Jacksonian Democrats Essay
-
Upload
andrew-bridges -
Category
Documents
-
view
553 -
download
0
Transcript of Jacksonian Democrats Essay
Andrew BridgesAP United States History
Mullen High SchoolOctober 21, 2010
Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the guardians of the United States Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of
economic opportunity.
In light of the following documents and your knowledge of the 1820’s and 1830’s, to what extent do you agree with the Jacksonian’s view of
themselves?
The Jacksonian Democrats first began to appear in the late 1820s when
Andrew Jackson embarked on his campaign for election. He appealed directly to the
people through his dedication to individual rights and liberties. He effectively
reopened the conflict of the Jeffersonian era between the “people” and the greedy,
“paper money aristocracy.” As one can imagine, his attitude toward the people
earned him a lot of political support, which ultimately propelled him to the
presidency. Jackson’s supporters formed together into a party know as the
Jacksonian Democrats with him as their leader. Although Jacksonian Democrats
acted as guardians of the Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and
equality of economic opportunity at some times, the majority of their actions were
in direct opposition to this characterization.
The characterization of Jacksonian Democrats as guardians of the
Constitution has its merits, but it oversimplifies their role by passing over their
failures in this area. Perhaps Jackson’s greatest return to Constitutional principles
was that he made the presidency directly responsible to the people, which
demonstrates a return to the Constitutional of popular sovereignty, where elected
officials are held accountable to the masses. However, Jackson’s ignorance of the
Constitution when dealing with the Cherokee nation tends to overshadow this
minor victory. When the Supreme Court asserted that Indian tribes had full
authority over their lands in the case Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson defied its
decision and proceeded with his plans for Indian removal, which is depicted in the
painting of the Trail of Tears (Doc G). This shows a blatant disregard for the
Constitution in that the president is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and
act in accordance with its rulings, but Jackson did not. However, the Democrats did
redeem themselves somewhat when Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Jackson appointee,
wrote the opinion in the case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (Doc H). Taney
upheld the Constitutional principles of freedom and free enterprise by ruling against
monopolies. In this way, the Jacksonian Democrats upheld some aspects of the
Constitution, while neglecting others.
A similar situation applies to the characterization of Jacksonian Democrats as
guardians of political democracy. They enjoyed certain victories in the political
realm while causing great setbacks that would not be resolved for years to come.
One of their great victories lies in the increase of political participation. The
Democrats prided themselves on the grassroots support that they gave to their
candidates. They transformed a group of working men that had been previously
uninterested in politics, and turned them into men like George Henry Evans who
developed strong political feelings and ideologies (Doc A). They made politics
relevant to the people’s daily lives while giving them an important role. Harriet
Martineau, a British author, commented on this when she said, “I had witnessed
controversies between candidates for office on some difficult subjects, of which the
people were to be the judges” (Doc D). However, men like Daniel Webster might
argue that the Jacksonian Democrats did not increase political democracy, but incite
the poor against the rich while spreading jealousy and ill-will (Doc C). Furthermore,
Jackson undermined political democracy by implementing the spoils system where
he would replace those in the bureaucracy with his cronies rather than awarding
the jobs based on aptitude or merit. This was in fact a step backward in political
democracy. If one wants to criticize the Democrats additionally, he or she could
point out that although more men may be involved in politics, women and free
African Americans were still not allowed to vote in most places. In this way, the
Democrat’s contribution to political democracy was not exceptionally great.
It is much easier to pass judgment on the Democrat’s guardianship of
individual liberty. They did ever so little to advance the personal freedom of the
Americans. Perhaps the only thing in their favor was that Harriet Martineau said
that every man in the towns was an independent citizen (Doc D), but surely, the
Democrats cannot claim credit for this. She would have said the very same thing if
she had visited America during any of the previous presidencies. Philip Hone gives
a much better picture of American individual liberty during the era of the Jacksonian
Democracy when he relates the riots of the 1830s (Doc E). The government was not
adequately protecting the citizen’s liberties, and they were forced to riot in
response. The forceful removal of the Indians from their lands, and the journey
along the Trail of Tears (Doc G) serve as another example of the Jacksonian
Democrat’s neglect for individual liberty. Moreover, they overlooked slavery and
women’s rights. The Jacksonian Democrats are completely wrong in their
characterization of themselves as guardians of individual liberty.
The Democrats pursuit of equality of economic opportunity was much better
than their guardianship of individual liberty, but it often had ill effects on the
economy. One of the main goals of the Jacksonian Democrats was to dissolve the
fine institution that was the Bank of the United States in order to level the economic
playing field for the less wealthy because the national bank favored foreigners and
the wealthy (Doc B). Jackson planned to eliminate the bank by taking all of its funds
and investing them in various state and local banks, which served the purpose of
leveling the economic playing field, while ultimately causing destroying the
foundation of the national economy. Furthermore, it caused a number of political
problems, which Daniel Webster outlined in his response to Jackson’s veto message
(Doc C). In 1836, the Democrats plunged the nation into financial ruin when
President Andrew Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required all payment
for government land to be in gold and silver. This ill-advised move threw the
country into a great economic depression called the Panic of 1837 because Jackson
and the Jacksonian Democrats did not realize that the economy was firmly rooted in
credit, and it would not survive without it. Of course, the Democrats did do a few
good things economically. They struck down monopolies in the case Charles River
Bridge v. Warren Bridge, which encouraged small business and entrepreneurship,
two very economically healthy things.
One can argue that the Jacksonian Democrats were guardians of the
Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of economic
opportunity, but to do so would be to oversimplify and omit the facts. In reality,
they had their small victories, but they did nothing exceptionally great overall. The
Era of the Common Man may have brought about an increase in political democracy
among the “common man,” but it did not even come close to the grandeur of
Jacksonian Democrat’s description. They were nothing but a naïve party that
refused to acknowledge its failures.