Following the transformation of the American society after the War of 1812 and preceding the Civil War, the two terms of President Andrew Jackson proved to be a crucial time in the development of American society. Jackson and his supporters convinced themselves, and many Americans, that they were, in fact, protectors of American ideals. In their eyes, they remained true to the roots and foundations of the United States. But, in reality, the Democratic party of the 1820s and 1830s did quite the opposite, limiting state’s rights by denouncing nullification, infringing upon the liberties of numerous individuals, including thousands of Native Americans, and instituting social and economic unrest through the institution of high tariffs and the manipulation of class mentality. It is not a stretch to assert that many of the government’s decisions during Jackson’s presidency greatly contributed to the bloody Civil War that would ensue just thirty years later.
Possibly one of the largest debates (apart from the bank controversy) of the Jackson era was the controversy over nullification. President Jackson and John C. Calhoun, his vice-president, locked horns over the idea that each state possessed the right to nullify, within its borders, federals laws it deemed unconstitutional. The issue was spurred by the Tariff of 1828 which imposed a high protective duty that favored western agriculture and northern manufacturing but forced Southerners to pay more for manufactured goods. Moreover, the tariff threatened to reduce the sale of British textile products to the U.S. and, in turn, lower British demand for cotton. Calhoun encouraged Southern states to nullify the tariff within their borders as, he believed, only tariffs that raised r...
... middle of paper ...
..., Jackson and his loyal Democrats still believed that their position was justified.
What began as a crucial age in United States politics and American advancement ended with nothing more than a struggling economy and increased sectional conflicts. President Andrew Jackson and his loyal Democratic party, upon being elected, took a self-proclaimed position as the guardians of the United States Constitution, state’s rights, individual liberties, and America’s revered economic system. These ideologies, though, proved to be inconsistent with the actions taken by Jackson and his supporters. Such political mistakes like the nullification controversy and the political war over the Bank of the United States proved to be crucial blows to the American System which, fueled by sectional tensions, slowly descended into the deadliest conflict of American History, the Civil War.
The political crisis of the 1850’s is one of the most underrated influential decades in US history. Many people talk about the 1920’s and the 1940’s and 50’s; however, much of that history ─ especially of that between the late 1940’s and the late 1960’s ─ was predicated upon by the crisis of the 1850’s. To understand its importance, one must understand its composition, its origin, and its effect. The crisis of the 1850’s, predicated upon the furious debates of slavery in new western territories and consisting over debates of states’ rights versus federal power, had lasting effects directly concerning the Civil War and on the nation especially in relation to the century long ideological battle over race in America.
South Carolina’s decision to invalidate the federal law and deem the tariff unconstitutional was the first blatant disregard for the centralized government. The United States, under Jackson’s presidency, did not unite and support one another in the face of the economic tariff and hardships. Instead, the states nullified (South Carolina in particular) and the individualistic ideals and motivations of the states were exposed. State opinions, such as that of South Carolina were focused solely on their own personal benefit and how they would survive the hardships of the tariff. During the Age of Jackson, there was no unification between the states. The ideals of Jacksonian America were flawed by the growing sectionalism and individualistic ideals. The total equality and unification that Jacksonian America attempted to create was no longer an option. Jacksonian America failed, and in result, did not promote the unified democracy in the United
The American Civil War not only proved to be the country’s deadliest war but also precipitated one of the greatest constitutional crises in the history of the United States. President Lincoln is revered by many Americans today as a man of great moral principle who was responsible for both preventing the Union’s dissolution as well as helping to trigger the movement to abolish slavery. In retrospect, modern historians find it difficult to question the legitimacy of Lincoln’s actions as President. A more precise review of President Lincoln’s actions during the Civil War, however, reveals that many, if not the majority, of his actions were far from legitimate on constitutional and legal grounds. Moreover, his true political motives reveal his
Perhaps the three most influential men in the pre-Civil War era were Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster. These men all died nearly a decade before the civil war began, but they didn’t know how much they would effect it. States’ rights was a very controversial issue, and one which had strong opposition and radical proposals coming from both sides. John C. Calhoun was in favor of giving states the power to nullify laws that they saw unconstitutional, and he presented this theory in his “Doctrine of Nullification”. Daniel Webster strongly disagreed with this proposal and showed this by giving powerful support to President Jackson in resisting the attempt by South Carolina to nullify the ‘tariff of abominations’, as they called it; a shipping tax passed in 1828 that they saw as unfairly favoring the industrial North. Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, didn’t seem to be partisan either way, and, although he was a Whig, always came up with a way to please both sides of any argument.
Vice President, John C. Calhoun, led a fierce southern opposition to the Tariff of 1828. Passed by John Adams, this tariff placed a heavy tax on imports. This greatly benefited the North, but forced Southerners to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. Finally, South Carolina declared that the law was unconstitutional, and argued that a state could nullify a federal law which they judged to be unconstitutional. Though Jackson believed in states rights, he thought that a nullification act would lead to disunion. He believed it was unconstitutional and considered it treason. Jackson favored a strict reading of the Constitution, and believed it was to be followed to the...
The Jacksonian Period from 1824 to 1848 has been characterized as the era of the “common man.” Jackson’s election to presidency was based on the fact that he himself did not come from a wealthy background so in return, during his presidency he openly advocated for the rights of the “common man”. Although the era did not always stay true to its name, both economic aspects and reform movements caused the Jacksonian period to mostly live up to its characterization as "the era of the common man.”
Andrew Jackson was like no other president before him. The previous presidents had one thing in common, they were all part of the founding fathers or in John Quincy Adam’s case was the son of a founding father. However Jackson was a plantation owner from the west who had no connections with the government. He also had different views from other presidents that made his presidency unique. Two things that separated Andrew Jackson’s presidency from previous presidencies were he reached out to the common people and he was disapproving of the Bank of United States.
After the War of 1812, America was characterized as the Era of Good Feelings due to the national pride witnessed during Monroe’s presidency. However, even though it was distinguished as so, many aspects of America were diminishing, which signifies why it was not an “Era of Good Feeling.” First, the growing tension within the economy, due to the individual states currency circulating the nation, was a failure. This event was soon called the Panic of 1819 because the issue spun out of control and led the Americans to question whether the bank was a good system or not. Furthermore, during this time period, Chief Justice John Marshall’s court continued to strengthen the federal government and its primacy, which imbalanced the federal government and state power during the early years of the Republican Party. Not to mention, in the early 1800s, slavery was becoming an increasingly sectional issue, meaning that it was dividing the nation along regional lines intensively. Indeed historians have traditionally labeled the period after the War of 1812 as the “Era of Good Feelings”, but the tension between nationalism and sectionalism increased additionally, which were inevitably conspicuous and began to impair the economy, intensify sectionalism by the means of slavery and expansion and added disunity within the government.
The federal tariff policy definitely played a what kind of role in the development and acceptance of nullification in South Carolina. In fact, in “South Carolina’s Exposition and Protest,” John C. Calhoun specifically pointed to the unjust and oppressive nature of the tariffs to justify his nullification theories. Without doubt, South Carolina’s economy clearly suffered during 1816 to 1832 as the price of cotton fell and the prices of imports rose. Whether justified or not, many South Carolinians blamed the federal tariffs in part because of the exaggerated and emotional reports of the press, Hayne, and McDuffie. Because their economic interests were impaired, South Carolinians were looking for something to blame and a way to respond. The federal tariff policy was an easy target, and nullification provided a dramatic way to take action.
In The article “Slavery, the Constitutional, and the Origins of the Civil War”, Paul Finkelman discusses some of the events that he believes lead the United States to have a Civil War. He discusses how both the North and the South territories of the Untied States did not see eye to eye when it came to ab...
As one of the most controversial figures in American history, Andrew Jackson, in the modern era, is regarded as a detestably violent and morally devoid individual. There is a certain moral complexity when one examines the accomplishments and political decisions accompanying Andrew Jackson's legacy. While Jackson is certainly deserving of credit in certain, primarily political, respects, the disastrous, violent outcomes underlying his starkly held personal beliefs supplant the aforementioned positive aspects Jackson's legacy includes. When examined in this manner, time has crafted an entirely disparate and stained narrative for Andrew Jackson. Taking this information into account poses a question to modern Americans: Should Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson, Southerner, by Mark Cheathem, is an in-depth book on President Jackson’s life and ideologies. Cheatham is a professor at Cumberland University, which is located thirty minutes away from the Hermitage, Jackson’s mansion. His knowledge of the period, lifestyle, and specifically Andrew Jackson’s life while at the Hermitage is astounding. The bulk of his works and article dove into the Jacksonian period and America’s early republic. From the rise of the Democrats to the life of Andrew Jackson’s nephew, Cheathem is a historian who studies ninteenth century history. However, bias was present in the book, since he depicted the South in a positive light. Perhaps, it is because he is from the South. At any rate, slight bias is present within the book, and should be noted when taking into account Jackson’s background, and its effect on Jackson’s
The American Civil War was the bloodiest military conflict in American history leaving over 500 thousand dead and over 300 thousand wounded (Roark 543-543). One might ask, what caused such internal tension within the most powerful nation in the world? During the nineteenth century, America was an infant nation, but toppling the entire world with its social, political, and economic innovations. In addition, immigrants were migrating from their native land to live the American dream (Roark 405-407). Meanwhile, hundreds of thousand African slaves were being traded in the domestic slave trade throughout the American south. Separated from their family, living in inhumane conditions, and working countless hours for days straight, the issue of slavery was the core of the Civil War (Roark 493-494). The North’s growing dissent for slavery and the South’s dependence on slavery is the reason why the Civil War was an inevitable conflict. Throughout this essay we will discuss the issue of slavery, states’ rights, American expansion into western territories, economic differences and its effect on the inevitable Civil War.
For the first time in American history, a presidential election was the focus of public attention. Jackson's election in 1828 marked a new direction in American politics. Jackson’s early presidency was unlike many others because his general vision was to bring American people into the presidency. The Age of Jackson was the widespread desire for equality of opportunity, born of the conviction that no one should have special privileges at the expense of anyone else (pg. 132). He had faith in the American people to know what is in the best interest of the nation. He spoke on behalf of ordinary people and against established elites. The Age of Jackson is a period in history referred to as the rise of political democracy in America through the creation of the Democrat party. President Andrew Jacksons goal was to reform the government by reestablishing the Spoils System, where he fired anyone that was not a loyal Democrat and replaced them with new federal workers for partisan reasons. Jacksonians’ believed that the role of the government was to fulfill the country’s destiny by looking after the economic
The Civil War has been viewed as the unavoidable eruption of a conflict that had been simmering for decades between the industrial North and the agricultural South. Roark et al. (p. 507) speak of the two regions’ respective “labor systems,” which in the eyes of both contemporaries were the most salient evidence of two irreconcilable worldviews. Yet the economies of the two regions were complementary to some extent, in terms of the exchange of goods and capital; the Civil War did not arise because of economic competition between the North and South over markets, for instance. The collision course that led to the Civil War did not have its basis in pure economics as much as in the perceptions of Northerners and Southerners of the economies of the respective regions in political and social terms. The first lens for this was what I call the nation’s ‘charter’—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the documents spelling out the nation’s core ideology. Despite their inconsistencies, they provided a standard against which the treatment and experience of any or all groups of people residing within the United States could be evaluated (Native Americans, however, did not count). Secondly, these documents had installed a form of government that to a significant degree promised representation of each individual citizen. It was understood that this only possible through aggregation, and so population would be a major source of political power in the United States. This is where economics intersected with politics: the economic system of the North encouraged (albeit for the purposes of exploitation) immigration, whereas that of the South did not. Another layer of the influence of economics in politics was that the prosperity of ...