John Cramerus DBQ Essay on Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson is known far and wide within the U.S.

today as having been a large proponent of democracy. Using the pretext of being a representative of the people in his second run for presidency after losing his first even though he had won the popular vote by a large margin, he campaigned that he would change the system to help directly represent the people instead of through representatives. Though Jackson talked a lot of representing the people, the question is, how much did he really do to further the democracy in the democratic republic of the United States of America within his day? One of the main points of Jacksons campaigning is that he would remake the political system so that the representatives of the people would be chosen directly by the people, not by elected legislature. The presidential electorate was one such group which he wished to rectify (he actually tried to abolish it completely in his time as president but failed). In the election of 1824, the election after which he began marketing himself as a supporter of more fundamental democracy, there were six states that were electing the presidential Electoral College members by legislature. By the 1828 election, which he won, that number had decreased to two, which Jackson decreased over his two terms by a single state. So, ironically, who was the real bigger advancer of democracy in this case; Andrew Jackson who had gotten the majority vote and lost in 1824, or John Quincy Adams, who brought the presidential election system closer to resembling a democracy? In an article about the peoples mindset written in 1994 of Jacksons 1828 election, their mentality was described as spurning the aristocracy and showing the power of the people, the people meaning the majority of unwashed farmers and uneducated plebeians. Another key point is, how well was Jackson really representing the common man of 1828? In a letter addressed to Floridas first delegate to the House of Representatives, one Dr. Bronough. In this letter Jackson advised Dr. Bronough to give the soldiers the right to vote however, this was only until the economy stabilized and the land properly adjudicated and brought onto the market, after which the status of the voting rights of soldiers and freemen of six months residence wasnt mentioned explicitly, only that it would be then that Jackson advised Bronough to adopt such qualifications as you may think proper for the happiness, security, prosperity of the state. In the previously mentioned article, it described the situation as the unwashed masses gaining power and the aristocracy losing power. So the question should be asked, is Jackson truly representing the people well by doing so? In 1832 a bank charter was sent in by congress to President Jackson for approval. He promptly vetoed the bill stating that he did not believe that the changes were necessary and that the collection of power held congress could easily lead to mismanagement of their power. To this message Daniel Webster replied succinctly, pointing out that while President Jackson claimed that they had huge potential to misuse their power, Jackson himself had caused the executive branch to gain more power than ever before, and that while doing so was also gaining power by pitting the majority of poor classes against the rich. Webster claimed that Jackson was playing on their prejudices, and that he himself was endangering the liberty of all in this country. So, was President Jackson, who showed

himself as a stern representative of the people, but who also ignored the wishes of the upper class, truly democratic in doing so? During the presidential election of1832, a cartoon appeared with Jacksons depiction dressed as a king. Perhaps this is not a completely inaccurate way of showing how he wielded his power considering one exert from The Life of Andrew Jackson, a book by Robert Remini. In that particular section it described how Jackson ignored the advice of his secretary of state on hiring one Samuel Swartwout as collector of the Port of New York, a job that handled over $15,000,000 annually. Said secretary of state, Van Buren, told Jackson of Swartwouts criminal tendencies and suggested that placing him in such a sensitive position wouldnt be in public interest. Jackson ignored him based on personal bias and the fact that Swartwout had been an early supporter, unlike Van Buren. The incident ended in Swartwouts stealing of over one million dollars, putting a mockery of Jacksons talk of democracy and less corruption in the government. It is a well known fact that under Jacksons inhabitance within the seat of the president that the forceful eviction of the Indians to specified territories occurred, in fact, its probably the most notable event of his presidency. Its rather curious that his letter to congress concerning the removal of the Indians showed the whole thing as something optional and beneficial towards the Indians. Even, it said the reason that they were being given the territory was because they were being forced out of their homelands by the whites and their culture being lost. One of the closing lines is as follows, This emigration should be voluntary, for it would be as cruel as unjust to compel the aborigines to abandon the graves of their fathers and seek a home in a distant land. Oh, the irony. The fact that they werent being treated as such was shown in very certain terms when an published paper originally written by an unnamed Cherokee Indian described their situation in very certain terms which implied that they werent being so peaceably asked to move. He even described the land that they were being forced to move to badly supplied with food and water and known as arid and bad for cultivation. The land that the majority, the whites, didnt want. Of course, before closing, Jackson should still be given credit. For all his shortcomings he did push for several changes within the government which are vital to our country today, as well as commit several humanitarian acts, such as adopting an Indian orphan. In another book by Robert Remini, he stated that The Generals [Jacksons] views on office holding became even more democratic as he grew older. He pushed that all offices must be directly controlled by the people, and preferably rotated every four years, while still being subject to removal. Such views he held on almost all political offices, once stating that more is lost by continuance than is gained by experience when not being those who are supported by the people. He stated that holding offices werent for the purposes of the man, but for the people, and very understandably so. While Andrew Jackson himself might not have been the perfect advocate to the democracy he so avidly supported, it was that support which helped reform governmental values and left a legacy within the Democratic Party which has earned him a spot as one of our more notable presidents. From his kingly (as viewed by some) to his humble (as viewed by others) behavior, he accomplished much for our country, and his pushing for direct election and a strong connection between public opinion and office holding has truly left a positive imprint on America.