The 1820s and the 1830s were the start of a new age, the Jacksonian Democracy. Americans began to see a change of a more democratic United States when Andrew Jackson, the common man, became the 7th president of the United States after winning the election of 1828 against John Quincy Adams. Throughout his campaign, he was presented as a humble man, born in a log cabin just like any other ordinary citizen in that time period. He wasn’t from a prestige family, wasn’t educated and definitely did not have any advantages due to his family background. However, despite these circumstances he was still able to win the election of 1828 by a landslide of electoral college votes. With his triumph in the election, a new political party began to rise, the Jacksonian Democrats. The Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the guardian of the United States Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty and equality of opportunity. This statement is true but only to an extent, as there were many flaws with Jacksonian presidency that contradict the views of the Jacksonian Democrats on themselves.
Throughout Jackson’s presidency, Jackson vetoed a considerable amount of bills. One of the most substantial bill he vetoed against was the renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States. As shown in Document 6, he claimed that the bank was a monopoly in favor of the rich and the foreign and thus should not be allowed to continue to exist. To further justify his veto, he stated that base on the constitution, the bank was not necessary nor proper. Jackson, in this case did act as a guardian of the Constitution. He vetoed the renewal of the bank because the bank did not comply with the rules of the Constitution. However, it must be taken into consideration that prior to his veto, Jackson had issues with Nicholas Biddle, the president of the bank, and the upper class (Garraty 245). Jackson’s veto of the bank rather than defending the constitution could be seen as his selfish attempt of ruling from his own beliefs, ruling as “King Andrew”. As depicted in Document 7, Jackson was illustrated as an arrogant, selfish king with a crown atop of his head and his foot atop of the Constitution of the United States. Jackson’s argument about the bank could have simply just been a facade to hide Jackson’s true motives against the wealthy. Furthermore, the Indian Removal Act is a perfect epitome of Jackson ruling in favor of his own belief rather than the rule of the Constitution. Presented in Documber 4, Jackson went against the rule of John Marshall in the Cherokee Nation v State of Georgia and the Worcester v Georgia case. Marshall ruled according to the Constitution that the Cherokees were their own dependent nation and was not to be bothered by Georgia (Nash 334). Jackson on the other hand sided with Georgia, and wanted to force the Indians to move west. Jackson selfishly took a stance with his own belief rather than defending the constitution. Thus, when it comes to the Constitution, Jackson had attempted to defend it via the bank veto, but ultimately it was Jackson being egoistic king vetoing many bills due his own prejudice towards the wealthy and the Indians.
Going with the themes of the Indians, Jacksonians were in no means the guardians of individual liberty. Individual liberty is defined as freedom, freedom for all against external restraints such as the government. Jackson did not fight at all for the liberty of women, slaves or Indians. As shown in Document 5, with the Indian Removal Policy and the Trail of Tears, he harshly against the wills of Indians, driven over 10,000 Indians out of the home towards the West. The Cherokees were willing to convert, adapt to the American way of life but they were still forced to leave once again because of Jackson’s racist “King Andrew” views towards Indian. Women and slaves were no exception. Women never received suffrage rights, and neither did slaves. Slavery was still not abolish and slaves under the effect of the 3/5 Compromise were still only counted as 3/5 of a white male (Garraty 137). The only group that received a little shred of individual liberty were white males. Rather than allowing only white landowning males to vote, all white males were allowed to vote. Jackson also encouraged the common man, the lower class citizens, to run for office to do what they want without the influence of their social status or upbringings. Therefore, with individual liberty, Jackson did do an acceptable job in guarding the individual liberties of white males, but failing miserably when it came to giving women, slaves and Indians the freedom and independence they deserved.
When it comes to political democracy, Jackson did a fair job in molding the United States into a more democratic nation. In 1816, a majority of states had presidential candidates elected by a legislature but as time went on it began to turn into presidential candidates elected by the people. By 1836, which is also the end of Jackson’s term, almost all the presidential candidates were chosen by the people with the exception of South Carolina who was unfaltered since 1816 (Document 1). Throughout his term, Jackson was able to successfully maintain and convince states to allow popular votes to play an influence when choosing presidential candidates. Also as supported by document 3, Jackson strongly encouraged the common man to attempt to take a position in office. He believe that the jobs of public officers were simple enough that anyone could hold a position. His promotion of rotation was a great way to help further mold a democratic nation, enabling a switch of people in major government roles, truly representing a political democracy. As with all, Jackson still was not able to fully achieve and protect political democracy in United States. Along with the rotation system, Jackson also believed in the Spoil System. The Spoil System allowed Jackson to give his supporters a position as a reward for their loyalty during the election. This goes completely against the ideals of a political democracy. In a democracy, governmental positions are chosen by the people, the spoil system gives Jackson full control over who’s in the top ranked position, going back to the King Andrew concept. Additionally, women and slaves were not accounted for. In a true political democracy, all citizens, men and women, slaves or not, would have a say in the government, not just males. Again, Jackson did a fair job in molding the U.S into a democracy, but flawed with his usage of the Spoil System and lack of women and slave suffrage.
Last but not least, Jackson did an equitable job in providing equality of opportunity for all. Firstly, Jackson ran for election as a symbol of the common man. He represented the poor, the uneducated lower class. His entire campaign was based around equality of opportunity, proving that any man can thrive if provided with the right opportunity. As stated in document 2, “Jackson was the hero of the dirt farmer”. People looked up to him because of the windows of opportunities he opened up for the farmer class. In document 6 as well, Jackson claimed he vetoed the bank due to it being a monopoly of the upper class and foreigners. With the bank allowing the rich to keep being rich and continue having control over foreign and domestic trade, an equality of opportunity for the poor was not provided. Jackson’s veto of the bank was a move towards equal opportunities for all. Another example of Jackson protecting equality of opportunity for all would be his belief in the rotation system. The rotation system, introduced in Document 3 allowed for high governmental position offices to be rotated, switched out over an orderly time period so that more people could have opportunities. Conversely, with the Spoil System, it goes against Jackson’s defend for equality of opportunity. If Jackson was truly for equality of opportunity, then why would he allow for a method where he could choose who he wants in office. It counters his other idea of rotation and supports the argument of “King Andrew”. Hence, Jackson indeed did do a satisfactory job in defending equality of opportunity for all, but with the Spoil System as an counterexample, it seems to prove otherwise.
In sum, the Jacksonian Democracy introduced a new era of ideas and opportunities to the United States in the 1820s and 1830s. The Jacksonian Democrats were to a minimal extent guardians of the Constitution, individual liberty, political democracy and equality of opportunity. Jackson did genuinely made an effort for improvement in all four categories, but all his efforts were flawed. With the constitution, Jackson seemed as if he used the bank veto as a facade to hide his selfish and racist King Andrew views towards the wealthy. The Indian Removal act serves as an epitome of him going against the rules of the Constitution. In addition, Jackson did not guard individual liberty at all since he enforced the Indian Removal Act and did not grant any freedom to women, slaves or Indians. Jackson did somewhat better in pursuing political democracy and equality of opportunity for all, but the Spoil System serves as contradiction against his ideas. It is not political democracy or equality of opportunity for all if Andrew Jackson was allowed to assign people to roles based on loyalty and if women and slaves were not accounted for. Overall, the Jacksonian Democrats view of themselves is only true to a very minimal extent with the little efforts made by Jackson, there were too many examples against the claim. Jacksonian democracy, just like all the other administration periods in US History, were flawed proving that no one president was perfect.