Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson’s Opinion on Settlers’ Indian Removal

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Andrew Jackson’s address to Congress on the text called “On Indian Removal” and Michael Rutledge text titled “Samuel’s Memory” both talk about the same subject which was the removal of Indians from their native lands for white settlers to take over. These texts, however, differentiate in the writing techniques used and the language chosen by the authors. Those differences bring to light their evident opposing views on the Indian Removal Act, while Jackson’s aimed to convince Congress that Indian removal was a good idea and benefited both parties, Rutledge’s aimed to show people the nightmare that the Indian Removal Act actually was for Native Americans. The biggest difference in the two writings are the connotations of the words chosen, and the sentence structures used.

Regarding how their sentence structures differentiated Jackson’s sentences are long and don’t really get to the point and use complicated language, which makes him appear like knowledgeable and smart man, this way people can be manipulated into trusting him since this style of writing made him sound like he knew what he was talking about and thus getting people to agree with him and his ideas. The wordiness of his sentences embellished the Act and masked the horrendous actions that were actually taking place. Much different however Rutledge choses to use short, concised, and direct sentences that get his point straight across. This makes his story seem more direct and believable, automatically giving the author credibility. The choice of using short sentences also make the horrible parts of Samuel’s story seem much harsher, due to the language and writing style that Rutledge opted for. The two different sentence structures show the two contrasting views and emotions of the authors toward the Indian Removal Act.

Another contrasting fact between Jackson and Rutledge’s texts is their different usage of adjectives. Jackson’s opted to use a variety of adjectives in his speech, he uses these words to emphasize his message and the point he is trying to get across. Through his avid use of adjectives throughout the speech Jackson aims to persuade the people on thinking they made the right decision on voting for approval of the cruel Act. He calls the Indians horrible names like ‘savages’ to manipulate the people to agree with him and his racist ways. On the other hand, Rutledge does not use as many adjectives but his words are still as powerful nonetheless. He applies the use of adjectives only when they’re really needed in his text. Rutledge, as opposed to Jackson, does not aim to manipulate the people into agreeing with him but rather he is trying to make the audience empathize with the pain his great-great-grandfather experienced during the Trail of Tears.

Both authors rely on many of the same tools but use them in different ways because of the very different goals each author is trying to get at. Jackson uses words with subtle diction and connotation while Rutledge uses much more harsh words with diction and connotation.

Read more

Andrew Jackson as an Anti-democrat

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Introduction

Throughout history, countries have held many different forms of governmental jurisdictions. The United States of America is no exception. Throughout our glorious democratic-republican history, we have had 44 men hold the powerful position of President, but only one is known as “The Father of Democracy,” Andrew Jackson. Born into a poor family, Jackson could relate to those living in hard working conditions and poverty which made him a perfect advocate for those in that class. All those who rallied behind his banner of freedom expected democracy, but was that what they got? Was Andrew Jackson really who you thought he was, or were his democratic intentions just a cover-up and a ploy to get him into the position of power?

Samuel Swartwout

Though Andrew Jackson was the poster boy of democracy, many of the actions and decisions that he made throughout the course of his presidency contradict this hastily generated title. Jefferson began his campaign with the counterrevolutionary promise of democracy, yet signs of undemocratic intentions seemed to be evident even from this point. In 1829, Jefferson attempted (successfully, might I add), to place a man named Samuel Swartwout, a man who had criminal tendencies, into the position of Collector of the Port of New York, a very sensitive and important position due to the $15 million passed through annually. The previous holder of the position tried to dissuade Jackson from continuing Swartwout’s placement, but Jackson took no notice of the advice. Soon after, Swartwout left the position, taking with him over a million dollars. (Doc. I) Jackson decided to trust a criminal over an honest man, ignoring the advice of many men. Van Buren, for he was the placeholder of the position previously, was not the only one who opposed the decision. In a message to Jackson, he alerted him that Swartwout’s appointment would “not be in accordance with public sentiment, the interest of the country, or the credit of the administration.” (Doc. I).

Jackson and Native Americans

Not only did Andrew Jackson repeatedly ignore the advice of his cabinet, but he forced Native Americans off of the land that they had lived on for generations. Jackson set apart a specified land area for the natives, asking them to move, which they did not. Jackson then instituted the forced removal of them, not a very democratic action. He was only interested in his own goals of gaining power, resources, and new land, to the point where he didn’t care who or what got in his way. (Doc. J, K, L)

Jackson as a Slave Owner

The treatment of the natives was not the only time that these questionable actions of Jackson would be noticed. He was also a cruel slave owner, who even went extra distances to thwart abolitionist plans. (History.com) Though through everything, all that mattered to him was his social image. In 1814, Jackson revealed a document stating that every “noble hearted free man of colour” who joined the fight against Britain would not “by being associated with white men in the same corps, be exposed to improper comparisons, or unjust sarcasm.” (Doc. N) Yet throughout all of this, he was a cruel man to his own slaves. How can one advocate for the freedom and protection of one’s brother, yet at the same time, be the driving force behind the whip upon the back of the rest of the family?

Conclusion

Old Hickory may have been many things, but democratic was not among them. Though he claimed to be democratic, many of his actions didn’t reinforce this fact. Jackson may not have advocated for democracy, but nobody could deny that the persona that he wore outside of his personal life was a hero for the common man and everything that America represented. There is no doubt that Jackson will be remembered, the only question is… What for? If historians decided to dig a little bit deeper into those gray areas of Jackson’s life, what would they find? The world may never know.

Read more

Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Throughout history, the United States had a great deal of presidents that had served questionable and controversial terms. One of them is Andrew Johnson, perhaps one of the most-criticized presidents in American history. President that has a tremendous amount in common with Mr. Jackson is Donald Trump. The politics and leadership represented by Trump, inside and out, have deep roots in American tradition since two centuries ago. Its pioneer is the seventh United States President Andrew Jackson, whose term lasted from 1829 to 1837. Immediately after his inauguration, Trump introduced Jackson’s portrait into his cabinet, and spoke of it with great respect. In addition to praising him as a ‘heroic president,’ he said there would be no civil war if Jackson were later elected. (Gingrich)

Andrew Jackson is an American military leader, politician and statesman, best known for being the founder of today’s Democratic Party and his fight against the Second American Bank. He was a great enemy of banks, debts and loans. Like Trump, Jackson embarked on a presidential campaign as an outsider and was elected president in 1828, promising to clean Augi’s barns, which is identical to Trump’s call to ‘drain the swamp’ in Washington. His entry into the presidential race marked a break with a past era in which presidents came from only one party and the beginning of a two-party era in America. Jackson was especially supported by settlers of Scottish-Irish descent. Jackson was accused in the newspaper of the harshest possible words: that he was a slave trader, a murderer of prisoners, but also a cannibal who ate the flesh of the slain Indians. His mother was said to be a famous prostitute and his father a mulatto. He did not remain in duty either, so he accused rival candidate Henry Adams of providing a young girl as a mistress to Emperor Alexander while serving in Russia.

For the ‘Jacksonians’ who make up Trump’s abhorrent electorate, the US is not a political entity created and defined by a set of intellectual ideas originating in the Enlightenment and oriented toward fulfilling the universal mission, as Kant presented it, as a match between universal and individual norms and values. Instead, it is the nation-state of the American people, who find their fulfillment in internal issues and problems. The Jacksonians do not consider American exceptionalism to be the universal attraction of American ideas or that it is a unified American mission to transform the world, but that it is committed to the equality and dignity of American citizens individually. What Mr. Trump borrows from Jackson is not an issue, but a “way of thinking about the world.” (Inskeep)

Jackson was born into a family of poor Scott-Irish settlers in what is now South Carolina. As a thirteen-year-old, he joined the Continental Army during the American War of Independence and served as a courier. He and his brother were captured by the British Army and suffered severe abuse and were given scars to bear for the rest of their lives. His brother, like the rest of his family, died of starvation, illness and other consequences of the war. Because of all this, Jackson gained a lasting hatred of everything British, as well as contempt for the American aristocracy from the big cities on the Atlantic coast, which he held to be too ‘corrupt’ to British culture.(“Wikipedia”)

In 1787 Jackson moved to Tennessee, a border area that would soon become the new state of the United States. Although he could only boast from education by reading several law books, he became a successful and respected lawyer. Based on that, he became the first Tennessee lawmaker in Congress and later the first senator. He left that career to become a Tennessean Supreme Court judge, but also a colonel in the state militia. When the war between the United States and Great Britain broke out in 1812, American regular forces were too busy to successfully confront the Native American tribes on the western border. In one of them, the Creek tribe, a civil war broke out between the pro-British and pro-American factions, spilling over into conflict with American settlers. Jackson was named commander of the militia forces who had to solve the problem in a campaign later known as the Creek War. Jackson proved to be a skilled warlord, bringing solid discipline to the ranks of the militia and winning a great victory at Horseshoe Bend, which left the Creek tribe all over present-day Alabama in the United States.

Even greater glory was brought to Jackson by the dazzling victory over the British Expeditionary Corps near New Orleans in 1815, in which he had the great help of the Pirates Jean Lafitte. Although, given the previously negotiated agreement at Ghent, it is completely insignificant in military, political, and every other respect, it has done much to treat the Anglo-American war as a victory in future American history textbooks. Jackson himself made that victory one of the most popular Americans of his time. In 1817, Jackson, now a general, was ordered to secure the southern border of Georgia from the intrusion of the Seminole Indians, or to prevent Florida, then under Spanish sovereignty, from becoming a refuge for slaves. In pursuing the Seminoles, Jackson crossed the Spanish border, deposed the governor there, and ushered in American occupation power. A weakened Spain had no choice but to acknowledge the status quo and hand Florida over to the US by special treaty. Jackson became the first governor of Florida as a U.S. territory. In 1824 Jackson ran for President of the United States but was defeated by John Quincy Adams. That election marked the final breakup of the ruling Democratic-Republican Party. Jackson became the leader of the dissatisfaction faction that would become the Democratic Party.

In 1828, Jackson, as the first Democratic candidate in history, campaigned in a sharp campaign, skillfully utilizing the fact that most candidates are elected by voters rather than state assemblies, as well as the increasing share of Western border states among the population and the candidate’s college. As a populist, he used his humble origins and accused the representatives of the Eastern aristocracy that they could not care for the interests of the people. The result was a convincing victory. Immediately upon coming to power, Jackson dismissed all federal employees and replaced them with his supporters, thus establishing the so-called a system of loot that would be at the heart of American personnel policy in the 19th century. Jackson also stood out for his stiff resistance and successful abolition of the federal central bank – which he regarded as a tool of the Eastern financial aristocracy. In 1830, Jackson was one of the key proponents of the Native Relocation Act, which forced the Cherokee and other Native American tribes across the Mississippi to create as much land as possible for white settlers. In 1832, Jackson, though a southerner and supporter of a weak federal government, opposed South Carolina’s efforts to nullify federal customs in the so-called. nullification crisis. In the same year, he defeated Henry Clay, a Whig party representative in the presidential election. After his second term expired, Jackson retired to his Hermitage estate in Nashville, from where he remained active in politics as an advocate for the unity of the United States and an opponent of the secession of the southern states.

Andrew Jackson made decisions “based on loyalty.” (Cheathem) Mr. Cheathem article, which is a tertiary source, gives us information that is compiled and digested into facts that discuss how loyalty, more so than competence or capacity, guided Jackson’s selections. For a mind-blowing duration, Jackson held positions that demanded loyalty — from the officers he drove, the enslaved individuals he owned and the relatives and companions he tutored. Both Trump and Jackson grabbed for power, but while “Jackson did it to promote democracy, Trump has done it to promote autocracy.”(Fraser) Both of the presidents took office at a time of social and economic upheaval and lead the country in a powerful and compelling way, that will always be remembered throughout history.

Read more

Andrew Jackson as a Controversial President

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Andrew Jackson, a patriotic “hero” of a common president and irrefutably as much the most exceedingly worst – a blurred image of King George III. Varying from a series of decisions and stories, his unpleasant youth is not enough of a charmer to disguise his unprincipled utilization of (federal) power against non-whites. Beginning from 1829 and lasting until 1837, he sculpted himself into a king and a symbol of the people’s will. His unconstitutional ‘Indian Removal’ act upon the Native Americans and luring in their utmost death has the ability to speak for itself. From a contradicting point of view, however, Andrew Jackson was an influential, strong president who used his title to pursue his own agenda that were for the better of the U.S. The common citizens genuinely favored him, as much as he favored them. He allowed common people to interfere with the government (referred to as the spoils system) and represented their interests, rather than the rich and powerful. He was likewise genuine and direct and had been a war legend. Overall, a controversial president.

Andrew Jackson won his presidency alongside full redemption four years after the election with John Quincy Adams in an election that was characterized to an unusual degree by negative attacks and insults upon his personal life. It wasn’t too easy for him, but he won the election by a storm – due to his charisma and good connection to the majority who were mainly common men. Unlike the 1824 election, Jackson won his presidency by popular votes but not electoral. As stated in document 1 ‘Jackson’s inauguration’, “Thousands and thousands of people, without distinction or rank, collected in an immense mass round the Capital (Line one)… that crown of glory advances, bows to the people, who greet him with a shout that rends (splits) the air… it was grand, it was sublime! (Lines three through four) ” Jackson soon began the spoils system, where he replaced former appointees and replaced them with his supporters. He also gave jobs to the Jacksonians, average citizens who were loyal to him. Jackson’s election brought a new style to campaigning as he connected with citizens that deserved his attention and removed the idea of a hierarchy and discrimination.

One of the strongest negative of Andrew Jackson’s presidency compared to all the rest – the Indian Removal Act. It was the cause of the Trail of Tears, best represented by the term ‘genocide’. The Indian Removal Act and the events leading up to it is a direct violation of the constitution. On May 26, 1830, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed by the congress of the United states of America.The U.S government wanted it to be easier for European Americans to spread westward on the continent and since Indian tribes living there appeared to be the ‘main obstacle’ to westward expansion, white settlers petitioned to remove them. Andrew Jackson soon signed the bill into law and later took final action for it without entirely listening to the other main voices of the government. Thus began all the rebellions and issues. Referring to an action like this, document 3 labeled as ‘King Andrew the First’ shows Jackson in a crown and royal garments as he stands upon the constitution of the U.S holding the power to command. Also, according to document 4 ‘Jackson’s message to Congress concerning the removal of Native Americans from east of the Appalachian Mountains, December 7, 1835′, president Andrew Jackson states “It seems now to be an established fact that they can not live in contact with a civilized community and prosper…. No one can doubt the moral duty of the Government…. (Lines two through three)” And according to Jackson the “civilized community” are privileged white citizens. Jackson felt that to remove several Native American nations to a location further west in order to allow U.S. citizens to settle the natives’ former land was the best policy because he (basically) claimed that Indians aren’t capable to live in contact with a “civilized community” in order to “prosper”. Therefore, for Jackson and the white settlers, keeping the Indians in one spot was for the better. Due to the Indian Removal Act, the five major tribes (Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole) were gravely affected. These tribes were also referred as civilized tribes because they embraced, adapted and created a more modern westernised culture for themselves, learning to read and write. These Indians were told to move, without an entirely fair explanation. Some peacefully dealt with the command and headed out, and many rebelled against the commands. More than 4,000 Native Americans unfortunately died, due to the lack of food, water, shelter, and proper care of the body. This trail is now known as the Trail of Tears, based on the pain, negligence and torture the Indians felt as they were moved away from their homes and their land.

Throughout all, Jackson most definitely had an influence. He has made adjustments and marked points in U.S history that also altered decisions and the way the government provides as well as reacts. He made executive decisions based on his personal beliefs and did what he could to protect the common man. In Document 2 ‘Jackson’s message explaining his veto of the National Bank, July 10,1832′ Jackson states “But when laws undertake to…. Make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society….have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. (Lines three through four)” This, proving Andrew Jackson’s respect for the common man, also reflects the extents he goes to for them; due to the reasoning that he has been where they are now. America during the age of Jackson was a nation overflowing with choice and chance as it grows overtime. Though born into a life the opposite of an elite and privileged white citizen, Jackson was able to expand the powers and privileges for former presidents after him as well as the worth of the common man. His unjust influences allowed smarter decisions to build in future presidencies before it happened again. He pushed the nation further toward democracy, but much work remained in granting equal rights and freedom to those still oppressed in the United States. As a whole, Andrew Jackson did not separate nor immensely unite the U.S, as it managed numerous inconsistencies and judgment. Overall, though, Andrew Jackson had an impact and changed the ways and expectations of the government.

Throughout his presidency, Andrew Jackson took on actions that either impressed or oppressed citizens of the United States. He ended his presidency as a controversial president. From a patriotic ‘hero’ of the common man to the new ‘King George III’ he has had both positive and negative effects but all holding an influence that is still visible today.

Read more

The Impact of Andrew Jackson on American History

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Introduction

Andrew Jackson… We encounter him regularly on the twenty-dollar bill but, have you ever thought about the significance of this man in our history? He did after all make it onto the face of our currency so, he must have some done something good, right? Was he a man of the people or was he a man for himself and his own gain. In this paper, my goal is to essentially to play devil’s advocate with the life and legacy of Andrew Jackson to try to decipher if he was truly a man of the people. For order for us to make this conclusion we need to become more familiar with Jackson’s life. He was born in Waxhaws, South Carolina to Irish immigrants. His father passed away early from injuries that he received in a log accident and, this left his mother in a difficult situation being that it was such an early time in American and women depended solely on the male figure who provided for the family. This unfortunate situation caused Jackson to have a limited education. Eventually, as he grew up he relocated to somewhere in Tennessee at which point he began studying law and soon became a highly recognized lawyer. <h2>Jackson’s Character </h2> We need to get a bit more familiar with Andrew Jackson’s personality to understand if he truly had the people’s best interest at heart. According to Whitehouse.gov “Fiercely jealous of his honor, he engaged in brawls, and in a duel killed a man who cast an unjustified slur on his wife Rachel.” Okay so before we make any assumptions on this behavior let’s try to rationalize this (if possible). Remember that this was a very different time and men were solely ruled by their pride and manliness to “assert dominance and gain respect”. On the other hand, was it necessary to actually have took someone’s life over a cat call? Probably not, no. This shows us that Andrew Jackson was very concerned with making a statement that no one offended him and disrespect him that way or any way. He could have just beat up the man but, he took the extra step to actually kill him. This does have to have an effect on our overall perception of his character. Let’s look at another one of his character traits. It was no secret that Andrew Jackson along with many other people at this time owned slaves. First off it is a well-known fact that saying you “own” another person is downright disgusting. It was a different time but, you can’t honestly use the “if everyone jumped off a bridge” reference here, you know what is right and what is wrong. Thomas Jefferson thought of himself as a “humane” slave owner, whatever that means, but I cannot say the same thing for Andrew Jackson. According to Wikipedia.org, there is a copy of a want add posted by Andrew Jackson giving a physical description of the slave that had run away with a reward of fifty dollars to return him and even paid transportation fees if he made it out the state. In the want ads he uses phrases such as “speaks sensible” and “can pass for a free man”. He also went the extra mile by including that he would offer ten dollars for every one hundred lashes given to him up to three hundred dollars. I’ll let you do the math. This portrays that Andrew Jackson was only a president of the common WHITE man. Back in the young years of the United States, Native American’s played a large part in our daily lives. Not only did they teach the original settlers about the land and how to grow crops they were here way before any immigrants were. America was their home and essentially, we stole it from them. Andrew Jackson was very hypocritical when it came to the Native Americans. According to historyengine.richmond.edu “In 1830, Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act, which forcibly removed the Creek, Chickasaw, Seminoles, and even the Choctaws. This is ironic because in 1830, Jackson adopted a policy to remove the Indians that he claimed in 1814 ‘were more civilized than the British.’. Jackson seemed to be doing what was best for him and his personal gain. He used the Indians as an ally when he needed them and then turned his back when we he didn’t. Again, this shows to believe that Jackson only had the interest on the common white man in mind.

Thinking about the People

So, let’s take look at something a bit more positive about Andrew Jackson. According to WhiteHouse.gov “In his first Annual Message to Congress, Jackson recommended eliminating the Electoral College.” This seems to be something decent on Jackson’s behalf. The founding fathers set up the electoral college because, they did not trust the common man to choose the president and the vice president directly. Back in the day it is understandable why this must have been implemented. Many people didn’t know how to read or write and weren’t too intelligent due to lack of education. Technically this doesn’t make them qualified to choose the leaders of our country. However, as time passed people became more literate but, the electoral college was never removed. This makes you wonder if your voice really matters when you wonder if your voice really matters when you still have people who finalize decisions for you. Jackson wanted to get the power back to the people. When I say the people of course I mean the only people who could vote at that time white males. Andrew Jackson ran into an issue with the Second Bank of America during his presidency. He basically thought that this bank only had the well-being of the rich in mind and Jackson made sure they knew he disagreed with them. The bank didn’t take too well to Jackson speaking his mind and used the power they had against Jackson. They ended up fight each other over a re-charter movement and Jackson won the popular vote. You have to applaud Jackson who stood up for what he believed was just the rich looking out for the rich. Very few people would openly disagree with something that has so much power for fear of stepping on the wrongs toes, but not Jackson. He was widely known for speaking his mindand not caring what people had to say about. This worked for and against him of course. If Jackson did not like a law he would try to use his power of veto or, he would just blatently ignore it. The Trail of Tears

Andrew Jackson is known for increasing westward expansion more than any of the other previous presidents. Removing and relocating all the Indians in the Trail of Tears was one of the reasons due to all the new vacant land that could now be expanded on. This newly free land allowed settlers and speculators (people who made money of the selling of land) to move in. This did on the other hand help us establish ourselves more as a country being that we didn’t have the copious amount of land we have in today’s time. The way Jackson went about the expansion was morally wrong. A substantial number of Native Americans would die in the Trail of Tears due to harsh conditions but this didn’t matter to Jackson because he was not a fan of Native Americans. Let’s go a bit more in depth with Andrews Jacksons involvement in the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears according to PBS.org was “In 1838 and 1839, as part of Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal policy, the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate to an area in present-day Oklahoma.”. This act was later called the Trail of Tears because of all the Native Americans that died during the trip. They were subjected to harsh weather, hunger, disease, and extreme fatigue. To uproot families and send people into slavery or force them to leave their homes and live in an unknown area for no other reason more than your own personal gain is despicable to say the least. Once again, we are left questioning Mr. Jackson’s morals and true motives.

Attempt of Assassination

An interesting fact about Jackson is that he was actually the first president on whom an assassination was attempted on. Richard Lawrence III was the man who attempted to kill him, he had believed that Jackson tried to kill his father even though that turned out to be false. He brought two pistols and they both happened to misfire and Jackson obviously has tussle with the man who tried to kill him. Also, according to Occupytheory.org upon further examination of the guns they were both in perfect working condition. Coincidence?

Political Parties

Jackson’s presidency brought with him the growth of different political parties. Before Jackson most people were Jeffersonian-Democratic-Republicans most because that was the only party at the time and they believed not to depend on currency because men could grow and provide things for themselves. The new democrats that formed during the Jacksonian era were usually farmers in the lower or middle class. Many of the people in this party were concerned with the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Also, many of the members were curious about merchants, bankers, and speculators who were becoming very rich off not producing anything according to John Green with Crash-Course US History. In response to Jackson’s election another party was formed calling themselves the Whigs. They took their name from the well-known English Whigs who were completely against absolute monarchy. They thought that Andrew Jackson was receiving too much power from the executive branch and they nicknamed Andrew Jackson, King Andrew. So, Jackson must have been doing something pretty intense in order for an entire political party to form in his opposition. This makes you wonder how political parties would’ve been today if not for Andrew Jacksons influence or if there would’ve been any different political parties at all.

Nullification

Nullification was another big event during Jacksons presidency. According to John Green with Crash-Course US History in 1828 the House of Representatives passed the Tariff of 1828 which raised the taxes on imported goods like iron and wool. Andrew Jackson agreed to this and it made South Carolina mad because they did not invest any of their money into industry, they had put all their money into slavery instead. Northerners could avoid this extra cost because they were able to manufacture basic everyday items like pants, shirts, etc. at home. Meanwhile this caused people in South Carolina to end up paying more. In-turn this made them so upset that the Legislature of South Carolina were threatening to nullify it. Obviously, Jackson wasn’t happy about this but neither was South Carolina so they stuck to their guns. Later on, another tariff was passed the Tariff of1832 which actually lowered prices but South Carolina still decided to nullify it. This made Andrew Jackson force Congress to pass the force at which allowed him to use the army and navy to collect taxes. Finally, the Compromise Act was issued and South Carolina gave in.

Conclusion

Conclusively Andrew Jackson did have a positive and negative impact on our history. Was he a president of the common man? In a way, yes because he didn’t have much formal education and he promoted the interest in the common man versus the rich. Oppositely when speaking of the common man he was looking out for it was the common white man. He did not believe in women’s involvement in any government or manly activity. He was an abundant slave owner owning over one hundred and forty slaves. He up-rooted and killed numerous amounts of Native Americans. This did however, increase westward expansion. Along with his presidency came the diversity of political parties. In turn was Andrew Jackson a good a guy? No definitely not. Did he have a large impact on the early formation of America? Yes. It’s easy to disagree with many of the actions of Old Hickory (his infamous nickname), but overall Andrew Jackson did have a small positive influence. He was a president of the common white people and asserted his dominance in his reign as President.

Read more

Biography and Presidency of Andrew Jackson – an American Soldier and the Seventh President of the United States

October 21, 2021 by Essay Writer

Andrew Jackson was born into a poor family. With the death of his father before his birth he had no male role model within his life and that had made him a fairly bad kid. At the age of 13 he had listed in the revolutionary war and was wounded by a British Officers. Soon after he had come back his mother had died and he was left to fend for himself. He would fight anyone that wanted to fight including a 75 year old man. By the age of 17 he had begun law school. By age 21 he was a public prosecutor and only 8 years later becoming the first representative of Tennessee. He had become a real hero during his war time. Pushing through enemy’s front lines and taking the fight to them. He was an outstanding General and never told his soldiers anything that he wouldn’t do. From the first time that Jackson had joined the revolutionary war to fight for freedom people knew that he was going to be democratic, willing to lay down his life to fight for a cause and to fight for the people. He also had tendencies to do things not so democratic, such as the extinction of the Indian people and taking away their homes. But with all the positives and the negatives he still had some tendencies that had showed both sides fairly well where he had done things for the people but the way that it was done was questionable. Since he originally had joined the war people knew he was a patriot and with that title people knew that he was for the people and what they wanted to say. He didn’t want the British to take and guide everything that they (colonists) had built and started.

Robert V. Remini had stated in The Course of American Empire that Jackson as he had gotten older his views had become more democratic in the sense that the control must fully come from the people and the appointed and elected offices should be filled by the people, and they can be removed when the people think it is best. What this is showing is that he has the view of a democracy, he wants the people to have control, he wants the government to be within the people’s grasp, he wants the people to tell the government when they had screwed up and he wants the people to run their country. His views on this show that he wants the United States to be a democracy. Throughout his election he had spoken about what he wants to do and his plan, he spoke highly of how he wanted the people’s voice to be heard. During his first presidential election he had tied with the popular vote, this had resulted for the House of Representatives to pick the top 3 of the candidates for being the next president. But Clay, who was another candidate, was left out of this top 3. He then made a deal and traded his support and 37 votes to Adams which in turn resulted in Adams win. This had angered Jackson as by him doing this shutout everything that the people had done and ultimately made what they thought useless silencing their thoughts, which is what Jackson is all about.

After this had happened he had devoted his time to winning the next election. With his main statement being the voice of the people must be heard. This is shown in a letter than he had written to the Congress regarding the National Bank. What he had said was that the Bank is a monopoly for overseas and domestic. Where ¾ is held by the rich upper class and the rest by foreigners. Where they have some electors put in by the government and the rest voted in by the rich citizens, but the rich have known to bend the acts of government for themselves. Through this letter it shows that Jackson was democratic. The bank was exclusive only to the rich, whether it be foreign or in the country, and he made sure to tell them that this wasn’t right. For a bank in America only a few hundred rich Americans, and rich foreigners can use this bank. He told them that if only a small part of the country can use this bank than it would be unconstitutional. Jackson thought that everything should be for the people and he made sure that everything that he had done was for the people. Though there is many evidence showing that Jackson was very democratic and he was for the people, there have been tendencies that he had done in his past and in his presidency that weren’t so democratic. In a political cartoon that was put out during the election of 1832, we are shown Jackson dressed as a king stepping on the constitution and holding a veto.

What they had tried to portray was that Jackson really only cared for himself, if he saw a bill that he didn’t like he would veto it which is why he is holding a vetoed bill. He is also stepping on the US Constitution and the International Improvement US Bank. What this symbolizes is he doesn’t care for the people. He is stepping on the Constitution showing that everything they had fought for was for nothing and he will go back to the days of ruling and putting unnecessary taxes. He is also surrounded by various phrases one being “Had i been Consulted” and what this symbolizes is that he just does what he wants. Nobody is there telling him not to do certain things. To the colonist this made them feel like if they were to elect him for president than he would be just like their former King. In a study done by Robert Remini in 1988, he had found that Jackson was a slave owner.

Read more
Order Creative Sample Now
Choose type of discipline
Choose academic level
  • High school
  • College
  • University
  • Masters
  • PhD
Deadline

Page count
1 pages
$ 10

Price