 
out of the west came andrew jackson, bringing with him, on the tide of the 
revolution of 1828, the fresh winds of frontier democracy. 
the spokesman for the common man, jackson instituted the principle of 
rotation in office to prevent the development of an aristocracy of public 
officers; to check the power of the "money power," he destroyed the national 
bank; in the tradition of western equality and individualism, the jacksonians 
pressed for universal manhood suffrage and individual freedom. 
this, at least, is the traditional presentation of "the age of jackson." 
actually, jacksonian democracy is a term that is applied to a complex set 
of events and attitudes, and to this day there is controversy over its nature. 
different areas of the traditional interpretation have come under attack 
by modern historians. 
in an attempt to determine answers to the problem posed in the chapter's 
title, we shall examine a number of questions: how much did jackson himself 
believe in democracy? 
was the major source of jacksonian democracy the western frontier or the 
eastern cities? 
was the bank destroyed on behalf of the debtor farmers and workers, or for 
and by jacksonian businessmen who resented the power of the established money 
interests and wanted a larger share of the wealth for themselves? 
was the principle of rotation in office merely a mask for the distribution 
of rewards to political friends out of the public purse? 
the clash of opinion may be confusing, but it is well to remember that few 
issues in today's world are so simple or so clear-cut that there is unanimity 
of opinion. 
to a large extent, your own view of jacksonian democracy will be influenced 
by the set of beliefs about democracy in general with which you approach this 
chapter. 
