Opinion of Andrew Jackson

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The breakthrough for mass democracy that occurred in his Presidency ...

What does that mean?

His election was the first to allow popular vote.

[WillK]

The breakthrough for mass democracy that occurred in his Presidency ...

What does that mean?

His election was the first to allow popular vote.

Huh? 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The breakthrough for mass democracy that occurred in his Presidency ...

What does that mean?

His election was the first to allow popular vote.

Huh? 

The Jacksonian era of politics coincided by and large with the removal of property qualifications on the vote, leading to an era of universal white male suffrage.  Also starting with the election of 1828, only at most one state did not choose its electors via the popular vote. (South Carolina continued to have its legislature select the electors in every presidential election thru the one of 1861. (Does anyone have a link to the results for the Confederate Presidential election of 1861?) And Colorado's legislature chose its 3 electors in 1876.)

[Joe Republic]

Does anyone have a link to the results for the Confederate Presidential election of 1861?

Davis was unanimously elected by the delegates at the Montgomery convention in February, and was unopposed in the November general election.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Does anyone have a link to the results for the Confederate Presidential election of 1861?

Davis was unanimously elected by the delegates at the Montgomery convention in February, and was unopposed in the November general election.

That's funny, considering that Davis didn't want to be President in first place. He prefeered to be a general in a new Confederate army.

[WillK]

The Jacksonian era of politics coincided by and large with the removal of property qualifications on the vote, leading to an era of universal white male suffrage. 

Yes I know that.  But how does that relate to an opinion of Andrew Jackson?

The first comment I responded referred to a change that "occurred in his Presidency".   The various voting changes during that era were not done by his administration; they were done at the state level and some states had made the changes before he was president.  As you pointed out, "starting with the election of 1828, only at most one state did not choose its electors via the popular vote" -- the election of 1828 took place before his presidency.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

General Jackson = FF

Indian genocide was certainly a very freedom thing.

Though in the end it made little difference since a peace treaty was signed, would you have preferred the U.S. lose the Battle of New Orleans? Battle of N.O. outweighs nearly everything else.
 

Battle of New Orleans has no real effect. How on earth is that outweighting an Indian genocide?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Jacksonian era of politics coincided by and large with the removal of property qualifications on the vote, leading to an era of universal white male suffrage. 

Yes I know that.  But how does that relate to an opinion of Andrew Jackson?

The first comment I responded referred to a change that "occurred in his Presidency".   The various voting changes during that era were not done by his administration; they were done at the state level and some states had made the changes before he was president.  As you pointed out, "starting with the election of 1828, only at most one state did not choose its electors via the popular vote" -- the election of 1828 took place before his presidency.

But the changes in the electoral system between 1824 and 1828 were to some degree due to the belief that the Eastern elites had conspired to rob Jackson of the Presidency in 1824.  While it easily could have been someone else, Jackson was the catalyst for those changes happening more rapidly than otherwise would have been the case.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why is this guy put in our top ten?

[Cincinnatus]

General Jackson = FF

Indian genocide was certainly a very freedom thing.

Though in the end it made little difference since a peace treaty was signed, would you have preferred the U.S. lose the Battle of New Orleans? Battle of N.O. outweighs nearly everything else.
 

Battle of New Orleans has no real effect. How on earth is that outweighting an Indian genocide?

Battle of New Orleans had no effect on paper.  But I assure you, it certainly effected the attitudes of the Americans and British, as well as instilled national pride in the country.  The Indian genocide will always be a dark mark on Jackson's presidency, but it was by no means an issue solely related to him.  Indians were consistently losing land, and beyond that, Jefferson had suggested removing Indians after the Louisiana purchase.  The misdeeds done to the Cherokee are certainly terrible, but in no way should it be sole justification to write off Jackson, who is one of the more interesting presidents.

The breakthrough for mass democracy that occurred in his Presidency ...

What does that mean?

His election was the first to allow popular vote.

Huh? 

The Jacksonian era of politics coincided by and large with the removal of property qualifications on the vote, leading to an era of universal white male suffrage.  Also starting with the election of 1828, only at most one state did not choose its electors via the popular vote. (South Carolina continued to have its legislature select the electors in every presidential election thru the one of 1861. (Does anyone have a link to the results for the Confederate Presidential election of 1861?) And Colorado's legislature chose its 3 electors in 1876.)

Jackson wouldn't want it any other way considering his absolute annoyance with Henry Clay selling his support for a cabinet position.

[WillK]

But the changes in the electoral system between 1824 and 1828 were to some degree due to the belief that the Eastern elites had conspired to rob Jackson of the Presidency in 1824.  While it easily could have been someone else, Jackson was the catalyst for those changes happening more rapidly than otherwise would have been the case.

Baloney.

"It is a myth that most obstacles to the suffrage were removed only after the emergence of Andrew Jackson and his party.  Well before Jackson's election most states had lifted most restrictions on the suffrage of white male citizens or taxpayers.  Jackson was the beneficiary rather than the initiator of these reforms.  
...
"As has been indicated, the important changes in the suffrage antedated the appearance of Jackson and his party.  In most case, in fact, they owed nothing to them while in New York State in the early 1820s it was necessary to overcome the opposition of the party that later became the Jacksonian Democrats.  By 1824 important restrictions on the vote of white adult males still obtained only in Rhode Island, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Virginia."
-- Jacksonian America: society, personality, and politics, Edward Pessen, page 150-151

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But the changes in the electoral system between 1824 and 1828 were to some degree due to the belief that the Eastern elites had conspired to rob Jackson of the Presidency in 1824.  While it easily could have been someone else, Jackson was the catalyst for those changes happening more rapidly than otherwise would have been the case.

Baloney.

I don't dispute that Jackson benefited from the shift to universal white male suffrage, but the reaction to the election of 1824 is what killed off having State legislatures select electors without submitting the result to the people. In the elections of 1824 and earlier, a significant fraction of the electors were chosen by the State legislators.  Afterward, the sole exception was South Carolina, where the General Assembly was able to maintain a monopoly on power.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why is this guy put in our top ten?

[tpfkaw]

I always enjoy the double standard here - Andrew Jackson is the AMERICAN HITLER for persecuting the Indians, but when discussing how Lincoln and Grant pursued far more murderous policies against the Indians than Jackson even conceived of, the sound of crickets is palpable...

[Stardust]

It wasn't even Jackson who enforced repatriation. It was van Buren.

As for Jackson himself, he's largely a mixed bag. His move against the Bank certainly saved the nation at a time it was most vulnerable to the ploys of New England mercantilists. The bellicosity he found in his second term towards the Slave Power is admirable, but the tact he took in betraying his state's rights principles was not. He spread the franchise and the problems associated with it in equal measure.