Andrew BridgesAP United States History

Mullen High SchoolOctober 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 1820’s and 1830’s, to what extent do you agree with the Jacksonian’s 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. Jackson’s 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 Jackson’s 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, Jackson’s 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 people’s 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

Democrat’s contribution to political democracy was not exceptionally great.

It is much easier to pass judgment on the Democrat’s 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 citizen’s 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

Democrat’s neglect for individual liberty. Moreover, they overlooked slavery and

women’s 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 Jackson’s 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 Democrat’s description. They were nothing but a naïve party that

refused to acknowledge its failures.