Andrew Jackson vs John Tyler

[TDAS04]

Tyler was less terrible.

[Alben Barkley]

Hard disagree. Jackson preserved the Union against Southern agitation while Tyler was the only president who actually became a traitor and joined the Confederacy. For all his faults, Jackson NEVER would have done that. He said he wished he had John C. Calhoun hanged for treason.

[S019]

Both are awful, I guess Jackson is slightly less awful, but I really can't vote for either

[SWE]

Jackson was significantly more destructive

[OSR stands with Israel]

Jackson and it’s not remotely close

[F. Joe Haydn]

Hard disagree. Jackson preserved the Union against Southern agitation while Tyler was the only president who actually became a traitor and joined the Confederacy. For all his faults, Jackson NEVER would have done that. He said he wished he had John C. Calhoun hanged for treason.

This, actually.

[HisGrace]

Jackson was actually competent and has some accomplishments to weigh against his faults.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Tyler did no good things and Jackson did one good thing, so him I guess?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Tyler did no good things and Jackson did one good thing, so him I guess?

Not atteibuting these things to him necessarily, bit didn't the 1841-1845 period have some notable achievements in foreign policy?

[RINO Tom]

I mean, I like Tyler better (and thought I hated Jackson until I saw the hive mind of Atlas, haha...), but Jackson was objectively a better President.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Tyler did no good things and Jackson did one good thing, so him I guess?

Not atteibuting these things to him necessarily, bit didn't the 1841-1845 period have some notable achievements in foreign policy?

Webster–Ashburton is the only thing that comes immediately to mind, but as positive as fixing the northern border of Maine may have been, I wouldn't rank it among the most important diplomatic achievements of this period —nor did Tyler have much to do with it in the end. Apart from that, I would not say Tyler's presidency was particularly successful when it comes to foreign policy issues.

[Big Abraham]

I don't agree that Tyler didn't do anything good—the annexation of Texas happened under his administration—but in general I tend to prefer "less active" (read: less destructive) presidents.

That being said, Jackson was clearly a greater president, and one of the greatest overall, for the one reason that no one here seems to have mentioned—the expansion of the franchise to include all white men, regardless of taxpayer status or property ownership. This was the most radical voting system ever implemented at that time, is probably the earliest that can be called anything resembling universal suffrage. "Jacksonian democracy" really was a democratic spirit, broadening national political participation and inheriting the Jeffersonian aversion to the aristocracy and monopolies and a fondness for the common man, and proved the defining trait until the Slavocracy had ensnared the government in the following decades.

[SWE]

the expansion of the franchise to include all white men, regardless of taxpayer status or property ownership.

This had nothing to do with Jackson and it wasn't something he ever supported

[Battista Minola 1616]

the expansion of the franchise to include all white men, regardless of taxpayer status or property ownership.

How many times do Truman and SWE among others need to debunk this before it gets put to rest?
Andrew Jackson was arguably a product of that, certainly not a cause.

[S019]

the expansion of the franchise to include all white men, regardless of taxpayer status or property ownership.

How many times do Truman and SWE among others need to debunk this before it gets put to rest?
Andrew Jackson was arguably a product of that, certainly not a cause.

Yeah the expansion of franchise was something that happened at the state level, it just happened to benefit Jackson since the National Republicans/Whigs were still obsessed with winning the votes of rich people in New England.

[Big Abraham]

the expansion of the franchise to include all white men, regardless of taxpayer status or property ownership.

This had nothing to do with Jackson and it wasn't something he ever supported

Patently false. The process began after the 1812 war, sure, but the Jacksonian Democrats were major proponents of the expansion of suffrage. It was not till the end of Jackson's administration that large majorities of white men were routinely voting in all states. If you want to argue Jackson himself had ulterior motives about universal white suffrage, then fine, but there is a reason why the democratic movement took after his name, and why proponents of this system stripped away the moneyed qualifications of electors throughout the '20s and '30s.

the expansion of the franchise to include all white men, regardless of taxpayer status or property ownership.

How many times do Truman and SWE among others need to debunk this before it gets put to rest?
Andrew Jackson was arguably a product of that, certainly not a cause.

The ultimate cause? No, of course not, the process was going before Jackson got into office. But he certainly helped it along, as evidenced by the fact that political participation massively increased during the Jacksonian era as a result of the policies he championed. White men may have had access to the ballot box, but it meant nothing if they did not vote. Jackson and the Democrats systematically sought out potential voters and brought them to the polls. Voter turnout soared during the 1830s, reaching about 80% of adult white male population by the time of the 1840 presidential election. You think Jackson didn't have anything to do with that?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

the expansion of the franchise to include all white men, regardless of taxpayer status or property ownership.

This had nothing to do with Jackson and it wasn't something he ever supported

Patently false. The process began after the 1812 war, sure, but the Jacksonian Democrats were major proponents of the expansion of suffrage. It was not till the end of Jackson's administration that large majorities of white men were routinely voting in all states. If you want to argue Jackson himself had ulterior motives about universal white suffrage, then fine, but there is a reason why the democratic movement took after his name, and why proponents of this system stripped away the moneyed qualifications of electors throughout the '20s and '30s.

Well that was not the original claim, was it? Jackson himself played essentially no role in the expansion of suffrage, and when he took office in the spring of 1829, universal (white) manhood suffrage was already the norm. Even before the majority of states repealed property and tax requirements for voting in the 1810s (long before anyone ever called themselves a "Jacksonian Democrat"), the overwhelming majority of white men—well over 90%—were already eligible to vote. Crediting Jackson for establishing universal (white) male suffrage is like crediting Andrew Johnson for freeing the slaves: the expansion of the franchise had begun long before he was ever thought of as a candidate for president and continued without his help throughout the 1830s.

The second part of your argument, re: mass popular participation in presidential campaigns, is more reasonable, but Jackson himself had very little to do with this. Martin Van Buren deserves far more credit for actually building the Jacksonian organization, while Jackson was not particularly unconventional in his conduct as a presidential candidate of the time.

[Mr. Smith]

Jackson did much good and bad, Tyler was just plain terrible.

[KaiserDave]

Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that Andre Jackson established or fought universal male suffrage!

In truth I used to mistakenly believe it myself, but thanks to SWE and Truman, I have seen the actual real historical record.