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)
Throughout Jackson's presidency, he based many of his decisions off national interest--going against his "common man" personality that allowed him to win the election. A political decision that supported the nation over states was Jackson's stance on nullification. Although South Carolina had expected Jackson to ally with them, as he himself was a southern, Jackson surprisingly warned South Carolina that we are an unified nation--not a league--and individual states must therefore go alone with policies even if it hinders their state. This decision, in a way, supported the north economically because the south was against the tariffs. Once again, this was a surprise because Jackson had appealed to the South, and during the 1828 election, he claimed to be one of them. Jackson, a walking contradiction, also confused the populous in his policies regarding Native Americans. Jackson said that what happens within Georgia should be her responsibilities. However, Chief Justice Marshall had rule that Native American issues should be taken care of by the federal government. This was also decided in the Treaty of Greenville that stated that the federal government would decide what to do with Native Americans....
ReplyDelete...Jackson manipulated the powers of office more so than any of his predecessors. First, he immediately replaced many federal officials with his political supporters. Also, he went along with the illegal seizure of Cherokee land in Georgia and forcibly expelled the Indians who refused to leave. He also used the military to enforce federal laws in South Carolina when they attempted to nullify the federal tariff. Such an action (of internal military force) had not been used since the Whiskey Rebellion. He also controversially vetoed a bill to recharter the Bank of the United States. Although the bank was border line unconstitutional, where was his right as president to demolish it
ReplyDeleteWhile Jackson was president he dealt with his problems by bending the law in his favor. For example, Jackson decided that Georgia could deal with the native americans on their own even though the supreme court already decided they could not.
ReplyDeleteJackson's presidency had a lot more use of power to his full advantage. Jefferson may have bent the rules by buying the louisiana purchase, but Jackson flat out broke th rules by forcing the Native Americans out of Georgia.
i Agree with Carly, Jackson did not care about the common man as he stated, but national intrests. also i like the point she makes about Jackson agreeing with the north economically by keeping the tariff that most people would assume he would get rid of.
ReplyDeleteDuring Jackson's presidency he dealt with many issues. Some of them he dealt with very strongly and others he let them figure themselves out. For example with National Bank, he was determined to kill it, but then the issue with Georgia and the Cherokee, he did not want any part in the problem.
ReplyDeleteJackson's presidency was more powerful than any of his predecessors. He was able to manupilate his power to his full advantage. For example illegally taking the Cherokee Indians out of Georgia even though they had a right to contiinue on living there.
I agree with Carly that Jackson didnt really have the right to get rid of the National Bank even though it was border line constitutional. So that showed that he had much more power than other presidents before him because he was able to get away with something that controversial.
ReplyDeleteJackson had many surprising twists in his presidency. Despite the fact that he was elected because he portrayed "the common man", he often went against these beliefs. For example, he stated that it was against the Constiution for South Carolina to make their own decisions. He did not always take strong positions on some topics, yet on others, he formed a strong opinion.
ReplyDeleteJackosn clearly excercised his power during his presidency. He was somewhat feared by othe political figures so he was able to use his power to manipulate situations
Jackson dealt with all types of conflict one way, and that was his way and whatever worked best for him. Being very wishy washy on his position as either a National rights guy or States rights guy the way he handled issues was different each time. For example he supported the state of Georgia's rights by allowing them to deal with their Native American issue their own way. But then he decided to take full control and get rid of the National Bank. Basically the way that was the most convenient for Jackson determined how he would resolve conflict and issues.
ReplyDeleteJackson definitely used more power than any other President before him. He basically ignored the rules when he enforced the trail of tears and drove the Native Americans out of Georgia. He also took it upon himself to get rid of the national bank which he really did not have power to abolish.
I agree with both Brittany and Carly, Jackson clearly exercised his power and was able to manipulate several issues to his favor. Overall, he was a very powerful president and took control over several issues such as Cherokee disputes and also the National Bank
ReplyDeleteI agree with Carly that although the bank was borderline unconstitutional he really did not have the power to just destroy it. I also agree with Ricky in the sense that Jackson not just bent but broke the rules when he was forcing the Native Americans out of Georgia.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with conflict as it was convenient to him. When he ran for president, he did so as the "common man's" candidate. Yet his presidency greatly contradicted this point. In their quest of nullification, South Carolina had expected an ally in Jackson because he was from the south. However, Jackson was very adamant that no state has the power to overrule the national government. In the case of Georgia trying to exert their authority over the Cherokee, Jackson agreed with them even though the Supreme Court said it was a federal matter. Jackson used his presidential authority more than any of his predecessors. He blatantly ignored Supreme Court rulings and employed the use of the veto 12 times, compared with 9 and this was often for his own political agenda.
ReplyDeleteOf course we're all going to agree on everything because we all said the same things, essentially. I thought Carly stated her point very well. I also liked Hope's use of the phrase "wishy washy", as this describes Jackson perfectly.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was insightful how Laura was very specific in her support of how Jackson was unlike anyone else. Laura referred to Jackson's 12 vetoes--an astonishing number. I thought this was interesting because it made me relate Jackson's presidency to his position under John Quincy Adam's presidency. Under Adam's, Jackson tried to stall any of Adam's legislature, but then during his presidency he vetoed excessively.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with issues in a very pragmatic, unpredictable, and sometimes even contradictory way. Such characteristics usually manifested themselves in issues over state rights versus federal power. For example, his campaign relied heavily on the image of being a common man's politician. Generally speaking supporters of common men usually advocated for states rights; however, Jackson denounced South Carolina's grumblings over the tariffs of abomination. Yet not much later in his presidency, Jackson would assert Georgia's responsibility for dealing with the Native Americans
ReplyDeleteJackson asserted his power as president equal to or even more so than his predecessors. For example, Jackson often stood behind federal responsibility for infrastructure and interstate issues. Often times, he would use his influence as president to emphasize the subordination of state governments to the federal government. Furthermore, he acted on his own decisions, such as when he evicted the Native Americans, and abolished the national bank.
I agree with Carly's statement, of how Jackson used even more authority than his predecessors. It seems that a "common man's candidate" would more often appease the public, rather than be strict with them for the purpose of national interest. But then again, it is Jackson we're talking about here, you know the guy that fought in dozens of duels, and lived a generally crazy life.
ReplyDeleteJackson only dealt with issues he felt necessary to deal with. When the Cherokee Indians came to him with a petition against Georgia, he turned it down, explaining that this issue of territory and sovereignty was a state's issue and could only be handled by Georgia. Jackson's position on state's rights vs national rights was very ambiguous. Sometimes his solutions to problems would contradict things he had previously said. Sometimes he would to support nationalists but would turn around and, for example, target the National Bank.
ReplyDeleteJackson had a lot of power throughout his presidency which he used to manipulate certain situations to his liking. He wasn't fond of Native Americans and was able to use his power to remove the Cherokee people from Georgia even though they had settled the land first.
As a man with both an extremely intimidating pesonality and a drive to get what he wanted, Jackson became the type of person who was more concerned with his own priorities than with the formalities of convention. He didn't exactly cheat, he simply would never take no for an answer. When he truly felt strongly for a specific cause, Jackson would manipulate the law and people however much he needed to in order to get it done. Conversely, if he didn't feel particularly passionate about it, like states' rights to deal with certain Native American issues, Jackson was willing to concede to the wishes of others, because he simply had no wishes of his own.
ReplyDeleteAs previously mentioned, Jackson used every asset he had in order to stretch his authority to its furthest extent. He tried to annihilate the National Bank and then totally just booted the Georgia Indians off their land.
Jackson's method for dealing with conflicts was not very predictable. He didn't seem to follow a set pattern when dealing with problems, as sometimes he would take an active role while in other times he would take a more passive role. For example, when Georgia and the Native Americans were in conflict, Jackson didn't take any action at all, while he played a crucial role in the National Bank issue by completely getting rid of it. Not only was Jackson contradictory in his methods of dealing with issues, but he was contradictory in his beliefs as well; particularly whether he supported national or state rights. The way he portrayed himself as the "common man" (which would lead people to think he supports state rights) completely contrasts the beliefs that were reflected in some of his actions as president, such as his assertion that South Carolina could not go against national laws/decisions during the state's issue with nullification.
ReplyDeleteUnlike previous precedents, Jackson used every ounce of his presidential power when he felt it necessary. This is particularly evident in his quest to relocate the Native Americans farther west, as well as his role in eliminating the national bank. While he didn't play an active role in affairs all the time, it's safe to say that when he did play a role, he used his powers to their greatest extent.
I agree with the statement Chris said about how "he would use his influence as president to emphasize the subordination of state governments to the federal government." He wanted all the states to cooperate with the national government and keep the peace.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grant's point about Georgia and the Indians in Georgia and the National Bank in the country and how Jackson said a swift goodbye to all of them because he really wanted them to go away.
ReplyDeleteI think Melinh brings up an important point--Jackson's personality and drive to get what he wanted. Unlike presidents such as John Quincy Adams, Jackson had much more drive to achieve his goals. Personality definitely played a crucial role in how Jackson ran the country during his presidency.
ReplyDeleteJackson faced numerous problems throughout his reign as president. Jackson dealt with all of these problems differently almost every time. Jackson contradicted some of the principle that he associated himself with before being elected president. Jackson was elected being known as someone the country could relateto, rally behind, and always be a straight shooter. However, based on the way he dealt with Nullification issue with South Carolina and the Cherokee Nation issue with Georgie, on might think otherwise. In the South Carolina case, Jackson decided that it was unlawful for states to intervene in federal issues. On the contrary, in the Georgia case, Jackson left it up to the state to deal with the issue.
ReplyDeleteJackson faced various problems during his presidency. His accomplishments turned out to be mostly negative such as relocating the Indians, vetoing bills, and opposing nullification. Jackson was very smart but he contradicted himself much of the time. He was in favor of allowing Georgia to handle the issue of the Cherokee Indians, but then completely got rid of the National Bank. He was also never gave a straight forward answer if someone asked him a question, which confused the people about his ideas.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to his other predecessors, Jackson used his power to get what he wanted. He ended up manipulating people and situations, such as the problems with the Native Americans.
Jackson was not consistent in how he dealt with conflicts during his presidency. His methods shifted back and forth from sometimes supporting national interests to other times supporting state interests. For example, in response to South Carolina on the issue of nullification, Jackson staunchly supported a strong union, where the power lies with the central government. However, his dealings with the Cherokees displayed a completely opposite stance. Contrary to the Supreme Court, which ruled that national government, not individual states, should deal with the Cherokee nation, Jackson believed Georgia should have responsibility over matters. Thus showing how he gave states rights precedence.
ReplyDeleteUnlike his predecessors, Jackson reached full potential in making use of all his powers as president. He often would disregard the bounds of the Constitution, and carry out actions in the most convenient manner possible. Examples of this include getting rid of the national bank and moving out the Cherokees.
I agree with Taylor with his statement about Jackson being contradictory in his beliefs. Throughout his presidency there was the ongoing question of whether he supported national or state rights. This just added to his indecisive decisions.
ReplyDeleteJackson is very different fro re ma p
ReplyDeletegiv
I agree with Melinh and Chris about how Jackson's personality is interconnected with the way he made decisions during his presidency. I also liked how Chris brought up the idea of the "common man", and showed how Jackson contradicted that image.
ReplyDelete1. While Jackson was in office, he encountered many problems such as the National Bank, Native Americans, and Nullification crisis but was not consistent in his manners of attempting to solve them. With the Native Americans issue, he allowed Georgia to solve their problem though it went against the Supreme Court ruling. With the Nullification crisis, he sided with the national government. All throughout his presidency, we see him flip-flop between state rights and national rights.
ReplyDelete2. Jackson was a dominant and manipulative man in exercising the powers of office in comparison with his predecessors. He was wavering in his decisions and did what was most comfortable for him, whether they went along with the Constitution or not.
I liked how Melinh phrased Jackson's character. "He didn't exactly cheat, he simply would never take no for an answer." It was true; he would not really stay within traditional bounds and did what he wished for.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with the issues he was faced with in unorthodox ways, sometimes putting his personal opinion before the interest of the public. He wavered between the notion of state vs national power, and his image of being a normal citizen was contradicted by his idea of the power of the national government. He also refused to involve himself too deeply in the crisis of Georgia and the displaced Cherokees, but had deep opinions on what to do about the National Bank and ultimately got rid of it. His participation in the goings on in the country were unpredictable and random. He, unlike the presidents before him, took complete advantage of the constitution and the power he held as the president to achieve his personal goals, including garnering public popularity when he needed to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Grant's statement on how Jackson's dislike of the Natice Americans allowed him to assume inaction when the issue with the Cherokee Indians came up. He went with what he believed in and did not adhere to the Constitution at all times.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJackson dealt with conflict in an odd way. He was very wishywashy when asked questions. Also, presidents were usually clear whether they favored national or states rights and Jackson was always going back and forth. He avoided topics he didn't like. He also sometimes let his personal feelings get in the way of his professional job - as in the case of the National Bank, which he removed.
ReplyDeleteCompared to other presidents, Jackson took advantage of his power more (whether it was ethical or not). However, overall, he was an effective leader because he got stuff done (he did get rid of the national debt)
I agree with Brittany - Jackson manipulated his power to make the law/the constitution work for him (ex. the case with the Cherokees)
ReplyDeleteJackson, the "walking contradiction", dealt with national conflicts by exerting his presidential power more than any of his predecessors. He took a pragmatic and personal approach, which some may even call hypocritical. For example, Jackson portrayed himself as a supporter of states' rights, but when South Carolina proposed nullification to an unfair tariff, he quickly put down the state in order to "preserve the union". On the other hand, he willingly supported Georgia's decision to oust the Native Americans. His economic policy was probably the most controversial of all because of his fight against the bank. Because of past incidences with the bank, Jackson distrusted paper money and vowed to "kill the bank". In terms of exercising the powers of office Jackson used more force than maybe all of the past presidents combined. In the forty years before Jackson's presidency, the executives only used nine vetoes. By himself, Jackson used twelve.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone did a good job of touching upon Jackson's huge disparities within his policies. I agree with Taylor on Jackson's unpredictability and his presidential power shown in moving the Indians west.
ReplyDeleteJackson was very indecisive, hypercritical, and contradictory in whatever he did. In his campaign he claimed that he was pro-states rights, and was running for the common man, but when he entered office he became a federal power fiend. For example, when he was still claiming to be pro-states rights, the issue of nullification in South Carolina arose, the he claimed his first priority was to "preserve the union", this caused much uproar in the legislative and executive branches in the United States. He also exerted more power than any of his previous predecessors with an un-heard of 9 vetoes in his presidency. He also showed his willingness to exert federal power in 2 other controversial issues, the cherokees in georgia and the national bank. in the issue of the cherokees, the supreme court ruled that the cherokee are there own nation in georgia, so georgia legislature had no jurisdiction over them, but Jackson ignored the ruling and rid georgia of the cherokee inhabitants. When it comes to the national bank he let his personal feelings co-mingle with his federal power and his nations interests and he used all of his possible connections to kill the bank. In many of the issues in his presidency, he had let his personal feeling intervene in his countries politics.
ReplyDeleteDuring Jackson's presidency he was always very wishy washy on his position on certain arguements such as being either a National rights supporter or States rights supporter. For example he supported the state of Georgia's rights by allowing them to deal with the Cherokee Indians as they pleased. But on the other hand he then decided to take control and get rid of the National Bank. It seemed that he acted less in a manner of what fit his policies best and what he believed in and more in a way of what is more convenient. He also let his personal feelings in rather than always sticking to what was the best decision for the country he was in charge of.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Taylor when he says that Jackson was very contradicting in his views and although one decision may make sense when standing by itself, if it were to be compared to all of his other decision they would not corrolate and send many different messages to the people
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to previous administrations, Jackson overly exercised his powers as president. In his campaign for presidency, he remained publicly neutral concerning most popular issues to appeal to a broader range of the population, and gain support. During his presidency, Jackson vetoed more bills than any previous president. Many of his actions contradicted his previously perceived beliefs. His economic policy coincided with his personal experiences with the bank, and consequently resulted in a long-term battle over 'hard' and 'soft' money. Ironically, Jackson's policies did eliminate the national debt temporarily, but eventually resulted in a serious economic depression. Politically, he supposedly supported states' rights. However, when South Carolina refused to acquiesce to the Tariff of Abominations, he shot down their efforts to preserve the nation's unity. His varied responses to different situations were inconsistent, and had no logical interconnection of beliefs.
ReplyDeleteMelinh's point about Jackson's personality is very insightful. She cites his ability to loosely interpret laws, and otherwise bend them to his cause. He had to get his way. I probably wouldn't have thought of it this level.
ReplyDeleteTaylor extensively relates Jackson's dealings with the Native Americans to his hypocrisy. Having previously supported states' rights, the Supreme Court ruling against the state of Georgia seemed contradictory and inequitable. It is a good point that aligns with his inconsistent practices.