Andrew Jackson has often been called the "'common man's" President because he seemed to understand the problems and concerns of everyday citizens. Jackson and his followers believed that an ordinary person could serve well as a leader. The "common sense" of the "'common man"' was all that was needed to be a good leader.During the 1828 election campaign, Jackson categorized his opponent as an "intellectual elitist" who could not relate to the plight of the "common man." With that message, he won a landslide victory and became the 7th president of America.
However, when he entered the presidency, Jackson was faced with a problem. Many of the appointed government positions were filled with those loyal to the previous president: Adams. Thus, Jackson put into place a "spoils system," following the motto: To the victor belong the spoils of the enemy. New officials replaced the previous Adams-supporters. Nearly 10% of federal employees were fired and replaced by Jackson's friends. These later became known as Jackson's "kitchen cabinet" because they slid in through the back door.
As a new president, you have the power to appoint many people to government jobs. You also face the threat of previous employees undermining your administrative work as the president. Would you have done what Jackson did? Why or why not?
I would have definitely done what Jackson did. Being a new country things needed to be done. With cabinet members opposing his views the presidency would not get anything done. They president had this power and it was also his duty. I would have done the exact same thing, and I think this kind of policy should be practiced more today also. Having a part of government very balanced in views is almost worse than one that is very unbalanced. If its balanced noting gets passed or done.
ReplyDeleteAs a new president, I wouldn't do what Jackson did. I would try to appeal to both my own supporters and the supporters of my enemy. I think that the only thing Jackson ultimately did was further aggravate the relations between his party and Adams' party. I think that a better choice (the choice I would make) would be to try and let the two groups coexist, rather than openly favor one side, even if it's the side I myself support.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nick. You do not want chaos between the government, and if Jackson thought the best thing to do was replace the formal appointed officers he should do that.
ReplyDeleteMy feelings are split between Nick and Richie. I feel that as a new president, I would want people who support my beliefs and me. However I also think it's important to keep a few of Adams officials. This situation is like the Supreme Court. If you have multiple viewpoints, more opinions can be heard and situations can be looked at differently.
ReplyDeleteGood point about "chaos within government," but couldn't you also argue that a constant turnover will cause chaos of a different kind?
ReplyDeleteIf I were president I would not have done what Jackson did. I don't think that it is right to hire your friends as cabinet members. I know that if I worked with my friends I wouldn't get anything done. It isn't fair that they "slid through the back door" without being properly elected. I would have held a proper election to elect cabinet members that I knew would work hard and do what I said.
ReplyDeleteYes, I would have done what President Jackson did. I believe the spoils system would help with the efficiency of the presidency. If I had the cabinet of the president before me, they would be accustomed to that President, and not very willing to alter to my policies. Also, if they were from a different party, then we would clash and spend most of the time arguing, rather than solving issues.
ReplyDeleteI agree, I would have done the same thing as Jackson. If I were put into office with a bunch of people who don't agree with my views, I would defiantly replace them with people who agree with me and have been loyal to me.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Jackson's decision because he allows there to be different opinions in his cabinet. It may not have been the right thing to choose close friends but he does bring in people who are loyal to him. With keeping 90% of Adams cabinet members, it shows the mix between both parties. Overall, I think that this was a good decision on Jackson's part in maintaining peace with mixed opinions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackson's Spoils system due to the fact that he was able to replace previous Adams-supporters which would give the government new views. Jackson only removed 10% of federal employees so friends of his would support him and work strongly with him. A little amount of people were fired which meant that old knowledge and experience was still being represented in the government, so therefore I agree with Jackson's decision of mixing new brains with experienced brains.
ReplyDeleteJackson was just trying to make the people feel comfortable with him. Show them that he was just another "common man" and he wanted them not think he was trying to go against what the people need. Although I think he still needs to have his own thoughts and perspectives on what needs to happen as a nation whether the people agree or not.
ReplyDeleteI defiantly would have done what Jackson did because by replacing the cabinet of people against his ideas with his supporters he is ensuring that they will get stuff done. If he kept the cabinet full of the people against his ideas they would never get anything done because they would constantly be fighting. An example of this is when Adams an Federalist was elected President and Jefferson a Democratic-Republican was his vice-president since they had different ideas on everything they got almost nothing done because they were always fighting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jackson did because it was necessary. A president doesn't want his cabinet to have different views then him. At the same time though I don't like how this creates political rivalries.
ReplyDelete@Brad, I think you have to realize that he only got rid of 10% of Adam's members and kept the other 90%. This is showing that he had more Adams influence than Jackson members. Maybe Jackson should get rid of more members to create more of an equal representation. I would understand this more because Jackson would have people who are more loyal to him.
ReplyDeleteBringing in his own people defiantly made him feel like he could have made better decisions as a president. The president doesn't hold the sole power in office, and if he can't agree with the appointees, or they are used to working with another leader, then not as many things will get accomplished, and many things would be disagreed on.
ReplyDeleteI would have done what Jackson did because if he didn't do what he had done then it would be confusion throughout the government and replacing people who disagree with him was a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jackson did because there is no point to have cabinet members that don't share the same point of view, or else nothing would get done. He didn't necessarily have to bring in his own friends but at least they had the same ideas.
ReplyDeleteWell, I can see why Jackson did that. I'd want people to agree with me if I were president. But this move in a way makes him look arrogant in the way that he refuses to work with anyone who won't just agree with everything he says.
ReplyDeleteI would have done the same thing as Jackson. It is very important to have employees that agree with me and my ideas. Since the United States was still a new country at that time, I think keeping haters would create more problems than removing them from office and hire people that actually agree and support my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI mean, maybe he could be proved wrong, and needs someone to criticize him if he does something wrong. Maybe if the people Jackson hires have a fear of disagreeing with him, because of course Jackson hired them so that they would agree with him.
ReplyDeleteI would have done what Jackson did because if my presidency is at risk because there are people that would undermine me I would get rid of them and make those positions people that I could trust and would help my presidency.
ReplyDeleteI both agree and disagree with what Jackson did. I agree because by taking on the persona of "the common man", he is making himself a true executive representative of the US, which is what every president should aspire to be. However, I disagree with his "spoils" theory, because not only does it sound like something a militaristic society would do, but it's also not a good representation of the US. It IS a good representation of Jackson, because those are the people he surrounded him with. The Cabinet, because there are more people, should represent different viewpoints. That's how we get a well-rounded government.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Costa. It would only be wise to get rid of the people who could hurt you for people that would help you. Also he makes a good point that it didn't have to be his friends. It could be people with the same views in general.
ReplyDeleteyes, well-rounded, that is a good word to use!
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a sticky situation because if you constantly change the people within the branch it will show in the way of governing, there would be a major change in styles every time a new president comes into office. But now if the president leaves the people he disagrees with in office it will leave him arguing with them on every decision he makes which is just not productive.
ReplyDeleteAnd Nick, criticism can help sometimes too. By surrounding himself with people with the same views who think so highly of him, he would probably start to get a big head.
ReplyDeleteThat's very true Adele, but i dont think that he should always be pressured by the people. I think that he needs to do what is best for the country.
ReplyDelete@CLARA-- I agree that it would be inefficient to work with friends, as it is hard to get work done. But I think that the president would be appointing people he trusts, and know will do well where he puts them, and not friends that he knows he won't work well with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Jackson did. I believe the ability to delegate is one of the most important requirements that a powerful man should have, and Jackson used it to appoint some officers that he thought would have made the best decisions for the nation
ReplyDeleteIn order to minimize the growing sense of resent within the government, I would have handled the situation like Jackson had. The opposing views between loyal Jacksonian employees and employees from the former Adams administration would have created unnecessary chaos. Imbalance was the last thing America needed during that time period, and I agree with Jackson's actions because he took the needed precautions to run the most stable government he could.
ReplyDelete