Jacksonian+Democracy+Versus+the+Business+Community

AJN- Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, served from 1829 until 1837. He was not a supporter of the Bank of the United States because he grew up in the lowest class of any past president and did not agree with the main bank being run by only the prominent few atop the social ladder.

The head of the second Bank of the United States, Nicholas Biddle, in this time officials were appointed to their positions, not elected by the American people. Jackson held the belief that Biddle was selfishly running the bank under his own pretences.

The bank was making money and a large employer for many people, which would be a good type of business in modern day America. However, Jackson had disapproved of the bank from the beginning and was bent on the elimination of national debt. An example was shown in his determination to rid the nation of debt, which he succeeded in for a period of time. Because of his background Jackson did not hesitate to put an end the Second National bank in order to put Biddle’s underhanded deals to an end by vetoing the restitution of the bank.

By doing this Jackson won the hearts of most Americans and it seems evident that the main reason for Jackson’s reinstatement for another term of presidency was largely dependent on this event. Sharing common beliefs with most Americans he easily appealed to the populous. Once he had officially put an end to the centralized bank he then decided he would also pull national funds out as well.

The portion of the population who were not positively affected by these changes then created their own party, today known as the liberal party, the Whigs. They were vehemently opposed to the way Jackson dealt with the bank situation. However, this previously unheard of type of reform won him virtual immortality among the populous.

JT

Andrew Jackson found immense popularity on an extremely controversial issue: The Second National Bank of America. This bank held all of the nation’s funds, but was a privately run business. As many saw it, it was an unlimited opportunity for the men owning the bank, including Nicholas Biddle, to make an immense amount of money. As the bank would lend out funds to the people, they made a handsome profit, too great a profit according to Jackson. He felt that the bank owners were money hogging dogs and that the money of the people should not be held in the hands of a few rich bank owners. This idea was a major push toward laissez-faire economics. Obviously, the Second National Bank of America feared the president’s opposition. On the surface, it would appear that there was no blaring consequence of one bank being in charge of the national funds, and they wanted the public to continue seeing things this way. Jackson’s point of view clearly differed, and the people praised him for it. Jackson based his entire campaign for a second term in office on destroying the National Bank. It is easily argued that the National Bank did not stand a chance. Jackson was loved by America. People felt that he could understand their interests on a personal level, and protect them with the same ferocity as a politician’s opinions since he was born in poverty. After his campaign to slander the bank, emphasizing the aristocratic likening of the bank owners, it was only a question of when, not if the bank would fall. This raised some concern for supporters of industry and commerce, who were comfortable with the steady currency that resulted from a national bank. Ironically it would be they who would profit the most in the future, as today laissez-faire economics has allowed big business to rule the economy. *Referenced to NBC Archives: "The War Against the Bank." checked


 * week** 2v

AVG – In “Jacksonian Democracy Versus the Business Community,” Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., argues that Jackson and his supporters were the supporters of common Americans – both farmers and factory laborers – against the business community. They tried to stop the propertied rich from using their wealth to gain power over others and recognized the hypocrisy that common Americans produced everything but owned nothing, while business owners themselves contributed nothing to society but were fabulously rich. However, as Bray Hammond argues in “The Jacksonians: Expectant Capitalists,” Jackson was “no friend to the shiftless and indigent who got into debt and then could not get out” (201). Although Jackson publicized his attack on the Bank of the United States as an attack on monetary interests by the commoners, Hammond argues that this untrue; in fact, the main beneficiaries of his attack were the investors of Wall Street. Schlesinger’s argument resembles Jackson’s own image of himself; however, Hammond’s argument is closer to the truth. Although Jackson depicted himself as a “common man,” Jackson was the largest plantation owner in Kentucky, owning over 500 acres and over 200 slaves. As President, he used public funds to restore the White House after it was destroyed by a mob as a result of his poor judgment, essentially making himself rich at the expense of the poor. Finally, the Tariff of 1828 – which Jackson was willing to enforce by personally leading the Army – primarily benefited business owners and capitalists. Jackson’s actions throughout his life and presidency make it difficult to believe that he opposed a business class “able to strip the working classes of the fruits of their labor” (190), as Schlesinger claims. Jackson did open business opportunities to new capitalists, but despite his “common man” rhetoric, was not a staunch supporter of working-class Americans economically. His attack on the Bank of the United States was largely a result of personal grudges against banks rather than a dislike of wealth in general. very well done AJJ- In Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.’s “Jacksonian Democracy Versus the Business Community,” it is argued that Andrew Jackson hated the business class in particular the banks who he had a personal grudge against. The question is if he really hated banks and cared about the common man that he claimed himself to be. The answer is no. The banks that he closed down were extremely important to the common man and the system that replaced it made it impossible for anyone to pay their debts.

The tyrannical view that some had of Jackson can be shown in particular in his distaste for banks. After Jackson’s poor history with banks including banks refusing to give his parents or him a loan, Jackson would not have listened to anyone’s advice on the bank issue as his personal grudge and arrogance in thinking that everything he did was right, blocked him from what was doing what was actually right for the country and the common man.

Another example of how Jackson ignored the common man’s interests was the situation when he threw a party at the White House, left the party, and let the people at the party destroy everything. Instead of admitting his mistake and paying for the party’s damages himself. He used taxpayer dollars to rebuild the White House. This arrogant and tyrannical act simply further proves that he did not care about the common man. checked


 * week** 3 n

*** MRL - Week 3 - After the displacement of the Jeffersonians by the Jacksonians, American political philosophy began to gradually transform into a more modern form. This transformation revolved around the Jacksonian's acceptance and embrace of industry and business. The Jacksonians shared similar views as the Jeffersonians, except while the Jeffersonians wished to avoid industrilization and the consequences that came with it, the Jacksonians wished to control it. The Jacksonians realized that embracing industry and business was a necessity because much of the lower class held jobs that relied on industry and business, rather than solely farming. Thus, it can be speculated that if the Jacksonians wished to retain popular support and approval then they would have to support not only the farming lower class, but also the vast industrial laborer class as well. Although the Jeffersonians eventually realized this, it was too late, therefore Andrew Jackson, guardian of the "common man", became President. This is a significant occurence in American history because it is an example of two like-minded political groups that diverge in order to adapt to the onset of the modernization of America. The reason they diverged revolved around the necessity for voters. Therefore, the replacement of the Jeffersonians by Jacksonians in political power reveals that some political parties would prefer to compromise their opinions and view solely for the sake of gaining support of the American people. This is yet anothe reason how the Age of Jackson faciliated the shift from pre-modern to modern America.

great info get this about twice as long for a 50

*** VB – Presidential policy is often an adaptation of policies utilized in previous administrations. Jackson closely follows this pattern. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. postulates that Jacksonian principles are simply an adaptation of the policies implemented by Thomas Jefferson. Jackson subtly sustained the Jefferson policies that were applicable to this time period and to the American denizen’s discontent. Jefferson’s mistrust of banks was parallel to Jackson similar position that banks could not be relied upon. Although some positions were adapted by Jackson, others were changed to meet the expectations of the era. Although Jefferson strongly opposed the Industrial Revolution, supporting an agrarian economy, Jackson realized that the Industrial Revolution was inevitable and his policies encouraged this transformation. During Jackson’s presidency the economy of the northeast was based on manufacturing and agriculture was the economic foundation of the south. By condemning the monopolization of the land in the south, Jackson helped to support the emerging industry in the north.

Alternatively, Richard Hofstadter, in //William Leggett,// //Spokesman of Jacksonian Democracy//, asserts that William Leggett’s writings also contributed to the policies of the Jackson Administration. William Leggett, a prominent writer in the //Post//, developed a unique political philosophy that associated him with the same political party as Jackson. As a result, Jackson began to receive political advice from Leggett which was combined with Jeffersonian views. Both authors equally validate their claims, making if difficult to distinguish inconsistencies.