To What Extent Was Andrew Jackson A Bad President

1012 Words5 Pages

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. This was initiated when Jackson announced that the “government would no longer deposit …show more content…

The root of Jackson’s hatred toward the Native Americans, which would lead to the Trail of Tears, is with the Battle of Horseshoe Bend. In this battle, he ruthlessly massacred the Creek Indians. In fact, one American said, “The river might very well be called a river of blood” (4, 28:30). Fast forward to 1830, during which Congress passed the Indian Removal Act. This gave the green light for “the President to demarcate Indian territory on public land west of the Mississippi River and negotiate treaties with the Indian tribes for their resettlement” (1). In response to this bill, the Cherokee Nation decided to sue Georgia in Worcester v. Georgia. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation, stating that Georgia had to recognize the Cherokees as a nation. However, Jackson disagreed with the decision, and famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it” (2, 10:17). By this, Jackson was asserting that he would ignore the ruling, and not enforce it. Three years later, the Cherokee were forced to march west in what became known as the Trail of Tears. During this frigid and arduous journey in the winter of 1838, “¼ of the 18,000 Indians died” (2, 10:31). This incident would blacken Jackson’s legacy for the rest of …show more content…

They rely on three points, which we will dismantle in this paragraph. Their first factor states that “Andrew Jackson was the only U.S. president to bring the national debt to zero” (5). Daniel Feller of the University of Tennessee says, “Congress required debt reductions of at least $10 million per year under Jackson’s two predecessors, James Monroe and John Quincy Adams. So all Jackson really had to do was maintain the status quo” (5). The opponent’s second argument is that “Jackson handled the Nullification Crisis extremely well” (8). This statement cannot be denied. However, his method of dealing with the crisis was very deplorable. While dealing with the crisis, Jackson “threatened South Carolina that he would bring his own personal army and kill his own citizens in South Carolina” (8). This declaration certainly did not ease the tensions between the federal government and South Carolina, but rather hastened the path towards the Civil War. The dissident’s final consideration is that “Jackson introduced the system of Jacksonian Democracy” (8). To counter this argument, we will be attacking one part of the Jacksonian Democracy: the spoils system. The spoils system ensured that people appointed to government jobs “were based on the needs of the party, rather than a person's qualifications or skills” (9). This could spell out trouble, as someone who knew the least about government

Open Document