Andrew Jackson Document Analysis

Directions: Attached to this handout is a set of documents related to the following question:
Andrew Jackson argued that he was a true supporter of ordinary Americans, but his opponents
argued that he was a cruel, tyrant. Who was right Jackson or his opponents? Pick 6 of the 8
documents provided and complete the chart below.

Doc

Andrew Jackson:
True Supporter of
Ordinary Americans
or Cruel Tyrant?

How Can You Tell?

"True supporter
of ordinary
Americans"

This document plainly states that Jackson was a "hero" and "man of
the people". Clearly, this was election time propaganda and likely
wholly untrue, but the fact is that some. May have believed this,
making it a valid element of history.

Here Jackson makes a pledged to the people promising to enact

their will: "[I will] discharge the functions of my office without

"True supporter
of ordinary
Americans"

True Supporter of Document C shows that the implementation of the Indian Removal Act
as a chance that would "end to all possible danger of collision". The
Ordinary
act would open availability for white expansion and population. And
Americans
to popularize Jackson further, he also included the advantages the
relocation to the Natives. The act would "free them from the power
of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and
under their own rude institutions" and as a result the prevention of
the decrease in Indian population.
Cruel Tyrant

transcending its authority." Such language would surely win him

favor in the hearts of American citizens.

Deriving from the statistical data, it indicates the Jackson was a tyrant.
In comparison to all the other presidents that exercised their right to
veto, Jackson's was the highest. With a total number of twelve
presidential vetoes, this implies that Jackson was not seeing eye to eye
with Congress. Most importantly, the people.

Both a supporter
of ordinary
Americans and a
cruel tyrant

True Supporter of In this document, Jackson expresses disapproval over the idea of
power in the hand of a few people in the federal government. He seems
Ordinary
to believe that a national bank will give too much power to a few
Americans

Jackson's veto of the Maysville Road Bill was controversial. Some

understood the logic in Jackson's decision and agreed that the bill
would inflict harmful taxes on the "laboring and less prosperous
classes of the communtiy." Some agreed that the bill would have given
too much power to the states and therefore a threat to the republic. To
these people, Jackson was a true supporter of the people. Others,
however, believed in state's rights and the advancement of individual
states. These people saw Jackson as a selfish and cruel tyrant who
wanted to keep power to himself in the federal government by refusing
to give states certain rights.

wealthy men that are "irresponsible to the people." Jackson seems

concerned for the public and this document therefore portrays him as
a supporter of the people.

Document A: Andrew Jackson Campaign Poster, 1828

Document B: Andrew Jackson, 1st Inaugural Address, 1829

In administering the laws of Congress I shall keep steadily in view the limitations as well as the
extent of the Executive power, trusting thereby to discharge the functions of my office without
transcending its authority.
As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their
will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of
the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will
cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be
subjected to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be
conquered by a foreign foe. To any just system, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural
safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power.
It will be my sincere and constant desire to observe toward the Indian tribes within our limits a
just and liberal policy, and to give that humane and considerate attention to their rights and their
wants which is consistent with the habits of our Government and the feelings of our people.

Document C: Andrew Jacksons Message to Congress 'On Indian Removal', 1830

The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual
States, and to the Indians themselves.... It puts an end to all possible danger of collision between
the authorities of the General and State Governments on account of the Indians. It will place a
dense and civilized population in large tracts of country now occupied by a few savage
hunters. It will relieve the whole State of Mississippi and the western part of Alabama of
Indian occupancy, and enable those States to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power.
It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from
the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own
rude institutions; will retard the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps
cause them gradually, under the protection of the Government and through the influence of good
counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian
community.
What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand
savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms embellished
with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than
12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization and religion?
Document D: Andrew Jackson, "Veto of Maysville Road Bill", 1830
Gentlemen, I have maturely considered the bill proposing to authorize a "subscription of stock in
the Maysville...Road Company," and now return the same to the House of Representatives, in
which it originated, with my objections to its passage...

Such grants [of money by the federal government] have always been [passed] under the control
of the general principle that the works which might be thus aided should be "of a general, not
local, national, not State," character. A disregard of this distinction would of necessity lead to
the subversion of the federal system.... I am not able to view [the Maysville Road Bill] in any
other light than as a measure of purely local character.... It has no connection with any
established system of improvements; [and] is exclusively within the limits of a State
[Kentucky]....
...As great as this object [goal of internal improvements] undoubtedly is, it is not the only one
which demands the fostering care of the government. The preservation and success of the
republican principle rest with us. Through the favor of an overruling and indulgent Providence
our country is blessed with a general prosperity and our citizens exempted from the pressure of
taxation, which other less favored portions of the human family are obliged to bear; yet it is true
that many of the taxes collected from our citizens have for a considerable period been onerous.
In many particulars these taxes have borne severely upon the laboring and less prosperous
classes of the community

Document E: Andrew Jacksons Veto Message Regarding the National Bank, 1832

I sincerely regret that in the act before me I can perceive none of those modifications of the bank
charter which are necessary, in my opinion, to make it compatible with justice, with sound
policy, or with the Constitution of our country. : . . The present Bank of the United States . . .
enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking, . . . almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic
exchange.
It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by
a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. Of the twenty-five directors of
this bank five are chosen by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. . . . It is
easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a
concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.
Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind
it to our country? It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of
government to their selfish purposes.
Document F: Daniel Webster's Reply to Jackson's Veto Message, 1832
[Jacksons message] extends the grasp of executive pretension over every power of the
government. . . . It sows, in an unsparing manner, the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against that
government of which its author is the official head. It raises a cry that liberty is in danger, at the
very moment when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. It effects

alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers that freedom so much as its own
unparalleled pretences.
This even, is not all. It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich; it wantonly attacks
whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the
resentments of the other classes. It is a state paper which finds no topic too exciting for its use,
no passion too inflammable for its address and its solicitation.

Document G: Statistics on Presidential Vetoes

President

# of Vetoes

Washington

Adams

Jefferson

Madison

Monroe

Quincy Adams

Jackson

12

Document H: 1832 Election Map