I don't understand why this essay is so terrible?

I’m not quite understand why this essay merited such a horrible grade.
I wrote this essay expecting to get a relatively decent grade, and I ended up getting a D+ (4).
I wasn’t expecting to get a A, but at least a B…
Could someone explain to me what parts of this essay need improvement? I’m not quite understanding what I need to fix. My teacher isn’t exactly providing a lot of advice.
I’d just like to know how it would need to be fixed to fit the AP standard essay.
Thanks. Sorry for the long read.</p>

Prompt:
Jacksonian Democrats viewed themselves as the guardians of the United States Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of economic opportunity.</p>

In light of the following documents and your knowledge of the 1820’s and 1830’s to what extent do you agree with the Jacksonians’ view of themselves?</p>

<pre><code>The Era of the Common Man, during the 1820’s -1830’s, was a period of American history full of conflicting beliefs, especially concerning democracy. Jacksonian Democracy was an authentic democratic movement with significant political reform, but overall, was grossly disproportionate in the way that it benefited American society. During this era, the enslavement of Africans, one of the most vilified examples of inequality, was at a new high in America. At the same time, enormous disparities of wealth existed between rich merchants, industrialists and planters, and their largely disregarded workers: immigrants, African slaves, and the common man. While these contradictions epitomized America, Jacksonian Democrats nonetheless perceived themselves as guardians of the Constitution, political democracy, individual liberty, and equality of opportunity. In reality, the Jacksonian Democrats were not by any means true champions of American liberty. Although the Jacksonians somewhat affirmed to their beliefs in establishing economic opportunity and clearly were dedicated to powerful, at times radical, egalitarian ideals, these ideals were primarily beneficial for white men. The Jacksonians barely abided to the United States Constitution in their political practices and more or less excluded individual liberty for “all” men. For the most part, Jacksonian Democracy appears to be little more than a political impulse tied to slavery, the subjugation of Native Americans, and the celebration of white supremacy.
Admittedly, there exists evidence to support the Jacksonians as guardians of economic opportunity because they attempted to remove any impediments to ordinary citizens’ opportunities for economic improvement. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney supported the construction of the Charles River Bridge, thus portraying the Jacksonians’ belief in eliminating the monopolies of the elite and creating equal economic opportunities for all citizens (H). The Jacksonians vetoed the Second Bank of the United States because not only was it held by foreigners and a few rich American citizens, but it also expressed privileged banking and monopoly, thereby becoming a tool of oppression by the wealthy and a treacherous institution by which the men in power were negligent to the people (B). Political democracy seemed to blossom thereafter, for the Jacksonians expanded opportunities by removing restrictions and privileges that had their origins in the government by means of the spoils system. This gave equal access to office and by raising the common man’s participation in the political process by eliminating the property qualification for voting (A). Foreign observers such as Harriet Martineau, a British author, were quick to note the apparently abundant prosperity and knowledge that seemed spread throughout the country, which they attributed to surely being an effect of the Jacksonians’ benevolent care. (D) In truth, the end of the Second National Bank produced a period of runaway inflation, only worsened by Jackson’s Specie Circular in 1836, where every bank began to accept payment only in coined money, forcing a dramatic, deflationary backlash, and the federal government lost around $9 million deposited in pet banks. The Panic of 1837, as this was called, was followed by a seven year long depression, with record high unemployment rates and the failure of banks everywhere. By the end of 1837, a third of the workforce was jobless, and those who still had jobs had their wages cut 30-50% in less than two years.
The Jacksonian Democrats did not only fail in improving economic opportunity, but also in implementing the individual liberty they promised. The Era of the Common Man observed a number of political reforms: an increase in voter participation, nominating committees replaced caucuses, and elections determined by popular vote. Yet, all of these voting alterations primarily affected only a small portion of the American people: White Anglo-Saxon males. The Jacksonians were so set on their goal of equality for white men that they entirely disregarded racism. These democratic reforms, especially those regarding voting and representation, came directly at the expense of free blacks. To that end, despite their claims of being champions of strict interpretation, Jacksonians often defied constitutional premises for their own purposes, showing a determination to sacrifice their principles for their goals. Even though the national bank was declared constitutional in McColloch v. Maryland, Jackson completely disregarded the court ruling and continued to pursue his own agenda to oppose the national bank. Jackson’s veto of the recharter provoked negative reactions among many, including Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, who claimed that the veto obstructed the freewill of the common people, and deepened sectional differences between the wealthy and the poor by creating resentment between the classes. (C) Jackson’s apparent indifference towards the Constitution only continued with his treatment of Indians during the 1830’s. Regardless of being informed by constitutional principles and genuine paternalist concern towards the Indians, Jacksonians simply assumed that the Indians were lesser peoples, and pursued an unrelenting program of Indian removal, evicting the Indians from their land through the brutal Trail of Tears. (G) The Supreme Court ruling that the Cherokee had an “unquestionable right” to their lands in the case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) was irrelevant to Jackson in light of his goals.
The Jacksonians’ lack of consideration for minority races only continued. Following the construction of the Erie Canal, in 1825, the Delaware and Hudson Canal in 1828 and various other transportation improvements such as railroads thereafter, along with influxes of immigrants, the collapse of the older yeoman and artisan economy accelerated, until it was finally replaced by cash-crop agriculture and capitalist manufacturing brought about by the Industrial Revolution. In the South, the cotton boom invigorated a deteriorating plantation slave economy, which would only worsen conditions and increase the demand for African slaves. The demand for agricultural land rose, which led to the continued seizure of lands from Native Americans and mixed-blood Hispanics in the West for white settlement and cultivation. Not everyone benefited from the market revolution, least of all the nonwhite population. Conditions did not improve under Jackson’s government, despite his claim that all men should have equal say and opportunities. As demonstrated by the clauses in the Acts of Resolutions of South Carolina (1835), the Democratic party had a clear southern predisposition, and pro-slavery bias. (F) The Jackson administration was openly hostile towards abolitionism and any efforts to disturb the South’s slave hierarchy, condemning abolitionists as fomenters of rebellion, curtailing abolitionist mail campaigns, enforcing the congressional gag rule that squelched debate on abolitionist petitions, while fending off the more extremist proslavery southerners to maintain a semblance of equality. Jackson himself was a substantial planter, owning many slaves, and while he insisted that they be treated “humanely,” he showed no disposition to disturb the legal and constitutional arrangements that maintained the slave system. Opposing antislavery was one thing, silencing the heretics with gag rules amounted to tampering with white people’s equal rights. The poor treatment of the minorities of the country by the Jacksonian administration only continued to grow more evident. Philip Hone, a Whig politician and New York businessman, wrote descriptions of two riots he witnessed that had broken out between minorities, the main cause being “indiscriminate persecution of all those whose skin were darker…” (E) Any black, regardless of social status, whether enslaved or free, was still considered inferior to the white man in all areas of the country.
Although the Jacksonian Democrats advanced the democratization of American politics, and broadened electoral participation, their very disregard of the issue of slavery proved to overturn some of the very egalitarian principles upon which the Jacksonians were pledged to uphold. Their disregard of constitutional law in both cases were fruitless endeavors that only proved to have stiflingly negative consequences in the long run. The strong theme of racial prejudice that stood so central to Jacksonian Democracy will forever poison their legacy with presumptions of white supremacy and class justice.
</code></pre>

<p>By the way, this is for AP US History.</p>

<p>this is really something you should talk to your teacher about</p>

<p>I’m going to assume that this was a take-home essay because there’s no way you wrote this much under timed conditions.</p>

<p>Your essay is just too long for its own good. Shorten your thesis to one, two sentences max and just make sure you get the core parts of your essay down without going into too much detail. You’ll save time for when you’re on a real essay and won’t have to repeat your concrete details in the body paragraphs.</p>

<p>The body paragraphs shouldn’t just have introductory background details and should just get to summarizing all the documents in one sentence with one sentence worth of analysis (some parts of your essay after the document are just mentioning more historical facts without any insight into why something was so or what the document means/shows). </p>

<p>This had to take you at least 4 hours to write on your own and you’re just not going to get that much time on the AP exam so learn how to write concisely and efficiently.</p>

<p>Your teacher marked you down not because its structure was bad but because you’re not writing concisely and you’re basically just tossing every fact you know about the era in there.</p>

<p>You’re writing a history lesson, when the objective is to ANSWER the question.
Essentially all you have done is throwing paint onto a wall method.
Taking every bit of history and tossing it into your essay and hoping something answers the question</p>

<p>Well, that does clarify things a bit, now that you point them out.
I don’t think I really understood the AP US History essay format.</p>

<p>OntheMark and Weeknd are correct. </p>

<p>Key to an AP essay is adhering to the prompt. You need to be able to write a nice essay that answers the prompt with an argument and supporting details within 30 to 40 minutes.</p>

<p>It is obvious you are very knowledgeable of Jacksonian Democracy. You included a lot of information, a bit too much compared to your argument. Facts are great but you need to use them behind an argument.</p>

<p>You did a nice job of using documents. Very nicely integrated and cited.</p>

<p>I would not have given you a 4. I think it a bit strange your teacher gave you no time restraints yet graded AP-style. With unlimited time and resources, I would have probably given this a 6. You have an argument, but it is drowned out by tons of facts.</p>

<p>I don’t really know.
The grade on the essay has truly been tearing at me for some time…
I still don’t think it merited such a low grade…I’ve been reading other essays with this prompt and I just don’t understand why this got a 4.
These are the things she noted to mark me off on:
-She said my thesis was confusing and not focused enough.
-The use of the word “racism”, it wasn’t used in the 19th century, so I shouldn’t use it in my essay
-I didn’t state WHAT constitutional principles were violated by Jacksonians (neither did anyone else in my class?)
-My TS in the 4th paragraph did not connect to the prompt
-She didn’t see the relevance of the information introducing the 4th paragraph</p>

<p>Overall comments:
-the paragraphs ramble, I need to tighten up the focus and use points that clearly relate with the thesis
-“language was out of alignment with 11th grade abilities-be careful with research”<—this seems unfair
-be sure evidence connects to documents correctly</p>

<p>Overall, she said this essay was confusing.</p>

<p>Have you talked with your teacher about it? She’ll probably give you a more indepth explanation.</p>