DBQ: Jacksonian Democracy Essay

In the 1820s and 1830s, the capital of Mississippiian Democrats believed they were protecting many aspects of immunity for the American people and I agree with their beliefs to a limited extent. The Jacksonian Democrats were successful in maintaining the political democracy during this time. However, they were completely defeated in their attempt at establishing and preserving singular liberty. While, they were successful in some aspects of guarding the equating of economical opportunity.I agree with the Jacksonian Democrats on the topic of policy-making res publica. As Andrew Jackson points out in Document B, It is easy to moot that great evils to our country and its institutions might flow from such a parsimoniousness of power in the hands of a few men devil-may-care to the people and further more, It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too oft bend the acts of g all overnment to their selfish purposes.. He was criticized for his own actions by Daniel Webster in Document C, where he c wholeed him hypocritical and irresponsible. Webster claimed that Jackson was bad for the country and was non satisfying the needs of the majority.However, this is less fact, as it is pure criticism by Webster, nonpareil of Jacksons biggest critics. In spite of these claims of power abuse, Jackson used a system of rotation of office to keep the members of live power. Regardless of Jacksons efforts to give power to the people, the grand oral sex of the time was whether the people should be encouraged to govern themselves, or whether the snotty-nosed should save them from themselves. As stated in Document D. Political Democracy was a priority for Andrew Jackson and he successfully established a government to protect it.Jacksonian Democrats did not protect individual liberty. though Jackson was a strong supporter and activist in the booking for individual states rights, this did not carry over to individual liberty for all people. Document F contains two ac ts resolved in South Carolina. The 3rd of the Acts and Resolutions was an attempt to regulate the media and ones right of free speech, attempting to convey it highly penal to print, publish, and distri hardlye newspapers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial representations calculated and having and obvious movement to excite the slaves of the southern states to insurrection and revolt as stated in Document F. Also inthe document, they try to prevent mail statistical distri moreoverion as a result of the transmission of incendiary tracts. While in Document E, a riot in Philadelphia causes hostility to the blacks and an indiscriminate persecution . capitulum jurist Roger B Taney points out, While the rights of private property are religiously guarded, we must not forget, that the community also have rights, and that the happiness and upbeat of every citizen depends on their faithful preservation. Though this is true, the fact that individual liberty has not been protected remains.The Jacksonian Democrats partially fulfilled their case as defender in relation to protecting the comparability of economic opportunity. As in the case in Document H of Charles River bridge deck v. Warren Bridge (1837), the government enforced the set rules and was in no way lenient or giving, as they should be. In this case, Chief Justice Taney ruled that there is no exclusive privilege given to them over the waters of the Charles River. This ruling exhibits the effort the government put forth towards maintaining equality of economic opportunity. While in Document B, Jackson states, The present camber of the United States enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking, almost a monopoly of the foreign and internal exchange., and this is obviously a failed element of maintaining this equality, and a very important one at that. Though Jacksonian Democrats were not in favor of the buzzword of the U.S. as a whole, they were still not able to control it as a necessary.In the 1820s and 1 830s, the Jacksonian Democrats believed they were protecting many aspects of immunity for the American people and I agree with their beliefs to a limited extent. about of which, I completely agree with and others that I could not see in my wildest dreams. They did not protect individual liberty at all but claimed they were the official guardians of it. As for the equality of economic opportunity, they were able to achieve this in some arenas. The individual cases were decided in favor of this attempt but the national issues werent won. The Jacksonian Democrats were able to play the role of guardian and protect many of the rights they believed they did, but I dont theorise they came near covering all of them.