How Did Andrew Jackson Contribute To Democracy

Democracy and Andrew Jackson

The founding fathers of the United States modeled the government on the principle of representative democracy, a form of government in which the people rule through elected government officials. However, they greatly distrusted the masses to sensibly vote for the leaders of the nation, and so they created the electoral college who directly voted for the president based on, But not limited to popular vote. Additionally, voting for the at the time was restricted to the land owning white males. In the early 1800’s, as states began to lift the voting restrictions, more and more people were permitted to vote. Simultaneously, around the 1820’s, Andrew Jackson, already a popular war hero of the battle of New Orleans,

gained popularity as a political figure. Jackson, a Democrat, was a favorite of the American people.

Although his actions regarding the ‘Corrupt Bargain’ and Native Removal Act aligned with democracy, Jackson was no true advocate of democracy. And, although Jackson defended his reasoning behind his attack on the National Bank and his spoils system as democratic, he committed a breach to democracy. Therefore, Jackson’s policies defined a half and half mixture of democracy and anti-democracy.

Democracy began to rise during the mid 1820’s. A chart from History Statistics of the United States revealed that for the election of 1816, in each state the electoral college members were appointed by the state legislatures. For the election of 1824, more states began to use the people as a method of electing the electoral college members (Doc 1). In that election, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, however, the self interested electoral college scattered the votes among the four presidential candidates: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and William Crawford. Thereby, the election was sent to the House of Representatives. Crawford suffered a stroke, and Clay, finishing last in the electoral college dropped out. But, Clay used his influential position as Speaker of the House to turn the election in his favor. And, he personally did not want the

presidency in the hands of Jackson, even though the people admired Jackson. The grateful Adams gifted Clay with the position of Secretary of State. This was an outrage to the people of the United States and to Andrew Jackson, as well. Jackson went as far as provoking the people against the injustice of not having their voice heard in the election. Subsequently, “Masses of angry Jacksonian, most of them common folk, raised a roar of protest against this ‘corrupt bargain’ ”(Kennedy Cohen 249). Jackson also assisted the common people in rising to power and gaining a voice in government affairs. All the while, he helped increase democracy. Jackson once wrote in his letter to Congress, that in a democracy, anyone is good enough to hold a government position. He implied that even the common folk deserved to hold office, and thus he brought the government closer to the people (Doc 6). By empowering the people and gaining their support, Jackson won the presidency in 1828. Regarding the incident, Daniel Webster stated, “Jackson’s victory accelerated the transfer of national power from the country house to the farmhouse, from east to west, from the snobs to the mobs.” Jackson’s triumph quickened the pace of the expanding democracy (Doc 2).
During the 1800’s the American people carried no love for the Native Americans. And, although many tribes lived in American soil, they were not American citizens. The tribes were seen as an inconvenience to the Americans who were interested in expanding west and gaining land and earthly resources. While it was morally wrong, clearing America of the Natives was a democratic action. The Cherokee tribe of Georgia had a charter to live in Georgia. However, the Georgian legislature declared the Cherokee council illegal in 1828. The Cherokee filed a case through Samuel Worcester to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall declared Georgia’s action unconstitutional. However, John Marshall had no way of enforcing his ruling, and Andrew Jackson, the executive, did not care that Georgia was ignoring the law because it was the mindset of the people at the time. In addition, he signed the Indian Removal Act into law in 1830. According to the act, all tribes living east of the Mississippi had to move into Indian Territory (Doc 10). Throughout his course of actions regarding the Indians, Jackson acted in the favor of the American people. Moreover, he acted on the will of the people.
Jackson’s spoils system defied the meaning of democracy. The system focused on rewarding those who helped with campaigning efforts, and donations with political offices. Jackson used the system to reward those that supported him in his campaigns with government offices. To Jackson, it did not matter if they had any political knowledge; they would learn on the job. It was a democratic ideology, but Jackson used it in a way in which the people did not benefit. Rather, with it came corruption. Although warned by Martin Van Buren, Jackson awarded Sam Swartwout, a dishonest man, with the job of collector of customs in New York. Swartwout stole about million dollars from the government (Doc 7). Just like a king, he selected these people based on a concept similar to favoritism. A satirical cartoon portrayed Jackson with a crown, illustrating that Jackson was a monarch, a complete opposite to the democrat he portrayed himself to be (Doc 3). Jackson slapped democracy in the face during the Bank War regarding the National Bank and its president, Nicolas Biddle. The Bank was a constitutional institution, however due to a personal conflict, Jackson destroyed it. A states’ rights advocate, Jackson listed banking under reserved law. He also had a personal grudge against it’s president, Biddle. He exercised his executive power to do his personal bidding. Henry Clay pushed for a bill to renew the bank early; Jackson vetoed. In his veto message to Congress, Jackson implied that the bank was a corrupt monster, and the leading members of it, used it for their own, personal, selfish needs (Doc 4). Firing back at the bank veto, Daniel Webster insisted that the government was becoming too powerful and threatening democracy. Jackson vetoed the Bank for his personal reasons, he did not do it for the people (Doc 5). Andrew Jackson also began pulling deposits out of the bank and putting them in his pet banks, which were even more corrupt than Biddle’s Bank, revealing that Jackson crushed the bank for personal reasons. The people had no interest in destroying the bank, for it would bring forth an economic panic. Moreover, Jackson, using his charisma, manipulated the people into siding with him, which made the incident an even bigger blow to democracy.
Similar to a midfielder who plays both offense and defense in the game of soccer, Andrew Jackson was a midfielder in politics. Despite strongly claiming to be an advocate of democracy, Jackson played in two different positions. He was an advocate of democracy, and all the while, he flatly ignored democracy, as well. On the standards of democracy, Jackson created the Indian Removal Acts and encouraged people to participate in elections. However, he also fabricated the spoils system and destroyed the National Bank. Therefore, he cannot be said to have been a complete democrat, nor an anti-democrat. Jackson placed himself right in the middle; he was half democratic.