Andrew Jackson: Not Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity

1737 Words7 Pages
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 decisively voted for the defendant’s side. I could’ve been the deciding factor on if Jackson is hanged or if he’s spared. Coming into the courtroom I believe Jackson was a vicious president who just wanted to kill to get his way, but in the trial, I came to the consensus that Jackson isn’t always that angry old man people perceive him to be. Sure, he’s killed many people and could’ve possibly led to many more deaths, but his crimes against humanities was never fully brought to light. I believed, that prosecution proved that he was an immoral, violent and at times vicious president, but they never proved he committed a large enough crime to affect humanity. In the opening statements, prosecution called Jackson a president that failed to do his job. He led to…show more content…
He believed Jackson needed a reality check. The Indians were there first, it was their land. He force the Natives to move away from their homeland, with brute force. He believes Jackson could not justify his actions just because it was for America’s benefit. He also stated Jackson refused to listen to many people, and he refused to let Indians live. Theodore believed that the Natives could’ve just assimilated into America’s culture and they 'd be fine.The prosecution then showed that Theodore had a religious bias to this case, which made his statement feel as if they had less weight on the case. They also proved that Van Buren was the president during The Trail of Tears, not

More about Andrew Jackson: Not Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity

Open Document