Jacksonian Democracy, which can be an ambiguous and controversial concept, primarily refers to the rise of Andrew Jackson and the Democratic party post-1828. Additionally, it implies a variety of democratic reforms that occurred during the Jacksonians’ success, including expanding voting rights and restructuring federal institutions. However, viewed from another perspective, Jacksonianism can be seen as a political drive connected to slavery, the oppression of Native Americans, and the glorification of white supremacy. This association is so strong that some scholars have rejected the term “Jacksonian Democracy” considering it contradictory.
The Jacksonian Democracy was a genuine democratic movement that advocated for equality, sometimes even embracing radicalism. However, it mainly focused on the interests of white men. Instead of being a rebellion specific to a particular class or region, this movement formed a diverse and occasionally conflicting national coalition. Its origins can be traced back to the democratic fervor during the American Revolution, the Antifederalists in the 1780s and 1790s, and the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans. Nonetheless, it directly emerged from the substantial social and economic transformations of the early nineteenth century.
During this time, there was a market revolution that brought about significant changes. Historians have recently analyzed these changes. In the Northeast and Old Northwest, transportation advancements and increased immigration led to the decline of traditional farming and skilled craftsmanship. Instead, cash crop agriculture and capitalist manufacturing emerged. The South experienced a boom in the cotton industry, which revitalized the plantation economy dependent on slave labor. This expansion extended to encompass the most fertile lands in the region. In the West, white settlement, farming, and speculation were made possible by taking Native American and mixed-blood Hispanic lands.
The market revolution did not benefit everyone equally, especially nonwhites who experienced it as a complete disaster. However, the tensions created within white society by this revolution would lead to the rise of Jacksonianism. This affected mortgaged farmers and the emerging working class in the Northeast, non-slaveholding individuals in the South, and tenants and aspiring yeomen in the West. All of these groups had concerns that the expansion of commerce and capitalism would result in increased reliance on others rather than endless opportunities.
In every part of the country, during the market revolution, a number of up-and-coming entrepreneurs believed that the established elites would hinder their progress and manipulate economic growth for their own benefit. This gave rise to a complex political crisis by the 1820s. Both self-made individuals and common people were disappointed because certain elitist republican beliefs from the previous century persisted, particularly in the coastal states, stating that the government should be left in the hands of a naturally virtuous and wealthy aristocracy.
During the 19th century, there was an increase in chartered corporations, commercial banks, and other private institutions that led to the emergence of a new wealthy class. Government policy after the War of 1812 favored centralized and top-down approaches to economic development. However, these policies primarily benefited those who were already wealthy while also perpetuating inequalities among white individuals.
Throughout and following the Era of Good Feelings, there were various occurrences that further solidified the belief that power was concentrated within a confident minority. These events included the neo-Federalist decisions made by John Marshall’s Supreme Court, the negative consequences of the panic of 1819, and the establishment of John Quincy Adams’s and Henry Clay’s American System. Proposed solutions for this issue centered around strengthening democracy and redirecting economic practices. Within current states, reformers sought to reduce or eliminate property requirements for voting and holding public office, as well as ensuring equal representation.
A new generation of politicians emerged who challenged the old republican opposition to mass political parties. Labor movements arose among urban workers, who advocated for political reforms. Southerners called for lower tariffs, greater respect for states’ rights, and a return to strict constructionism. Westerners demanded more affordable land and relief from creditors, speculators, and bankers, particularly the despised Second Bank of the United States. Following his loss in the controversial “corrupt bargain” election of 1824, Jackson expanded his political support in the lower and mid-South, uniting various sources of discontent from across the nation.
However, when successfully opposing President John Quincy Adams in 1828, Jackson’s supporters primarily emphasized his reputation as a brave warrior, presenting the election as a choice between Adams, who excelled in writing, and Jackson, who excelled in combat. It was only after assuming office that the Jacksonian Democracy refined its principles and beliefs. This process brought about a fundamental change in the context of national political discussions. The primary objective of the Jacksonians, both at the federal level and within individual states, was to eliminate social class disparities in government and dismantle the hierarchical, credit-driven mechanisms of the market revolution.
The Second Bank of the United States was targeted by the Jacksonians and other hard-money initiatives, aiming to diminish the influence of a select group of wealthy private bankers on the nation’s economy. During this time, government-backed internal improvements lost favor due to their perceived unnecessary expansion of centralized power, primarily benefiting those with connections. The Jacksonians justified their support for rotating officeholders as a means to counteract entrenched elitism.
To assist struggling farmers and planters, Jacksonian leaders implemented a relentless (and possibly unconstitutional) program of removing Native Americans, while also supporting low land prices and the preemption rights of settlers. These policies were the foundation of a democratic ideology, which targeted voters who felt marginalized or impacted negatively by the market revolution. By modernizing certain democratic aspects of the republican tradition, they argued that a republic could not survive without economically independent citizens. Sadly, they believed this state of republican independence was highly fragile.
The Jacksonians believed that throughout history, a conflict has existed between a small group of wealthy individuals seeking to exploit the majority. They argued that this struggle was the root cause of major issues, as the wealthy elite in America aimed to increase their power. The Jacksonians advocated for equal rights and limited government as ways for people to prevent the already privileged classes from further enriching themselves by controlling and depleting public institutions.
In a broader sense, the Jacksonians advocated for a political culture centered around equality for white males and distinguished themselves from other reform movements. They viewed nativism as a prejudiced form of elitist puritanism. They opposed the idea of Sabbatarians, temperance advocates, and other moralists enforcing their beliefs onto others. The Jacksonians not only expressed their opinions, but also promoted a social outlook that ensured every white man had the opportunity to achieve economic independence and live according to his own preferences. They envisioned a system of laws and representative government that was completely free from any form of privilege.
The Jacksonian leaders faced opposition from various sources, including factions within the coalition that had elected Jackson as president. Among the dissenting voices were southern plantation owners, particularly from South Carolina, who were concerned about the Jacksonians’ promotion of egalitarianism. They worried that if nonslaveholding southerners embraced these ideals too much, it could jeopardize their own privileges and possibly even the institution of slavery. Furthermore, they had doubts about Jackson’s commitment to safeguarding their interests, which eventually led to the nullification crisis in 1832-1833 and Jackson’s forceful suppression of extremist threats against federal authority.
During the late 1830s, a larger opposition in the southern region emerged, particularly among wealthy planters who were unhappy with the severe economic downturn of 1837. These planters were also suspicious of Martin Van Buren, who succeeded Andrew Jackson and was perceived as a northerner. On the other hand, in the rest of the country, the ongoing hard-money and anti-bank campaigns by the Jacksonian leaders offended more conservative individuals. These individuals, known as Bank Democrats, were not in favor of completely limiting the paper money credit system, despite their dissatisfaction with the Second Bank of the United States.
The opposition, however, consisted of a coalition from different social classes. Its strongest support came from areas that were rapidly commercializing and saw the market revolution as a symbol of civilized progress. The oppositionists argued that economic growth, if carefully guided, would benefit everyone rather than creating a divide between the few and the many. They believed that government support, which included tariffs, internal improvements, a strong national bank, and aid to various charitable organizations, was crucial for this growth.
Strongly influenced by the evangelical Second Great Awakening, core oppositionists viewed moral reform as a cooperative endeavor to alleviate human degradation and enhance the nation’s wealth. They were hesitant about territorial expansion as their priority was to strengthen the existing country. The Jacksonians’ exaggerated assertions of presidential authority and patronage systems infuriated them, as they believed this resulted in corruption and autocracy rather than democracy.
The Jacksonians believed that personal rectitude and industriousness determined a person’s success or failure, rather than political inequalities. They used class rhetoric to disrupt the harmony between the rich and poor, which would otherwise lead to widespread prosperity. By 1840, both the Jacksonian Democracy and the Whig party (opposite of Jacksonian Democracy) had gained large national followings and turned politics into a debate about the market revolution. However, within a decade, sectional disputes over slavery threatened to overshadow this debate and divide the major parties. This shift was largely due to the racially exclusive vision of the Jacksonians, who assumed racism alongside their insistence on equality for white men. Despite this, there were some exceptions, such as Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen, who were attracted to the ideals of the Jacksonian Democracy.
Both in the North and South, democratic reforms that benefitted common white people, particularly in terms of voting rights and representation, were achieved at the cost of free black individuals. The reasoning behind Jacksonian policies on territorial expansion was based on constitutional principles, but also involved a belief that Native Americans (and in some regions, Hispanics) were inferior. The Jacksonians were resolute in keeping slavery separate from national matters, motivated by practical and ideological reasons.
Mainstream Jacksonians did not have any moral concerns about the enslavement of black individuals and had no intention to interfere with it in places where it already existed. Additionally, they believed that the growing opposition to slavery would divert attention from the social disparities among white men and disrupt the party’s fragile alliances. Many Jacksonians secretly felt that the slavery dispute was merely a distraction created by dissatisfied elites in an attempt to regain control from the true popular movement.
During the 1830s and 1840s, the dominant Jacksonian leaders confidently defended the belief that their opinions aligned with the majority of white Americans. They actively opposed any involvement of slavery in the political discussions, labeling abolitionists as troublemakers and disrupting their mail campaigns. They implemented the congressional gag rule, which silenced any debate on abolitionist petitions. At the same time, they resisted the influence of radical proslavery individuals from the South.
During the period of intense conflict, the Jacksonians encountered difficulties with their belief in white equality. While opposing antislavery, they tried to silence dissenters through gag rules, which violated the equal rights of white individuals. Moreover, their endorsement of expansionism, often referred to as “manifest destiny” by the Democratic Review, heightened divisions between regions. Slaveholders demanded access to new territories for slavery, causing outrage among northern whites. The latter had hoped to settle in areas devoid of slavery, fearing that its presence would diminish the value of white free labor. These contradictions eventually led to the collapse of the Jacksonian coalition in the 1850s. However, as early as the mid-1840s, during debates surrounding Texas annexation, the Mexican War, and the Wilmot Proviso, sectional divisions loomed ominously. The presidential candidacy of Martin Van Buren on the Free-Soil ticket in 1848 represented the discontent of northern Democrats with increasing southern influence.
The Southern Democrats who were slaveholders started to question whether anything less than strong federal support for slavery would result in the downfall of their social class and the nation founded by white men. Meanwhile, the Jacksonian mainstream, which had suffered setbacks, remained hopeful that the party and the country could stay united by discussing old issues, avoiding the topic of slavery, and using the idea of popular sovereignty. This moderate group, led by individuals like Stephen A. Douglas, maintained influence until the mid-1850s but had to constantly appease the concerns of the South, which only added to the growing tensions between regions.
Jacksonian Democracy suffered its demise at Fort Sumter, although its decline had already taken place many years before. The fate of the Jacksonians was ironically fitting. By capturing the discontent of the 1820s and 1830s and transforming it into a successful national party, they promoted the democratization of American politics. By criticizing the wealthy elite and championing the everyday individual, they also played a part in making American society more politically active, widening the scope of electoral involvement to encompass an immense majority of the voting population.
Despite its politicalization, the Jacksonian Democracy ultimately faced its downfall as the issue of slavery entered the concerns of even a small portion of the electorate. Removing this issue without contradicting the egalitarian principles upheld by the Jacksonians proved impossible. Modern Americans should not take satisfaction in this, as the legacy of the Jacksonian Democracy, which intertwined aspirations for equality and justice with the belief in white supremacy, still remains powerful even after its demise in the 1850s.
Throughout the decades following the Civil War, the enduring influence of that legacy served as a stronghold for the new Democratic party. This coalition united struggling farmers burdened with debt and immigrant laborers alongside the Solid South. The Second Reconstruction in the 1950s and 1960s forced Democrats to confront their party’s historical background, only to witness both party dissidents and Republicans seize upon this same theme. As the twentieth century came to a close, the tragic combination of egalitarianism and racial prejudice, which played a pivotal role in Jacksonian Democracy, continued to afflict American politics. This toxic mixture tainted some of the nation’s noblest aspirations with its darkest elements.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
“The Early Republic: Primary Documents on Events from 1799 to 1820” is available online (American History Online.Facts On File, Inc.URL: http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE52&iPin=EHRP1056&SingleRecord=True;accessed December 6, 2012).In 2012, Richard L. Wilson’s article on “Jackson, Andrew” from “American Political Leaders, American Biographies” was sourced from American History Online by Facts On File, Inc. The source can be directly accessed at http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?ItemID=WE52&iPin=APL137&SingleRecord=True and was accessed on December 6th of that year.
