Andrew Jackson Ethical Analysis

Andrew Jackson Andrew Jackson was born in 1767 between North Carolina and South Carolina, the Waxhaws region. His father died before he was even born because of a logging accident. He eventually became an orphan due to the rest of his family dying from war and sickness. He went to local schools and received an elementary education. A little later in life he became a lawyer and eventually bought land which was a big deal back in the day.

Is Andrew Jackson a hero or a villain? Throughout history Jackson has been viewed as both. Some see him as a war hero and the people’s president. Others see him as a racist and a political tyrant. To me, Andrew Jackson is more of a hero.

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.

Also, No other tribe under the Indian Removal Act had a problem getting to the new land. Andrew Jackson gave them two options. Leave, or Assimilate. Leaving would fix the conflicts between whites and Indians, and assimilating would be easy because their way of life was very similar. The indians chose to ignore Andrew Jackson, and stayed.

Andrew Jackson’s sentiment towards the Native Americans was certainly not a kind one. Manifest destiny was a popular belief among Americans, including Jackson, and he would go to the extent of forcing Native Americans out of their homes to reach their “ordained goal”. He believed in the expansion of southern slavery which is why he pushed for removing the Indians west of the Mississippi, which makes it the more disgraceful. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 said that it will allow American government to offer in-state territories to the Indian’s for their western land. This wasn’t the case when the U.S. went in and drove the Indians out by force.

Although Jackson was important, he was part of many terrible things. Around the 1820s there were many major indian tribes in eastern United States such as Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole. This soon came to a change. Andrew Jackson thought these Indians were in the way of eastern development, using the Indian Removal Act which the congress had approved he decided to kick them out and send them west. In 1831 the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Indians had the right to self government and the United States could not interfere with that.

This historic event was nothing short of ethnic cleansing, a disgusting and hateful act. After the passage of the Indian Removal Act, Jackson proceeded to disregard the rules of his own proposal:

This improves the reader's understanding of the Americans want for land and helps contextualize the arguments made by Wallace. Lastly, Wallace does a good job of not showing a bias towards or against Jackson. He explains Jackson’s personal reasons for putting the Indian Removal Act in motion, but also presents other points. He explains economic factors and factors from outside of the states that influenced the treatment of Natives. The facts presented in this article agree with the prior consensus of this

After three days of Jackson on trial, the jury has decided that the defendant, Mr. Andrew Jackson was not guilty of crimes against humanity. The vote was very close though, Andrew won by a hair, with the votes being 5 versus 3. The jury found that even though the prosecution proved Jackson was a bad man, he did not commit the crimes against humanity.

I don't feel like jackson should be criticized for supporting the removal because I felt like he tried to help and protect them. He wanted to remove them so they would be away from white settlers and being harassed all the

This first seminar was successful due to the insightful comments and output every person brought when conveying our thoughts on Jackson’s actions and the Indian Removal Act. The inception of the seminar began with Maria straight out stating how Andrew Jackson was to blame and he het congress enact the bill. This was the center of our conversation for a good 15 minutes before we switched to examine why Andrew Jackson may have been forced and obligated to enact the Indian Removal Act. Sam discussed how Andrew Jackson had to “ultimately choose,” between his own citizens and the Native Americans. And he was not the only one that wanted this Act, but a majority in congress supported it, which is the reason it passed.

Andrew Jackson passed the Indian removal act He was a plantation owner, who bought and sold slaves. Jackson signed a law that he had proposed the Indian Removal Act, which legalized ethnic cleansing. Within seven years 46,000 indigenous people were removed from their homelands east of the Mississippi. Their removal gave 25 million acres of land “to white settlement and to slavery,” according to PBS he was a strict constructionist or a federal-power expansionist? He set himself to destroy the Second Bank of the United States in a Jeffersonian rage.

Andrew Jackson, John Marshall, and The Trail of Tears There have been many dark times in our History as Americans. Among them is the Trail of Tears,brought upon by Andrew Jackson, which exiled the Indians from the American south and resulted in the death of thousands on the way to Oklahoma. Before this trying time there was speculation within the supreme court whether to treat the Native tribes as a sovereign foreign nation or as a dependent entity within the United States. I will discuss how these decisions came to be, the reactions to said decisions, and the aftermath of these rulings which inevitably leads to the Trail of Tears.

It was a violation of human rights that could be avoided with less selfish from the President Jackson and the

There were two different points of view discussed in the documents. The first view from “Appeal of the Cherokee Nation” showed how the Cherokee was trying to show the congress their point of view about moving from their homeland to a place they do not know. They made valid points why they were not willing to move and their first reason was how they valued their current home because it was the land of their ancestors and they honored their dead in these lands. The Cherokee believed that leaving to the western territory would provoke the western tribes to violence towards the Cherokee members. Andrew Jackson had a different point of view and he was wanting the Cherokee land to use their resources and make more room for white citizens. From his point of view the offer of paying for the