Ap Us History Dbq Research Paper
Cory Bonda
10/10/10
AP US HISTORY
Mr. Mangan
DBQ #6 Jacksonian Democrats, Protectors of the Constitution
During the 1830’s and 1820’s the Jacksonain Democrats viewed them selves as the protectors of the Constitution from other parties who had a loose on the constitution. This statement can be viewed as both true and false as the Jacksonian Democrats did not live up to their promises. With the veto of the bank, Indian Removal Act, Jackson did little to defend the United States Constitution as promised. To add on to Jackson’s inconsistencies many of his decisions were found to have flaws that directly opposed to the Constitution. Andrew Jackson and his followers, although promised to be defenders of the Constitution, were some times anything but that.
In the 1830’s when Andrew Jackson vetoed the national …show more content…
bank, it started a series of hippocratic moves. Although the bank was not part of the constitution in the beginning of the writing of it, in 1819 however with McCulloch vs.
Maryland, the bank did part of the constitution which means Jackson’s very loose view of commerce made his veto extremely conravetional (Doc. B). This made people like Daniel Webster extremely upset with Jackson’s unconventional view. (Doc. C). He claimed with the veto of the second national bank would cause public outcry. The partys unconstitutional ways got even worse with the government of South Carolina banning freedom of the press. With them taking away freedom of press the South Carolina government clearly not caring about the first amendment. (Doc. F). Jackson, diverging away from his parties plans to protect the constitution, and opposed regulations that were placed on the prized document of the nation he runs. Also, Jackson promised universal manhood suffrage throughout as part as their campaign slogan. Although after they take office, black and women still cannot vote. Also with the spoils system, Jackson gave many people powerful positions that had no background to handle that position. He took a system used by many presidents before him, and took it to the absolute extreme. Harriet Marinaeu visited the
States in 1834, and critized the government claiming it something she has never seen before, she was in awe of how the position of power were filled with such unqualified individuals. (Doc. D) Jackson, who was known to be a fiery leader, was calm for the beginning of his presidency. However that ended when he issued the Indian Removal Act. This forced five tribes who were actually civilized to be forced out of Georgia and to move west to Oklahoma. To make matters worse the Supreme Court favored for the Indians but Jackson still forced them out. (Doc G.) This was the final straw taken away from the all ready brutally treated Indians. These change in political views and unconstitutional views were against the norm of Andrew Jackson and his attempt to stay in power.
Although during the middle of the 19th century the Jacksonian Democrats say there were protectors of the constitution, they did many things to make it look the opposite. Andrew Jackson went behind congress back, took away amendment rights, went against a supreme court ruling, promised voting rights for all but did not give that, and finally gave positions of power to individuals that did not fit the job position. This made a mockery of his presidency, in not only the public’s eye but visitors from other countries also noticed an uneasy sense of bending the rules by Andrew Jackson. This along with other things proved that Andrew Jackson did anything but protect and strictly enforce the constitution.
#
10/10/10
AP US HISTORY
Mr. Mangan
DBQ #6 Jacksonian Democrats, Protectors of the Constitution
During the 1830’s and 1820’s the Jacksonain Democrats viewed them selves as the protectors of the Constitution from other parties who had a loose on the constitution. This statement can be viewed as both true and false as the Jacksonian Democrats did not live up to their promises. With the veto of the bank, Indian Removal Act, Jackson did little to defend the United States Constitution as promised. To add on to Jackson’s inconsistencies many of his decisions were found to have flaws that directly opposed to the Constitution. Andrew Jackson and his followers, although promised to be defenders of the Constitution, were some times anything but that.
In the 1830’s when Andrew Jackson vetoed the national …show more content…
bank, it started a series of hippocratic moves. Although the bank was not part of the constitution in the beginning of the writing of it, in 1819 however with McCulloch vs.
Maryland, the bank did part of the constitution which means Jackson’s very loose view of commerce made his veto extremely conravetional (Doc. B). This made people like Daniel Webster extremely upset with Jackson’s unconventional view. (Doc. C). He claimed with the veto of the second national bank would cause public outcry. The partys unconstitutional ways got even worse with the government of South Carolina banning freedom of the press. With them taking away freedom of press the South Carolina government clearly not caring about the first amendment. (Doc. F). Jackson, diverging away from his parties plans to protect the constitution, and opposed regulations that were placed on the prized document of the nation he runs. Also, Jackson promised universal manhood suffrage throughout as part as their campaign slogan. Although after they take office, black and women still cannot vote. Also with the spoils system, Jackson gave many people powerful positions that had no background to handle that position. He took a system used by many presidents before him, and took it to the absolute extreme. Harriet Marinaeu visited the
States in 1834, and critized the government claiming it something she has never seen before, she was in awe of how the position of power were filled with such unqualified individuals. (Doc. D) Jackson, who was known to be a fiery leader, was calm for the beginning of his presidency. However that ended when he issued the Indian Removal Act. This forced five tribes who were actually civilized to be forced out of Georgia and to move west to Oklahoma. To make matters worse the Supreme Court favored for the Indians but Jackson still forced them out. (Doc G.) This was the final straw taken away from the all ready brutally treated Indians. These change in political views and unconstitutional views were against the norm of Andrew Jackson and his attempt to stay in power.
Although during the middle of the 19th century the Jacksonian Democrats say there were protectors of the constitution, they did many things to make it look the opposite. Andrew Jackson went behind congress back, took away amendment rights, went against a supreme court ruling, promised voting rights for all but did not give that, and finally gave positions of power to individuals that did not fit the job position. This made a mockery of his presidency, in not only the public’s eye but visitors from other countries also noticed an uneasy sense of bending the rules by Andrew Jackson. This along with other things proved that Andrew Jackson did anything but protect and strictly enforce the constitution.
#