Andrew Jackson: How the President Became the King

Andrew Jackson: How the President Became the King


On March 28, 1834, a storm arrived. The United States Senate took action that
they had never done before and which they have never done since. Political War was a torrential downpour in
Washington between members of the Democratic party and the Whig party, when the Senate
decided taking 10 weeks to deliberate what ended as one single paragraph was the right
course of action; it was just too important to ignore. These lawmakers wanted to send a message to
the President of the United States, or Caesar, as some were calling him: he had gone too
far. This business on the table, this thing too
important to ignore, this thing that required 10 weeks of the Senate’s attention, was
a non-binding censure- a formal scolding- just words. But they drafted and debated. Drafted. And Debated. And finally, by a vote of 26-20, it passed. Reading in part. “Resolved. That the President…has assumed upon himself
authority and power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.” Only 34 words in total, but the message was
clear. President Andrew Jackson- in their eyes, was
wholly unworthy of the power he wielded and was comporting himself so recklessly as to
threaten the constitution itself. And of course we can talk about the mutual
political vitriol and disgust between Jackson and his enemies- after all, it was his arch-nemesis
Henry Clay who authored the censure. But to leave it there would be disingenuous. Andrew Jackson, a man who once said of himself,
“I know what I am fit for…I am not fit to be President”, or as a woman who knew
him from North Carolina put it, “Well, if Andrew Jackson can be President, anybody can!”
was pushing the bounds of the constitution as it had been intended, and in doing so,
he changed the way all memorable or modern Presidents since have used executive power. So what exactly did he do? In the case of the 1834 censure, he failed
to procure a document for Congress. But this was merely a pretext to attack him
on all the other things he had done in his term and a half in office. Here’s one of those things. After Congress’ initial approval, President
Jackson rejected their Maysville road project in 1830. Now this isn’t an exact outline of the original
road; this is what eventually became US Route 68, but Jackson vetoed something very similar
that would have used federal funds to connect Lexington, Kentucky to Maysville. Now you and I might debate the merits of an
infrastructure project, but Jackson’s opponents did not see it that way; for them, the President’s
veto was nothing short of a constitutional crisis. Henry Clay wrote, “We are all shocked and
mortified by the rejection of the Maysville road…We shall be contending a principle
which wears a monarchical aspect” Former President John Quincy Adams said, “The
overseer ascendency is complete” And if you’re wondering how a road veto
can lead to the monarchical upheaval of liberty, we’re gonna have to go deeper with this
topic, and examine how the founders saw the office of Presidency, what powers they compromised
when designing the chief executive of the United States. Spoiler alert: the founders didn’t agree
on everything. The constitution wasn’t handed down from
Mt. Sinai, but rather written through a series of debates which took place over 4 months
in a courthouse in Philadelphia. Which is why we need to here, at some of James
Madison’s notes that he took about what the founders were arguing during the constitutional
debates. It’s public domain, but I just happen to
have a copy in a compilation book. Now, one delegate in particular raised some
eyebrows during the debate on June 18th, 1787. His proposal: a Supreme Executive Authority,
one who served for life- “no good executive could be established on a republican model”
he argued “ only the English model was good on this subject”
If it sounds to you like ‘supreme executive authority for life’ is simply a euphemism
for king, you’re on the right track to understanding why basically no one voted for this plan. The 55 delegates at the moment probably sat
back in their chairs and asked, ‘didn’t we just fight a war to get rid of the King?” But American fear of monarchy goes deeper
than just the memories of George III. A constitutional republic was still a pretty
radical experiment. The Articles of Confederation which had been
the first attempt at american government starting in 1781 didn’t even have a chief executive;
that was the level of skepticism of executives, and specifically national executives. Under the articles, power was skewed in favor
of the legislature and moreso, the individual 13 states. And then, here was this guy a mere 3 years
after independence from England’s monarch, giving a presentation worthy of broadway,
proposing the President stay in office until he dies? This man was of course Alexander Hamilton. Though respected (he went on to be George
Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury), this anglophile was clearly in the minority. But he wasn’t alone, the 2nd President John
Adams got himself into trouble when he proposed referring to George Washington as ‘His Majesty
the President”, or even worse, “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States
and Protector of Their Liberties”. This fetishization of Monarchy might strike
some like 18th century stockholm syndrome, but luckily the Presidency crafted at the
constitutional convention wasn’t infected. Ultimately, the powers given the President
were narrow; I mean, the founder could barely agree to having one executive and not like
a panel of three executives. So, here’s what the President could do:
Enforce laws passed by congress. Command armed forces, but not declare war
(that power lies with congress). Propose budgets. But congress can ultimately pass or reject
those budgets. Negotiate treaties, which then need approval
from the Senate. Appoint judges and ambassadors, again with
Senate consent. The common strain here is the congress, which
seems to have authority or a check on just about everything the President can do. Indeed, the founders wanted the focus to be
on the Congress, specifically the directly elected House of Representatives, not the
indirectly elected, electoral college selected, President. Even the President’s veto power was envisioned
in a limited way. The first six Presidents only vetoed a total
of 10 pieces of legislation, and that rejection was based on constitutionality, not personal
preference like we see in our era. 16. And even this wasn’t enough for some people. This highly restricted President- basically
the administrator of the will of congress- ‘we pass the laws and we check everything
that you do’- this arrangement wasn’t good enough for some people. After the constitution was drafted and signed,
it went to the 13 states for approval. And there, it met criticism from a loose group
called the Anti-federalists, who opposed the constitution for a variety of reasons; among
them- the idea the President would evolve into an autocrat. The most well-known criticism of executive
power of the President can be found in Cato V, published in the New York Journal on November
22nd, 1787. And though this side of the debate ultimately
lost, their warnings echo through time. Again, Cato V: “great powers of the President
would lead to oppression and ruin…[this] frame of government differs but very immaterially
from the establishment of monarchy in Great Britain…you are about to precipitate yourselves
into a sea of uncertainty, and adopt a system so vague…is it because you do not believe
that an American can be a tyrant?” A king can ignore rules. A king can impose his will. A king can haunt you even once he’s gone. A king elected elected through a democratic
process is the worst king of all. But the only king in power on inauguration
day 1829 was, as Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story called it, King Mob. The night after Andrew Jackson was sworn in
as the 7th President, his critics were more preoccupied by the absolute chaos in the White
House than his authoritarian tendencies. You see, in the public eye, Andrew Jackson
was impervious to criticism. He was able to get away with things that would
have sunk any other politician of the time. Even though he had married Rachel Donelson
when she was still married to another man, even though he had started open shootouts
on crowded streets more than once, killed a man in cold blood in 1806, slaughtered Natives
on multiple occasions, even though he had seemingly usurped President Monroe during
the 1st Seminole War in 1818, invading Spanish Florida and extrajudicially executing british
officers- Jackson was an American War hero. Voters loved him. During the War of 1812 with the British, he
led a group of outnumbered men to one of the few American victories. In a slew of embarrassing losses and destruction,
including the burning of Washington DC, Jackson’s repelling of the British in New Orleans gave
politicians and citizens something, someone to celebrate: the hero of the common man,
Andrew Jackson. When Jackson ran for President, he thought
himself a man standing for the men of America against the political elites. For too long, he thought, the President had
simply been chosen by a small enclave of intelligentsia in Washington- where all institutions corrupted
into the swamp on which they were built. Like Thomas Jefferson, Jackson believed that
the uniqueness of America lay in small farms, individual men expanding West and tilling
the fertile country into prosperity. But below this call for individual freedom
lay an irony, one that Jon Meacham accurately describes in his Jackson Biography, “American
Lion”. He writes,
“Jackson took the Jeffersonian vision of the centrality of the people further, and
he took Jefferson’s view of the role of the President further still. To Jackson, the idea of the sovereignty of
the many was compatible with a powerful executive. He saw that liberty required security, that
freedom required order, that the well-being of the parts of the Union required that the
whole remain intact. If he felt a temporary resort to autocracy
was necessary to preserve democracy, Jackson would not hesitate”
In other words, sometimes you need a tyrant to execute the will of the people. Jackson would play this role several times
during his administration. It was this behavior that alarmed his critics
before he even stepped foot in the White House. For example, while rescuing New Orleans under
martial law, Jackson arrested federal district Judge Dominic Hall who had insisted he fulfill
a writ of Habeas Corpus. A General arresting a member of the Judiciary
would have major consequences for American History in the long term, but in the short
term it simply added to the ammunition Jackson’s opponents were stockpiling should he ever
run for office. He was an ill tempered philanderer-murderous,
a potential tyrant. Or as Henry Clay put it, perhaps speaking
for all the nervous elites in Washington, “I cannot believe that the killing of 2000
Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies a person for the various difficult and complicated
duties of the Presidency”. An existential threat to the union. But it didn’t matter. Election of 1828. With 56% of the vote General Jackson was elected
President. It was the mass of newly enfranchised voters,
non-land-owning white men; Jackson spoke directly to them. Perhaps he represented the man they wished
to be-wealthy, he had a large slave plantation in Franklin, Tennessee- heroic, he was willing
to fight and die for the things he believed, a bit of a temper like them- he relished conflict. They celebrated his victory with the largest
inaugural crowd to date. The Democratic Party and Jacksonian Era were
born. These were the men and women who flooded the
White House on Inauguration night, filling it to capacity, shattering glasses, begging
for federal jobs, drinking themselves silly, enjoying the idea of the great General in
office. The common man in the house of their father. And yes. As strange as it sounds, there was a fatherly
connection here. You might call it a cult of personality today. One newspaper described Jackson’s interaction
with a crowd on a trip he took from Baltimore to Boston. “He appeared to feel as a father surrounded
by a numerous band of children-happy in their affections and loving them with all a parent’s
love.” (261)
Anyway, the inauguration party got so crazy that Jackson had to slip out a window. Had he known how crazy the next 8 years would
be, he might have stayed and gotten straight to work. The drama of the Jackson administration crescendoed
as time went on. What started as concerns about the motley
supporters wrecking the white house and sycophantic political appointments ended with Jackson
deploying federal troops against fellow Americans. So like his administration, let’s start
with the least controversial and go to most. Now the least controversial, my opinion, the
Maysville Road veto. Remember, we talked about this earlier. Jackson vetoed the infrastructure project
not because he thought it was unconstitutional, but because he was focused on bringing down
the national debt, and because the project seemed to focus exclusively on Kentucky. It probably also didn’t help that his rival
Henry Clay represented the state. When the veto came, critics freaked out. Prior Presidents had vetoed a total of six
bills between them; Jackson started with Mayesville and went on to veto 11 more bills, four of
them all within a week. Napoleon’s takeover of the French Republic
at the turn of century was still fresh on congress’ mind. Seeing a former general acting in such an
unprecedented way, challenging the understanding that Congress was the most direct line to
the people, definitely stirred the Washington pot. The way we understand the President’s veto
power today comes directly from Andrew Jackson. What we think of as the President exerting
influence and being up on a soap box was seen as tyrannical to his contemporaries. A king ignores rules. Let’s step forward a little bit in time
to 1833, the President is drowning in crisis. We’re in the White House and Jackson is
on a monstrous 15 minute rhetorical tirade directed at a delegation from New York. Witnesses said his gesticulation was so wild
that he at one point had to set down his pipe. They had come to the White House seeking economic
relief, but Jackson was more interested in berating them for even showing up. “We have no money here, gentlemen” he
said, “Biddle has all the money”. You see, the New Yorkers had hit the nerve
most sensitive to the Tennessean President at the time: the National Bank. Jackson hated the national bank. Hated the man running the bank. And he had just risked his political career
to kill it. “The Bank…is trying to kill me, but I
shall kill it” The delegates reactions reflect perhaps how
many of the President’s true enemies rose and fell: Jackson was cordial first, ruthless
second. In the same way he had politely invited the
men into the white house, he had been pretty genial to Biddle during their first meeting
before launching an all out assault. But wait. Who is Biddle and why does he have all the
money? Again reading from American Lion,
“Jackson worried about the power of the Second National Bank of the United States,
an institution that held the public’s money but was not subject to the public’s control,
or to the President’s. Presided over by Nicholas Biddle-brilliant,
arrogant, and as willful in his way as Andrew Jackson was in his- the bank…was a rival
interest that, Jackson believed, made loans to influence elections, paid retainers to
pro-bank lawmakers, and could control much of the nation’s economy on a whim.” (pg.53)
The only thing that Jackson hated more than elected political elites were unelected political
elites. And Nicholas Biddle was the epitomization
of that characterization. And so Jackson had made it his personal goal
to bring down Biddle and his bank and send all the money to state and private banks,
which Jackson hated just a little bit less. But Biddle was ready to fight back as he knew
the clock was ticking. Allying himself with Jackson’s enemies in
the Senate, a Bank recharter was pushed through the congress and to the President’s desk
a mere 4 months before the 1832 Presidential election. Biddle’s gamble was clear: option one, Jackson
signs the recharter and the Bank gets what it wants. 2, Jackson vetoes the recharter, and the general
popularity of the Bank leads to his punishment on election day. New bank supporting President. Bank gets what it wants. Option 3, Jackson refuses to sign the bill
or tepidly vetoes, he appears weak and afraid of the institution and his enemies. Loses reelection. Bank gets what it wants. Seems like a pretty dire for Andrew Jackson…But
there was a fourth option. “The Congress, the Executive, and the Court
must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution,” Jackson explained
in his veto of the bank recharter. “The opinion of the judges has no more authority
over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the
President is independent of both.” A couple things are happening here. Number one: Jackson is calling the Biddle’s
bluff. You want a reelection battle? Let’s do it. My children are the ‘humble members of society’-
“the farmers, mechanics, and laborers. You represent elites of “artificial distinction,
gratuities and exclusive privileges”. Second, not only is the opinion of Congress
irrelevant, but don’t preach to me about Supreme Court. I’m autonomous of both the court and the
congress. Jackson had expanded his power again. He had declared his willingness to ignore
the other branches of the government. Not even a year later, Jackson would declare
a ruling of the Supreme Court, “still born”. That is to say, like a miscarriage, decisions
of the court are born dead into the world, from a mother to whom the father does not
yield. With this veto of the bank, Jackson had cemented
the political paradigm in the way he saw fit. And he was rewarded, easily winning his re
election with 54% of the vote. The bank was left to bleed out the final years
of its charter. King Jackson, as his opponents now called
him, had won. When the delegation from New York arrived
a year later seeking economic relief from Andrew Jackson, it was because Biddle and
the Bank were using the only tactic they had left: creating an artificial credit crisis
and strangling the national economy. But the battle was already lost; the funds
were removed and the institution was liquidated in 1841. A king imposes his will. And this fight basically raged and concluded
between 1832 and 1833, arguably the most consequential period in Jackson’s Presidency. That’s because during this struggle with
the Bank, Jackson had sent ominous orders to the Secretary of War on a different matter:
secretly replace the federal soldiers and officers in Charleston, South Carolina with
soldiers and officers loyal to him and the Union. “Therefore let the officers and men be relieved
by a faithful detachment…Let it be done without a hint of the cause until it is effected,”
The President was secretly preparing for war with one of the states in the Union. Now, the South Carolinians didn’t expect
it to be this way. Jackson believed himself to have been born
in South Carolina; he was a child of the South; a slave owner with a massive cotton plantation
in Tennessee. Why wouldn’t he be empathetic to their complaints? Namely, that the Tariff passed under the previous
President in 1828 was an abomination. The tax was hurting cotton exports to Britain
and that was hurting the Southern Economy- hurting Jackson’s bottom line too. And that’s why Jackson’s own Vice President,
John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, pushed within the administration to allow Southern
Nullification. In other words, allow individual states to
discern whether federal laws were constitutional or not, and reject them if not. The implications of nullification were huge. How can the slope not be slippery if state
after state can simply reject laws they don’t approve of? On the other hand, it is a classical American
question: how can we be sure that the federal government won’t exploit and oppress the
smaller states that make up the whole? Jackson himself was a bit foggy on the issue. If southern states couldn’t nullify a tax
law, could they nullify a northern attempt to end slavery? Jackson was still foggy as of 1830 when the
Washington establishment gathered at the Indian Queen Hotel to celebrate the birthday of the
late Thomas Jefferson. After dinner, toasts were raised. President Jackson, in prepared words called
out, “Our federal Union- it must be preserved,”. Jackson was making it clear to the nullifiers
in the room, his own Vice President included, that he was the patriarch of the nation and
that he chose to side with the Union. Vice President Calhoun took his turn, “Our
Federal Union-next to our liberty the most dear”. Newspapers wrote of the drama the next day. Game on. Jackson was in a difficult spot for the next
three years. Go too hard on the South Carolinians and the
other southern states might join them. Aquiesse, and good luck trying to impose tax
laws in the future. Now with everything we know about Jackson,
we would expect that he would escalate the situation: with his temper? Scream, shoot someone, grab more power and
crush this group. At this critical moment in our history, Andrew
Jackson’s tactics were directly tied to the continued existence of the Union. Congress was busy trying to calm tensions
as well. In July 1832, they passed and the President
signed a reduction in the tariff. But for southern nullifiers it wasn’t enough. In Late November, 1832 the South Carolina
convention declared the tariff ‘utterly null and void’, proclaiming ‘we will consider
the passage, by Congress, of any act authorizing the employment of a military or naval force
against the State of South Carolina…hereby null and void’. They add ‘at every hazard…all South Carolinians,
civil or military, will obey and execute the ordinance’. Not a month later in December, the Secretary
of War reported back that 5,000 stand of arms and 1,000 rifles were on their way to Charleston,
while the President ranted privately that he had three hundred thousand volunteers ready
to march to South Carolina. The Civil War was about to kick off 30 years
ahead of schedule. On the 10th of December, in approximately
9,000 words, Jackson addressed the people of South Carolina: “…dictates of a high
duty oblige me to solemnly announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed…Disunion
by armed force is treason. Are you ready to incur its guilt?” Now this sounds fiery. But Jackson actually struck a conciliatory
tone throughout his message. The former mayor of New York commented, “The
language of the President is that of a father addressing his wayward children,”
Jackson worked with the Congress in 1833 to accomplish two things. First, lower the tariff again. Second, authorize his use of force if it be
deemed necessary to execute the law. Now, was this another power grab by Andrew
Jackson?The President sending in troops against a state is pretty radical. Nonetheless, the answer is not totally clear. 1. Because Jackson didn’t initiate the conflict. If it was a power grab, it wasn’t a planned
power grab. 2. He asked the Congress for the use of force,
‘Can I use force?’. Now, if they had said no, maybe he would have
done it anyway, but we can’t know the answer to that question. 3. It’s not totally unprecedented. In 1794, President Washington enforced a Whiskey
tax in Western Pennsylvania by means of the military. But with Jackson, it would be the first time
the President sent troops against an entire state. Congress gave Jackson both things he wanted:
they lowered the tariff and they authorized his use of force to collect it. The efforts paid off and South Carolinian
backed down. But one man was watching Jackson’s activities
very carefully. He saw General Jackson’s measures to suspend
Habeas Corpus and arrest a judge in New Orleans. He looked back at President Washington’s
use of force and President Jackson’s threatened use of force to preserve the laws of the Union. This 20-something from Illinois would make
similar decisions in a generation. As Jon Meacham wrote describing Jackson’s
feelings, sometimes you need a tyrant to preserve liberty. But tyranny to preserve liberty…is what? A paradox of history. And we could not finish that history without
looking at what happened to some of Jackson’s other children. Jackson, like most Americans, wanted the land
on which the Cherokees, Choctaws, Creeks, and Seminole tribes lived. In 1830, he got permission from Congress in
the form of the Indian Removal Act to make deals with the tribes and relocate them West
of the Mississippi River. Jackson’s letter to the Creeks a year earlier
sheds light on his overall approach to the issue, and his pejorative way of referring
to the natives as his family: “[I] speak to you as your father and your friend…You
know I love my white and red children…you and my white children are too near to each
other to live in harmony and peace…Beyond the great river Mississippi…your father
has provided a country large enough for all of you, and he advises you to remove to it.” When the Supreme Court intervened with his
and the state of Georgia’s planned expulsion of natives, he declared the ruling ‘stillborn’. As Jackson aged comfortably at the Hermitage,
enjoying the wealth he produced with slaves, his successor, President Martin Van Buren,
executed the most violent removal of the natives who refused to sign treaties. As Jackson said in his farewell address, the
members ‘of that ill-fated race’ were now under the “paternal care of the General
Government’. The lights in the Shining City on a hill then
dimmed; the white children wanted the removal, but didn’t want to see it. And that’s why a
democratically elected tyranny is the worst tyranny of all. And we have here an account from Alexis de
Tocqueville describing the 1831 expulsion of the Choctaw,
“It is impossible to describe the frightful sufferings that attend these forced migrations…Hunger
is in the rear, war awaits them, and misery besets them on all sides…It was then the
middle of the winter, and the cold was unusually severe; the snow had frozen hard upon the
ground, and the river was drifting huge masses of ice. The Indians had their families with them,
and they brought in their train the wounded and sick, with children newly born and old
men upon the verge of death..I saw them embark to pass the mighty river, and never will that
solemn spectacle fade from my remembrance. No cry, no sob was heard among the assembled
crowd; all were silent. The calamities were of ancient date, and they
knew them to be irremediable.” A father can break rules. A father can impose his will. A father can haunt you even once he’s gone.

100 Comments

  1. The Exploration with William C. Fox says:

    @williamcfox

  2. Hakan Karaağaç says:

    Hello junkie.
    How would you explain/ comment on the populace of Turkey voting for the presidental system and The Absolute President of the Republic?
    Democraticly elected Tyrant? Or just exagration?

  3. David Ndiulor says:

    Face reveal at 1000 subscribers

  4. Chico Papass says:

    This video was excellent. I had just finished writing a paper that was very anti centralized banking and favored Andrew Jackson's hand in doing so. This video really made me think. And while I still hold my beliefs, this video has made me question them to the core, thus developing a much more nuanced outlook on the history and its effects.

  5. Gerard Jagroo says:

    To bad no one had the balls to be a Brutus to this 'Caesar'

  6. Urge says:

    amazing!

  7. SECONDQUEST says:

    Excellent video. The pacing and script are very nicely done.

  8. KUNGFUFUMAN says:

    Jackson did a lot of terrible things but damn does that man have my respect.

  9. BootsWithFur says:

    Trumps the stupid puppet version of Andrew Jackson

  10. Chrischi4598 says:

    Today we say if someone like Donald Trump can become president
    Anyone can

  11. griggs227 says:

    With the current state of America I think I'd prefer a king

  12. Klaus Westhoff says:

    Love your vids. Subscribed after watching my very first of them.

  13. Chris Daniels says:

    His enemy was the deep state.

  14. Benjamin McLean says:

    Leftists hate fathers. Not just abusive ones. They hate fatherhood as a concept.

  15. Cooper Jones says:

    Insert joke about how Trump and Andrew Jackson are the exact same and Trump is a monster who will destroy America.

  16. Alan L says:

    Please make a video regarding President Nixon & the watergate scandal. Was he really spying on his own citizens?

  17. John von Shepard says:

    We need Trump to get this power!

  18. John von Shepard says:

    What a great President.

  19. Blaise Mibeck says:

    MAN! What a channel! You do excellent work.

  20. SinriWoah LIVE! says:

    I live in Charleston, SC

  21. SinriWoah LIVE! says:

    John c Calhoun was just like Jackson in looks and mind

  22. Argus Plexus says:

    This was GOOD

  23. Ramon Preciado says:

    it could not be relatable to a cult personality for it was a celebration of the common mans insiting in belief of a common man in the house they could relate, not cult like personality but more possible as a fever for "equal" power perception.
    just a convo, my intellectual friend

  24. killerkai says:

    Andrew Jackson wasn't a king, he was a boss.

  25. Doctor Otis says:

    History 101 didn't Jackson adopt a Crete Indian boy he called his son after a massacre in Florida? If yes that explains his letter to the Southern Indian nations as their father.

  26. vesna talan says:

    There isn't anything contradictory about a loving parent having to make hard choices their kids don't understand or like, particularly in a crisis. Nature is cruel. We do our best not to be, but sometimes have no choice but to be. That's reality and a fact of life. Accepting facts of life, and recognizing actual limitations and the futility of pissing into the wind, but then to learn natural laws and work towards improving things, overcoming ignorance and building on solid ground, rather than "winging it" on shifting sand, mythology, speculation and wishful thinking is something a wise and loving parent knows and navigates and tries to impart to their kids.
    Hopefully they can then work together to their mutual advantage, but some people never grasp these fundamental survival skills and realities of what a family really is: an environment to get the young onto their own feet and self sufficient. Sometimes circumstance steps in and overrides a parent's choice; sometimes kids are simply weak physically or freeloaders emotionally, and sometimes just don't grasp when they have a great parent, no matter how much that parent does for them – their instinct to fly for themselves and stand on their own feet never kicks in.
    But usually the people have the hardest time grasping the facts of life are the rudderless who never had a stable and strong father or mother, who never accomplish anything constructive because they never learned how – they learned what they lived among dysfunctional adults. So what happens to that person, or the one who is "self taught" with not much to work with, and is brainwashed to think that their degree in community organizing from a Chicago college is a legitimate substitute for good parenting, and trained them to live in denial of their ignorance, fear, common sense and conscience, not question their delusions and not find their way out of the house of mirrors a person who does not grasp reality is condemned to?
    Point is, a great parent is a force of Nature, a miracle of Nature, and protects their kids fiercely, even from themselves, and hopes they become a force in their own right before the parent has to let go, which is also a fact of life.
    "Teach your children well; their father's help will slowly go bye."
    Andrew Jackson was a great, great man in his time. Real people and lives aren't lived according to a "make believe" script that pretends there's no such thing as gravity, or weakness, or strength, or gender, or necessity, or corruption, or evil, or mortality, or deadlines, or goodness or right and wrong and the lesser of two evils, or a higher Power in us and around us.

  27. Andrej Telisman says:

    This was lecture on power and skill to rule, about personal and public resposibility, about great peoples and how they try to stay grounded in high stake poker game of politics. I am not fan of politic issues but this video remind me on my own duty who we choose and what to expect from ones we gave power to govern us.
    I wish we had more videos like this, it was pure intelectual excitement, discussion and lecture i had in my collage days, good times. I hope you will cover other presidents and thers imapact and strugels to shape nation and state on our democracy today.

  28. Andersen a says:

    3:45
    -Bright young man!
    -Yo who the eff is this?

  29. m h says:

    For someone who has read a biography on Jackson why don't you read the Constitution before you brand him as traitor to the republic Congress was the traitor during his presidency

  30. Lucky Lucas says:

    I wish you would have been a little more even handed throughout this video. To talk about the veto as some sort of tyrannical tool of the executive is somewhat frivolous, dare I say asinine. Moreover, Jackson was very representative of the time, like you alluded to. With all of the factors coming against him, he upheld the interests of the people no matter what, which is why I find him to be an effective president for the contemporary time.

  31. Hellbound Iscariot says:

    I mean if the president let the legislative branch do all the decision making. Wouldn't he be seen as weak since Congress and the Senate barely agree or get anything done?

  32. Mohamed el jaouhari says:

    translate the videos at the spanish, please

  33. Brass Talks About says:

    dude the anti federalists won

  34. blue says:

    Dude, keep up the good work. Your videos are awesome. Give it time and I think you will have a ton of subs. Normally I dont comment too much, but the Algorithm likes interaction.

  35. Jason Hatt says:

    Andreae Alciati Caesar first Emperor of America.

  36. Peter Smythe says:

    When there's roads…

  37. Jehu Roa says:

    So I just watch this today. This is the thing I want to say. "Too much Liberty is Chaos, Too much Order is Dictatorship". Bide well men of the west.

  38. Brian Crawford says:

    This is one of the best videos I've ever seen on YouTube.

  39. Robotnik70 says:

    Great video. I find it ironic that Alexander Hamilton was "pro elected monarch" .. and then along comes andrew jackson.

  40. Dimitri Kusnetsov says:

    TRUMP IS EXACTLY THE KIND OF PERSON OUR FOUNDING FATHERS FEARED.

  41. bitter saint says:

    You get a dislike because the title is misleading. Other than that; great video – I really liked it.

  42. Al-Fahred Wrestling says:

    Love this video, the prose is so beautiful, so poetic and powerful.

  43. Michael McDonald says:

    Was there any controversy/outrage over the first executive orders?

  44. Lamb Sauceror says:

    "It's treason then"
    -Andrew Jackson

  45. Colombian Crepe says:

    "This man was, of course, Alexander Hamilton"

    Of course it was Alexander Hamilton.

  46. measl says:

    Jackson's war against the National Bank was truly heroic: he seemed to be the only president we've had who actually understood the danger which the bank represented (and which they have now grown into). Despite all of his antics, Jackson is rightfully a National Hero!*

  47. Boney Miles says:

    if possible when you utilize text, even when showing yourself reading a book, could you edit that text onscreen. it makes it easier to digest than just hearing it.

  48. God doesn't have a gender you fag says:

    This video is wrong at the end
    In Jackson s time there was no south
    Texas wasn't in the union, Oklahoma wasn't a state etc
    You talk extremely long about how it wasn't ok to preserve the union with all the cost
    Well I'm sad to know that somewhere there on earth are Americans with studies and brains that doesn't care about the union and speak in 'ok ways' that every state haves a right of going alone
    If that was true then why they didn't go alone after revolution? Because colonies that share the same history and language are one nation
    Great Britain, but because they fought a war to walk a different way, it was 🇺🇸 the nation
    Texas and the west are Spanish
    Americans colonist arrived there and declared war
    In my opinion America was 'great' and real till Louisiana purchase
    After than it was just expansions like an imperial stile
    True history about America, the stolen land

  49. skip davis says:

    this is very good work, and fair treatment to the trail of tears. AJ did some great work keeping the banksters out of our life for a long time, but that was work that didn't endure, because they're so persistent.

    you do not give him sufficient credit for his work in florida and new orleans. particularly new orleans: he didn't conscript – he flat out drafted a mish mash of losers to build revetments against hardened british soldiers that fought against napoleon. that is a huge achievement! he personally built some of these defenses. i think you kind of glossed over that.

    there was a reason common men voted for jackson. there's also a reason common men now vote for trump.

  50. tygonmaster says:

    "A democratically elected tyranny is the worst tyranny of all" – So, like the kind that creates blanket travel bans based on racism without the support of Congress?

  51. Saratogan says:

    Why is this so difficult? The executive branch does what? It executes. Executes what? It executes the laws passed by the congress. It should not make laws on its own. That very simple division of responsibilities is lost on people today. That is the reason we have the vast regulatory state. Regulations are merely executive branch laws not passed by the congress. As Shakespeare wrote: "A rose by any other name…". Barry Obama's "phone and pen" were exactly this. Trump's reversal of Obama's regulations puts the responsibility back where it belongs — with the congress. Want change? Only the congress is chartered with that responsibility.

  52. Western Lion says:

    I love how we hear, "democraticly elected office for life," we easily recognize the shortcomings of such an option, yet we still have the Judicial Branch, who's leaders serve life terms.

  53. BrandonMXB says:

    I love your videos man! They're very well edited and you're a great story teller. Keep it up! 😀

  54. Super Smash Dolls says:

    #BlacksForTrump #IndiansForJackson

  55. Arsenic Poisoning says:

    Wait a temporary autocrat to defend democracy, that is an ancient roman tactic, ancient rome would appoint a dictator to lead the government and military during times of crisis and then he would step down from being a dictator after the crisis was over and this system worked until Julius Caesar exploited it

  56. Geno Pepino Melino Kekino Selino says:

    3:17 Hmmmm. I wonder who?

  57. The Best Sandwich in the Sea says:

    Jackson was an American badass

  58. Dave Diamond says:

    Have you ever read a book and think for your self of the times they were living in ? No .. Webster and Henry clay oppossed .. jackson ,but he was supported by thomas jeffersons view of unconstitutional charter of the national bank.. and for another fact he also was very smart in Law ,,,common law/ equity law /admirality law .. the chatholic rome banking control .. and did have he support of the Zar , he also understood whom the Indains were GAD.. and that they presented a threat to the establishment to United states of American .. he also adopted two orfan Indian children .. your view is very tainted by the educational system of ths very country .. The people whom control and rewrite the view of history . also inslave those to ignorant to question it !

  59. Zechariah Ong says:

    hamilton, if people knew how much of a douchebag he was

  60. Schultz says:

    Thats a good cocktail doe

  61. Kekero says:

    What may be expedient and popular now will inevitably be used to oppress the people.

  62. Diego Muñoz says:

    Great video.

  63. David Belcher says:

    I am resurrecting the Whig Party ….. Yes, I am a Proud Whigger

  64. Oliver Von arx says:

    Another really great video; you definitely deserve more subscribers – many thousands mor!!! 👌👍

  65. Robert says:

    This reminds me of Obama. He is untouchable no matter the fact he is a pedophile but no one cares, America has been dead for quite a while

  66. John Edward Gallagher says:

    No it was not a king it would be an elected executive for life.  Like the Pope. You are dramatic in the least.

  67. xSiLviCoOk says:

    be honest.. you put trump in the thumbnail for clicks didnt you?

  68. Marcus Adams says:

    WARNING! Carry on reading! Or you will die, even if you only looked at the word warning!
    Once there was a little girl called Clarissa, she was ten-years-old and she lived in a mental
    hospital, because she killed her mom and her dad. She got so bad she went to kill all the
    staff in the hospital so the More-government decided that best idea was to get rid of her so
    they set up a special room to kill her, as humane as possible but it went wrong the
    machine they were using went wrong. And she sat there in agony for hours until she died.
    Now every week on the day of her death she returns to the person that reads this letter, on
    a Monday night at 12:00 a.m. She creeps into your room and kills you slowly, by cutting you
    and watching you bleed to death. Now send this to ten other pictures on this one site, and
    she will haunt someone else who doesn't. This isn't fake. Share this with everyone you know, or die

  69. BenkethePirate says:

    10:42 Look! A guy in a pussyhat! Another parallel to Donald Trump.

  70. Andrew Flowers says:

    STUNNING

  71. valar says:

    This is bigly fascinating.

  72. Scriptminer says:

    Such an interesting, yet saddening topic, thanks for the video.

  73. Daniel Lopez says:

    I´m myself ain´t too familiar with American history, i know some of the basic stuff, a few battles and Presidents actions etc. on the basis of being from Europe.
    Thus this video as greatly helpful for me to understand the past political climate of the Union and the current Political climate of the US.
    So thank you for this video good Sir.
    From.
    Daniel with greetings from Finland.

  74. just4fun607 says:

    great channel !! great vid

  75. ZeraYaqob says:

    clay was corrupt and stood for the private bankers. I would not take what he says about jackson seriously.

  76. CreamyGoodness says:

    That piano riff made me think that I accidentally had a Lazy Masquerade video playing on another tab.

  77. wargearinternational says:

    In 1834 congress was doing a better Job then in 2017/18 …

  78. stephen mcdonagh says:

    I wonder how many of the American generals, later Presidents, started off as part of the British army. Did Washington start off as a British officer first?

  79. Mike Rinaldi says:

    History is trying very hard to repeat

  80. nekad2000 says:

    And why not Jackson, as it is Trump now. A government for the people, by the people, and pf the people is not the vision elitists have. If we are to embrace Presidents like Lincoln (himself acting very much like a tyrant), we need Presidents like Jackson and Trump. Elitists can go cry to themselves but this is the reality of that statement.

  81. nekad2000 says:

    It's too bad we can't elect Andrew Jackson again. Besides the fact that he would be a zombie, he can't run again.

  82. TimeWarpDrive 77 says:

    Andrew Jackson was the first democrat who owned slaves are committed atrocities to the American Indians and abe Lincoln, the first republican, freed the slaves. Know, which party is based off racism?

  83. Michael Snyder says:

    Andrew Jackson was a rabid racist and hated native Americans (and the British). He was elected as a populist, which says something about the US at that time. As President, as the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal government, Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme Court decision that the removal of the Cherokee and Creek from their lands in North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia was illegal, as the treaties with those tribes that gave them that land were under the Constitution, Federal law, that the (white) people and state governments of those states was breaking. His only saving grace was that he was also a nationalist, who voted for protective tariffs for American industry and agriculture and supported the indivisibility of the Union (Washington's words) during the Nullification crisis with South Carolina.

  84. Strothy2 says:

    would love to see a piece over Teddy Roosevelt…

  85. DNAsGhostzHouze says:

    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it…

    Here we are folks, repeating it.

  86. KaiGonGinn says:

    The problem is that the congress is inherently divide, while the President is unified. Nominally, congress are the ones with that have the will of the people AND the will of the states behind them, but actually don't have any power compared to the President. This is because Congress was built with its own internal checks and balances; the tension between the House and Senate, between the sovereignty of the popular will and the sovereignty of the constituent states. Due to the fact that there are no internal checks and balances in the Executive Branch, the President can always outmaneuver Congress and the Judiciary easily.

    A century and a half of "Imperial Presidency" has severely weakened the legitimacy of the legislative branch, which has overall weakened the will of the American people to make civil appeals to their government, instead relying on some demagogic savior to take the executive branch and impose their will on the nation. Unfortunately, neither party seems willing to disarm the executive branch and return power to the legislature specifically because it is so much easier to gain power over the executive branch than the legislative.

  87. WolfvineGaming says:

    A Democrat tyranny is the worst tyranny.

  88. EyeLevel says:

    "A democratically elected tyranny is the worst tyranny of all."

  89. Christian VII says:

    Jackson proclaims himself King and abolishes the other branches

  90. Lola Lemonite says:

    I really don't know what to think about Jackson.

  91. Tubmaster 5000 says:

    The irony of the Battle of New Orleans is that it was fought after the War of 1812 had ended. Neither the British nor the US troops knew this at the time of the battle due to the slow communication of the time. If the British had won the battle, they would have had to give New Orleans back as their victory would have been invalid.

  92. Charles Kornell says:

    Dr Brands, I’m very impressed! I’m planning to order your book! Now I understand why Trump likes Jackson!

  93. Amin R says:

    he killed the central bank.

  94. moe7258 says:

    Like Andrew Jackson Trump will be the greatest president ever. As long as he doesn't do the part at the end. Which I belive he won't.
    END THE FED!!!!

  95. Jacob Rowe says:

    GOD, I love your videos!

  96. Marc Shannon says:

    As he read from Cato #5 The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

  97. Dennis Menace says:

    there’s a suck born every minute

  98. Nim Boo says:

    Rating of President Andrew Jackson

    Defeating the Jew Banksters:
    +10👍

    Indian removals:
    -10👎

    Apparently he loved his White ""children"" more than he loved his Red ""children""
    This makes me sad. And I am White.

    ""A false weight is abomination unto the Lord.""
    The Bible

    I pray the American Indian tribes will get their independence one day if that is what they desire when the time is right.
    Just as I pray the American Whites get their independence from the globalist anti-Whites when the time is right.
    Every nation does best on their own land, living in peace with their neighbours.
    There is room enough for us all.

  99. Kenneth O'Toole says:

    He killed the criminally established, foreign owned and controlled "Second Bank of the United States" .. you have been 'revisionist history' duped. .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *