt the culture of their white neighbors.
The Cherokee for example, created a Constitution and a Legislature modeled after the United States.
However, these “civilized tribes” still occupied large areas of valuable land – and white farmers and miners
wanted that land.
Andrew Jackson regarded the increase of independent, white farmers as key to the continued prosperity of
the United States. Americans to be really free and self-reliant needed their own land. But with population
rising, this required each new generation to move west. That land was occupied by Native Americans.
In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. Under this law, the federal government provided funds to
negotiate treaties to move Native American further west. For Jackson, the removal policy was “not only
liberal, but generous” because it allowed the Native Americans to keep their way of life.
In 1838, President Martin Van Buren (Jackson’s successor) ordered the removal of the nearly 20,000
Cherokee that still remained in the East. US troops rounded up the Cherokee and drove into camps to await
the journey. Beginning in 1838, they began the 800 mile journey, mostly on foot. As winter came more and
more Cherokees died. The Cherokees buried more than a quarter of their people along the Trail of Tears
(PICTURED ABOVE); this was the route they took from Georgia to the Indian Territory (Present Day
Oklahoma). The land they moved to was often inferior to the land they came from.
Jackson refused to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling. He declared “John Marshall has made his decision,
now let him enforce it.”
Worchester vs. Georgia
Facts of the Case
Worcester v. Georgia deals with Georgia state laws that were passed in the middle of the 1800s. These laws
were passed following an agreement reached between the Cherokee tribe and the state government of
Georgia. The laws instituted a prohibition of non-Indians from living in Indian territories. Only Non-Native
Americans with special permission from the government were allowed to live on these lands.
In September 1831, Samuel A. Worcester and others, all non-Native Americans, were
charged in the Supreme Court for the county of Gwinnett in the state of Georgia for
"residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a license" and "without
having taken the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of
Georgia." They were charged under an 1830 act of the Georgia legislature entitled "an
act to prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power by all persons, under
pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians." Among other things, Worcester
argued that the state could not maintain the prosecution because the statute violated
the Constitution, treaties between the United States and the Cherokee nation, and an
act of Congress entitled "an act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian
tribes." Worcester was convicted and sentenced to "hard labor in the penitentiary for four years." The U.S.
Supreme Court received the case on a writ of error.
Question
Does the state of Georgia have the authority to regulate the intercourse between citizens of its state and
members of the Cherokee Nation?
Conclusion/Verdict
No. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held that the Georgia act, under which
Worcester was prosecuted, violated the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States. Noting that
the "treaties and laws of the United States contemplate the Indian territory as completely separated from
that of the states; and provide that all intercourse with them shall be carried on exclusively by the
government of the union," Chief Justice Marshall argued, "The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community
occupying its own territory in which the laws of Georgia can have no force. The whole intercourse between
the United States and this nation is, by our constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United
States." The Georgia act thus interfered with the federal government's authority and was unconstitutional.
Jackson’s Response:
In a popular quotation, President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said: "John Marshall has made his
decision; now let him enforce it!” This derives from Jackson's consideration on the case in a letter to John
Coffee, "...the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce
Georgia to yield to its mandate," (that is, the Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce it)
The federal government and the Cherokee were not party to the suit. Worcester imposed no obligations on
Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce. The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the
decision, as had become standard. Worcester may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the
possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to
be a pro-Indian decision.