der the democratic régime, there still remained a strictly limited electorate, property qualifications, long terms of office, and little participation of the people in the election of their officers. The government was still in the hands of the freeholders and the gentry. The theory of the Jeffersonians was in many respects an advance upon that of the government party, but its practice was still in many ways aristocratic. The development of democracy was begun by the Jeffersonian democracy, but its full realization was left for another time and another party.

CHAPTER V

THE JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

THE radical movement which was destined to break down the power of the landed aristocracy, level the old barriers of exclusiveness, and open the way for government of a more popular character, took the form of Jacksonian Democracy. Its leaders made few contributions to democratic political theory, but they broadened the application of principles already familiar. By expanding the electorate, a revolution was made in the basis of the democracy, and radical changes in the superstructure were equally conspicuous. To the more important features in this movement, attention will now be directed.1

Two great forces were back of the Jacksonian democracy. These were, in the first place, the frontier conditions and ideas in the West and South; and, in the second place, the growth of

1 On this period, see J. B. McMaster, United States, IV, V; S. N. Thorpe, Constitutional History of the American People; H. J. Ford, Rise and Growth of American Politics; F. A. Cleveland, The Growth of Democracy in the United States; James Schouler, Constitutional Studies.

cities and an industrial class. By 1830 nine new states had been added to the original thirteen, and by 1850 there had been sixteen admitted, of which only two, Maine and Vermont, were not on the Western frontier. In these new states the conditions, economic and social, were highly favorable to the development of the democratic spirit. Frontier life tended to produce self-reliance, independence, and individuality. It developed a sense of equality on the part of the members of the community. There was no great wealth, no highly polished society, no leisure class, and no historic tradition; the conditions were accordingly unfavorable to aristocratic theory or practice. To the hardy pioneers, the idea of a jure divino king, an hereditary nobility, or a specially privileged class was ridiculous in the extreme; while religious or property qualifications, permanent or long tenure of office, and similar restrictions were altogether unacceptable. They firmly believed in the sovereignty of the people, and, furthermore, in the necessity of giving to the mass of the population, as far as possible, the direction of public affairs. Anything in the shape of special privilege or class exclusiveness became at once an object of suspicion and distrust; but confidence in the people was always met with hearty applause, and was the surest way to popular approval.

A second cause was the increase of the city population, and the development of other than

N

agricultural pursuits. By reason of this development there came into existence a population and a set of interests different from those of the freeholders' aristocracy. They demanded the right to share in the active exercise of political power, exerted pressure in this direction, and helped to bring about the same state of affairs in the East that was being realized in the Western and Southern states.1

This democratic tendency found expression in national politics through the election to the Presidency of Andrew Jackson. In his personality the new leader embodied the characteristics of the new democracy. His defeat of John Quincy Adams, the skilled and accomplished statesman, marked the advent of another type of chief executive and the end of a long line of the old school Presidents. To many grave thinkers, the election of Jackson seemed the triumph of "King Mob," and portended the ascendency of the worst elements of the people, the rule of an ignorant and incapable democracy. They thought that republican institutions were threatened with the very gravest danger, and would not have been surprised to see them wholly subverted.

The importance of the new departure was soon felt in the national government. The President regarded himself as the representative of the peo

1 See on this point the debates in the Massachusetts Convention of 1820, and the New York Convention of 1821.

ple, and asserted the rights of the executive against the legislature and the judiciary as they had never been asserted before. In the days when state constitutions had first been formed, overwhelming predominance had been given to the legislative department; and in the national government also, Congress had occupied the most conspicuous place up to this time. Congressmen had nominated candidates for the Presidency; had already directly chosen two Presidents; their law-making power had seldom met with executive check; they had occupied the foremost place in the direction of the affairs of the nation. In the days of Jackson, the rule of "King Caucus" was overthrown in favor of the less aristocratic nominating convention. The long dormant veto power was brought out and used in a way that had never been thought of in the old régime. The constitutional strength of the executive was for the first time revealed, and the legislature met its first decisive check.

Fear of the executive was soon aroused, and the most painful anticipations of presidential tyranny were expressed. The Whig party was organized in opposition to what its leaders considered the abuse of the executive prerogative. Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, the ablest intellects of the time, struggled hard in defence of Congress, denouncing the action of the President in the most unsparing terms. Webster said: "The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp