According to Thomas P. Abernethy, Jackson was “a frontier nabob who took sides against the democratic movement in his own state…an opportunist for whom democracy was good talk with which to win the favor of the people and thereby accomplish ulterior objectives.” Different views of Jackson continued the debate about who he really was as a leader. It was not until historian Arthur Schlesinger, took a different look at the study of Jackson. He believed that Jackson’s presidency was designed to suppress the power of capitalists, and try to help those of the lower classes. Other historians continued to disagree with Schlesinger, while others supported his idea or enhanced it, saying Jackson was almost similar to a Marxist. In the end, it is my belief that Jackson has to be looked at from a non-biased perspective. As Sellers pointed out, interpretations that Whigs and Progressives have about him are not wrong. There is just a need for more information on the topic. As Sellers pointed out at the end, the Jackson era is filled with controversy and the multiple viewpoints from historians “suggests that we are poor in the data by which our hypotheses must be
It is important to remember that in these times Jackson, as well as many of the time, saw manifest destiny as almost a religious task. This fact means that inaction was most likely not a reality since the nature of the goal was not immaterial. The simple conclusion is that the removal of indians was inevitable. Jackson’s actions expedited the process in an unethical way. His actions conclude that he equated that about 11,000 consequence lives were equal to the expansion of the United States. As I mentioned in the introduction, Jackson has been written in the history book as quite the tyrant. Jackson very well did step beyond his assigned power by overruling the Supreme court and enacting the Indian Removal Act. His act of tyranny does appear to be for the general good of the people of America. Though his actions were for the good of America, this doesn’t overshadow the effects on the indian people. The most significant ethical violation was the violation of civil rights. The Cherokee were forced to leave their land even after they proved that they were in the legal right. By the use of military force the U.S. military took away their right to peaceful leave and basic civil rights.
Andrew Jackson, being a tyrant, abused his power in his time of presidency. He was the 7th president, but before Jackson’s presidency, he had no political experience. One of the only things that really qualified him was the hardships he went through when he was younger. His father had died while Jackson was young and Jackson received the reputation as a “self-made man”, or an independent man. This title gave him a boost on reasons of why he should become president. Other than that, Jackson should not have been elected president, for he made many inexpert and wrong decisions such as the Indian Removal. Andrew Jackson was considered a tyrant because of his removal of the Native Americans, overuse of vetoing, and the general fact that he just
The time has come to make a judgement of the great Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States from 1829~1837. Although some people didn’t like Jackson very well due to very few of his decisions, he made many good decisions during his presidency. Andrew Jackson should be remembered as a hero of the common man due to his unifying leadership, generous approach of governing, and concern for economic equality.
Despite their differences and detestations against each other, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay were both political leaders who possessed similar characteristics and philosophies. In the book Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay , the author Harry L. Watson described the two leaders’ loathing for each other, but he also wrote about the likenesses and related circumstances that Jackson and Clay underwent in Antebellum America. Both men’s beliefs and philosophies played a major role in the formations of the two-party system. With their dedication of preserving the federal Union, both Jackson and Clay devoted themselves to the government and also influenced politics in American public life. One concept that is most notorious about them, however, is the fact that they wholeheartedly despised each other. Watson’s book further describes that Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay mainly had political differences, morals, and characteristics.
Does Andrew Jackson Deserve to be on the 20-dollar bill? In my belief Andrew Jackson does not belong on the 20-dollar bill, due to the simple fact of that in 1836 Andrew Jackson tried over throwing the U.S national bank because he believed that hard currency like gold and sliver should be used. Andrew Jackson in some sense is an ironic placement on any paper currency in the United States. Although this topic is very controversial in the United States. I will try and clarify my belief about why Andrew Jacksons placement on the twenty dollar bill and why he should be reconsidered.
Andrew Jackson is the epitome of a villain. If portrayed in a movie Jackson would be seen as the cruel murderous man who everyone couldn’t help but dislike, but somehow he still managed to be on the twenty dollar bill. Jackson was born into a poor family in 1767. From there on Jackson was a rebellious teen who happened to be imprisoned at the age of thirteen. Once Jackson grew up he experienced a great number of occupations from a lawyer, to a general, he finally chose to enter the world of politics. To become president Jackson had to exploit his opponents, and bribe his supporters by allowing them to maintain government positions. Once Jackson became president he exceeded his presidential powers through unconstitutional means. Andrew Jackson was a lying, unconstitutional, racist murderer who covered up his evil deeds by stating everything he did was for the well-being of the United States.
As shown, he was against Native Americans being incorporated into the United States, he used American citizens for his own gain, and he was against African Americans in almost every way. His racism here is really not comparable to many others, especially at this time. The best comparison is probably the Egyptians and the Hebrews back when the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews to build the pyramids. The Hebrews were used as labor and just seen as inferior to the Egyptians, similar to how Jackson saw the Native Americans and the African Americans. His rule isn’t comparable to many others, as very few other rulers have ever claimed to be one party but acted in a different way. Overall, the evidence shown proves that Andrew Jackson was not a
Born into a non-aristocratic poor family, somewhere in the Carolina’s on March 14, 1767, was a man named Andrew Jackson. Jackson, also called “Old Hickory” was a very bold proactive man in American history. From being a military hero and founding the democratic party to enacting the trail of tears and dismantling the of the Bank of the United States, the man and his legacy are a prominent topic for scholarly debate. Some believe he was a great president and some believe he was the worse president. But if you look at it from a moral perceptive or in the eyes of a foreigner, Jackson’s legacy was far more villainous than heroic.
The era of Andrew Jackson which was nicknames the era of the “common man” certainly lived up to its name. As the seventh President of the United States, Jackson had a major effect on the life of the common man, in such a way that the life of the common man would never be the same again. Jackson’s aim, after the manner in which he was defeated in the Presidential Election of 1824, despite receiving more popular votes than John Quincy Adams who took on the office, was to reduce the power and the authority of the elite. When he came into power after the 1828 election Jackson began to carry out his proposals.
Andrew Jackson was seen as a common man the voice of the people by some. By others he was King Andrew, trampling the constitution and instigating tyranny. Jackson’s presidency impacted democracy, through his use of the veto power, and his claim of Clay creating a “corrupt bargain”, which is not a turning point for a rise in democracy despite him giving white male suffrage.
Born in poverty, Andrew Jackson had become a wealthy Tennessee lawyer and rising young politician by 1812. When war broke out between the United States and Britain, his leadership in that conflict earned Jackson national fame as a military hero and he would become America’s most influential and polarizing political figure during the 1820’s and 1830’s. The year is 1763 in Tennessee and Washington D.C. during the life of Andrew Jackson. As he lived, Mr. Jackson did some foolish things and some impacting things. An example of three of the foolish things that Mr. Jackson did are the following: He was a supporter of slavery’s extension into the New Western territories, Andrew Jackson took no action after Georgia claimed millions of acres of land
First, there is the Erie Canal Documentary. I enjoyed learning about the construction of the Erie Canal and its influence back then. What surprised me the most was the fact that the canal engineers were not actually trained as engineers, but they still were up to the task of designing and building the canal, very impressive of them! After watching the video, I searched for the full version of the Full Bridge song, and I have to admit, it sounds pretty good! It was fun to listen to.
Pretty much what was summed up there was Jackson is a bad person. He forced innocent people to go live in another state, and that state was like the worst one. All because he is racist. He hated Indians because they were with the British and hid.
Granted this is not your typical love story but it proves details of a romance that perhaps should not have been in the first place. This book also gives us a nice glimpse into a life of the wife of our seventh chief executive. Throughout the story we witness the rise and fall of this relationship as well as the pitfalls involved with it. We also get a good glimpse into a volatile behavior of Andrew Jackson, and a society that will do anything to prove a point even if it means destroying a family name. With very little up to that point written about the Jacksons, this story is a nice look at their history as it is essentially a biography of Rachel as the story follows her life through its end.