Download The Jackson Era - Haiku Learning

The Jackson Era
In A Nutshell
Andrew Jackson was one of the most powerful and influential presidents of the nineteenth century.
America's seventh president, serving between 1829 and 1837, Jackson implemented policies that
profoundly affected the territorial, political, and economic development of the United States. He organized
the relocation of more than 90,000 Indians from the eastern United States to territories west of the
Mississippi River. He strengthened the Union by rejecting South Carolina's claim that it possessed the
authority to nullify federal laws. And he destroyed the Bank of the United States, leaving the nation without
a central bank capable of monitoring the nation's money supply.
Jackson's impact on American political culture was equally profound. He was elected by a coalition of
southern and middle-state voters that crystallized into the Democratic Party. And he democratized
American politics by running a new type of political campaign that reached out directly to the American
voters.
Why Should I Care?
Andrew Jackson was one of America's most powerful and influential presidents—but he was also one of its
most contradictory.
He ran for office pledging to restore the voice of the people to American politics—but on several occasions
he attempted to overturn the will of Congress, the most democratically chosen of the governmental
branches.
He was a staunch believer in states' rights—but he threatened to send troops into South Carolina when the
state claimed that it had the right to nullify a federal law.
He adopted an Indian child and encouraged intermarriage between Indians and whites—but as president,
he forced 90,000 Indians living in the eastern part of the United States to move thousands of miles onto
desolate new lands west of the Mississippi River.
He fought in several wars and multiple duels, living the last thirty years of his life with a bullet lodged in his
chest—but he allowed his administration to be paralyzed by an argument over a woman's virtue.
Can the contradictions within Andrew Jackson's actions be reconciled?
Was he inconsistent or complex?
Who was the real Andrew Jackson?
The Jackson Era Summary & Analysis
The Big Picture: Who, What, When, Where & (Especially) Why
Andrew Jackson: Hero and Villain, Democrat and Tyrant
Historians just can't seem to agree about Andrew Jackson. Some see him as a hero; others believe he was
a villain. Some portray him as the common man's warrior, a president who attacked a political system that
ignored the people's will. Others say that he was a political tyrant, an executive bully who disrespected the
processes and institutions essential to republican government. Some celebrate his liberal defense of
individual rights; others condemn his racist removal of 90,000 Indians. Some view him as a great nationalist
who saved the Union by denouncing. Others claim that he weakened the nation by supporting Georgia in
its defiance of the Supreme Court.
The problem is that all of these conclusions are true.
Jackson ran for president in 1828 determined to restore the will of the people to politics. He believed that
Washington power brokers had ignored the people's wishes in 1824 when they deprived him of the
presidency despite winning a plurality of the popular vote; true democracy, he felt, would not be realized
until America's political processes were significantly reformed. As a candidate, Jackson built apolitical
organization that reached out directly to the public, and as president he attacked the institutions that he
believed deepened divisions between the rich and the poor.
But Jackson also showed little patience for political processes and institutions that interfered with his
"democratic" agenda. He encroached further upon the legislative process than his predecessors, advancing
a theory of presidential power that many believed threatened the separation of powers essential to
republican government.
Jackson showed greater respect for individual political and economic rights than any previous president. He
sought to increase the number of offices directly elected by the people, and he sought to restore an
economic system that protected the rights of small producers rather than corporations and the wealthy.
But when Native Americans turned to the federal government to support their territorial claims,
even winning a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed those claims, Jackson turned a deaf ear. He ignored
three decades of government precedent, and a clear Court ruling, while implementing a removal policy that
displaced over 90,000 people.
Jackson took on the state of South Carolina, denounced its nullification theories, and threatened to bring in
the United States army to enforce federal law. In doing so, he broke with his vice-president and alienated a
portion of his southern political base. He accepted an alliance with politicians he did not respect and who
did not respect him. And he outlined an original theory of the Union that would serve Abraham
Lincoln when he faced a similar secessionist crisis thirty years later.
But Jackson also weakened national authority by siding with the states' rights arguments of Georgia in its
battle over federal Indian policy. He undercut the authority of the Supreme Court, approving of Georgia's
efforts to circumvent the will of the Court in its assertion of federal law.
In short, Jackson was a confusing figure. He was a democrat and a tyrant, a nationalist and a supporter of
states' rights. He defended the political and economic rights of common people but ignored the territorial
rights of Native Americans.
As we explore Jackson's presidency, we should consider whether these paradoxes within his performance
can be reconciled. Is there a core of belief that might tie everything to together, or a character trait that
might explain the seeming contradictions? Is there such a thing as the "real" or "essential" Jackson? Or,
was he truly nothing more than a bundle of inconsistencies?