Andrew Jackson: 1767 - 1845 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Andrew Jackson: 1767 - 1845 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Andrew Jackson: 1767 - 1845

play fullscreen
1 / 80
Andrew Jackson: 1767 - 1845
85 Views
Download Presentation
taro
Download Presentation

Andrew Jackson: 1767 - 1845

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Andrew Jackson: 1767 - 1845

  2. Theme 7 The Age of Jackson The election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 came to symbolize the emergence of a new democratic spirit: an “age of the common man.” Although the Democrats favored limited national gov’t, Jackson forcefully responded to South Carolina’s defiance over the collection of tariffs. The exercise of assertive executive power is best illustrated by Jackson’s veto of rechartering of the national bank and his “war” against the “monopoly.” The removal of Indian tribes from the Southeast to lands west of the Mississippi was vigorously pursued. A new Whig Party emerged in opposition to “King Andrew I.”

  3. Essential Question: Champion of the “Common Man”? “King”Andrew? OR

  4. What were the democratic trends in the 19c?

  5. Voting Requirements in the Early 19c

  6. Voter Turnout: 1820 - 1860

  7. Why Increased Democratization? • White male suffrage increased • Party nominating committees. • Voters chose their state’s slate of Presidential electors. • Spoils system. • Rise of Third Parties. • Popular campaigning (parades, rallies, floats, etc.) • Two-party system returned in the 1832 election: • Dem-Reps à Natl. Reps.(1828) à Whigs (1832) à Republicans (1854) • Democrats (1828)

  8. Jackson's Early Life

  9. Jackson’s First Hermitage Residence

  10. First Known Painting of Jackson, 1815

  11. General Jackson During the Seminole Wars

  12. Jackson's First Presidential Run

  13. The “Common Man’s”Presidential Candidate

  14. Jackson’s Opponents in 1824 Henry Clay[KY] John Quincy Adams[MA] John C. Calhoun[SC] William H. Crawford[GA]

  15. Results of the 1824 Election A “Corrupt Bargain?”

  16. The Election of 1824:The “Corrupt Bargain”

  17. Theme 40: Political Realignments Overview: The 1820s saw a widening of popular participation in politics and realignment of political parties • The Federalist Party: Virtually ceased to exist after 1816 on the national level • Suffrage (the vote): Was gradually being expanded among adult white males as the property requirement was abandoned • Voter reform came first in the Western states, last in the South, and only in Rhode Island was it accompanied by any violence (Dorr Rebellion, 1843) • The vote of the people replaced state legislatures in selecting presidential electors • Election of 1824: The Republicans failed to agree on one nominee for president, and four factional candidates emerged. A Congressional caucus chose William Crawford (the last time this system was used); Henry Clay of Kentucky won support from Western state legislatures; Secretary of State John Quincy Adams was supported by New England; and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee enjoyed broad national support as a war hero. John C. Calhoun withdrew and became the Vice Presidential candidate. • Jackson received the most popular votes but no one received an electoral college majority • As provided by the 12th Amendment, the choice (from the top 3 candidates) went to the House of Representatives • With the support of Clay, Adams received a majority of state votes in the House. Jackson supporters denounced the supposed “corrupt bargain” as Clay was then named Secretary of State • President John Quincy Adams: Lacking in tact and in willingness to compromise, he faced criticism from Jacksonians throughout his term (his foes controlled Congress after the 1826 elections) • A nationalist, Adams supported internal improvements (roads and canals) at federal expense • Adams expressed concern for the rights of Native Americans • Congress hampered the administration’s plan to attend a Pan-American Conference in Panama, and Adams failed to persuade Britain to reopen its West Indies possession to U.S. trade

  18. What were the key issues in 1828?

  19. Rachel Jackson Final Divorce Decree

  20. Jackson in Mourning for His Wife

  21. 1828 Election Results

  22. The Center of Population in theCountry Moves WEST

  23. The New “Jackson Coalition” • The Planter Elite in the South • People on the Frontier • State Politicians – spoils system • Immigrants in the cities.

  24. Jackson’s Faith in the “Common Man” • Intense distrust of Eastern“establishment,” monopolies, & special privilege. • His heart & soul was with the“plain folk.” • Belief that the common man was capable of uncommon achievements.

  25. The Reign of “King Mob”

  26. Andrew Jackson as President

  27. The “Peggy Eaton Affair”

  28. The Nullification Issue

  29. The Webster-Hayne Debate Sen. Daniel Webster[MA] Sen. Robert Hayne[SC]

  30. 1830 Webster:Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable. "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people," Jackson:Our Federal Union—it must be preserved. Calhoun:The Union, next to our liberty, most dear.

  31. The Tariff Issue

  32. 1832 Tariff Conflict • 1828 --> “Tariff of Abomination” • 1832 --> new tariff • South Carolina’s reaction? • Jackson’s response? • Clay’s “Compromise” Tariff?

  33. Tariff of 1828: In an attempt to embarrass President Adams, the Jacksonians introduced the Tariff of 1828. Northern states, which were increasingly industrialized, voted for high rates Southern members of Congress, reflecting their states’ growing reliance on cotton and purchase of manufactured goods, voted against the bill The reversal of positions by Daniel Webster and John C Calhoun reflected economic changes in their sections of the nation Congress passed the “Tariff of Abominations” and President Adams signed it Opposition: South Carolina led the sectional opposition to higher tariffs Vice President John C Calhoun anonymously wrote “The South Carolina Exposition and Protest,” extolling the principle of state sovereignty. The pamphlet branded the tariff unconstitutional and recommended nullification of the laws by states that opposed it In his theory of the concurrent majority (a sectional veto power for the minority South), Calhoun sought to protect the interest of a minority South against majority tyranny No other states joined South Carolina’s protest, and a nullification vote failed in the legislature Tariff of Abominations 1828

  34. TariffsWebster-Hayne Debate Webster-Hayne debate 1830: Argument over public land policies developed into a classic debate between Massachusetts and South Carolina senators over the nature of the Union. Robert Hayne (South Carolina) defended state sovereignty and the doctrine of nullification Daniel Webster (Massachusetts) replied that he union was “one and inseparable” and that nullification was treasonable.

  35. Tariff of 1832: Reduced rates by 10% but still protective A special South Carolina convention declared the tariff null and void in that state and threatened secession (Ordinance of Nullification) President Jackson responded with a ringing proclamation (“Disunion by armed force is treason”) and threatened to send a military force to enforce tariff collections Calhoun resigned as vice president to become South Carolina’s spokesman in the Senate Other Southern states refused to support nullification or secession Congress passed a “force bill” approving presidential military action if necessary Henry Clay’s Compromise on Tariff (for gradual rate reduction) was passed (1833) South Carolina rescinded its nullification ordinance, and the crisis subsided. Tariff of 1832

  36. Federalism:The proper balance of national and state power and authority was the central issue of the tariff controversy. Northern industrial development was aided by higher, protective tariffs Northern economic and population growth appeared to threaten the South’s economic, political, and social systems The doctrine of nullification restated states rights theory Possible secession and disunion were averted by compromise Tariffs

  37. Jackson's Native-American Policy

  38. Native American Lands 1500 Hunter gatherer Agriculture Fishing

  39. A Buffer Zone • Thomas Jefferson proposed the creation of a buffer zone between U.S. and European holdings, to be inhabited by eastern American Indians.

  40. Historically, Cherokees occupied lands in several southeastern states. As European settlers arrived, Cherokees traded and intermarried with them. They began to adopt European customs and gradually turned to an agricultural economy, while being pressured to give up traditional homelands. Between 1721 and 1819, over 90 percent of their lands were ceded to others. By the 1820s, Sequoyah's syllabary brought literacy and a formal governing system with a written constitution. The Cherokees

  41. In 1830--the same year the Indian Removal Act was passed--gold was found on Cherokee lands. Georgia held lotteries to give Cherokee land and gold rights to whites. Cherokees were not allowed to conduct tribal business, contract, testify in courts against whites, or mine for gold. Why remove the Cherokee from their lands?

  42. Once an ally of the Cherokees, President Andrew Jackson authorized the Indian Removal Act of 1830, following the recommendation of President James Monroe in his final address to Congress in 1825. Jackson sanctioned an attitude that had persisted for many years among many white immigrants. Even Thomas Jefferson, who often cited the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy as the model for the U.S. Constitution, supported Indian Removal as early as 1802. History of the Indian Removal

  43. Jackson’s Plan • Between 1816 and 1840, tribes located between the original states and the Mississippi River, including Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, and Seminoles, signed more than 40 treaties ceding their lands to the U.S. • In his 1829 inaugural address, President Andrew Jackson set a policy to relocate eastern Indians. • In 1830 it was endorsed, when Congress passed the Indian Removal Act to force those remaining to move west of the Mississippi. PresidentAndrew Jackson

  44. Challenging the Court’s Power 1830 à Indian Removal Act • The Cherokees successfully challenged Georgia in the U.S. Supreme Court. • Cherokee Nation v. GA (1831) “domestic dependent nation” • President Jackson, when hearing of the Court's decision, reportedly said, "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.

  45. The displacement of native people was not wanting for eloquent opposition. Senators Daniel Webster and Henry Clay spoke out against removal. Reverend Samuel Worcester, missionary to the Cherokees, challenged Georgia's attempt to extinguish Indian title to land in the state, winning the case before the Supreme Court. Worcester v. GA (1832) Opposition to Removal

  46. Worcester vs. Georgia, 1832, and Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia, 1831, are considered the two most influential decisions in Indian law. In effect, the opinions challenged theconstitutionality of the Removal Act and the US. Government precedent for unapplied Indian-federal law was established by Jackson's defiant enforcement of the removal. The Supreme Court renders its decisions

  47. Between 1830 and 1850, about 100,000 American Indians living between Michigan, Louisiana, and Florida moved west after the U.S. government coerced treaties or used the U.S. Army against those resisting. • Many were treated brutally. An estimated 3,500 Creeks died in Alabama and on their westward journey. Some were transported in chains.

  48. Native American lands in Southeastern US • The U.S. Government used the Treaty of New Echota in 1835 to justify the removal. • The treaty, signed by about 100 Cherokees and known as the Treaty Party, relinquished all lands east of the Mississippi River in exchange for land in Indian Territory and the promise of money, livestock, and various provisions and tools.

  49. When the pro-removal Cherokee leaders signed that treaty, they also signed their own death warrants. The Cherokee National Council earlier had passed a law that called for the death penalty for anyone who agreed to give up tribal land. The signing and the removal led to bitter factionalism and the deaths of most of the Treaty Party leaders in Indian Territory Effects on the Cherokee Nation