The 1820’s and 1830’s mark an era when the Jacksonian Democrats reigned supreme in American government. Led by President Andrew Jackson, the Democrats appealed to the common man and worked towards helping the general populace. The Jacksonians regarded themselves as the guardians of the Constitution and individual liberties, however, the Jacksonian Democrats did not act accordingly. They infringed upon the Constitution, exploited political democracy, tainted individual liberties, but at times defended economic opportunities. Although Jacksonians believed that they were guardians of the Constitution, their actions proved otherwise. One of the first acts of Jacksonians disregarding or blatantly contradicting the Constitution was the Indian …show more content…
The Democrats were able to first gain power by grabbing the support of the lower classes mainly in the West and the South, while the opposing parties, like the National Republicans, got support from the higher classes, and the richer north. The “common man” Jackson naturally advocated for individual rights, as far as his platform goes. Really Jackson was a racist hypocrite, who went out and attacked several minority groups, and his supporters followed that lead. These groups included the Native Americans, who Jackson moved from their indigenous lands in the Southeast to present-day Oklahoma. The Native Americans had to take all their belongings and move in masses away from their homes (Doc. G). Jacksonians also attacked other minority groups, namely in riots in large cities, like Philadelphia, where masses of people went out and destroyed the houses of those minority groups there (Doc. E). While the Jacksonians supported their own rights, they took away the rights of others, especially the right to personal property. Democratic Chief Justice Roger Taney ignored the right to personal property in order to protect the rights of everyone (Doc. H). In that decision, Justice Taney ignored the Constitution and also the right to personal property, in order to side for the masses, once again defending the rights of the masses by taking away another individual's right. While the Jacksonians argued for an individual rights, they instead took away the rights of other
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.
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 Jackson's two terms as President, Jackson used his power unjustly. As a man from the Frontier State of Tennessee and a leader in the Indian wars, Jackson loathed the Native Americans. Keeping with consistency, Jackson found a way to use his power incorrectly to eliminate the Native Americans. In May 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed into law the Indian Removal Act. This act required all tribes east of the Mississippi River to leave their lands and travel to reservations in the Oklahoma Territory on the Great Plains. This was done because of the pressure of white settlers who wanted to take over the lands on which the Indians had lived. The white settlers were already emigrating to the Union, or America. The East Coast was burdened with new settlers and becoming vastly populated. President Andrew Jackson and the government had to find a way to move people to the West to make room. In 1830, a new state law said that the Cherokees would be under the jurisdiction of state rather than federal law. This meant that the Indians now had little, if any, protection against the white settlers that desired their land. However, when the Cherokees brought their case to the Supreme Court, they were told that they could not sue on the basis that they were not a foreign nation. In 1832, though, on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokees were a "domestic dependent nation," and therefore, eligible to receive federal protection against the state. However, Jackson essentially overruled the decision. By this, Jackson implied that he had more power than anyone else did and he could enforce the bill himself. This is yet another way in which Jackson abused his presidential power in order to produce a favorable result that complied with his own beliefs. The Indian Removal Act forced all Indians tribes be moved west of the Mississippi River. The Choctaw was the first tribe to leave from the southeast.
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
Jackson’s spoils system opened government positions to only his supporters and he had little tolerance for
Jacksonian Democrats help create a more democratic America and because of this, believed themselves to be many things, real and fictional. In most cases they perceived themselves as defenders of equal economic opportunity, even though they sometimes put their own interests before those of the people. They also thought of themselves as guardians of political democracy, while at the same time using class differences to their advantage and emotionalized speeches, lacking real intellectual merit, to stir support. Jacksonian Democrats felt that they were the protectors of the Constitution and of individual liberties but many times they put their rivalry with the Northeastern industry and Whig politics before these things. While Jacksonians have much correct in their view of themselves as guardians of political democracy, equal economic opportunity and individual liberty, they were often more important in developing these concepts than protecting them.
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.
At first, Andrew Jackson started off as a democrat, serving the people with his actions. For instance, in the document Indian Removal Document three, Jackson appeals to the indians and congress. He told them that the indians needed somewhere to go in an eloquent manner. To congress, it sounded like he was being morale for the indians, but in reality, he was still forcing the indians off their lands. Guarenting land for the indians is not as fair as letting them stay on their current ground and already beings to show his inner autocratic side.
To begin with , Andrew Jackson was democratic and this can be proven in political ways. Andrew Jackson was a guy that supported the people and the
One reason why Andrew Jackson was not democratic was because of his mistreatment of the Native American. Today, the population of Native Americans are significantly less than when Jackson served as the leader of the free world. From the early 1830’s until 1840, Jackson forced 5 separate Indian tribes onto a small piece of land (Doc L). A likely reason for this sudden move
The removal of the Native Americans was an egocentric move on Jackson’s part. Jackson was only able to see how our removal would benefit the government but was not concerned at all about our values and culture. “It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between the authorities of the general and state governments on account of the Indians” (91). This statement, included in the State of the Union Address, exhibits how Jackson was quick to place blame on the Indians. He was basically saying that if there were any disputes between the general and state governments, it would be because of the Indian’s choice to not leave the land. Jackson was attempting to hold the Indians accountable for a matter that they had no say in. It is evident that Jackson could have are less about the Indian’s home land, where we were birthed and raised our kids. It is clear that the sentimental value of the land did not concern Jackson at all. Jackson felt that he offered us an equitable exchange, but his family was not the one being forcefully removed from their birthland to go to an unfamiliar land. “What good m...
President Jackson singlehandedly led the destruction of the Native Americans with his aggressive actions and hostile decisions. President Jackson shirked his responsibility to protect the Naïve Americans of the United States by ignoring the Supreme Court’s decision, promoting legislation to bring about the separation of Native Americans and whites, and his decision to involve United States Armed Forces against Indian Tribes. If it was not for President Jackson’s actions, the future of the Native Americans would have been different or at least
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.
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.
Both Jackson's and Jefferson's actions and words are very similar and support the same beliefs. Thomas Jefferson was a strong supporter and spokesman for the common man and self-government. He strongly believed that the purpose of American government is to look after and support the common interests of the people. He was against anything that he felt would hurt the common man, such as the Bank of the U.S. and big government. Jefferson believed the Bank was hurting the common man and becoming a damaging monopoly.