“Neither pleasure nor pain should enter as motives when one does what needs to be done,” said the famous, Italian philosopher and esotericist, Julius Evola, in his book, “Ride The Tiger”. Evola’s logic in that quote is very Machiavellian, ignoring both the plight or advantages of an action, due to the action’s perceived necessity; In other words, “the end justifies the means”. That Machiavellian logic is exactly what propelled America’s westward expansion. Andrew Jackson occupied the presidency during a busting time for America’s westward expansion, and is regarded as a major conductor for the expansion due to his Indian removal policy, in which he resettled the Indians by exchanging with them lands west of the Mississippi River for their lands. Publically, Andrew Jackson spoke highly of the Indians, but his private stance on them was much less flattering. As shown by the contrast between Andrew Jackson’s views …show more content…
Machiavelli is one the most well-known philosophers of Italy’s period of renaissance, both during his lifetime and long after. His most prominent work, “The Prince” outlines qualities to be had by a successful leader, according to Machiavelli. There are many of these qualities, but the one most embodied by Andrew Jackson is the dedication to keep one’s true intentions secret, while telling people what they want to hear. Speaking publically to the Mandan Nation, roughly twenty years before the trail of tears, Andrew Jackson deceitfully portrayed himself to the Indian tribe as a man who cared for and would protect them, going so far as to take a paternal position by referring to them throughout the speech as his children. Jackson welcomed them to the government’s seat, implying that he would be their representative in Washington, and expressed a transcendence of both the Indians and the European-Americans from their native identities to a new, cooperative
Watson’s book further describes that Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay mainly had political differences, morals, and characteristics. Although Andrew Jackson- like Henry Clay- was a supporter of increased democracy and economic development, he and his supporters still tended to believe that the growing wealth and power of
Native Americans who emigrated from Europe perceived the Indians as a friendly society with whom they dwelt with in harmony. While Native Americans were largely intensive agriculturalists and entrepreneurial in nature, the Indians were hunters and gatherers who earned a livelihood predominantly as nomads. By the 19th century, irrefutable territories i.e. the areas around River Mississippi were under exclusive occupation by the Indians. At the time, different Indian tribes such as the Chickasaws, Creeks, and Cherokees had adapted a sedentary lifestyle and practiced small-scale agriculture. According to the proponents of removal, the Indians were to move westwards into forested lands in order to generate additional space for development through agricultural production (Memorial of the Cherokee Indians).
Andrew jackson believed he was doing good by being a representative of the common folk but the old hickery managed to more bad than
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.
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.
The era of Andrew Jackson which was nicknames the era of the “common man” certainly lived up to its name. As the seventh President of the United States, Jackson had a major effect on the life of the common man, in such a way that the life of the common man would never be the same again. Jackson’s aim, after the manner in which he was defeated in the Presidential Election of 1824, despite receiving more popular votes than John Quincy Adams who took on the office, was to reduce the power and the authority of the elite. When he came into power after the 1828 election Jackson began to carry out his proposals. Jackson expanded the voting right to all men, in accordance with the Declaration of Independence of 1776 which declared that “all men are created equal” instead of just the elite.
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
Andrew Jackson was seen as a common man the voice of the people by some. By others he was King Andrew, trampling the constitution and instigating tyranny. Jackson’s presidency impacted democracy, through his use of the veto power, and his claim of Clay creating a “corrupt bargain”, which is not a turning point for a rise in democracy despite him giving white male suffrage. During Jackson’s use of executive power weakened voice of the people.
The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians written by Anthony F.C. Wallace is the story of the Native Americans being forced to move west in America in the 19th century. Wallace begins by introducing the desire for Native American land in the U.S. and ends with the aftermath of the Removal Policy and the legacy that still lives today. The book is organized into four chapters; The Changing Worlds of the Native Americans, The Conflict over Federal Indian Policy, The Removal Act, and The Trail of Tears.
Thomas Jefferson and Niccolo Machiavelli both believe that the actions of the people shape the characteristics of the ruler and define the type of authority that will be held towards the people. Machiavelli, the first great political philosopher of the Renaissance, argues all men are untrustworthy due to their selfish, self-interested and impulsive ways of life in his writing, The Morals of the Prince, and therefore, to keep the people under control the ruler must be prepared to be cruel and instill fear among the people. Opposing Machiavelli is Jefferson. In The Declaration of Independence Jefferson believes people can be trusted since they have the ability to make their own decisions. Whereas Machiavelli supports tyranny, Jefferson believes
“Once we became an independent people it was as much a law of nature that this [control of all of North America] should become our pretension as that the Mississippi should flow to the sea” –John Quincy Adams (Henretta, p. 384). In the 1840s, Americans had a belief that God destined for them to expand their territory all the way westward to the Pacific Ocean. This idea was called Manifest Destiny. In the nineteenth century, Americans were recognized for coming together and building up one another for one cause: westward expansion.
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.
It is important to remember that in these times Jackson, as well as many of the time, saw manifest destiny as almost a religious task. This fact means that inaction was most likely not a reality since the nature of the goal was not immaterial. The simple conclusion is that the removal of indians was inevitable. Jackson’s actions expedited the process in an unethical way. His actions conclude that he equated that about 11,000 consequence lives were equal to the expansion of the United States.
Jackson planned on moving Native Americans west of the Mississippi River, to maintain the land many Native Americans called home. At first, Jackson proposed treaties to the Native Americans hoping for them to sign so he could deviously take their land. One of Jackson’s known tactics is lying, which he happened to do in this case, where he promised Native Americans that by moving west the were insuring a safe future. Conclusively, the Native Americans refused to sign the treaty as stated in Andrew Jackson and the Constitution, “Ultimately, he forcibly removed a number of tribes, most notoriously the Cherokee, from their homes.” (gilderlehrman.org) Numerous amounts of Native Americans were killed from their removal, this incident was known as the Trail of Tears.
During the “Gilded Age” period of American history, development of the Trans-Mississippi west was crucial to fulfilling the American dream of manifest destiny and creating an identity which was distinctly American. Since the west is often associated with rugged pioneers and frontiersmen, there is an overarching idea of hardy American individualism. However, although these settlers were brave and helped to make America into what it is today, they heavily relied on federal support. It would not have been possible for white Americans to settle the Trans-Mississippi west without the US government removing Native Americans from their lands and placing them on reservations, offering land grants and incentives for people to move out west, and the