After discussing Jackson's dealings with the Native Americans and the Nullification crisis, post two comments on the following questions... your first post will be your answers, and the second will be a response to your classmates.
1. analyze how Jackson dealt with conflict, whether it economic, political, or in policy decisions. Give examples
2. compare Jackson's presidency to that of his predecessors in terms of exercising the powers of office
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Jackson dealt with conflict by trying to maintain a balance between favoring national and state power. In the Nullification crisis, he favored national power by going against South Carolina's plea to be exempt from the tariff. Had he sided with South Carolina, he would have been showing support for state rights rather than national rights. Jackson instead admonished South Carolina in his Nullification Proclamation to ensure states did not start overpowering the national government. However, he handled the Native American crisis differently. When Georgia wanted to get the Cherokee Indians in their territory out of their land, Jackson advocated them doing so. Native Americans were typically handled by the national government, so allowing Georgia to do so was supporting states' rights. Jackson does not seem to have had very strict policies because he often contradicted himself. But if his dealings with conflict had to be summarized I would say that he tended to balance his support of state and national power based on the specific situation at hand. He did not have any specific rules for himself that he followed in every instance and looked at each crisis as being separate from the last one.
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that Jackson exercised more power in office than his predecessors. During the Native American crisis, Jackson ignored the deicisions the Supreme Court made regarding how Georgia should handle the situation. No president had ever done this before. In the past, all the presidents had respected the Supreme Court's decisions, but Jackson exercised more power than they had by doing as he pleased regardless of what they said should be done.
As mentioned in class, Jackson really dealt with conflicts depending on how he felt rather than having a clear cut policy. There is, however, a common theme in each manner that he acted. It was always to preserve the Union or the nation’s interest. The first example comes from the issue of Nullification. Here Jackson sides with the National government because if he does not and allows South Carolina to simply reject any law the national government imposes, the nation would collapse. The next major issue involved with what to do with the Indians. Eventually Jackson decided to go with the States and ignore the Supreme Court’s decision. His actions were influenced by the matter of national interest. The Indians, he knew, couldn’t stay there forever, and therefore he decided to kick them out to make way for more pressing national interests. In a way, his method of decision making is optimal because it provides a good balance between state and national rights and usually does what is best for the country, instead of sticking to a predetermined policy prone to failure.
ReplyDeleteIn order to enact his decisions though, Jackson had to exercise his power differently than previous presidents. For example, he rejected the ruling of the Supreme Court, something that hadn’t been done since the Judicial Acts were set up. In addition, earlier in his career, as a general, he almost started a war with Spain without approval from Congress. Both of these actions show how different of a president he was from his predecessors.
Marco makes a good point about how Jackson handled conflicts. Jackson was very flexible with the courses of action he chose to take and this enabled him to look at each situation more clearly. As Marco said, he had no predetermined policy that would hinder him or prevent him from doing what was best for the country in a particular crisis. Jackson was instead able to make his decisions solely off of how they would impact the nation's interest. There were no social expectations he was trying to live up to or any specific group he was trying to cater to. This allowed him to focus more on the nation's well-being as a whole.
ReplyDeleteThe way that Jackson dealt with crisis was through staying as vague as possible. When he had to make a decision, he was "a walking contradiction." For example, he had suggested that he would support southern states, however when South Carolina ordered the Nullification Proclamation, Jackson took the side of the national government, saying that the nation should be put before individual states.
ReplyDeleteWe also see that Jackson's dealings with the Native Americans was very harsh. No word other then "prejudiced" can be used to describe his feelings towards them. He had fought them in the south, and took out the Creek nation. Out of spite, after conquering them, he built Fort Jackson on the Hickory ground, which happened to be the most sacred spot of the Creek nation. When Jackson came to be president, he continued with harsh feelings and policies towards the Indians. Even after the Supreme Court decided that Georgia had no right to move the Indians that were in Georgia, Jackson basically okayed it. Even though he had supported national rights in the case of South Carolina, he supported individual state rights for Georgia. This shows his lack of consistency.
As far as previous presidents go, Jackson wasn't quite like any other. He was very determined, and for the most part had very set goals. For example, his determination to beat John Quincy Adams for presidency in 1828 and his constant hate towards the Native Americans. He also took much more advantage of the power he was given, and even tried to overstep those bounds sometimes by overruling a Supreme Court decision. Overall, however, Jackson knew how to gain support and form compromises, which served him well as a president. Through these decisions, he had a profound effect on the United States.
Jackson never seemed to let any side get to him. Being stubborn paid off, because Jackson always had his own opinion. Most politicians today act the way Jackson did, when he was in office.
ReplyDeleteDuring the campaign, Jackson was very vogue about his opinions. He preferred to not even answer the question and bash the opponent. By using this method, Jackson had effectively driven away the question and helped his own cause. Politicians today use this method to drive away unwanted questions that may not help with their campaign. With the use of good advertising, Jackson got the highest rise in voting, in American history. He used slander, scandal, newspapers, and word by ear. Like today, publicity was a key portion of his Presidency. The publicity got him known to the people and open to a good strong President. By being one of the common men, he gained a lot more support than his competitor.
While he was in office, Jackson still was able to brush off political questions he did not want. Jackson always stood up for what he believed in, and got his way. A main goal he did have was preserving the Union. Jackson knew enough to deduce that America would not work with all states rights and no national government. When he said strait to Calhoun, “the union must be preserved,” the sentence rang true with his presidency. The Bank war was when Jackson truly showed his colors. Even though Jackson hated the national bank, he still reinstated it as the Second Bank of America. He knew that it was right to have that bank, even if he didn’t like the bank. Many of the people were outraged Jackson let the second bank pass, because Jackson was known to be a real states supporter, being from the south. He stood up to the masses and was a strong person, so he was able to pull the bank off.
Jackson definitely had more power than his predecessors. By being the first to out right refuse the Supreme Court decisions, he is automatically put as most ambitious and headstrong of presidents. Unlike other Presidents, Jackson took reading the constitution to another level. Madison may have been loose with the constitution, but didn’t do anything completely unheard of. Along with the Indian removal, he vetoed 12 bills just because they didn’t agree to his specific political agenda. If a President is vetoing bills not just for the good of the country, but for his own intentions, means he is willing to use any and all the power he can. In the fraction of American history he governed for, he did dramatically extend the executive branches power to levels unheard of in that time.
Jackson dealt with the conflicts by any means as he saw fit. For instance, in the Native American problem, Jackson went against the Supreme Court’s decision that the states could not make treaties or disturb the property of the Indians and allowed Georgia to intrude upon the Cherokee nation’s property ultimately in search for gold. In this case, Jackson proves to be more a state’s rights supporter. However, in the Nullification crisis, Jackson emanates his utmost concern for national unity and condemns South Carolina’s protest against the Tariff of 1828. He even chastises his vice president Calhoun by openly admonishing his support to South Carolina. In his speech, he clearly directs to Calhoun, stating the importance of unity in the nation when he said, “Our Federal Union: It must be preserved.”
ReplyDeleteAs a president, Jackson clearly had more rights than any president that preceded him. He was able to manipulate his power to his advantage in order to carry out whatever he deemed was necessary. For instance, in the case of Indian removal, he created laws to justify his nation’s actions in this cruel act, trying to make this cruelty into an undertone.
I agree with Marco’s and Dana’s statements in that the way Jackson’s balance of state and national rights helped in giving the country more possible options. Many people supposed him to be a supporter of states’ rights, seeing that he was from the South. However, by allowing his decisions to be based on both national and states’ rights, Jackson was able to widen the probability of creating a law that will be beneficial in the future.
ReplyDeleteDuring Jacksons campaign, he was extremely vague in his answers about his beliefs and whether he favored state or national power. However, it can be seen that he believed in both, depending on the situation at hand. He was very arbitrary in his decisions when dealing with issues involving state power vs. national power. Examples of this are the Nullification crisis and the Native Americans. In the Nullification crisis, he sided with national power over state power because if he sided with the state, it would have made it okay in the future for states to defy the laws and rulings of the national government. With the Native American issue, he sided with the state power, because of his feelings about Native Americans and because of the gold found on Georgia lands.
ReplyDeleteJackson definitely exercised his powers in office more than his predecessors, but mainly because he had to because of the situations given to him. He completely ignored the rulings of the Supreme Court on the decisions about the Native Americans which was unprecedented
Marco made a really good point that even though Jackson made decisions [what appeared to be] randomly, he was acting in the interest of the nation as a whole, rather than each state individually. He wanted to preserve the union and refused to let anyone stand in the way, even if it meant not listening to the decisions made by the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteJackson's method of dealing with conflict was interesting because Jackson did not follow a clear cut policy when dealing with issues. He basically did whatever he wanted in order to preserve the Union. He took different sides on issues concerning national government and state power. An example of his support for national government would be when he opposed South Carolina in the nullification process. He was in favor of protecting the national government so that South Carolina would not set the precedent of states being able to over rule the national government.
ReplyDeleteBut Jackson also took the side of the state government in the Georgia against the Cherokee Indians. Jackson despised the Native Americans and even went against the ruling of the Supreme Court and allowed Georgia to continue to persecute the indians, despite the court ruling that they couldn't do that.
I also feel that compared to other presidents Jackson exercised more power and control. A good example of this would be when he overruled a decision made by the supreme court. I would not say that he completely overstepped his boundaries because he was also good at creating compromises to issues, and he never truly did exert an excessive amount of power over the people. He just made his opinions known, and followed through on what he believed in, even when it interfered with the supreme court.
I agree with the statements made about Jackson wanting to "preserve the union". This is a good way to explain the decisions he was making. None of them were either for national or state government entirely, however they were all made to keep the union intact. I also agree with what Marco said about how flexible Jackson was in how he handled conflicts.
ReplyDeleteWhen Jackson was faced with conflicts pertaining to economics, ploicies or even poltics he used two main strategies to prevail during tough situations. Jackson's first approach was to always keep his ideas and speeches vague, never really telling the public what he acutally wanted to do in depth. By doing this he was able to avoid questions that would not support his argument and viewpoints ,making his stand favorable. In doing this, Jackson was able to win over the public and have a solid base of supporters behind him. This allowed him to defeat his competators and allow his decisions to be supported by the public. The public can be a major problem for a president because if they do not agree and support what he is doing they will cause even more conflict and problems on top of what the president already has to deal with. Being popular with the public allowed Jackson to focus in on bigger issues that could impact the country greatly.
ReplyDeleteJackson also dealt with conflict by always keeping the nation's interest in mind.Jackson yearned to keep the Union together and for all states to be unified under one national governemnt. An example of this is when the issue of nullification arose. The conflict dealt with South Carolina and questioned the power of states over the national government. Jackson ultimatley sided with the national governemnt and did not allow South Carolina to ignore laws made by the national government, which they desired to do. Here, it is displayed how Jackson chose the nation over individual states. If it was the other way around it could have lead to a collapse of the Union and destroy any type of unification that was already established.
Compared to previous presidents, Jackson was not afraid to take risks. In the past, no president ever went against the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court until Jackson did.When they said not to touch the Native Americans and to leave them alone Jackson interferred with their lives anyways. It seems as though as time goes on presidents are becoming more comfortable and each president is streching their power more and more to see how much they can get away with.
The way Jackson handled situations demonstrates how he does not truly sympathize to one side of the state/national spectrum. Whichever (state or national) he felt suited the situation best would determine his decision. For example, for the nullification issue in South Carolina, Jackson strongly favored national ways, enforcing the importance of unison, and America staying as a whole. Countering the South Carolina, was Georgia, who were looking to remove the Native Americans. Jackson, who also dislikes Native Americans to begin with, favored states rights, but still implemented federal power into the situation.
ReplyDeleteJackson used his power as president differently than those before him. Previously, the president had more of a set stance on his position, but also stayed consistent. Jackson did not have the same type of consistency, and did what he felt was necessary due to his belief in national interest. Jackson also used his power in order to justify his actions, making him seem like he felt he was capable of overriding the other government branches because he was president.
Chanel made a good point that Jackson followed his own rules, leading to simply follow his own political agenda, which at the time came off to be so radical. Jackson's already ambitious and headstrong personality reflected on his decisions, leading him to set the precedents concerning power, and how power is used.
ReplyDeleteLiz makes a great point in saying how Jackson made decisions soley based on what he felt was right even if it stepped over the power of the Supreme Court. This shows that Jackson was very motivated and let nothing get in the way of obtaining what he wanted and fufilling his ideas. This is an interesting way to think as a president and should be considered in today's society. The governemnt is always worried about the people and their reactions, which is a very important part ,but sometimes when you truly beleive in something you should just go for it. Even though it may not be popular at the time it may be a right move for the country and that is what is important at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteJackson’s way of dealing with conflict whether it be economic, political, or policy decisions was never a cut dry way about solving any conflict. Instead Jackson decided that preserving the union was the most important task through any conflict with the countries national interest. He would go about keeping this interest through siding with state power or national power corresponding to what the conflict called for. In the case of Nullification Jackson sided with the national government. He does this because if South Carolina was able to just not follow a law than other states would follow suit. This would than lead to the collapse of the union. In the example of the case with Georgia and the Cherokee he sided with state power because he realized that the Indians would have to move eventually so rather than let tensions rise he went against the Supreme Court or national government and sided with Georgia. Jackson’s method in solving conflict seems right because he does not just stick to on way to solve he did what was best for the nation.
ReplyDeleteJackson exercised his power more than his predecessors. For example he openly defied the Supreme Court by siding with Georgia and kicking out the Indians. Before this all the presidents never went against the word of the Supreme Court. They may have challenged it, but they never defied it. In all Jackson had to exercise his power like this because it allowed him to keep the country balanced and not fall off the deep end.
I agree with Marco in the respect that Jackson was well balanced in states rights and national rights rather than having a predetermined policy that was prone to failure. This allowed him to stay neutral in conflicts and decide what he wanted to do rather than let a policy decide for him. That is the problem with most politicians they let these policies solve conflicts but they never try to adapt to the problem to really solve it in the most efficient way. So in other words Jackson was able to adapt to problems and solve them in the best fashion.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with conflict based on the situation. He never stayed with one side's interest, either state or national. Whatever he fealt was best to preserve the Union. An example of this is when he dealt with nullification in South Carolina. Here, Jackson sided with national interest and put his foot down on the issue when he stated that states and municipalities are forbidden from nullifying federal laws. He also threatened to enforce the proclamation with the use of federal arms. However, Jackson was not always on the side of doing what best for national interests. In the Native American situation in Georgia he sided with Georgia and felt that they could handle the issue on their own.
ReplyDeleteJackson used hid presedential power in a way his predecessors dared to use. Jackson was able to overule the supreme court's decision in the case for the Cherokee Indians in Georgia. Andrew Jackson knew that the supreme court could not enforce the law and that it was his right.
When conflict arose, Jackson always dealt with it after analyzing the situation and seeing how he felt about it rather than having a set policy of how to attack it. He was a man with national interest in mind and that was usually the way he approached the problems. For instance, when the Nullification crisis issue arose, Jackson while sympathetic for South Carolina, chose to side with the national government and felt that a strong union was more important than allowing every state the right to nullify any federal laws which were “unconstitutional”. Without his support of protecting the national government, South Carolina’s protests against the Tariff of 1828 could have sparked other states to act out against the Federal government in hopes of obtaining more rights. Another instance in which Jackson dealt with conflict was the conflict between Georgia and the Cherokee Indians. A leading advocate for Native American removal, Jackson ultimately sided with the States like Georgia and disregarded the Supreme Court’s decision that they could not interfere in dealings with the Native Americans. It was this combination of siding with the Federal government and siding with state government that made him an unpredictable man to follow.
ReplyDeleteJackson’s presidency in comparison to his predecessors was quite unique in the way he exercised his powers of office. Unlike other presidents, Jackson took every opportunity to take advantage of the power he was given and sometimes went beyond the boundaries. For example, when he chose to disregard the Supreme Court’s decision in the dealings with the Native Americans, that was the first time a president had ever just ignored a ruling.
Marco made a really great point about Jackson’s absence of a clear cut policy like many of his predecessors. Instead of having to abide by that policy like many of his predecessors, Jackson had the freedom to make his decisions solely on his idea of national interest. As long as the decisions and actions benefitted the nation, that is the path to take. Marco also mentioned that Jackson almost started a war with Spain without the approval from Congress is something I personally didn’t think of when I thought about how he was different from his predecessors. It seems like Jackson’s ignorance of Congress started even before he was President. Jackson relied on his own intuition more than the rulings of others.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly. Jackson definetly opened the floor by being so radical for the time. He was almost consistant in his consistancy. America could always count on Jackson picking for his own political adgenda. Jackson was also very smart, he knew that the Supreme Court would not hold him to their jurisdiction. By having knowledge, Jackson was able to scandalously override the Supreme Court decision.
ReplyDeleteLike what many people have said, Jackson had mixed feelings about state and national powers. He was one to argue, and get involved, if he did not like how events were unfolding (like with the Native Americans). For the most part, Jackson dealt with problems in many different ways. He vetoed 12 bills during his presidency! (way more than any other president had). He also used diplomacy to negotiate with the Native Americans. He told them that they had to move off Georgia's land, otherwise, the national army would be brought in. Additionally, vetoed and passed certain bills (Specie Circular Act) to combat the Second National Bank. He strongly opposed having a second bank and this ongoing battle spilled into his second term, where he finally resolved the conflict. It is evident that Jackson utilized diplomacy (almost force) to political tactics to resolve his problems.
ReplyDeleteCompared to previous presidents, Jackson utilized his power in a totalitarian manner. For example, John Marshall ruled in favor of the Native Americans during the series of trials between them and Georgia. Marshall said that the Indians had a right to that land because they were there before the Americans, and Georgia did not have the power to uproot them. Despite this ruling, Jackson told the Cherokee Indians that he would not stop an attack if one were to happen. In short, he was going against the Supreme Court's judgement, something no other president had done before. This served as a precedent for future events, but it also showed that Jackson was bold enough to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling. This cockiness had never been present in any of the previous presidents' terms. It was upsetting.
Andrew Jackson was a walking contradiction. You never really knew which side he was on (national or states rights) and like Mr. O said "it really depended on what side of the bed he rolled out of". On the issue of Nullification of the tariff of 1828, Jackson shut down South Carolina and VP Calhoun, standing firm on his decision that "our federal union, it must be preserved". Jackson was difficult to work with because he was very unpredictable. During the court case with Geogia and the Native Americans, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the Native Americans. But Andrew Jackson, being Andrew Jackson, disregarded the court ruling, sided with the states, and was a leading advocate to the removal of the Native Americans. (Though it wasn't all too suprising given his background as a military general).
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson was very different from previous presidents. He did a lot of things the way he wanted them to be done. He exercised his powers, like vetoing 12 bills and spending 1.3 million dollars per year in building the countries infrastructure. No president has rejected Supreme Court ruling because their words were the "end all be all" but of course, Andrew Jackson would. He just would.
I agree with Emily that Jackson relied on his intuition more than the rulings of others. He strongly believed that the union should be united and he also believed that the Native Americans had to go. Jackson didn't clearly affiliate himself with a party, he was just going by whatever he thought was right, and what was the best (though his actions may be debatable). I agree with Chris that it was upsetting.
ReplyDeleteJackson had a seemingly inconsistent means of dealing with state versus federal power. However, his policies were consistent in the idea that they were for the relative unity of the states. Jackson's policies as president did not seem to be founded on party lines. He was not like the Federalists, who favored a strong federal government, or like the ideal Republican, whom favored state power. He simply favored national interest. Because there was only one party at the time, he did not have to worry about staying on one side of the party. Whatever he did was an interpretation of what the party wanted, because again, there was only a single party.
ReplyDeleteHis decision in dealing with Georgia was consistent with his policies and was a political decision. He had made it clear before on the issue of nullification that he would not simply give in to state governments. However, when it did not threaten national security, or undermine the federal government directly, like with nullification, he could favor the state. The Indians were a sovereign state. However, they were interfering with Georgia's politics simply by being there. Because Jackson's prime interest was to favor national interest, to move the Native Americans made sense for him.
Relative to past presidents, Jackson contrasted greatly by contradicting a Supreme Court decision. This had never been committed before. Since the Supreme Court did not especially have power over Jackson anymore, there was not an effective check for the executive branch anymore. This was an occurrence present only during Jackson's presidency.
Most commentators such as Marco,whom was the first, seem to believe that Jackson had national interests at heart, and was committed to achieving unity despite if this seemed to contradict other decisions made by him. His policy was consistent in this sense, as many have raised, and I agree very much with this point. Some state that Jackson was a turncoat, playing politics and whatnot, but he did not contradict himself if the standard of protecting the union, but allowing some state rights was seen as his motivation.
ReplyDeleteDavid makes a good point about how Jackson did not have to deal with another party, since no other party existed. This must have avoided lots of pressure past presidents had to deal with. Also, I think that because there was no other party, Jackson had more liberty to do what he wanted (like veto a lot and exercise his power) compared to other presidents who were constantly checked by the opposing party.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with the conflicts by any means as he saw fit, and disregarded the boundaries of a strict federal or state supporter. He demonstrated his flexibility and unpredictability on several occasions, and the Americans did not know what exactly to expect from him. For example, Jackson went against the Supreme Court’s decision that the states could not make treaties or disturb the property of the Indians and allowed Georgia to intrude upon the Cherokee nation’s property. Here we see that Jackson seems to be a state’s rights supporter. However, in the Nullification crisis, Jackson displays his high concern for national unity and condemns South Carolina’s protest against the Tariff of 1828. He even brought up the importance of unity after a disagreement with his vice president Calhoun over South Carolina. In Jackson’s speech, he was clearly referring to Calhoun when he said, “Our Federal Union: It must be preserved.”
ReplyDeleteJackson exercised more rights and power than any president that preceded him. He took advantage of his position, and carried out whatever he deemed was necessary. For example, he created laws to justify removal of the Native Americans, attempting to mask his cruelty. Although Jackson wanted the best for the country, he stretched the powers of his presidency further than anyone had ever done before.
It seems that majority of my classmates believe that Jackson had the nation's best interest at heart when he made his unpredictable decisions. Regardless of whether Jackson's highest concern was "preserving the unity", he certainly put on a show for others to enjoy. With his drastic decisions, he was probably a common topic of conversation. By getting so involved in certain situations, he certainly made a name for himself because the people never knew what was coming. This might have been for the good of the country, but it could have also been to grab the attention on his country. The man defied the Supreme Court, as a new nation the government should be working together. That action alone got his name in the history books, and I am sure he was pretty happy about that as he would most likely be thrilled that hundreds of years later students are blogging about him and his presidency.
ReplyDeleteJackson deals with conflict like any psycho crazy-haired man. He faces it head on with whatever the heck will get it resolved without public opinion coming to a full boil. Politics he took slightly into account, but the people and their thoughts were what Jackson was really concerned about. If he angered the people and lost public support, then the REAL trouble would begin. So he was conscious of that, but when it came to picking a political side? Yeah, that just flew out the window.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, when it came to the whole South Carolina incident with nullification and threats to break from the union, Jackson went the nationalist route and was determined to keep the union preserved, speaking against nullification which would have spurred a large surge of power to the state governments. However, with the Native American issue brought up by Georgia having to do with the Cherokee territory and whether negotiations over Native American land were a national or state affair, Jackson favored state power, saying that Georgia would be able to proceed with what they had in place. He never really picked one side to strictly stay on; he just jumped from one to the other whenever necessary.
In a way that helped him, since picking one option out of the two would portray him in a bad light to the opposition, and what then? His public opinion, once nearly flawless, would be tarnished, which wasn't an option, since public opinion was crucial to Jackson's presidency.
So honestly, Jackson was the most "do whatcha gotta do" president of the bunch thus far. That carried over into how he exercised his powers in office. He was not afraid to place a toe over his bounds if the need arose. Not to say that Jackson was a corrupt president; he wasn't at all. If he was, the country would've been finished. He would've had absolutely no problem with throwing any restrictions aside; seizing power would have been a breeze.
But Jackson wasn't corrupt, as far as we know, or at least not corrupt enough. He used his talents at tastefully overstepping and bending the rules for the good of the nation (thank goodness). For instance, he had the audacity to go back on a Supreme Court decision and completely defy it by allowing Georgia to consult with the Native Americans. The Supreme Court had ruled that only the national government could decide that, but Jackson didn't seem to give a diddle. That kind of defiance of the Supreme Court was never seen before.
All in all, Jackson's a real nutter. I would've liked to meet him, and possibly pet his hair, just to see how wild and crazy it really was.
Intuition was a good word brought up by Rebecca and Emily; that's a nice way to put it, that Jackson made decisions during his presidency with his own intuition. He didn't particularly listen to a single side more than another, the decision in the end was purely his own. He did whatever he thought was right at the time, and he was able to change what was "right" according to the situation, which I guess made him a president that was very compatible with the changing times. He would've done well in an era of rapid change (cough cough).
ReplyDeleteI like Marco's idea of a common "theme"; it wasn't like Jackson was jumping all over the board just for the fun of it (though, that would be fun). He was always acting for the good of the nation and in the nation's interest, always aiming to make things better for the people of the U.S, and hey, isn't that what a president's REALLY supposed to do? I think it is! Golly gee!
Jackson dealt with all issues he faced with force, whether through military or his authority. He was not really open to negotiation; things had to be done his way, reflected in his belief that his interests embodied those of the rest of America. He would ignore rulings from other branches of the government if they did not fit with his plans and even publicly challenge his vice president or criticize a state if it helped him accomplish his goals. If opposition still faced him, he would consider using force. Jackson was like a bulldozer, prepared to run over anything in his way.
ReplyDeleteJackson went beyond any previous president's use of power. Others cooperated with the Supreme Court, even when they disagreed with it, while Jackson openly disregarded their jurisdiction. He was unique in that he acted as if he alone was the government and not anyone else.
I agree with the idea that Jackson, while abusive with his power, was not corrupt and always had the country's best interests at heart. The problem was that he was narrow-minded and stubborn, refusing to believe that anyone else could have a better direction for the country than himself. That was what distinguished his presidency from the previous ones; the others stayed within their limits of power, while he overrode them. In previous presidencies, Congress was a much larger factor than in Jackson's it seems, because he usualy found a way to get what he wanted.
ReplyDeleteJackson handled conflicts by trying to do what was best for his supporters in the south and west, and this sometimes went against his own personal feelings. When he was asked of his opinion on a controversy, he was usually very vague so as to keep his base of support and not alienate him from them. He was usually very forceful, for instance, he almost sent troops into South Carolina during the nullification crisis to keep them in the union. He used the president's veto power much more than any previous president, which he used to help his own political agenda.
ReplyDeleteOne economic controversy during his presidencies was the National Bank. Neither he nor his supporters agreed with it because it hurt land speculators and lower income people. To combat it, he passed an act forcing land speculators to have gold and silver specie to back up their purchases. This caused a great demand for specie from the banks, and caused their downfall (including the National Bank). This caused major problems, and led to the Panic of 1837 which hurt the entire country including the south and west.
I agree with Scott that Jackson sometimes went against Supreme Court rulings. He also was very brutal, causing the "Trail of Tears" with his acts regarding Indian removal. I agree with Derek as well that Jackson's main focus was the upholding of the Union. He did this successfully, but only after alienating his Vice President, and eventually the almost everyone in America.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with conflict and issues in an unpredictable and sometimes contradictory way. His personality caused much controversy with problems regarding federal power and states rights. For instance, his appearance and character traits pertaining to the “common man” made him very relatable to the public. People liked how his presence was ordinary instead of someone who was irrelevant to society. Therefore, followers of common men typically promoted states rights. However, this was not the case proven in the Nullification Crisis. Rather than favoring states rights, he advocated national power by opposing South Carolina’s request to be excused from the tariff. He criticized South Carolina’s pleas over the repugnance of the tariffs. In addition, the conflict dealing with the Native Americans in Georgia clearly contradicted his previous statements. Involvement with the Native Americans was usually dealt by the national government, but in this case, Jackson allowed Georgia to get the Cherokee Indians out of their territory. This action showed the public that this supported states rights, which consequently challenged his unclear viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteDuring Jackson’s term, I believe he had a great deal of power which he used to manipulate particular situations to his fondness. For example, due to the fact that he disliked the Native Americans, he used his power to evict them. Also, his aversion towards the national bank ultimately led to its downfall. Lastly, his decisions to disregard the Supreme Court caused shock to many people. Since previous presidents had valued the court’s decisions, Jackson’s opposition to some of them was a change. However, apart from their decisions, Jackson still used his power to do with what he pleased.
I agree with Emily's statement on how Jackson tended to use his power regarding his personal feelings. When Georgia began complaining about how the Native Americans were taking up their territory, he allowed them to remove the Indians. His opposition and dislike towards them influenced his decision and ultimately thousands of them had died. In addition, I agree with Marco's statement on how he always talked about preserving the union. Jackson was very unclear about whether he supported the national government or states rights as a whole. His decisions were generally about the nation's interest rather than a specific side which explains how he kept the union intact.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with conflicts in his own manner. Jackson had the personality and attitude of a common man. He would use his common man to solve issues. For example, he tried to get rid of the national bank and he would try to make laws like the anti nullification plan. He also did not agree with Congress on Georgia’s Indian issues so he personally went out and made things his way. If something in the society was bothering him, he always used his own ideas to try to shape the society differently.
ReplyDeleteJackson was more corrupted than his predecessors. He used much more of his powers to try to shape society in his own way compared to other presidents. He would use his powers to take out Indian tribes and encourage westward expansion as well as use his powers to disagree with governmental actions. Jackson was also known for being a strong military figure so he wouldn’t hesitate to apply military force if things weren’t going his way. Overall, he used much more of his given powers than his predecessors in terms.
I agree with Michelle how he was very unpredictable. She states that he contradicted his view points because he would sometimes support state interests. Another example of him being contradicting is how he was a common man and disliked banks but favored hard money. This shows that he is unpredictable. I also liked how Justin pointed out how he used his veto powers much more than any other president. This shows that he over used his powers.
ReplyDelete