Believe it or not, he kind of was. That's why he was so against the bank.
I don't agree with you, but I think arguing about this would detract from the general point I was making which I will get into below. i will say this, the Hermitage was as successful as a plantation could be and that is much to Jackson's credit; but running a successful business is different IMO from running a national financial system.
Actually, I think it's the fact that he understood them that made him so against the bank. How, exactly, are these things really so necessary, anyway?
The nessecity of a National Bank comes in the confidence it creates abroad and the capital it creates domestically. When the Bank was created it showed that the US was serious about its debt problem and that it would pay it back. It also created a national line of credit which allowed the govt to fund other necessary things, such as roads, bridges, customs offices, the US marshalls service, Army, Navy etc. Basically it allowed the Govt. to do what a Govt. does best, assure the security of its citizens. The 2nd was create domestic capital. The Bank of the US, bought state debt and then sold it in the form of Bonds to wealthy domestic investors. Previous to this, US wealth was mainly in material possesions, which are nice but are hard to liquidate, bonds are a great way to liquidate capital should the need arise. Also the first bond sale assured that the financial elite (previously almost all Torey, with some notable exceptions) would remain loyal to the new US.
Anyway, what happens? Well, you know that situation we're in today where the vast majority of the wealth in the country is owned by a tiny percentage of the population? That happens a lot quicker, for one. This might help perpetuate the status quo in state banking, as well, so the charter regimes never go away. This exacerbates the problem. Likewise, as you get further and further from the PoD, and the American economy matures, we're going to end up with an anemic and under-developed financial system, one designed for economic conditions increasingly not present.
The difference is that a National Bank is the ONLY bank that can do business between states; at present any number of privately owned and operated banks can do this. In a national bank system, the nat. bank is only one that can. Therefore it is the sole possessor of US treasury Bondds and the benefits that come with it. Basically when Jackson didn't renew the Charter he made every state bank a Federal Reserve bank. But these Mini-reserve banks had no reserve requirements and when there was a run, nothing to bail them out. In short, the removal of the charter removed any sort of instrument to control or back up the State banks.
Our current financial mess, is far to complex to compare to this. It is becoming more apparent that every bank was in some way in on it and that every rating agency was in on it and that the Fed. was not paying attention at all. And to pile it on any sort of Watchdog agency had been so thouroghly gutted that they couldn't do anything to stop it.
The De-charter and the resulting Panic was far simpler. Jackson removed the Bank and moved its assests to state Banks which were now the sole securing agent of US capital and when one failed and people saw the how flimsy the institution was it created a run and well the rest is history.
Changes begin immediately, of course, but they get bigger and bigger as time goes on. There'll be the two trends I highlighted, as well as others. The totality of the change, however, can't really really be predicted past a few years, at most. It's just too huge a shift.
yes Butterflies are diffcult to predict.
