AP US HISTORY
DBQ #6 Jacksonian Democrats, Protectors of the Constitution
During the 1830’s and 1820’s the Jacksonain Democrats viewed them selves as the protectors of the Constitution from other parties who had a loose on the constitution. This statement can be viewed as both true and false as the Jacksonian Democrats did not live up to their promises. With the veto of the bank, Indian Removal Act, Jackson did little to defend the United States Constitution as promised. To add on to Jackson’s inconsistencies many of his decisions were found to have flaws that directly opposed to the Constitution. Andrew Jackson and his followers, although promised to be defenders of the Constitution, were some times anything but that.
In the 1830’s when Andrew Jackson vetoed the national …show more content…
Maryland, the bank did part of the constitution which means Jackson’s very loose view of commerce made his veto extremely conravetional (Doc. B). This made people like Daniel Webster extremely upset with Jackson’s unconventional view. (Doc. C). He claimed with the veto of the second national bank would cause public outcry. The partys unconstitutional ways got even worse with the government of South Carolina banning freedom of the press. With them taking away freedom of press the South Carolina government clearly not caring about the first amendment. (Doc. F). Jackson, diverging away from his parties plans to protect the constitution, and opposed regulations that were placed on the prized document of the nation he runs. Also, Jackson promised universal manhood suffrage throughout as part as their campaign slogan. Although after they take office, black and women still cannot vote. Also with the spoils system, Jackson gave many people powerful positions that had no background to handle that position. He took a system used by many presidents before him, and took it to the absolute extreme. Harriet Marinaeu visited the