Andrew Bridges AP United States History Mullen High School October 21, 2010

Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the guardians of the United States Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of economic opportunity. In light of the following documents and your knowledge of the 1820s and 1830s, to what extent do you agree with the Jacksonians view of themselves?

The Jacksonian Democrats first began to appear in the late 1820s when Andrew Jackson embarked on his campaign for election. He appealed directly to the people through his dedication to individual rights and liberties. He effectively reopened the conflict of the Jeffersonian era between the people and the greedy, paper money aristocracy. As one can imagine, his attitude toward the people earned him a lot of political support, which ultimately propelled him to the presidency. Jacksons supporters formed together into a party know as the Jacksonian Democrats with him as their leader. Although Jacksonian Democrats acted as guardians of the Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of economic opportunity at some times, the majority of their actions were in direct opposition to this characterization. The characterization of Jacksonian Democrats as guardians of the Constitution has its merits, but it oversimplifies their role by passing over their failures in this area. Perhaps Jacksons greatest return to Constitutional principles was that he made the presidency directly responsible to the people, which demonstrates a return to the Constitutional of popular sovereignty, where elected officials are held accountable to the masses. However, Jacksons ignorance of the Constitution when dealing with the Cherokee nation tends to overshadow this minor victory. When the Supreme Court asserted that Indian tribes had full authority over their lands in the case Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson defied its decision and proceeded with his plans for Indian removal, which is depicted in the painting of the Trail of Tears (Doc G). This shows a blatant disregard for the Constitution in that the president is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and

act in accordance with its rulings, but Jackson did not. However, the Democrats did redeem themselves somewhat when Chief Justice Roger Taney, a Jackson appointee, wrote the opinion in the case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (Doc H). Taney upheld the Constitutional principles of freedom and free enterprise by ruling against monopolies. In this way, the Jacksonian Democrats upheld some aspects of the Constitution, while neglecting others. A similar situation applies to the characterization of Jacksonian Democrats as guardians of political democracy. They enjoyed certain victories in the political realm while causing great setbacks that would not be resolved for years to come. One of their great victories lies in the increase of political participation. The Democrats prided themselves on the grassroots support that they gave to their candidates. They transformed a group of working men that had been previously uninterested in politics, and turned them into men like George Henry Evans who developed strong political feelings and ideologies (Doc A). They made politics relevant to the peoples daily lives while giving them an important role. Harriet Martineau, a British author, commented on this when she said, I had witnessed controversies between candidates for office on some difficult subjects, of which the people were to be the judges (Doc D). However, men like Daniel Webster might argue that the Jacksonian Democrats did not increase political democracy, but incite the poor against the rich while spreading jealousy and ill-will (Doc C). Furthermore, Jackson undermined political democracy by implementing the spoils system where he would replace those in the bureaucracy with his cronies rather than awarding the jobs based on aptitude or merit. This was in fact a step backward in political

democracy. If one wants to criticize the Democrats additionally, he or she could point out that although more men may be involved in politics, women and free African Americans were still not allowed to vote in most places. In this way, the Democrats contribution to political democracy was not exceptionally great. It is much easier to pass judgment on the Democrats guardianship of individual liberty. They did ever so little to advance the personal freedom of the Americans. Perhaps the only thing in their favor was that Harriet Martineau said that every man in the towns was an independent citizen (Doc D), but surely, the Democrats cannot claim credit for this. She would have said the very same thing if she had visited America during any of the previous presidencies. Philip Hone gives a much better picture of American individual liberty during the era of the Jacksonian Democracy when he relates the riots of the 1830s (Doc E). The government was not adequately protecting the citizens liberties, and they were forced to riot in response. The forceful removal of the Indians from their lands, and the journey along the Trail of Tears (Doc G) serve as another example of the Jacksonian Democrats neglect for individual liberty. Moreover, they overlooked slavery and womens rights. The Jacksonian Democrats are completely wrong in their characterization of themselves as guardians of individual liberty. The Democrats pursuit of equality of economic opportunity was much better than their guardianship of individual liberty, but it often had ill effects on the economy. One of the main goals of the Jacksonian Democrats was to dissolve the fine institution that was the Bank of the United States in order to level the economic

playing field for the less wealthy because the national bank favored foreigners and the wealthy (Doc B). Jackson planned to eliminate the bank by taking all of its funds and investing them in various state and local banks, which served the purpose of leveling the economic playing field, while ultimately causing destroying the foundation of the national economy. Furthermore, it caused a number of political problems, which Daniel Webster outlined in his response to Jacksons veto message (Doc C). In 1836, the Democrats plunged the nation into financial ruin when President Andrew Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required all payment for government land to be in gold and silver. This ill-advised move threw the country into a great economic depression called the Panic of 1837 because Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats did not realize that the economy was firmly rooted in credit, and it would not survive without it. Of course, the Democrats did do a few good things economically. They struck down monopolies in the case Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, which encouraged small business and entrepreneurship, two very economically healthy things. One can argue that the Jacksonian Democrats were guardians of the Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of economic opportunity, but to do so would be to oversimplify and omit the facts. In reality, they had their small victories, but they did nothing exceptionally great overall. The Era of the Common Man may have brought about an increase in political democracy among the common man, but it did not even come close to the grandeur of Jacksonian Democrats description. They were nothing but a nave party that refused to acknowledge its failures.