After completing the reading from the text, post two comments on the following:
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)
45 comments:
YAY!!! I'm first!! Anyways, that's not point. Jackson's policy when dealing with conflict was, as Mr.O so frequently states in class, "I do what I want". Whether it was violating the supreme court and advocating expansion into Indian lands or fighting tooth and nail to bring down the bank of the United States, Jackson had no throughline in his decisions and executed them with swift action.This policy of rash decisions applied to all of his actions.
Secondly, Jackson used infinitely more power than any other President up to this point. He increased the size of government and made things happen his way even though other branches of government disapproved. He greatly increased the power of the executive branch.
Four key issues mark Jackson's presidential career. Economically, he faced The Second Bank of the United States, the Tariff of 1828, the Nullification Crisis. Politically he faced the Indians. Jackson deals with these issues by simply as Mr. O and Kyle both said, doing what he wanted. This was the only consistent strategy used by Jackson.
Jackson vetoed more bills than the previous six presidents combined. He believed as president it was his duty to enforce the Constitution as he interpreted it, not the Supreme Court. As Jackson increased the power of the presidency, he did sometimes sought to expand democracy as a whole, but only when it served his interests.
I agree with kinney.
Jackson did not really deal with conflict too well nor too fairly. Jackson dealt with the political conflict of expansion by basically forcing the Native Americans out.
He did not treat the Indians fairly in this decision as visible in 1830 when he allowed Georgia to claim Cherokee land and defy the Supreme court ruling that stated that state laws have no force over the Cherokee.
Jackson dealt with the economic crisis of the B.U.S. expanding and, well...existing, by transferring $10 million in government funds to state banks. As this action caused horrible conquences, Jackson tried to prevent irresponsible activity by issuing the specie cirular in 1836. This also ended badly in the Panic of 1837. Despite warnings from his colleages, Jackson still stubbornly passed acts that ultimately hurt the economy. He obviously did not plan ahead (objectively) or take advice from other people.
Jackson dealt with conflict in a very blunt manner, he had a feeling and did everything in his power to stick with that conviction. Thats all well and good...if your president isnt an idiot. He disagreed with creating a national bank, instead pouring $10 million into state banks. This mistake led to a depression throughout most of Van Buren's presidency. Also, his actions concerning the Indians were utterly wrong. As a child your learn about the Trail of Tears, and to this day i remain as sickened. One racist man (although as we said he wasnt considered racist) took his hate out on an innocent group of people in lieu of what others were pleading for.
In terms of his usage of power compared to other presidents he was certainly different. However, that is not to say I feel as though he went beyond his power. He did veto tons of bills, i forget the number, but it was more than all the previous presidents combined. The one thing that really stands out are his brash and brazen ways, compared the the more behind the scenes work of his predecessors. Furthermore, he didnt go into work with a plan like Jefferson to remove anyone who opposed him. He may not have been good, but there are certain ways in which Jackson definitely differed from previous presidents.
I agree with Will.
Jackson definitely used more power than any of his predecessors. Although he stated that state laws should rule over federal (and Indian) law. However, his actions affected the whole country. Additionaly, when South Carolina rejected the tariff or 1828, he cornered the state into accepting it again with the help of his popularity and support. He even dismissed a Supreme court ruling. Overall, Jackson pushed the powers he had as president to the limit if not past it.
The way the Jackson dealt with the Native American tribes in the southern areas of the United States was cruel but also forceful. Even though the Supreme Court ruled against Georgia eliminating the tribes from their lands, Jackson supported them and let them go against the supreme court ruling.
As for the B.U.S. conflict, because of his distrust and just plain hate for the national bank, he transferred 10 million dollars to state banks. While in office, he also managed to create a rapid expansion and deflation in the economy as well as caused the Panic of 1837.
His response to conflict ended up hurting the nation because of acting hastily without properly planning his actions and realizing their consequences. He "did what he wanted" and because of this ended up harming the economy.
Jackson's presidency was quite different than that of his predecessors in terms of exercising the powers of office. He used his power more forcefully and one such instance was dealing with the Cherokee. He believed in the state power over federal power and therefore supported the Georgians when they declared the Cherokee tribal council illegal. Even though the Supreme Court ruled against this, "with his blessing, Georgians defied the Court ruling."
Jackson dealt with conflict, as everyone will probably agree, by doing whatever he pleased. If he had to use military force, he did just that. In a political conflict, he removed the Indians by sending troops to forcefully kick them out of their territory. To him, this was justified by "humanity and national honor."
In an economic conflict, Jackson vetoed the bill that would recharter the bank. His response was "the bank is trying to kill me, but i will kill it." So that clearly shows his stubbornness and resolute way of handling things.
Andrew Jackson was the seventh President to the United States. Instead of the normal cabinet made up by the president, he relied more on an informal group of newspaper writers and northern politicians who had worked for his election. I believe that this made him more connected to people of the United States and therefore more connected to the public opinion and feelings toward national issues President Jackson developed the system of "rotation in office," which was used to protect the American people from a development of a long-standing political group by removing long-term office holders. Anti-Jacksonians accused him of corruption of civil service for political reasons. However, I think that it was used to insure loyalty of the people in his administration. The issue of the tariff was a major controversy in the United States round the years of his Presidency and his strong support for a unified nation oven states rights would hold the country together in this national crisis.
Jackson's foreign policy showed a his interest in taking the French to pay long-overdue spoliation claims and reopening the British West Indian Trade. Even thought he personally agreed with the rebellion of Texas against Mexico. (that was part of my first comment)
Andrew Jackson was the first peoples president." This comes from his youth in a frontier territory and “people skills” which helped him to be more touch with the people of the United States, and therefore the people of the United States took a more active role in the Government. He even went so far as to call himself the elected representative of all American people. I think that Jackson's strengthening of the powers of the presidency are the biggest influence to this day. He used the power of the veto 12 times(more times than all of his successors combined)(this shows what Mr. O was talking about “he did whatever he wanted to do”. Also, his use of the powers of removal and of executive orders made a standard for a modern American Presidency. I only wish that their was a candidate like that running for election in the present times.
In terms of how Jackson measured up to his predecessors, he was equally as forceful when it came to implementing policies (remember Washington sending troops to end the Whiskey Rebellion?) but because he was viewed as a war hero and had such a rough, gruff persona, he gave the illusion of being even more forceful.
Yeah i know, i'm beleaguering the point, but Jackson dealt with conflict "however he wanted to."He defyed the supreme court, he used personal bias to dictate his actions (native americans!), and he decided to abolish the national bank- which up to this point was a constant prescence. even in personal conflict, Jackson reacted however he felt like reacting (duel!). HIs rash decisions ultimately led to an intimidating reputation but a floundering economy.
Jackson's presidency was ultimatey successful in augmenting executive power. The blance, however, may have been tipped, and any distortion in the system could have some serious reprocussions. He overruled the Supreme court in his decision regarding the Cherokee land. He essentially gave himself the power of judicial review and determining constitutionality.
Since Andrew Jackson "did as he wanted" he was ultimately extremely successful. As many of you said, I think namely Ritu, he vetoed more bills than any President combined, therefore he made sure his goals and his agendas were met, and by his own standards. As compared to his predecessors in terms of the exercise of their powers in office, he did not let the Supreme Court manipulate and control the bills and laws that got passed in the United States, and had a larger role in the process.
Jackson did not really deal with his issues in the proper manner. Everything he wanted to do was basically done in a ruthless and blind way. He did, like Kyle said follow the "I do what I want" scheme. However, these apparently led to some key problems. These involved the National Bank and the Native Americans. With the bank, he undeniably miscalculated the 10 million he spent and did worse than his predecessors. The Native Americans, as everyone previously stated, were the ones especially abused by Jackson's presidency. As a powerful racist, he essentially purged many of the Native Americans out of their land, fighting battles that were not needed. As with the invasion of Florida, his brashness and audacity provoked irresponsible actions. Once again, he proved to be unlike his forebears. He is closer to a spoiled, yet resolute child, than an adult.
Jackson dealt with any type of conflict by doing what he thought was best, even if it was the wrong choice, to him it was the right thing to do at the time and he stood by his decisions. He didn't let others manipulate him or change his believes, and honestly once his mind was set on something, he went through with it, whether it be the state banks or the decisions that sent the Indians on the trail of tears, he was a man of his own convictions.
Well since he abused his powers, I would say that he was completely different from his predecessors. He disobeyed the Supreme Court's ruling, which is likely since he was so headstrong. Even though he increased the executive branch's power, it was more exploitative and accidental than anything. I'm sure he was not planning to do so. He only did this to increase his own power over the people. I do not think such a president could survive today's conditions. Not only the people, but the media would bash his ways.
In addition to making decisions based primarily off his feelings, Jackson also seemed to use confrontational tactics that had at best short term gains. His policy regarding Indians was the most extreme example of Jackson's implementation of his strong-arm ideaology. He attempted to begin the ethnic cleansing of various tribes that lived in America. Also, the benefits of Jackson's economic policy were short lived. While he was able to actually reduce the national debt significantly by beginning of his second term, Jackson's abolition of the Second Bank of the United States was largely responsible for the depression that greatly affected the country. He ended up increasing federal debt to more than it had ever been.
Compared to the presidents that came before Jackson, he used the executive branch's power to accomplish his goals the most. He vetoed all bills that did not fit exactly what he saw in the country's future.
I'm getting to this late, so sorry to reiterate what many people have already said... but basically Jackson did not really "deal" with conflict. He really jsut got around the issue, justifying himself as doing what is right for the common people (all though that was not always the case). In fact, many times it was Jackson who brought forth controversey and conflict in the first place. An example of this is when he publicly vetoed the bill for the B.U.S. He turned the whole matter into an unneccessary struggle between the people and the aristocracy. Conlfict really seemed to just follow Jsckson around.
As we have talked about it class, inconsistency is the only thing that we regularly see from Jackson. He follows with this "do whatever I want" policy when dealing with issues like the bank which led to the 1827 panic and the indians in the southwest, where he violated supreme court rulings. He stretched the powers allotted to him in the Constitution and refused to take advice from other people.
Two main issues, which Jackson dealt with poorly, involved the economy and Native Americans. Jackson, having common background, distrusted seemingly aristocratic northerners and their methods. Accordingly, he distrusted the Second Bank of the United States. He decided to veto the bill that would permit such a bank and proceeded to say it was not democratic. His reasoning seemed insufficient and gave an air of discomfort. It also furthered the struggle between the north and south. Jackson also caused an economic disaster by transferring $10 million to the state bank. Land speculation increased along with severe inflation. Jackson then proclaimed that the government would only accept gold and silver for land then causing a sudden deflationary movement. This action of poor judgment and stubbornness resulted in panic and depression.
Jackson also dealt poorly with the Native Americans. For example, he unfairly allowed Cherokee land to be taken. Alarmed, the nation split into two factions. Other tribes such as the Seminoles fought back causing stress on the nation and, once again, poor decision making on Jackson’s part. The only common denominator in Jackson’s methods for dealing with conflict was, as many others have said before, whatever he felt like doing.
Jacksons idea of dealing with a conflict was plain and simple. He demanded that he get what he want and then argued with anyone who dare got in his way. This was evident in his handiling of the national bank. Also I believe that Jackson would have fought against the CFL.
Jackson took the poer of the president to whole new heights. As others have stated he vetoed more bills then all his predecessors combined. This goes hand in hand with his strategy of doing exactly what he wanted all the time. Which would not include watching the cfl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiUgLOcPePc
Andrew Jackson was nothing like his predecessors. First of all, he completely changed the inner workings of political life. Politics was no longer jsut availabe to those who were socially or intellectually elite - the commoners, right down to the southern farmers, were now apart of all the hoopla. Jackson's campaign tactics appealed to the common masses, using catchy slogans and parades to draw attention to himself, barely even relying on his actual stances to win him the presidency. Before Jackson, a small minority of the nation was included in the governmental process. After Jackson, and even to present day, politics has become more of an event and spectacle then something merely for the elite.
Another difference between Jackson and his predecessors was the way in which he "ruled" his country. The nickname King Andrew didn't come from nowhere. He was the first president to put the executive branch in the forefront of the political system, giving the branch power the likes of which it had yet to see. Vetoing bills was a regular for Jackson. Basically, Jackson completely changed the dynamic of the governmental system.
I began to talk about this in my other post, but Jackson exercised more power then his predecessors, stretching the powers that the Constitution gave him. He used the Constitution in different ways as it was convent for him, interpreted it for himself, and ruled by that interpretation (not the supreme court's as he was supposed to). He was forceful when dealing when the Cherokee, increased the size of government as he deemed necessary despite the thoughts of others, and defiantly increased his own power.
Instead of doing what was perhaps best for his country, Jackson seemed to act sometimes irrationally towards conflict because he always did what he wanted. He spontaneity and disregard for other parts of the government ended up really hurting our country. He acted ruthlessly against the Native Americans and unfairly removed them from their lands, even though the Supreme Court told him they had the right to be there. He was too caught up campaigning against the bank. Clay and Webster persuaded Biddle to ask Congress for a new charter in 1832, 4 years ahead of schedule. They figured Jackson wouldn't risk a veto in election year. However, Jackson did not only want a veto, he wanted to kill the bank. The maneuvers he pulled then destroyed our economy. After he won a re-election in 1832, Jackson closed in on Biddle and attempted to weaken the B.U.S. by transferring $10 million in government funds to state banks. This had serious economic consequences and caused an awful depression that Van Buren was left to deal with.
Jackson's rash decisions in the moment without regard for the future state of the country was how he dealt with conflict.
-STEFANIE
Jackson was a more self-centered president than his predecessors. He did things how he wanted them done, disregarding other opinions. Jackson sometimes abused his powers to quench his thirst for power and glory (such as attacking the Indians in Florida). He was not nearly as peaceful as Jefferson or level-headed as Washington. Furthermore, he did not match Jefferson's strict construction of the Constitution. Rather, he defined the document so that it would benefit himself. He increased the power of the President and Executive Branch, while undermining the power of Congress. Despite this, he still believed in states' power and went to far means to protect it, even by hurting the national bank and therefore destroying the economy.
-STEFANIE
I think we all agree that Jackson was very temperamental and sought revenge... not to mention for the billionth time, "he did what he wanted." In my opinion, this made room for some errors or slanted politics, such as taking land from the Native Americans. If he considered the ideas of others, maybe he would have been more successful. This example reflects on his political tactics, while using militaristic power and force. Like I said in class today, one of the reasons he was elected was because of his military exploitations of the Native Americans. At the time when Nationalism seemed to be a growing interest, (along with Pan-Americanism) the people of the US wanted the land to be theirs, and at the time with Jackson pushing the Indians out, it seemed right. But as usual, hindsight gives us a different perspective of almost "unjustified" politics of Jackson.
Jackson took advantage of the executive’s power more than any other president had previously. As a typical southerner, he adamantly believed state laws should be superior to federal and native American laws exemplified in his dealings with the Cherokee; he supported Georgia at the unfair expense of the natives. Jackson, in exercising his power, even went as far as to contradict a supreme court ruling. An additional uniqueness of Jackson’s was his proximity to the people. This ability was mainly due to his background as well as his connections to news writers.
In dealing with conflict, Jackson made his actions with an overly confident attitude. As others have said and as we have discussed in class, Jackson did whatever he wanted. From duels with random people to shutting out the Native Indians, Jackson didn't care what people thought of the way he liked to run things.
In terms of exercising powers of office, Jackson took advantage of every action he can possibly take in order to get what he wanted. Although he seems to have abused his powers, he didn't care and managed to get away with it.
Economically, Jackson had to deal with Second Bank of the United States... and as Danielle wrote: "In an economic conflict, Jackson vetoed the bill that would recharter the bank. His response was "the bank is trying to kill me, but i will kill it."
This clearly shows Jackson's stubborn approach to the economy, and any situation whatsoever. He went as far to abuse his power as president and the executive branch. Back to the politics, he over ruled the Supreme Court and pushed the Cherokee out of their own land. He tried doing either ethnic cleansing or assimilation like Jefferson did. Which brings up my second point... as we learned in class, Jackson was noted to be the successor to Jefferson in that he wanted an agrarian nation. Even though if the US wanted to survive they would have to become an industrialist country, Jackson did "his way or the highway," and insisted on an agriculture-based nation. Ultimately, stubborn Jackson may have had appeal, personally and rhetorically, but his actual presidential term only proved him to be a harsh and temperamental president who may have abused his powers.
Jackson dealt with conflict in a very abrupt manner. He made sure he got what he wanted. Economically, he sent troops to South Carolina when they refused to comply with the nullification. Politically, he used rhetoric to win votes even though he hardly kept any of the promises he made; he just wanted to get elected. Policy wise, he interpreted them however he wanted to, such as the invasion of Florida. Jackson was only told to stop the Seminoles, but he decided to take it a step further by invading Florida and using the Native American resistance as an excuse.
If I had to compare Jackson to a predecessor, I would compare him to Jefferson. Like Jefferson, there were many ups and downs in Jackson's presidency. Jackson managed to reduce our national debt to its lowest rate since 1791 before the Panic of 1837. He also had the interests of his party at heart, when he rotated offices to give posts to people in his party, the same way Jefferson tried to protect the interests of his party by refusing to appoint midnight judges. Okay, that might have been a really loose comparison, but I still think it counts for something.
I think it is blatantly obvious that Jackson dealt with the conflict in the worst possible way he could have. By abolishing the National Bank, all together, he has proven to undermine the power of any one else in the cabinet, or the other three branches of government for that matter, because he "does what he wants". Also, his prejudice against Native Americans led to purging them. Since they were still new to the country, or at least the nation developing, Jackson was foolish in allowing his prejudiced opinion to blur his mind from making rational decisions. Jackson was certainly unique in his individualistic attitude, but did not prove to be running the country in a successful manner.
It is without a doubt that Jackson allowed the executive branch to become more powerful in his complete disregard of what precedents have been set for him by other presidents. Other presidents, before Jackson, did see that with their power came limits. Jackson ultimately did not believe in limits on himself as president, which then led him to ruling over the Supreme Court, which is the head of ANOTHER branch of government, the judicial branch.
I think Jackson dealt with conflicts in a very extremist way. For example, he distrusted the national bank so, instead of considering how it might be revised or how it affected the population, he went on an outright attack. I think this is due to the fact that he was a military leader; anything that is not "on his side" is his enemy. This is also the way he dealt with the Native Americans. They stood in his way, so without looking for a compromise Jackson decided to eliminate them and ship them west. Clearly, he did not deal with conflicts in the best possible way.
Jackson certainly was different than his predecessors. As described above he had a totally different way of governing than those before him because of his background in the military. I think Jackson exercised his powers of office in some respects more than other presidents and in others less. Jackson clearly knew how to use the power to veto bills; he vetoed more bills in his presidency than the total of those before him. However, he did not "purge" the government of impurities as he said he would have (as Jefferson tried to do with the Judicial Branch).
Heyyy Super O, sorry this is so late, my computer got a virus and it won't even turn on so this is me sneaking on from work.
Jackson dealt with conflict by doing what was rational and in the best interest of the country. I don't think he was very concerned about morals. If the decision came between doing what was cold and logical or doing what was moral he would always do the logical thing. While the Native Americans suffered from these kinds of decisions, it actually was the best thing for the U.S.
Jackson really really liked power. He vetoed more bills than all of the previous presidents (I think it was either 9 or 12, not sure), found clever ways to manipulate the constitution, and managed to keep the public opinion of him admirably high. (I'm not condoning immorality and manipulation, but you have to admit he was pretty impressive.)
Sorry if I said the same things as everybody else, I only read Kyle's because I'm supposed to be doing invoices and if I'm not making typing noises my boss knows I'm not. :)
Post a Comment