More handpicked essays just for you.
Jacksonian democracy the heir of jeffersonian republicans
Democratic republicans and jacksonian democracy
Democratic republicans and jacksonian democracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
DBQ
During the 1820’s - 1830’s America went through some would call a political revolution when government issues were diverted from being only for the elite to now they would include the common man as well. This change of power brought a lot of power to the people contributing to the Jacksonian democratic belief of guarding the Constitution. Yet, many of the people under Jackson still saw no change in their liberties, as they did not meet the Jacksonians target audience of white males. Despite expanding the political conversation, Jacksonian Democrats used the Constitution to limit individual liberty and political democracy by only protecting the rights of only a select few of people and seeking to fulfill their goal of obtaining their own gain and maintenance of the then status quo lifestyle therefore not truly guarding the Constitution.
…show more content…
However, Daniel Webster in his response to Jackson’s veto message (Document C) refuted Jackson pointing out the personal interests Jackson vested in this political decision. Jackson a big supporter of the expanding west wanted easily accessible credit to allow for faster speculation of land which the Bank of the United States failed to provide. Jackson was spurred to fail the re-charter of the Bank to solidify his support within the South and the West and to issue a backlash to nemesis Henry Clay who had proposed the re-charter of the bank and had prevented Jackson from obtaining presidency in 1824 by supporting John Quincy Adams. Although, Jackson justified his veto of the Bank of the United States as a action meant to uphold the Constitution in reality it was used to politically secure
One of the Jacksonian Democrats’ attempts to reduce the influence of the rich was by vetoing the charter to the Bank of the United States. Jackson stated his reasons in Document B mainly as a precaution of...
Based on the following doctrines, I believe the extent of characterization of the two parties was not completely accurate during the presidencies of Madison and Jefferson, because of key pieces of evidence that proves inconsistencies during the period between 1801 and 1817. In the following essay, I will provide information supporting my thesis, which describes the changing feelings by each party and the reasoning behind such changes.
Throughout his presidency, Andrew Jackson was regarded as both a tyrant (Document E) as well a democratic rembrandt. However, by the conclusion of his rule, Andrew Jackson’s America had emerged as a pseudo democracy, strongly supported and advocated for, but falling short and ultimately failing. The drastic reforms during the Age of Jackson brought about radical changes to the young nation that would be felt throughout the country and would set the foundation for politics today. President Andrew Jackson reformed the American voting system, made significant moves against the National Bank, sparked the beginning of democratic reform movements, and most importantly gave the Common Man a voice in the government. These democratic initiatives, however, were not seen everywhere as America was slowly divided by differing views on contentious topics and individualistic ideals. Jacksonian America, did not promote the democratic
In the summer of 1832 and Congress renewed the Bank’s charter even though it wasn’t due until 1836. Jackson hesitated to approve of the charter, so Henry Clay and Nicholas Biddle went on the offensive to attempt to persuade Jackson to pass the bill. Jackson, having had his opinion on the banks cemented by Clay’s presence in the organization, then committed to de-establishing the Second National Bank. He waged war against Biddle in particular to make sure Biddle lost power. He vetoed the bank bill, and after winning the race to be reelected, he closed Biddle’s bank. He ordered his Secretary of the Treasury to move money from the Second National Bank to smaller, state banks. When Congress returned from its summer recess, it censured him for his actions. In 1836, Bank of US was dead, and the new democratic-congressmen expunged Jackson’s censure. Because Jackson had no formal plan for managing the nation’s funds after the Second National Bank closed, it caused problems in Van Buren’s administration. He destroyed the Bank of the United States, in the main, for personal reasons. Jackson hated the bank before his presidency because as a wealthy land and slave owner he had lost money due to its fiscal policies. He believed that Congress had no right under the constitution to charter a
The validity of President Andrew Jackson’s response to the Bank War issue has been contradicted by many, but his reasoning was supported by fact and inevitably beneficial to the country. Jackson’s primary involvement with the Second Bank of the United States arose during the suggested governmental re-chartering of the institution. It was during this period that the necessity and value of the Bank’s services were questioned.
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).
Before Andrew Jackson became president, he had a rough life. His parents died when he was young so he grew up without guidance. Jackson was in all the fights he could pick and to many, a wild child. By age 17, he calmed down and began planning his life. It wasn’t until after he had enrolled in the war of 1813 and showed great leadership and strength, that he was in the spot for presidency. (BG Essay) Many people believe in a Democratic nation. Not everyone follows one though. In a democratic nation, the voices of the people are heard. The leader(s) listen and make changes the people want done. Throughout Andrew Jackson’s time in office, he showed his country many undemocratic actions. He made some great changes and some not so great friendships. How democratic was Andrew Jackson? In the eyes of some, Jackson was not democratic. In many of his actions, he is shown to take one side of two things and do anything to make sure that side
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. In the Supreme Court case of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation. This ruling of the Supreme Court did not stop Jackson and the Jacksonians from driving the Cherokees off of their land, and by doing this the Constitution was violated. 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. Jackson threatened to send militia to enforce the tariff implementation and the Jacksonian Congress passed a bill approving this military force, if necessary.
The issue of whether or not America should have a National Bank is one that is debated throughout the whole beginning stages of the modern United States governmental system. In the 1830-1840’s two major differences in opinion over the National Bank can be seen by the Jacksonian Democrats and the Whig parties. The Jacksonian Democrats did not want a National Bank for many reasons. One main reason was the distrust in banks instilled in Andrew Jackson because his land was taken away. Another reason is that the creation of a National Bank would make it more powerful than...
To some people Andrew Jackson is remembered as the, metaphorically speaking, “People’s King” and is accused of dictator-like political moves. However, Andrew Jackson was quite the contrary, he was exalted amongst the people for being the new era of democracy: instilling a political revolution, the protection of the American people, and social equality among the masses. Therefore, Andrew Jackson was a precedent of democratic rule in the United States.
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.
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...
However, critics of Jackson and democracy called him “King Andrew I” because of his apparent abuse of presidential power [vetoing]. These critics believed he favored the majority so much that it violated the U.S. constitution, and they stated he was straying too far away from the plan originally set for the United States. Because of the extreme shift of power to the majority, the limiting of rights of the few [merchants, industrialists] and the abuse of power under Jackson’s democracy, the foundational documents set in the constitution was violated, and the work of the preceding presidents were all but lost. During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms.
Although the actions undertaken by the Jacksonian democracy to marginalize Natives and slaves differed from the actions during the Jeffersonian democracy, they reflected the same ideals posed by that democracy. Both democracies were primarily concerned with white males, and as a result, treated minorities as unwanted and inferior. Their attempts to banish these inferiors, among other negative actions, degraded those peoples
The Jacksonian Democrats had at least one misconception about themselves; they did not strive to guard the individual liberty of all Americans. They were yet to break away completely from the old beliefs that one race was superior to another. However, they did have some clear perceptions of the purpose they served. They protected the Constitution and the rights it gave to Americans by promoting equality of economic opportunity and by advancing political democracy.