For Presidents’ Day 2022, I want to dedicate some few words to one of the greatest figures of American history – Andrew Jackson. Known at times as Old Hickory, The Hero of New Orleans, or even King Andrew, Jackson was impressive enough to define and epitomize an era, sometimes called the “Age of Jackson.” As a war veteran, Indian fighter, militia leader, lawyer, congressman, senator, president, the man who ended the national bank cartel, and founder of a political party, Jackson’s achievements and influence could be put up against anyone’s. I honor this American hero as one of the best leaders and firmest patriots who ever trod our blessed soil. 

Andrew Jackson was born to Irish immigrants in South Carolina on March 15, 1767. His father died that same year and never saw the son who was named after him. Jackson had two older brothers and was raised by his mom. They lived in poverty in the rough backwoods. A statement from a book published in 1900 gives us a good starting place for contemplating this singular life that began in such modest circumstances: 

“It is doubtful, indeed, if there ever will be, until the end of the Republic itself, an end of the dispute over the place which that slender figure with the bristling hair ought to have in American history. Had Andrew Jackson any good claim to statues and monuments, to the first place in the Republic, to popularity such as no other man had enjoyed since Washington, to power such as Washington himself had never exercised? Did he prove himself worthy of the place and power he held? To answer either yes or no with assurance one must patiently examine more books than Andrew Jackson ever glanced through in his whole life. This little book would hardly contain the full titles of them all. Yet it may perhaps be large enough to let the reader see what manner of man he was concerning whom so many bitter controversies have raged. Perhaps it may serve to explain how a Scotch-Irish boy, born to the deepest obscurity and the wretchedest poverty, and blessed, apparently, with no remarkable gifts of mind or body, came to have statues carved in his honor, towns and counties and cities named for him, long books written about him, a great party organized to do his bidding, the whole country time and again divided into those who were for him and those who were against him. . . . 

“. . . he was born to the humblest circumstances in a new settlement of a new country, and that his childhood and boyhood were passed among people of little culture, whose lives were hard and bare. The boy got little education, and never was a scholar. To the day of his death, he wrote the English language with difficulty, making many errors of grammar and spelling, and spoke it with many peculiarities of pronunciation. Of other languages he knew nothing; of the great body of science, literature, and the arts he knew next to nothing. In fact, he probably got less from books than any other famous man in American history” (William Garrott Brown, Andrew Jackson, 3-4, 6). 

The War for Independence broke out when this unlearned boy from the sticks was just nine years old. His patriotic spirit was evident as a boy and he volunteered to fight the Redcoats at age thirteen. Jackson’s soldiering didn’t last long, however, and he was captured with one of his brothers. While in captivity, an event happened that demonstrates the stalwart character of this amazing man. 

The incident occurred when a British officer ordered the young Jackson to shine his boots. Jackson patently refused to kneel down and clean the boots of the enemy. Infuriated, the enemy officer slashed Jackson with a sword. Jackson partially blocked the blow, but it cut pierced his head, giving him a scar and a rage which he carried for the rest of his life. 

William Garrott Brown described the imprint this event, and Jackson’s upbringing generally, had on him for the duration of his life: 

“[H]e bore on his head the mark of a blow from the sword of a British officer whose boots he had refused to polish. No man ever lived who had a simpler human way of loving those who befriended him and of hating those who hurt him than Andrew Jackson; and surely few men ever had better excuse than he for hating the British uniform. His feeling against the British was one of the things that colored his opinions on public questions; the supreme hour of his life was the hour when, at New Orleans, he had his revenge full measure, heaped up, and running over for all that he had suffered in the Waxhaws. Scholarly historians, passing rapidly over the events of his childhood, give many pages of learned criticism to the course he took on great public questions in later years, and gravely deplore the terrible passions that swayed him when, no doubt, he should have been as deliberate and calm as they are while they review his stormy life. But for those who would rather understand than judge him it surely cannot seem a small thing that he started out in life with such a heritage of bitter memories, such a schooling in hatred, as few children were ever cursed with. Passion and revenge are wrong, of course, but the sandy-haired, pockmarked lad of the Waxhaws had better excuse than most boys for failing to learn that lesson. It is doubtful, indeed, if any one ever took the trouble to teach it him. One little thing that stuck in his mind probably hurt worse than the sabre cut on his head. He did not even know where his mother’s grave was” (Brown, Andrew Jackson, 9-10). 

Jackson’s diehard opposition to the British is something that I respect about the man. In 2018, while everyone was fawning over the “royal wedding” of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, I wrote an article titled “Royal Sycophancy.” In it, I expressed a thought I don’t doubt General Jackson would’ve agreed with: 

“It was against elitists who fancied themselves “royalty” that our patriot forefathers fought. American blood was spilled because the British Royal Family wanted to keep us in chains. The War of 1812 was waged for the same reason and by the same forces of evil. 

“It was against this same clique of elitists inside the United States that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and others battled on the monumental issue of a national bank. Unfortunately, the Americans living in 1913 lost that battle and the Federal Reserve monstrosity exists as a parasite sucking the lifeblood out of this nation. 

“This same war has always been fought between the forces of Freedom and the sponsors of tyranny. Throughout history, tyranny has all too often taken the form of a monarchy, such as the British Royal Family represents. These monarchies, led by self-professed demigods and self-absorbed elitists, have done little more than oppress mankind, stifle growth, and impede the course of Freedom.” 

For most of his life, Andrew Jackson was compelled to fight against the British or British-sponsored forces. The War for Independence, the War of 1812, and various Indian wars were all brought about by the British tyrants. Jackson rightfully resented them. But before we talk more of politics, which will be the focus today, I want to quote some intriguing lines about Jackson’s appearance and personality from an old text I found: 

“He was far from handsome. His face was long, thin and fair; his forehead high and somewhat narrow; his hair, reddish-sandy in color, was exceedingly abundant, and fell down low over his forehead. The bristling hair of the ordinary portraits belongs to the latter half of his life. There was but one feature of his face that was not common-place his eyes, which were of a deep blue, and capable of blazing with great expression when he was roused. Yet, as his form seemed fine without being so, so his face, owing to the quick, direct glance of the man, and his look of eager intelligence, produced on others more than the effect of beauty. To hear the old people of Tennessee, and, particularly, the ladies, talk of him, you would think he must have been an Apollo in form and feature. 

“The truth is, this young man was gifted with that mysterious, omnipotent something, which we call A PRESENCE. He was one of those who convey to strangers the impression that they are “somebody;” who naturally, and without thinking of it, take the lead; who are invited or permitted to take it, as a matter of course. It was said of him, that if he should join a party of travelers in the wilderness, and remain with them an hour, and the party should then be attacked by Indians, he would instinctively take the command, and the company would, as instinctively, look to him for orders.  

“He was wholly formed by nature for an active career. The back of his head, where the propelling powers are said to have their seat, was very massive; perhaps, disproportionately so to the quantity of man to be propelled. A phrenologist, who had marked the smallness of his reflective faculty, along with such tremendous vital force, would have argued ill of his future, till he observed the remarkable prominence of his perceptive organs, and the full development of some portions of the upper moral region of the brain. “Here is a young fellow,” he might have said, “who will hold on if he takes hold, and go far if he sets out; but he will generally take hold of the right thing, and set out to go to the right place; but, right or wrong, he will not let go, nor turn back.” 

“He was a brave young man, without being, in the slightest degree, rash. If there ever lived a prudent man, Andrew Jackson was that individual. He dared much; but he never dared to attempt what the event showed he could not do. The reader is requested to banish from his ingenuous mind, at his earliest convenience, the notion that Jackson was a person who liked danger for its own sake, and who rushed into it without having weighed (in his own rapid way) the probable and possible consequences. He was consummately prudent. We have heard a great deal of his irascibility; and he most assuredly was an irascible man. But, observe; he seldom quite gave up the rein to his anger. His wrath was a fiery nag enough; but people who stood close to him when he was foaming and champing and pawing, could see that there was a patent curb in his bridle which the rider had a quiet but firm hold of. It was a Scotch-Irish anger. It was fierce, but never had any ill effect upon his own purposes; on the contrary, he made it serve him, sometimes, by seeming to be much more angry than he was ; a way with others of his race. “No man,” writes an intimate associate of his for forty years, “knew better than Andrew Jackson when to get into a passion and when not.” Yet, for all that, he was, sometimes, a most tinder-like and touchy fellow as we shall see. 

“This young lawyer, like most of those who had seen and felt what liberty had cost, was a very warm lover of his country. He remembered how vividly he remembered! the scenes of the recent Revolution; his mother’s sad fate, and its cause; the misery and needless death of his brother; his own painful captivity; the Waxhaw massacre; the ravaged homes of his relatives and neighbors; Tarleton’s unsparing onslaughts; and all the wild and shocking ferocities of the war, as it was waged in the border counties of North Carolina. These things made the deepest imaginable impression upon his mind. He could scarcely place other citizens upon the same level as the soldiers of the Revolution; whom he regarded as a kind of republican aristocracy, entitled, before all others, to honor and office. At this age, and long after, he cherished that intense antipathy to Great Britain which distinguished the survivors of the Revolution; some traces of which could be discerned in the less enlightened parts of the country until within these few years. In these respects, he was the most American of Americans an embodied Declaration-of-Independence the Fourth-of-July incarnate!” (James Parton, Life of Andrew Jackson, Vol. 1, 111-113) 

It’s often the case that the most influential leaders are not necessarily the most handsome or physically gifted. Instead, they have inner characteristics that propel them to greatness. Some are intelligent, others are brave, and some are persistent. And still some have a potent combination of traits that make them stand head and shoulders above their peers. Andrew Jackson was one such leader who was like an irresistible force of nature – a man who never wavered and who pursued his principles come hell or high water. 

So profound was Jackson’s influence in his day that I mark America’s decline from the final day of President Jackson’s administration. It’s been downhill for the United States since this monumental man left public service. He held the country together while he sat on the metaphorical throne. Yet, despite all that he did for his country in the Revolution, the War for 1812, as a statesman, and as a staunch supporter of the little guy, many then and now – especially the elitists – hate him and revile his name. 

Many of his contemporaries held less than savory opinions about Jackson. Even my dearest hero, Thomas Jefferson, said these famous lines in 1824: 

“I feel much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws and constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. His passions are terrible. When I was President of the Senate, he was Senator; and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage. His passions are, no doubt, cooler now; he has been much tried since I knew him, but he is a dangerous man.” 

To the genteel, refined Jefferson with his famously even temper, pleasant nature, and intellectual air, Jackson’s brash approach to life was jarring. The early Founding Fathers were great orators and calm, collected thinkers. Jackson, on the other hand, was a doer. He was impulsive at times, though more collected in his plans than most give him credit for. He was fiercely patriotic in a way most Americans today can fathom and he spilled his blood for his country, carrying the scars as reminders of his devotion. He was, whatever else you may think of him, a man who followed his conscience and did what he sincerely believed was right, no matter who else thought he was wrong. For that sincerity of soul, Jackson deserves our respect and admiration. 

I’m perhaps in the minority, but I think Jackson had a strong and able mind. His writing style far surpasses anything the average American of our day can produce. He was also wise and clever enough to understand the international banking scheme that held America in a bondage and to defeat it and drive it out of our land. He was a great tactician, both on the battlefield and in the political arena. He knew how to create a political machine and bring it to power. He was also, importantly, fit enough to know the Constitution inside and out and to honor it fiercely. 

At this point, many historians would no doubt lose control and, exasperated, ask how I can believe he ever followed the Constitution. Wasn’t he called “King Andrew” because he ruled like an autocrat? Didn’t he forcibly relocate the Indians, thus violating their rights? Didn’t he this, didn’t he that . . ? 

No matter what critics then or now say – and most of what they say are distortions and lies – Jackson, by his own words, was a staunch defender of representative government, rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution specifically. In his First Inaugural Address, President Jackson said: 

“As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be subjected to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe. To any just system, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power.” 

Those were his noble sentiments when he entered office and they were his feelings when he ended his second term as the nation’s chief magistrate. If anything, President Jackson was more deeply committed to America and rule of law in 1837 than in 1829. In his epic Farewell Address, President Jackson expressed his love of the Constitution, the necessity of preserving the Union under that sacred charter, and his livid disgust – with real life examples – at those who oppose constitutional laws or who attempt to take advantage of the People through unjust laws and banking practices. The utter sincerity of his words and depth of his emotions seeps through every syllable and cannot be doubted. 

It’s time to put on your best reading cap and bask in the warm fire of President Andrew Jackson’s patriotic soul as we quote at length from his Farewell Address: 

“We have now lived almost fifty years under the Constitution framed by the sages and patriots of the Revolution. The conflicts in which the nations of Europe were engaged during a great part of this period, the spirit in which they waged war against each other, and our intimate commercial connections with every part of the civilized world rendered it a time of much difficulty for the Government of the United States. We have had our seasons of peace and of war, with all the evils which precede or follow a state of hostility with powerful nations. We encountered these trials with our Constitution yet in its infancy, and under the disadvantages which a new and untried government must always feel when it is called upon to put forth its whole strength without the lights of experience to guide it or the weight of precedents to justify its measures. But we have passed triumphantly through all these difficulties. Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment, and at the end of nearly half a century we find that it has preserved unimpaired the liberties of the people, secured the rights of property, and that our country has improved and is flourishing beyond any former example in the history of nations. . . . 

“These cheering and grateful prospects and these multiplied favors we owe, under Providence, to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It is no longer a question whether this great country can remain happily united and flourish under our present form of government. Experience, the unerring test of all human undertakings, has shown the wisdom and foresight of those who formed it, and has proved that in the union of these States there is a sure foundation for the brightest hopes of freedom and for the happiness of the people. At every hazard and by every sacrifice this Union must be preserved. . . . 

“But in order to maintain the Union unimpaired it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country, and that every good citizen should at all times stand ready to put down, with the combined force of the nation, every attempt at unlawful resistance, under whatever pretext it may be made or whatever shape it may assume. Unconstitutional or oppressive laws may no doubt be passed by Congress, either from erroneous views or the want of due consideration; if they are within the reach of judicial authority, the remedy is easy and peaceful; and if, from the character of the law, it is an abuse of power not within the control of the judiciary, then free discussion and calm appeals to reason and to the justice of the people will not fail to redress the wrong. But until the law shall be declared void by the courts or repealed by Congress no individual or combination of individuals can be justified in forcibly resisting its execution. It is impossible that any government can continue to exist upon any other principles. It would cease to be a government and be unworthy of the name if it had not the power to enforce the execution of its own laws within its own sphere of action. 

“It is true that cases may be imagined disclosing such a settled purpose of usurpation and oppression on the part of the Government as would justify an appeal to arms. These, however, are extreme cases, which we have no reason to apprehend in a government where the power is in the hands of a patriotic people. And no citizen who loves his country would in any case whatever resort to forcible resistance unless he clearly saw that the time had come when a freeman should prefer death to submission; for if such a struggle is once begun, and the citizens of one section of the country arrayed in arms against those of another in doubtful conflict, let the battle result as it may, there will be an end of the Union and with it an end to the hopes of freedom. The victory of the injured would not secure to them the blessings of liberty; it would avenge their wrongs, but they would themselves share in the common ruin. 

“But the Constitution can not be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people, in the security it gives to life, liberty, character, and property in every quarter of the country, and in the fraternal attachment which the citizens of the several States bear to one another as members of one political family, mutually contributing to promote the happiness of each other. Hence the citizens of every State should studiously avoid everything calculated to wound the sensibility or offend the just pride of the people of other States, and they should frown upon any proceedings within their own borders likely to disturb the tranquillity of their political brethren in other portions of the Union. In a country so extensive as the United States, and with pursuits so varied, the internal regulations of the several States must frequently differ from one another in important particulars, and this difference is unavoidably increased by the varying principles upon which the American colonies were originally planted–principles which had taken deep root in their social relations before the Revolution, and therefore of necessity influencing their policy since they became free and independent States. But each State has the unquestionable right to regulate its own internal concerns according to its own pleasure, and while it does not interfere with the rights of the people of other States or the rights of the Union, every State must be the sole judge of the measures proper to secure the safety of its citizens and promote their happiness; and all efforts on the part of people of other States to cast odium upon their institutions, and all measures calculated to disturb their rights of property or to put in jeopardy their peace and internal tranquillity, are in direct opposition to the spirit in which the Union was formed, and must endanger its safety. Motives of philanthropy may be assigned for this unwarrantable interference, and weak men may persuade themselves for a moment that they are laboring in the cause of humanity and asserting the rights of the human race; but everyone, upon sober reflection, will see that nothing but mischief can come from these improper assaults upon the feelings and rights of others. Rest assured that the men found busy in this work of discord are not worthy of your confidence, and deserve your strongest reprobation. . . . 

“There is, perhaps, no one of the powers conferred on the Federal Government so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The most productive and convenient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it, that it might be able to perform the important duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the real payer in the price of the article, they do not so readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly by the taxgatherer. But the tax imposed on goods enhances by so much the price of the commodity to the consumer, and as many of these duties are imposed on articles of necessity which are daily used by the great body of the people, the money raised by these imposts is drawn from their pockets. Congress has no right under the Constitution to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is an abuse of the power of taxation, and unjust and oppressive. It may indeed happen that the revenue will sometimes exceed the amount anticipated when the taxes were laid. When, however, this is ascertained, it is easy to reduce them, and in such a case it is unquestionably the duty of the Government to reduce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not given to it by the Constitution nor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for the legitimate wants of the Government. 

“Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find there is a constant effort to induce the General Government to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people. Many powerful interests are continually at work to procure heavy duties on commerce and to swell the revenue beyond the real necessities of the public service, and the country has already felt the injurious effects of their combined influence. They succeeded in obtaining a tariff of duties bearing most oppressively on the agricultural and laboring classes of society and producing a revenue that could not be usefully employed within the range of the powers conferred upon Congress, and in order to fasten upon the people this unjust and unequal system of taxation extravagant schemes of internal improvement were got up in various quarters to squander the money and to purchase support. Thus one unconstitutional measure was intended to be upheld by another, and the abuse of the power of taxation was to be maintained by usurping the power of expending the money in internal improvements. You can not have forgotten the severe and doubtful struggle through which we passed when the executive department of the Government by its veto endeavored to arrest this prodigal scheme of injustice and to bring back the legislation of Congress to the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution. The good sense and practical judgment of the people when the subject was brought before them sustained the course of the Executive, and this plan of unconstitutional expenditures for the purposes of corrupt influence is, I trust, finally overthrown. . . . 

“. . . The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress, with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several States upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its place. 

“It was not easy for men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of business, whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the subject, to foresee all the consequences of a currency exclusively of paper, and we ought not on that account to be surprised at the facility with which laws were obtained to carry into effect the paper system. Honest and even enlightened men are sometimes misled by the specious and plausible statements of the designing. But experience has now proved the mischiefs and dangers of a paper currency, and it rests with you to determine whether the proper remedy shall be applied. 

“The paper system being founded on public confidence and having of itself no intrinsic value, it is liable to great and sudden fluctuations, thereby rendering property insecure and the wages of labor unsteady and uncertain. The corporations which create the paper money can not be relied upon to keep the circulating medium uniform in amount . . . Nor does the evil stop here. These ebbs and flows in the currency and these indiscreet extensions of credit naturally engender a spirit of speculation injurious to the habits and character of the people. We have already seen its effects in the wild spirit of speculation in the public lands and various kinds of stock which within the last year or two seized upon such a multitude of our citizens and threatened to pervade all classes of society and to withdraw their attention from the sober pursuits of honest industry. It is not by encouraging this spirit that we shall best preserve public virtue and promote the true interests of our country; but if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money at any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption, which will find its way into your public councils and destroy at no distant day the purity of your Government.” 

Sadly, President Jackson was prophetically correct. He foretold precisely how the American government would become corrupted and how our glorious free enterprise system would be turned into crass corporatism and self-centered materialism. But he was also correct that the Constitution, if obeyed to the letter, provides security for the nation and protection for individual rights. It was not fools, but sages who crafted the Constitution. And if we implement it and follow it again, we may again flourish like our countrymen in the early Republic and in the days of Jackson. 

A contemporary of Andrew Jackson, the religious leader Joseph Smith about whom I wrote an article, considered President Jackson an “august patriot” whose administration was “the acme of American glory, liberty, and prosperity.” It’s hard to dispute that description when you consider the achievements and growth of the Jacksonian era. President Jackson was the only president in U.S. history to pay off the national debt completely. He closed down the insidious, foreign-owned “national” banking cartel which was strangling the country. He presided over a booming economy. And two states were admitted to the Union – Arkansas and Michigan. 

By far, Jackson’s most prestigious and important accomplishment was putting the national bank out of commission. It’s reported by author Thomas J. Dilorenzo on page 29 of his Hamilton’s Curse that President Jackson, freshly sworn in as president, referred to the national bank as: 

“[A] monster, a hydra-headed monster . . . equipped with horns, hoofs, and tail so dangerous that it impaired the morals of our people, corrupted our statesmen, and threatened our liberty. It bought up members of Congress by the Dozen . . . subverted the electoral process, and sought to destroy our republican institutions.” 

Throughout his presidency, Jackson battled the bank and its ruthless head, Nicholas Biddle. In his strange, but sometimes enlightening book, The Suppressed History of American Banking, Xaviant Haze recorded the sparring between Jackson and the Biddle: 

“On July 4, 1832, Congress passed a bill to extend the central banking charter another fifteen years. To Jackson the bill’s timing on a much celebrated day confirmed his suspicions about the Second Bank deliberately interfering in the political process. His nemesis Nicholas Biddle backed Henry Clay, who had helped to get the recharter passed. Biddle, via the central bank, poured more than three million dollars into Clay’s election campaign; a mind-boggling sum for those times. But Jackson vetoed the recharter and made it known to the public that the majority owners of the bank were in fact foreign (Rothschild) stockholders. Jackson warned in a letter to the Senate on July 10, 1832, that “if we must have a bank, it should be purely American.” This fiery letter to Congress, Biddle, and the American people broke down the pitfalls and realities of the central banking/Federal Reserve system. . . . 

“In all of the other presidential campaign messages, inaugurals, annuals, and vetoes that had come before, there had been nothing like this. This was an unfiltered warning to the American people about the dangers lurking in their own government, which had been corrupted and infiltrated by foreign investors. Biddle threatened that Jackson would pay for making the Second Bank a party question and published more than thirty thousand copies of his Veto Message, which he had distributed along Clay’s campaign trail in hopes that Jackson’s words would be seen as inflammatory, irresponsible, and capable of inciting chaos. 

“Jackson responded to this by printing brochures that compared the Veto Message to the Declaration of Independence and by calling Biddle’s institution “a gambler’s bank.” Jackson then took to the street and won over the people with fireworks, barbecues, and parades, all of which had a much more positive effect on the public than the newspapers, posters, and brochures had. Jackson then formed an allegiance with working-class farmers, mechanics, and laborers and campaigned with his slogan “Jackson and No Bank” against rich and powerful elite capitalists. In so doing he easily earned the support of the people, who reelected him president in a landslide victory, much to the dismay of Biddle and his Rothschild backers. 

“However, Jackson knew the battle with Biddle was just beginning and following his victory he told James K. Polk, “The hydra of corruption is only scorched, not dead.” He then ordered his new secretary of the Treasury, Lewis McClean, to start removing the government’s deposits from Biddle’s Second Bank and to start placing them in state banks. But McClean refused to do so and was instantly fired by Jackson, who replaced him with William J. Duane. But Duane was also a Biddle stooge and refused to comply with Jackson’s requests, and so he ended up being fired as well. It was 1833, and the bank war was on full bore as Jackson desperately sought allies to help him kick out the Rothschild-dominated Second Bank. 

“He finally got the help he needed when former attorney general Roger Taney stepped up to be secretary of the Treasury. . . . 

“On October 1, 1833, Jackson announced that federal funds would no longer be deposited in the Second Bank of the United States and instead instructed Taney to begin placing them in twenty-three various state-chartered banks. Taney, on the orders of Jackson, began withdrawing government funds from the Second Bank. To do this Jackson had the bank’s status changed so that it would no longer have any financial ties with the government. This resulted in a crippling lack of funds for the bank, which n ow was left out in the cold as Jackson took complete control of the government. . . . 

“This redistribution of money to the state banks annoyed Biddle so much that he threatened to cause a depression if the Second Bank wasn’t rechartered and the money that had been taken from it was not immediately replaced. It was game on for Biddle, who boldly declared, “This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken.” The Second Bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle, began his counteroffensive by calling in loans and restricting lines of credit. A quick little financial crisis, he reasoned, would underscore the need for the central bank’s rechartering. . . . 

“. . . Biddle then put a squeeze on lending, and in the fall of 1834 the central bank announced that it wasn’t going to issue any new loans. This, of course, made for a rough Christmas that year as a nationwide recession hit the public hard. Biddle’s ego got the best of him as both Congress and the people turned against him. His actions of curtailing loans and causing panic in the business world was intended to force the rechartering of the Second Bank, but instead Biddle discredited the bank, which reinforced Jackson’s warnings of its dangerous powers. . . . 

“. . . Biddle made money so scarce that the recession turned into a depression and civil unrest began do descend upon America in the spring of 1835. This was a sight that pleased Biddle as he announced, “Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress. . . . Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction.” . . . . 

“Once again the people suffered the consequences of the bank war as Biddle made good on his threat and contracted the money supply. Blaming the depression on Jackson for withdrawing federal funds from the bank, Biddle gloated as he watched wages drop, unemployment soar, foreclosures and bankruptcies boom, and inflation skyrocket . . . Congress was assembled in an emergency meeting to discuss what to do about the depression and the disastrous bank war. 

“All they could do was muster enough votes to override Jackson’s veto so that the bank would be granted another two-decade monopoly over America’s money. But this vote couldn’t even get under way, because the governor of Pennsylvania stepped up in support of Jackson, claiming that at a dinner party he had overheard Biddle bragging about the bank’s plan to crash the economy” (Xaviant Haze, The Suppressed History of American Banking: How Big Banks Fought Jackson, Killed Lincoln and Caused the Civil War, 70, 74-75, 77-80). 

At the height of this brutal conflict, as the people began suffering directly from the bank’s disastrous policies, the most famous episode occurred. It’s no coincidence that U.S. presidents, and foreign leaders in general, who dare oppose a national bank, end up with a bullet in their head. The internationalist financiers are integral in the conspiracy of which I’ve written so much in my books and other articles. They are, in fact, central. And it was they who controlled the Second Bank of the United States and who were orchestrating, through Biddle, the war on America and on America’s first popularly-elected president, Andrew Jackson. 

I turn again to Xaviant Haze to tell the tale: 

“With the realization that the bank might not actually get rechartered, Biddle and the Rothschilds began to panic. At this point they did what they always did best – they grabbed an ace from up their sleeve. . . . 

“A good public execution was their favorite method of sending a message. But President Jackson had a sixth sense about it and declared in a letter to Vice President Van Buren, “The bank is trying to kill me – but I will kill it!” He would prove to be prophetic on both accounts. . . . 

“The Rothschild family hired a mentally unstable and unemployed house painter named Richard Lawrence to do the deed. On a damp windy in 18335, Lawrence approached Jackson near the steps of the Capitol building, pulled out his pistol, and shot at him, but his gun miraculously misfired. A frantic sixty-seven-year-old Jackson confronted the befuddled would-be assassin and clubbed Lawrence to the ground with his cane. Lawrence, shielding his face with his arms and still scuffling with Jackson, managed to pull out a second loaded pistol, aiming at Jackson’s stomach. He pulled the trigger, but it also misfired. Jackson glowed as if surrounded by a mystical halo that was impervious to bullets; Lawrence was dumbfounded and was soon wrestled into submission and captured by Jackson’s aides. 

“Jackson was unharmed, surviving an assassination attempt wherein two pistols somehow managed to misfire in more than one hundred twenty-five thousand to one chance of that ever happening. Later, in true vainglorious fashion, Jackson erected a statue of himself at the site of the assassination attempt . . . Lawrence would rot away and die in the mental ward but not before admitting that powerful people from England had hired him to kill the president” (Haze, 81-83). 

Before editorializing on the assassination attempt, I want to cite one more account, by MS King in his book Andrew the Great, which I highly recommend: 

“Richard Lawrence emerged from behind a column, withdrew a pistol from his cloak, and fired it from very close range at Jackson. The cap exploded without igniting the powder in the barrel — not an uncommon occurrence with old-school pistols. Lawrence then aimed a 2nd pistol which also misfired! Jackson, still full of fight in his 68th year, charged at Lawrence with his uplifted cane, beating the would-be assassin until he could be restrained and arrested by bystanders. 

“The pistols were examined and found to be loaded. New caps were placed on them and the guns fired as designed. The President’s friends declared the miraculous double-misfires as interventions of the Almighty. Indeed, Jackson’s numerous narrow escapes through his life gave many the impressions that he was “God-protected.” The daylight public boldness of Lawrence’s attempt, coupled with the great precaution of bringing two loaded pistols, in case one might fail, was taken by many as evidence of a deep conspiracy” (MS King, Andrew the Great, 127-128). 

President Jackson was the first president to have an assassination attempt thrown at him. He won the day in a miraculous manner. I personally believe he was protected by Providence to accomplish his mission of freeing America from the grip of the bankers. In this, he succeeded. It was later generations, sadly, who couldn’t channel the dauntless spirit of Jackson and resist the schemes of the Marxist international fanciers who created the Federal Reserve private banking cartel upon us in 1913. 

Through the corrupt banking system, America has been enslaved and robbed of her wealth. We are being plunged into a massive depression currently because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary practices and the Congress’s mind-bogglingly irresponsible spending habits. The same hydra that Jackson fought and defeated is the back and in control. Thankfully, the anecdote is the same. 

Earlier, Xaviant Haze referreneced Jackson’s letter to the Senate where he exposed the bankers’ schemes in light of the Congress’s attempt to recharter the central bank monstrosity. I want to quote a few lines from that letter which I recommend reading in full: 

“More than eight million of the stocks of this bank are held by foreigners. . . . 

“But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right not only to the favor but to the bounty of Government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth . . . the bounty of our Government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this moment wield the power of the existing institution. I cannot perceive the justice or policy of this course . . . let [monopolies] not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. . . . 

“. . . If, therefore, [rechartering] shall produce distress, the fault will be its own, and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors to be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government . . . All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation. . . . 

“. . . It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the bank dividends. 

“. . . It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions millet flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people. Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? . . . Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-selected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it. 

“. . . Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy. . . . 

“. . . it is calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace, to disseminate a foreign influence through every section of the Republic, and in wat to endanger our independence. . . . 

“Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we cannot at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy. 

“. . . In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which I am sure watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our Republic . . . Through His abundant goodness and heir patriotic devotion our liberty and Union will be preserved.” 

With these sentiments and this Spartan stand against the bankers, Andrew Jackson sealed his legacy for all time. The annals of history, when history is one day properly sorted out and recounted, will hail his name and memory. The name of “Jackson” will always be celebrated by true American patriots and by all who love Freedom and hate the conniving of conspirators against humanity. God be thanked for sending Jackson and elevating him to positions of influence. 

I praise Andrew Jackson as one of the greatest presidents our Republic has ever produced. He was a man of faith, of tenacity, of sheer will. He believed in God, in the United States, in the Constitution, in the principles of the American Revolution which he proudly fought in as a thirteen-year-old son of Liberty. He loved his wife beyond all earthly things and cherished his relatives, telling them on his death bed that he would see all of them one day in Heaven. I have no doubt that’s where Old Hickory ended up and one day I hope to meet him and express my gratitude to him for fighting for America and for setting an example of statesmanship and good leadership for all generations. 

This Presidents’ Day, as America flounders under a false president who was fraudulently installed by the same international cabal that plagued our nation two centuries ago, let us turn to the great figures of our glorious past for wisdom. When we so turn, we inevitably encounter certain names that stand out from the crowd. We see Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. May I suggest that we add the name of Jackson to that list and drink deep from his well of experience. He was one of the most accomplished men in our history and one of its most popular leaders. He fought our People’s enemies – and won! We need to learn what Andrew Jackson can teach us, and quickly. God bless you and God bless America. 

Zack Strong, 
February 21, 2022