Kevin Moffatt
12/3/13 E
1.
2.
3.
4.
Guiding Questions: Introduction to Jacksonian America
What did Alexis de Tocqueville admire most about America when he visited here in
1831? What caused him worries?
Alexis de Tocqueville most admired the democracy of America, and the ability for
Americans to be free of designations of class, and the ease in which one could acquire a
fortune. In his classic study Democracy in America, he values the way in which “The
government of democracy brings the notion of political rights to the level of the humblest
citizens, just as dissemination of wealth brings the notion of property within the reach of all
the members of the community”. De Tocqueville admired the fact that under a successful
democratic government such as the one in the US, the average citizen could be a member of
the community without having to be very rich. Tocqueville was worried about the fact that
the fluidity of the American society wouldn’t be able to survive in the face of the growth of
manufacturing and the rise of the factory system. He feared that industrialism would create a
large class of dependent words and a small group of new aristocrats, which would destroy the
best part of American democracy, the ability to elevate oneself in society.
What fears were present in the minds of most Americans as they entered an era of
economic change/industrialization and westward expansion in the early 19c?
Americans feared that the nation’s rapid growth would produce social chaos and many
insisted that the country’s first priority should be to establish order and a clear system of
authority, but others argued that the greatest danger facing the nation was privilege and the
goal of US society should be to eliminate the favored status of powerful elites to make
opportunity equal to all. American citizens feared that a growing industrial tide would
catapult America into chaos, and shared Tocqueville’s view that industrialism could destroy
the fluidity of the American society.
What were the general characteristics of "Jacksonian Democracy" [its philosophy,
practice, etc.]?
Jacksonian Democracy was not made of egalitarians, for they did not challenge the existence
of slaver, instead they supervised one of the harshest assaults on American Indians in the
nation’s history, and also accepted the necessity of economic inequality and social
graduation. Although Jackson was a frontier aristocrat, most of the Jacksonian Democrats
were not aristocrats by birth, but had risen to prominence on the basis of their own work, and
their goal in public life was to ensure that others like themselves would have the same
opportunities to do so. The goal of the democratization was to challenge the power of
eastern elites for the sake of the rising entrepreneurs of the South and the West.
What was the reaction in New York and Rhode Island to the democratization of
American politics?
The democratization of American politics prevailed in New York, where in the convention of
1821, conservatives insisted a taxpaying requirement for suffrage was not energy, and the
property qualification for voting should continue, especially in the electron of state senators.
It was argued by these conservatives that society “is an association for the protection of
property as well as of life”, so the property qualification should be included. In response,
reformers cited the Declaration of Independent, which maintained that life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, no property, were the main concerns of society and government, and so
the property qualification was abolished. In Rhode Island, democratization efforts created
instability. The Rhode Island constitution barred more than half the adult males from voting,
and the conservative legislature constantly blocked all efforts at reform. In 1840, the lawyer
and activist Thomas L. Dorr and a group of his followers formed a “People’s party”, and held
a convention in which they drafted a new constitution, and submitted it to popular vote. The
Dorrites’ new constitution was ignored, but in the meantime they had set up a new
government with Dorr as governor, so in 1842 the two governments both claimed legitimacy
in Rhode Island. The old state government proclaimed Dorr and his followers as rebels and
began to imprison them, and in response the Dorrites made a brief and ineffectual effort t to
capture the sate arsenal. The Dorr Rebellion quickly failed, and Dorr himself surrendered
and was briefly imprisoned. This episode helped to pressure the old government to draft a
new constitution, which greatly expanded the suffrage.
5. What groups were excluded from this widening of political opportunity? Why?
The groups excluded form the widening of political opportunities were the slaves, and even
fee African Americans could not vote anywhere in the South and hardly anywhere in the
North. In much of the South, election laws still favored the planters and politicians of the
older counties and limited the influence of more newly settled western areas. Women
couldn’t vote in a single sate, and the ballot was never secret, and voters often had to cast a
spoken vote rather than a written one, which allowed for bribery and intimidation by political
bosses.
6. How have historians differed over the nature of Jacksonian Democracy?
Historians disagree on the nature of Jacksonian Democracy by arguing the fact of if Jackson
was a champion of democracy, or a tyrannical king. Many historians claim Jackson as a
symbol of a spirit of anti-elitism and egalitarianism that was sweeping the American life, but
many other historians have disagreed sharply not only in their assessments of Jackson
himself, but in their portrayal of American society in his era. Some historians see Jackson
and his supporter’s s a forerunner of their own generation’s battles against economic
privilege and political corruption. They claimed Jackson represented those who wanted to
make government responsive to the will of the people rather than to the power of special
interests. Other historians see support for Jackson not just among western farmers, but also
among urban laborers in the East, and argued that Jacksonian democracy was the effort to
control the power of the capitalist groups for the benefit of non-capitalist groups, such as
farmers and laboring men. More modernly, historians began looking at Jackson as a
character in himself. They saw how the role of religion and ethnicity determined political
divisions, and claimed the egalitarian spirit extended well beyond the Democratic Party.
Recent scholars have turned the focus away from Jackson and the Democratic Party toward
the larger society, and revealed inequality and oppression in antebellum American, and this
in turn produces a negative view on Jackson himself. Some historian pointed toward Jackson
leading a new American revolution against those who challenged the ability of white men to
control the continent, portraying Jackson as a president in an age that constricted rights for
women, blacks, and Indians. Even though there are many negative points, some scholars still
see Jackson as a champion of the common man.
7. How did the ideology of the "Albany Regency," led by Martin Van Buren, change
peoples' views concerning political parties?
The ideology of the “Albany Regency” led by Martin Van Buren changed peoples’ views
concerning political parties, because he led a dissident political faction that began to
challenge the established political leadership led by the aristocratic governance. The way
Van Burn and his followers posed their challenge was new; refuting the traditional view of a
political party, they argued that only an institutionalized party, based on the populace, could
ensure genuine democracy. This new kind of party meant that ideological commitments
would be less important than loyalty to the party itself. Preservation of the party as an
institution would be the ultimate goal of the leadership, and opposing political parties would
give the party a sense of purpose, allowing it to survive. These new views of an
institutionalized party based on the principle of surviving by using favors, rewards,
patronage, and an opposing party to provide checks and balances, revolutionized the way
people viewed political parties.
8. How did the spoils system fit into Jackson's "democratic" plans? What other means
did he use to bring more people into the political process?
The spoils system fit into Jackson’s “democratic” plans because it created a strong federal
government, but one that was usually completely replaced by the next President. He argued
that offices belonged to the people, not to the entrenched officeholders, and so each new
President who was elected under the democratic process should help bring in people that
represented the people’s views. Therefore, when a president or other official was elected, he
was able to appoint their own followers to public office, and from this system, William L.
Marcy of New York, a follower of Jackson, stated, “To the victors belong the spoils”. By
embracing the philosophy of the “spoils system”, a system already strong in a number of
state governments, the Jackson administration helped to make the right of elected officials to
appoint followers to public office an established feature of American politics. Jackson also
worked to bring more people into the political process by staging a national party convention
in order to bring more people into the political process.
9. What was John C. Calhoun's theory of nullification as set forth in the South Carolina
Exposition and Protest?
John C. Calhoun’s theory of nullification was developed as an alternative to secession in
order to get rid of the “abomination tariff” and to stop Carolinians that were ready to
succeed. Calhoun drew form the ideas of Madison and Jefferson and the Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions, and citing the Tenth Amendment, Calhoun claimed that since the
federal government was a creation of the states, the states, on the courts or Congress, were
the final arbiters of the constitutionality of federal laws. So if a state concluded that
Congress had passed an unconstitutional law, then it could hold a special convention and
declare the federal law null and void within the state. This nullification doctrine quickly
attracted broad support in South Carolina, but did nothing to help Calhoun’s standing within
the new administration, partially because he had a powerful new rival in Martin Van Buren
10. What were the origins of the Calhoun-Jackson split? How did the Eaton Affair
contribute to this division?
The origin of the Calhoun-Jackson split original started in Calhoun’s controversial theory of
nullification, which Jackson perceived as dangerous. This division was greatly contributed to
by the Eaton Affair. Peggy O’Neale was the attractive daughter of a Washington tavern
keeper with whom both Andrew Jackson and his friend John H. Eaton knew, and although
O’Neale was married at the time, her husband died in 1828, and she was soon married to
Eaton. Jackson named Eaton secretary of war and made the new Mrs. Eaton (formerly
O’Neale) a cabinet wife. However, the rest of the administration wives, led by Mrs.
Calhoun, refused to receiver her, and Jackson, remembering the effects of public slander
against his own wife (who he claimed died because of the insults of John Quincy Adam’s
supporters), was furious and demanded that he members of the cabinet accept her into their
social world. Under pressure from his wife (shows women were in charge of households,
and for that matter, their husbands, even in the 19th century), Calhoun refused. Van Buren,
Calhoun’s enemy, befriended the Eatons and ingratiated himself with Jackson, so by 1831,
Jackson had chosen Van Buren to succeed him in the White House, ending Calhoun’s dreams
of the Presidency.
11. What was the major point of disagreement between Webster and Hayne? What
arguments were advanced on either side? How did this debate fit into the controversy
between Jackson and Calhoun?
The major point of disagreement between Webster and Hayne was the topic of land sales, for
a senator from Connecticut suggested that all land sales and surveys should be temporarily
discontinued. Robert Y. Hayne, a young senator from South Carolina charged that slowing
down the growth of the West was a way for the East to keep its political and economic
power, and although he had no real interest in western lands, he hoped that his views would
attract enough support form westerners in Congress for South Carolina’s drive to lower the
tariff. He argued that both the South and the West were victims of the tyranny of ht
northeast, and hinted the two regions might combine to defend themselves against that
tyranny. Webster, who at this point was a senator from Massachusetts and held nationalistic
views, attacked Hayne, and Calhoun, for what he considered their challenge to the integrity
of the Union. In doing so, Webster challenged Hayne to a debate on the issue of states’
rights versus national power. Hayne, who was coached by Calhoun, responded with the
theory of nullification, to which Webster responded by spending two full afternoons
delivering a speech (later known as “Second Reply to Hayne” that defended the national
power of the federal government. This debate fit into the Jackson – Calhoun controversy
because while Jackson wanted to keep the Union strong and together (like Webster), Calhoun
threatened with nullification through Hayne.
12. What precipitated the nullification crisis in 1832? How was it finally resolved?
The nullification crisis in 1832 was precipitated with a congressional tariff bill that offered
no relief from the 1828 “tariff of abominations”. Almost immediately after, the legislature
summoned a state convention, which voted to nullify the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 and to
forbid the collection of duties within the state. Meanwhile, South Carolina elected Hayne to
be governor and Calhoun, who had retired as vice president, replaced Hayne as senator.
However, Jackson insisted that nullification was treason and those involved were traitors. He
strengthened the federal forts in South Carolina and ordered a warship and several revenue
ships to Charleston, and in addition, when Congress convened in 1833, Jackson proposed a
force bill that would allow the president to use the military to see that acts of Congress were
obeyed, and America seemed to be on the brink of violence. Since not a single state had
come to support South Carolina, Calhoun was in a predicament. In addition, SC itself had
become divided, and had no hope to prevail in a military showdown with the federal
government. Henry Clay, who had newly been elected to the Senate, averted the situation.
Clay created a compromise where the tariff would be lowered gradually so by 1842 it would
reach the same level as in 1816, and this compromise and force bill were passed on the same
day; Jackson signed both. In SC, the convention reassembled and repealed its nullification of
the tariffs, but unwilling to allow Congress to have the last word, they nullified the force act
as a symbolic act. Calhoun and his followers claimed victory for nullification, but they
realized that no state could defy the federal government alone.