Some historians refer to the “age of Jackson as a “triumph of the white man’s democracy,” because the 1820s forward there was a decline in “deference” politics in America. The right to vote was extended to nearly every white adult male, forcing political parties to engineer highly organized election campaigns and the modern party system. This so called “Age of Jackson” was also a time when slavery became increasingly entrenched in the cotton south and tens-of-thousands of Native Americans were pushed off their land. Thus, while the many were enjoying dramatic gains political freedom, a significant minority saw their liberties quashed. This divergence in experience is what makes the Age of Jackson an important area for social and political scholarship among U.S. historians.
Andrew Jackson came to personify the social and political changes that took place in the U.S. between 1820 and 1840. This period is remarkable because the democratic impulse pervaded all areas of American life. “Experts,” professionals, and the social-economic elite could no longer expect simple deference from the majority. Alternatively, those who sought political office needed to prove themselves as responsive to the will of the people. In order to show their commitment to the desires of the common man, successful politicians were forced to (1) campaign for votes and (2) prove themselves to have the “common touch.” Electioneering, therefore, evolved from a staid affair to a highly entertaining event, with political parties attempting to best their opponents with parades, rallies, and barbecues designed to energize support. This transformation of American political culture seemingly delivered the democratic promise that “all men are created equal” to whites, but as we know African Americans, Native Americans, and even white women were excluded from the political process. While “democracy” and “equality” were watchwords of the Age of Jackson, many historians point out the exploitative and brutal nature of American life during this period.
Jackson was a rich man by the 1820s and a national politician, but he would nonetheless embody the democratic impulse of the period because of his desperately poor origins. This self-made man and his political supporters established the Democratic Party, which consisted of break-away Republicans dissatisfied with that party’s Nationalist turn following the War of 1812 (and because of the supposed “corrupt bargain”). The Democrats were the first to implement election campaigns that incorporated social events in order to maximize excitement for their candidate. The Democratic Party’s leadership of the 1820s also proved to be skilled at instilling party discipline among its elected officials, thus reshaping the nature of governing in America. While Jackson’s self-made reputation reflected the spirit of social equality and upward mobility of the period, his exploits as an Indian fighter and a slave holder also underscore the absence of liberty for hundreds of thousands: nearly all historians will agree that “Age of Jackson” is appropriately named.
The voters’ perception that the presidency was stolen from Jackson by the “corrupt bargain” (1824) helped build support for the newly created Democratic party. By the 1828, the Democrats easily won the presidential election, campaigning on a platform that was reminiscent of Jeffersonian republicanism. As president, however, Jackson did not seem to endorse diffusing power in all cases, but rather created an exceptionally strong executive branch. Indeed Jackson used the veto more than all other previous presidents, combined, and he declared a strong grip over the govern bureaucracy, claiming that he would institute a “spoils system,” where the party faithful would be placed into government jobs. His political opponents (the Nationalist Republicans) argued that Jackson’s political views demonstrated his abject corruption: they argued that Jackson was only interested in using popular support in order to concentrate his own personal power. To drive this point home, the National Republicans rebranded themselves as the “Whigs” and repeatedly referred to Jackson as “King Andrew.” Despite the nationalist’s efforts to generate popular animosity toward Jackson, the Democrats held the presidency from 1829 to 1841.
In addition to (1) the hyperactive use of the veto; (2) his support of “Indian removal; and (3) his stated endorsement of the spoils system, Jackson is remembered for his (4) war with the Bank of the United States and (5) his rejection of state nullification of Federal law.
Jackson had built his political career by representing the western farmer and by attacking the eastern elite and the captains of American finance. An important target for the Jacksonians was the Bank of the United States, an institution that they claimed to be unconstitutional as well as a corrupting force in America. The Nationalist Republicans, led by Henry Clay, believed that Jackson--and other prominent Democrats—actually valued the Bank’s role in the economy, but found attacking it in public was a convenient political tool for generating western voter support. Clay therefore had the Bank apply for a new charter from the federal government in 1832 and bet that Jackson would sign the bill into law. If all went well for Clay and the Nationalist Republicans, Jackson could no longer use the Bank as a wedge issue during the 1832 presidential campaign (since they expected him to sign the bill)
Jackson responded to Clay’s strategy in an unexpected way: he vetoed the new charter bill and he declared a personal war against the Bank. While this private institution would continue to exist until its original charter expired in 1836, Jackson would order that all federal deposits be removed and sent to state-chartered banks. According to the opponents of the Democratic Party, this attack on eastern finance recklessly freed-up credit and caused a speculative bubble that ended in an economic crisis during the presidency of Jackson’s successor, Martin Van Buren (labeled “Van Ruin” by Whig critics). This economic downturn set the stage for the Democrat loss of the White House, when the Whig candidate William Henry Harrison and John Tyler won the election of 1840 by portraying Van Buren as an aristocrat and Harrison as a backwoodsman (neither was an authentic portrayal).
Andrew Jackson is last remembered for his rejection of any state efforts to assert the power to “nullify” Federal law. What prompted this stance was South Carolina’s attempt to test the constitutional theory of Nullification by declaring a federal duty (tax) on imports null and void within the state’s borders. This position was built on Calhoun’s notion that the Constitution was simply a compact between the states and ultimately each individual state maintained their sovereignty. This interpretation of the Republic emphasized the significance of the sentiments laid out by Jefferson and Madison when they first proposed resolutions passed by Kentucky and Virginia in the 1790s.
Jackson responded to the nullifiers in 1833, with the support of Congress, to use the military in order to secure the Federal government’s supremacy. Congress, however, passed a law reducing the tariff, thus providing a face-saving device for South Carolina’s rescission of the nullification ordinance. In doing so, congress and South Carolina avoided a military showdown and many southerners would continue to hold the nullification and secession were constitutional legitimate. The episode, therefore, did little to resolve differences over the U.S. Constitution, but it does underscore Jackson’s pro-unionist sentiment. It also explains why many “states righters” would join the Whig party, because of their mistrust of Jackson. Thus, the Whigs included ultra states righters as well as strong nationalist from the Republican Party. Perhaps it was this uneasy coalition that made the Whig party so susceptible to fragmentation and self destruction during the early years of the 1850s.
Copyright ©2009 D.B. Ryden