After the Civil Rights movement, many historians took different perspectives on history. Up until the 1960’s historians considered the west vacant and unoccupied. Many cultures and peoples had lived in the West before Americans pushed westward. This new generation of historians noticed that in each of the following theories of Andrew Jackson, previous historians could not give an accurate interpretation of Jackson because they neglected to consider the West as occupied. This shift in ideology forced a reexamination of Andrew Jackson. Jackson took on a new persona, he still embodied the West but was stained by his ruthless takeover of Indian Land and the forced relocation of Indians. It is evident there are many different perspectives on
The removal of Indians from their native lands being the start of a long list of actions made by Jackson, he was warmly thought of positively by most of the United States population and risked everything he had to give more power, and even control to everyday people and fighting for the everyday person, because he knew what it was like to come from nothing and be someone with nothing and no power and nothing to give to society like many of the everyday country. He was, a lot like his people ultimately kind and fearful, also smart but yet blind to some true problems in the everyday world, and a man who fought a war for what seemed like a life time Jackson was a man who to me could widely be compared to our first beloved president George Washington. But in Jon Meacham’s American Lion he has presented the set in history, human definition of an inspirational man who forever created the true and yet controversial definition of the American presidency and what it means to be an American. Because to be a President it’s more than a title it’s putting millions of people’s lives in your hands and looking to you to guide them in a time of national trouble and fear, this book gives you all of the above from start to
Throughout time Andrew Jackson is portrayed in different ways. When first elected in 1824 many felt that he won the title unjustly. There was a controversy of a “corrupt bargain”. At the start of the nineteenth century historians “damned Jackson as a backwoods bargain” and believed Jacksonians was “an irresponsible, ill-bred outburst”. As time went on many viewed Jackson as a hero and leader.
Jackson presidency was marked as a new era in Indian-Anglo American relations by imitating a policy of Indian removal. Before the removal, he made about 70 treaties with Native American tribes both in the South and the Northwest. His First Annual Message to Congress and some others begins in December of 1829, which contained remarks on the present and future state of American Indians in the United States. He argued that it was for the Indians own well, that they should be resettled on the vacant lands west of the Mississippi River. During the time in Congress, debates on a bill didn’t begin until late February 1830.
Based on the major events that occurred in Jackson’s life, our group has come to the conclusion that Andrew Jackson was a bad president. This final resolution was reached after visiting numerous sources regarding both perspectives of this argument. The events that make up our argument comprise of the elimination of the Bank of the United States, the legalization of the Indian Removal Act, and other small but major incidents. We will also be dismantling several opposing arguments, such as the Jacksonian Democracy, and thus reinforcing our frame of mind. Firstly, Andrew Jackson is a substandard president due to his eradication of the Bank of the United States.
Jackson presented his ideas on acquiring the land belonging to the Native Americans, as well as ideas on persuading and manipulating the innocent people to hand it over and move out. It was a storm of racism holding Jackson's ideas in the
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 the next few paragraphs I will be talking about some of the hardships and cruelty that the Indians of the Americas had to go through. There will be three different points of views I will be going into detail of, Bartolome de Las Casas, Helen Hunt Jackson, and Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson had the largest impact ever on Indians and it was not a positive one, while the other Jackson tried to take a stand and seek change. Bartolome de Las Casas was a knowledgeable and respected man. Throughout his life he had many jobs and positions.
In the article “Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830,” the author, Alfred A. Cave, writes about President Jackson’s abuse of power. He is arguing that Jackson abused his power when he was enforcing the Indian Removal Act. He argues that Jackson broke guarantees he made to the Indians. He uses a political methodology and uses secondary sources.
First of all, Jackson’s strong character can be traced back to his early childhood and adolescence. His family emigrated from their poverty-stricken home in Ireland to a Scotch-Irish immigrant settlement along the Carolinas. It was here, in the land of the free, that the Jacksons continued to live in poverty. As a young child, his knowledge of the woods bought him a part in the Revolutionary War. This part of his life, however, is dampened by sorrow and abandonment.
Robert Remini’s Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars is a book that makes you question Jackson's character. Remini addresses the long-standing debate of historians and scholars over whether or not Jackson was barbaric or whether he was a merciful savior that prevented the Native Americans from going extinct. Remini instead argues the opinion that Jackson was simply a man of his time. Despite this, Remini does show Jackson's inexcusable cruelty towards the Native Americans. He learned to fear and hate Indians from an early age.
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.
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.
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.
Andrew Jackson disobeyed a direct order from the Supreme Court, which it means he was above the law. I really wonder how Americans tolerated him, at that time, he was cruel to the Indian common man. Because of him, the Native Americans have the worst end of the Trail of Tears. They are the ones who are forced out of their traditional homes and sent away on a journey of pain and death. Those who had fallen ill, most of the time died, and those who had the will to move on were able to make it to the end and start new lives.