APUSH Jacksonian DBQ

657 Words3 Pages
The Jacksonian Democrats of the early 1800’s often claimed that they were guardians of the Constitution, economic equality, individual liberty, and political democracy. However, a closer look at their leader Andrew Jackson’s policies and decisions while in office will show us, as with most politicians, that his party’s claims were not entirely verifiable. First, let’s look at the statement that the Jacksonian Democrats were guardians of the Constitution. The evidence provided in Document B, compounded with the testimonies of Documents A, C, F, and G, as well as many of Supreme Court Justice John Marshall’s cases, blatantly show the speciousness of these claims. As shown by Documents C and G, Jackson overstepped his Constitutional bounds in each of situation, that of the closure of the Second Bank of America, and that of the Indian Removal. If, as in Documents A and F, a particular section of society needs to fight against the majority, the Constitution, which is designed to provide for public happiness, is being somewhat ignored or misused. Another idea we’ll consider is that they were champions of political democracy. This is a two-sided issue. As compared to their predecessors and contemporaries, they were most certainly the more democratic party. But, they were somewhat less democratic than present-day Democrats. Most states had either universal white manhood suffrage or taxpayer qualifications for voting rights, and there was a higher voter turnout. For their time, they were an extremely democratic party, but they did not advocate woman’s suffrage or non-white suffrage. However, as shown by Documents B and C, Jackson’s decisions concerning the National Bank certainly did not show a democratic trend; nor did his actions portrayed in Document G, nor the ones that made Document F necessary. Thirdly, let’s study the Jacksonian Democrats’ claim that they

More about APUSH Jacksonian DBQ

Open Document