Andrew Jackson Dbq Analysis

Andrew Jackson paved his way to the top by serving in both the House and Senate. Gained recognition as a war hero after serving in the War of 1812. He laid the framework of democracy by endeavoring to make America superior, but the ways he handled the National Bank, Spoil System, and Indian Removal made Andrew Jackson develop into a non-democratic.

One way that illustrates how Jackson is non-democratic is supported by the situation that occurred for the National Bank. To begin with, Jackson sent a veto to congress discussing the bank. In document A, Jackson is seen complaining, “The present Bank of the United States...enjoys an exclusive privilege of banking, ...almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange...Of the twenty-five directors

It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country...might flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people…It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes”. In summary, Jackson argues that because 25% of the stock is owned by foreigners, and the rest is owned by the rich, the bank is a monopoly. He calls that “their selfish purposes” because he is convinced the bank is not beneficial to the poor, but only for the rich. In addition, Andrew Jackson took action and removed the bank. This can be seen in document B(Daniel Webster's words), which states “[Jackson’s message] extends the grasp of [the President] over every power of the government.... It sows...the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against the government of which its author is the official head... [It] seeks to inflame the poor against the rich, it wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purposes of turning against them the prejudices and resentments of the other classes”. Senator Daniel Webster isn’t convinced by the fact that there is a possibility the banks are a monopoly but is fully

It started with Jackson promoting that the idea will benefit everyone; whites and Indians. This can be recognized in document F, “The consequences of a speedy removal will be important to the United States, to individual States, and to the Indians themselves…. It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude [simple] institutions.… What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms … occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?… We now propose to acquire the [land] occupied by the red men… by a fair exchange, and, at the expense of the United States, to send them to land where their existence may be prolonged and perhaps made perpetual.” Jackson openly expresses that having all the Indians in a new land, accompanied only by their kind, would be better than staying with the states. Jackson says they would be able to live freely in a secure place, guaranteeing their survival, while the whites would have more land. However, a member of the Cherokee people stood up and explained the reality. Document G