The Blunders Of Nicholas Biddle In The Bank War

The Blunders of Nicholas Biddle in the Bank War The Bank War, or the Jackson-Biddle test of strong will and influence, pitted the President of the United States of America against the President of the nation’s largest corporation in a struggle regarding the Bank of the United States. Jackson opposed the Bank primarily because he was a grew up as a poor orphan hardened by war, was greatly affected by the Panic of 1819 that was caused by the bank and lost a lot of money paying back loans a business partner of his had defaulted (Ladenburg 29). On the other hand, Biddle had a lavish, aristocratic childhood in which he graduated from Princeton at age fifteen and took tours around Europe in which he gained insight into the issues of international

President Jackson, along with Senator Richard M. Johnson, began an investigation of the Second Bank of the United States immediately after Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams in the election of 1828. There were suspicions that the Lexington and Louisville branches had advocated the election of Adams and discouraged voting for Jackson by refusing loans to members of the Democratic Party. The postmaster general, John McClean advised Biddle that the Bank appoint directors for the Kentucky branch of the Bank from both parties to avoid conflict, especially since the Bank was at the time under scrutiny (Remini 50). Biddle stubbornly ignored McClean’s advice, suggesting that he was not open to compromising, but instead wanted to use brute force to get his way. Later, there were more reports of unethical banking practices in New Hampshire which Biddle still refused to acknowledge. With these issues arising, the public became more aware of the fact that the Bank held too much power that even its advocates were unable to deny (Schlesinger 75). Jackson gave a message to Congress in 1829 that implored the legislature to recognize the unconstitutionality of the present Bank and to set reform for the Bank into motion if Congress agreed that the Bank was necessary (Remini 61). Jackson’s presentation made the president’s position clear and put the declaration of the unconstitutionality of the bank into public records. Had Biddle honestly investigated these allegations against the Bank, people would be certain of the Bank’s good intentions instead of viewing the Bank as power-hungry and unjust. Because Biddle stubbornly refused this compromise of investigation, the public became weary of the Bank’s power which Jackson would use to veto the recharter of the Bank and still maintain public