Compare and Contrast Essay on Jacksonian Democracy Vs Jeffersonian Democracy

Introduction:

Jacksonian Democracy and Jeffersonian Democracy were two distinct political ideologies that emerged during different periods in American history. Both movements had a significant impact on the nation’s development and shaped its political landscape. This essay will compare and contrast Jacksonian Democracy and Jeffersonian Democracy, focusing on their views on government, economic policies, and visions for the nation.

Body:

Views on Government:

One key difference between Jacksonian Democracy and Jeffersonian Democracy lies in their views on government. Jeffersonian Democracy emphasized a limited role for the federal government, advocating for states’ rights and a strict interpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand, Jacksonian Democracy supported a stronger central government and expanded executive powers. Andrew Jackson, the face of the movement, believed in a strong presidency that would actively protect the interests of the common people.

Economic Policies:

Jeffersonian Democracy favored an agrarian society and placed a high value on rural life and agriculture. Thomas Jefferson envisioned an economy rooted in small-scale farming and agrarian self-sufficiency. He opposed the growth of industrialization and believed that agriculture formed the basis of a virtuous society. In contrast, Jacksonian Democracy embraced a more market-oriented approach and championed policies that supported economic growth and expansion. Jackson’s presidency witnessed the rise of industrialization and urbanization, leading to the emergence of a market-driven economy.

Social and Political Reforms:

While both movements aimed to expand democracy, they differed in their approaches to social and political reforms. Jeffersonian Democracy emphasized the importance of individual liberty and believed in the power of an educated citizenry. Jefferson advocated for public education and the promotion of intellectual pursuits. Jacksonian Democracy, on the other hand, focused on expanding political participation and challenging entrenched elite power structures. Jackson’s presidency saw the rise of universal white male suffrage, giving more people the right to vote.

Views on Native Americans:

Another significant contrast between the two ideologies is their treatment of Native Americans. Jeffersonian Democracy held a contradictory stance, as Jefferson himself espoused ideals of equality and Native American cultural preservation, yet supported policies that led to the forced removal of Native American tribes. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, passed during Jackson’s presidency, resulted in the infamous Trail of Tears, demonstrating the harsh approach taken by Jacksonian Democracy toward Native Americans.

Legacy and Impact:

Jeffersonian Democracy had a lasting impact on American political thought and the concept of individual rights. Jefferson’s belief in limited government and agrarian society influenced subsequent generations. His role as a founding father and author of the Declaration of Independence solidified his place in American history. Jacksonian Democracy, however, marked a shift in American politics by expanding democratic ideals and reshaping the presidency. Jackson’s populist appeal and the rise of the Democratic Party transformed the political landscape, leading to increased political participation and the emergence of a two-party system.

Conclusion:

Jacksonian Democracy and Jeffersonian Democracy represent two distinct periods in American history, each with its own unique characteristics and legacies. While Jeffersonian Democracy emphasized limited government, agrarianism, and individual liberties, Jacksonian Democracy promoted a stronger central government, economic expansion, and political participation. Although they shared some democratic ideals, their approaches to governance, economic policies, social reforms, and treatment of Native Americans differed significantly. Understanding the differences between these two ideologies provides valuable insights into the evolution of American democracy and the complexities of the nation’s political history.

Jeffersonian Democracy Vs Jacksonian Democracy: Critical Essay

Introduction:

Jeffersonian Democracy and Jacksonian Democracy represent two distinct eras in American political history, each with its own set of ideals, policies, and impacts. While both movements sought to expand democratic principles, they differed significantly in their approaches and outcomes. This essay critically examines the strengths and weaknesses of Jeffersonian Democracy and Jacksonian Democracy, highlighting their contributions to American democracy and the challenges they faced.

Body:

Ideological Foundations:

Jeffersonian Democracy, championed by Thomas Jefferson, emphasized limited government, agrarianism, and strict interpretation of the Constitution. It valued individual liberty, decentralized power, and protection of civil liberties. However, critics argue that Jefferson’s vision of democracy was limited to a privileged few, as it relied on property qualifications for voting rights.

Jacksonian Democracy, associated with Andrew Jackson, aimed to broaden political participation and empower the common man. It expanded suffrage to include white males regardless of their economic status. Critics argue that while Jacksonian Democracy brought more people into the political fold, it still excluded women, African Americans, and Native Americans from meaningful participation.

Approach to Economic Policies:

Jeffersonian Democracy promoted an agrarian society, advocating for small farmers and rural self-sufficiency. It favored limited government intervention in the economy, strict constructionism, and agrarian interests. Critics argue that this vision hindered industrial development and neglected the needs of urban populations.

Jacksonian Democracy embraced economic populism and advocated for the interests of the common people. Jackson sought to dismantle the economic power of the wealthy elite and implemented policies such as dismantling the Bank of the United States. However, critics argue that Jackson’s economic policies led to increased economic instability and favored the interests of Western expansionists over Native American rights and environmental concerns.

Treatment of Marginalized Groups:

Jeffersonian Democracy’s treatment of marginalized groups was contradictory. While Jefferson spoke of Native American rights and cultural preservation, his administration pursued policies that displaced Native populations and undermined their sovereignty. Jefferson’s stance on slavery, despite his rhetoric of equality, also highlights a glaring inconsistency within his vision of democracy.

Jacksonian Democracy’s treatment of marginalized groups, particularly Native Americans, remains highly criticized. Jackson’s Indian Removal Act and the subsequent Trail of Tears forced thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral lands, resulting in immense suffering and loss of life. Critics argue that this tarnished Jackson’s legacy and revealed the dark side of his democratic ideals.

Legacy and Impact:

Jeffersonian Democracy’s legacy lies in its contributions to the principles of limited government, individual liberties, and strict interpretation of the Constitution. Jefferson’s ideas influenced subsequent political thinkers and laid the groundwork for future democratic debates. However, critics point out that Jefferson’s vision of democracy excluded marginalized groups and failed to address the challenges of an evolving society.

Jacksonian Democracy’s impact can be seen in the expansion of suffrage, the growth of popular participation in politics, and the increased power of the presidency. Jackson’s charismatic leadership and appeal to the common man transformed the political landscape. However, critics argue that Jackson’s aggressive policies and disregard for constitutional limitations set dangerous precedents for executive power.

Conclusion:

The critical analysis of Jeffersonian Democracy and Jacksonian Democracy reveals both their strengths and weaknesses. While Jeffersonian Democracy emphasized individual liberties and limited government, it was constrained by its exclusionary practices and limited suffrage. Jacksonian Democracy, on the other hand, expanded political participation but faced criticism for its treatment of marginalized groups and its economic instability.

Understanding the complexities of these democratic movements is crucial in evaluating the progress and challenges of American democracy. By critically examining their ideologies, policies, and legacies, we gain insights into the ongoing evolution of democratic ideals and the need to continually address issues of inclusion, so

Why Did Michael Rutledge Write Samuel’s Memory?

In establishing a tone both writers do an incredible job, they both understand how to convey their points to their audience and have clear and distinctive styles. Furthermore, I will be contradicting their styles by breaking down their tone, diction, and their purpose as my main topic of this essay. As a brief summary of the better compression of readers ‘Samuel’s Memory’ by Michael Rutledge is a short story on the perspective of Samuel as he and his family are forced off his land, while Andrew Jackson’s ‘Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’’ (1830) is an address of much the same length by the current head of state at the time.

The tone is an important factor in writing as it sets up the general mood of your piece. Both the writers of ‘Samuel’s Memory’ by Michael Rutledge and President Andrew Jackson’s ‘Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’’ (1830) use tone in very different ways such as the formal and direct writing of President Andrew Jackson’s address. As for example, Andrew Jackson establishes this tone with “It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy of the Government, steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation to the removal of the Indians beyond the white settlements is approaching to a happy consummation”, gives the opening a direct and jaunty tone yet it still maintains its formality. Albeit the story Michael Rutledge tells is a far more saddening one. He establishes tones of loneliness and hatred. As an example, he writes “I wish it were them walking in this misery and I were watching them” and “We bury her in a shallow grave by the road. I will never forget that lonesome hill of stone that is her final bed, as it fades from my sight”; these lines establish clear meanings of hatred and loneliness.

Purpose is the reason for which something is done. The purpose is what shapes your writing, a writer without purpose is nothing, Furtherance meaning nothing worth reading is written without it. So it is that these two pieces are very similar in the point that their purpose contradicts one another. ‘Samuel’s Memory’ by Michael Rutledge is a telling story on the memory of his grandfather who experienced and condemns what has happened to him. As is evident in an earlier used example, “I wish it were them walking in this misery and I were watching them”. The purpose is not quite hard to find as it appears in the title of his paper in which Samuel’s memory of his walk on the trails appears in the authors paper ‘Forgiveness in the Age of Forgetfulness’. It seems that he wants people to remember what the native people of this land had gone through. On the other hand, the purpose was the polar opposite in Andrew Jackson’s ‘Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’’ (1830). President Andrew Jackson’s purpose was to convince the American populace that they had done the right thing, this is evident in “Is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children?”. This argument that they were inferior to the white man of the time coupled with the American dream of ‘manifest destiny’ led to the overarching purpose of Andrew Jackson’s address to Convince Americans of this dream and, furthermore, justify its happening.

Diction is the choice and use of words and phrases in speech or writing, these choices heavily affect tone and style and are the building blocks of your writing. The Andrew Jackson’s ‘Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’’ (1830) Andrew Jackson uses this to establish this tone and support his purpose. This is evident in his use of such words as benevolent, pecuniary advantages, and the wandering savage. He uses these to enhance the formality and support his purpose to remove the native Americans from their land. Moreover ‘Samuel’s Memory’ by Michael Rutledge uses this it in a way the is similar in practice but different in impact. He uses it to display feelings and imagery that Andrew Jackson’s ‘Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’’ (1830) could not. This is displayed in his use of “They herd us into this pen like we are cattle”, “I will never forget that lonesome hill”, and “The snow and ice seem to hound us”. This helps to establish a more personal tone and supports the purpose of his work, to never let what happened to his family be forgotten.

To bring this to an end, tone, purpose, diction are unavoidable aspects of writing and can and will differ from piece to piece, ‘Samuel’s Memory’ by Michael Rutledge and President Andrew Jackson’s ‘Message to Congress ‘On Indian Removal’’ (1830). Use these building blocks of writing to create effective papers that convey their points to their audience with their clear distinctive styles.

Andrew Jackson and Indian Removal Act: Essay

The White Americans occupied various part of the United States including the western frontier. It is important to note that they viewed the Native Americans as aliens and this generated fear in them. On the other hand, efforts that put in place by earlier Presidents that sought to make Native Americans equal to the White Americans had not succeeded (Cave, 1334). The inflow of more White Settlers into the United States in the 1830s saw most of the land occupied by Native Americans being coveted. The locations included Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and North Carolina (Cave, 1336). In particular, the Whites wanted the relocation of the Native Americans to other territories so as to increase the profits they earned from the growth of cotton. For this reason, a disputed resulted as the White Americans began to steal livestock, loot houses, and burn towns in a move to fasten the process of relocating the Native Americans.

Andrew Jackson’s government took part in the eviction of Native Americans from the south. In particular, there was legislation passed that ensured the Native Americans did not enjoy rights that allowed them to occupy their territory. The Indian removal dispute was a heated matter given that a number of cases were lodged in court to fight for the sovereignty of the Native Americans. The cases included Worcester v. Georgia (1832) and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) (Cave, 1343). The court passed a ruling that the Native Americans had the sovereignty to occupy their territories. However, the mistreatment faced by the Native Americans continued. It is important to note that President Andrew Jackson in 1832 declared that the efforts to allow the Native Americans to occupy the south had failed as no individual was willing to enforce the court rulings. Therefore, it became evident that he was in support of Indian removal. Besides, while serving as a general in the military, he had advocated for campaigns that were against Seminoles in Florida and Creeks in Alabama and Georgia (Cave, 1342).

Andrew Jackson’s stand remained unchanged while serving as president. In particular, he brought into law the Indian Removal Act in 1830 that allowed the government to offer the land in the east of Mississippi so as to gain ownership of that in the west. Therefore, the Native American territory that formed current Oklahoma assisted in finalizing the Louisiana Purchase. Despite the law being clear that the matter needed to be undertaken peacefully, President Andrew Jackson’s administration failed to follow the underlying provisions.

Andrew Jackson was wrong given the manner he handled the relocation of the Native Americans. In particular, he violated the provisions of the congressional constitution. Besides, the Cherokee Nation had received a legal land allocation in Georgia in 1791 following a treaty that the United States government was a party (Cave, 1346). On the other hand, Andrew Jackson had the mandate to ensure that the court rulings were followed but instead, he insisted that the Native Americans should render their land to the White Americans. While the American troops escorted the Cherokee Nation to the new territory allocated to them, they faced a myriad of challenges as there were no food supplies. For this reason, thousands of people lost their lives owing to the negligence of Andrew Jackson’s administration. Hence, the Indian removal was not handled well as it resulted in tears and death.

Work Cited

  1. Cave, Alfred A. ‘Abuse of Power: Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830’. The Historian 65.6 (2003): 1330-1353.

Argumentative Essay: Should Andrew Jackson Be Replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20 Bill

We are learning about Andrew Jackson life in class. Which lead us to the question should Andrew Jackson be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill? We have been doing a lot of research on this topic and I’ve come to believe that Harriet Tubman should and deserves to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. In class, we’ve learned that Andrew Jackson has done many horrible things, while Harriet Tubman did well for her whole life. Although I am telling you one perspective on this, there are still people who believe that Andrew Jackson should not be replaced, others believe that Harriet Tubman should not fully replace him and that Andrew Jackson should go on the back of the $20 bill. The reason for this is because although he did many wrong decisions, he also did some good ones. We have also have been looking at the controversy surrounding the option of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Ever since looking upon the controversy and doing research about this I have come to believe that you should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman.

The idea of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman came from The Obama Administration saying that by 2020 there would be new faces on paper money, but ever since the new treasury secretary came into place he did not agree and neither did the president, so they said that they wouldn’t be doing anything to the current bills. The reason for this was because Mnuchin said that the people currently on the bills have been on there for centuries so why change them now. The reason i am writing now is because i strongly disagree with this, so i will try my very hardest to convince you to change your minds and continue with the plan that The Obama Administration started. One reason why Andrew jackson should

Hello, my name is Leslie L. I go to North Boone Middle school. We are learning about Andrew Jackson life in class. Which lead us to the question should Andrew Jackson be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill? We have been doing a lot of research on this topic and I’ve come to believe that Harriet Tubman should and deserves to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. In class, we’ve learned that Andrew Jackson has done many horrible things, while Harriet Tubman did well for her whole life. Although I am telling you one perspective on this, there are still people who believe that Andrew Jackson should not be replaced, others believe that Harriet Tubman should not fully replace him and that Andrew Jackson should go on the back of the $20 bill. The reason for this is because although he did many wrong decisions, he also did some good ones. We have also have been looking at the controversy surrounding the option of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Ever since looking upon the controversy and doing research about this I have come to believe that you should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman.

The idea of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman came from The Obama Administration saying that by 2020 there would be new faces on paper money, but ever since the new treasury secretary came into place he did not agree and neither did the president, so they said that they wouldn’t be doing anything to the current bills. The reason for this was because Mnuchin said that the people currently on the bills have been on there for centuries so why change them now. The reason i am writing now is because i strongly disagree with this, so i will try my very hardest to convince you to change your minds and continue with the plan that The Obama Administration started. One reason why Andrew jackson should be removed is that when he enacted the indian removal act to move them to the indian territory, the only thing he didn’t see is that many would not want to leave the land where their family begun. In this case he decided that any native that did not want to leave would have to face the military which would result in many deaths. The deaths of the natives did not stop there. In fact,“Jackson’s indian removal policy” stas on The Trail of Tears itself 4,000 natives died from diseases, starvation, and violence from the military.this proves that Jackson didn’t care how many or who’s lives he took and if that’s what you think a national hero acts like you’re wrong, a national hero would take time to try and convince them to sell their land instead of manipulating them or negotiate with them to sell their land but they could stay there. On the other hand when HArriet Tubman was freeing slaves there was some that believed that there was no life beyond the one they have as a slave, yet she did not force them to come with her she simply tried to explain to them their situation, but if they decided not to come then he left them there as they wanted to be. Another reason why andrew should be removed is that he claimed to be a man of the people or should i say the rich. The reason i say this is because one of his many not fully thought out plans was “killing the bank”. He claimed that it was greater good of the people, but what he did not know is that the Second Bank of the United States could/was helping the poor like farmers expanded their lands, support heir family, buy useful thing that they would use on a day to day bases. To be exacted Andrew Jackson once said so proudly “I killed the bank” he also didn’t like the idea of the bank just handing out loans to the people that probably could never pay back to the bank. What i mean is that he grew up as a common folk yet he basically goes against everything they say or want. Then again Harriet Tubman did what she knew was right and freed as many slaves impossible because Harriet Tubman was not selfish like Andrew Jackson, in fact, she most likely did not care what happened to her as long as she freed slaves.

I hope you will agree with me that you should replace Andrew jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill because i do not want my kids to think that a hero first thing to solve a problem is to kill. Plus it would be nice for them to have a woman role model that basically is saying that no one is less or more than each other because at the end we are all alike in someway.I want to thank you for taking the time out of your day to read my letter and re-take this into consideration. Once again thank you

Essay on Madison and Jackson

Introduction:

The presidencies of James Madison and Andrew Jackson mark significant periods in American history. While both leaders made substantial contributions to the nation, their approaches to governance and policies differed greatly. This essay critically examines the leadership styles and legacies of Madison and Jackson, shedding light on their strengths and weaknesses and assessing their impacts on the country’s development.

Body:

Madison: The Architect of the Constitution

James Madison, often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution,” played a crucial role in the founding of the United States. As the principal author of the Constitution and a key advocate for its ratification, Madison demonstrated his deep commitment to creating a strong federal government balanced by individual liberties. His vision for the separation of powers and checks and balances remains a cornerstone of American democracy.

However, Madison’s presidency faced challenges during the War of 1812. Critics argue that his handling of the conflict, such as the failed invasion of Canada and the burning of Washington, revealed his limited military leadership skills. Additionally, Madison’s response to the British blockade and the imposition of the Embargo Act received criticism for their negative impact on the American economy. These shortcomings highlight the complexities of Madison’s presidency and the difficulties he faced in leading the nation through a time of war.

Jackson: The People’s President

Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, was a transformative figure in American politics, known for his populist approach and strong personality. He appealed to the common people, portraying himself as a champion of the working class and a defender of the common man’s rights. Jackson’s presidency witnessed significant expansions of suffrage, with his push for universal white male suffrage reflecting his commitment to democratic principles.

However, Jackson’s presidency is also marked by controversial decisions and policies. His forceful removal of Native Americans, most notably the Indian Removal Act of 1830, resulted in the tragic Trail of Tears and stands as a dark stain on his legacy. Additionally, his banking policies and the dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States led to economic instability and the Panic of 1837. These actions underscore the criticism that Jackson’s presidency was characterized by a disregard for constitutional limits and a concentration of power in the executive branch.

Assessing Their Legacies

Madison and Jackson’s legacies are complex and evoke different perspectives. Madison’s contributions to the Constitution and his efforts to balance federal power with individual liberties have solidified his reputation as a key figure in American history. Although his presidency faced challenges, his intellectual prowess and commitment to democratic ideals leave a lasting impact.

On the other hand, Jackson’s legacy is more contentious. While he is celebrated for expanding democratic participation and championing the interests of the working class, his treatment of Native Americans and his economic policies raise significant ethical and constitutional concerns. His presidency exemplifies the tension between populism and adherence to constitutional principles.

Conclusion:

The presidencies of James Madison and Andrew Jackson offer contrasting approaches to presidential leadership. Madison’s intellectual contributions to the Constitution and his commitment to democratic ideals continue to shape the nation’s governance. Jackson, on the other hand, embraced a populist agenda that sought to empower the common people but at times conflicted with constitutional constraints and ethical considerations. By critically analyzing their leadership styles and legacies, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and challenges faced by these influential presidents in shaping the course of American history.

Argumentative Essay: Should Andrew Jackson Be Replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20 Bill

We are learning about Andrew Jackson life in class. Which lead us to the question should Andrew Jackson be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill? We have been doing a lot of research on this topic and I’ve come to believe that Harriet Tubman should and deserves to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. In class, we’ve learned that Andrew Jackson has done many horrible things, while Harriet Tubman did well for her whole life. Although I am telling you one perspective on this, there are still people who believe that Andrew Jackson should not be replaced, others believe that Harriet Tubman should not fully replace him and that Andrew Jackson should go on the back of the $20 bill. The reason for this is because although he did many wrong decisions, he also did some good ones. We have also have been looking at the controversy surrounding the option of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Ever since looking upon the controversy and doing research about this I have come to believe that you should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman.

The idea of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman came from The Obama Administration saying that by 2020 there would be new faces on paper money, but ever since the new treasury secretary came into place he did not agree and neither did the president, so they said that they wouldn’t be doing anything to the current bills. The reason for this was because Mnuchin said that the people currently on the bills have been on there for centuries so why change them now. The reason i am writing now is because i strongly disagree with this, so i will try my very hardest to convince you to change your minds and continue with the plan that The Obama Administration started. One reason why Andrew jackson should

Hello, my name is Leslie L. I go to North Boone Middle school. We are learning about Andrew Jackson life in class. Which lead us to the question should Andrew Jackson be replaced by Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill? We have been doing a lot of research on this topic and I’ve come to believe that Harriet Tubman should and deserves to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. In class, we’ve learned that Andrew Jackson has done many horrible things, while Harriet Tubman did well for her whole life. Although I am telling you one perspective on this, there are still people who believe that Andrew Jackson should not be replaced, others believe that Harriet Tubman should not fully replace him and that Andrew Jackson should go on the back of the $20 bill. The reason for this is because although he did many wrong decisions, he also did some good ones. We have also have been looking at the controversy surrounding the option of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Ever since looking upon the controversy and doing research about this I have come to believe that you should replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman.

The idea of replacing Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman came from The Obama Administration saying that by 2020 there would be new faces on paper money, but ever since the new treasury secretary came into place he did not agree and neither did the president, so they said that they wouldn’t be doing anything to the current bills. The reason for this was because Mnuchin said that the people currently on the bills have been on there for centuries so why change them now. The reason i am writing now is because i strongly disagree with this, so i will try my very hardest to convince you to change your minds and continue with the plan that The Obama Administration started. One reason why Andrew jackson should be removed is that when he enacted the indian removal act to move them to the indian territory, the only thing he didn’t see is that many would not want to leave the land where their family begun. In this case he decided that any native that did not want to leave would have to face the military which would result in many deaths. The deaths of the natives did not stop there. In fact,“Jackson’s indian removal policy” stas on The Trail of Tears itself 4,000 natives died from diseases, starvation, and violence from the military.this proves that Jackson didn’t care how many or who’s lives he took and if that’s what you think a national hero acts like you’re wrong, a national hero would take time to try and convince them to sell their land instead of manipulating them or negotiate with them to sell their land but they could stay there. On the other hand when HArriet Tubman was freeing slaves there was some that believed that there was no life beyond the one they have as a slave, yet she did not force them to come with her she simply tried to explain to them their situation, but if they decided not to come then he left them there as they wanted to be. Another reason why andrew should be removed is that he claimed to be a man of the people or should i say the rich. The reason i say this is because one of his many not fully thought out plans was “killing the bank”. He claimed that it was greater good of the people, but what he did not know is that the Second Bank of the United States could/was helping the poor like farmers expanded their lands, support heir family, buy useful thing that they would use on a day to day bases. To be exacted Andrew Jackson once said so proudly “I killed the bank” he also didn’t like the idea of the bank just handing out loans to the people that probably could never pay back to the bank. What i mean is that he grew up as a common folk yet he basically goes against everything they say or want. Then again Harriet Tubman did what she knew was right and freed as many slaves impossible because Harriet Tubman was not selfish like Andrew Jackson, in fact, she most likely did not care what happened to her as long as she freed slaves.

I hope you will agree with me that you should replace Andrew jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill because i do not want my kids to think that a hero first thing to solve a problem is to kill. Plus it would be nice for them to have a woman role model that basically is saying that no one is less or more than each other because at the end we are all alike in someway.I want to thank you for taking the time out of your day to read my letter and re-take this into consideration. Once again thank you

Essay on Madison and Jackson

Introduction:

The presidencies of James Madison and Andrew Jackson mark significant periods in American history. While both leaders made substantial contributions to the nation, their approaches to governance and policies differed greatly. This essay critically examines the leadership styles and legacies of Madison and Jackson, shedding light on their strengths and weaknesses and assessing their impacts on the country’s development.

Body:

Madison: The Architect of the Constitution

James Madison, often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution,” played a crucial role in the founding of the United States. As the principal author of the Constitution and a key advocate for its ratification, Madison demonstrated his deep commitment to creating a strong federal government balanced by individual liberties. His vision for the separation of powers and checks and balances remains a cornerstone of American democracy.

However, Madison’s presidency faced challenges during the War of 1812. Critics argue that his handling of the conflict, such as the failed invasion of Canada and the burning of Washington, revealed his limited military leadership skills. Additionally, Madison’s response to the British blockade and the imposition of the Embargo Act received criticism for their negative impact on the American economy. These shortcomings highlight the complexities of Madison’s presidency and the difficulties he faced in leading the nation through a time of war.

Jackson: The People’s President

Andrew Jackson, on the other hand, was a transformative figure in American politics, known for his populist approach and strong personality. He appealed to the common people, portraying himself as a champion of the working class and a defender of the common man’s rights. Jackson’s presidency witnessed significant expansions of suffrage, with his push for universal white male suffrage reflecting his commitment to democratic principles.

However, Jackson’s presidency is also marked by controversial decisions and policies. His forceful removal of Native Americans, most notably the Indian Removal Act of 1830, resulted in the tragic Trail of Tears and stands as a dark stain on his legacy. Additionally, his banking policies and the dismantling of the Second Bank of the United States led to economic instability and the Panic of 1837. These actions underscore the criticism that Jackson’s presidency was characterized by a disregard for constitutional limits and a concentration of power in the executive branch.

Assessing Their Legacies

Madison and Jackson’s legacies are complex and evoke different perspectives. Madison’s contributions to the Constitution and his efforts to balance federal power with individual liberties have solidified his reputation as a key figure in American history. Although his presidency faced challenges, his intellectual prowess and commitment to democratic ideals leave a lasting impact.

On the other hand, Jackson’s legacy is more contentious. While he is celebrated for expanding democratic participation and championing the interests of the working class, his treatment of Native Americans and his economic policies raise significant ethical and constitutional concerns. His presidency exemplifies the tension between populism and adherence to constitutional principles.

Conclusion:

The presidencies of James Madison and Andrew Jackson offer contrasting approaches to presidential leadership. Madison’s intellectual contributions to the Constitution and his commitment to democratic ideals continue to shape the nation’s governance. Jackson, on the other hand, embraced a populist agenda that sought to empower the common people but at times conflicted with constitutional constraints and ethical considerations. By critically analyzing their leadership styles and legacies, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and challenges faced by these influential presidents in shaping the course of American history.

Andrew Jackson’s Changes in the Presidency Nature

Introduction

Andrew Jackson’s two terms in power were characterized by the presence of fierce political battles and his victory at making revolutionary changes for the United States. Jackson’s legacy was facilitated by the difficulties he faced with the Congress during his two terms of presidency. He was committed to developing a powerful presidency on the grounds of a strong political party. During his terms, the United State’s presidency experienced changes that would revolutionize its nature forever. This paper looks at how Andrew Jackson changed the nature of the presidency.

Changes made

Andrew Jackson’s legacy is the development and strengthening of the Democratic party. Jackson is remembered for his development of a two-party system in the United States, whereby the Democrats and the Republicans emerged, and they were separated by the differences in political ideologies. President Jackson was particularly a powerful president because he derived his power from the support of the citizens, rather than banking it with the Congress. This was demonstrated by the fact that Congress only passed one law during his two terms. President Jackson vetoed a dozen bills. Jackson demonstrated that the president could possess the power to stand by his political philosophy without yielding to the pressure of the Congress (“American President: A Reference Resource” par. 2).

President Jackson expanded the power held by the president by implementing his personal opinions rather than listening to his political allies and enemies. He was quite hostile to his enemies, and he used his power to silence the people who openly went against his decisions. He brought forth the mudslinging strategies used by politicians today. By defying the Supreme Court, Jackson also demonstrated that the executive could easily overpower the judiciary, and many presidents that came after him have engaged in similar behavior.

President Jackson started the culture of rewarding his passionate supporters with offices, and this behavior has affected the presidency ever since. The powers held by the president enable the presidents to manipulate laws and grant offices to their indispensable supporters in the political scenes (“Andrew Jackson Facts” par. 12).

President Jackson changed the voting requirements of American society. President Jackson ensured that financial background was not used as merit to allow white men to vote. He also influenced the disbanding of the political parties during his term to form the Democratic Party, which is still powerful today. It is also apparent that prior to the election of President Jackson, the United State’s presidency was reserved for candidates from wealthy families (“American Politics Forever Changed” par. 1).

President Jackson came from a humble background and fought his way into the presidency. Jackson demonstrated that any American could get into the position of the presidency, and he changed the stereotype that one had to be wealthy to gain support from the people (“Andrew Jackson” par. 1). Some of the poorest American presidents that came after Jackson are Harry S. Truman, Ulysses S. Grant, and James A. Garfield. America still embraces presidential candidates regardless of their financial background.

Conclusion

President Andrew Jackson is a legend because of the changes he influenced in the American presidency. He disbanded the many political parties that existed in the nation to develop the Democratic Party. He implemented his personal opinions and engaged in mudslinging, as well as promoted his allies to government positions. He also changed the rights associated with voters and paved the way for the American people to vote for a president from a poor background.

Works Cited

American President: A Reference Resource 2015. Web.

American Politics Forever Changed 2015. Web.

2015. Web.

2015. Web.

Andrew Jackson’s Presidency

Introduction

Contrary to his predecessors, Andrew Jackson has been listed as an immediate peoples’ representative that submitted to the will of the people (Cheathem & Mancall, 2008). The Jacksonian presidency stood out as the one that welcomed the rise of a two-party democracy and the coming of the professional politician. This paper explores some of the key policy elements that amplify the Jacksonian political reign to help assess his role in the making of the U.S. politics. In this discussion, the paper ventures into assessing significant policy themes that distinguishes Andrew Jackson’s two-time presidency, including the nullification, the Bank war, the removal of the Indian, and the spoils systems.

The significance of the 1828 election

The election of 1828 that saw Jackson ascend to power as the U.S. president remains critical in the political history of the United States of America. According to political analysts, the 1828 U.S. elections were referred to as the emergence of the common man where an average white American was an equal personality to occupy the high office (Cheathem & Mancall, 2008). Changes in the voting procedures, qualifications, and inclusivity and the rise of the common man’ distinguish the 1828 U.S election from the rest of the periods in the history of the nation (Rhodes, 2009).

In a nutshell, the 1828 election brought about revolution in the nation’s political system that strengthened the executive powers of the sitting president (Cheathem & Mancall, 2008). Both traditional and modern political analysts have referred to the 1828 elections as the period that ushered in a shift of power bargain to the voter. In addition, regionalism and the emergence of modern democracy defined the Jacksonian electioneering period. Although some critics have latched his presidency, many observers still view him as the source of America’s advanced democracy.

Jacksonian symbolism and policies

The Spoils system

Jackson’s appointment of principal federal office holders and state officials is one of the themes that sparked sharp debates within the context of American politics. The move to replace the existing federal officeholders with his own supporters under the guise of providing an opportunity for all Americans was dubbed as the spoils system. Although Jackson’s appointments expressed contempt for the knowledge and trust in the people, some analysts argued that Jackson acted to eliminate the entrenched bureaucracy in the federal offices (Rhodes, 2009).

However, opponents argued that Jackson’s appointments were not from the American common men, but resembled the preceding political, social, and economic elite class (Cheathem & Mancall, 2008). While it may be argued that Jackson restored democratic governance through rotational appointments, technocrats suggested that rotational work polices were only meant to satisfy political wills and could not yield efficiency in government.

The Bank War

The U.S. second bank under the presidency of Nicholas Biddle performed well and controlled the lending of other states’ banks. The bank acted as the country’s central bank that served to regulate the banking sector. However, Jackson viewed the functioning of the bank as unconstitutional arguing for its killing.’ His opposition to the bank can be traced from the fact that the supporters of the bank used the issue to undermine his popularity (Rhodes, 2009).

Although the senate passed the bill that sought to re-charter the bank, Jackson vetoed the bill arguing that it was a monopoly with many foreigners who were determined to control the U.S. banking sector. His reelection in 1832 gave him the opportunity to push for the destruction of the bank insisting that it violated the fundamental principles of democracy and equality. His direction saw the withdrawal of all federal funds, which were deposited in other state banks (“pet banks”) contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling (Rhodes, 2009).

The Nullification Controversy

The process of nullification of 1832 occupied a substantial space in the nation’s debate that concerned the opposition between the federal versus the state authority (Rhodes, 2009). This came at a time when opposition to slavery and other divisive events were under sharp focus. Opponents to protective tariffs argued that they were potentially responsible for dividing the country on economic lines (Rhodes, 2009).

The southern states viewed this as a move to undermine their development in favor of the Northern industrial and manufacturing industry. The defiance of the tariffs by the Southern Carolina state sparked a fierce reaction from Jackson terming it as treasonous. The passage of “Ordinance of Nullification” meant that the tariffs were unenforceable and unpermitted in the South Carolina State. Many scholars argued that Jackson stood out as the protector of the law when he introduced “force Bill” to sustain federal authority.

The Indian Removals

The removal of the Indians from the mainstream Georgia to reservations of the trans-Mississippi west was one of the awkward events in Jackson’s presidency (French, 2007). These events altered Jackson’s reputation as the fighter of the Indian human rights during the Greek Wars and painting him as a separatist. Although the move was viewed as one aimed at maintaining the American sovereignty, it presented Jackson as an extremist politician because of his outright defiance of the Court’s ruling extremist southerners (French, 2007).

References

Cheathem, M. R., & Mancall, P. C. (2008). Jacksonian and Antebellum Age: People and Perspectives.New York, NY: ABC-CLIO.

French, L. F. (2007). Legislating Indian Country: Significant Milestones in Transforming Tribalism. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Rhodes, J. F. (2009). History of the United States: From the Compromise of 1850 to the Mckinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896. New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc.