Customer Reviews:
 Author not sympathetic to hard money June 26, 2008
Remini comes to the conclusion that the Bank was not all bad, it was simply a political struggle between Jackson and Biddle. I don't agree. It's a good detailed acount of the events, and I'd recommend it for such, but if you're a supporter of hard money (the Jackson position) you may consider looking elsewhere or complementing this reading. I'd recommend Murray Rothbard. He addresses some of the authors (mis)information on hard money in "A History of Money and Banking in the US."
It's great to read a book about the President actually checking the power of the Congress and Court in a struggle over what's authorized in the Constitution. A President disagrees with a Supreme Court ruling, and actually challenges it. Not something that happens anymore, and that's unfortunate.
 It IS a page-turner November 27, 2006
3 out of 3 found this review helpful
It's a hoot to read and as much at home on the beach as in the classroom. Sounds like the one fellow who slammed it in another review here just didn't want to take the course in which it was required reading. (I am very conscious of writing skill and have used Amazon to diss a number of extremely well researched books because they are poorly written. Sacred cows I do not recognize.) Remini takes what should be a deadly dull topic - banking - and turns it into a drama (and comedy) describing the clash between two bone-headed men: Pres. Andrew Jackson and Bank of the United States president, Nicolas Biddle. That clash changed the United States forever. Highly recommended.
A gem of a book October 8, 2002
19 out of 20 found this review helpful
After reading Bray Hammond's "Banks and Politics in America" and his trenchant critique of the Jacksonian assault on the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), I was interested to learn how Robert Remini, a historian known for his pro-Jackson tilt, responded to that attack on the Old Hero. The answer is: he responded with a crisp, cogent and remarkably fair and insightful history of the struggle over the BUS. The BUS had a profound political, economic, and social impact on American life during its short life (1816-1836). In his book, however, Remini seeks to address just one side of the controversy: the political. He concedes that there was much good in the BUS from a strictly economic perspective and destroying it without a concrete plan to replace the monetary institution undoubtedly did harm to the American economy as a whole. But, Remini argues, it was the political implications of the War - not the Panic of 1837 or the subsequent failure to adopt central banking in the US for nearly a century - that had the more far-reaching consequences. It has been argued that Jackson was the first modern president. It is undeniable that the power of the presidency took a giant leap forward during Jackson's two-terms and Remini shows that those monumental gains in power came mostly during and because of the Bank War. In particular, Remini argues that the Bank War is directly responsible for three areas of enhanced presidential power: 1) the use of the veto to reject legislation for purely political rather than constitutional reasons, thus inserting the president into the legislative process and, in effect, making his opinion count for two-thirds of both Houses of Congress; 2) even though Remini believes that the majority of Americans didn't support the president's stance on the BUS, Jackson made the election of 1832 a referendum on the bank issue and claimed henceforth that he represented the will of the people and was there one representative; and 3) Jackson's sacking of Secretary of the Treasury Duane for his refusal to remove the government deposits from the BUS exerted the president's right to remove Cabinet members at will, further strengthening the executive's grip over the government. In short, there is stunning agreement between Remini and Hammond on a number of issues. For instance, Remini concedes that Jackson's veto of the BUS re-charter in July 1832 was pure demagogic class baiting with indefensible charges against the BUS's operations. He also rejects the notion that Jackson's re-election was a popular show of support for his attack on the BUS and he credits Nicolas Biddle with running an efficient, although by no means perfect, central banking organization. Thus, on economic grounds, Remini really sides with Hammond. But, Remini maintains, the economics of the issue was a distant second to the politics of issue. The cause of the War was political - namely, Jackson's refusal to bend or even appear to bend to a political challenge - and the most significant results of the War were political. Remini's case is sound.
 Lacking October 11, 2001
3 out of 33 found this review helpful
This has to be one of the most boring books I have ever read in my life, therefore making it a waste of my time to read it. I would not have bought the book unless if I wouldn't have had to write an essay on it for my History 1050 class. I do not recommend this book for casual reading, in fact, I do not recommend this book at all. However, if you are involved in History as a profession, or if you are excited by History, then this is a book for you. It provides tons of information, but to me it is all irrelevant. If you are a college student with many other things to do like myself, I will personally tell you right now to leave this book on the shelf.
Review June 15, 2000
2 out of 18 found this review helpful
Remini's book, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, is a very good book in the way of information. Although it is not a "page turner," it satisfies in giving the information. I would not have purchased this book except it is needed for my American History course.
|
