Jackson's opponents argued against the spoils system primarily on two grounds:
-
Corruption and Inefficiency: Critics claimed that the spoils system led to widespread corruption and incompetence within the government. They argued that appointing political allies and supporters to government positions, regardless of their qualifications, resulted in a bureaucracy staffed by unfit individuals. This undermined the effectiveness of the government and the quality of public service.
-
Undermining Meritocracy: Opponents contended that the spoils system dismantled the principle of merit-based appointments. They believed that governmental positions should be filled based on ability and experience rather than political loyalty. This, they argued, should foster a more professional and capable civil service that could serve the interests of the public effectively.