I probably wouldn't have voted for Jackson. My main reason would be an instinctive aversion to any kind of populism, which, despite its democratic rhetoric, is always an elite construct of one kind or another, in my opinion. That said, I would have been somewhat sympathetic to Jackson over his unfair treatment in the aftermath of the previous Presidential election. There's no doubt that the shady, backstairs deal cooked up between Adams and Clay was indeed a "corrupt bargain" that put the interests of a handful of individuals ahead of the country as a whole. So there was more than a sense of justice about Jackson's victory in 1828.

The election of 1828 was characterized by its (more than) fair share of mudslinging. Jackson was accused by his opponents, among other things, of being responsible for the wholesale massacre of scores of Native American civilians. Although just about every white person in the United States at that time believed Native Americans to be racially "inferior," there was still a general sense that Jackson's conduct toward them had crossed the line, as indeed it had. There was something disreputable about Jackson, an air of roguishness about him of which his disgraceful treatment of Native Americans was the most notorious example.

Largely on grounds of personality, then, I would not have voted for Jackson. His enthusiastic support for slavery would also have been a sticking point. He was accused of actually being involved in the slave trade at one point, a charge he fiercely denied. Yet there can be no doubt that virtually all of Jackson's wealth was derived from slavery. That being the case, there was no chance whatsoever that a Jackson Administration would ever have made any moves to ameliorate the horrors of slavery, let alone make any attempt to abolish it.

    I probably would have voted for Andrew Jackson in the presidential election of 1828, but I may well have regretted doing so later. Jackson was probably the most famous living American at that time, earning his well-deserved military reputation after leading the American army in their victory over Great Britain in the War of 1812 and in the First Seminole War. He was typical of the new American frontiersman--brave, reckless and "Old Hickory" tough.
    The incumbent, John Quincy Adams, had been handed the presidency in 1824 after finishing second in both the popular and electoral voting, hardly an overwhelming choice of the people. Being a Southerner myself, Adams' Northern background would have also discouraged me from voting for him. Needless to say, Jackson's later treatment of Native Americans would have saddened me (at least from a 21st century perspective), and it's easy to view Jackson as a racist, back-stabbing liar now, in 2009; but his Southern roots and war record would probably have earned my vote in 1828.

This question needs to be on the discussion board for a wide variety of answers.

I am from Tennessee and actually live on land that once belonged to Andrew Jackson. My white relatives had not yet arrived in the United States from Ireland in 1828, but my other relatives were very much settled here. I am one-eighth Cherokee, and because of that heritage, there is no way on earth I could ever vote for a man like him. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of my ancestors on the so-called Trail of Tears, the forced removal of Cherokees, Creeks, and other Native Americans from the Southeast to the Oklahoma Territory. Somehow, several of my direct ancestors were able to escape and hide in Wayne County, Tennessee; otherwise, I'd be an Oklahoma native.

Jackson was intolerant of any opinion but his own. He is not the kind of man that I could support for president.

Well, I personally wouldn't have been allowed to vote for him because I probably wouldn't have been considered white back then (I'm half white half Asian, they wouldn't have known what to do with me...)

I don't really like Jackson that much because I think he was at least borderline racist with his attitudes about slavery and Indians, but they were pretty much all like that back then.

So I'll pretend I'm a white man of the time, about the same kind of social/economic class that I am now.

Give the choice, I would likely have voted for Jackson over Adams.  First of all, Jackson was from much more of common stock (Scots-Irish, backcountry, not very educated) than Adams, who was a Boston aristocratic type.

Second, I probably would have still been annoyed because of the "Corrupt Bargain" that (I would have felt) had gotten Adams elected four years ago.

Finally, I might have felt some admiration for Jackson because of his conduct in the War of 1812, specifically at the Battle of New Orleans.

I hope that helps...