Was Andrew Jackson really the Peoples President?

Looking back on America's past, there is one president that is probably the most difficult to analyze, this president being Andrew Jackson.  Having his own era named The Jacksonian Era, you would think that he was certainly "the peoples president" being given this title.  But, between the Bank war, Indian Removal, and Spoils System, is he really the  peoples' president he is made out to be?

The Bank War was a political battle that was caused by issues regading the Second Bank of the United States.  Congress voted to reauthorize the bank's charter, but Andrew Jackson vetoed it, saying  the following in a message to Congress.
This shows that Jackson is a peoples' president because he wanted to make sure that the bank was completely under control of the United States, and that the ties between them were too few, and it also shows that he wants constitutionality for the poor people as well, and not just a monopoly for the rich.  Not only did the Bank War help to determine whether or not Jackson was the people's president, but the Indian Removal Acts helped to secure his place as well.

The Indian Removal act was certainly an act of a people's president, because although he forced natives off of their land, he allowed for his people to settle onto it by doing so.  Jackson sent letters to the Indians, almost like an eviction notice, to tell them that they would have to leave or they would have to follow the laws of American society, as well as pay taxes, which caused many natives to move and maintain their tribal traditions.  
Map of the land Jackson took from Natives

The Spoils System also helped to determine whether or not Jackson was the people's president, but it had some ups and downs to it. A spoils system is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its voters as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party—as opposed to a system of awarding offices on the basis of some measure of merit independent of political activity.  Jackson decided to rotate officers through this system so that one person could not be considered greater than another.  However, Jackson messed up big when he elected Swartwout to office in his administration, who ended up stealing over a million dollars, and after being told by many people that he was a criminal Jackson ignored it.  
I would have to say that despite this mess up, Jackson is proven a people's president here because he developed the system of government which is widely used today, and this competition between parties has helped to develop our government. Overall, Jackson does fill the shoes he was given, and, despite some faults he made, was still a president for the people.  

Revolutions of 1830 and 1848

In class, we analyzed sources whether or not the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were really as much of a failure as historians claim they were? To kickstart the discovery of the answer to this question, we looked at a map of Europe in the 1800's,which marked areas where revolutions erupted, and it also showed which countries shunted them. We then created a scale based on the outcomes of the revolutions that gave us an idea as to whether or not a revolution was successful, and determined if one side gained more from the revolution than the other. After creating these scales, we broke into groups to learn more about specific revolutions, and we were assigned the Decembrist Revolt.

The Decembrist Revolt took place in Russia in 1825, and we as a group considered it to be a complete and total failure of a revolution.  The goal of the liberal revolutionaries was to bring Constantine to power because they knew that he would make changes in the country, but Constantine refused to take the throne even though it was rightfully his.  Instead, Constantine gave the throne to  Nicolas, who was a conservative, and this action gave a reason for a revolution.  In one primary source from the time of the Decembrists' revolt was written by Mikhail Fonvisin, a Decembrist in support of the revolution, in which he said, "slavery of the vast majority of Russians who had no rights, the cruel treatment of subordinates by their superiors, all manner of the abuse of power, everywhere arbitrary rule."  This displays how people were becoming upset with the way they were bein ruled over, and felt that much needed change would be brought by Constantine.  Another primary source from the time of the revolt was written by a person named Yakushki, a returning Napoleonic war veteran, which reflects on life back on Russia. "Seeing the insipid life in St. Petersburg and listening to the babbling of old men praising the past and depreciating every progressive step was unbearable. We were a hundred years from them.”  This shows that their lives are so dictated and unfair, and also that unless there was change in their country they would never be as strong and powerful as other countries like France were.  Overall, the Decembrists' revolt was probably the least successful revolt out of all of them, as the liberal revolutionaries were killed and achieved nothing.  It can be concluded that this revolt was pointless because the revolutionaries wanted Constantine to become the ruler, but he refused to take the throne, meaning that the entire revolt was pointless.  

The Decembrist Revolt was not the only revolution that occured during these tmes, but the French Revolution of 1830, the Frankfurt revolution, and as the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 also took place.  During the French Revolution of 1830, citizens wanted to keep a constitutional monarchy in place, but their king, Charles X, wanted to abolish it and restore a traditional monarchy.  This caused the people of France to rebel against him, setting up barricades and throwing things at soldiers that tried to break these barricades.  All of this turmoil in Paris caused Charles to flee to England, and the people of France elected a "citizen king" named Louis Phillippe, the Duke of Orleans, who allowed the constitutional monarchy to remain in place.  I consider this revolution to be a success, because the French people fought against tyranny and got to keep the country the way it was by standing up against this force.  I think the Frankfurt Revolution was a failure because the people wanted more political rights and more liberty, but many of them fled to other countries such as the United States, and to me it seems like a revolution isn't successful if people who were revolting fled to other countries.  Finally, the biggest failure of a revolution in my opinion is the Decembrist revolt.  The main reason the Decembrist revolt was such a failure is because they fought to try and crown somebody king who didn't want to be king, and hundreds of people were killed by the government, who was under Nicolas's rule.  Overall, it is obvious that not every revolution during this time period was a failure, and some were able to achieve some amount of success through their rebellion.  

The Temperance Movement

This political cartoon was in favor of the Temperance movement because it easily conveyed the belief that alchohol and the effect of ardent spirits on ones body.  The picture above represents all of the bad that comes out of excessive drinking and alchohol addiction, such as the destruction of the heart, liver, and stomach, and brain, and it also shows a demon-like figure taking money out of the mans pocket, as well as having the destroyed organs be hauled away by these demons.  In the background, a devil seems to be fuelling the distillery, showing that evil is present with the consumption of alchohol.  This image was used as propoganda in order to help influence the Temperance movement and help convince people to stop the heavy consumption of alchoholic beverages.  The artists of this image is saying that excessive drinking leads to poor health and poverty, and is trying to grab the attention of the viewer in order to try and convince them to drink in moderation.

David Claypoole Johnston, Ardent Spirits, (ca. 1837-1841)