Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is an open forum for CCHS AP US History students. There will be an official posting each week for each student to respond. However, you may also post other information and questions you have concerning AP US History or CCHS.
Blog Archive
About Me
- Mrs. Vince
- This is my 7th year teaching AP US History and our third year to blog. Please put forth your best effort and hopefully it will be beneficial for everyone!!!
21 comments:
The founding fathers could have mixed views on Jackson’s presidency. On one hand they wanted to abolish dictatorship and give power to the people. Jackson in many aspects was trigger happy with his power yet he did little things to help the common man out like the "pet banks".
The founding fathers were known to protest things they did not like yet when they themselves passed laws that were opposed they declared the protesters traitors (shays rebellion). So when Jackson vetoed efforts and bills made in congress I believe that the founding fathers would be extremely upset. Not for his views but for the outlandish way he flaunted his power and opinions. Against the government and things he thought were wrong. (i.e. strong central gov. bus. ect.)
Jackson did not like the idea aristocrats getting ahead while the common man struggled. BUS helped the upper class remain upper with taxes and interest on loans for the common man. He effectively destroyed BUS (bank of the United States) by using the species circular. And by crating pet banks. I believe the founding fathers would be greatly upset by this because it was known that the FF did mainly looked out for them self’s. (For example instead of right to lands it says right to pursue prosperity.) What Jackson was doing was undermining the upper-class who in turn held most of the important offices in government. And made most of the decisions.
Jackson himself liked the idea of expanding and was all for displacing the Indian population, the FF would of approved and would have no right to oppose because they did the exact same thing when they expanded over the app. mnts.
The FF would have major issues with Jacksons Presidency only because his priorities are different. Jackson supported the common man and doing the government his way. While the founding fathers were fighting for themselves and only wanted a nation that they could run with out another person taxing them on goods. It can be argued that the FF were more than likely looking out for there pockets while Jackson was out for the common man and to execute his power
I think that the founding fathers would see Jackson as both a good and a bad president. In many instances he proved to do what was best for America and to make our country better for people. But he also proved himself to have many flaws in his chocies and decisions that would effect all the people of the United States. He had his good moments sure, we all do, but for the most part he much like a dictator. I think that the founding fathers would have thought that this was a power hungry man who was just kind of doing his own thing. He even disgreaurded the surpreme court in werchester v. Georgia which i think that the founding father's would have found to be very disprectful to the constituition and all our country stands for. He believed alot for states rights as a democrat and still he came to do what he felt to be best without really considering the people and the court rule. He supported expanision yet he kicked the Indians off their land forced them to walk all the way to oklahoma. Indians were here long before we were and i thnk that to remove them from their own lands and territories isn't fair to them. The founding fathers i think would have also felt this way yet have veiwed Jacksons desision okay here becouse it was helping to gain land for Americans although it wornged the indians greatly. BUt his loyality to the common man was would have beenrespected by the commoner founding fathers but not by those who were more of an upper class. Jakson destoyed the Bank of the United States becouse it would give more loans and such to the commoners. He created wildcat banks that were very good to the commoners in need of services from the bank that the BUS would not give them. But the upperclass would oppose him becouse it would hurt them greatly. This is a reflection of his democratic veiws and his belief that the common man was a part of this country that deserved the right to have a say in the government that was governing them.
I think that the Founding Fathers wouldn't have liked the way his presidency went. As the name implies, King Andrew got his way too often and became like a dictator instead of a president. Jackson threatened to attack South Carolina when they nullified the Tariff of Abominations, in the process threatening the country's unity. If it hadn't been for Clay, Jackson might have forced South Carolina from the United States. Jackson expanded the country by stealing land from the Indians, which also was against a Supreme Court decision, and forcing the Indians to march to Oklahoma, killing thousands on the way. I just don't think the founding fathers would've been for stealing property. Jackson also attacked the Bank of the United States in a spiteful manner and claimed it was unconstitutional when the Supreme Court had decided it was constitutional. Jackson gave the money from the Bank of the United States to smaller 'pet banks' around the United States to help the 'common man', ignoring the other part of the population that would've preferred a larger bank that would've been less likely to collapse. Jackson's actions didn't enforce democracy, they just enforced his decisions.
I think the Founding Fathers would have found fault in Jackson's presidency. Like Levi pointed out his nickname says a lot about his character; he was known as king Andrew due to his over ruling ways. I think that the Founding Father's would have been upset with how he was taking advantage of the power and using it to be like a king. I think that the F.F. would have been upset with how power hungry he was and how he lacked respect for the Supreme Courts decisions and vetoed everything that basically was put before him. Like Hannah pointed out he went against the Courts decison to defend the Indians in Worchester vs. Georgia. I do like to think that the F.F. would also have dispproved of Jackson kicking the Indians so brutally off their land. Also Jackson killed the BUS when the supreme court declared it constutional, just because he didn't like how it funcitoned he got rid of it completely. I think that he was wrong in doing this and didn't look long term at how the pet banks would cause inflation and debt to rise in the U.S., I defianetly think that the F.F. would have disliked that action eventhough it had good intentions for the common man. Another thing the F.F. would most likely have looked down upon was how he treated South Carolina when they rose up against the Treaty of Abominations, the F.F. would have been upset at how Jackson almost started a civil war that would have torn the nation they had created apart. They would have looked down upon his iron fisted, unconstitional, king like ways.
*MAYNARD! :)
I agree with everyone else. I think the founding fathers had mixed views about Jacksons presidency. I think Jackson was a role model because he was the first candidate from the west to win presidency and also he was different from the other candidate. He didn't have a formal education like the others so he rose above and was more a role model for the common man. I do think he was doing the right thing by shutting down the bank of the US i believe the bank had too much power and it needed to be distributed among smaller banks. However Jackson made some bad decisions during his term that he will always be looked down upon for doing. He did gain southeastern land, but by forcing the natives out of the territory he killed 4,000 natives in the process. Next big mistake was the spoils system giving office to people who arent experianced is not a good idea. they dont know how to run a country efficiently so what was going through Jackson's head? so i think the founding fathers would have seen both the good and the bad in Jackson's presidency.
I think that the founding fathers would say he was a bad president. He had so much stuff taken out. The national bank, the tarrif went up, the country was going insain.
He did try to do things for the common man but that wasn't always the bast. He vetoed alot of things and some of them could have helped everyone.
I agree with Hannah in saying that he tried to what he thought was best and trying to push for it.
He did have some really good ideas, but the way that he tried to carry them out wasn't so great. With getting rid of the national bank, he did that so poor people could get loans and be able to get land and make their own way. But in doing that the rich were hurt, and so were the poor.
And with pushing the Natives out, he wanted people to have more land, but at the cost of thousands of peoples lives.
The founding fathers could've taken Jackson's presidency one of two ways. Either as a pathetic stab at leadership, or as just another guy trying to get ahead at the people's expense, which, fundamentally, is kind of what the founding fathers did.
Jackson did alot of things to help his citizens, but he tended to only focus on one group at a time. Pet banks for the poor, erradicating the 'Indian problem'. etc. etc.
I agree with Kaila in the sense that Jackson seemed trigger happy with his power, taking liberties many before him did not. The fact that vetoed 12 times shows that he was not quick to accept someone elses solutions when he thought he could do so well on his own.
He fought hard for the rights of the common man, creating pet banks that would allow them to get loans and gain interest, something, anything to help create a middle class. This backfired on Jackson because in giving power to rise to the common man, you take that power away from the wealthy, and lets face it, the wealthy control everything.
The Bank of the US was actually a really good thing, it was stable, provided economic security and though it did not work well for the common i.e. poor, man it did help strengthen the foundation of the US.
The founding fathers wouldn't necassarily agree with everything that Jackson but they would understand. Almost every president uses his time in office to gain something for himself and those he represents (for jackson, the poor) but the way he went about it, often times unconstitutionally, wouldn't have worked with them.
Casey;)
I don't believe like many of you that the founding fathers would have mixed feelings about the presidency of Andrew Jackson. I believe that it takes a very strong person to assume the roles of presidency, and the challenge of trying to please everyone(which you can't). Yet I also believe that he made a grave many flaws actions.
Jackson was for the common man, and for state rights. Yet once in presidency he found that it was not as easy to please everyone. I believe that the founding fathers would not fault Jackson for his intentions at helping the common man. I even believe that they would congratulate him on his effort to expand the colonies.
I do believe though that they would look down upon the way that he went about it, and often overroad the supreme Court and their decisions. I think that they would have looked down upon him becoming something of a Dictator in his way of vetoeing bills and overriding the Supreme Court. That is also where the name "King Andrew" came from, because like Levi sayed he got his way to often. I do believe that they would look down upon destroying the Bank of the United States, and creating smaller pet banks. Though the intentions were to help the common man in the end it hurt the wealth, and "hard" money was harder to come by, than paper. Jackson was very short-sighted in his views, he didn't see that in destroying the BUS he would cause inflation and debt to rise in the united States. I also believe that they would have looked down upon the way that because Carolina was nullifying his Tariff, be believed that he had the authority to crush them into line. The whole purpose the F.F created the Constitution and the Decleration of Independence, was to form a republic, and get away from a dictatiorship and monarch. With Jackson in office he tried to force his hand on his own people, the common man, much like a dictator would do. I believe like Hannah and Maynard, that the founding fathers would have looked down upon his dictating manner as president.
i would have to agree with Kaila on the founding fathers having mixed views about Jacksons presidency. he was very influential and idolized by common American but at times his judgement wasnt always its best. An example of this would be the Indian Removal Act. He claims to be doing this for the indians own benefit when it really killed most of them off.
He did look out for the common man. He destroyed the BUS because he believed it was benefiting the wealthy more so than the poor man. SO he created the pet banks...i see his logic but it was disastrous. it caused economic problems later on.
overall Jackson wasnt a horrible president but i think the founding fathers might have done things differently and the outcomes could have possibly been better
The founding fathers probably over all would be very disappointed with Jackson. Jackson was pretty much obsessed with power, he LOVED to veto things. But he was for the "common man". That was what I find good about him. He didn't like the idea of the BUS (hope i wasn't the only one who didn't get what that meant at first.lol.) but he thought it was something that would hurt the country more. So he created the pet banks, which would help the common men because they would be able to obtain loans.
But the founding fathers probably wouldn't like the Indian removal act, trail of tears, etc. They were all about peace and trying to not start any wars. Jackson was all about moving westward and having new land, but without this we probably wouldn't be where we are today. So this was kind of important for him to do, plus its kinda effective still today because we talk about the trail of tears because it comes right through our community. Overall Jackson really just used too much power and should've looked at the people as a whole, instead of just the common people.
I agree with most of you. I think the role of President is very hard to fulfill, because you want to please everyone and you can't But Jackson was all about the "common man." He got rid of the Bank of the US and created 23 pet banks, for the common man. He also thought everything should be for the people. The fathers didn't think vetoing was such a great idea, because you would most likey be hurting people instead of helping them. Jackson had no problem with it, seeing that he vetoed more than all of the previous presidents put together. So in a way they would be proud, but in other way, they would be disappointed.
i agree with Kaila and Stephanie that the founding fathers would have had mixed views about Jacksons presidency. I say this because common Americans loved him but he didnt have the best judgement. the people called him King Andrew because he used his power as president alot like vetoing more things then all the presidents before him combined. but while he did all of this he still looked out for the little man. like when he made the pet banks to counter act the bank of the US and keep the common man's money in his own pocket. But he also whent against the way the founding fathers thought people should be treated when he sent the indians away from the lands.
I agree with Kaila in that the founding fathers would have mixed feelings about Jackson's presidency. He was a good president in that he expanded our country and did everything for "the common man". On the other hand, he did veto more than all of the previous presidents combined, and put his supporters into office even though it was dishonest and currrupt. He aquired more land for the Americans to settle, but did so by forcing all the Native Americans to leave their home land and go to Indinan Country on the trial of tears. Jackson did alot of good for this country, but he also had his negative aspects, and I think the founding fathers would have considered all parts of him in their judgement.
Andrew Jackson had some flaws in his presidency but he had many good intentions, which I believe the founding fathers would have recognized. He just didn't always think them through fully before initiating them. As Kaila said, the founding fathers would not like the way he quickly made decisions based solely on what he thought. He knew that the Bank of the US was not providing for the little people, so he destroyed them and created his "pet banks". This was a very rash move to make in my opinion, but his intentions were good. He was trying to help the common man. Then again he also was nice to Peggy Eaton when no one else was. This shows character on his part. The founding fathers probably would have commended him for this.
*I know this is late, but I decided to go ahead and answer this question anyway, just to make myself think about this topic.
Non le malheur! achat de cialis acheter du cialis [url=http://runfr.com]cialis[/url]
bllpkhbhbt tehgqmclyu [url=http://www.italtubi.com/levitra/]compra levitra generico [/url] loiktgdtlz owbhenuqrj levitra 5 qebfovesay hjykyjkksb
l'Г‰clat [url=http://www.ci2s.org]achat cialis en pharmacie[/url] je FГ©licite, vous Г©tiez visitГ©s par l'idГ©e excellente cialis 20mg effets secondaires
Les messages personnels chez tous partent aujourd'hui ? http://runfr.com/acheter-cialis viagras viagra posologie
Dans cela quelque chose est. Maintenant tout est devenu clair, le merci bien pour l'aide dans cette question. http://runfr.com/tag/cialis-generique cialis generique cialis 10mg
remarquablement, un trГЁs bon message cialis generique cialis
Post a Comment