Would mass democracy have been so popular if Andrew Jackson hadn't been president?

Answer 1

Probably not. Jackson was a tremendously popular personality. People trusted him

and believed that he was on their side and would do what would ultimately be

be best for them, even if they did not immediately agree with what he was doing.

Answer 2

This is a question of interpretation and, as a result, different people may come to different conclusions.

It is my view that without the presence of Andrew Jackson in particular, populism in America would have chosen a different figure to rally behind in the 1820s and 1830s. This was the period in America's development where, for the first time, the majority of the population was either too young to really understand the Pre-1789 system of government when they lived through it or simply born after 1789. As a result, unlike their parents who were relatively confused about democracy and what it could achieve for them, this new generation had only known democracy and they wanted their opinions to be known. It was in this period that the US began its great spiral into intellectual mediocrity, as noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, because of the more egalitarian distribution of education and literacy. As opposed to Europe, where a certain nobility was respected exclusively for their titles, Americans were more unabashedly critical and more than happy to make their own kings - the origins of populism.

This means that Andrew Jackson simply tapped into this feeling and sentiment and used it to propel himself to victory. However, any other politician willing to capitalize on populism could have achieved the same effect. Now, this is not to say that Jackson was not an enabler and someone who assisted the development of 19th century populism, but the movement itself was far larger and far more of a juggernaut beyond his control than one wherein his absence would have prevented the movement.