Democrats' Jacksonian roots- NOT something to shoot for

I hear lots of people saying that in order for the Democrats to return to their glory days, they have to return to their Jacksonian/Kennedy/Trumanian roots. Kennedy and Truman are fine, overall, but as for Jackson...asking them to return to those roots is a VERY grave mistake. In fact, Jackson is pretty much the reason the Democrats are the party that they are TODAY.

The man may have been a truly great general in the war of 1812, but as a President, he was easily one of THE worst the United States EVER had.

First off, until Jackson's run for president, the parties, from what I've read, were actually combined. The party was known, back then, as the Democratic-Republicans. I don't know the name of the other party, but that was the main party around. When Jackson campaigned, the Republicans broke off from the party. Jackson made promises of Socialism in America- getting STANDING OVATIONS for it. During his term, he closed the main banks, so the rich could not invest. Why would he do this, you may ask? Very simple- as a child, he was abused by a British soldier. So as a major collectivist, Jackson figured "one rich was bad to me, so they must ALL pay". He closed the banks...and the economy crashed.

However, doing this also wound up unleashing ANOTHER "beast". For years, members of the parties would make minor mentions here and there of government interference in the private sector, but none actually attempted it. They figured the move was too dangerous, and would get them thrown right out...

By using his position to close down the banks, Jackson opened the flood gates to government interference in the private sector. The political denizens realized "ok, well, now let's just change THIS and THIS and THIS"...and they did JUST THAT for decades.

Then....at one point, in the year 1929....the stock market crashed due to government sabotage, from almost 100 years of government interference. And Andrew Jackson is the man to thank for all of it.

So for those who want the Democrats to return to that, understand that HE'S what got all of us in trouble in the FIRST place.

Post 1

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 6:54am

Like all great people Andrew Jackson was complex. He was deep. As a political symbol for his time at the peak of his political career, he was made to represent things that he believed in weakly, sometimes, or not at all, as well as for those things about which he was passionate.

Jackson at New Orleans was a fluke. He lucked out. Where he earned the name "Old Hickory" was in a previous non-battle. Abandoned by this commander in chief and Congress, Jackson spent his own money to bring 12,000 men home. For that, they called him "Old Hickory."

Jackson's distrust of all banks is traced to his financial ruin in 1819. However, his real beef was with the Bank of the United States, a quasi-public, semi-private creature of the old federalist-nationalists. They were not rich from a hard life of laissez faire success against adversity. Jackson vetoed the renewal of BUS Charter and put federal money into state banks. Also, Jackson himself favored hard money. His close friend and ally was Thomas Hart Benton, called "Old Bullion" because of his ties to "Old Hickory." Benton called gold the friend of the working poor and paper money the tool of the idle rich. Also, interestingly enough, Benton once tried to kill Jackson, but they were two of a kind and became allies, if not friends.

Just to hammer one more point among many, the years before Jackson were called "The Era of Good Feeling" because there was only one political party, the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalist party had ceased to exist. That appelation was invented long after the time by historians. In 1820, political factions existed, but there was no national party of conservatives. Daniel Webster and Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun represented different factions of what might have been that old Federalist coalition.

Post 2

Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 8:28pm

Agreed, Jackson did not break the Democratic-Republicans, it was bound to happen especially over an issue like the federal bank. Jackson's posse formed the Democratic Party and the rest bumbled around for 30 years before the Republicans formed.

Post 3

Sunday, March 27, 2005 - 3:40pm

Well, I know the Republicans actually did not form their own party until several decades later, but I did know about the party break-off.

So are you telling me Andrew Jackson was actually a pretty good president, and for the most part I've basically heard nothing but lies and deceit about him?

I'm curious then- why did the economy collapse under him, and why was it that under HE, the budget went out of balance? I'm just curious- I find this interesting.

Post 4

Monday, March 28, 2005 - 5:41am

Russell Kay wrote: Well, I know the Republicans actually did not form their own party until several decades later, but I did know about the party break-off.

Factions came and went. Those who were opposed to Jackson painted him as a "king" by calling themselves "Whigs." The Whig party was a coalition that came apart on the issues of slavery, states rights, the tariffs, etc., etc.. The Republican Party was formed in 1856 by anti-slavery people.

RK: So are you telling me Andrew Jackson was actually a pretty good president, and for the most part I've basically heard nothing but lies and deceit about him?

I do not know what you have read. As I said, Jackson was a complicated person. Would you want him for a neighbor? An in-law? Perhaps not. Maybe so. You would have to read more about him and decide for yourself.

RK: I'm curious then- why did the economy collapse under him, and why was it that under HE, the budget went out of balance? I'm just curious- I find this interesting.

You have to ask why the economy "expanded" in the first place. Unreasonable expansions of credit always result in contractions. Some of these banks had miniscule deposits of gold on hand with which to pay off their paper. Typical margins were $30 in gold for $100 in paper outstanding -- for a sound bank.

Realize that the quarrel with the BUS took years to play out. It is not as if Jackson closed the bank on Saturday night and we woke up on Monday to an economic depression. Jackson built up a surplus of gold in the Treasury. He deposited federal funds in smaller "pet banks" around the nation, thus (we would think) allowing local credit to expand.

I am preparing a paper, and for my research so far, I have Murray Rothbard's History of Money and Banking in the United States (a book that I have some problems with), as well as books by William Graham Sumner and Albert Gallatin, who were closer to the events. Samuel Eliot Morrison is an accepted historian (with a liberal bias). Other writers from the previous generation include Richard Hofstadter whose most popular book was The American Political Tradition. I got a lot of pointers from John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage.

Post 5

Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:09pm