Andrew Jackson--President or Tyrant?

Here's something that won't cause a stir like
my post attacking Marilyn Manson. [img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] By the way, before you say it, this forum says "Just babbling...anything else goes here." What do you think that means?

The seventh president of the U.S., Andrew Jackson, was sometimes criticized as being a "tyrant" much like King George, II, who the Colonists had rebelled against in the Revolutionary War. There were even drawings of Jackson in a crown and royal robe, holding
a veto in his hand. Many of these attacks came because Jackson overrode many bills congress passed, and vetoed those which they objected to. Not to mention the so-called "betrayal" of treaties with the Native Americans. Any opinions?
{By the way, the first assassination attempt on a U.S. President was targeted toward Jackson. The would-be assassin approached him
in the street and pulled the trigger of his pistol--it never went off. [img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] }

_________________
I'm Bud Sturguess--and you're not.

he put in motion an "Indian Removal Act" that forced the Cherokee of their land in georgia. the supreme court ruled against it, because the white 'americans' had signed a treaty with the cherokee 'giving' them their own land. but good ol' american andrew ignored it and sent the military anyway. it was called 'the trail of tears'. over 4000 true americans died. he was a very bad man. god bless america.

I agree that Jackson's actions (hey it sort of rhymes) were not very commendable.
By the way, why do we call the Native Americans "Indians?" Here's why: Christopher Columbus was looking for a pasage to India in his voyage and when he got around this continent, he thought he was in India. And he didn't "discover" North America--don't you think those he met when he got here discovered it?

_________________
I'm Bud Sturguess--and you're not.

glad that you agree.

haha! That guy's gun didn't go off!!!

What a dufus!!!

Oh well, at least he's dead eh.

I must say i disagree with you on Jackson's portrayal as a tyrant.

You are certainly not realizing the circumstances nor many other factors involved here.

The right to veto was a right given to the enforcer of the United States -- a balance of power - and there is no limit on the amount of times he can do it. He DID do it more times than all the earlier presidents Combined, however his "revolution of 1828" set off the Jacksonian period that can almost immediatley be noted for the glorification of the common man (and on the veto issue, if our country was more one-sided, and the Whigs or Democrats had more control at that time, certainly they would have over ridden the veto - but this is not the case, and therefore Jackson's actions with the veto are justified.)

The "Jacksonian Period" - though some thought to be 'tyranical' reign, as you do, was in fact more of a upholding of political, economical, and certainly social equality. Social Reform became a huge issue -- such societies as Ann Lee's "shakers", the Transcendentalists, the "Fruit Lands" (who only ate vegetables that grew towards the heavens), the Oneida community, and certainly the Public education and betrayal of the "cult of Domesticity" (belief that the women should stay at the house all the time) through the Women's rights movements (including Elizabeth Blackwell being the first female doctor), are all prime examples (as is the abolitionist movement, being the largest reform, and in contrast to Jackson's southern [born in the carolina's grew up in tennesee] upbringing.

Politically, Jackson showed that he also valued equality in the "Peggy-eaton affair" (look it up if you don't know about it -- takes too long to describe). Also Jackson's belief was that the people had chosen him to represent them, therefore by using the veto and especially by forcing the Cherokees out of their Georgian territory, was most likely what most individuals wanted - as they felt they had the "Mandate from heaven" - the expansionist feelings that enshrouded this and the following era.

So for the circumstances, Jackson almost had to do what he did. Also, Jackson didn't hate the Indians...no, i'm not being neive -- why else would he adopt one?

Ohh, and one musn't forget that during Jackson's terms the voting qualifications (land ownership and status) were significantly lowered.

So, no- - you are in fact wrong, the Jacksonian Period (including the celebrated "jacksonian democracy") was not a form of Tyranny.

As a tyrant does not allow his citizens to be diversified.


Thank You,
Charade I Am
Patrick

ohh, and if you measure a tyrant by weather or not someone has tried to assasinate them, i hope you know it's somewhat offensive to think of the Pope as one...

...or Ronald Reagan for that matter.


A tyrant doesn't NEED an assassin, a tyrant pulls the trigger himself.

Yours in thought,
Charade I Am

Offensive to who?
When I was young I wanted to kill the pope because they showed him driving around in his popemobile instead of showing saturday morning cartoons.

Who cares, he's dead. And from what i've heard, he's been dead for some time.
Jackson that is.




_________________
"All Right, Now PISS OFF!!!"

CIA,

VERY good. Am firing up google right now to fill up on Peggy Eaton. :grin:

Lovely

Heh heh. Hey, Charade I Am, I never said whether I thought he was a tyrant or not. I just brought up the FACT that he was criticized as one. I do however disagree with his "Indian [Native American] Removal" act. It is an OPINION as to whether he was a "tyrant" or not. But it is FACT that he was criticized as one. (Like it is an opinion that DSOTM was one of the greatest albums ever. But it is a fact that it stayed on the charts for 14 years. )

And WHEN did I try to measure whether Jackson was a tyrant or not because there was an attempt on his life? I just brought it up because it was interesting, because later, experts said the odds of this happening were a thousand to one or something. STOP JUMPING TO (absurd) CONCLUSIONS.

_________________
"One thousand and one yellow daffodils
Begin to dance in front of you, oh dear.
Are they trying to tell you something?
You're missing that one final screw.
You're simply not in the pink, my dear.
To be honest, you haven't got a clue."

Well, equality of the [Anglo-European] sexes perhaps, but in the end everything still went sour. Poor Peggy - what a tawdry end.

As long as we're on the subject of United States presidents, I think it's strange that after the death of the 9th President William Harrison (who died of pnemounia, and only served 30 days, the shortest of any), his Vice-President John Tyler was made President. But many thought this was unfair that a VP should be allowed to succeed the President. In my opinion, I think it's the most logical choice.