The Political Influence of Andrew Jackson Author(s): Anson D. Morse Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Jun., 1886), pp. 153-162 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138966 Accessed: 13-06-2024 20:51 +00:00

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Science Quarterly

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Volume A.] 7une, z886. [Number 2.

POLITICAL SCIENCE

QUARTERLY.

THE POLITICAL INFLUENCE OF ANDREW

JACKSON.

N the fourth of March, I837, Andrew Jackson was able to

review his completed official career with a degree of com-

placency rare, if not unique, in the annals of magistracies. It

was an almost unbroken succession of victories that he looked

back upon. He had signally triumphed over his political rivals,

Clay and Calhoun. He had destroyed the bank, and broken

the rule of the classes and the party which supported it. He

had subjected Congress to his will, and extorted from the

Senate the " expunging resolution." His course toward nulli-

fication had beeln courageous and consistent, and had increased

his power and fame. His conduct of foreign relations had been

successful. He had reorganized and disciplined the democratic

party. He had named his successor. Moreover- and it was

this that gratified him most -he believed that in all his war-

fare he had fought and won, not for himself, but for the people;

and he knew from full and grateful testimony that this was

their view, and that they honored him as their faithful and

invincible champion. His farewell address testifies, it is true,

to a feeling of disquietude on account of the growth of section-

alism. But for this he could not justly hold himself respon-

sible; and his firm trust in the people, now through his agency

masters of the state, reassured him.

The estimate of his own work, by one so little capable of

impartial judgment as was Jackson, is, of course, not authorita-

tive. Equally fallible are contemporary views of a man, respect-

ing whom all ranged themselves as ardent friends or foes. It

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

154 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. I.

is now, however, a half century since Jackson set out from the

White House on his return to the Hermitage -a period long

enough to reveal, with considerable distinctness, the real scope

and nature of his work, and to lessen, if not remove, early

prepossessions.

Of the lives of Jackson, Parton's, written during the period

just preceding the Civil War, and Professor Sumner's, published

in I882, are the best. We possess also, in Professor von Holst's

Constitutional History of the United States, a very able discus-

sion of Jackson's character and political work.

On the extent to which personal feeling became a factor in

Jackson's policy and the mischief resulting therefrom; on the

usurpations by which a nominally republican administration was

transformed into the really despotic "reign" of one man; on

Jackson's spirit and methods in the bank controversy, Sumner

and von Holst are in substantial accord. They condemn with-

out reserve. Parton, although lenient in particulars, reaches

a similar verdict. Jackson's course towards nullification re-

ceives praise. Sumner, however, qualifies his approval as

follows: " Nullification involved directly the power and prestige

of the federal government, and he would certainly be a most

exceptional person who, being President of the United States,

would allow the government of which he was the head to be

defied and insulted." I And later, commenting on the procla-

mation to the people of South Carolina: "He lives in popular

memory and tradition chiefly as the man who put down this

treason, but the historian must remember that, if Jackson had

done his duty to Georgia and the Indians, nullification would

never have attained any strength." 2 Parton holds the widely

prevalent opinion that Jackson is responsible for the "spoils

system " in national politics.3 Sumner dissents. "It is a crude

and incorrect notion," he says, "that Andrew Jackson cor-

rupted the civil service. His administration is only the date at

which a corrupt use of the spoils of the public service as a

cement for party organization under the democratic-republican

1 Sumner, Jackson, 219. 2 Sumner, Jackson, 283. 8 Parton, Jackson, III., 692.

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

No. 2.] ANVDREW 7ACKSON. 155

self-government, having been perfected into a highly finished

system in New York and Pennsylvania, was first employed in

the federal arena." I Von Holst's views are similar. He thinks

that Jackson, by vigorous resistance, could have put off the evil

day. " But, by this means, only a short delay would have been

gained. To prevent the evil, it was necessary to avert its

causes, and to do this there was need of something more than a

powerful will; a single person could assuredly not do it." 2

We have been looking at single features and measures. What

of the administration as a whole ? Parton's view is as follows:

"I must avow explicitly the belief that, notwithstanding the

good done by General Jackson during his presidency, his eleva-

tion to power was a mistake on the part of the people of the

United States. The good which he effected has not continued,

while the evil which he began remains." 3 Sumner, in comment-

ing on " Jackson's modes of action in his second term," says:

"We must say of Jackson that he stumbled along through a

magnificent career, now and then taking up a chance without

really appreciating it; leaving behind him disturbed and dis-

cordant elements of good and ill just fit to produce turmoil and

disaster in the future." 4 Later he adds: " Representative insti-

tutions are degraded on the Jacksonian theory just as they are

on the divine-right theory, or on the theory of the democratic

empire. There is not a worse perversion of the American sys-

tem of government conceivable than to regard the President as

the tribune of the people." 5 The view of von Holst may be

inferred from the following passages: " In spite of the frightful

influence, in the real sense of the expression, which he exer-

cised during the eight years of his presidency, he neither

pointed out nor opened new ways to his people by the superi-

ority of his mind, but only dragged them more rapidly onward

on the road they had long been travelling, by the demoniacal

power of his will." 6 The meaning of the bank struggle is thus defined: " Its significance lay in the elements which made Jack-

1 Sumner, Jackson, 147. 2 Von Holst, II., 14. 3 Parton, Jackson, 694.

4 Sumner, Jackson, 279. 5 Sumner, Jackson, 280.

6 Von Holst, II., 30, 31.

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I56 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. I.

son able actually and successfully to assert his claims, in con-

flict both with the constitution and with the idea of republi-

canism, to a position between Congress and the people as

patriarchal ruler of the republic." 1 Elsewhere he tells us that

the "curse of Jackson's administration" is that it weakened

respect for law; that "the first clear symptom" of "the decline

of a healthy political spirit" was the election and re-election

of Jackson to the presidency; that his administration paved a

"broad path for the demoralizing transformation of the Amer-

ican democracy "; and that " his ' reign' receives the stamp

which characterizes it, precisely from the fact that the poli-

ticians knew how to make his character, with its texture of

brass, the battering-ram with which to break down the last

ramparts which opposed their will." 2

According to Parton, Sumner, and von Holst, as I under-

stand them, the net result of Jackson's influence upon the

American people was to hasten their progress toward political

ruin. I think this conclusion erroneous. The gravest accu-

sation against Jackson is, that his influence undermined re-

spect for law. It is plausibly argued that, since he himself

was impatient of authority, his example must have stimulated

lawlessness in his followers. It may be urged, in reply,

that the history of the country does not support the charge.

The worst exhibitions of general lawlessness which have dis-

graced the United States were the anti-abolitionist mobs of

Jackson's own day – for which he was not responsible. Since

then, the American people, in spite of the demoralizations of

the war and reconstruction periods, have steadily grown in

obedience to law. The turbulence of un-Americanized immi-

grants, although it may hurt American reputation, is not an

expression of American character. That we are essentially a

law-abiding people, the contested presidential election of 1876

strongly testifies. Devotion to the state and obedience to

formal law come, at times, into conflict. In such cases, obedi-

ence to law, if persisted in, would give us the civilization of

Asia. Disregard of formal law, in order to serve the state more

1 Von Holst, II., 67, 68. 2 Von Holst, II., 149.

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

No. 2.] ANDREW 7ACKSON. 157

efficiently, is a distinctive feature of European and American

civilization. In this sense, Casar, Luther, Hampden, and

Washington were law-breakers. Between these, and those who

break the law for the sake of power or passion, or self-love in

any form, the difference is world-wide. The acts of the former

are recognitions of political duty; the acts of the latter are

denials. In the Indian Wars and the War of 18I2-I4, strict

deference to the inefficient management at Washington would

have made success impossible. Jackson took matters into his

own hands, and, in times when failure and chagrin were the

order of the day, was brilliantly successful. If the people took

note of the insubordination, they also took note of the patriotic

motive which prompted it. The lessons of the camp he carried

into civil life. He regarded himself as the highest representa-

tive of the entire people, commissioned by them to secure their

welfare. The undoubted usurpations which followed were

never recognized as such by Jackson. On the contrary, he

believed himself the staunchest upholder of the constitution.

And the people agreed with him. Unconscious violations of

law may entail suffering, but they do not demoralize; they do

not weaken respect for law.

Another charge is, that Jackson ruled his party through

personal methods, and that he drew to his aid irresponsible

counsellors. It is true: through the "kitchen cabinet" and

the "Globe," he maintained a personal relationship with his

followers not unlike that of a Highland chieftain to his clans-

men two centuries ago. This relationship was unfavorable to

the free exercise of individual judgment, and perhaps to self-

respect. What went far, however, towards justifying it, was the

undeveloped political character of many of Jackson's partisans.

Personal politics were a necessity to them. Their choice lay

between the stern drill of Jackson and the blandishments of the

demagogue. The methods best adapted to the Whigs were out

of the question. It is fair, in judging Jackson's course as a

party leader, to remember that he worked with and for the

lower strata of political society.

It is a curious circumstance that the relation of Jackson to

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I58 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. I.

sectionalism has received very little attention ; and yet the

growth of sectionalism, i.e., the tendency to divide the

Union into two portions, politically separate and independent,

is the fact which, from the Missouri Compromise of I820 to the

ordinances of secessioin in I86o, gives our political history its

distinctive character. The one important question concerning

Jackson, as indeed concerning every public man during the

forty years which precede the Civil War, is: What did he do

towards saving the Union from sectionalism?

The first step towards an answer is to discriminate between

state rights and sectionalism. State rights seek the widest ex-

tension of local self-government within state lines: sectionalism

seeks political independence for a group of states. State sover-

eig,nty, so-called, is a perverted form of state rights. State

sovereignty has, as a matter of fact, never existed. No state has

ever presented the conditions which make real sovereignty prac-

ticable and desirable. We doubt whether any state has ever for

a moment soberly wished to assume and maintain real sover-

eignty. A fancied state sovereignty has, from time to time,

been invoked in order to extort concessions from the national

government, as was done by South Carolina in I832; or in order

to effect a peaceful and apparently legal escape from the sover-

eignty of the United States to a new sovereignty in the process

of creation, as was done by the Southern states in i86o and

i86i. But in neither case was the assumption and maintenance

of real state sovereignty contemplated. It is true that states

call themselves sovereign; but the word does not create the

fact -sovereignty must first exist in the nature of things.

State rights, apart from sectionalism, have never been a serious

hindrance to the prog,ress of national unity. The possibility of

their becoming so lessens every day, because the interests

which unite the states and the preponderance, physical and

moral, of the Union as a whole over any one state, increase

daily. Sectionalism, on the other hand, is, by its very nature,

incipient disunion. The first strongly marked appearance of

sectionalism was in New England, just before and during the

War of I812-I4. At the close of the war, with the removal of

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

No. 2.] ANDREW 7ACKSON. I59

grievances, it came suddenly to an end. The second appear-

ance of sectionalism was due to divergence of interests and

views between North and South, caused by the institution of

slavery. In both cases sectionalism wore the mask of state

rights, because in that way it could gain an appearance of

legality while pursuing a course essentially revolutionary.

It is demonstrable, however, that sectionalism, particularly

when based on slavery, is incompatible with state rights. Sec-

tionalism, fully developed, means disunion; in the place of one

united people it would create two or more hostile peoples with

conflicting interests, and without natural boundaries. Wars

and colossal armaments would follow, and in their train central-

ization, the destroyer of state rights and of local self-govern-

ment in every form. Although our Civil War lasted but four

years, it almost transformed the character of the government.

The entire previous period since the administration of Wash- ington had not effected so great a centralization. It is also

demonstrable that Southern sectionalism, before reaching the

point of attempted disunion, became hostile to state rights.

The fugitive slave law of i85o, and the Dred Scott decision

were affronts to the strongest sentiments which sustain state

rights. The course of the South during the Kansas struggle

was destructive of state rights. There could not be a more

distinct violation of their essential principle than the attempt

to establish slavery in a territory against the will of its inhab-

itants. Indeed, it was the treason of Southern sectionalism to

state rights as well as to the Union that divided the democratic

party in 86o. The resort to secession has a similar meaning.

The election of Lincoln did not imperil state rights; but it did

deprive slavery of the sympathizing, docile support of the gen-

eral government a support to which it had long been accus-

tomed -and threw it back upon its unimpaired constitutional

guaranties and the rights of the states. But these were not

enough. Slavery could prosper only through the fostering care

of a national government, and it was to secure this that the

South seceded.

Jackson came before the country as a disciple of Jefferson,

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

i 6o POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY. [VOL. I.

and therefore as a believer in state rights. There was, it is

true, much in his temper and situation which favored centraliza-

tion; nevertheless, he was an honest, though moderate and

somewhat inconsistent Jeffersonian, and he won and retained

the confidence of the state-rights element in the democratic

party. Moreover, he identified himself with the newly enfran-

chised and poorer citizens just rising co political self-conscious-

ness. In these ways, his following came to include a large

majority of his fellow-citizens, and, what was of the utmost

importance, by far the larger proportion of those whose political

character and opinions were as yet plastic. Jackson's great

contemporaries, Clay and Webster, could not reach these.

Both were identified, through their party relations, with the

higher classes, and both were disqualified through peculiar ele-

ments of character for popular leadership. In his tastes and

intellectual sympathies, Clay was far removed from the " sons

of toil." His skill in contriving compromises, although exerted

for patriotic ends, did not impress the imagination of the

people. Straightforward, blunt methods are their preference.

There was something, too, in Clay's course as candidate for the

presidency that seemed to hint at overcalculation, irresolution,

and even timidity – qualities which, once suspected, are a fatal

bar to the confidence of the populace. Webster never touched

the popular heart. His almost matchless eloquence appealed

most strongly to statesmen, jurists, and those classes whose

culture and imagination enabled them to forecast the future and

made them susceptible to grand ideas. The masses had a con-

fused sense of Webster's greatness; but it did not win them. It

served rather to emphasize the difference between him and

themselves. Webster's devotion to national unity seemed, in

great measure, to arise from a contemplation of the country's

destined place in the world's history. It was the greatness yet

to come that he beheld, and by which he was inspired. Jack-

son's interest in national unity, on the contrary, seemed to grow

out of his regard for the people then living, his contemporaries.

It was their will that he consulted, and their plaudits that he

cared for. To the people, Webster's claims seemed based on

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

No. 2.] ANDREW 7ACKSON. i6i

his superiority to themselves; Jackson's, on his devotion to

themselves. Their decision could not be doubtful. The result

was that Jackson became, to a degree never realized by any

other man in our history, the trusted leader and teacher of the

masses. Of this relationship Sumner says: " Jackson came to

power as the standard-bearer of a new upheaval of democracy

and under a profession of new and fuller realization of the Jef-

fersonian democratic-republican principles." 1 Also: " One can

easily discern in Jackson's popularity an element of instinct and

personal recognition by the mass of the people. They felt: ' He

is one of us,' 'He stands by us.' "2 Very explicit on this point

is von Holst: "Jackson was the man of the masses, because

by his origin and his whole course of development, both

inner and outer, he belonged to them." 3 Most felicitous is

the statement of Jackson's political relation to the people:

" The supporters of his policy were the instincts of the

masses; the sum and substance of it, the satisfaction of those

instincts." 4

This intimate relation to the people, and this unparalleled

power over the people, Jackson used to impress upon them his

own love of the Union and his own hatred of sectionalism.

The victory at New Orleans and the proclamation to the people

of South Carolina in I832 are the two facts which did most to

reveal Jackson's personality, and they are altogether national

facts. The one portrays him as the defender of the Nation

against foreign enemies; the other, against sectionalism. His character was altogether national. It is easy to think of

Calhoun as a southerner and a South Carolinian; but it would

not be easy to think of Jackson as belonging to Tennessee

or to the border states. The distribution of his support in

the election of I832 is instructive. New Hampshire, New

York and Pennsylvania, as well as Tennessee, Georgia and Missouri, were Jackson's states. He was not looked upon

as the representative of any particular section. His policy as President showed no trace of sectionalism. Its aim was

1 Sumner, Jackson, 136. 2 Sumner, Jackson, 138.

8 Von Holst, II., 3. 4 Von Holst, II., 31.

This content downloaded from 47.161.197.192 on Thu, 13 Jun 2024 20:51:04 +00:00 All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

I62 POLITICAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY.

the welfare of the masses irrespective of section. To him

state lines had little meaning ; sectional lines, absolutely

none.

There is another way in which he rendered great though

unconscious service to the cause of national unity: he made

the government, hitherto an unmeaning abstraction, intelligible

and attractive to the people. Bagehot says: "The best reason

why monarchy is a strong government is that it is an intelli-

gible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and

they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other." 1

The chief value, then, of Jackson's political career, was its

educational effect. His strong conviction of the national char-

acter of the Union, his brave words and acts in behalf of the

rights of the Union, sank deep into the hearts of followers and

opponents. The fact of national unity grew more real and

attractive through his definition and defence. It is, perhaps,

not too much to say that it was Jackson who made " peaceable "

secession impossible. The spirit of Jackson's administration as

a whole, the acts through which he influenced most deeply and

permanently the political character of the people, are in accord

with his resistance to nullification. Their tendency was to

nationalize.

The greatness of his service was hidden for a time. Sec-

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.