It soon became evident that the South was loosing hold on their part of the government, something that became clear when talk of the abolition of slavery rolled around; it wasn't so much an issue that the government sought to abolish slavery as that ordering it on a Federal level was in violation of the Tenth Amendment and states' rights. This strain only grew worse when the two main political parties of the time, the "Whigs" and the Democrats, began to fracture over regional lines. The "Whigs" merged north and formed what we know today as the Republican party. Given all of these volatile circumstances happened near or around the same time, a conflict was nearly
Jacksonian Democracy DBQ Jacksonian democracy was a time of mass democracy. Government was beginning to shift towards a government run by the people, and represented by the people. In the election of 1824 all the candidates ran as Democratic-Republicans (PK). Andrew Jackson would lose to John Q. Adams due to the “corrupt bargain” and the new political party the democrats would emerge. Jacksonian democrats were only guardians of political democracy, individual liberty and equality of economic opportunity, and the United States Constitution when it benefitted them.
The Jacksonians first political action in Missouri was to limit federal judges’ terms in office and to make it harder for them to overturn state and congressional legislation. The Jacksonians second plan of attack was to remove John Adam’s supporter Judge David Todd from judiciary office. In this paper I will discuss the events that led to the impeachment trials of Judge David Todd as well as the outcome. I will also show how the political parties of the past used personal vendettas as political gain against their adversaries. President James Monroe picked David Todd in 1817 to head as territorial judge of Missouri.
This lack of democracy and in many cases, violence, towards the mentioned groups leads me to the overall conclusion that whilst Jackson may have attempted and possibly succeeded in democratising politics, at the same time he failed to democratise American society. Andrew Jackson can be seen to have democratised American politics from the moment he was first elected due to his image as the “Common man”. Having risen from poverty in the South with very limited formal education, Jackson was the first President to appeal and to represent the interests of the non-landed classes like the traditional Southern states where he grew up. Because this was so new a concept, voters were given the opportunity to make a decision: to either support Jackson’s non-autocratic views or to disagree with them. This was the first time in American history that voters were given such choice due to difference of opinion of the two candidates, leading to the development of the two-party system.
As a young lawyer he entered politics, served in the Tennessee legislature, and became a friend of Andrew Jackson. In the House of Representatives, Polk was a chief lieutenant of Jackson in his Bank war. He served as Speaker between 1835 and 1839, leaving to become Governor of Tennessee. Until circumstances raised Polk's ambitions, he was a leading contender for the Democratic nomination for Vice President in 1844. Both Martin Van Buren, who had been expected to win the Democratic nomination for President, and Henry Clay, who was to be the Whig nominee, tried to take the expansionist issue out of the campaign by declaring themselves opposed to the annexation of Texas.
Leading up to the Civil War, the Whig party became the Native American party, or the Know Nothing party. The Know Nothings were an anti-immigrant and anti-Irish and German Catholic party who garnered much of their support in Essex and Bergen counties. The Republican Party soon emerged known as “Opposition”. Opposition was formed out of the idea that New Jersey shouldn’t break ties with the South over the issue of slavery. The first Opposition governor was elected in 1856, and Republicans continued to control the state until 1869 when the Democrats regain control.
It was a means of social organization and control; it was technically like a foundation of a Southern white male free society; it was the new government. The cornerstone speech states “The day you make a soldier of them is the beginning of the end of Revolution. This was saying that if slaves can be soldiers, then we have been fighting for nothing. The Civil War boils down to a group of oppressed people resisting that oppression. Not really a sudden violence, but 250 years of existential, endless and constant violence.
Jacksonian Democracy and Jeffersonian Democracy are both different forms of government between the 1800s and the 1840s that were based on the ideas of U.S. presidents Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson. But there ideas on leading the country were quite alike. Each man that defended the Jeffersonian democracy expressed views in their speeches and debates reflect those who defended the Jacksonian democracy. Also, each democracy had a different philosophy on controlling the country then the other. But the basics of their philosophies were the same.
Political issue was one of the main causes of the Civil War. The Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise in 1854, which proposed that the Nebraska territory be divided into the Kansas territory and Nebraska territory and that the settlers there ruled with popular sovereignty (Doc.7). Dred Scott sued for his freedom, since he argued his residency on a free soil land made him a free citizen. The court decided against him because slaves are property and had no right to sue (Doc.9). Another cause of the civil war was the actions of John Brown, who attacked on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia.
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.