Why did Jackson do so well in the South in 1828/32?

[Calthrina950]

The question is as in the title. In 1828 and 1832, Andrew Jackson got near Stalinian-like levels of support throughout much of the South. In 1832, in particular, he received over 70% of the vote in Virginia, over 80% of the vote in North Carolina, over 90% in Alabama and Tennessee, and won a unanimous vote in Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri. Clay won Delaware and Maryland by narrow margins (as did John Quincy Adams in 1828), and of course, his home state of Kentucky. Louisiana was the only future Confederate state where Adams and Clay were somewhat competitive. Jackson also did very well in Illinois, and got over 60% of the vote there both times.

Again, why was Jackson so dominant in the South? Democrats weren't even able to match his levels of support during the segregationist period (with Roosevelt in 1932/36 coming closest). Discuss below.

[TDAS04]

That Yankee JQA was a horrible fit for the South, for one thing.

Also remember that the South had been heavily Jeffersonian during the 1st Party System, with little love for the Federalists.  Jackson’s Southern strength may have been in-part a holdover from that.  Various factors caused the region to become more competitive during the mid-1830s.

[ElectionsGuy]

What he said and the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1828. I don't know if this site is accurate, because on the Wikipedia page it says Adams got some vote in many of those states that show 99-100% on Atlas.

[Calthrina950]

What he said and the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1828. I don't know if this site is accurate, because on the Wikipedia page it says Adams got some vote in many of those states that show 99-100% on Atlas.

Obviously a very insignificant amount though. Perhaps Atlas rounded up Jackson's figures in some of those states. But it's amazing how well Jackson did in Tennessee in 1828 and 1832, getting 95-96% of the vote there both times. Of course, it was his home state, and native son status mattered a lot more back then (hence why Clay won Kentucky all three times he ran, even against Jackson, and why Adams did so well in Massachusetts in both 1824 and 1828). It's also interesting how, in 1828, Adams dominated the Northeast almost as thoroughly as Jackson dominated the South, getting over 70% of the vote in his home state and in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont. This was probably a reflection of the region's Federalist roots, in addition to his native-son status.

[Del Tachi]

Jackson was a Southerner you see

[Lechasseur]

Jackson was a Southerner you see

So was Clay

[ceres6]

I believe that part of the reason was related to tariffs. While some of the south, especially in the upper and coastal areas which benefitted from trade with the North, had some Whig supporters, the vast swathe of the region benefitted from cheaper imports from more efficient international trade in the early 1800s. It should be noted that Jackson was not totally against all tariffs, but the “Tariff of Abominations” that was passed in early 1828 led to a groundswell among southerners toward the Democratic Party, as it went way too far.

[morgankingsley]

The dude pretty much just started the next political movement with the south understanding democratic ideals since he created the party in those elections and many people felt like he was cheated out of 1824, so he won very well everywhere basically, and he was considered a great president so he won by an even bigger margin as a sort of appreciation for his performance