How democratic was the new political system? Some historians have painted these reforms as truly dramatic. With the caucus system replaced by political conventions, ordinary citizens like Franklin Plummer found it easier to run for office. With more Americans able to vote, party leaders could not so easily ignore the wishes of their constituents. These historians conclude that whatever the new political system's limitations, the party system addressed responsibly many of the major problems confronting the country. Public policy reflected public opinion rather than the wishes of the elites.

Other historians have voiced greater skepticism. Despite the tide of democratic reforms, both race and gender still defined citizenship, depriving women and minorities of political power. Whatever their power, "the people" referred only to adult white males. Other critics have insisted that democratic reform can be seen as meaningful only if it actually changes the distribution of power in society. Even with more Americans voting, the leaders of both parties generally remained wealthier and better educated than their constituents. Neither party was led by ordinary farmers and workers, the two largest groups in society. Privileged men ambitious for office, like Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay, simply adopted new campaign techniques to win popular support. The result, according to these historians, was that under the leadership of such men the political system evaded the real problems of privilege and the growing concentration of wealth in society. Politicians' self-proclaimed identity with the people was more symbolic than real.

1			To start examining the nature of democracy during the Jacksonian era, read Jackson's First Inaugural Address and his Bank Veto Message. What rhetoric did Jackson use to justify his elimination of the national bank? How did his language compare to that of earlier politicians we have read such as Thomas Jefferson? Does he seem to place a greater emphasis on equality or democracy than did his predecessors? http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/aj7/speeches/jackson1.htm http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/aj7/writings/veto.htm Now read this essay on the Jacksonian era. Does the author believe, as his title suggests, that a more democratic republic did emerge during these years? If so, what evidence does he provide to support this argument? Does he address the skepticism of historians who have perceived the democratizing trend of this period as less pronounced than previously claimed? Do you find his argument convincing? Why or why not? http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part3/AgeofJackson.htm