The democrats were essentially guardians of the United States Constitution and, similarly, were protectors of individual liberties. In addition to this, the Jacksonian Democrats promoted political democracy, and also the equality of economic opportunity. Thus, the Jacksonian Democrats clearly served as protectors of the people, their individual liberties, their Constitution, their economic opportunities and their political democracy. Throughout the 1820's to 1830's, Jacksonian Democrats took large strides in political democracy and individual liberty. At this time, the members of the party basically had one overwhelmingly large task on their minds: equal protection and equal benefits to all white male citizens and also, to prevent favoritism towards a specific region or class.
While these contradictions typified America, Jacksonian democrats viewed themselves as guardians of the Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of opportunity. Jackson and his followers must have been what they said they were only to a certain extent. The Jacksonian Democrats were, to some extent, champions of the Constitution, democracy, liberty, and equality. in other ways, Jackson and his followers clearly failed to live up to their ideals. Certainly, many common working people were satisfied with Jackson's attempts to protect their equality of economic opportunity from the rich during the age of the market revolution.
After the decline of the Era of Good Feelings, Andrew Jackson emerged as an advocate for the common man. His following known as the Jacksonian Democrats, gained large popularity in the 1820s; with his growing support, Jackson won the 1828 election therefore securing political power for the Jacksonian Democrats. During Jackson’s time in office, the Jacksonian Democrats were guardians of the Constitution due to the use of veto power in order to preserve the values of the nation. The Jacksonian Democrats were also guardians of the American ideal of political democracy; they took efforts to provide equal power in politics for a larger population of Americans. Jackson and the rest of his party were guardians of the right for equal economic opportunity
Abraham Lincoln believed in democracy, in the idea that everyone should have a say in the way our government was to be carried out. He believed that slavery was morally and constitutional wrong. He followed what our founding fathers laid out for our country and that is the right that "all men are created equal". Finally, he believed in a free society were people are allowed to promote themselves and will ultimately better the country in at the end of the day. Each had their own ideas on what a "good society" was made up of and the traditions that they each followed cannot be categorized together.
Lyndon B Johnson was the most influential forces in establishing the movement that would ensure civil rights for black americans. Johnson was a constant and unwavering supporter of civil rights. Without his supreme efforts in establishing civil rights for all, equality would never have come to pass. Lyndon B Johnson was elected president on November 22, 1963 directly after the assassination of John F Kennedy, “the elevation of Lyndon B Johnson to the office of the president of the United States was impressively smooth”(Robert E. Gilbert, 761). Prior to his election Johnson was worked closely with the US government as a member of Congress, the US Navy, and as a US Senator.
Does the event make the man, or is the man already great? Certain instances may define a man but its his sincere motives the depict his character. If not for Abraham Lincoln’s character the outcome of his presidency could have been different. The Emancipation Proclamation was Lincoln’s major achievement, focusing on abolishing slavery and giving a high priority to the Civil Rights Movement in the United States of America (Columbia University, Press). The Union was divided upon this and it took a great man such as Abraham Lincoln to bring the nation together.
Centuries of hierarchical government may have made people apathetic ... ... middle of paper ... ... due to its extreme stance on equality and freedom, is but a step away from either anarchy or tyranny. It seems to have worked in America, but there were several factors leading to its success. The state was founded on the premise of equality and its citizens had a strong desire to prevent the arbitrary rule of a tyrant, ensuring their active participation in government. The balance of power was also ensured by the ingenuity of the nation’s founders, who were away of the dangers of democracy and established a vast, complex system to prevent its abuse. While Tocqueville lauds the American experiment, even he acknowledges that it may not be repeated verbatim in other countries.
Also, when dealing with the south, Jackson and the Jacksonians were not guardians of the US Constitution. In vetoing the national bank, Jackson did so because he thought that the act that created it was not compatible with the constitution. However, the Supreme Court had already ruled that the bank was constitutional. In this act Jackson and the Jacksonians were not guarding the constitution, but they were utilizing it to suit their own needs. However sometimes the Judiciary and Executive branches agree such as the incident when South Carolina declared a reduced tariff void and threatened to secede, President Jackson responded in an unconstitutional manner.
The country was divided among economic because the South invested their money into slaves, and cotton. Therefore, the South had less money available for the industrial manufacturing age, and the South didn’t benefit from the textile age that much. During the 1820’s a high protective tariff on manufactured goods was abundant throughout the country North, or South, but was needed heavily in South. The industrial age was strong in the North, so they benefitted from the high protective tariff. In 1828 high tariff bills was proposed that would allow President Andrew Jackson to look good in the North eyes.
These state laws varied in strictness and detail from state to state; they abased the status of the freedmen by regulating their activities and treating them as social and civil inferiors. Generally black codes were not beneficial, because the supposedly freedmen were treated little more than slaves. "Furthermore, to define the status of freed men and women and control their labor, some legislatures merely revised large sections of the slave codes by substituting the word freedmen for slave." (pg. 448 Nortan) Congress would not stand for such injustice.