Talk:Jacksonian democracy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Bold textI don't think that the statement about the Kitchen Cabinet is correct or, at the very least, I think that it's very misleading.

Jackson has a formal cabinet, which he ignored for various reasons, preferring a collection of other people who formnsdfawmed the Kitchen Cabinet.

There is a good deal of vandalism and errors in the Titles of the various sections. "The historical period my butthole for instance."

What are you talking about? Do you know anything about Jackson's Kitchen Cabinet. The Statement is correct. He may have used his Kitchen Cabinet as often, if not more often, than his actual appointed cabinet.

Yes, and the people were mad because the people of the cabinet didn't have to be elected by congress.

People of the Kitchen Cabinet, I meant.

Is it just me or does everything about Jackson on wikipedia seem like it herofies him a bit? He was definitely a much more controversial and less heroic man than he is presented as.

I agree, Jackson wasn't such a great guy! And I don't know if it should really be said that he followed in Jefferson's footsteps. They actually had very different views on a lot of things.

Citations Needed

While the article does have a list of references, it does not cite these references anywhere in the text. To simply list a bunch of texts/websites without specifying which idea comes from which source is a form of plagiarism.--Yatta! 07:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism is word-for-word copying. That is not at issue here. Rjensen 08:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to review the definition of plagarism. Simply put, whenever one uses another person's work in their writing (be it word-for-word copying, paraphrasing, or even just restating an idea that is not your own) they MUST give them credit by using an in-line citation. Not only is this important to ensure academic honesty, but also to avoid giving the impressions that the content of your article is independent research or unverifiable. This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the Wikipedia community, and one of the main reasons why it is often not a credible source of information. For more information on why I have tagged the article with this template, see Template_talk:Citations_missing. Yatta! 06:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In the world of print enyclopedias (including general ones like Britannica and World Book & the hundreds of specialized encyclopedias), the standard practice is to have a bibliography at the end of the article and NOT have footnotes for specific sentences. This practice is universally accepted in the reference world. Rjensen 07:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia entries include citations. This article would greatly benefit from them. Also, the two works listed in Primary Sources are incorrect. They are secondary sources, albeit older ones. Primary sources are those documents from the period in question. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymston (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Locofocos were not major power brokers

It was a movement within the swirl of movements with New York State. They don't appear at all in Meacham's American Lion on Jackson and only in one sentence of The First Tycoon by Stiles. The quote from Stiles is "Through their elected leaders often would make use of the government's economic power, the most radical among them -- especially New York's 'Locofoco' faction (nicknamed after the brand of matches they used when their rivals at a tumultuous party meeting doused the lights) -- championed laissez-faire as their definition of equal rights." --Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

broken sentence

"Complementing a strict construction of the Constitution, the Jacksonians generally favored a hands-off approach to the economy, as opposed to the Whig program sponsoring a two modernization, railroads, banking, and economic growth [4]."

I have no idea how this was intended to be written, but it's clearly broken... 75.187.151.7 (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jeffersonian democracy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 14:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital D Jacksonian Democracy

In the 19th century "the Democracy" was a synonym for the Democratic Party, so "Jacksonian Democracy" meant Jackson's Democratic Party. see William Safire (2008). Safire's Political Dictionary. Oxford U.P. pp. 203–. Also "The Democracy proclaimed itself in favor of the 'pay as you go' policy.'" (1839) from {William Safire (1972). The new language of politics: a dictionary of catchwords, slogans, and political usage. Collier Books. p 485. Therefore the term should be capitalized in the title. Rjensen (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose this. "Jacksonian democracy" is actually a modern historians' term which refers to the convergence of a number of societal and historical trends -- not just narrowly to a political organization. AnonMoos (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article glorifies Jacksonian democracy, while not talking about modern historians' characterizing it as a period of mob rule, demagogy and racism, as it actually was. In reality, there was nothing 'Democratic' about Jackson. This article presents information in the way that a campaign volunteer for Jackson himself might.Van Gulik (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever -- it could be considered to have aspects of "Herrenvolk democracy", but the disproportionate political influence of certain entrenched elites was diminished, and significant progress was made towards the proclaimed goal of deciding things based on "universal white manhood suffrage". It fell short according to modern standards, but in making what was then the most democratic non-small-scale government in the world even more democratic than it had previously been, it was a significant moment in history...AnonMoos (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it lacks balance. Before my last edit, the article did not mention African-Americans or Native Americans. It did not mention the open racism of Andrew Jackson's administration and the limits on democracy. I've added a couple of sentences, but the article deserves a thorough criticism section. As written, it does glorify Jacksonian Democracy.--TM 13:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that Jacksonian democracy is (an example of) Herrenvolk democracy, full stop. Most of the coastal states – Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina never allowed any free black voting – had before 1800 allowed a small number of free blacks to vote, but by 1840 no state outside the older-settled, natural-resource-poorer Northeast did so. Moreover, as restrictions on white voting were removed, free people of color became more rigidly excluded de jure. luokehao, 21 December 2020, 13:51 (UTC)