2011/01/01 by Matthew S. Brogdon · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #American Constitutional Law and Politics #Judicial and Constitutional Studies #Political Theory and Influence
paper · doi:10.1017/s0034670511000064
openalex publication_date 2011/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Abstract This essay contends that we can better understand Andrew Jackson's distinctive account of federalism by looking outside the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian political traditions. More appropriate peers for Jackson, as a constitutional statesman, are John Marshall and Abraham Lincoln. Existing treatments of Jackson miss these connections because they focus primarily on his roles as party leader and reformer, to the neglect of his constitutional statesmanship. A major cause of this neglect is the apparent inconsistency between Jackson's “nationalist” account of the Union in the Nullification Proclamation and his advocacy of “states' rights” elsewhere, a tension that can be resolved by a closer reading of Jackson's rhetoric. Among other things, this redefinition of Jackson's legacy demonstrates that there is no necessary tension between a strong union and meaningful limits on federal power; nor is there a necessary affinity between narrow construction of federal power and state-compact theory.