Were Andrew Jackson's Policies - Good for the Economy? - Were Andrew Jackson's Policies Good for the Economy?

Aug 28, 2026

Uploaded by Terk

Examines whether Andrew Jackson’s policies were economically beneficial by defining “the economy” as “us” and linking prosperity to secure property rights, efficient use of resources, human capital, and technological change. Contrasts modern economic models with Jackson’s intuitive understanding and highlights how the early nineteenth-century electorate defined “us” as white Americans, excluding Native Americans and African Americans. Argues that, from that political perspective, Jackson’s policies could support growth, while acknowledging serious moral failures.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Were Andrew Jackson's Policies "Good for the Economy"?

What "the economy" means

Jackson's Land Policies

Indian removal and land access

# Were Andrew Jackson's Policies "Good for the Economy"? Author(s):Robert Whaples Source:The Independent Review,Spring 2014,Vol.18,No.4(Spring 2014),pp.545-558 Published by:Independent Institute Stable URL:https://www.jstor.org/stable/24563169 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,researchers,and students discover,use,and build upon a widerange of content in a trusted digital archive.We use information technology and tools to increase productivity andfacilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR,please contact support@jstor org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms &Conditions of Use,available athttps://about.jstor.org/terms Independent Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access toThe Independent Review # Were Andrew Jackson'sPolicies“Good for theEconomy”? ROBERT WHAPLES From the point of view of most twenty-first-century Americans,AndrewJackson was at best a lunatic,at worse a monster.Jackson's unpardonable sinsinclude building his wealth on the backs of slave labor,massacring NativeAmericans,and trampling the Supreme Court's rulings to send the Cherokee to theirdoom on the Trail of Tears.In addition,he was a wild man—who married a womanwho wasn't yet legally divorced and who carried to the grave festering wounds andbullet fragments from two duels(Remini 1981,1).His contemporary critics damnedhim for constantly overstepping his authority,calling him a demagogue whose violentpartisanship unsettled the economy.Many of his deeds clearly deserve condemnation.But the majority of the American people seemed to love this war hero and successfulbusinessman,electing him with landslide majorities in both 1828 and 1832. Were Jackson's policies ultimately good for the economy?The answer to thisquestion hinges on what is meant by“good for the economy”and depends on one'simplicit model of how an economy functions—on what it takes for an economy andits people to grow and prosper.What is “the economy”?In a word,it is “us.”If we, 1.When I visited Jackson's home,the Hermitage,last summer,the tour seemed to be equal partscelebration and apology—especially for Jackson's actions as a slave owner.Although his most notedbiographer,Robert V.Remini,concludes that Jackson “treated his slaves decently and tried to makecertain they were not abused by overseers,"he also notes that his behavior toward them“on occasioncan only be described as barbaric”(1988,51). The Independent Review,v.18,n.4,Spring 2014,ISSN 1086-1653,Copyright ◎2014,pp.545-558. the people of the economy,are prospering,then the economy is prospering.Themillions of individual decision makers in the economy are us,so “what's good forthe economy"means “what's good for us."The thrust of modern economic thinkingand much of economic history is that widespread prosperity and economic growthcome from establishing a society with(1)secure property rights,which gives peopleincentives (2)to put their resources into high-valued uses—for example,to develop(not waste)natural resources,to work smart and hard,to take responsible risks,to trade,to become educated—and (3)to develop new technologies(Margo 2013) Economists often look at the proximate sources of economic growth usingmathematical models,which simplify the entire economy into a single equation—aproduction function that models how the economy turns inputs(such as land,labor,and capital)into specific outputs(such as corn,cotton,and cloth)and ultimately intothe gross domestic product(GDP).These models emphasize that the two directchannels to growth in per capita income are increasing the amounts of inputs perperson and increasing "total factor productivity"so that the same amount of inputsproduce more output,especially because technology improves. Andrew Jackson would probably have had little use for these models,but he hadan intuitive feel for what would allow the American economy—or,more precisely,theAmerican elec

FAQs

How does the essay define whether a policy is “good for the economy”

It ties “good for the economy” to what promotes broad prosperity, defining the economy as “us.” “What’s good for the economy” therefore becomes “what’s good for us,” guided by an implicit model of how economies grow.

Why does the author emphasize different definitions of “us” in Jackson’s era

Jackson and his electorate defined “us” as white people, excluding American Indians and African Americans. The essay states that this outlook frames why Jackson’s policies may appear economically beneficial from the perspective of that electorate.

What land-related policy does the essay identify as central to growth

It identifies Jackson’s push for increasing cultivable land, especially through Indian removal, as a key policy. This policy is presented as enabling white access to fertile land in the South Central and upper Midwest.

Aug 28, 2026

Uploaded by Terk