Question 1: It furthered the idea that democracy can be practiced by everyone.

It wasnt just for the

elite and virtuous men of society. As the frontier lands became states, their constitutions disregarded
owning property as a qualification for voting. This helped with the democrazation of America. It also
introduced politicians as common men, or men of the people. they were no longer elites or part of a
high class society. It made then easier of the masses to connect to then large amounts of voters turned
out for the presidential elections, proof that this new campaign tool worked. Not only did politicians try
to make their image, but common people joined politics, such as Davy Crockett and future two-time
President Andrew Jackson. He rode his man of the people campaign to the presidency. I think this
helped America's image as a country where a man can make something of himself, regardless of birth
conditions.

Question 2: Democracy is illustrated in today's culture by the same idea of self made man and women.
Success is available to everyone, if you put in the hard work. Although I think this idea of the American
Dream really an unattainable illusion. This illusion causes many to migrate to the United States. I also
think democracy is illustrated by the right to bear arm, and its freedom of speech. Despite an increase in
mass shootings and availability of guns to people who shouldnt have access to them, the pro-gun
movement is very outspoken against any regulations. This right is guaranteed in the Constitution and
they will not have it compromised. Freedom of speech is one of those eternal principals of democracy.
Sometimes people go overboard and say offensive or insensitive remarks but they can say these things
because of free speech. This is so entwined in our culture that we take it for granted. it really is a
uniquely democratic idea. Political issues can be discussed openly due to this freedom of speech.
Criticism of our leaders can be safely voiced by freedom of speech.

Question 3: The movement to grant all white men the ability to vote without owning property was a big
step for America. Government effects everyone, so everyone should have a say in eat type of
government they want. I know it started with white men, but eventually all adults got their right to vote.
This was a stepping stone. I dont see how this would have threatened the rights of private property or
political stability. You can't have a select, qualifying few decide how the whole country should be run.
The voice of many would in theory help stop abusive laws from being implemented and tyrannical rules
from staying in office. James Kent as wring and had a constricting view of democracy. Nathan Sanford
has an open mind and knew participation by more people helped ensure our freedoms. This mew theory
was closest in spirit to the ideas behind the Federal Constitution.

Question 4: The endurement of the federal government in economics was an issue that had not been
out to rest. The American System included a big commitment from the federal government. This was
another point in the debate on Federal Government vs. States rights. I'm sure some states did not want
the government interfering in their economy. This came to a head when South Carolina nullified the
tariffs placed by federal government. It also illuminated the importance of banks, especially the national

bank. Later Jackson dismantled the national bank by vetoing its Charter. This caused much debate about
the economic impact. I think it was negative for the economy. Many banks went out of business. I'm not
sure how but perhaps a national bank could have helped the banks out or stopped the mortgage bubble
from bursting.

Question 5: Jackson ran mostly on his character and political values, eschewing the focus on issues. The
book says he fashioned himself a frontier democrat whose honesty and courage were his primary
credentials for the presidency. I think to a certain degree, modern campaigns are run this way. There is
less focus on the issues and more focus on the candidate. Candidates try to make themselves more
likeable to the public. This says a lot about the public. Issues are no longer the top concern, even if we
say they are. Our voting proves that. It seems like Jackson had what are called endorsements in today's
political system. He found a n alliance with Crawford and Calhoun. I think what was unique was his use
of local and state committees. They were organized and spread the word about Jackson to the public.
Modern politics are run in about the same way. This use of newspaper as a small move. they had major
influence and reached millions of people. they could be the equivalent of running TV ads today, but with
the ability to tackle multiple issues by the outcome. He had over twice as many electoral votes as
Adams.

Question 6: The nullification debate was very damaging for the relations between the North and South.
These states were already divided over slavery. Now they were divided over nullification. The southern
states were strong believers of sates rights. They were influenced by Thomas Jefferson's view of
government. The issue of states' rights vs. federal rights along with slavery, would lead towards Civil
War. This isn't much of an issue today, except perhaps for gay marriage and legalization of pot. I believe
this shows that the view of states' rights was being taught and handed down from generation to
generation. Not just in South Carolina but other southern states. The tariff situation reveals the
importance of cotton to the southern economy. It also reveals their dependence on slaves.

Question 7: It clearly showed that Jacksonian democracy was strictly for white males. Other races were
not seemed as deserving of democracy. It also showed it was ok to ignore the constitution in order to
give whites more land and influence. Basically the democracy of whites was placed above the Indians
and African Americans. Their rights could be violated to further the power of the whites, such as lands of
Indians for settling and extracting the natural resources. The Cherokee had a very strong case based on
legality. The state of Georgia and President Jackson refused to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court.
I dont understand how this could happen without serious consequences. As the President, it's critical
that he follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. he should have been impeached. Perhaps this would
have kept the Cherokee's on their land longer, Perhaps a better compromise could be reached.

Question 8: I believe that the Cherokee should have continued to oppose the treaty even after its
narrow victory. He clearly violated the treaties signed between Cherokee and the government. It would
have tied up the battle in the courts for years hoping for a victory from the Supreme Court or a new
president. The likelihood of this happening is very small. It does seem like they were opposing the
inevitable and Elias Boudinot was correct in his view. they shouldnt have given up so easily. The land in
Oklahoma was vastly different from Georgia. Acclimation would have been difficult. Oklahoma doesnt
have the animals needed to hunt or land agreeable to agriculture, Not to mention thousands of Indians
dies at the march to Oklahoma. It was just very brutal and unethical. For those reasons I would have
fought.

Question 9: It was a way for the elitist of colonial America to have their own society. They could interact
with other elitists and discuss the problems of the day. It was an organization that became exclusive to
the elites and powerful men. They also championed Enlightenment ideals. These ideas helped shape the
Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and thus founding our country. Leaders of the Enlighten
would have asked fellow followers to also join the free masons. It got a foothold as a way for people
who wanted Independence to have a meeting place, where they could talk about Independence and the
necessary steps to get there.

Question 10: This quote was true then and is still true today. The rich are powerful and have too much
influence on government. They can cause laws that are harmful to them not to pass. They can avoids
prosecution. The CEOs of many banks perform illegal acts, but none of them were persecuted, why?
Because the banks had grown too powerful. to punish them would mean to punish the economy. The
rich and powerful have favorable tax laws, tax breaks. The government caters to them and not to the
common people who elect them. During the Industrial Revolution, powerful men like Rockefeller,
Carnige, Vanderbilt and Morgan were allowed to treat employees unethically, massive layovers,
takeovers and monopolies and business.