essay+on+how+democratic+AJ+was-final+kmrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Katie Reinmann How Democratic was Andrew Jackson? Andrew Jackson was elected President in 1829. After he won the election, he let the "common" people have a right to be electors and be more involved in the political world. Although he did help the people, he also excluded some people. So the question is, was he more democratic, or less democratic? During this essay, I will be showing you my views and opinions of why Andrew Jackson is both more democratic, and less democratic through the times of the Spoils System, the Banking Crisis, and the Indian Removal Dilemma.

Andrew Jackson tried to make the common people get more involved with the government, so he came up with what is known as the spoils system, which allowed the people that voted for the winning party be awarded with government jobs. Jackson was more democratic during this time, because not only did he let the people get more active and involved in political decisions, but he also let anyone be able to vote. During the times of the Indian Removal Dilemma, I believe that Andrew Jackson was less democratic, and more democratic. Even though he wanted to take the gold in the Indian Territory and use it for the god of the United States, he ended up forgetting about the poor Indians, also Americans, who had to move from their territory to a new territory, which was thousands of miles away, because that was where the gold was located. They had to undergo disease, famine, and unquenchable thirst, while fighting for their lives and the lives of their families. Andrew Jackson did think about the better good, but not for everyone, therefore on this situation he is less democratic. To sum this up, Andrew Jackson more democratic because he was thinking of the people and what the gold could do for them, and less democratic because he was kicking the Indians out of their territory, while having no benefit at all. Andrew Jackson was more democratic and less democratic. He was more democratic because he was thinking about the common people, but less democratic because he was only thinking about the common people. The reason he vetoed the idea of the Bank was purely because of the “common” people. The wealthy were the lenders, and the farmers were the borrowers. In this case, the veto was because if the bank limited the loans received by the common people, it could end up hurting the common people. He didn’t think about the wealthy and how they had to give up their own money and lend it to the farmers and common people.