Censure of Andrew Jackson

In 1837, when the Senate had a Democratic majority, the then-lame duck president's party voted to "expunge" Jackson's censure.

[6] Political conflict arose over the opposition of President Andrew Jackson to the existence of the Second Bank of the United States.

[10][11] The Congress reconvened in December 1833, at which point Henry Clay introduced a two-part resolution which, in its first part, asserted that Jackson had Assumed the exercise of a power over the Treasury of the United States not granted him by the Constitution and laws.In its second part, this resolution asserted that Congress held a role in overseeing the nation's deposits and that the reason Taney had provided for removing federal deposits was "unsatisfactory and insufficient".

[8][9][16] The full adopted resolution read, Resolved, That the President, in the late Executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws, but in derogation of both.

Jackson alleged that the censure was unconstitutional because it amounted to the Senate acting beyond their authority by charging him with an impeachable offense.

Jacksonian Democrats argued that the senators were beholden to the state legislatures that selected them; the Whigs pointed out that the president had been chosen by electors and not by direct election.

[5] In part, Jackson wrote, The resolution of the Senate is wholly unauthorized by the Constitution, and in derogation of its entire spirit.

[19] Despite its initial defeats, support for Benton's resolution ultimately emerged as a major test of party loyalty among Democrats.

[19][23] Steve Benen has observed that, "the point at the time was for partisans to say that the [censure] happened, but for the sake of the historical record, it didn’t really count.

Despite being merely symbolic, the censure had always bothered Jackson, and so his political friends sought to resolve the issue in an attempt to clear his legacy.

[26]Clay expressed his deep disgust with the expungement vote, remarking, "The Senate is no longer a place for any decent man.

In 2023, Jewish historian Joshua Zeitz wrote that, The episode hardened political lines in the 1830s and created a vibrant political debate between Democrats, who were comfortable with the exercise of strong executive authority, and Whigs, who, like their English namesakes, feared usurpation by elected and unelected kings who arrogated powers to themselves that should have been reserved for the legislative branch.