Field Trip

I have a question about the field trip...on the sheet that explained what we were doing it said that the trip is on the 6th, but on the other one where the signatures are it says its on the 11th. So which date is it?

political party of John Tyler

What politcal party should we associate with Tyler? because he ran for presidency with the Whigs, yet his philosophy was more that of the Democrats Even further, the Democrats kinda left Tyler on a limb and didnt associate themselves with him.

Territorial Acquisitions

From the period of 1791-1819, nine frontier states had joined the original thirteen, which was stimulated by immigrants, acute economic distress, and Indian crushing. Although these new territories gained much economic and territorial advantages, new sectional tensions were involved between the South and the North over control of the West. This fertile and well-watered area contained sufficient population to warrant statehood, yet the South seemed persistently arrogant about inheriting the Western soil. The future of Southern slave system caused southerners profound concern. Missouri was the first state entirely west of the Mississippi River to be carved out of the Louisiana Purchase, and the Missouri emancipation amendment might set a damaging precedent for all the rest of the area. Small groups of antislavery agitators in the North seized this occasion to raise outcries against evils of slavery. They were determined that the plague of human bondage should not spread further into the virgin territories. Despite the outgrowth of the South to become entirely dependent on slavery, pacification of the frontier opened up vast virgin tracts of land. The building of highways improved the land routes to the Ohio Valley, stemming from the early colonial dated idea of "Ohio fever". The West demanded everything generally cheaper, for examples: cheap acreage, transportation, and money. Although westward expansion created more fertile land and a forced sectional unity, many interests were stirred upon problems regarding slavery between abolitionists in the North and the South.

Acquisition of new territories

The acquisition of new territories helped the country by making it larger, and pushing out European claims to the lands, and it hurt the country by causing many issues with slavery. When America acquired Florida and was able to use Oregon it grew as a country because people settled in the areas and the economy went up. As more of the land became American less became European, which made America stronger and less vulnerable. More immigrants came when America acquired new land and also advances in transportation were made like the railroads and the steamboats. The country became more diversified and was forced to be exposed to different cultures. Yet, when new lands were added, the debate of whether they would be free or slave came up. With the Louisiana Purchase and the request from Texas to be annexed, the South fought for slavery while many Northerners fought against it. The country became even more greatly divided by North and South on the slavery issue and that is how the country as a whole was weakened.

Acquisition of Territory: Help/Hurt

Acquisition of territory had both helped and hurt America because it had improved the economy and international standing, whereas it had also caused internal conflict and disunity. The expansion westward had improved the American economy. With the new supply of land in order to satiate the need for more crop producting territories, America was able to gain a new supply of agriculture and some cahs crops such as tobacco. The expansion of territory also allowed for the production of many raw goods which helped to support the New England manufacturing industries. Development also improved international standing. The United States' sharing of Oregon with Britain supported American equal standing. The control of
Texas also improved the international standing because the United States was now seen as more powerful than the lesser Mexico. The main thing that hurt America during expansion was
increased disunity. The issue of slavery had caused Americans to divide. In the Missouri Compromise, it was loosely defined what would happen with the western states, thus causing conflict between the newly founded
territories. Also, Texas was not allowed into the Union because it supported slavery. Overall, expansion was good because it improved the economy, but it hurt America by causing disunity.

Territory

The acquisition of territory in the United States helped America by enabling it to produce more raw goods, and it hurt America by causing sectional tension in regards to many issues, such as slavery. The Missouri Compromise - which added Missouri to the union as a slave state and stated that all other states added to the union were to be free - lasted for 15 years before creating major sectional issues. The west, which was economically tied to the the north, agreed with the anti-slavery cause for the most part. This contributed greatly to the eventual dissolve of the union. By acquiring the western half of the United States, the north and west were economically united. Via transportation, the west was able to produce raw goods and send them to the North, where goods were manufactured into the finished product. The acquisition of territory in the United States helped America by enabling it to produce more raw goods, and it hurt America by causing sectional tension in regards to many issues, such as slavery.

Territorial Acquisitions

Although new territorial acquisitions helped the United States by boosting its economy, yet it also harmed the US by causing tensions within the nation. The acquisition of new land, although it was supported by mostly all Americans led to major domestic conflicts. The bgest among these conflicts was the issue of slavery. With westward expansion the nother and the south became severely sectionalized especialy on this issue because the debate about whether these new western lands, which would eventually become states, should allow slavery or be slave free. This argument, although reached a tempory fix with the Missouri compromise in 1820, was heated and aided the north south division.Although westward expansion boosted the northern economy, it lagged the southern econnomy and caused even more divisions by doing this. The north came to depend largely on the west for raw materials to use in textiles, while hte west benefitted with the manufacturing of the industrious north. This caused less dependence of the north on the south which caused the southern economy to lag behind the northern and western economy. This was also furthered by the transportation revolution which was a lot of railroads being built to connect the north and the west which allowed for better trading. This caused the south to have even futher conflicts with the north because of these new lands to the west. The westward expansion also caused a rip in the national identity by allowing for an influx of immigrants. Although these immigrants helped the economy by bein low wage workers in the factories in the industrious north, thy cause more internal conflicts because of racism and conflicting cultures, especially religion.

Territorial Acquisitions

During the still premature ages of the United States, territorial acquisitions would mainly help the progression of the country through economic development and political compromises, whereas little of the growth hindered the republic, the only major case being the foreign political tension. In 1820, the North and South collided with the slave debate after Missouri lit the fuse with its proposal for statehood. While many would argue that this deterred the progression of the republic because it created more political tension between the North and the South, this is only half of the argument. It is more accurate to say that the Missouri Compromise following this explosion of the slave question helped to ease political tension by creating a compromise that both parties were somewhat satisfied with. From this perspective, it is evident that the Missouri Compromise helped the United States in its progression. Furthermore, the economic growth during this time period was largely because of the general growth of the country. As more land became part of the country, more immigrants came flocking to the United States to collect the oppurtunities promised to them back in their homeland. This influx in immigrants not only increased the agricultural economy of the West, but also brought forth a working class that could support the growing manufacturing demands of New England. In combination with the new transportation systems developed to allow foreigners westward, the economy of the United States experienced an entirely new economy. This entire growth was because of the growing movement for Manifest destiny and the desire to move westward.

Territorial Acquisitions

The territorial acquisitions of Americans intensified the debate over slavery within the union, helped refine and strengthen democratic idealism, and helped boost the economy. Sectional balance between slave and non slave states had always presided, however with Missouri's request to enter the union as a slave state and Texas's request to enter the union period had rattled the balance. In response to Missouri's request, congress somewhat unfairly passed the Tallmadge amendment. It provided that no more slaves be brought into the state and that children born of slave families already there be emancipated. Southerners saw the Tallmadge amendment, which they eventually managed to defeat, as a threat to the sectional balance that had loomed for so many years. nonetheless, a compromise was reached. Main was admitted as a separate state from Massachusetts and everything above the 36-30 line was non slave holding, and everything below it was. The balance between North and South was thus kept at 12 states each and remained so for fifteen years. "The Missouri compromise only the ducked the question- it did not resolve it." When Texas requested admittance into the union, the north and Jackson hesitated. Many Texans were slaveholders, and admitting Texas to the union inescapably meant the enlargement of slavery.
Although politically speaking the United States were struggling to hold together, expansion not only meant increased tension, but also an increase in immigration as well as economy. As cheaper land continuously became available, immigrants flooded into the country and with them brought diversity and work. Such an array of opinion meant the refinement of democracy, as generally all people wanted the same basic freedoms. Their work could and would replace the necessity of slavery and fill in the gaps in factories and other places where work was needed. expansion also meant prosperous land from which americans would reap the benefits in agriculture and trade. Although pioneers had exhausted the land they passed over, advancements over time and all acquired outweighed the negative. Overall, tensions did negatively affect the union in that it would eventually lead to the secession of the south but it helped develop a strong democracy that would last for many years passed.

To what extent did the territories both help and hurt the United States?

The acquisition of new territories helped the United States through increased economic expansion but hurt the country by dividing it. Increased trade between the east and west occurred as a result of the expansion, and to facilitate this trade new modes of transportation were introduced. Along with this, struggling immigrants came to the United States in hopes of receiving a share of the new land. These immigrants couldn't achieve their dream instantly and often took jobs in factories for low wages, thus benefiting the economy. Despite this economic success, expansion arose issues of slavery and how much power the federal government could hold and caused a divide within the nation. Southern states did not believe in the federal government intervening in state affairs and sought for slavery in the western territories. Both of these issues were only dealt with sparingly and most times left the country more divided. Despite the economic wealth western expansion brought the country, it created a divide that would ultimately lead to the Civil War.

Territorial Acquisition

The acquisition of new territories for the United States was beneficial due to the positive economic consequences it brought, yet left a negative impact through political tension between the North and the South. Economic growth was largely a result of immigrants who mostly came from Europe seeking new land bought after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, freedom, and opportunity. From the inspiration of former immigrants mailing promising letters home, foreigners began to work in such places as mills in order to raise enough money to fulfill the desire to expand; this in turn increased productivity and prosperity within the U.S. economy, which was a beneficial consequence brought on by the acquisition of territory. However, political tension resulted from expansion as well, mostly from the growing internal conflicts of slavery and the division of the North and the South. Sectional tensions were revealed in 1819 and 1820 during the dispute of the Missouri Compromise, where Missouri was admitted as a slave state as a trial to maintain sectional balance. After this, uneasiness between both sections grew both politically and socially, affecting presidential elections and raising tension until the disbandment of the Union and the beginning of the Civil War. Overall, the acquisition of new territories for the United States both helped and hurt the nation, through the mix of economic prosperity and the bitterness resulting from the tension brought by slavery between the North and the South.

Acquisition of New Territories: Help/ Hurt U.S. ?

The acquisition of new territories helped the United States more then it hurt them because it increased immigration and economy of the United States while it only hurt them in creating division in the country over the issue of slavery. When the settlers moved westward, as stated by the Land Act of 1820, they were allowed to purchase virgin land which would then be used for farming which would lead to an increase in the economy. The West was also a land of opportunity for many Europeans immigrants who wanted to gain land and to live prosperously. The acquisition of new territories such as Texas stimulated immigration in the West. The original families in Texas, for example, were Scots-Irish and more German and French immigrants settled there afterwards. The only way it hurt the United States was that it created division between the North and the South and whether or not the acquired territory would be a free or a slave state. The Missouri Compromise of 1821 said that the newly annexed Missouri would be a slave state but all land above the 30’36’ line would be free. This was enacted in order to provide a sectional balance between free and slave states. This would create bigger problems in the future but for then, new states were very helpful to the Unites States.

Territorial acquisitions

The acquisition of the new territories both helped America by boosting the economy, but impeded it by causing further political tension. The addition of the western land gave farmers the ability to construct and reinforce an agricultural economy. Consequently the expanding economy brought many more immigrants to the nation, further empowering industry and economy. It stimulated exports as flourishing transportation systems allowed goods from the west to be transported to the northeast and then exported. But conflict inevitably arose as the new land had to be divided into states, and the issue of slavery was put on the table. This was only temporarily soothed by the Missouri Compromise that divided the nation at the 36-30 line in which the northern nation would abolish slavery, and southern states would retain it. This simply caused more tension in the end on account of the country being further divided causing more debate and conflict and eventually leading to the civil War.

territorial acquisitions

The acquisition of vast new territories in the United States both helped and hurt the growing nation. However, in regards to the Missouri Compromise, the acquisition of Florida, and the fight over the admittance of Texas as a U.S. state, the nation was hurt through strained domestic tensions between the North and the South. The Missouri Compromise sought to keep the balance between North and South by allowing Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state while no slaves (except in Missouri) were allowed past the line of 36 30'. This "compromise" did little to ease the North-South conflicts; they both yielded and gained something, but the slavery issue was not resolved and tensions remained. The Florida Purchase Treaty of 1819, in which Spain ceded Florida to the U.S. in exchange for America's abandonment of claims in Texas, also underlined political seperations. Previously, the bands of indians, runaway slaves, and white outcasts that had fled from Florida into American territory while Spain was fighting South American rebels had created social rifts. Texan independance and admittance into the United States, which resulted from Texas-Mexican battles in the 1830s, eventually led to an increase in North-South conflicts. The Northerners opposed annexation of Texas because they viewed it as a conspiracy to bring new slave areas into the Union whereas the Southerners were anxious to integrate with Texas and accept the vast new amounts of land it held. These many conflicting factors between the North and the South at this time period were largely due to acquisition of new states and westward expansion. Becuase the North and South states could not agree upon the balance between slave and free states, the topic was left unsolved and neither side was staisfied--which boosted tensions even more. All of these conflicts and regional tensions continued to grow until an outlet was found in the civil War.

New Acquisition of Territories

The new acquisition of territories into the US greatly changed foreign policies with Britain, Canada, and Mexico, specifically. New territories also helped the economic growth in America, but furher disrupted political opposition and the opposition on issues such as slavery. The new Mexican regime didn't want slavery to continue in Texas, and once Texas became independent from Mexico, the Texans asked to be added to the US. Jackson, however, was torn between grouping them in the US and keeping them separate, specifically because of the issue on slavery. Adding Texas as US territory would spread the use of slavery in the South, however, many Southerners were for this, because they knew it abided by the Missouri Compromise. Also, the Oregon territory in the Northwest, helped the US stay on good terms with Canada and Britain, by deciding on a boarder and keeping land neutral, free for either country to use.

New Territorial Acqusitions

Territorial acquisitions of new territories directly helped the United States through increasing development of the economy and increasing the US sphere of influence, while indirectly hurting the United States by increasing both external and internal conflicts. By continuing to move West, and expanding the territories of the United States, economic opportunities were opened, while the United States continued to expand. The result of several of these expansions however, was conflict. To acquire Florida, Andrew Jackson was sent to the State under orders to prevent the outpour of Indians, runaway slaves, and white outcasts from Florida that resulted from the crumbling of the Spanish-American empire. Jackson however, asserted authority upon the state he did not have, hanging both Native Americans and foreigners without any right to do so. Although Spain eventually ceded Florida, the result was high-strung tension between the two countries. After the independence of Texas from Mexico, the country wanted to join the union. This created internal tension through the issue of slavery. Texas, if annexed would undoubtedly become a slave state. Some in the North, saw it as a conspiracy by the South to assert the dominance of slavery. Thus a result of the Texas Annexation was internal conflict.

US Territorial Acquisitions

Territorial acquisitions directly hurt the United States by creating external and internal political conflicts while it helped the country in an indirect and less forceful way through economic benefits resulting from effects of expansion. There is no doubt that it aided the nation by creating more room for living space and attracting an immense amount of European immigrants, which fueled the industrialization movement by supplying laborers. The new territory gained also opened more land to farming, which eventually supplied both the industrialized North and King Cotton South with food crops. Further helping the United States was universal white manhood suffrage, which was made available through the new class of the American citizen found in the new western territories.
Despite the help brought to the United States through territorial acquisitions, the country was more hurt by these gains. The Louisiana Purchase, which the state of Missouri was carved out of, developed an internal conflict over the issue of slavery and if it would be carried deeper into the nation or restricted to the present states. This conflict strengthened sectional tensions and widened the gap between the North and the South. Other territorial gains included the sharing of Oregon with Britain and the invasion of Florida, previously run by Spain. These two issues were discussed in the Congress of Vienna after Europe began the movement away from and against democracy. The United States was gaining more land and more power. European claims to the Caribbean and South America were becoming threatened by the presence of America. The result were reactions from Russia, moving into the country through Alaska, and Britain, which attempted to sway the United States towards their side. Either way, there was great foreign resentment of this new country. The acquisition of Texas increased America's troubles through the resulting Mexican resentment towards the country. This territorial gain also increasingly enraged the issue over slavery because Texas, if admitted to the Union, would upset the balance of slave states versus free states previously acquired with the Missouri Compromise.

Territorial gains during the early nineteenth century, helped America economically through cheaper land and more workers, but lead to disagreement and tension over the Missouri Compromise and how it should be handled in regards to Texas.
The Florida and Oregon purchase, helped fishers, and the coastal workers respectively. Along the Pacific coast there was somewhat of a boom thanks to new territorial acquisitions. But things took a turn for the worst. Thanks to the Land Act of 1820, which made land significantly cheaper, immigrants could come over and work the land. This lead to a demand for more land, and the question over whether Mexican land should be used for slavery, which the South felt was their right under the Missouri Compromise. The 36-30 line called for all land North incl. the Lousiana Purchase-of this line to abolish slavery/prohibit it. But it became a fight over Texas annexation, and those who wanted Texas for slave land, versus those who wanted to keep Texas as an independent Republic. This state-gov/slave vs. non-slave fight increased pre-Civil War tension.

Territorial Acquisitions

Territorial acquisitions helped the United States by strengthening its exports and economy but hurt the country by allowing significant political rifts. The agreement for Oregon Country greatly helped the United States. The fishing industry prospered for the profit of Americans and there was a Pacific Ocean coast available for transportation and ports. This connected America to the East via the far Western coast of North America as well as laying the foundation for support and stability for further territorial acquisitions. The Florida Purchase, even though somewhat a misnomer, was beneficial to the United States by connecting and solidifying the entire East Coast. This also greased the skids for trade with Latin America as the shipping voyage was shorter from Florida to South America than from Georgia or even the Northern ports. However, some territorial acquisitions were not nearly as beneficial. The dispute with Mexico over the Texan land was catastrophic. Not only did it result in battles with Mexico, which cost many American lives, it also created unwanted political barriers and rifts. Many Texans wanted to establish an independent state which was a point of contention for some politicians but more importantly the Texas Annexation created worries over the perpetuation of slavery. The North thought that Texas was just another ground for the continuation of evil but the South saw this as their right under the Missouri Compromise.

To what extent did the acquisition of new land both help and hurt the U.S?

The acquistion of new land to the west no doubtedly helped the young nation become stronger, but it also wrecked havoc in later years. As the pioneers moved west, new and fertile soil was acquired for farming and planting. The Land Act of 1820 provided for the cheap price of a minimum of $1.35 per acre (up to 80 acres). This helped to stimulate a population boom as an influx of immigrants arrived, mostly from the Old World, to claim land for themselves. This strengthened the country as population steadily climbed over the years. However, as more land was acquired, it raised the burning question of slavery. Missouri in 1819 asked congress to admit it as a slave state to the U.S, but instead the Tallmadge amendment was passed by Congress, which stated that no more slaves would be brought into Missouri and provided for the gradual emancipation of children born to slave parents in Missouri. This led to outcries of protest from angered Southerners, as well as a growing group of people in the North who questioned the morality of slavey, which would lead to conflict later on. Also, the southerners were concerned with the tipping balance of power, which seemed to them that it was continually tipping in favor for the north. This conflict of power and slavery would later lead to the rise of conflict and tension within the U.S, and ultimately, the Civil War.

To what extent did the acquisition help and hurt the United States?

The aquisition boasted up the economic and sense of national identity, but it also arose the controversial issue of slavery in the new territories along with many other political differences that needed to be resolve.

After Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803 which
had doubled the United States’ size, Americans explored this huge territory in limited numbers. Then the fever of expansion swept through country, Americans seized a new sense of identity which believed that their movement westward and southward was destined and ordained . Despite the tough and crude frontier life, the new land attracted enormous number of the emigration. Urban growth continued explosively, which would become the working force contribute greatly to the expansion of industrialization. Although great part of expansion was saw as the economic's prosperity, it also led to political difference on the concern of slavery. The national unity particularly fluctuated during the annexation of Texas. In 1837, as the taxan officially petitioning for a outright union with United States, the American Anti-slavery began to work towards preventing annexation at any cost. If the Texan was admitted into the Union the new slave state would wreck the hard won balance of slave and free states in the Missouri Compromise. Thus giving south an advantage over the north. The abolitionist came to contended that the whole scheme was merely a conspiracy cooked up by the southern "slaceocracy" to bring new slave pens into the union. As the annexation of taxan inescapably meant enlarging American slavery, Such a expansion would be another stronger push of disunification.

to what extent did the acquisition of new territories hurt and help the US

The acquisition of new lands in some degree helped the United States economy, but it hurt the union of the republic and was a cause of the Civil War, because it made the dispute over slavery even more prominent.
When the Louisiana territory was added onto the United States it provided more land for Westward expansion and it enabled farmers to build up a strong agricultural economy there. The ability to gain new land in the West also attracted many immigrants from Europe, who were a big working force in the American industry. Also through railroads and canals raw materials produced in the West could be transported to the Northeast and there be manufactured into goods that could be sold or even exported. However, the new territories had to be divided up into states and the decision of whether they should be slave or free states had to be made. This caused tensions and was only temporarily solved with the Missouri Compromise. The additional territory that would be gained with Texas would hurt the union, because it was enforcing slavery and it would be enlarging American slavery. This loss of balance would later cause for the United States to engage in the Civil War.

DBQ Help

The bell rang before we were able to go over everything today, so things to keep in mind:

1) Outside knowledge first! The documents are supplements to help strengthen your argument. Do not replace your outside knowledge with this info.

2)Tie back to your thesis--even with your documents, make sure you analyze and show how the support your thesis.

3) Don't forget to include the docs that may counter your thesis in order to show that you understand all perspectives.

4) Your target is 4-5 docs, but more is better.

5) Even if you focused on three specific reform movements, you can include docs about related movements. Try expanding the focus of the body paragraph to allow for this.

6) Email me over the weekend with any questions.

Good luck!

Essay Question

Does anyone know what thee test essay question might be because it seems i can't find it.
Thanks

History Fair Outline

Ms. Chipman,

I noticed thathis year's history fair outline is due this upcoming Wednesday. This is somewhat confusing to me seeing that a bibliography (completed or partial) has not been as of yet assigned. What sort of detailed outline is expected if thorough research is not? What is the criteria on which this will be graded so I can do the best job possible?

If anyone else has any insight on this subject please let me know as well.

$20 Bill : Don't We All? Andrew Jackson For the Win

Jackson's presidency has a direct impact on the constitution by both following and defying its law, even in his own Jacksonial democracy. Jackson's consideration for the native Americans involved fickle and ambivalent opinions regarding terms of land, America, and both sides of the people. Jackson's perspectives towards the native Americans still are sentimental, and along with his guilts upon them he occasionally spares them hope. Still after, he thinks of how great the American nation would be if land were to be expanded and its precious environment would to be filled with people. These two ideas of his conscience alter from time to time, but eventually one of the worst acts in native Americans' perspectives came to be the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The document of "Indians Should Be Removed to the West" expresses of how much Jackson wanted to expand; as you read through the document, you can see aspects of sentimental thought, yet contradictory ruthless thoughts against the native Americans.

Jackson's Abidance vs. Defiance of the Constitution

Jackson defied the constitution more then he abided by it because in the Constitution, it states that “no new state can be created within an actual state” but it also does not state that it is lawful to remove any population form their rightful homeland. He had no choice but to follow the Constitution on this case. The Constitution did not mention that it was unlawful for the expulsion of Native Americans from their homeland. He was extremely unjust in his decision because the United States created treaties with the Cherokees justifying their stay in their homeland but those treaties took place before the original Constitution was ratified. It was very unconstitutional of Jackson to ignore the decision made by John Marshall in Worcester vs. Maryland case, that the natives could stay in their homeland, because the judicial branch has the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution. Jackson’s decision also meant that he was abiding to the laws of the state rather then the federal laws, which doesn’t have a valid constitutional value. The difference between the federal and state government was becoming very obvious and Jackson seemed to be in the favor of the state government much more then the federal.

JACKSON. vs Democracy

With the Native Americans and Americans both turning to Jackson for support during conflicts, Jackson both abided and defied the Constitution (and State laws). He claimed that he couldn't deny the Constitution and the rights of the different states in order to help out the different indian nations (Cherokee, etc.), especially when they decided to create their own independent nation. However, he did defy it by strongly supporting the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and ignoring the Supreme Court's proposals, further helping the farmers and other Americans that desired the land under Native power.

Jackson's Constitutionality

Although Jackson's reasoning behind his support in Georgia in their refusal to accept the Cherokee's as a nation lay in the Constitution, he was unconstitutional due to defying the limits the Constitution sets on each governmental department in relation with the Supreme Court's decision. Jackson completely disregarded the Constitution's checks and balances by not recognizing and respecting the Supreme Court's decision to support the Cherokee nation, and let his personal feelings influence his power. Despite this lack of constitutionality, he did try to create equal rights for the Native Americans in his intentionally good relocation solutions, therefore working towards an image of democracy.

Jackson and Democracy...(Rodrigo bit my title idea)

Jackson seemed to harbor very conflicting sentiments towards the relocation of the Native Americans during the 1830s. On one hand he was very closely raised with the Indians and their culture, but on the other he was looking to make America as prosperous as possible. He ignored the supreme courts decision to respect the Native-Americans rights and let them be, he went on to unjustly acquire their land. Yet at the same time he pleaded to congress to protect the very race he was so strongly debilitating. He felt that forcing the Native Americans to leave the graves of their forefathers would be much too cruel to their people even though he powerfully advocated the Indian Removal Act of 1830. In conclusion Jackson seemed to want the best for both his nation and the Indians. He openly showed sympathy towards the Native Americans and wanted to protect them but ignored the constitution and basic American rights and acted much more upon the side of him that whished to uproot their lives and culture in order to facilitate the nation.

Jackson vs. Constitution (SHOWDOWN!)

Andrew Jackson more so defied the constitution rather than abide by it when dealing with the Native Americans. Jackson went against the Supreme Court's decision to preserve the Native American lands. This not only went against the Supreme Court, but in a sense the constitution. Overriding their decision he overreached the executive branch's power by going against a decision left to the judicial branch. Despit this, Jackson made attempts to place the Natives in other lands, such as Oregon. This was constitutional in the sense that he preserved their rights to a certain extent but led to great strife amongst the Natives. Overall, Jackson mostly went against the constitution rather than abide by its regulations and standards.

Jackson, the Constitution, and the American ideal of Democracy

Jackson, took many measures in office to help the everyday man but some of these actions went against the Constitution or the Country's ideal of democracy. When the recharter of the Bank came into question in 1836, Jackson might have been fair and reviewed it if Henry Clay had not been so eager for it. Jackson let his personal social views bias him against a proposed action by congress, and the country being governed by one man's whims is not the American ideal of democracy. Jackson vetoed the bill completely disregarding the Supreme Court's decision. This action was repeated when the Supreme Court wanted to give the Natives the right to their own affairs and land. Jackson vetoed this three times and removed thousands of Natives to an area east of Mississippi. To issue the power to remove an entire people to another area despite what the other branches of government decide is against the Constitution and the American ideal of democracy because he is taking away their basic rights.

Jackson abiding by/ defying the Constitution

Jackson abided by the constitution through his preservation of state rights but defied it in denying natural, individual rights to Native Americans. The Cherokee natives, as a whole, wished to remain on the land of their forfathers. Although a bit undecisive, Jackson made clear that they could not create their own government and laws under another states laws and regulations which followed a central government, and then expect aid from that central government. "..It will follow that the objects of this government are reversed, and that it has become a part of its duty to aid in destroying the states which it was established to protect." Thus, state right would persivere against the wishes of the Natives living there, which was moderatly in support of the constitution. However, in his noble attempt of forcefully moving the Natives West of the Mississippi in order to preserve their race yet gan more land, Jackson was defying their God given right to freedom, and choice, which was in direct conflict with the constitution. The US government never came through with all the promises it had made the Native Americans and thus the Native Americans resorted to creating their own attempt at a government (that they could trust, because it was of their own making) while whites continued to take away all rights and property belonging to them. Jackson made it evident that even the noble-hearted in power could do little and their attempts at equality were futile to the ignorant American society of that time.

Jackson vs. Constitution/Ideal Democracy

Jackson greatly defied the Constitution and the American idea of democracy in the interaction with Native Americans in the 1830s. Although Jackson harbored protective feelings towards Native Americans and was a “common man,” one who reflected the individualism, versatility, opportunism, directness, and prejudices of the everyday American, his policy of emigration of Indians to the west proceeded anyway. This Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a result of Jackson’s desire to open Indian lands to white settlement and a refusal to recognize the Supreme Court’s decisions, which was an act of defiance against the Constitution. Furthermore, although Jackson sympathized with the Natives, the Act was a violation of their rights, which did not conform to the ideas of democracy. Overall, Jackson greatly defied the Constitution by refusing the Supreme Court’s decisions and twisted the ideals of democracy, leaving the Native Americans, who were uprooted and sent west on the Trail of Tears, to be considered an exception to the democratic system.

To what extent did Jackson both abide by and defy the Constitution ...

In 1832, Clay passed the BUS recharter bill though Congress, but Jackson vetoed it, because he said it was not only anti-western, but also ant-American. Even though the Supreme Court had declared it constitutional, Jackson regarded the executive branch superior to the judicial branch. “He had sworn to uphold the Constitution as he understood it, not as his foe John Marshall understood it” (p. 276). He defied other interpretations of the constitution and only abided to what he thought was right and what would protect his voters. By vetoing this bill he greatly amplified the power of the president and set it above two thirds of votes in Congress, because he personally found it harmful to the nation. Jackson threw of the balance between the branches and brought included personal views, which were not necessarily supported by the Constitution, this way he defied himself against the Constitution.
In 1828 the Georgia legislature asserted its own jurisdiction over Indian affairs and lands, which caused the Cherokees to appeal to the Supreme Court, which trice upheld the rights of the Indians. “But President Jackson, who clearly wanted to open Indian lands to white settlement, refused to recognize the Court’s decisions” (p.280). Jackson did not fail to recognize it, because it was against the constitution, but because he wanted to satisfy his voters, which was unconstitutional. Also his suggestion of allowing Native Americans to voluntarily move into the wide-open West later caused the Trail of Tears in which some 15,000 Cherokee were uprooted and 4,000 died along the way to their reserves. Even though Jackson’s policy sounded noble, and his motives were sympathetic towards Native Americans it was not an American democratic action, because he did not give Native Americans the same, equal protection, which they deserved in a democracy, especially since they were considered “civilized tribes”.

Jackson: defy/abide Constitution and American ideal of democracy

Jackson seemed to be a man of mixed opinions, when it came to dealing with the Indians. He cleary wanted their lands for settlement by Americans because he refused to abide by the Supreme's Court decision to uphold the rights of the Indians. However, he did make appeals to Congress asking them to help preserve their "much injured race." Jackson wanted to move the Indians west of the Mississippi River, but not forcing them, because to force them to leave the graves of their forefathers would be "cruel and unjust." However, Jackson seemed to side with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which uprooted more than 100,000 indians, in which many died on the "Trial of Tears." President Jackson, both wanting to be a hero to the natives and a hero to the land-greedy whites, made moves which exemplified this.

Jackson- Defying and Abiding the constitution

Through Jackson's interactions with Native Americans, Jackson greatly defied the ideals of Democracy. Since there is little mention of protecting Native Americans in the constitution, Jackson did very little to defy the constitution through his actions. However, the American ideals of Democracy-freedom, justice, and so on- were infringed upon by Jackson several times while dealing with the issue of Native Americans. By endorsing and letting congress pass the Indian Removal act of 1830. This act, which outlined an emigration plan removing Native Americans east of the Mississippi to a territory near present day Oklahoma, was actually considered a policy favoring Native Americans by Jackson. It was not, however, and this was evidenced by the results of the trail of tears- the path Native Americans took, and the multiple Native American uprising, notably the Seminole uprising in the everglades, that resulted from the institution of this policy. Although the constitutionality such an egregious denial of rights to people is questionable, the Democratic principles in question are undeniable. Thus, Jackson by endorsing the Indian Removal act of 1830, defied the ideals of American Democracy.

Jackson [[abiding and defying constitution]]

Jackson defied both the constitution and the American ideal of democracy greatly in his interaction mwith Native Americans. The Jacksonian idea of democracy was that it was for the common man, the government should protect the rigths of the people, it should be run my the needs of the "common man." Jackson did not abide by his own ideals in his interactions with the Native Americans. One example of Jacskon ignoring the rights of the people and using his power in an abusive way is in 1928. When the Georgia legislature declared the Cherokee tirbal council illegal and asserted its jurisdiction over NAtive affairs. When the Cherokees appealed to the suprme Court it secured the rigths of the Natives. Jackson abusively disregarded the decision of the Supreme Court because he wanted the western land for white settlers. Not only does this action prove to be ikn defiance to his view of helping the "common man," but it also represents Jackson's defiance of the government powers and the constitution itslef. Jackson did not really have the power to completely disregard the Supreme Court's decision, that violated the checks and balance system. Overall Jackson deisregarded the rights of the natives therefroe defying the American view of democracy. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was established in 1836 to help secure the rights of the Natives, but yet again Jackson disregarded their rights and grew more land hungry. The governments guarantees went up in smoke, and push westward continued. Jackson believed that he was not cuasing the Natives any harm by pushing them westward because he believed that the culture could survive, but this was a bit optimistic and thus cruelties and injustices occurred against Native rights.

Era of the Common Man

The Jacksonian Period was marked as the Era of the Common Man because of new political ideas and changes and the focus on universal manhood suffrage. The election of 1828 proved to be the testing ground of the new voters. The presence of all of these fresh voters forced politicians to adopt and adapt new methods of getting votes, like kissing babies and flying banners. Furthermore, the rich upperclassman was no longer held in high esteem, as most new voters were working class. Therefore, the candidate who wanted the vote needed to appear as one of them. Andrew Jackson’s war hero background really endeared people to him and he easily won the election. He further helped the common man by making the Spoils System, which let any white male-loyal to Jackson-enter into working for the government, creating tons of new jobs and positions all held by the common man. In conclusion, the new methods of attracting voters and the Spoils System which supported the common man all contributed to the reasoning behind which the Jacksonian Period is referred to as the Era of the Common Man.

To what extent did Jackson abide adn defy the Constitution of America?

Jackson democrats' attempt to amplify the strength of lower class’ poor abides the principle of equality according to constitution, however such “equality” shunned minorities and only assisted white men. Jackson’s hypocrisy and cruelty in his Indian removal practices showed the non-universal principle held by the democrats. In 1828, while many white Americans believed that native America could be assimilated into the white society, president Jackson, who clearly wanted to open Indian lands to the new settlement of immigration, proposed a bodily removal of the remaining eastern tribe-chiefly Cherokees to the further west. In 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, providing for the transplanting of all Indian tribes then resident east of the Mississippi. In consequence, human right of the native Americans were violated. They were not treated a human and their cause had devalued, and even considered subordinate to the United States. Consider their adoption toward the civilized society, a Indian tribe or nation is not a foreign state in the sense of consititution, they should regard as part of the United states. But yet Indian Act of 1830 denied Native American the right to democracy and was a political violation. It was also further question the sense of equality within Jaksonian democrats.

Jacksonian Democracy

The Jacksonian period was an era of the "common man" in the areas of politics and economic development because the political candidates were championed by the people and the economy ceased to be only for the benefit of the rich man. In politics, the time of the intellectual, upper class man being the one for the job was quickly ending. People wanted and supported common men like themselves and no longer trusted the upper class to govern them. Hopeful presidents had to fight not only for the votes of the Electoral College but also for the backing of the people. New campaign strategies were born in this period such as use of banners, badges, parades, free drinks, and baby kissing to get the vote out. When Adams won the election of 1824 masses of people were outraged and were unafraid to show it. He never reached the level of success in his presidency that he could of, because the people were so opposed to him and the way he got into office. For economic development, when enough people wanted something they would get it as long as the President had the popular vote in that area and he either came from it or could identify with it. When New Englanders demanded higher tariffs they got them, and the south ( a strong opposer of Adams) suffered. People in office though possibly opposed could do nothing to stop it. When the beloved,rough edged Jackson took the chair, he fired about 2,000 government employees and put his own people in the offices because they had asked him of it so strongly. Often times these people were crooks and abused their positions but they were Jackson's people so they stayed. While the people did not yet have the power to chose the President, they had the power to either support him wholeheartedly or tear him apart on a social and political level, also while economics contained to change for the benefit of the common man, for the time it was still in the hands of those who had the most influence in office and not the people as a whole.

my bad... jacksonian period

The Jacksonian period lived up to its characterization in politics and economic development by being the people's government, and changing Clay's American System. Many of the federal jobs were given to people that Jackson related too. These people were common "dirt farmers" as opposed to "gentleman farmers." This came to be known later in time as the spoils system. Also, these people did not support Clay's American System. As the American System, a nationalist idea, came to an end, sectionalism became even more pronounced, and the states gained more power. Because the parts are smaller than the whole, this gave more power to the people.

jacksonian period

[SCORE! FOUND IT.] Era of the Common Man

The jacksonian period had been fittingly celebrated as the era of the common man through the politics and economic developement of that time. The New Democracy, based on universal manhood sufferage, inclined politicians to appeal to the common, hard working voter. This meant that whoever appeared to have to tougher backround, or was a kind of war hero, and who was definately far from elite, would gain popularity. Thus, dspite the attempt of Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams to keep alive their National Republican ideals, Andrew Jackson, a Democratic Republican, had the election of 1828 in the bag. This "Revolution of 1828" proved that the common people now had the vote and the will to use it for their ends. Jacksons popularity was spun from his genuine simple, war hero backround, and from his support of reforming democratic ideals of his time such as raising of protective tariffs. Not only was his election characteristic of this era, but also was the spoil system which thrived under his presidency, making possible for practically any white male supporting him to take part in his cabinet. The 45% tariff passed during jacksons first year of presidency appealed to the common man, though this didnt necesarrily include the south whose *status was determined by their individual *wealth. Ovearll, the tariff was beneficial masses who, for the most part, numbered greatly in the northern states. Although angering the southerners, eventually, when the North would become more industrially capable, New England wouldnt be a necesitty and the south could/ would comply with its northern counterpart. Politically and economically speaking, the jacksonian period was very much the era for the commoner to thrive and become the more prominent figure in American society.

yeah. cant find my super long post.

cuurently killing myself.

help?

(Not Janet) Jackson and Democracy

The Jacksonian period (1824-1840) marked a large shift of power towards the “common man”. The masses began to greatly influence the politics of the nation as more and more individuals started to vote. Such an example of this is the election of 1828, in which voter turn outs almost doubled. This alteration forced the government and politicians to work and support the greater good of the masses and the average citizen. Aristocratic ideals began to be viewed as over exhausted and started to lose ground as democracy caught a boost and was becoming more respectable. The Spoils system was established, which provided politician’s financial backers the opportunity to be in office, consequently giving more control of reform to the "common man". It was thought that for the government to do a decent respectable service, it had to be operated and directed by the "common man", and such ideals weren’t to easily overtaken by aristocrats and biased politicians.

Jacksonian Period- "The Common Man:"

The Jacksonian Period can be accurately characterized as "the era of the common man" because of the vast changes that occurred in the political system and in the change of the average voter following the revolution of 1828. The spoils system was a political system that was used by Andrew Jackson. It outlined political jobs being obtained by those who would support whatever political party maintained power at the time. Through the implementation of the Spoils System, Jackson created a large number of jobs in politics making work more attainable by the average man. Even though it turned out that more people wanted jobs than there were, The Spoils System was still a victory for the common man at the time because it gave out work not at all based on race, religion, gender, or class. This increase in power for the common man could not be seen better anywhere than in the election of 1828, where the voting base changed dramatically, allowing Andrew Jackson to become president. For the first time, large numbers of the masses got out and voted, as evidenced by the fact that in 1828, a near 20% increase in voter outcome occurred. This lead to Jackson being able to sweep the entire western portion of the United States, the key to his victory. Both of these events show how the Jacksonian Period was "The era of the common man".

Jacksonian Democracy

The Jacksonian period was factually considered the era of the "common man" in the sense of movements and beliefs towards reforming the federal government, but the spoils system of Jackson's presidency decreased the celebration of the common man and more of the loyal man. The process of electing political officers became more democratic and less dependent on the "elites". Voters in the 1824 election turn against the canidate choosen by legislatures and voted for who they wanted. After the somewhat corrupt and greatly unpopular actions of Adams and Clay, Jacksonites began campaigning for Jackson as president and spoke harshly against Adams. Nullification of the Tariff of 1828 and the writing of "The South Carolina Exposition" showed that rights benefiting the common man and not of a wealthy political supporter became more important.
However, despite this strengthening of the common man, the presidency of Jackson became much less a triumphing cry of every man and more a rewards system to those loyal to Jackson himself. As president, he fired many able citizens from public service and hired those who would support his party. This action did not recognize the common man but merely those who would help the power of Jackson, voiding the immense belief that this era was of the people.

The Jacksonian Period - "Common Man" Politics

The Jacksonian period has been celebrated as the era of the “common man” due to Jackson’s personification of the new West, which reflected its opportunism and simplicity directly into his politics and economic policies. Jackson’s spoils system, which introduced rotation of positions in office, gave the option to many able citizens to enter public service. This in turn built up a potent, fair, personalized political machine and reflected the opportunism of the masses, whom were viewed as equal in his eyes. In addition, Jackson strived for governmental simplicity because he was suspicious of the federal government as an institution remote from popular scrutiny. He was hostile to the economic policies of Henry Clay’s American System and sought to reform and sweep out supporters of it through the spoils system. Therefore, with his simple view of politics and fair opportunity that was offered to many to hold a position in office, Jackson was a “common man” who personified the people of the West.

Jacksonian Democracy 1824-1830

The Jacksonian Democracy was accurately labeled "the era of the common man" for a few reasons. First of all, political changes such as the Jacksonian spoils system, which rewarded political supporters with public office, and the idea of rotation in office. These embodied jacksonian views of New Democracy--every man is equal with his neighbor. Reform movements , such as Jacksons sweeping defeat of Adams in the "revolution" of 1828 and subsequent changes, also showed how society had the right to chose whoever they wanted. Though democracy and a common-man feeling was ripe at this time, the Cabinet crisis in 1831, which wrecked the presedential cabinet due to opposition to Jackson and his views showed the divisions that were foreshadowed and portrayed a anti-"common man" mood. In conclusion, the Jacksonian era was largely a time of unity and democracy--accurately referred to as the era of the "common man", however, social and political divisions were present in the background.

Jacksonian Era

The period in which Andrew Jackson campaigned for and won the presidency was one of significant change in America, for the most part in favor of the "common man." The first and foremost representation of the era as that of the "common man" was the widespread introduction of the universal white manhood suffrage in almost all of the states. Property requisites were being abolished and there was a growing population in the West and on the Western frontier, where the "common man" lay most entrenched. These wide-open voting rights gave an unprecedented voice to the lower classes and the common masses. It is also important to note that these voting rights were not manufactured by the presidency or the federal government but by the individual states themselves. However, politics did not belong universally to the farmers and wage-workers of the Union. In fact, the political spoils system was used and only those people who were in a position to to good for the party would be able to hold office. In many cases, this was not simply the "common man.
As far as economics are concerned, the era of the "common man" both did and did not actually strike the Union. Since Jackson was a states' rights supporter in principle he left the economic decisions up to the individual states in many places. There was no common man revolution in the gentry-dominated deep South nor was this required of that region.

Jacksonian Era

Jacksonian Period

During the Jacksonian period of 1824-1840, the American population began to demand more democratic rights. These rights helped to secure the period’s characterization as the period of the “common man”. At this time, the Panic of 1819 had occurred. As a result of this panic, the American population began to fight for new economic regulations – the North demanded tariff increase while the south demanded a free economy. This conflict along with the Missouri Compromise had caused the democracy of the nation to strengthen, and essentially allow for a period of the “common man”. Politically, the nation progressed into a more democratic government that supported the ideas of all people. In the 1824 election, only one out of four eligible people voted. Then in 1828, the number of voters increased to two out of four eligible people. This caused government officials to be chosen directly by the people. Also, candidates now had to become more appealing to the people since their vote actually mattered, thus increasing the commonality of the period. Reform movements that made this period more reflective of the common man included John Calhoun’s The South Carolina Exposition. This document showed that the Southerners disliked tariffs and that it was essential for government to respect the southern states as much as the northern ones. Jackson’s Revolution of 1828 was another example of this. Jackson had won election over Adams, showing that population sympathized with the honest person that did not cheat. In conclusion, this period should be considered a period of the “common man”.

(Not Michael) Jackson and Democracy

Following the election of 1828, Jackson became the 7th President of America, and the founder of the Democracy. However this New Democracy did not just start with the election, and the consequent "Revolution of 1828". During the election of 1824, Jackson proclaimed, "the people shall rule". The "common man" came to rule politics, and also were aided by the Tariff of 1828.
In New York, downtrodden Irish immigrants, were renowned to rise up and form a political machine. Jackson himself, opened the doors of the Whitehouse to commoners. Jackson being President, is an other illustration of the power of the common man. It brought a transfer of power from "countinghouse to farming house, from East to West, from snob to mob". Jackson is an example of his own democracy.
Also the common man was chief of economic development. The Tariff of 1828 helped New England manufacturers, because citizens were forced to buy their goods, as a price was added on to the foreign brand. However, the US goods were always slightly cheaper than the foreign goods (+tariff) and so the North's economy was boosted.
Therefore thru economic development and politics the Common man thrived and the concept of the Jacksonian Democracy was applied.

Blog Posts

Remember that your posts on blog should be interactive with each other. Read what others are writing and RESPOND to them--don't just sign on, write what you have to say and sign off.

This should be a discussion.

Jacksonian Period of the Common Man

The Jacksonian period was the ultimate era of the common man because of the economic development that centered around the poor back farmers of the West and South and the political development that brought poor common folk into the White House. The economic development was shown in by the Tariff of 1828. This tariff was endorsed by manufacturers who wanted protection for their goods. It was meant to tax up to 45% of the manufactured good’s value, while imposing a heavy tariff on certain raw materials. This increased the economy of US because it became cheaper to buy goods in the country rather then from foreign markets. The common man was in charge of the economical development of his country. The political development appeared as the formation of a second party system with the increase of voter interest in politics. The voters were common people who decided on their Electoral College and their president. The political parties of the period did anything that would gain the publics attention and support. The candidates for presidency developed banners that would relate to the general public as well as parades and official events that would gain public support. The common man in the Jacksonian era had a lot of power at his advantage.

JACKSONIAN DEMO-KRAZY YALL

By the 1820s, which does not include Jackson's spark of democracy (1824-1830) yet, aristocracy was becoming a taint, and democracy was becoming more and more respectable. Most high political offices continued to be filled by "leading citizens", and wealthy and militarily prominent men such as Davy Crockett and especially Andrew Jackson had to forsake all social pretensions and cultivate the common touch if they hoped to win elections. Politically, it seems as though elections and leaders would matter most, but realistically, Jacksonian democracy added that whatever governing was to be done should be done directly by the people of the United States. This national political stage, the sturdy American who donned plain trousers rather than silver-buckled knee breeches, who sported a plain haircut and a coonskin cap rather than a powdered wig, and who wore no man's collar, often not even one of his own. Jackson claimed that in political standards, America was now bowing to divine rights of the people.

The nourishment of the New Democracy was simply the logical outgrowth of the egalitarian ideas that had taken root in colonial days and been lavishly fertilized during the Revolutionary era. Additionally, the steady growth of the market economy led to increasing numbers of people to understand how banks, tariffs, and internal improvements affected the quality of their lives. For example, the panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820 sparked New Democracy's bases. As a resolution to these tragedies in America, and moreover towards economic downturns to be blamed on the low class's corruption. The desire to heal America of low class irregularities and speculation, specifically towards the bank, restored republican ideals of Jefferson's day invigorated the interest of many Americans in politics- and followers of Andrew Jackson.

Political and economic reform played an important role for Jacksonian democracy because the people took matters into their own hands, which meant that many of the actions that formulate a true democratic government are by and for the people. For example, patriots of America sought control of the government in order to tear the banks from its protective embrace, to substitute hard money for bank notes, and even to abolish the banks altogether. Opposed to these patriots are those who favored the current banking system, and more generally the federal government that had a legitimate role to play in promoting America's economic growth.

Jacksonian Period

The Jacksonian period of the 1800's is often regarded as the era of the common man, and at the time, it truly was. Prior to the election of 1824 the common man often did not have a say in the manner in which the United States was governed, nor did they try to have a say. This changed when Andrew Jackson, a man the masses could truly relate to, ran for president. The voter turnout increased dramatically due to many laws being passed that enabled all white males to vote and a canidate they truly supported was running. Although Jackson lost the vote due to a speculated agreement between Clay and Adams, Jackson did win the popular vote and the circumstances that enabled Adams to win caused the voter turnout to double by the next election.

Along with these a politcal reform movement introducing the spoils system was introduced and would end up holding a firm grip on how the government was run for over 50 years. The spoils system gave positions in the government to those who supported the canidate that won. This system benefited supporters of the common man, but not necessarily the common man himself. This can be seen in two manners: it helped the common man by putting people they supported in power or it hurt the common man because they had no say in who was put into power. Most saw this as helping the common man but is debatable. All in all, the Jacksonian period brought great advancement in the common man's say in the government.

the Jacksonian Period

The Jacksonian Period (1824 - 1850) is known as the era of the "common man", specifically moving politics in a new direction. A noticeable change occurred in the election of 1824, when more people began to excercise their voting rights. This change forced politicians to work in favor of the masses; Democracy was becoming more respectable, whereas aristocrats were seen as a little oldfashioned and not so well-off. The Spoils system was introduced, which gave political supporters a chance to be in office, thus giving more power to the "common man". It was believed that if the government was going to do a decent job, it had to be run and directed by the "common man", and politicians couldn't overrun these ideas so easily.

The Jacksonian Period(1824-1840)

The Jacksonian Period proved to be the era of the "common man" in many different aspects. The 1824 presidential election marked the turn in the view of Democrats from tainted to respected. The politicians were now forced to abide by what the masses wanted. Also the right to vote was beginning to from exclusively for property owners, to white male suffrage in general. This demonstrated how politics was moving more into the hands of the everyday people. Democracy went from the view that the people should be governed as little as possible to even the little bit that the people were governed should be done directly by the people. Although this time period marked a shift in politics to lean more towards the needs and desires of the common people, politics did not completely move towards just the common man. This was demonstrated through the election of 1824 in which Jackson received the polular vote, yet he was still defeated by Adams who is believed tohave bargained with Clay, the speaker of the house and later secretary of state. Even though the campaigning was aimed more towards the "common man" the common man's voice is still not what prevailed. The election of 1828 even further illustrated the common man's role in the new emerging Jacksonian democracy. More people were turning out to vote, and were using their right of the ballot to their ends. Overall this election proved the need to satisfy the masses in order to succeed.

The Jacksonian Period

The Jacksonian Period had been celebrated as the era of the "common man." To what extent did the period live up to its characterization? Consider two of the following: economic development, politics, reform movements

Back in the days of Federalist demonination, democracy was not respected, but by the 1820s, the the tables had turned. Democracy was widely appealing during the Jacksonian Period, now that the politicians had to bend to appease to the masses. Respectable political leaders were the "common man," those who worked their way up from the bottom to the top. A reform in politics, the "new democracy" pledged that the governing would be done directly by the people, and now that all adult white males had the vote, regardless of property qualifications, more of the masses were concerned in politics. Economic development also played a crucial role in the era of the "common man;" the steady rise of the economy led to a climbing number of people who were knowledgeable in how banks, tariffs, and internal improvements played in their lives. In addition, the panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise awakened burning resentment in the masses. The panic, said to have been caused by the overspeculation in the West, angered the people in such a way that caused them to care more about American politics. During the panic, when the banks called in its debts, farmers unable to pay debts lost their farms while the bankers got to keep their property because they suspended their payments. This practice of favoritism caused an outcry of protest and, in hopes to eliminate this, an increase in the interest of American politics. The Missouri Compromise also awakened many Americans. The compromise aroused Southern awareness to how the North could try to crush their slavery.

To what extent the Jacksonian Period has been celebrated as the era of "common man".

During the Jacksonian period, the political parties were redefined and organized toward lower classes' poor, while decreasing the influence of rich and powerful. Economically they benefit from governing during a time of leading advances in transportation, which boost commerce and helped the common men . Polically, they introduced the spoils system in rewarding political supporters with public office. The Jacksonian demorats portrayed themselves as savior of the common people and ruled via a powerful executive who attempt to destroy aristocracy in America. However they supported the white men only, enacted disatrous economic policies which disregarded the capability of the federal government. Furthermore, they did not introduce the democracy in America, rather merely used it, and caused the potential insecurity on a national scale.
Sectional jealousies found a spectacular outlet in 1829, a split was emergeing between the industrializing urban north , rural south, and expanding west. As a first westerner to become president, in attempted to benefit urban, small manufacturers and farmer and break the monopoly of airstocracy, Jackson looked with favor on economism activism on the part of state government. Hostility to the active federal economic role envisions by Henry Clay's America System, Jackson placed the federal money in state banks. This attempt destablized the national currnecy, decreased currency in market, and displayed favortism in Jacksonian policies. Polically, fearful of angering southern voter, Jacksonians veered away from extending egalitaian policies to slaves. Women recieved little improvemnet. Although viewed defenders of all common men, Jacksonian democrats shunned only on the minorities and only assisted. Under the spoils system, insecurity replaced the security and discouraged many able citizens from entering the publics from entering public service. It almost hypocritical, that although Jacksonian democrts were able portray themselves as defenders of the common man, they usually tended to be wealthy and gain control of the office. The apointee also were often inefficient and corrupt as the illiterates, incompetents were given the position of public trust. Overall, the Jacksonian democracy did allow more people to vote than ever before and made the government more directly reponsible to the people. But as they tried to further the movements but ended up cause many failure both economically and politically.

Jacksonian period (1824-1840)

During the Jacksonian time period a political revolution occurred, which proved that the common people now had the vote and the reform movement of the spoil system was introduced, which gave the common man the opportunity to hold a position in a political office.
During the election of 1828, the shift of the political center of gravity from the conservative eastern seaboard towards the emerging states across the mountains occurred. Most common people from the West, the South, and partially the sweat-stained laborers from New England supported Jackson, who himself was an uncommon common man, not even having attended a university; he was a genuine folk hero. This election showed that common people were now politically involved and that it was necessary to appeal to their needs in order to succeed. Under Jackson the spoil system was introduced to the federal government. In this system political supporters were rewarded with a public office. Experience and the ability to profit the country, became less important that the being of common heritage and supporting Jackson. The system promoted the belief that “every man is as good as his neighbor” – “perhaps equally better” (pg. 268), which also supported the rotation in office regardless of who was put in office, which gave the common man a chance to hold a political office.