Jackson's primary objection to the re-chartering of the Bank can be summarized in his later statements that the bank was a "monster." He argued that the bank had earned millions for its investors, many of whom were foreign; and that the bank enjoyed an unfair advantage as it constituted a monopoly which profited its shareholders at the expense of the public. He also noted that the monopoly of the bank constituted a danger to state banks which could not compete with it. This he considered a violation of all the principles upon which the United States was founded. It was possible, he argued, that if the bank's charter were continuously renewed, it would only be a matter of time before the bank exercised its influence in political matters. He concluded by stating:
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 one considers that the Bank, under Nicholas Biddle, had made its influence felt on the economy by instigating a panic, and how under its previous President, Cheves, it had forced state banks to honor bank notes in specie, Jackson's argument appears to have some merit under the circumstances of the times.