How Did The Age Of Jacksonian Democracy?

The Age of Jacksonian Democracy, from about 1824 to 1840, marked a pervasive influence on American politics. As the seventh president of the United States elected in 1828, Andrew Jackson quickly organized some governmental issues in term of his policy, such as passing the Tariff of Abominations which hurt the Southerners with high taxes and vetoing the bank recharter which showed an exploitation in presidential power. More importantly, he signed the Indian Removal Act in 1830 to expand the nation’s territory. However, this act was considered as an example of government-supported racism since Jackson oversaw a harsh policy with regard to Native Americans. This policy resulted in the usurpation of land, attempts to destroy tribal culture, and
Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of the Cherokees, saying that they were a "domestic dependent nation" and as such could not be forced by a state to give up their lands unwillingly. “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it,” (Jackson). But under the Constitution, the President enforces the laws, not the Supreme Court. Jackson essentially said that he would not enforce the Court's decision and he did not. Although this was specifically a blow to the Cherokee case against Georgia for passing laws arbitrarily, it cast doubt on the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act. Jackson’s actions established a sense of racism in which he insisted to pass the act for the sake of expansion, no matter how the Court and some other Cabinet members defended those sovereigns of their own soil. This relative condition of the two races of men was a moral problem involved in much
In the letter “To the Senate and the House of Representatives,” Ross wrote, “We are stripped of every attribute of freedom and eligibility for legal self-defense...We are denationalized; we are disfranchised. We are deprived of membership in the human family!” (Doc 6). Georgia tried to take authority of their lands, therefore, John Ross pleaded with Congress and President Andrew Jackson, but the U.S government sided with the state. Elias Boudinot, a Cherokee who supported the removal, later warned that “It sure end of our race if you succeed in preventing the removal of your people,” (Doc B). In response to Ross, Boudinot argued that it is better for them to move away rather than to stay and obey the laws like slaves. Despite the different ideology in these two men’s arguments, they showed that the U.S. government commitments to the Indians were invalid and disrespectful to their independence whether they wanted to move or not; as well as proving the Indian Removal Act is government-supported racism since an inferior race (the Indians) opinion could be annulled by a superior race (the