We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Over the past two decades Jacksonian historiography has been enriched by the publication of a large number of scholarly articles and monographs. Legislative voting in the states and in Congress has been analysed, the social composition of the two major parties has been studied, the mechanics of the political system have been scrutinized and political ideas have been reexamined. The present article will be concerned with ideology, the belief system of the Jacksonian Democratic party. It will deal specifically with the Jacksonian conception of equality. Surprisingly, this is a facet of Democratic ideology to which relatively little attention has been paid.
In The American Political Tradition, published in 1948, Richard Hofstadter presented what is perhaps the standard view of Jacksonian equality. He cited Andrew Jackson's Bank Veto Message of 1832. Jackson here affirmed that
Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law.
Hofstadter concluded that this was “certainly … not the philosophy of a radical leveling movement that proposes to uproot property or to reconstruct society along drastically different lines.”
1 On recent Jacksonian historiography see Flatt, Don F., “Historians View Jacksonian Democracy: A Historiographical Study,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Kentucky, 1974Google Scholar; Formisano, Ronald P., “Toward a Reorientation of Jacksonian Politics: A Review of the Literature, 1959–1975,” Journal of American History, 64 (1976), 42–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pessen, Edward, Jacksonian America: Society, Personality, and Politics, 2nd edn. rev (Homewood, Ill., 1978), pp. 351–67Google Scholar.
2 Important surveys of Democratic ideology include Meyers, Marvin, The Jacksonian Persuasion: Politics and Belief (Stanford, Calif., 1966)Google Scholar; Welter, Rush, The Mind of America, 1820–1860 (New York, 1975)Google Scholar; Wilson, Major L., Space, Time and Freedom: The Quest for Nationality and the Irrepressible Conflict (Westport, 1974)Google Scholar.
3 Hofstadter, Richard, The American Political Tradition (New York, 1948), p. 60Google Scholar.
4 An important work in this vein is Sharp, James Roger, The Jacksonians versus the Banks: Politics in the States after the Panic of 1837 (New York, 1970)Google Scholar.
5 Some of the themes treated in this article are dealt with at greater length in Ashworth, John, “‘Agrarians’ and ‘Aristocrats’: Party Political Ideology in the United States, 1837–1846,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Oxford, 1978Google Scholar. This work is soon to be published by the Royal Historical Society.
6 Although much of the material presented here relates to the period between 1837 and 1846 additional evidence could be drawn from the earlier years of the Jacksonian era. But after the Panic of 1837 the composition of the parties was simplified and Jacksonian radicalism became much more conspicuous. In this sense the period following the departure of Andrew Jackson from the White House can be said to have marked the culmination of the Jacksonian era.
7 Although this paper is focussed on the concept of equality I do not wish to imply that this was necessarily the most important component of Jacksonian ideology. Rather it seems to me that the Jacksonians had a world view which was comprised of a set of beliefs, values and fears that were reasonably consistent one with another. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
8 Address of the Democratic Republican Young Men's Central Committee of the City of New York to the Republican Young Men of the State (New York, 1840), p. 3Google Scholar; Graf, Leroy P. and Haskins, Ralph W. (eds), The Papers of Andrew Johnson (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1967– ), 1, 270Google Scholar; Richardson, James D. (ed.), A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1907 (Washington, D.C., 1908), 2, 449Google Scholar; Ker, Robert J. (reporter), Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of Louisiana (New Orleans, 1845), p. 175Google Scholar. See also Washington Globe, 19 March 1841; Portsmouth, (Va.) Old Dominion, 31 08 1839Google Scholar; New York Evening Post, 21 Jan. 1835.
9 Young Hickory Banner, 17 Aug. 1844; Camp, George Sidney, Democracy (New York, 1845), p. 139Google Scholar. Note that here as elsewhere the Jacksonians followed John Taylor of Caroline rather than Jefferson.
10 On the Democratic preference for a limited government see Bancroft, George, Principles of Democracy (Hartford, 1840), p. 7Google Scholar; Congressional Globe, 25 Cong. 3 Session Appendix, p. 186; 26 Cong. 1 Session Appendix, p. 362; Fuller, George N. (ed.), Messages of the Governors of Michigan, 4 vols. (Lansing, 1925–1927), 1, 259Google Scholar.
11 Cong. Globe, 25 Cong. 2 Session Appendix, p. 251.
12 See Democratic Review, 9 (1841), 435Google Scholar; 29 (1851), 520; Lancaster Eagle in Washington Globe, 9 Sept. 1837; Journal of the New Hampshire Senate (Concord, 1842), p. 4Google Scholar; Illinois State Register, 29 Sept. 1839; Shambaugh, Benjamin F. (ed.), Fragments of the Debates of the Iowa Constitutional Conventions of 1844 and 1846 along with Press Comment and Other Material (Iowa City, 1900), pp. 222–23Google Scholar.
13 The contemporary phrase was “Equal Rights.” But in the context of Jacksonian politics this meant far more than equality of opportunity and equality before the law. (Note that the Whigs did not use the phrase.) I have therefore employed the term “equality of power.”
14 Cong. Globe, 25 Cong. 2 Session Appendix, p. 251.
15 See Washington Globe, 11 Jan. 1842, 1 July 1842; Cong. Globe, 25 Cong. 1 Session Appendix, p. 46; 26 Cong. 1 Session Appendix, p. 494; 27 Cong. 2 Session Appendix, p. 484; Shambaugh, (ed.), Fragments, p. 146Google Scholar; Kendall's Expositor, 2 (1842), 163Google Scholar; Young Hickory Banner, 24 Aug. 1844; Democratic Statesman, 10 May 1845.
16 Democratic Review, 21 (1847), 202Google Scholar; Morton quoted in Providence Daily Journal, 25 Jan. 1843.
17 Rantoul, Robert Jr, An Oration Delivered before the Democratic Citizens of the County of Worcester, July 4 1837 (Worcester, 1837), p. 6Google Scholar; Democratic Review, 2 (1838), 344–50Google Scholar; 13 (1843), 566; Democratic State Convention of Vermont in Danville, North Star, 3 07 1837Google Scholar.
18 Vermont Statesman, 30 Aug. 1837; Journal of The New Hampshire Senate (Concord, 185), p. 19Google Scholar; Wetumpka Argus, 24 Feb. 1841.
19 It has now been quite well established that in the legislatures the parties voted in accordance with their stated policy aims. See Alexander, Thomas B., Sectional Stress and Party Strength (Nashville, 1967)Google Scholar; Silbey, Joel H., The Shrine of Party (Pittsburgh, 1967)Google Scholar; Ershkowitz, Herbert and Shade, William G., “Consensus or Conflict? Political Behaviour in the State Legislatures during the Jacksonian Era,” Journal of American History, 58 (1971), 591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 Van Buren, Martin, “Letter to Isaac Lippincott et al. Sept. 14 1840,” in Address to the Workingmen of the United States (n.p., n.d.), p. 16Google Scholar; Richardson, (ed.), Messages of Presidents, 4, 499Google Scholar.
21 Edward Barber, An Oration delivered before the Democrats of Washington County in Danville, North Star, 17 08 1839Google Scholar. See also Cong. Globe, 25 Cong. 1 Session Appendix, p. 116; 2 Session Appendix, pp. 46, 167, 205, 228, 251; 26 Cong. 1 Session Appendix, pp. 235, 533; 27 Cong. I Session Appendix, p. 409; Democratic Review, 2 (1838), 10Google Scholar; 5 (1839), 455; 6 (1839), 97; 16 (1845), 607; Washington Globe, 12 Oct. 1843; Richardson, (ed.), Messages of Presidents, 3, 328, 494, 549–54Google Scholar; Shambaugh, (ed.), Fragments, 70–72Google Scholar; Milwaukee Courier in Quaife, Milo M. (ed.), The Struggle Over Ratification, 1846–1847 (Madison, Wisc., 1920), p. 201Google Scholar; Sharp, Jacksonians Versus Banks, passim; Shade, William G., Banks or No Banks: The Money Issue in Western Politics, 1832–1865 (Detroit, 1972), passimGoogle Scholar.
22 See esp. Benson, Lee, The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy (Princeton, 1970)Google Scholar; Formisano, Ronald P., The Birth of Mass Parties: Michigan 1827–1861 (Princeton, 1971)Google Scholar.
23 Ker, , Louisiana Convention, p. 175Google Scholar; Democratic Expositor, 16 Aug. 1845.
24 Dorr, Harold M. (ed.), The Michigan Constitutional Conventions of 1835–1836 (Ann Arbor, 1940), p. 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Further discussion of this point is to be found in Ashworth, “‘Agrarians’ and ‘Aristocrats,’” pp. 288–91. See also Mac-Leod, Duncan J., Slavery, Race and the American Revolution (London, 1974)Google Scholar.
25 New Hampshire Patriot, 29 Feb. 1844; Camp, , Democracy, pp. 45–47, 54Google Scholar.
26 Democratic Address in Washington Globe, 24 Sept. 1840; Western Review, 1 (1846), 18Google Scholar.
27 Colton, Calvin (ed.), The Life and Works of Henry Clay, 10 vols. (New York, 1904), 8, 101Google Scholar; Whig Review, 4 (1846), 28. This does suggest that there was a greater ideological unity within the Whig party than has generally been recognized.
28 In order fully to understand Jacksonian egalitarianism it would of course be necessary to consider the social context. Perhaps Jacksonian America is best seen as having an under-developed, essentially pre-capitalist economy. Democratic ideology had its roots in English radical thought of the eighteenth and seventeenth centuries. But these ideas were able to flourish in America for a number of reasons. A complete list would include the availability of a huge area of land and the sheer distances separating the nation from any potential aggressor.
