Andrew Jackson's Democratic Presidency

Add: 16-10-2015, 14:20   /   Views: 266
Andrew Jackson's Democratic PresidencyIn my opinion, Jackson’s Presidency was not democratic.

It was mostly “the reign of the King Andrew I.” Democracy is the government by the people where the people choose their leaders who favor them.

In democracy equal political, social rights are practiced.

Jackson’s presidency was nothing like democracy.

Democracy was just the title of the government given to Jackson’s presidency.

Jackson was more like King Andrew I, because Jackson’s presidency was not less than a dictatorship.

Cruel things were happening during Jackson’s presidency, which he was aware of, but failed to do something about it.

He just ordered people around, and they obeyed without question.

People weren’t able to raise their voices and speak for their mind which is democracy.

The perfect examples of “the reign of King Andrew I” are the events Indian Removal Act, and the Nullification Crises.

Native Americans had no part in Jackson’s democracy.

Under his administration, one thousand Indians were forcibly removed from their homes in the East and relocated West of the Mississippi.

You can tell it wasn’t democracy; it was “the reign of King Andrew I” by the actions taken under Jackson’s administration.

Another example is the Nullification Crises.

The whole Nullification Crises arose due to the Tariff of Abominations, which raised the prices of European imports that competed with New England manufacturers’ products.

Southerners objected the tariff because the tariff inflated the price of imports and levied an indirect tax on their region.

After the tariff was passed, “the Controversy Over States’ Rights” arose.

The most of the controversy was “Whether United States was one indivisible nation with a supreme federal government? Or did the states have final say on how much national authority would accept, as Jefferson and Madison had suggested in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution in 1798?” Southerners said that they don’t have to accept the tariff since the state can held the acts of congress unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Webster of Massachusetts argued that federal government, not the states, held the final authority under the constitution.

Another tariff was enacted in 1832, which forced the southerners to declare the tariff null and void in South Carolina.

Jackson couldn’t take the disobedience anymore.

He warned the southerners “I will hang the first man I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.” In 1833, Jackson requested Congress to pass a “force bill” allowing him, if need to, to call on the military to enforce the new tariff.

Jackson represented dictatorship more than democracy.

Jackson was a Democratic-Republican, who believed the government should be run by the common people, but his presidency didn’t show any signs of the “COMMON PEOPLE.”From what I have learned about Andrew Jackson, I think he agreed with the settlers who wanted the Native Americans removed, because the setters who wanted the land owned by the Indians were southerner planters, small farmers in south and west whom supported Jackson a lot through the election and they shared the same background as him.

Another reason I think Jackson agreed with the settlers because the land east of the Mississippi was very fertile to cultivate on, and he thought that it would be significant to the American economy since as a Democratic-Republican he believed that the economy should be based on agriculture.

New Orleans which was on the land of Indians was the major sea route in America at that time.

Jackson might have thought that the American might loose the right to use the port if the Indians stay there.

In order to feel protected, Jackson agreed with the settlers.