Final answer:
Andrew Jackson navigated the conflict of nationalism and sectionalism by upholding both a strong union and states' rights based on the will of the majority. His actions during key events like the Nullification Crisis and the Indian Removal reflect a balance of these priorities. Thus, option C best describes his approach.
Step-by-step explanation:
How did Jackson approach the conflict of nationalism and sectionalism? Andrew Jackson's approach to the conflicts of nationalism and sectionalism reflected a complex view that favored states' rights yet upheld the sanctity of the union. In the context of the Nullification Crisis, he took a strong stand to preserve the union when South Carolina threatened to nullify federal tariffs. His toast, "Our federal union, it must be preserved," during the Lincoln Day banquet after the Hayne-Webster debate, clearly showcases his commitment to the nation's unity.
Furthermore, Jackson's Democratic vision expressed a belief in the power of the majority, typifying a philosophy that mixed robust nationalism on constitutional issues with restraint on federal economic intervention. He also sought to redistribute federal government's action to favor farmers and laborers over the business community. Jackson's stance during events such as the Bank War and the Indian Removal also demonstrate an administration focused on popular will and states' rights, albeit at times coming into conflict with federal policies and Supreme Court decisions.
In essence, Jackson's position was more in line with option C of the student's original question; he understood both the states' rights arguments of the West and the need for national empowerment. His positions during significant events of his presidency illustrate an intricate balance between national interests and individual states' sovereignty.