Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Differences between Whigs and Democrats
Differences between Whigs and Democrats
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Differences between Whigs and Democrats
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. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...y into the Mexican Cession lands. The Jacksonian Democrats and Whigs were predominantly opposing forces in the 1830-1840’s; however, one can see instances where they worked together in certain Political and Economic issues. Economically, the Jacksonian Democrats were against the National Bank and Protective Tariff, while the Whigs supported it, and politically, the Jacksonian Democrats were more liberal, calling for the rapid expansion and growth of the country and slavery while the Whigs were more conservative on the issues of Manifest Destiny and slavery. Jacksonian Democrats were essentially greatly Anti-Federalist, supporting law and actions that reduce the amount of power of the federal government, while the Whigs were mainly federalists who supported the federal government and sought to make it stronger through their various economic and political policies.
Throughout the course of American political history rarely has there ever been a rivalry as fierce and contested as that of the one between Tennessee’s Andrew Jackson, and Kentucky’s Henry Clay. During their extensive political careers the two constantly seemed to cross paths differing in terms philosophically and ideologically. Simply put, these two men profoundly shaped the American Antebellum period, specifically involving the 1820’s to the 1840’s. Their notions of what was best for the country became the basis for their respective parties and consequently their differences in methodology facilitated countless battles in the American political atmosphere. The most significant issues that centered on these types of political skirmishes involved
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.
The bank would be more for the rich and the foreign, but have no benefits for the poor. 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.
This bank held government money and controlled the economy by making it easier for local banks to borrow money from it to loan it to manufacturers and factories. As the idea arose the cabinet, Jefferson protested that such a bank was unconstitutional because it favored the north over the south since the bank did not loan money to farmers for land expansions. Being true as it is, the bank drastically boosted our economy and had a great future for our nation. Since it was unconstitutional, a compromise said that the bank would only be funded for 20 years. So as soon as Andrew Jackson was elected, he destroyed the bank. In response to this, our nation suddenly falls into a major depression. No one had jobs and the economy was dying. This showed the brilliance of the national bank and how much it helped our economy. Adding onto this, the bank began the formation of the Federalist and Democratic
The Jacksonian democracy and Jeffersonian democracy compared and contrasted to each other. Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson were both democrats, which meant that they believe people should be able to have control over their own government. They believed everything should be based around the rights of the people. Jackson and Jefferson both did not agree with the bank. They both felt
Early into the 1800’s, president Andrew Jackson was a bit of a catalyst to the alteration of politics. Through his actions of Indian removal, confounding the nullifiers, and destroying the “Monster Bank” he had immeasurably enlarged the power of the presidency. Jackson also converted the veto into an effective presidential power. During his term, Jackson had vetoes 12 bills, compared to a collective 9 vetoes from all the previous presidents combined. Around the same time period, a new two-party system developed differing from the Democrats and the Federalists. The Jacksonian Party System was directly shaped by the social and economic strains of an expanding nation. Democrats at this time viewed society as a continuing conflict between “the people” -workers, planters, and farmers- and a group of greedy aristocrats. These greedy aristocrats were part of a “paper money aristocracy” consisting of bankers and investors who manipulated the banking system for profit. Democrats saw the Bank War as a battle to restore the old Jeffersonian republic with its values of simplicity, frugality, hard work, and independence. Jackson knew the dangers of private banking yet the Democrats wanted the rewards of the market without losin...
In this study, the author familiarizes The Bank of the United States and Andrew Jackson 's fabrication of an anticipating war, which inadvertently saves America. During the 1820’s and 1830’s, The Bank War, a war between the Bank of the United States and President Andrew Jackson, resulted beneficially to America 's future for numerous reasons. Jackson set standards and pushed boundaries, creating larger presidential responsibilities. The Bank of the United States, which earned a prevailing bad reputation along with a substantial amount of animosity, was abolished. While Jackson and the Bank quarreled, they both unknowingly played a role in constituting a tenacious executive branch. A majority of American 's have over-looked the Bank War’s importance to modern society, this inspired the author of “Andrew Jackson and the Bank War”, Robert V. Remini, to emphasize the importance of the Bank of the United States destruction, maximize presidential powers, and the optimization of the governments Executive Branch.
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...
Jacksonian democracy was created during antebellum America. The Jackson democrats attempted to aggrandize the puissance of lower classes poor while decreasing the influence of the rich and potent. Economically, they benefited from governing during a time of paramount advances in transportation, which boosted commerce and helped the common man. Politically, they invested power into an overwhelmingly powerful executive branch. The Jacksonian democrats portrayed themselves as saviors of the common people and ruled via a powerful executive who attempted to destroy aristocracy in America.
view supporting those ideals and it comes as no surprise that Jackson stressed them in his veto message of 1832. Yet, paying attention to the message in context lends a lot of support to the view that Jackson was a true democrat and a true protector of the common man. Established in 1816, the Second Bank of the United States had, by the 1830's, become a tool of the rich Northeastemers that failed to respond to the people and states' needs.
Ultimately, the Jacksonian Era was filled with reform movements that sought to expand democratic ideals. Starting with the prison reforms in 1829 to women’s rights in 1848, all these reforms were very democratic. However, all of these reforms looked toward a brighter future; a future which democracy would be the framework in which the United States of America would function under.
The Democrats believed that the states should have as much power as possible and that the federal government should only have the powers absolutely necessary for the nation to function. They were against the Protective Tariff and the national bank. They overvalued the individual and believed that anyone can be important. This message was well received by small farmers and factory workers. Slave owners also favored this message, fearing that the federal government might try to end slavery. Andrew Jackson also believed that the states should finance turnpikes, canals, and eventually, railroads. When he didn't support many Ohioans who wanted federal government assistance for roads and other forms of transportation, they went against him. In 1834 political opponents of President Andrew Jackson structured a new party to contest Jacksonian Democrats nationally and in the states. Guided by their most prominent leader, Henry Clay, they called themselves Whigs. Whigs united behind the American System, believing that via a protective tariff, a national bank, and aid to internal improvements, the federal government could lead economic development. They were strong in the Northeast, one of the most rapidly modernizing region of the country. Historians have interpreted the Whigs in strikingly different ways. They have been seen as champions of banks, business, corporations, economic growth, the positive liberal state,
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.
Jeffersonian and Jacksonian Democracy Jeffersonian and Jacksonian democracy are the same in just about every regard. Their views and goals as presidents are the same. Both are in favor of the common man and feel that it is the common people who should have the biggest influence on government, not the wealthy aristocrats. They also support states rights and feel that the federal government should not get involved with the state affairs. Both men's actions clearly show that the common man does not include minorities.