A Great Democratic

Experiment?
The rise of white male political influence,
economic opportunities, and a greeting to
individual liberties.

Ray Cheng

APUSH Period 1

November 15, 2010

Mr. Kessler
 The victory of Andrew Jackson at the Election of 1828 began a distinct era in American

history, the Jacksonian Era. The economic, political, and social foundations set during the Federal

Era were shaken by a wave of change as America was transitioning into a new phase of

development. The people were ready for change and it was this necessity for change that led to

Andrew Jackson’s victory. He saw that there was a lack of political democracy and that there had to

be more political influence for the common man. After the Panic of 1819, Jackson was angered that

the common man did not have the economic opportunity that the privileged had. He understood that

the common man was in need of more individual liberty. What defined Jacksonian Democracy was

the belief that America could become a true democracy through a trust in the abilities of the

common man. Andrew Jackson claimed to be the champion of his people and pledged to fight for

his common man. However, to Jackson, the common man was not black, Indian, nor female. To

Jackson, the common man was a white male. Although white males enjoyed an increase in political

influence and economic opportunity, and the Reform Movement increased support for individual

liberty during the Jacksonian Era, ultimately this era cannot be considered a great democratic

experiment because Andrew Jackson did not defend the economic, political, and social interests of

all the people; he abused his executive power at the expense of the people, and continued the

American tradition of inequality and discrimination against women and minorities.

There was an increase in economic opportunities for white males during the Jacksonian Era,

however these opportunities came at the cost of the individual rights of Indians and suppressed

women. Andrew Jackson had witnessed the suffering of the common man during the Panic of 1819

as a result of the Federal Bank’s actions. On July 10, 1832, President Jackson vetoed an early re-

charter bill for the Federal Bank passed by congress. Jackson viewed the Federal Bank as “a

monopoly, not because it cornered the banking business…but because it enjoyed a federal charter
that endowed it with privileges no other bank possessed” (Degler p163). When President Jackson

won re-election in 1832, he appointed Roger B. Taney as Secretary of the Treasury and ordered him

to withdraw all federal funds from the Federal Bank. The Deposit Act of 1836 distributed these

funds to state banks. Jackson supported a policy of deregulation for his pet banks because he

believed that it would bring more economic opportunity to the common man. However, it was the

un-centralization of the state banks that led to an economic failure. “Without a sober central bank in

control, the pet bank flooded the country with paper money” (Text12 p272). Andrew Jackson’s

bank veto and his deposit acts resulted in the Panic of 1837. The Jacksonian Era cannot be

considered a great democratic experiment because although Jackson terminated the Federal Bank to

prevent another failure such as the Panic of 1819, he abused his executive power at the expense of

the people when he vetoed the Bank Charter of 1832, and action clearly supported by Congress.

Ironically Jackson’s decisions following the veto led to another economic failure, Panic of 1837.

The Panic of 1837 demonstrated the continuation of the American tradition of inequality. During

the Jacksonian Era, “inequality [between the rich and the lower social class] was…greater than it

would be even later in the century” (Degler p159). In 1833, the richest one per cent of the

population owned a third of all the non-corporate wealth in Boston, while “eighty-six per cent of the

population held only fourteen per cent” (Degler p159). Furthermore, there was a factory boom and

an increase in manufacturing in America during this time. However, this expansion of economic

opportunity was not equal and it was at the expense of many. The factory boom led to the

establishment of Slater Textile Mills. The labor force of the Slater Mills was made up of young

rural girls being paid cent by cent. White male factory owners benefited greatly from the high

demand for textiles and cheap labor. Although the economic opportunities for profit and wealth

increased for white male factory owners, economic opportunity for the Lowell and Slater women
did not increase during the Jacksonian Era because they were exploited for cheap labor. Another

example of an increase in economic opportunities for white males but at the expense of others was

the Sweep West. This sweep “came from industrialization and commerce, the growth of

populations, the rise in the value of land, and the greed of businessmen” (Zinn p136). However

there was and obstacle to the land-hungry white males. The West had long been occupied by the

Native Americans. In order to remove the Native Americans to clear the way for white males, the

Indian Removal Act of 1830 was enacted. The “politely named, Indian Removal, cleared the land

for white occupancy between the Appalachians and the Mississippi” (Zinn p125), and forced the

tribes off their lands. This act went against Supreme Court Justice John Marshall’s ruling for the

Cherokee tribe in the case of Worcester vs. Georgia in 1832. Andrew Jackson abused his executive

power once more to override the Supreme Court and forced the Cherokees to migrate from Georgia

to Oklahoma, where thousands lost there lives in this Trail of Tears. It is clear that there was no

increase in economic opportunities for the Native Americans. However, the economic opportunities

of white males clearly increased as a result of the Sweep West. “There were happy effects for the

white majority at the cost of four thousand deaths for the Indian minority” (Zinn p140). The Trail of

Tears was a clear example of the continuation of the American tradition of discrimination because

Andrew Jackson cleared the land for the common man at the expense of thousands of Indian lives.

The Jacksonian Era cannot be considered a great democratic experiment because Andrew Jackson

continued the American tradition of inequality and discrimination, by increasing economic

opportunity for white males at the expense of exploited rural girls and the lives of thousands of

Cherokees.

The increase in political influence for the common man cannot be considered a great

democratic experiment because Andrew Jackson abused his executive power not for the good of the
country but for his personal interests. Andrew Jackson supported the common man to the fullest,

and under Jacksonian Democracy, there was an expansion of voting rights for white males. “States

altered their constitutions in conformity with the principle that manhood, not property, was the basis

for political rights” (Degler p149). Jackson abolished property qualifications for suffrage, however,

this still cannot be considered a great democratic experiment because women, Indians, and slaves

were left out of the picture. This was a clear example of the continuation of inequality and

discrimination in America because Andrew Jackson only expanded the political democracy of white

males. Also, nullification became a difficult problem for Jackson. When a high tariff was passed

that benefited the North and the West, the South was angry against this Tariff of Abominations and

began to advocate state’s rights. The nullification advocates formed the Kentucky and Virginia

resolutions during the Federal Era and Jackson had “inherited the political hot potato” (Text12

p263) when he had to face John C. Calhoun’s South Carolina Exposition. “Going a stride beyond

the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, it bluntly and explicitly proposed that the states could nullify

the tariff” (Text12 p264). There was a compromise, but Jackson was not satisfied and convinced

Congress to pass the Force Bill. This increased the executive power of President Jackson because it

gave him the authorization to use the military to collect federal tariffs. Here Andrew Jackson was a

strong advocate of a strong government. However, when it came to the removal of the Indians,

Jackson was an advocate for state’s rights. “As soon as Jackson was elected President, Georgia,

Alabama, and Mississippi began to pass laws to extend the state’s rule over the Indians in their

territory” (Zinn p133). The laws took away the individual rights of the Indians, and broke up their

territories through state lotteries. In Worcester vs. Georgia of 1832, a case defending the rights of

the Cherokee tribe members, “Jackson ignored [the mistreatment of the Indians] and supported state

action” (Zinn p133) even though Chief Justice John Marshall in the Supreme Court had ruled in
favor of the Cherokees. This obstruction to political liberty “was a neat illustration of the uses of the

federal system: depending on the situation, blame could be put on the states” (Zinn p133). This was

not an increase in political democracy but another example of Andrew Jackson’s unconstitutional

use of executive power in pursuit of his own personal interests. Andrew Jackson’s actions towards

these regional conflicts were examples of his personal disdain for defiance and Indians. Political

democracy during the Jacksonian Era cannot be considered a great democratic experiment because

Andrew Jackson exploited his executive power and continued the American tradition of inequality.

The nineteenth century Reform Movement demonstrated the need for more individual rights,

however, the Jacksonian Era cannot be considered a great democratic experiment because the

reform movement did not actually lead to an increase in individual rights. Before the reform

movements, women could not vote nor own property. During the reform movement, “society was

called into question and challenged to justify themselves” (Degler p168). In 1848, women such as

Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton came together at the Seneca Falls Convention in New

York. Together, these women fought for suffrage and gender equality. They drafted the Declaration

of Sentiments which supported female suffrage, but in the end, the fundamental rights of women

were still ignored and oppressed. Although these women fought for their cause, their actions led to

no true expansion of individual liberty until the nineteenth amendment of the Constitution which

granted voting rights for women in 1920, almost seventy years after the Seneca Falls Convention

took place. Women were still second-class citizens and still could not vote, and workers, too were

oppressed. John Marshall ruled worker unions legal and constitutional but “they [had] to wait

another generation before social and economic conditions would allow them to strike root and

grow” (Degler p167). This was a clear example of the continuation of inequality and discrimination

in America. The clearest example of the restriction of individual liberties was Jackson’s Indian
Removal Act. This act forced countless Indian tribes off of their homelands and the migration of

thousands of Cherokees form Georgia to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears to provide white males

with an obstruction free sweep west. The Indians not only lost their land, but they also lost their

individual rights. Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi passed laws to strengthen their rule over the

Indians and took away their fundamental rights. John Marshall ruled the Georgia Law

unconstitutional in Worcester vs. Georgia of 1832, but “Georgia ignored him and President Jackson

refused to enforce the court order” (Zinn p141). The Indians “were without protection, without

funds, and at the mercy of the states” (Zinn p138). Jackson once again abused his executive power

by overruling the Supreme Court, was undemocratic towards the treatment of Indians, and

continued the tradition of discrimination and inequality. The Jacksonian Era cannot be considered a

great democratic experiment because of the continuation of inequality and discrimination against

women, workers, and minorities.

Jacksonian Democracy led to an increase of political influence and economic freedom for

the common man and there was also an increase in the need for individual liberties. However, the

Jacksonian Era cannot be considered a great democratic experiment because Andrew Jackson’s

common man did not include the African Americans, women, nor the Indians. Jackson’s common

man was a white male. As President, Jackson failed to consider the interests of all people. Women

and slaves still could not vote or hold office. The Reform Movement only laid foundations for

future movements. There was only an increase of political influence and economic opportunities for

white males. In the end, there was a continuation of unjust decisions, inequality, and the

unforgettable inhumane actions made towards Indians in America. It is because of these issues that

the Jacksonian Era cannot be considered a great democratic experiment.