In the decades surrounding the presidency of Andrew Jackson democracy began to expand. States rewrote constitutions and extended the franchise to all free white males. European visitors such as Alexis de Tocqueville noticed the spirit of equality that pervaded the United States, unlike anything known in the Old World. (Not all Europeans, nor Americans, for that matter, were sure that was a good idea terms like "mobocracy" and "anarchy" were thrown around from time to time.) By the late 1830s, the United States had become a full democracy for adult white males, but inequalities still existed: poor people were still poor, and while wealth may not have bought votes directly, it certainly was a prerequisite for any kind of real power. What was different about America was not that the gap between rich and poor had narrowed indeed, the opposite was probably true, but that there were few systemic barriers (except for slavery) that prevented people from gaining wealth and power. However limited, the idea of America, as a land of unprecedented opportunity was not inaccurate in the context of the times. Importantly, equality of opportunity did not necessarily mean equality of result

The primary concept that pervaded Jacksonian Democracy was the elevation of the common man. The Jacksonians were conscious of the deep societal division between the working class, such as farmers and factory workers, and the capitalists, such as businessmen and factory owners. Jacksonian and New York representative C.C. Cambreleng said, “The struggle for power is as eternal as the division of society. A defeat cannot destroy the boundary which perpetually separates the democracy from the aristocracy.” They felt that it was unfair that the aristocrats were all wealthy and powerful, but did hardly any work; the Jacksonians believed that these members of the upper class took away the fruits of labor of the workers. A Jacksonian named Amos Kendall said, “Those who produce all wealth are themselves left poor. They see principalities extended and palaces built around them, without being aware that the entire expense is a tax upon themselves.” As a result of the rich always taking from the workers, the workers could then never become rich (Schlesinger 306).

Before Jackson was elected, democracy was rather different from what it is today. There were a number of requirements that candidates had to meet in order to be elected. The most significant of these was the rule that candidates must possess a certain amount of land in order to obtain governmental office. For example, Sam Houston’s friends and party-mates had to donate five hundred acres of land to him so that he could be eligible for governor of Tennessee in 1828 (Sage 2). This all changed in the years just before the election of 1828; land requirements were removed from governmental elections, so that owning land was not necessary for candidacy. In addition, many more public officials were elected, instead of appointed, to their jobs. Members of the presidential Electoral College were finally chosen in this manner as well; this meant that the common man, who had the power to indirectly elect the president, had far more power than he had previously possessed. This preliminary empowerment of the common man led to an increased sense of duty. An enormous increase from 300 thousand votes cast in 1824 to 1.1 million 1828 to 2.4 million in 1840 was a sure indication that people cared more about politics than they previously had (Garraty 240).

These symbols and slogans were very beneficial to Jackson, but most of his popularity came from his personality and history. Jackson was seen as both a common man and yet an “ideal” American, and this allowed him to appeal to Americans from all social classes. He was common in that he did not begin a rich man like most of the previous presidents. He was an ideal American in that he was a powerful leader, appearing honest, courageous, charismatic, and very practical. A major contributor to his popularity was his victory in the Battle of New Orleans. After leading his men to an unlikely victory in the war of 1812, he was seen as a determined patriot who proudly fought for his country (Sage 5).

Both Jackson and Jefferson were conscious of a societal division between the upper class and lower class and wanted to eliminate it. They both supported the working class in that they both believed that the common man was undervalued and necessary for the survival of the economy. Similarly, they both opposed large corporations such as the national bank, although Jackson was more specifically opposed to the bank while Jefferson opposed it in theory (Schlesinger 313).

Some topics in this essay:
Jackson Jefferson, Bank Garraty, South Carolina, Electoral College, World Europeans, Andrew Jackson, Amos Kendall, Morris Hal, Jacksonian Democracy, Quincy Adams, national bank, andrew jackson, jacksonian democracy, john quincy adams, states’ rights, quincy adams, john quincy, south carolina, federal authority, henry clay, upper class, directly responsible people, national bank jackson, states’ rights federal, jacksonian democracy elevation,