Duff Green Chapter Summary

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.

Andrew Jackson’s presidency is one of the more debated presidencies in American history. Many see him as a hero while others view him as opposite. Depending on which history book is read, portrayals of him are sometimes of “the common man,” who attacked a political system that ignored the will of the common citizens. Other texts would portray Jackson as tyrant, one who disrespected many of the institutions outlined in the Constitution. He is usually celebrated by some because he defended the rights of the common people.

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.

Calhoun. And Andrew Jackson took no action after Georgia claimed millions of acres of land guaranteed to the Cherokee Indians under federal law, and he declined to enforce a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Georgia had no authority over Native American tribal lands. The last example of how he was good was that Andrew Jackson Confronted the issue head-on in his battle against the South Carolina legislature, led by the formidable Senator John C. Calhoun. On History.com it states that Andrew jackson Was the only one that confronted it. This is a very good example of how Andrew Jackson was nice.

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.

During Andrew Jackson’s presidency, he was not the best president. Some might consider him the worst. Most of Jackson’s actions during his presidency were deemed unconstitutional and illegal but were allowed due to the people’s support for Jackson. His plans for America didn’t include women, blacks or Indians. Jackson replaced all the Cabinet members with his selection friends, also known as the “Kitchen Cabinet”.

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. The first reason that Andrew Jackson should be remembered as a hero is because of his unifying leadership.

Through his incredible array of sourcing that includes both primary and secondary sourcing, there is much to take away from this book that previous works do not include. While there are brief areas of criticism that can be stated about this book, Walter Johnson provides the literature of the Old South with a comprehensive, yet a refreshing take on the importance and devastation of

I would recommend this book to more advanced readers. Jackson was involved in many relationships with many people of different views. Although he tried to surround himself with his own supporters, sometimes the opponent seemed more reliable than his own people. These various relationships make the book a bit difficult to read because there is just a lot of information over his personal life, political life, and how personal affected political views. The book is in chronological order and uses reliable resources.

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

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.

Jackson had a great vision of running the country from a common man’s perspective but failed to oversee beyond this perspective and see the bigger picture. At the start of the new nation, the government was bouncing back and forth wether power should stay with the states or within the central governmetn intself. Jackson followed many of the Jefferson’s idea for government and also belived on states rights. This idea slowly began to change when one of the states, south carolina, began to threat the government of seceden from the union.

Andrew Jackson was said to be a divergent president in many ways, especially for his unique background compared to the wealthy ones of the previous presidents. He started off as an orphan and made his way up to becoming a general in the military, then became a frontier and started working in office soon later. Jackson’s presidency was held during an age known as the Age of the Common Man where he was determined to always do what was best for the common people and protect them from the powers of the rich and the privileged. With his success as a populist in his own Jacksonian Democracy, Jackson was able to seduce the American people but frighten the political and economic elite. Although Jackson had good intentions with what he wanted to accomplish

Jackson developed the economy in a way that no man had too much but every man were financially stable. Jackson built new roads and made other infrastructural improvements especially in the south that were of benefit to the more working class “common man”. Jackson also introduced many Acts and Movements that would help to improve the United States and improve the lives of all US citizens. Andrew Jackson, a former orphan and a war hero, was a popular choice when he was elected seventh President of the United States in 1828. This was based on the fact that Jackson did not hail from a wealthy or “elite” background but from the working class western state of Tennessee.

Andrew Jackson was a villain for a few reasons. One reason why Jackson was a villain is because he put America at risk. After he won this first term as president, Jackson put his supporters in top government positions. This meant that Jackson put less qualified people in charge of making the decisions that are necessary for America’s success. Furthermore, even after the Peggy Eaton affair in which Jackson was forced to have his unqualified cabinet to resign, he still only took advice from his loyal friends and supporters, known by his enemies as the “kitchen cabinet”.