Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Andrew Jackson
The humble and modest imagery which accompanies Andrew Jackson at his inauguration is an image consistent with his reputation as a defender of individual rights and as a man of the people- one no different from everyday lay persons. Many of Andrew Jackson's decisions in office, however, challenge this image and reputation. There is a degree of tension between his conduct and the ideals and values attributed to him-some of which he espoused. Brinkley suggests throughout that the symbolism was as important if not more important than the actual events. Andrew Jackson's professed beliefs about the need to limit the degree of government interference, preserve the rights of states, and limit terms in office need to be reconciled, if possible, with many of the decisions he made while in office. Events such as nullification, his use of the spoil system, his removal of the Indians, and his veto of the Central Bank Act all reveal the tensions between Jackson's beliefs and his conduct. Throughout the campaign against the Adams' administration Jackson railed against government corruption. Jackson used the spoils system and brought it out on a national scale. Indeed, he declared in 1829 that corruption in government could be alleviated if there was a rotational system in place for appointing members to civil service positions (Brands, 416). This was used in large part to appoint his party members to federal civil service positions (Brands, 416-17). Though Jackson stated that officials should be replace very few new appointments took place and he seemed to preserve the status quo rather than change it.
Nullification Crisis
Andrew Jackson's response to South Carolina is a demonstration of Jackson's commitment to preserving the strength of the federal union even in the face of a conflict with his usual support for the rights of states, and he was willing to go to war and fight his friends if necessary (Brands, 448). His willingness to use force in order to preserve the union in the face of SC attempts to nullify federal tariff statues was clear in his response: " "I will meet all things with deliberate firmness and forbearance, but woe to those nullifiers who shed the first blood" (Meacham, 44). About more than simply tariffs, the nullification crisis was a foreshadowing of the positions that would precipitate the American Civil War (Meacham, 44). The underlying question was to what extent the federal government can dictate the internal affairs of the states. Jackson's answer was, in effect any act by the states which threatened the union was reprehensible and should be dealt with via politics or force (Meacham, 45).
In retrospect, Jackson's strong response to South Carolina may very well have given America a decades long reprieve from bloodshed and cemented the supremacy of the union to individual liberty (Meacham, 45). Part of his legacy and the symbolism surrounding Jackson's life and presidency comes from his response to the nullifiers: an unequivocal no the union is more important.
In response to media criticism about putting his own in office, Jackson responded that he only made appointments "with a view to the public good" (Brands, 417). Jackson's need to defend the appointment of his friends to all of these positions is a trend that has continued. In the end, his decision to keep most people in office and give influential positions to his party may have influenced by a change in the definition of corruption. After all, the Jacksonians were now in office. After every presidential election there are positions given to the individuals most responsible for the election as a way of saying thanks.
Indian Removal
Jackson's determination to remove the Indians and spearhead what is now called American expansionism is rooted in the symbolism through which he viewed himself (Burstein, 235). Jackson believed that the American quest westward was divinely supported. This adds to his mythology, Jackson expressed views where Americans are special and those acts in their self-interest were supported by divinity. Based on these beliefs, Jackson firmly believed that the only solution, despite the state of Georgia's blatant attempts to dispossess the Cherokee Indians of their lands, for peace required that the Indians be moved westward…
References
Brands, H.W. (2005). Andrew jackson: His life and times. (pp. 3-560). New York: Double Day.
Burstein, A. (2003). The passions of Andrew Jackson. (pp.240). New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Cave, A.A. (2003). Abuse of power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Historian, 65(6), pp. 1330-1353.
Meacham, J. (2010). Jackson Stares Down South Carolina. American Heritage, 59(4), pp. 44-46.
Removal Act of May 28, 1830 was an act by both Houses of Congress of the U.S., which provided for an exchange of lands with the native Indian tribes residing in any of the states or territories and for their removal west of the Mississippi River, their traditional land, to the prairies. It was signed by then President Andrew Jackson into law. The eviction of these Indian tribes from a
The Injustice of the Indian Removal Act 1830 Introduction The Indian Removal Act signed by Andrew Jackson in 1830 was meant to establish peace in the nation and to give the Native Americans their own territory where they could practice their own activities, traditions and culture without interference from the American government. However, the Act resulted in the forced migration of thousands of Native Americans from their traditional homelands to a region
President Andrew Jackson had long pursued an aggressive approach to Native Americans before 1838-9, when 4000 Cherokee died during the forcible removal program dubbed later the "Trail of Tears" Five tribes in the Southeastern United States had been dubbed "civilized" because of their willingness to assimilate: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole. The informal and formal agreements between Native Americans and the federal government began to fall apart due to increasing
Indian Removal How valuable is history if it is truly written by the victors of war? What remains of the historical account are only tiny fragments of what the true and whole story encapsulated. What we are left with are scraps of stories that are fragmented and skewed to the current power structures that run the institutions. Understanding this skeptical attitude is extremely important when judging an historical account. The purpose of
However, our continuing humanitarian obligation to the Indians cannot allow these primitive peoples to stand in the way of national progress. They must be removed and granted only a reasonable amount of territory. Editorial Against Indian Removal I regret to say that our potentially great nation is being sullied by the way that it has approached the question of Indian removal from the Great Desert. Largely to escape the oppression of
He was viewing them as little children who required guidance. He tended to believe that the policy of removal had great benefits to the Indians. Majority of the white Americans were thinking that United States was not capable of extending past Mississippi. The removal was capable of saving the Indian nationals from the white's depredations (Foreman 1932). The removal could make them to govern themselves peacefully It was assumed that the