Please answer the questions below. Your response it due by 9PM on Sunday, November 15.
If you had been living in the age of Jackson, would you have been for or againist the following: nullification, veto of the bank, and Indian removal? Justify your position.
and...
If you had to rate Andrew Jackson's presidency on a sacle from 1 to 10, what rating would you give? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
spirit week points please! I know it's been awhile... I can still use them right?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf I were living in the Jackson Presidency, I would have been fully against the nullification, vetoing of the national bank, and indian removal.
ReplyDeleteThe nullification process proposed that states had the power to nullify any federal law that states did not want. If this was passed into full effect, this would mean states could simply do as they please, defeating the whole purpose of a "United States" and we would simply return to the lawless days of the Articles of Confederation.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone during Jackson's Presidency who didn't find his actions of vetoing the national bank to be unsound and economically harmful. By vetoing our country's national bank, Jackson suppressed the ability for our country to economically prosper. If the bank was out of the picture, how would our nation's money flow properly? Who would kept the government's money in check? Obviously, Jackson could care less, as long as he got want he wanted, it didn't matter.
During the expansion of new land in America, Jackson and his supporters saw fit to forcefully remove the native Cherokee indians from their homeland, and relocate them westward. They gave them empty promises of fertile land and better lives if they cooperated. The Cherokee, who up this point no longer had a decision, decided to cooperate and assimilate themselves in American culture, hoping they could change the negative views of Indians. However, this would prove nothing, as the settle simply took everything and as the indians were moved out, they were treated inhumanely and given dead land. Despite formerly given the right to govern themselves, Jackson saw his right as a president as a means to out right ignore all rules that bind a president continued to take what was rightfully the Cherokee's: their lives.
I would give Andrew Jackson a 2 out of 10 for being a reckless foolhardy man who thought being president meant power flowed through his veins. He ignored nearly all protocols that were meant to keep the president from having too much power and didn't care who he hurt.
If I had lived in the time of Andrew Jackson's presidency (1828 to 1836), I would have opposed nullification, the veto of the bank, and Indian removal.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of nullification arose in South Carolina in response to the Tariff of 1828. When the Tariff of 1832 was passed by Congress, South Carolina "nullies" obtained the two-thirds majority they needed and declared the Tariff of 1832 void within the state boundaries. Nullification was an awful idea for many reasons. First, the South benefited from higher tariffs since it encouraged the North to buy more of their goods. And also, nullification of federal laws in the states contradicts the US constitution. The purpose of the constitution was to form a stronger federal government that united the states under federal laws. By giving states the power to nullify federal laws, the states are not United and decisions are not made for the benefit of the country.
Jackson's veto of the Bank of the United states was a poor decision because, although the Bank may have favored the wealthy east, the Bank printed money that was worth something and avoided the flaws of western "wildcat banks." Wildcat banks printed unstable paper money that caused inflation and too-leniently gave credit for land. The Bank of the United States promoted economic expansion and was a safe depository for the funds of the government.
I would have opposed Indian removal simply based on morals. The Indians were removed through the Indian Removal Act in 1830 from their traditional land and forced to walk to Indian reservations in the West. Many Indian tribes were civilized and tried to assimilate with white culture. The Cherokee Tribe even adopted their own constitution based on the United States Constitution. These Indians were removed solely based on greed and prejudice. They were viewed as savages and white people wanted the land for its value.
Overall, if I had to rate Andrew Jackson's presidency, I would give him a 3. He did what he thought would be best for the nation, and for that he gets effort points. However, his decisions such as passing the Indian removal act, and vetoing the Bank of the United States were poor. They separated the Indians and whites based on prejudice and caused a depression to follow after his presidency. In addition, the Spoils system was present under him and denied many able people a chance to contribute politically. I support his Force Bill and the decision to oppose nullification, but ignoring the Supreme Court and threatening the entire system of checks and balances cancels that out.
President Jackson wasn't faced with easy challenges during his presidency. Every problem that arose was dealt with in a way Jackson thought best. I see the reasoning behind all of his actions but in the long run it sometimes ended up hurting people and the country. If I was in the time period of Jackson I would have agreed with how he handled nullification, veto of the bank, and Indian removal. I would have been for it because at the time it all sounded like the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteNullification said that states had the right to invalidate any federal law. The state could decide whether to obey a federal law or declare it null and void. Jackson supported states rights, as long as it did not lead to disunion. He was put to the test when South Carolina tried to nullify the tariff of 1828 and the tariff law of 1832. Jackson perpared the country for military action against South Carolina. He issued a proclamation to the people of South Carolina that nullification and disunion were treason, but he avoided military action by pursuading Congress to lower the tariff. He was a strong leader who presented himself as a representative of the people. To me he used the federal authority to keep the country unified but in general he believed in a weak central goverment. During his presidencey he opposed increasing federal spending and the national debt.
The National Bank was a scary idea. It was seen by most as adding another branch of government that had plenty of power with no checks. I can very well see why any person would have vetoed this in that time period. We all know now that the National bank was one of the best advancements in Democracy in the past few hundred years. I don't think Jackson vetoed it out of selfishness but more out of ignorance. But, who can blame him? I'm sure if he knew how it would turn out and how it would keep our country rolling he would have passed it in a second.
Jackson's background definitely influenced his decision to handle the Indians in the way he did. Jackson was a heavy drinker and got into a lot of bar fights. He also did not have a college education; he was a common man. If this problem arose now people would know it's just morally wrong to do this to people. But, back in that time period, the country was just trying act in their best interest. In fact, a majority of the politicians in various states also believed in a policy of Indian removal. American "needed" that land, so they took it. If I lived back then I'm pretty sure I would have been a greedy American trying to survive as well.
I would give Andrew Jackson a 6 out of 10. I think he made rational decisions, regardless if the effects were good or bad I think anyone would have made the same decisions in his shoes.
-Scott Shortino
If I had been living in the age of Andrew Jackson's Presidency, I would have opposed nullification, his veto of the national bank, and the removal of Indians.
ReplyDeleteState nullification first came about surrounding the controversial Tariff of 1828, when Jacksonians attempted to drive up duties as high as 45% and increase tariffs. They had hoped the tariff would be so high as to force New England to vote the bill down (even where high tariffs were needed), and further John Quincy Adams' bad name. Instead it was passed, and the South was then furious over having to buy heavily taxed products from the North but having their own items sold without tariffs. These "nullies" in South Carolina then attempted to collect the necessary two-thirds vote to nullify the law in their state legislature. Although the Tariff of 1828 was blocked from nullification, a lesser tariff in 1832 was not, and it was declared void within South Carolina boundaries. Nullification effected the stability of the nation by increasing states' rights. South Carolina claimed the similar "compact theory" of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by saying states held the same authority as the federal government. But if nullification had endured, the federal government would be in the same helpless position it was under during the Articles of Confederation. Without a unifying, overarching power such as the federal government established under the Constitution, there is no "United" States of America but rather independent, stubborn states.
The veto of the Bank of the United States (BUS) was a poor decision on Jackson's part. Although the BUS under Nicholas Biddle was not always pure and wholesome, as he lent U.S. funds to friends and used money from the BUS to bribe the press, it was a much more beneficial alternative to the unstable "wildcat" banks. The "wildcat" banks produced unstable money and lent credit for land much too often, and only favoring the land-holding westerners. The BUS at least remained financially sound, reduced bank failures, issued good notes, advanced economic expansion through abundant credit, and was a safe location for Washington government funds. Jackson's views of seeing the BUS as unconstitutional led him to make a horrible decision that would ultimately put the country into its first, great depression.
Jackson's removal of Native Americans from their lands was also an awful decision. There had always been tension between Native American tribes and the new Americans, but Jackson's abrupt and harsh removal stated the United States intention in an ill-mannered and unnecessary way. He declared jurisdiction over Native American lands (despite the Cherokee Tribal Council's appellation and winning of their surrounding the legality of their tribes), and forced them from their lands over the Indian Removal Act of 1830. And unfortunately, the tribes which had begun assimilating into American culture, the "Five Civilized Tribes", were the ones who were hurt the most. Over 4,000 Native Americans died on the journey from their homelands to their established "reservation" in Oklahoma. This decision by Jackson, above all, demonstrates his dictatorial presidency and unwillingness to respect the balance of power in the federal government.
For these reasons, I would rate Andrew Jackson's presidency as a 1. I feel that the majority of decisions he made he did so out of stubbornness and disrespect of the Constitution. Although the nullification in South Carolina was not of his doing and while he did repress it, he did so by threatening force and violence. My opinion of his other two decisions regarding the BUS and the removal of Native Americans goes downhill from there. Again, he takes his own views and forces them upon the country. He declared the establishment of the Cherokee Tribal Council and their own constitution void despite the tribe's winning of their case in court. He also vetoed the re-charter of the BUS despite its betterment of the country. Each decision he made hurt the country as a whole.
Evan van Aalst
ReplyDeleteIf I had been alive during Jackson's presidency I would have been completley opposed to nullification, the veto of the national bank, and the Indian removal. The consequences of all three of those political moves could have very possibly tore the nation apart.
The theory of nullification was that states could vote to nullify a federal law in their state. The states would have had all the power and the federal governemnt would have had almost done. The states wouldn't have to listen to anyone but themselves. This would have been counter intuitive, putting the nation back to the days of the Articles of Confederation were the federal government had to basically plead the states to listen to them.
The veto of the national bank destoryed the economy. If it hadn't been fixed when it was, the nation would have sunk. Wildcat banks started printing their own money and loaning it out, but when people found out they only had enough gold to cover a few of the loans, even more panic ensued. At least it was fixed before anything permanent happened.
In my opinion, the Indian removal was the single worst thing Jackson did in all his presidency. He uprooted the Indians, again, for a few more acres of land. He didn't even do it nicley, he just grabbed them, moved them, and dumped them somewere else. Along the way, he deprived them of blankets and fed them spoiled food.
I would give Jackson's presidency a 1. I think the choices he made, he made more because he could and because he wanted to retain power than out of any choice to actually better the nation.
If I had been living in the age of Andrew Jackson's Presidency, I would have opposed his veto of the national bank, but agreed to the Indian removal. As for the issue of nullification, it would depend on where I live then.
ReplyDeleteAfter the war of 1812, the "tariff of abominations" was placed. South Carolina argued for the nullification of the tariff and threatened to leave the Union. In response, Jackson enacted the Force Bill and sent in troops to make South Carolinians pay the taxes. If I was a Southerner, I would have supported nullification since I needed manufactured goods and other countries were able to provide cheaper goods. Therefore, in purchasing imported goods, I would have to pay the very high taxes. As a Northerner, I would've opposed the nulllification because the tariff promoted the northern state's economy. Either way, I believe that Jackson's way of dealing with the issue (using intimidation and violence) was a very bad decision.
The veto of the national bank brought about many wildcat banks. These unstable wildcat banks often printed their own paper money, lowering the value of paper currency. Jackson had to issue the specie circular, where people had to buy government land with gold or silver. Banks and all lenders were forced to call in their loans and specie. This resulted in panic selling and prices plummeted Many borrowers defaulted on their debts and banks went bankrupt. This economic instability in turn brought about the Panic of 1837 and then nation faced its first major depression.
Even though the removal of Indians was very immorale, it was in favor of white common men during that time. With the Indians gone, they were able to have more land that previously belonged to the Indians and expand without getting in the Native Americans way (or vice versa). With this, there would be less conflicts between the two sides since they were seperated. I believe that Jackson decided to move the Native Americans out to please the white settlers.
I would rate Jackson a 3 out of 10 because he made many poor decisions that could've been avoided if he did not disregard the decisions of the Senate. His effort to end the BUS was especially harmful to the nation. However, I believe that his intentions were good and he merely wanted to keep the people happy.
If I had been living during Jackson’s presidency, I would have supported nullification and Indian removal, but would have been against the veto of the bank.
ReplyDeleteNullification is a constitutional theory that gives individual states the right to nullify (void) any law passed by the Congress that the state believes to be unacceptable or unconstitutional. I think this concept was important because it gave states the opportunity to feel more powerful and important. At a time when they felt the federal government had way too much power, giving states the right to check the government’s power at their level helped ease conflicts. With Andrew Jackson in power, a lot of rash decisions were being made that didn’t benefit states, so nullification protected the United States as a whole as well.
Although the Indian removal caused thousands of Native Americans to lose their homes, families, and even their lives, I would have supported it because it benefited the United States and its entire population. The Native Americans claimed to be their own nation, so we were simply annexing land from another ‘country’ when we uprooted them and used violence against them. We didn’t kill them all off, so I don’t think the United States did anything too unjust (although they did take advantage of the situation and many merchants profited off their removal).
The national bank was a great idea. It provided a means of maintaining American currency’s value and supported the federal government. Andrew Jackson thought it was too powerful, but I think its position was necessary for it to function so well. Andrew Jackson also mainly fought the bank because many of his political enemies led the bank. After Andrew Jackson ruined the bank, the country went into a depression, showing that the bank was in fact a good idea.
I would give Andrew Jackson’s presidency a 4 out of 10. He made a lot of rash decisions that created a rift in the American population. He ruined the national bank, which eventually led to the country going into a depression, and he ruined the country’s relations with the Native Americans, as well as caused the deaths of thousands of Native Americans. I gave him a 4 and not less though because he was at least a consistent and strong leader that held the country together.
spirit week points please!
ReplyDeleteIf I lived under President Jackson I would have been against, nullification, vetoing of the national bank and Indian removal.
ReplyDeleteIf states were given the right to nullify whatever laws they saw fit to it would mean that they would have more power than the federal government and we wouldn’t be a unified nation. We would be lots of separate will nations that all followed different laws. We already learned that this wouldn’t work under the Articles of Confederation.
The national bank gave the United States a stable form of currency that could be used internationally. When Jackson vetoed the renewal of the bank he brought back the wildcat banks which coined very unstable money and often resulted in the loss of the citizens investments.
Indian removal was a morally wrong thing to do. It resulted in the loss of a great culture and the deaths of hundreds of Indians. Even today Indians still struggle on the reservations they were forced to move to.
Overall I would give Jackson’s presidency a 2. Every decision he made seemed to end up doing more harm than good. He was never able to help the country prosper.
If I had been living when Andrew Jackson was president I would have been against nullification, veto of the national bank, and the Indian Removal Act. Although Jackson may have been doing what he believed was best for our nation I think I would have disagreed with all of the above.
ReplyDeleteI would have disagreed with nullification. If nullification had been allowed in the United States, we would have been no longer untied. With nullification the states could have vetoed any laws they pleased, creating an un-unified nation. I think Jackson handled the situation with South Carolina well, at the end of the day he kept our country together which is the most important thing.
Andrew Jackson vetoed the re-charter of the national bank due to the fact that he felt the bank had too much power. Jackson felt that the national bank held too much power and even called it the fourth branch to our government. Although I agree that the bank had a lot of power the bank also had a lot of positive aspects, such as keeping the value of money consistent. After the veto of the bill our economy greatly suffered and stunted growth in our nation’s economy. The veto of this bill also showed the great power of the executive branch, which made many remember the days of English monarchs. All in all the veto of the national bank was a poor decision on Jackson’s part.
I completely disagree with the Indian Removal Act. This bill caused more than 100,000 Indians to be removed from their homelands. I think that Jackson’s decision had a lot to do with race and white supremacy. I think that Jackson believed that we as Americans had a right to steal the land of Native Americans, which I totally disagree with. I know he was trying to please the American citizens but I think he was disregarding the feelings of the Native Americans.
On a scale of one to ten I would give Jackson a two. Although Jackson did the right thing as far as nullification go I think that he made very poor decisions in regards to Indian removal and the National Bank. I think that Jackson was a very stubborn man that had very little respect for the constitution and his fellow Americans.
-Jordan
If I had been living in the age of Andrew Jackson's Presidency, I would have opposed the nullification, the veto of the national bank, and the removal of Indians. Nullification was first introduced with the Tariff of 1828, when Andrew Jackson tried to raise tariffs to up to 45%. Its original goal was to worsen Adam’s name because they thought it would not pass, but when it surprisingly passed, the South was outraged. The nullies (especially in South Carolina) tried to get two-thirds vote to be able to nullify the law in their states. The idea of nullification increased state rights and weakened the power of the national government, and could eventually cause the nation to fall apart with no unification what so ever.
ReplyDeleteJackson’s decision to remove the BUS resulted in wildcat banks that were overall very unstable. They printed paper money that decreased the value of the paper currency. Eventually, the Panic of 1837 resulted because Jackson order people to pay the government land with gold and silver only, and many people went bankrupt. America faced its first major depression.
Jackson’s decision to remove the Native Americans was immoral and unethical. The land was theirs in the first place, removals after removals just increases the tension between Americans and the natives. Some Native American tribes wanted peace and friendship with the Americans, but we rejected their hostility and amicability even after some adopted our constitution, and learned our language. It is not the Native Americans who are savages, but the Americans.
Overall, I would rate Andrew Jackson’s presidency a 3 out of 10. Although he made many bad decisions that negatively impacted America in many ways, he still made an effort. I think more of his decisions could be traced back to the fact that he was a “common man”, with no real education, and wasn’t really cut out to be a Politian who put the nation before himself. I’d say that his bad presidency could be partly blamed on the people who voted for him.
If i was living in the time period of President Andrew Jackson's presidency, I would be totally against the nullification, the veto of the U.S Bank, and definitely the removal of many Native Americans.
ReplyDeleteNullification allows individual states to veto or go against any federal law. I don't think that that is a good idea. I support Andrew Jackson's decision about nullification. Although Andrew Jackson had a lot of power, i don't believe that individual states should have more power than the federal government. America had finally started progressing forward and if nullification existed, i don't think that the United States would exist today.
President Andrew Jackson hated the National Bank of America. He felt that the bank was a tool for the rich to become richer.Although people who were poor, and weren't wealthy did support the veto, I don't support his decision of vetoing the bank because the bank was financially sound, promoted economic expansion, reduce bank failures, and helped the American economy in general. Even if i wasn't rich back in Andrew Jackson's presidency i still feel that the overall economy of America was more important than just one person.
The removal of Native Americans by Andrew Jackson was terrible. Many Native Americans who were living in the same land that they have been for generations were forced to leave their lands. I am against the removal of indians because if i were in the shoes of the:Cherokee, Seminoles, Chocotaws, Creeks, and Chikasaw i would hate Americans. I feel that Andrew Jackson didn't have the right to remove them and move them to Oklahoma. On the Trail of Tears, many of them died, and i feel terrible for them.
Overall, i give President Andrew Jackson a 3 out of 10. I think that he did a great job with going against the nullification of South Carolina. IF he hadn't, the United States would probably not exist today. ON the other hand, he did a terrible job with the removal of indians from their home lands. He also did a bad job with the vetoing of the American National Bank.
If I had been living during Andrew Jackson’s presidency I would have supported Indian removal and would have been opposed to nullification and Jackson’s veto of the national bank.
ReplyDeleteThe Indian Removal Act signed by Andrew Jackson in 1830 allowed for the forcible emigration of Native Americans from the east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river. The migrating Natives from the Five Tribes traveled on the Trail of Tears to their new land in the west. Thousands of Natives died on the trek to their new land which was located in present day Oklahoma. But at the time the removal of the Natives greatly benefited the United States by opening up vast amounts of fertile land. Also at the time there was no guarantee of a peaceful coexistence between the Americans and Natives. Indian removal allowed for the further westward settlement of Americans without major conflicts.
After the War of 1812 a tariff of abominations was created which made the South compete in the market. The southern states strongly opposed the new tariff. The tariff was so strongly disliked by the southern states that South Carolina nullified the tariff making the federal law not apply in their state boundaries. South Carolina even threatened to leave the Union. Eventually the Force Bill was passed by Congress giving Andrew Jackson the authority to use military force against South Carolina. In response to the Force Bill South Carolina repealed its Nullification Ordinance. After the crisis was over the power of nullification was rejected by the nation. If this crisis wasn’t solved then the States would have more power than the federal government which would have led us back to the position the United States was in under the Articles of Confederation.
Andrew Jackson’s veto of the national bank ultimately sent the United States into a depression. Without a national bank the federal government had no power to control the rates of currency. Also without a national bank a single currency could not be established. Jackson feared that the national bank would have been too powerful. But the veto of the national bank caused more harm than good to the United States.
I would give Andrew Jackson’s presidency a 4 out of 10 because he caused more harm to the United States than good. He satisfied his job as president by keeping the states together, but he sent the States into a depression.
Can you still use your spirit week points? Cause i want to use them for this week's blog post
ReplyDeleteIf I were alive during the time of Jackson's presidency, I would have been strongly against nullification, his veto of the bank, and Indian removal. I think that Jackson's intentions with his actions may have been to better the nation, but he did much more harm than good.
ReplyDeleteNullification is the idea that individual states could nullify federal laws that they felt were unconstitutional. While this would provide states with a feeling of power and freedom, it would take away from the power of the Constitution, as well as the Union as a whole. When the Tariff of Abominations was enacted in 1828, their goal was to protect industry in the Northeast from imported English competition. However, the increase in the rate hurt Southern states because they made money through exporting cash crops to Europe. South Carolina sought to nullify this tariff and not abide by the new law. When Jackson heard this news, he threatened to send the entire force of the US Army to make them comply. In my opinion, this was a harsh overreaction by Jackson, and the situation could have been handled in a better way.
I would have also been against Jackson's decision to veto the BUS. The veto caused the rise of wildcat banks, which printed their own paper money that wasn't backed up by specie. This unbacked paper money lowered the value of the U.S. dollar. Jackson's decision also caused the Panic of 1837, America's first major depression. It was caused by Jackson's decision to make people pay for land with gold and silver.
I also would have been against the Indian Removal Act. This act forcefully removed over 100,000 Native Americans from their land. I feel this decision was unethical. The Native Americans had been pushed and pushed farther away from the land that was their originally. They were forced all the way to present-day Oklahoma along the Trail of Tears, which caused about 1/4 of the Native Americans to die along the way.
Overall, I would give Jackson's presidency a 2/10. Many of his decisions had a negative outcome for our country. He was supposed to be the first common man's president, but at the time many common men were uneducated and just simply were cut out to hold all the power that comes with being the President.
-James O.
If I had lived in the age of Andrew Jackson's Presidency, I would have opposed the nullification, the veto of the national bank, and the removal of Indians.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of nullification increased state rights and weakened the power of the national government. The Tariff of 1828 first introduced the idea of nullification. The Law forced the South to buy heavily taxed products from the North, and naturally, they wanted to find a way to sell their own items without tariffs. South Carolina tried to nullify the law with a two-thirds vote in their state legislature. If the nullification would have been accepted, the federal government would have gone back to the same status when under the Articles of Confederation, having little political power.
President Andrew Jackson thought of the National Bank as a way for wealthy people to even more wealthy and that it was too powerful, so he vetoed it. His actions brought about the Panic of 1837. The economy become financially unstable, the value of paper currency from wildcat" banks decreased, and many Americans went bankrupt.
The removal of the Native Americans was immoral. The Native Americans had lived on those lands for generations and Jackson should not have had the right to resettle them in the west. They were trying to make peace with the Americans, learning our language, customs, and way of life. Although the removal of the Native Americans gave more land for the Americans to expanded and grow, it created more tension between the Natives and the Americans.
Overall, I would rate President Andrew Jackson a 4 out of 10. His intentions were good, but the poor decisions ended up hurting the Nation instead of strengthening it like when he vetoed the National Bank. He did do a good job with going against the nullification of South Carolina.
if i were living in the time of Andrew Jacksons presidency i would have been against nullification, the vetoing of the national bank and the removal of indians.
ReplyDeleteAll the nulification did was make the government a lot less powerful and it was just plain bad. If the nulification had been granted it would have made our government super weak and would not have helped anything.
The only thing that happened from getting rid of the national bank was the use of the banks that Andrew Jackson had established and then it eventually led to the panic of 1837 and an economic depression. Nothing good came from the bank being vetoed.
The removal of the indians has got to be the worst thing our government has ever done. The fact that they sent the indians on this long journey with terrible supplies and even blankets covered in small pox was horrid. I dont understand how the americans could not consider the native americans people and could just be so cruel about that and because of that it made me think of Andrew Jackson as a big jerk.
Over all i would probably have to say Andrew Jackson deserved a 1/10 because he really didnt do much that was good and the things he did do didnt do anything good at all. He was responsible for an economic depression, almost granting the states to much power, and a biological genocide of many indians.
sorry that its late im not gonna make excuses i just forgot
I'm really sorry I'm late- so I guess I'll have to use my spirit week points, please. But I would like to say anyway that I would give Jackson a negative 10 on a scale of 1 through 10. He treated the Native Americans with a practically genocidal attitude, he had no respect for the supreme court or the constitution, and his fiscal decisions threw America into a depression which he dumped on van Buren (the Panic of 1839). He was also a hypocrite because he smeared Adams for the elitist spoils system and then gave jobs to his own supporters once he himself was president- one of which embezzled a million dollars from the U.S. government! So, I would say that Jackson was an abject failure as president. Since I seem to be answering the prompt anyway, I'll go on to say that I would be against the Indian Removal because it violates numerous treaties, ignores the ancestral rights of the tribes to their land, and undermines the Supreme Court. I would also be against veto of the bank because it destabilized the US economy. If I had lived in the south I would probably have supported nullification for monetary reasons, but in general I'm against it because it would weaken the union and federal power is necessary for a cohesive nation. Again, I'm so sorry I'm late!
ReplyDelete