Robert Remini’s Andrew Jackson and the Bank War (1967) is a real gem of a book. I can’t recommend it highly enough. It offers a brilliant account of one of the most consequential and contentious episodes in early American political and economic history. First published in 1967, this work continues to resonate not just as a rich historical narrative, but as a revealing case study in the exercise of executive power, the shape of American capitalism, and the evolution of democratic ideology in the United States.
At its core, the Bank War was a political and ideological struggle over the future of economic power in America. The Second Bank of the United States, chartered in 1816 for twenty years, had grown into a powerful national institution. It regulated the country’s currency, acted as the federal government’s depository, and helped stabilize the national economy. Yet to Jackson and his growing coalition of populist supporters, the Bank was a dangerous concentration of unaccountable power – an undemocratic institution that favored wealthy elites and urban capitalists over farmers, laborers, and the common citizen. Remini frames the struggle as one of the most consequential episodes in American political and constitutional history – a battle not simply about banking policy, but about who controls economic power and political authority – the people or an elite institution.
Remini details how the Bank (often referred to as the BUS), under the leadership of Nicholas Biddle, had become a symbol of financial aristocracy. Biddle, intelligent and urbane, believed deeply in the institution’s stabilizing role, and he used its powers with technical skill and relative effectiveness. Nevertheless, Biddle made critical political miscalculations in handling Jackson and the growing populist sentiment against the Bank. His willingness to intervene in politics to defend the Bank – including lending money to friendly newspapers and politicians – only confirmed Jackson’s suspicions that the institution represented a corrupt alliance of money and political influence.
The political dimension of the crisis unfolded with the recharter debate. In 1832, with the existing charter not set to expire until 1836, Biddle and his congressional allies attempted to force the issue by applying for an early renewal. Their aim was to corner Jackson into a politically costly decision in the middle of his re-election campaign. Instead, Jackson turned the tables. He issued a scorching veto of the recharter bill, not on the grounds that the Bank was unconstitutional (the Supreme Court had already upheld its legality in McCulloch v. Maryland), but because he found it unjust and dangerous to democratic principles.
This use of the veto was revolutionary. Until Jackson, presidents had generally exercised the veto sparingly and only on constitutional grounds. Between 1789 and 1829, the presidential veto was used only ten times and three presidents (Jefferson and both Adams) never used it once. Jackson, by contrast, used the veto 12 times over his two terms and wielded it as a tool of public policy, declaring that he had a duty not merely to enforce the Constitution but to act as the direct representative of the American people. In doing so, he vastly expanded the rhetorical and practical power of the presidency. As Remini astutely notes, Jackson redefined the office not as an executor of congressional will, but as a co-equal branch with an independent mandate to protect the common interest. These moves, Remini argues, changed how the presidency itself operated and how Congress and the public regarded the office.
Remini emphasizes Jackson’s positioning as the representative of the “common man” fighting a privileged institution. The Bank, in Jackson’s rhetoric and Remini’s interpretation, symbolized special interests, concentrated power, and elitism. Jackson turned the Bank War into a popular cause—one that rallied his base and strengthened his political coalition. Jackson’s veto message, included in full by Remini, is one of the most significant presidential statements in American history. It rails against monopoly, privilege, and the “prostration of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many.” This populist dynamic is a key part of Remini’s argument.The message electrified Jackson’s supporters and helped secure his re-election in a landslide. Yet it also deepened the divide between Jacksonian Democrats and their opponents, soon to become the Whig Party.
The Bank War did not end with the veto. Jackson escalated the conflict by removing federal deposits from the Bank and placing them in selected state banks, known as “pet banks.” This move, executed through Treasury Secretary Roger Taney after previous secretaries refused, effectively crippled the national bank before its charter expired. The unilateral removal of senate-approved cabinet members was another fateful step in the direction of the imperial presidency as Jackson closed his iron grip over the executive branch. Biddle responded by contracting credit, causing a brief financial panic, which he hoped would turn public opinion against Jackson. Instead, the maneuver backfired, painting the Bank as manipulative and confirming Jackson’s warnings.
Economically, the consequences were significant and mixed. Jackson’s war on the Bank arguably contributed to the instability that followed, including the Panic of 1837, though Remini is careful not to draw overly direct causal lines. Jackson’s destruction of the Second Bank meant that the US lacked a central regulatory institution for decades, contributing to boom-bust cycles across the 19th century. At the same time, Jackson’s supporters argued that he had struck a blow against financial oligarchy and aligned the federal government more closely with the will of the people.
Remini’s great strength is in explaining how the Bank War was not merely about economics, but about democratic ideology and the evolving role of government. Jackson’s assertion that he, as president, represented all the people was a profound shift from the elite-driven politics of the Founding era. It ushered in an era of mass politics, popular campaigning, and a new conception of executive authority.
One of the most controversial aspects of the Bank War was Jackson’s populist authoritarian tendencies – his reliance on personal loyalty, his distrust of institutional constraints, and his tendency to make decisions based on intuition and belief rather than deliberative consensus. Critics, both then and now, have seen in Jackson’s behavior a dangerous precedent for demagogic rule. Yet Remini is generally sympathetic, arguing that Jackson’s actions, however forceful, stemmed from a sincere (if sometimes flawed) belief in the primacy of popular sovereignty.
The long-term legacy of the Bank War is profound. Jackson’s use of the veto as a policy instrument changed the presidency permanently, empowering future presidents to act as tribunes of the people rather than passive administrators, whose opinion and judgment equaled two-thirds of both Houses of Congress (i.e. what it takes to override a presidential veto). His defeat of the Bank also marked a turning point in the role of federal power in economic life – a pendulum swing away from centralized regulation and toward more fragmented, state-based systems, a model that would be crushed in the early twentieth century.
According to Remini, the Bank War also helped solidify the lines between the emerging Democratic Party and the Whig opposition. The conflict over the Bank became one of the defining political issues of the era and helped shape the modern two-party system in the United States.
Yet perhaps the most enduring impact was symbolic. Jackson’s battle against the Bank became a foundational myth of American populism – a David-versus-Goliath struggle between the ordinary citizen and entrenched elites. That narrative has been invoked by reformers and demagogues alike, from William Jennings Bryan to modern populist politicians.
In conclusion, the Bank War was a crucible in which the modern presidency was forged. Jackson’s bold actions redefined the office as a powerful, popular, and policy-driven institution. His confrontation with the Bank left a legacy of both caution and inspiration: caution in the dangers of unchecked executive power, and inspiration in the idea that government should serve the people rather than privileged interests. Remini’s crisp but masterful account ensures that this legacy, with all its complexity, continues to be studied and debated for generations to come.
The political dimension of the crisis unfolded with the recharter debate. In 1832, with the existing charter not set to expire until 1836, Biddle and his congressional allies attempted to force the issue by applying for an early renewal. Their aim was to corner Jackson into a politically costly decision in the middle of his re-election campaign. Instead, Jackson turned the tables. He issued a scorching veto of the recharter bill, not on the grounds that the Bank was unconstitutional (the Supreme Court had already upheld its legality in McCulloch v. Maryland), but because he found it unjust and dangerous to democratic principles.
This use of the veto was revolutionary. Until Jackson, presidents had generally exercised the veto sparingly and only on constitutional grounds. Between 1789 and 1829, the presidential veto was used only ten times and three presidents (Jefferson and both Adams) never used it once. Jackson, by contrast, used the veto 12 times over his two terms and wielded it as a tool of public policy, declaring that he had a duty not merely to enforce the Constitution but to act as the direct representative of the American people. In doing so, he vastly expanded the rhetorical and practical power of the presidency. As Remini astutely notes, Jackson redefined the office not as an executor of congressional will, but as a co-equal branch with an independent mandate to protect the common interest.
Jackson’s veto message, included in full by Remini, is one of the most significant presidential statements in American history. It rails against monopoly, privilege, and the “prostration of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many.” The message electrified Jackson’s supporters and helped secure his re-election in a landslide. Yet it also deepened the divide between Jacksonian Democrats and their opponents, soon to become the Whig Party.
The Bank War did not end with the veto. Jackson escalated the conflict by removing federal deposits from the Bank and placing them in selected state banks, known as “pet banks.” This move, executed through Treasury Secretary Roger Taney after previous secretaries refused, effectively crippled the national bank before its charter expired. The unilateral removal of senate-approved cabinet members was another fateful step in the direction of the imperial presidency as Jackson closed his iron grip over the executive branch. Biddle responded by contracting credit, causing a brief financial panic, which he hoped would turn public opinion against Jackson. Instead, the maneuver backfired, painting the Bank as manipulative and confirming Jackson’s warnings.
Economically, the consequences were significant and mixed. Jackson’s war on the Bank arguably contributed to the instability that followed, including the Panic of 1837, though Remini is careful not to draw overly direct causal lines. Jackson’s destruction of the Second Bank meant that the US lacked a central regulatory institution for decades, contributing to boom-bust cycles across the 19th century. At the same time, Jackson’s supporters argued that he had struck a blow against financial oligarchy and aligned the federal government more closely with the will of the people.
Remini’s great strength is in explaining how the Bank War was not merely about economics, but about democratic ideology and the evolving role of government. Jackson’s assertion that he, as president, represented all the people was a profound shift from the elite-driven politics of the Founding era. It ushered in an era of mass politics, popular campaigning, and a new conception of executive authority.
One of the most controversial aspects of the Bank War was Jackson’s personalism – his reliance on loyalty, his distrust of institutional constraints, and his tendency to make decisions based on intuition and belief rather than deliberative consensus. Critics, both then and now, have seen in Jackson’s behavior a dangerous precedent for demagogic rule. Yet Remini is generally sympathetic, arguing that Jackson’s actions, however forceful, stemmed from a sincere (if sometimes flawed) belief in the primacy of popular sovereignty.
The long-term legacy of the Bank War is profound. Jackson’s use of the veto as a policy instrument changed the presidency permanently, empowering future presidents to act as tribunes of the people rather than passive administrators, whose opinion and judgment equaled two-thirds of both Houses of Congress (i.e. what it takes to override a presidential veto). His defeat of the Bank also marked a turning point in the role of federal power in economic life – a pendulum swing away from centralized regulation and toward more fragmented, state-based systems, a model that would be crushed in the early 20th century.
Yet perhaps the most enduring impact was symbolic. Jackson’s battle against the Bank became a foundational myth of American populism – a David-versus-Goliath struggle between the ordinary citizen and entrenched elites. That narrative has been invoked by reformers and demagogues alike, from William Jennings Bryan to modern populist politicians.
Remini’s “Andrew Jackson and the Bank War” is more than just a recounting of past events. It is a work of political and economic analysis, alive with drama and populated with vividly drawn characters. It explains not only what happened, but why it mattered – both then and now. For anyone interested in the origins of modern presidential power, the intersection of finance and politics, the art of central banking, or the deep currents of American populism, this book remains essential reading.
In conclusion, the Bank War was a crucible in which the modern presidency was forged. Jackson’s bold actions redefined the office as a powerful, popular, and policy-driven institution. His confrontation with the Bank left a legacy of both caution and inspiration: caution in the dangers of unchecked executive power, and inspiration in the idea that government should serve the people rather than privileged interests. Robert Remini’s crisp but masterful account ensures that this legacy, with all its complexity, continues to be studied and debated for generations to come.
What's Tim Reading Now? 
Leave a comment