Compare How Democratic Was Andrew Jackson Dbq

1644 Words4 Pages

How Democratic Was Andrew Jackson? In 1824, Andrew Jackson lost the presidential election to John Quincy Adams, but he won, if you only consider the popular vote that is. Jackson managed to obtain 42.16% of the popular vote, more than any other candidate, per David M. Kennedy and Lizabeth Cohen’s book The American Pageant, but he fell short in the electoral college. Whenever an election cannot be decided by the electoral college it is sent to the House of Representatives, which, in 1824, elected John Quincy Adams on the first ballot. This would not be the last time a president who did not win the popular vote would win the election, but this election was different. The “Corrupt Bargain” of 1824, as it is now referred to, is what won John Quincy …show more content…

Jackson even sent a letter to congress which stated, “I submit, therefore, to your consideration…(a) law which limits appointments for four year” (Document 6). This is a clear attempt to make it so that once a president’s term ends the next president can appoint all their supporters to office. Sadly, for the nation, Jackson’s love of the spoils system and his poorly placed trust resulted in the United States’ government being robbed of $1,222,705.09. Jackson, despite being warned by Secretary of State Martin van Buren, appointed Samuel Swartwout to the position of the collector of the Port of New York. Buren pleaded with Jackson saying that Swartwout had “criminal tendencies” (Document 7) but Jackson ignored him and the nation paid for it. Furthermore, the use of the spoils system is against the premise of democracy. Yes, public offices should be available to everyone, but the appointee’s only qualification should not be that they are your supporter. That is not democracy, democracy is getting everyone involved in the political process, not just your political “yes men”, which Jackson enjoyed surrounding himself with. Even Jackson’s Secretary of State and Vice President, Martin van Buren was a “yes man” (Kennedy 264). Jackson, it seems, wanted to be liked by all, within his inner circle and the country, and he would do anything to be liked, such as forcibly remove 100,000 Native Americans or destroy the institution that was holding the economy together. But only a tyrant can be liked by all, as he is the only one that will use force to be liked by all, whereas a president is loved by some and hated by the

Show More
Related

  • How Democratic Was Andrew Jackson Dbq

    816 Words  | 2 Pages

    The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 brought a new wave of political ideas, especially since he created the Democratic party and their symbol. Jacksonian Democrats saw themselves as guardians of the Constitution, political democracy and individual liberty (aka social freedoms). I believe that this was not the case for the decisions made in Jackson’s presidency, and he was more of a “King Andrew” than a man of the common people.

    Read More

  • Jacksonian Democrats vs. The Whigs

    1451 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout the 1830-1840’s the opposing governmental parties, the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whigs, undertook many issues. The Whigs were a party born out of their hatred for President Andrew Jackson, and dubbed his harsh military ways as “executive usurpation,” and generally detested everything he did while he was in office. This party was one that attracted many other groups alienated by President Jackson, and was mainly popular among urban industrial aristocrats in the North. On the other hand, the Jacksonian Democrats were a party born out of President Andrew Jackson’s anti-federalistic ideals that was extremely popular among southern agrarians. A major economic issue that the two parties disagreed on was whether or not the United States should have a National Bank. Along with the National Bank, the two parties also disagreed on the issue of the Protective tariff that was enforced to grow Northern industry. Politically, the two parties disagreed on the issues of Manifest Destiny, or expansion, and ultimately Slavery. While the two parties essentially disagreed on most issues, there are also similarities within these issues that the two parties somewhat agree on.

    Read More

  • How "democratic" was Jacksonian Democracy

    2046 Words  | 5 Pages

    The rise of democratisation in America describes "Age of Jackson", yet Jacksonian Democracy is a concept referring to the rise of political democracy in America through the creation of the Democrat party. In one aspect it is a period of democracy for the common man with extended suffrage and strict constructionism in the federal system. Another angle is that Jacksonianism can be seen as a walking contradiction with the existence of slavery and subjugation of minorities in an age of white supremacy defying any "democratic" nature. The "Age of Jackson" was an authentic movement for the common man as Deusen identifies, combined with Chases view of the rise of white egalitarianism. Not only that, its philosophy is "democratic" with all organs and bodies of government being subject to the people's direction. Yet, the people to Jackson did not include everyone; a citizen in this period would be a white male of age- most specifically the rising entrepreneurial class. Revisionist historians tend to link the origins far more to the market revolutions profound effect on the socio-economic natures of regions of the United States; compared to traditional views of a political awakening from the American Revolution to the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans. Yet Jacksonian Democracy in its form as Deusen most appropriately constructs, was a 'movement to ensure justice and opportunity for the common man', and it's ignorance to 'ethnic and religious differences' to 'local conditions' meant it 'reeked of demagoguery, ruthlessness and corruption' (Deusen G. G., 1970, pp. 7-9).

    Read More

  • How Did Andrew Jackson Cause The Poor

    1488 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Document 7 it says,”And when Van Buren learned that Jackson intended to appoint Samuel Swartwout to the office… Jackson refused to listen.” Jackson repeatedly refused to listen to anybody with money or power and it continued to cost him. He was to focused on heping the poor then listening or helping out anybody with money. Some could say that this was good and that people with money didn’t need to be helped but on the other hand, all people of the United States should be looked after by the president and it is his responsibility to make sure everyone is safe. Andrew Jackson does not follow through with this and because of this the wealthy are angry. In Document 5, it says,” It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich.” Jackson’s organization as president continuosly shuts down the wealthy and gives all the power to the poor people. This is not in the better judgement of the government and this should change. Every person whether they are poor or wealthy should be treated equally and Andrew Jackson should not be treating the wealthy differently because they have money. In Document 5, says,”...It wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purposes of turing against them the prejudices and resentments of the other classes.” President Andrew Jackson really just started to downfall in the treatement of his own people during his presidency. The wealthy started to outrage because they were getting no chances or opportunities and they began to feel that they were not wanted. Once again this doesn’t follow the Constution and the wealthy people are not getting the full extent of their rights. Because of these actions, Andrew Jackson does not belong on the twenty dollar

    Read More

  • The Reasons Why Andrew Jackson Was Democratic?

    1497 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson Implementing The Spoils System Analysis

    369 Words  | 1 Pages

    Jackson was not the first president to employ the Spoils System as a way to fill cabinet jobs and congressional seats, however he replaced about twenty percent of officials with representatives who had been loyal to him and therefore caused the system to earn its name. Loyal representatives ensured, for the most part, that

    Read More

  • Jacksonian Democracy

    779 Words  | 2 Pages

    Throughout the Jacksonian era the Jacksonians proved to be violators of the United States Constitution and not the guardians they believed themselves to be. Both the Jacksonians and President Jackson went against the Supreme Courts regarding cases that were said to be constitutional. An instance in which the Jacksonian Democrats violated the Constitution was in the "Trail of Tears". The Supreme Court stated that the Jacksonian Democrats' actions were unconstitutional because they had issued the "Indian Removal Act". By doing this, they were in violation of the treaty of New Echota. In the 1832 decision Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice Marshall ruled that the Cherokees had their own land and that they did not need to follow Georgia law in their own territory. This ruling of the Supreme Court did not stop Jacksonians from driving the Cherokees off of their land. Jackson used the Constitution to benefit himself when he vetoed the national bank, even after the Supreme Court had already ruled that the bank was constitutional. When South Carolina declared a reduced tariff void and threatened to secede, President Jackson responded in an unconstitutionally. He threatened to send militia to enforce the tariff and the Jacksonian Congress passed a bill approving this military force, if necessary. This was in direct violation of the Constitution. They continued to violate the Constitution by placing censors on the mail and intercepting abolitionist literature or mail into or from the south. This was an infringement on the Constitution because it violated the first amendment.

    Read More

  • Age Of Jackson

    956 Words  | 2 Pages

    By the time Jackson came to power, the nation had been drastically changed by the Industrial Revolution. The simple, pastoral, agricultural lifestyle was being replaced by the manufacturing world, of cities and factories. Politically, the nation was in great turmoil. There was still an everlasting debate among men in power, over what should prevail, the rights of the states, or the rights of the Federal Government. If not for several personal reasons, Jackson would have been a staunch advocator of states rights. The right to vote was still a major issue, the middle class feeling robbed of power in governmental decisions, the upperclass feeling threatened by the growth of the middleclass. However, Jackson brought with him many new ideas and principles. Since he himself had very modest roots, he sympathized with the middle and lower classes. He had worked for everything he had of value in life, and he acknow...

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Andrew Jackson

    820 Words  | 2 Pages

    Jackson’s spoils system opened government positions to only his supporters and he had little tolerance for

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson's Spoils System

    791 Words  | 2 Pages

    His political accomplice (and future president) Martin Van Buren was now and again credited with having made the plan, as his New York political machine, known as the Albany Regency, had worked in the practically identical way. Conveyed reports in the nineteenth century ensured that “Jackson's methodology spoke to around 700 government officers losing their occupations in 1829,” (Andrew Jackson) the stellar year of his organization. In July 1829, there was a day by day paper report ensuring the mass firings of government delegates positively affected the economy of the city of Washington, with merchants not ready to offer items. All that may have been distorted, yet there is without a doubt Jackson's methodology was debatable. In January 1832 Jackson's enduring enemy, Henry Clay, jumped upon Senator Marcy of New York in a Senate discuss, rebuking the immovable Jacksonian for bringing ruffian hones from the New York political machine to Washington. In his exasperated counter to Clay, Marcy protected the Albany Regency, declaring: “They see nothing inaccurately in the standard that to the victors have a spot the royal gems.” The expression got the chance to be notorious. Jackson's adversaries referred to it much of the time as an instance of unequivocal degradation which compensated political supporters with government

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson: A Hero Or Hero?

    899 Words  | 2 Pages

    Soon after taking office, Jackson started what is now known as the “spoils system”. He got rid of many federal employees and appointed many of his loyal supporters to these vacancies, even though many were not qualified to perform the duties of the positions. He also was involved in another political scandal “The Petticoat Affair” and wasted nearly the first two years of his Presidency trying to uphold the honor of a wife of one of his cabinet members. He ended up firing his entire Cabinet and replaced them with what was known as his “Kitchen

    Read More

  • Jacksonian Democracy Dbq

    1046 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jackson was a strong opponent of the unequal and aristocrat dominated economic structure of most of America. He was very against the Bank of America because he believed it to have a monopoly on banking and felt that it was owned and run unjustly by wealthy aristocrats who were not always Americans (B). It must also be noted however, that while the Bank of America was undoubtedly corrupt (Nicholas Biddle is known to have given sums of money to close friends, and was also known to regularly bribe newspapers and similar media.) it also did what it was supposed to do very well. It provided money and credit to many of the lower classes that Jackson defended, and also was the source of much economic growth. As a result of this veto Jackson established pet banks in many Western areas to try to appease his main group of supporters and build up the rivalry between the agrarian South and West and the industrial North (C). Many immigrants found that one of the first things they discovered upon entering America was a sense of economic equality and lack of poverty, which are exactly the things Jackson was working towards (D). The case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge decided that a charter given a person or group to do a service does not allow that group to have complete rights over this service. This decision supports the Jacksonian Democracy ideas that the rights of the community are more important than the rights of business (H).

    Read More

  • How Democratic Was Andrew Jackson Dbq

    589 Words  | 2 Pages

    Many people found this election to be a revolution and a great future for the country. That is not exactly what happened. In 1832, Andrew Jackson sent a letter to congress saying he does not support the National Bank. He says that if the bank were to happen, it would be the rich in most control.  The bank would be more for the rich and the foreign but have no benefits for the poor. (Doc.4) Jackson’s political rival, Daniel Webster believes that this letter from Jackson showed just how evil Jackson was. Webster does not think Jackson was vetoing for the good of the people but to ‘stir the pot’. By Jackson sending this letter, it causes a stir between the rich and the poor. The poor would feel imbalanced against the poor and arguments would rush out. (Doc.5). This letter he wrote to congress was one of his many times when he was “selfish” and used his powers unjustly to make something go the way he wanted. Was Jackson trying to inflame the different classmen? Was this

    Read More

  • DBQ On Jacksonian Democrats

    487 Words  | 1 Pages

    It is agreeable that the Jacksonian Democrats perceived themselves as strict guardians of the United States Constitution. It is not agreeable with how they went about preserving the political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of economic opportunity they stood for. While trying to create this balance, Jackson used tactics favorable only to his opinion. Jackson’s main idea was to rid of aristocracy, giving the power to the poorer classes, standing against rich white men. The flaw in their scheme was that the people who came up with this idea were all rich white men.

    Read More

  • Andrew Jackson And Jacksonian Democracy

    774 Words  | 2 Pages

    Andrew Jackson was a strict constitutional constructionist, he felt it was his duty to guard what he believed to be the constitution’s spirit, this is carried out when he handles South Carolina’s Nullification Crisis. Jackson makes a strong statement by passing the “1833 Force Bill”, that the position of John C. Calhoun and also his home state (South Carolina) are unconstitutional. It is also made clear by Jackson that he, as president, is prepared to back up his ideals, even with force, if necessary. By his handling of “The 1832-1841 Bank War”, Jackson further advanced his demanding constructionist position. Looking in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, authority to create a national bank given to congress is nowhere to be found. Jackson effectively takes apart what he had viewed as a “monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange” that had not been “compatible with justice, with sound policy, or with the Constitution of our country.” (Document B)

    Read More

More about Compare How Democratic Was Andrew Jackson Dbq

Open Document