Andrew Jackson: Not Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity

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.

There has been a lot of controversy of Andrew Jackson, whether he was a good president or one that destroyed the office of the presidency. However, Andrew Jackson is not guilty. He was a good president and should not be accused of degrading the office of the presidency.

Andrew Jackson is known for being a major advocate for the superfluous removal of the Native American tribes. Jackson was being oblivious when he decided that he should ignore the treaties signed with the natives. The president was exhibiting selfishness and naïveté by confiscating the lands of the natives, to which they rightfully owned. Jackson had forced the “five civilized tribes,” which were natives who had adopted their neighbor’s ideas. These tribes were forced to make a long and perilous journey to the west of the Mississippi River.

Whether Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Policies were ethical has come of debate from the time they were enacted and before. The time that Jackson was president has been fittingly named the Jacksonian Era. One of the iconic images of this era is a political cartoon that depicts President Jackson as “King Jackson the First” as he steps on the constitution and the Albany Plan of Union. I think that Jackson’s actions were not ethical.

Once someone steps in the court room to oversee a trial of this caliber (or any caliber) they must not and will not let the media dictate their perspective of events. Scott Peterson’s jury saw the burden of proof provided by the prosecution and were left with no doubt in their minds by their own deductions he was guilty. The Casey Anthony jury on the other hand took all of the evidence into consideration, but they still were not completely convinced she was capable of the charges being filed against her, leaving them no other decision but to provide a not guilty

As a democracy, we expect our leaders to care about the we want as a union. However, this isn 't what we always get. For example, Andrew Jackson could be considered one of these self serving leaders. To some, Andrew Jackson represents a war hero but others would say he was an arrogant and unbending person. Impoverished and uneducated he would rise from orphan to war hero leaving thousands of Native Americans dead in the wake of his political ambitions. They called him Old Hickory and he would wield his stick without regard, overpowering his adversaries with great might.

Jackson was wanting to change Washington and America. He done that very fast. The very first major piece of legislation, Jackson had recommended and got passed, was the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This act forced Jackson to prevent all the Indian tribes to live East of the Mississippi River. There were five Indian nations that were highly effected. The Cherokee Tribe that was in Georgia, had chosen to fight the eviction. Instead of taking the path that their grandfathers ad fathers had taught them to take, this generation took them to court. John Marshall took up for the Cherokee, said that they didn’t have to move. Andrew Jackson didn’t like Marshall’s idea about the Cherokees. The result ended up being, the Cherokee was rounded up at gun point and was forced to move. Their property was seized. The trail they had to take is when some of the Cherokees die, and they call it the “Trail of Tears.” That was one of the saddest chapter in American History.

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States, and arguably the most popular one. During his time in office, he did many things, such as send the Native Americans away from their home, and get into duels. Since his presidency, it has been debated on how democratic was Andrew Jackson? After looking at the documents, it has been determined that he was not democratic. He was not democratic in three ways. One, he didn’t want to incorporate Native Americans into the United States, as shown in documents K, J, L and M. Secondly, he did not actually listen to the people, as shown in documents E, F, and G. Lastly, Andrew Jackson was also against African Americans, as shown in documents N and O.

Andrew Jackson was born between North and South Carolina in 1767. His father died days before his birth, and Jackson was difficult child. He was an incredibly unruly child. At age 13, he enlisted in the Revolutionary War, he was captured by British officer.after he went home, Jackson's mother died and he had to take care of himself. after he went home, Jackson's mother died and he had to take care of himself. Jackson did not know how to hold his tongue and got to fight often but, at age 17 he became more responsible and got a degree in law. Was Andrew Jackson a minute of people was he a dictator? I believe Andrew Jackson was a dictator because of the fact that he appointed Samuel Swartwout,

Andrew Jacksons presidenicy was very complicated. He was a man that believed that the white folk should be treated evenly. The poor sohuld get momey like the rich, and the rich should get money the same way as the poor. Being a normal man, the rich disliked him for his opinions that did not fit the rich men and women their needs. The conflict with the Bank, and the Indian Removal act made Jackson a hero in my opinion. Andrew did indeed make some horrible decisions in his life, but he also changed history for the best of it.

Andrew Jackson has been remembered as a ground breaking president, even being put on the $20. President Jackson was a controversial figure, doing many popular and unpopular things in his time. Although he is remembered as a hero from the war of 1812, he also caused the Trail of Tears and tried to destroy the National Bank. As a result, Jackson should not be put on the $20 bill. His actions have caused many misfortune showing that villains do exist.

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

Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States, murdered a man cold blooded, he was then elected to be in the highest position in office. Andrew Jackson was a man that thought his way or the highway. Jackson even though was a man of the people that doesn’t make up for what he did.

In the journal article “ Andrew Jackson versus the Historians”, author Charles G. Sellers explained the various interpretations of Jackson, from the viewpoint of Whig historians and Progressive Historians. These interpretations were based on the policies of Jackson. The Whig historians viewed the former president in a negative way. They considered him arrogant, ignorant, and not fit for being president. Sellers pointed out that it was not just because of “Jackson’s personality…nor was it the general policies he pursued as president” In fact, many of them approved of some of Jackson’s policies. It was due to the fact that many of these historians came from wealthy northern families or those in the middle class. Their families had control over politics before the Jacksonian period. When Jackson became president

Guilty or not? The fate of Genghis Khan lay in the hands of the people. Both the prosecution and defense had compelling arguments on the leadership of Khan. The first person that made a compelling argument from the prosecution side was philosopher Ibn al Athir, which was portrayed by Dylan. The testimony of the Ibn al Athir touched on the ethical response to the mass killing and religious tolerance during Khan’s rule. The prosecution presented the evidence well on this person specifically because they attacked Khan on religion, which was smart because Khan was known for religious tolerance but the way the evidence was presented showed he purposely only targeted Muslims. During his testimony, he also said the mass killing was unethical and that