Andrew Jackson is widely hailed as one of the greatest American Presidents, and
greatest champion of democracy in American history. However, if you look into his actions and
words in good detail, some things are not so democratic. I would personally say he is a flawed
democrat rather than a great democrat. For instance, he did not agree with the Electoral College
system, and repeatedly wanted to abolish it altogether1
democratic because it does not take the popular vote into consideration, therefore opposing that
is a very democratic action.
Jackson also wanted to make political offices rotate who holds them, popularly known
as the “Spoils System”. Jackson pushed this under the view that the political offices were “solely
for the benefit of other people” and that “no one man has any more right to official station
than another”2
particularly the ones that have held an office for a long amount of time. However, while his idea
for this was good, his implementation of it was not democratic. He would appoint those that were
loyal to him, or loyal to his party, instead of whether or not they were competent enough for the
job. While he may have gotten rid of the corruption he believed was there, it also got rid of those
. The idea of the Electoral College is not
. Jackson also believed this would prevent the corruption of certain politicians,
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29471
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29471
that were not corrupt, and bribed those that voted for and were loyal to him with a job they may
have had no experience at all with3
himself by doing so. That is definitely not a democratic ideal, and turned himself into a bit of a
hypocrite by doing so.
One o...
... middle of paper ...
...t he had two
regrets, not being able to “shoot Henry Clay or hang John C. Calhoun”9
not democratic by any means, and wanting to kill your political opposition is the direct opposite
of democracy. While he may not have really done it if he had the chance, he wanted to at heart,
and that makes me think about what his true intentions behind what he’s done really were. Did
he create the spoils system in order to create a system of bribery for those that supported and
stayed loyal to him, using the “public offices should be for the people” pundit as a front or a
complete façade? I believe that is a true possibility.
Overall, I do think Andrew Jackson was democratic, but had his flaws. His overall ideas
were probably done in the best interest of democracy, but the way he implemented those ideas
and the actions he took contradicted democracy in some ways.
democracy is but he still gets nowhere in trying to prove what he is trying to
All hail King Andrew Jackson. In the election of 1824, presidential candidate Andrew Jackson had lost to John Quincy Adams, son of former president John Adams, in a brutal campaign war. Jackson sought revenge and did everything to sabotage Adams term as president, including branding his presidency the “corrupt bargain”, and giving his wife so much grief that she died. When Jackson finally became president and defeated Adams in 1828 his mantra was that the voice of the People must be heard, however many felt that he did not live up to his mantra. This raises the question: How democratic was Andrew Jackson? The term democratic can be defined as a government ruled by the people. Andrew Jackson was not democratic because of his mistreatment of the Native Americans, the decision of the bank, and his abuse of power.
Andrew Jackson began a whole new era in American history. Amongst his greatest accomplishments were evoking the "common man" to be interested in government and tailoring democracy to satisfy the same "common man's" needs. Of course, Jackson could not go about making such radical changes without supporters, but that never surfaced as a problem. Jacksonian Democrats, as they came to be called, were great in number during the 1820's and 1830's. They advocated all of the issues that President Jackson did, and did so with great vigor. They thought of themselves very highly because they recognized their responsibilities as American citizens. They realized that as political leaders they had a true purpose- to protect and serve the American people. The Jacksonians justified their view of themselves in their sincere attempts to guard the United States Constitution by both promoting equality of economic opportunity and increasing political democracy, but they had their downfalls with issues of individual liberties.
...d gone without notice because they have not been involved with a scandal. The fact that the job can be adequately performed without a moral conscience doesn't mean that immorality is a prerequisite. In fact, citizens should reconsider the motives of their leaders if they know that the person feels no moral obligation to do what is right . When Americans look at their government officials, they should be proud rather than ashamed. By examining the literary and historical past of America, it should be apparent that serious thought should be involved in the selection of leaders as well as scrutiny of those already in power. With the system of government that America has today, it is imperative that the intentions of the founding fathers be remembered: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice."1
Political reforms during the Jackson era occurred to stopped corruption, limit the size of government, and to expand as well as protect the rights of the people. During the Jackson era more people were giving the right to vote. The right to vote was extended to all white males. This was one of the first steps Jackson used to fight against corruptions. Jackson wanted the United States of America to move from a Marxist society into a democratic society. The formation of the two- party system protected the rights of the people and fought against corruption as well. With the two-party system the democratic society was quickly forming and was an aid to fight against corruption within the government administration. Jackson also made major political changes in the government system through the spoil system, nullification crisis, and Maysville Road veto. With each change his political control over government was strengthen and ridiculed.
Let’s begin with the tyranny government he tried to establish upon us. The fundamental idea of having a representative government
waited and waited until he had the full support of the party. He was a
...the “contract with the people.” While on his tour, there was an assassination attempt made on him as well. He put forth many reforms that needed to be resolved, but in the end, he unable to win the election.
his speeches in order to manipulate the crowds to a certain extent in which they would agree to
Andrew Jackson had a number of accomplishments the first one being the Jacksonian Democracy. The Jacksonian democracy was a political movement that he and his supporters started. The movement was to make the democracy better for the common men and celebrated white supremacy. This movement was suppose to be a democratic movement to enforce powerful ideals but of course only for white men. Jackson had a lot of supports most of them being farmers. Jackson claimed to want more land for plantation and also wanted to aid hard working farmers, planters and equality for all white males. The movement was for equality of farmers and white men but farmers in South Carolina began to worry that Jacksonians would endanger them because they feared Jackson lacked vigilance to protect their needs. This lead to the nullification crisis and oppositionists were angered by Jackson and said that Jacksonians brought corruption and tyranny instead of democracy.
He believed himself to be in the right, saving the people from a tyrant on high
The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart.
...ny listeners and pupils that agreed with his philosophy. He did not make any actions against the democracy that he despised so greatly.
First, when a representative of any certain political party runs for a government position, he is “more concerned with maintaining their own party's control over their rivals rather than serving the interests of the people.”2 The politicians don’t want what is best for the people, rather they will only do what they believe will tear down the other party and build theirs up. Politicians lie and will do whatever it takes to get the public to side with them, the worst part about political parties, is presidential candidates no longer run to help our