Charges Of Violating The United States Constitution – History Repeats Itself

by Robert Hanaford Smith, Sr.
Weirs Times Contributing Writer

It is said that history repeats itself, but hopefully in studying history and considering the past we learn from it and make more educated decisions in the present.
In the news recently we have heard charges from both major United States political parties that the opposing party is violating the country’s constitution, suggesting that this does not bode well for the future. Guess what? This rhetoric, justified or not, is a repeat of history.
This has been heard before, even 183 years ago in the year 1837.
A November, 1837 edition of Concord, New Hampshire’s New Hampshire Statesman and State Journal published part of a speech given by Congressman Fletcher of Boston in Faneuil Hall in that city in which he lamented what he believed to be excessive power coming from the executive branch of the government. He and the newspaper believed that President Jackson’s desire during his administration was to have “…the concentration of all the powers of the government in the hands of the Executive.”
The newspaper referred to the ex-president as General Jackson, noting his military service, and expressed the opinion that the incumbent president, Mr. Van Buren was following the example of Jackson concerning his view of the powers of the presidency, though Van Buren had not been in office long at that time.

The criticism of Jackson and Van Buren was particularly strong concerning their determination not to recharter a National Bank. Even today there are those who feel that, because of Jackson’s position on the Bank, his likeness should not be on the twenty dollar bill. The Concord newspaper said that the President was “ …copying the pattern set for him by his predecessor, in the system of executive ascendency over the legislature.”
The paper indicated that the Ways and Means committee, which it considered by far the most important committee in Congress, followed the direction of the executive branch “even down to punctuation” in what it dictated to the House of Representatives.
I note that the politicians of our day often appeal to the opinion of “the people”, always assuming that the opinion of “the people” is the same as their opinion. Politicians in 1837 apparently felt the same way.
The Concord newspaper stated,“We doubt whether this free and intelligent people are yet ready to place the absolute direction and control of their national affairs, in the hands of a dictator,” identifying that dictator as President Martin Van Buren…”
To make its point the New Hampshire Statesman and State Journal printed some of Congressman Fletcher’s speech. He pointed out that the Ways and Means committee consisted of nine members and only two of those nine were opposed to the administration’s policies. The chairman of the committee was said to visit the White House where he received from the President or from the Secretary of the Treasury the bills they wanted the house to pass. The bills were put into the chairman’s pocket and he carried them to the Committee, which were then passed by the vote of a majority of the members without discussion with the minority being helpless to do anything about it. The bills are then sent to the House of Representatives.
Mr. Fletcher insisted that all bills came from the Executive Branch, that is, directly from the President or his Cabinet and that “The Representatives are mere machines.” According to him everything that the Representatives voted for came from the Executive, “word for word, letter for letter, comma for comma.”

Fletcher said in his speech: “I solemnly warn you against this terrible concentration of power in the hands of the Executive! I see in it a most alarming danger – threatening, fearfully threatening the liberties of the country! Executive power has become a very Collussus, which bestrides the land from one end to the other; and, fellow citizens, if we do not overthrow it, most assuredly will it crush us: and in crushing us, in crushing the people, it will crush liberty, it will crush the constitution!”
Apparently the greatest controversy of President Jackson’s presidency which followed into Van Buren’s had to do with the question of a National Bank and the veto of such. Fletcher complained that with only two opposition members on the Ways and Means committee “..The majority would do nothing for the people, and the minority could do nothing, except to report the doings of their masters in the committee, and the House to their masters, the people”, which he resolved to do. Fletcher observed that “Very many petitions, from almost all the States, were sent into Congress for the establishment of a National Bank.” These petitions were said to have lay on a table unopened and unread as the committee passed a measure opposed to a National Bank.
At about the same time Mr. Joseph Healy of Washington, New Hampshire, the President of the State’s Whig Convention, addressed its members. He told them that “For the last eight or nine years, we have witnessed in the administration, both of our National and State Government, a wide and fearful departure from the old landmarks of legislation and civil polity.” He spoke of distress and ruin in the country and said the cause was “to be found in the political quackery and malpractice of those who now sway the destinies of this great nation.”
He continued by saying “The most crying evil, Gentlemen, that has made the patriot’s bosom heave with the deepest sigh, is the violence which has been done to the Constitution of our common country, and to the principles of free government…We have seen the executive usurp and exercise the most important functions of the other coordinate branches of the Government, setting aside what Congress had done in opposition to his will, and enacting upon his own responsibility what Congress had refused to do at his bidding.”
And, “I see…that New Hampshire has still the power to shake off the political incubus now resting upon her, and to contribute her full share of strength to the counsels of the nation.”
Senator Tallmadge of New York complained about the administration’s treasury policies as a scheme to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Further comparisons of the state of the union in 2020 with that of 1837 might prove helpful in understanding what’s happening today. President Jackson certainly had his critics, and was censured by the Senate, but also is said to have left the presidency with greater popularity than when he entered the office.

Robert Hanaford Smith, Sr., welcomes your comments at danahillsmiths@yahoo.com.