Andrew Jackson Dbq

Following the war of 1812, there was much growth, expansion, and social change occurring within America. This was especially true during the passing years of 1820s to 1830s. Andrew Jackson (old hickory) was a hero during this time, because he had succeeded in winning the battle of New Orleans, making him incredibly popular among the people. Andre Jackson decided to run for the office of President of the United States. Jackson believed himself to be a spokesman of the common man and thought that the government should be for, and ran by the farmers, and urban workers. His many followers, known as Jacksonian democrats, held this same opinion. Together, they felt themselves to be the guardians of the Constitution, political democracy, individual

liberty, and equality of economic opportunity. However, their actions demonstrated inconsistency in principle. While President Jacksons fight against the banking monopoly was noble, his record of horrible treatment of Native Americans and support of slavery can never be expunged. While Jackson defended economic equality while fighting against the national bank, and political democracy expanded during his time in office, his hypocrisy in ‘defending individual liberty’ while terrorizing native Americans, and his inconsistent views of the Constitution prove that Jacksonians Democrats view of themselves are not all warranted.

In the Jacksonian’s eyes, the working class famers and laborers deserved protection from the rich who sought to use government as a tool for their own personal gain.

George Henry Evans details this sentiment in ‘The Working Man’s Declaration of Independence.” Jacksonian Democrats demonstrated their allegiance to the working class and farmers by supporting working class people to become politically engaged. During the 1920’s and 30’s there was an expansion of political participation – including a spoils system - beyond landowning whites that increased white male suffrage and expanded political participation to nominating state electors. This phenomenon was detailed by Harriet Martineau, a British Author who wrote in 1837 about her visit to America in 1832. She was amazed that the grand experiment in America was whether the common man could govern himself, or if the elite class of aristocrats must do it for them (Doc D). According to the Jacksonians, the answer was perfectly clear. The working class deserved their voice to be heard. Jacksonians Democrats opinion in this regard was also apparent in their view of the National

Bank.

Jacksonians wanted to limit the power of the upper class in order to empower the working class.

Andrew Jackson saw his fight against the national bank as one of the most effective ways to do this. He vetoed Daniel Webster's request to renew the bank of the United States in 1832. Jackson argued control was not in the hands of the common people, but instead, the hands of the rich. Jackson insinuated the national bank held monopoly on banking and argued that this concentration of power was dangerous (Doc B). President Jackson and other Jacksonian Democrats believed the rich used this banking monopoly to line their own pockets and that the bank itself was unnecessary, while Daniel Weber argued that such rhetoric led people to follow their individual prejudices while creating class warfare of sorts (Doc C). Nevertheless, here we see a great sense of urgency on the part of Jackson to create economic equality, whether I was the right path to reach that destination or not. Undoubtedly Jackson’s efforts on behalf of working class Americans were noble, but in regards to equality and the Constitution, he and fellow Jacksonian Democrats were often inconsistent. In the context of the 1920’s and 30’s, Native Americans and African Americans were

not

legally persons. They didn’t have the right to own land, nor could they vote. Working class whites and landowners could. While they should have been, they were not a protected class under the Constitution of the United States. When Jacksonians define themselves as ‘guardians’ of individual liberty, it is hard to ignore their treatment of Native American’s, and in particular the ‘Trail of Tears’ when critiquing the legitimacy of their self-assigned title (Doc G). Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States was a designed to protect State Governments from an overreaching Federal Government, yet often times Jackson questionably overstepped his own executive power. Examples of this include Jacksons ignoring of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia in 1832 (Doc H). Another example would require one to reconsider Jacksons fight against the National Bank as ‘noble’; because within the context of the Constitution, what Jackson done was arguably illegal. The Congress and Courts had approved the banks authority and actions, but Jackson ignored that. These actions ad credibility to the fact that the ‘guardians of the Constitution’ were in fact stomping on it in many ways (Doc I)