You must get this question all the time . . .
Frontier democrat? Brutal exploiter of Native Americans? Friend of the workingman? Power-hungry lunatic who caused the Panic of 1837? Good guy? Bad guy? Love him? Hate him?
Give me your thoughts on this larger-than-life fellow, and support it with two relevant facts about him.
12 comments ↓
I am writing from the great beyond to provide Dr. Turner with a sample comment. By the way, I like Andrew Jackson. He tells good jokes.
In terms of deciding whether Jackson was a good or a bad leader of our country, one needs to decide whether the end defines the means. I believe that Jackson did both good and bad things during his presidency, however the good outweighed the bad. He was a war hero after the battle of New Orleans and as a the new president he did what the country needed even if he was not popular for it. He paid off all of the national debt which was the only time in our nation’s history that this has ever been done. He also implemented the spoils system, which created a rotation in office that helped eliminate the chance for corruption to develop. He also eliminated the charter for the bank of the United States which was a faulty institution that was did not help the economy of America. There was too much money situated in one financial institution, it left the United States vulnerable to foreign interests, it favored the rich and the northeast. Jackson also helped avoid the possible seperation of South Carolina during the nullification crisis. By sending troops down to South Carolina and enforcing the “Force Bill” he maintained the Union. He also, though very harshly, dealt with the Indian Problem that had been postponed far too long. Some may say that he was too cruel, but all the other presidents knew the indians had to be moved and he was the only president that was willing to do it. Though today his actions are frowned upon, his policies helped shape us as a nation, and by opening the West and strengthening the economy he gave the american people of his presidency what they needed.
Though I strongly disapprove of the cruel measures Jackson took to get rid of the Indian problem, Jackson was a great president in the sense that his distribution of wealth and property led to the right to vote for all white male citizens. He was a president of the people and filled his offices with the people, not entrenched officeholders. He cared about preserving the union and wanted to provide an economic program to reduce the power of the national government. I respect how he wanted the people who served him to have risen to prominence because of their personal talents and energies not just because they were born into aristocracy. But Jackson was a hypocrite when it came to federal power. He opposed federal power in the United States bank but did not hesitate to use federal power against rebellious states and Indian tribes. It was necessary for the development of the United States for the Indians to move but I think that the measures he took were too extreme. I think Jackson should have been a little more humane in his treatment of the Native Americans but he did a good job with the democratization of the United States government.
Andrew Jackson is a hard character to classify as either bad or good. Jackson was a celebrated war hero in the War of 1812, winning important battles for the United States in the south, and he also acted as a public prosecutor and embodied the common man. After Jackson became president, he started to turn to harmful policies towards the Native Americans and very biased policies toward the Bank of the United States. I think that Jackson’s policies towards the Indians were racist and unnecessary because he and other Americans didn’t not to try understand or cooperate with the Indians. Jackson may had been personally been against the Bank of the United States and Nicholas Biddle, but I don’t think that he fully understood the economic effects of the destruction of the bank and the effects of the Distribution Act on the states. Although the bank was a corrupt institution it did help people to finance their land and created more opportunities for the entire country. Jackson created a mess of the economic system in the country and then left it to taint Van Buren’s presidency instead of his own. He may have brought the country into a financial surplus for a time, but the bust that followed was even worse for the country. Overall, Jackson may have been a model of the common man, but he created many problems for the country that lasted years after Jackson retired from politics.
Andrew Jackson was a president like any other, trying to improve the country he had been elected to serve in ways that not only promoted the interests of his political party but would also benefit America. The question of deciding whether his policies were wrong or right is not the most important one to ask when surveying his presidency, but rather did he do what he believed was best and stand by them as a strong leader. The answer is yes. Jackson was a tough ruler with strong opinions and legislation that distinctly marked his years in office. Although looking back many of the things Jackson did (especially in his dealings with the Indians) seemed careless, brutal and resulted in the exploitation of various peoples, most everything he did was an attempt to promote the prosperity and continued success of America. Jackson’s seemingly malicious actions against the Bank of the United States were not thoughtless or cruel, but stemmed from genuine concern about the future of the American economy and the fears of one institution gaining too much power. Jackson was worried about the paper currency being distributed and feared the consequences of a monetary system not backed by gold. Even in his horrific treatment of the Indians, when he subjected them to constant turmoil and war in their homelands and their forced removal to western reservations, he was only looking to the promising future he saw his country having without the Indians in the way. Jackson often was often blind to the inconveniencies of his legislation. This attitude caused trouble such as the infamous “Trail of Tears” and the Panic of 1837, but everything he did, he did with the belief that it was the right thing to do and that he was helping to further the future of America.
Overall I believe that Jackson was a good man with good intentions. His efforts, though sometimes cruel, were obviously ways to try and better America as a nation. His dealings with the Indians, though often viewed as extremely harsh and unfair, obviously improved America.
Jackson also was very concerned with creating a government that satisfied the people, showing his care and concern for the common man. Although Jackson’s policies on Native Americans were very harsh, such as the forced removal of the Cherokee tribes from Georgia,
his other options would have only produced terrible consequences for America. The Trail of Tears, the Cherokee voyage to Oklahoma in the winter of 1838 in which many Cherokees died and suffered, would reflect Jackson as a malevolent man but when weighing his other options Jackson’s forced removal becomes justified. Jackson’s only other alternatives to forcing the natives out of Georgia were to halt westward expansion, or to have natives living among white settlers. Halting westward expansion would hurt America, especially as its population was rapidly growing and the West proved to be essential to the American economy. A lot of America’s crops were produced in the West and the West proved to be very significant in America’s economic growth. His second option, having Indians live among white settlers, had been a very dangerous situation in the past. In the past when whites had lived among the Indians many fights and uprisings had occurred. If Jackson had settled for this it could have potentially damaged the American economy and stability. I believe that Jackson’s forced removal of the Natives was the best step for America. I also believe that Jackson can be admired for siding with the common man. During Jackson’s presidency he terminated the exclusive caucus system of electing candidates. The end of the caucus system shows how Jackson wanted the government to be a reflection of the wants and desires of the common people, opposed to the corrupt rule of a few powerful government officials. I am not saying that Jackson’s presidency was flawless, because I can not ignore such catastrophic events like the panic of 1837 but I do believe that Jackson who made noble efforts to stabilize America as an independent nation.
Andrew Jackson, like every president before and after him, had both flaws and merits that helped shape America during his eight years as president. Although he is most remembered and reprimanded for his inhumane treatment and removal of Indians, his ultimate goal was to please and benefit America and its people. Though I do not agree with the way Jackson handled the situation with the Indians, I can see that he was trying to solve the situation as quickly as possible. He was left to deal with a sticky situation that needed to be delt with, and he did so. His almost repressive approach to crushing both the Bank of the United States and the nullification movement are also seen as failures. His involvement in these seems to have led to the extremely instable financial situation in the late 1830’s as well. But Jackson should not only be seen for his flaws, but also the postitive changes he made for his country. He adopted the philosophy of the spoils system as well as the political convention hoping to limit the power of the elite while transfering power into the hands of the people. As a president, Jackson believed that he should have a strong presidency as well as preserve the Union. He wanted to offer equality to all white male citizens, regardless of class or region. He tried to promote economic programs that would reduce the power of the national government as well. As a president, Jackson was faced with many difficult situations where he needed to act quickly, which sometimes left him even more trouble. But, even with all his flaws and mistakes, I believe that Jackson was truly commited to the country and his ultimate goal was to benefit the people.
Andrew Jackson’s presidency produced both good and bad results. Up to this point in time, very few people were allowed the right to vote and to hold office. The only people who could participating in the vote tended to be white male landowners. This prohibited the majority of the country one of the principle rights of the United States. Jackson did not believe that this was fair to others, and therefore worked hard to broaden the right to vote to all white males. This might seem like just a small step since women and slaves were not included, but it was just the first step to complete universal suffrage. I believe Jackson worked hard to make the government represent more of America than it had ever before. This also expanded the electorate and strengthened the party system. However, not all of Jackson’s actions were this positive. His westward expansion plans had detrimental effects on the Native American population. Jackson forced expansion onto tribal lands, thus forcing the Indians away from their homes. He considered Indians to be “savages” and that they could not be civilized. Jackson believed that no American was going to live alongside of the Indians. If tribes refused to move, Jackson had no problem using force. I do not agree with Jackson’s handling of this issue. He does not even think of creating a compromise, and he acts before he thinks. He did not consider that the Indians had lived on those lands long before they belonged to the Americans. He did not think of the Indian families that were forced to go to unknown territory and somehow start their life over. Not only was Jackson able to destroy the Indian tribes, he successfully destroyed the Bank of the United States. Jackson was a hard-money supporter, so he believed that only gold and silver were acceptable forms of currency. It was not a surprise when in 1832, Jackson vetoed a bill renewing the charter for the Bank. He also removed the government deposits from the Bank. Jackson destroyed the bank even before its charter expired. The results of this were not all good. His decisions on the economy resulted in the Panic of 1837, the worst depression up to that point. Andrew Jackson made both good and bad choices in his presidency. I think that his poor decisions concerning the Indians and the economy outweigh his good decisions because they ultimately hurt more people.
Like all the presidents of the United States, Andrew Jackson had some flaws, as well as many strengths. Andrew Jackson definately worked very hard to bring about change, good change and bad change. He worked to give the common man as many oppurtunities as possible. The common people of the United States identified with Jackson because he was a common man, who was able to maximize oppurtunities on the frontier to become wealthy. Although Jackson was initially considered the president of the people, he took advantage of his position as executive and went against many of the wishes of the people towards the end of his term. Jackson’s theory of democracy was to offer equal protection and benefits to all white males of all classes. He was not without fault though. He wanted to subjugate the blacks and Indians in order to preserve white male democracy. He demonstrated this desire through forced Indian removal. Even though Jackson was cruel to Indians, he had an egalitarian approach to white politics. He permitted white males to vote whether they had property or not. Contradictory to this, Jackson exercised his power as executive to the maxium. He did not believe in a strong federal government; thus, he felt the need to use his power to make sure the federal government was weak. I believe that Jackson was a bit power hungry. He was strongly opposed to the national bank; He attempted to diminish it. Between Jackson and Biddle’s actions, America went into an economic panic. Jackson contributed to this panic by forcing the state banks (who had the surplus money) give the money to the state government. This caused many problems. For example, the state banks had issued a lot of credit due to the surplus, thus, without that money the bank notes would not be supported by actual specie (which Jackson required). Although Jackson’s decisions ultimately hurt Americans, his intentions were to improve life in America for the common man. Jackson was not able to find complete success because he did not treat all common men of all races equally or treat the wealthy as he treated “the common.” Overall, Jackson was a good president, who was a president of many of the people; but his administration was very firm and involatile.
I can’t believe Andrew Jackson is on the twenty dollar bill. A strong military background and simple southern backcountry beginnings along with Democratic ideals won Jackson him the title as the president of the common man in 1828. Before his presidency, Jackson was a land speculator, merchant, slave trader and a fierce Indian fighter. As a soldier, he burned down Indian villages, slaughtered many, used cruel tactics of promising rewards in land and plunder, divided Indian tribes and played them off each other, disregarded treaties, encouraged white squatters to encroach on Indian land, and practiced bribery. After participating in the War of 1812, winning the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, killing 800 of the 1000 Creeks fighting, Jackson began raids into Florida, beginning the war of conquest, the Seminole War of 1818. After becoming governor of the Florida Territory he gave good business advice to friends and relatives. This corrupt man started his presidency by passing the Indian Removal Bill. The infamous Trail of Tears occurred during his presidency. The five civilized tribes of the south were all forced or tricked into heading west or killed in the effort to defend their sacred lands. Whites attitudes towards Indians changed from a paternalistic view to a hostile one during Jackson’s presidency and the Black Hawk war decimated the Sauk and Fox population as well as taking their land. Sure Jackson was the first president to really deal with the Indian “problem” but there are less harsh alternatives that should have been taken. Also during his presidency Jackson brought about the death of the Bank of the United States by a personal and political war with Nicholas Biddle. He claimed the bank was a corrupt institution, disregarding the fact that it helped Americans finance their land as well as created more opportunities for all. He hurt the economy further by creating another panic in 1837 by issuing the specie circular in 1836 because of his suspicion of paper currency. He not only created this economic bust but left Van Buren to clean up his mess. After Marshall’s death, controlling Jackson appointed and fired two new Chief Justices in order to find a Judge after his interests who would modify Marshall’s vigorous nationalism. Also under Jackson’s presidency the federal government’s power was limited but the executive power increased. Thus “King Andrew I” was a hypocrite and selfish tyrant.
I really do not like Andrew Jackson. He kicked all of the Indians out of their homes and forced them into the undesirable land of the midwest. The Indains were living in America long before the white English men came along. he was responsible for the “Trail of Tears,” an embarassing and deadly trek the Indians were forced to take to their new homes in the West. He used deceit and bribery to trick them into moving and then built up commercialism in their place. Yes it was good he expanded Universal Sufferage for men, but even at that only white males were included in the voting. I really do not like him becasue of his mistreatment of Indians.
Andrew Jackson had, like every president before and after him, successes as well as failures that helped to define his presidency. Instead of looking at the person, historians and thus history students tend look at the actions of the presidents. One could say that Andrew Jackson never really had much of a chance to become sympathetic to the Indians and that he never really learned how to be sympathetic at all because of his early life. After having lost his parents at an early age, Jackson had to make his own way–beginning with fighting in the Revolution at age 13. Beginning this early, all Jackson knew was fighting and doing whatever possible to stay alive. Still making his own way as he grew older and became a frontier prosecuter, Jackson also was victorious and became a national figure during the War of 1812 as well as helping to negotiate the Adams-Onis Treaty. What do all of these things have in common? War. Jackson was always involved with fighting because it was all he ever knew and it was what he felt comfortable doing. As he became president, Jackson was rightfully suspicious of the strong centralization of the national government. Why would he feel this way? He had been living his entire life either fighting in wars, living on the frontier, or living in Florida. Jackson never knew a true government and thus distrusted it; it would have been the same if he had been forced into the care of some adults when he was orphaned–he would have distrusted them. Being someone who had built himself up from literally nothing, it makes perfect sense that Jackson would appeal to those who opposed economic aristocracy. It also makes perfect sense that Jackson himself called for an assault on privilidge and a widening of opportunity…why? It all goes back to his own life, his own lack of opportunity and his own parallel feelings to those who were poor and had nothing like he had had nothing, but were willing to work hard to achieve a greater social status. Most of Jackson’s policies were to expand the rights of the common (although white) man. By expanding the right to vote, Jackson marks the transformation of American politics. The only thing that I believe Jackson mishandled was the westward expansion of America. He was extremely forceful with the Indians-shown by the Trail of Tears and the literal forcing out of the Cherokee Indians-however, one could also argue once again that force against Indians was all that Jackson had ever known. All that time fighting in Florida? It was versus the Indians. They obviously behaved savagely enough to warrant (or at least so Jackson thought) their domination. By now I’m just rambling, but all in all I actually admire Andrew Jackson. Although he mishandled the westward expansion affair, if he had never been that forceful, who knows if anything would have ever happened. We sit here now and can say “it was so horrible,” but put in Jackson’s position, what would we have done? Would we have succumbed to the will of the majority of our nation, keeping their as well as our best interests in mind? Or would we support some peoples who, though native to our land, had offered no reason to us to seem peaceful and willing to actually share land? I believe that Andrew Jackson was a man who based his decisions on his own past experiences, as would all of us who were put in the same position. Thus, I believe that Jackson is a misunderstood president who, at the time, believed he was acting for the good of the country. Now in 2007, we may not believe him, but hey–not everyone believed that a war against England was the best for the country either now did they?
Leave a Comment