A. he believed the Bank had no control over the country's money B. he distrusted the bank becuase he lost money in an investmentC. he believed the Bank was controlled by incompetent people D. he believed the back was unconstitutional
None of the above. He distrusted the bank because he knew the people like Henry Clay whom he considered to be corrupt and manipulative. He felt that money lending and banksters always found ways to steal and chisel from the common man without education. He would not have liked Zionist philosophy. He was a strict adherent of and honest days pay for an honest days work. He loved the commonman and was a grassroots politician. Plain people loved him.
D. He believed a national bank controlling the country's money supply to be unconstitutional, which it is. And yet, we still ended up with a national bank in 1913 when Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act.
Here's what Misskitt said two years ago: In Jackson's veto message (written by George Bancroft), the bank needed to be abolished because: It concentrated an excessive amount of the nation's financial strength into a single institution It exposed the government to control by foreign interests It served mainly to make the rich richer It exercised too much control over members of the Congress It favored Northeastern states over Southern and Western states He felt the bank improved the fortunes of an elite circle of commercial and industrial entrepreneurs at the expense of farmers and laborers. After a titanic struggle, Jackson succeeded in destroying the bank by vetoing its 1832 re-charter by Congress and by withdrawing U.S. funds in 1833. 2 years ago
Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the U.S. Here is an exerpt from his veto message regarding this: It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society the farmers, mechanics, and laborers who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles. -- To answer the question, D. As for the trail of tears, it was, indeed, ****** up. But that is irrelevant. You can't make the argument that Central banks are constitutional because Andrew Jackson put small pox on Native American's blankets. Look at Article 1, Sections 8 and 10, and you will see that Jackson was/is correct.
