Though Andrew Jackson was viewed as both a man of the people and “King Andrew,” it seems that he was a man who took mandates from the people and enacted them with his authoritative ruling style and aggressive political behavior, much like a king might.
Looking at his response to crises such as the nullification situation, it seems as though Jackson knew what he wanted and would do anything necessary to achieve those goals. When South Carolina threatened to cancel the tariffs he was imposing, he swiftly let them know his displeasure and even ordered weapons to the state, in case he needed to fight the decision with force (Curtis 148). He attempted to solve the problem within the constraints of the American government through the several speeches, but he made it clear that he had no aversion to violence by introducing the Force Bill (Curtis 151). To be fair, he went through all this military posturing because he felt compelled to protect the interests of the majority, but it still displays his tendency to react harshly and perhaps even outside his jurisdiction to maintain his beliefs.
He did not care much what others thought of his actions, especially those inside his own party. Apparently, in pursuing his goals, he often neglected the wants of his own party and did not compromise as much as they would have liked (Wiley 204). This behavior indicates a tendency to rule rather than govern. Ruling indicates that there was not much room for argument or convincing, while governing suggests that he took all the side into consideration and tried to appease them all. Then there was the fact of the Indian removal. Whatever the prevailing opinions of the day, a true man of the people wouldn’t displace entire populations from their homelands. This is just another example of Jackson’s preoccupation with “majority rule,” something well established in the Constitution but imperfect in the world of public policy.
In a sense, Jackson was a man who took orders from the people and the Constitution, and then he enacted them without regard for dissent. Wiley notes that his critics said both grudgingly and critically, that “Jackson conquers everything” (206). Such a fierce spirit could have been dangerous in the White House, and indeed some say that his presidency was a complete mess, but in the end Jackson fought for the majority through whatever means necessary.