Compare And Contrast The Political Style Of Andrew Jacksonian

Andrew Jackson ‘s political style and interest in popular concerns constituted a challenge for those on the opposite side of the political spectrum in his time. Indeed, their reaction to his movement was to attack it, both rhetorically and through the formation of an entirely new political party: the Whig Party. For example, critiquing the rhetorical style of the Jacksonians, Adams wrote in his diary that they were “skunks of party slander.” Generally speaking, he viewed Jacksonian politics as less than palatable. After all, his disdain for Jackson was clearly evident in his decision to boycott Jackson’s accepting of an honorary degree from Harvard University in 1833. Likewise, Henry Clay criticised Jackson’s populist style stating: “he is
ignorant, passionate, hypocritical, corrupt and easily swayed by the basest of men who surround him.” Furthermore, criticised Jackson’s military experience as it related to his ability to operate as president, writing: “I cannot believe that the killing of 2,000 Englishmen at New Orleans qualifies a person for the various difficult and complicated duties of the presidency.” Accordingly, anti-Jacksonians united in 1834 to form the Whig Party, referring to Jackson as “King Andrew I” for his expansion of executive power. To be sure, Clay, a member of the Whig Party, continued to hurl slander at Jackson, insulting Jackson’s character by characterising him as “reckless and as full of fury as a drunken man in a brothel.” Evidently, for Andrew Jackson’s political opponents, his populist style was worthy of significant political slander, and gave cause to rally a new political party to challenge Jacksonians.