November
18
Blog #161 – Final Exam – Andrew Jackson: Hero of the Common Man or Dictatorial President?
Now, since we talk about shades of grey here in APUSH, a question like this – Andrew Jackson, Hero of the Common Man or Dictatorial President? – should be harder to answer than the either/or options that I have given you. Chances are, Jackson is both the hero of the common man and acted dictatorially as president.
Using the article that you read a couple of weeks ago, “The Jacksonian Revolution”, please answer the following questions:
- Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
- Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
- Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
Was Jackson a hero of the common man or a dictator during his presidency? One side to this debate was that Jackson was a hero of the common man because he wanted the government to have “equal protection and equal benefits” to all white men no matter their economical status. Also, he allowed any common person that supported him and his party into office whether they were qualified to do so or not. Jackson also saw the BUS as a way to keep the common man down economically, his evidence to prove that was through hard money and debt. He was also viewed as a hero of the common man because so many common folk could relate to Jackson. Jackson also argued that the people should rule and not the government, this is shown through the election that John Quincy Adams “cheated” the other presidential candidate out of office due to winning more electoral votes not popularity from the people. Jackson also let a ton of commoners enter the White House and walk around because they were basically his equals and rich, educated men weren’t the only ones allowed in the White House. Another side to this debate was that Jackson was a dictator during his presidency because of the way he ruled office. For example, Jackson used the veto 12 times which is more times than the presidents before him combined. Jackson also ignored the Supreme Court on many occasions as if their say didn’t matter and he was the ruler of the people and only him. Another reason he could be seen as a dictator would be the fact that he got into office because of his military success which is close to how some dictators come to power. Another example is when the author writes about how Jackson was fixated on the idea that he could run office with popular self-rule. I think the author, Robert Remini, took the side that Andrew Jackson acted like he was a dictator while in office. I agree with this because he basically did whatever he wanted and passed whatever law he wanted if it didn’t get vetoed. I think he also abused his power to veto laws that could help the whole of America and not only hurt the rich or slightly affect the common folk. Also, Jackson didn’t really seem to know what to do when it came to benefitting both parties whether one was in office or not, he favored his party and ignored the opposing one. All in all, Jackson can either be seen as a hero to the common folk or a dictator, but in my eyes Jackson was a dictator that ruled over America for two presidential election terms.
Jackson can be seen as both a hero to the common man and a dictatorial president. An example of Jackon being a hero of the common man is being fiercely committed to democracy as stated in “The Jacksonian Revolution” article is: “In his first message to congress as president written in December 1829 Jackson announced: The majority is to govern. To the people belonged the right of electing their Chief Executive. He, therefore, asked Congress to adopt an amendment to abolish the College of Electors. He wanted all intermediary agencies standing between the people, and their government swept away, whether erected by the Founding Fathers or not. The people are sovereign, he reiterated. Their will is absolute.” This shows that Jackson wanted the common man to directly have a say instead of a small group of elites. Although, one can argue that Jackson was also a dictatorial president. An example of this, as stated once again in “The Jacksonian Revolution” article, is: “As president Jackson inaugurated a number of important changes in the operation of government. For example, he vetoed congressional legislation more times than all his predecessors combined, and for reasons other than a bill’s presumed lack of constitutionality.” This showcases that Jackson extensively used his veto powers to the point of more than all of his predecessors combined. This can be seen as dictatorial because he is vetoing legislation for reasons other than a bill’s constitutionality and vetoing legislation many more times than the predecessors before him and breaking precedent. Another example in the same article that can be used to support Jackson as dictatorial is “He put Congress on notice that they must consider his views on all issues before enacting them into law or run the risk of a veto.” This can also be seen as dictatorial because Jackson is controlling Congress in a way where if they do not consult him and take his views into consideration, he may veto legislation Congress passes. Some may view this as making Congress subservient to Jackson, which may be seen as dictatorial. I think Robert Remini falls onto the side of people who believe that Jackson was a man of the people. I disagree with Remini because Jackson acted in a way that was much more dictatorial compared to his predecessors. Jackson did more vetoes than all of his predecessors combined and made Congress, in my view, effectively subservient to him. This is not what a president of the common man does, in my view.
Ignore my first comment, please.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
One way to view the moral argument about Jackson is to say that he was a champion of the “common man”. The article provides evidence for this when it says “ Old Hickory’s personality and military accomplishments made him an attractive and viable candidate for the ordinary voter. Indeed his career and personality stirred the imagination of Democratic leaders around the country and they devised new methods, or improved old ones, to get across the message that Andrew Jackson was a ‘Man of the people.” The constitution and liberty of the country were in imminent peril, and he has preserved them both!” his supporters boasted”. The excerpt proves that in the eyes of many people, Jackson was a president who kept the American values of the common man alive and for that, he was well-liked. Another example pulled from my notes on the PowerPoint is how Jackson won the battle of New Orleans and because of that, he was a war hero and the equivalent of a superhero today to the people back then, because he was rugged and chewed tobacco people saw him as a person just like them who had climbed his way up to the presidency.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
On the other hand for various reasons, Jackson can also be seen as a controlling and possibly dictatorial president. To start the PowerPoint has a section that depicts Jackson in the garb of a royal, which was the equivalent of calling him a tyrant. More concretely the article reads, “Henry Clay regularly pilloried the president on the Senate floor. On one occasion he accused Jackson of “open, palpable and daring usurpation” of all the powers of government”. The citation from the article states how Jackson was seen to have abused and misused the powers given to him. This was not at all uncharacteristic of him as he had a history of doing whatever he wanted (Florida campaign) and his murder of the BUS.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree with/ him? Why or why not?
It is apparent that through the first page of the article that Robert Remini clearly believes that he believed that while Jackson and the politicians of the era made many bad moves all in all Jackson stood for the common man. The one quote that really solidifies this is when he literally states his opinion by saying, “But above all, it was an age of the self-made man, a time when privilege and elitist rule gave way to the vestiges of popular democracy at least for white males”. Not much explanation is needed as Remini plainly states that more prevalent than anything else, the Jacksonian era shone through as a great time for the common man. I believe that Jackson did a lot of positive things, he was admired by the general people and was a person with many accomplishments like the battle of New Orleans however my positive thoughts for him are crushed by the fact that he also did many horrible things such as the Indian Removal act and his brutal Florida campaign against the Seminoles. All in all while yes Jackson did do many good things, the evils committed show how he was an unnecessarily violent and tempestuous person.
1.Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Jackson was a hero to the common man because he had the belief that the federal government should not favor any class and that they should offer equal protection to all white males. While in the presidency, Jackson put in place the Spoils System. The Spoils System made it so that the president was allowed to replace officeholders with those who supported their election bid. In The Jacksonian Revolution, Remini speaks about how Alexis De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America compares Jackson’s democracy of people ruling to the gods ruling in the universe. This shows that Jackson wanted to help the common man by giving them power and not conserving all power to the government. The last thing that I believe Jackson did which made him a hero to the common man was the Indian Removal Act. By removing the Indians from their land, Jackson opened up more land to white settlement. He also believed that by moving the Indians to the west, he would make eastern states safer from foreign invasion. This act showed that Jackson wanted to help the people and give them more opportunities as well as making them safer.
2.Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Arguing on the side that Jackson was a dictatorial president, I believe that Jacksons decisions of what to veto caused him to be seen as a dictator. For example, his choice to veto the bill which would recharter the Second National Bank in 1832. Despite what the court had decided, meaning that it was the people’s decision to recharter the bank, Jackson chose to veto the bill, using his power to go over the common man, therefore putting himself in a position of a dictator. I also think that the Peggy Eaton Affair made Jackson seem like a dictator. Many of Jackson’s cabinet disliked Peggy, and would not attend social events that they were at. This situation made Jackson tell his cabinet that they must accept her. Most of his cabinet, not happy about this matter, ended up resigning.
3.Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
I think that Robert Remini came down on the idea that during his presidency, Jackson was a hero of the common man. I agree with him in the sense that Jackson made it so that the people continued to have power and made it so that the federal government did not have too much power. Jackson gave the people more opportunities and tried to make them safer in everyday life. But on the other side, I think that when he did use his power to its full extent, he seemed to be in a dictator position. Jackson used 12 vetoes which is more than all of the past presidents vetoes combined.
1 – Jackson can be considered a hero of the common man for a few reasons. First, Jackson’s origins as a ‘common frontiersman’ endeared him to many people, and differed greatly from previous presidents who came from more wealthy and aristocratic families. Jackson also wanted a more direct democracy. He supported the idea of ‘majority rules’, benefitting the common people. Under his presidency, many states also transitioned to universal male suffrage, expanding democracy to more ‘common’ people, and making it so that not only aristocrats/wealthy citizens could vote. Overall, throughout his presidency, he wanted the government to better directly reflect the wishes of the people. Many government positions began to be given based on election, and Jackson would institute the spoils system, when he would directly appoint many government offices, believing himself to be the best spokesperson for the people.
2 – Jackson could be considered dictatorial because he greatly expanded the jurisdiction and power of the executive branch. He used the fact that he was the popular vote and ‘the voice of the people’ to justify dictatorial acts and set precedents extending the president’s power. For example, he sacked the Secretary of Treasury when they refused to remove deposits from the BUS – something that no president had done before. Since cabinet positions are determined by congress, it follows that congress should have a say in whether a cabinet member should be dismissed, but Jackson solely assumed that power. He also used the veto power more than all of his predecessors combined, firmly established that in his administration, the executive branch came before the legislative branch, when in the past, that had never been the case. This profoundly shaped US policy; extremely contentious was his veto of a bill to recharter the bank, potentially exacerbating the coming Panic of 1837. Furthermore, as a result of Jackson’s doctrine of ‘majority rules,’ he put the rights of minorities at risk. What’s worse, he opposed the judicial branch, who was relied on to safeguard minority rights. He defied SCOTUS’ ruling in McCulloch v Maryland establishing the constitutionality of a national bank, arguing that the supreme court shouldn’t be the final interpreter of the constitution.
3 – Remini came down on the side that he was a hero of the common man. At the end of the passage, Remini describes his own interpretation of Jackson, referencing the three-volume book series that Remini wrote about the president. Remini believed that he was a ‘common man, attempting to advance democracy by insisting that all branches of government, including the courts, reflected the popular will’. Moreover, Remini found Jackson’s policy of Indian removal justified because Remini believed it was the only viable course of political action at the time, and spared the Cherokee and others from ‘certain extinction.’ I believe that Jackson had both good and bad traits, but as a believer in protecting the rights of the minority, I don’t really agree with his ‘majority rules’ doctrine and would argue that the expansion of executive power under his administration would make him a negative president overall.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
From the very beginning of his campaign, Jackson was a firm believer in the strength of America’s common man. His image as a candidate appealed to the masses and made him relatable to demographics previously ignored by politicians. He was presented as a tough frontiersman willing to protect all of America, nothing like his opponent, stuffy yet accomplished statesman John Quincy Adams. His party, the Democratic Party, was focused on states’ rights and individual liberty, similar to Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans of the past. Jackson believed that the strength of the central government should be limited so as to protect the freedoms of American citizens. Said citizens were greatly supportive of him as well, attending rallies, meetings, and proudly adopting the iconic hickory symbol. The increase in white male suffrage around this time meant that more could vote in this election than ever before, increasing the importance of less privileged voters’ approval to his campaign. As president, Jackson made it known that he placed his faith in the majority and saw himself as their sole true representative. He often grabbed power from other branches to carry out his wishes, feeling that he alone could do the best job for the people. His controversial policies such as the “spoils system” were meant to protect them as well, as Jackson feared longer terms would make officeholders grow greedy and attempt to keep the position forever, ignoring the public’s needs. All in all, Jackson and his Democratic Party viewed the Jacksonian era as one that allowed common men to have more of a say in government and have their wishes granted more easily by the government, specifically the president.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
At many points throughout his presidency, Jackson ignored the established rules and needs of the country as a whole in favor of his own personal ideas concerning right and wrong. One such example of his power hungry politics was his overuse of the veto. Through vetoing acts concerning such matters as federal support for internal improvements, a concept he very publicly stated his disapproval of, he forced the House and Senate to consider his personal feelings before even allowing a bill to get to his desk. Additionally, he fired his secretary of the treasury, William Duane, when he refused to remove deposits from the BUS as requested, though it was unclear whether he could constitutionally do so without senate approval. Thus, he greatly decreased the influence of the legislative branch. His quest was not complete, however, without overruling the judicial branch as well. Despite the ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, in which the BUS was finally deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, Andrew Jackson decided it was still within his right to veto a bill for its rechartering. Through this move, Jackson undermined the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court to determine whether a law was constitutional or not. By tainting the balance between branches, Jackson made himself the most powerful of the three.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
While reading Remini’s article concerning the Jacksonian Era, I believe he portrayed Jackson as more of a common man’s hero than a dictatorial president. Remini can be seen defending Jackson’s ideas at certain points throughout the article, including when the topic of the “spoils system” comes up. The author firmly insists that this policy was not meant to be selfish at all, rather an innocent rotation to keep the American people safe from corruption and entitlement in government. Additionally, when Jackson’s extreme disapproval of the Supreme Court is mentioned, Remini frames it as him “merely expressing his own opinions”. This phrasing suggests a slight bias towards Jackson, supporting him no matter what things he might have said. Personally, I do not agree with this perspective on Jackson’s presidency. I feel that he claimed too much power and, despite his belief that he was right in doing so, it definitely changed the relationship between the branches of government in a way that the Founders likely did not intend. By making it so the judicial and legislative branch must look to the president first, Jackson cemented the presidency as the most powerful and coveted position available. Instead of keeping the balance between three equal branches, he tipped the scales to give himself more authority so he could carry out whatever plan he thought was best for everyone, not caring what rules he broke to make it happen. This lack of responsibility and respect for the carefully designed system in place leads me to side more against the view in favor of him. However, history is never black and white. There were good things that he did, of course, such as the defense of Peggy Eaton from slander, but the wrong parts cannot be overlooked either.
Andrew Jackson is the hero of the common man because Jackson also came from humble beginnings, he grew up in near poverty, didn’t go to school very much, and his parents were Scot-Irish immigrants. The common men saw Andrew Jackson as a hero since he came from humble beginnings and then he became president so Jackson had given hope to the working class that they could do what they wanted if they worked hard, then they could achieve their dream. This is how Andrew Jackson was a hero of the common man because he was viewed as someone who was just like them.
Andrew Jackson was a dictator of a president. The reasoning behind this is that he commanded fear and respect from people lower than him and ignored the Supreme Court. He also replaced 20% of the government officials during his presidency so the government officials would be more Democratic-Republicans than any other party. Jackson had too much power for just one person to hold, like a king or queen, Jackson let the power go to his head and thought he was the single most powerful and important person in the country. He also didn’t care if taxes or tariffs were unconstitutional. Jackson also threw the Native Americans out of their land and had Native Americans walk thousands of miles to a new home that down the line, they would have to leave as well. During his presidency, Andrew Jackson also threatened to hang every single person who nullified the tax that he passed even though the people had the right to nullify the tax.
I believe that Robert Remini was anti-Andrew Jackson. I believe he is anti-Andrew Jackson because Remini had mentioned that Jackson was a hothead and had a temper. As well as describing his actions as barbaric on occasions. Robert Remini also called Jackson a “land thief” because of the way Andrew Jackson had pushed the Native Americans off their land to make room for more settlers but ended up pushing them further and further so they could make more room for settlers or immigrants. I agree with Remini because of all the horrible things he has done to Native Americans as well as his not caring about the amount of taxes there were because Jackson just wanted more money and did not care how it affected families and if people were starving or going homeless or just don’t have the money to pay the taxes or tariffs.
Jackson was the hero of the common man in many ways. He was a new type of political figure that hadn’t been seen before and he made politics more inclusive by encouraging new voters to come and vote. Andrew Jackson was what Eastern aristocrats called a crude frontiersman with little traditional education, not like the previous presidents who had mostly been Virginian and all college-educated (except Washington of course). This fact and how he allowed common people to hold office in his spoils system proved and gave hope to common people that no one is better suited for office than the other. Andrew Jackson also gave the new voters (poor white men who could now vote) a candidate who passed policy that was in their interest like the Indian Removal Act, which opened up new lands for more people, and the war on the National Bank, an institution believed to only favor the rich.
Jackson can only be remembered as an oppressive, savage, dictatorial leader as he held no regard or compassion for natives occupying lands they had been living in for decades and ignored several Supreme Court decisions. While Europeans who lived on U.S. soil for several years was eligible to be a citizen, Jackson didn’t share that idea when it came to the natives. He didn’t care that they had been living there and selfishly removed them from their lands without any option. He had always been especially cruel and inhumane against natives. He massacred Seminoles in the three Seminole wars. He was also a huge hypocrite in that while he vetoed bills for internal improvements as he favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution and these powers were not in the Constitution, he completely ignored the Supreme Court’s decisions in Worcester v Georgia and McCulloch v Maryland! Worcester v Georgia said that the natives could not be forcibly removed from their lands by the state but Jackson didn’t care and did not enforce it which is the whole point of checks and balances. He later issued a proclamation saying that the Supreme Court’s powers had to be followed. To add to his defiance, McCulloch v Maryland proved that the BUS was constitutional and when a renewal for the charter of the Bank of the United States was on his desk he vetoed it, ignoring the decision again as he said the bank was unconstitutional even though it was.
Robert Remini’s stance on President Andrew Jackson was that he was a hero of the common man who “was devoted to liberty and democracy and had a powerful faith in the people”. Remini saw Jackson’s rise to power as a major shift in the power dynamic as he moved America to a more democratic system by granting suffrage to all white males. Before Jackson, the government was for aristocratic white men and politicians had to make laws to win them over. Remini is so in favor of Andrew Jackson he “disputed anyone who dismissed Jackson as an opportunist and a man masquerading as the man of the people”. Remini even defends the Indian Removal Act which would offend many people today. I agree with Remini that Jackson launched a revolution in which the ball of increased suffrage started rolling but I do not agree with his defending of the Indian Removal Act.
Andrew Jackson was a farmer born in South Carolina. However, when the war of 1812 came, he was able to become a general, leading the American army into multiple very successful battles against the British and hostile Natives. This grew his reputation and allowed him to later be elected as the first president without a college education since Washington. When he became president, he grew a feeling of nationalism, with the people now thinking that anyone could become president, with this example of the self-made man. He was also very aggressive and active, having “already battled dysentery, malaria, tuberculosis, and lead poisoning from the two bullets lodged somewhere in his body from duels”. He was shown to Americans as a very tough individual, from where he got his nickname, the “Old Hickory”. Overall, Andrew Jackson was the first president to be this different from the others and to still be liked and encouraged by the population. However, this major side of his character was shared with his dictatorial side, which he showed through many actions when he was president. He was also an anti-Federalist, believing “federal government was for the privileged only”. His aggressive personality played a big part in his dictatorial presidency, as well as his assurance and confidence to be able to verse his enemies in duels without problems (from where he got the two bullets). It is said that he “commanded with fear and respect from his subordinates, and ignored the Supreme Court on several occasions”. This repetitive sign of aggressiveness and also the fact that he used the veto 12 times, compared to a combined 10 vetoes from his predecessors, show how dictatorial his presidency was toward the other branches and sides of the government. I think Robert Remini was more focused on his side of the “common man”, which I mostly agree with. I think that the reason Jackson was so aggressive and dictatorial was because of where he came from and because he was raised to act like this. I think he is the representation of the common civilian who has lots of hatred against presidents for ruling almost by themselves but that does the same or even worse once they get to such a high status. I also think that his time as a commander of the army forged him to be naturally violent and to be focused on his ideals and on what he thought would be a strong society and government.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
The first few paragraphs of the article describe the awestruck emotion sweeping through the nation once Jackson’s campaign was official (the start of his patriotic escapades). After all, he was a war hero, not a known political visionary. He had given Americans a surge of patriotic joy in the Battle of New Orleans (even if that joy made no sense as the War of 1812 had already finished once the battle was “won”). The writing mentions this, stating “None had fought in the revolution. None had signed the Declaration or participated in the debates leading to the writing and adoption of the Constitution” (Remini 240). Likely and eventually, all presidents would have to be some form of common, as the era of the Founding Fathers was coming to a close. Jackson’s home party was the Democrats, and they believed in creating strong states, not a strong centralized government. This in itself advocates more for the people because small-scale change could occur within states that would allow more access to legislation for citizens with humble beginnings. Another nod to Jackson’s heritage is: “Old Hickory’s personality and military accomplishments made him an attractive and viable candidate for the ordinary voter,” (Remini 241). He had proven his love for America, but his early life situation proved that anyone could rise the ranks to become a leader, even with an aristocratic semi-ruling class funding many decisions in America. “Jackson meetings”, barbeques, and parties during his campaign let average people contribute to discussions and learn more about the candidate, while at the same time influencing voters with the use of events that everyday people would attend anyways to strengthen the image of his “regularity”.
So far I’ve only discussed his political tactics to gain the presidency, but during his presidency, he took many stands to advocate for Americans everywhere. Jackson declared that “The people are the government,” and “…wanted. all “intermediary” agencies standing between the people and their government swept away” (Remini 242). In this way, he abolished the College of Electors, or in his mind, a middleman stepping in between the people and the right to govern. He advocated for rotation in government, creating term limits for appointed officials to continually evolve the nation’s ideas within executive administration. Even with being criticized for this idea (having been dubbed “the spoils system”), he continued to crusade for the replacement of representatives, no matter what party (though it did end up benefiting many Democrats). He disliked the idea of the Supreme Court, believing it to be an unstable and lopsided form of government (What bothered Jackson was the presumption that four men could dictate what 15 million people…To Jackson’s mind that was not democratic but oligarchic” (Remini 244)). As he saw himself, he mirrored that of a flame lighting the way for visionaries of future generations and the common man, those who would kindly thank him for his service and admire his position.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
As much as Jackson may have been an advocate for the common man, he may have been fending for himself to an even greater degree. Before his election, this wasn’t seen much (who would want to appear power-hungry before an election?) However, after Jackson was elected, he made some pretty wayward decisions under the guise of helping people. For one, he used his vetoing abilities more than any other presidents before him combined because he quote “assumed the right to initiate legislation” and demanded that all actions must be run through him before they become official bills (Remini 243). He inserted himself as a wedge in the justice system, effectively reordering how the Founding Fathers originally conceptualized the three branches of government, separate but equal. He found himself going against America’s prior wishes, inciting fear in the minority, mainly in that their voices would not be heard because the majority would rule. He demanded that the Second Bank of the United States be destroyed, and to do so he went to extreme measures, firing two secretaries of treasury until he found one that would comply with his request. Despite the questions arising if Jackson could legitimately fire his cabinet (because the offices were appointed by Congress), Jackson disregarded these messages, believing “All department heads were his appointees and they would obey him or pack their bags” (Remini 245). With this overwhelming evidence, it’s evident that Jackson’s presidency is overly fabricated to fit a long list of honorable men when he in fact attempted to control a country with him as the head.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
I think Remini tried to be as impartial as he could be, but still came off as pro-Jackson, as seen in several portions of the text. While reading, I noticed a few instances of heavily charged, non-impartial language being used, and while Remini attempted to show both sides of the story, it ultimately seemed more supportive of Jefferson than anything else. Below are some examples of his slightly personally influenced writing.
“But it was never meant to be a spoils system. Jackson wanted every office of government, from the highest to the lowest, Within the reach of the electorate,” (Remini 243). This seems more like Remini’s interpretation than anything else. The spoils system was known to directly import those who were loyal to Jackson in positions of power, a fact that Remini does not mention. To add to this charged language, he called those who dubbed this a system of spoils “hack politicians” (Remini 243), which seems way more direct in anger than just simply saying “opponents”.
“Of course, Jackson was merely expressing his own opinion about the right of all three branches to pass on the constitutionality of all legislation, an opinion the American people ultimately rejected,” (Remini 244). This cost of “merely expressing his own opinions” cost American’s dearly. Truly, he wasn’t just “expressing his own opinion”, his varying opinions had real-life consequences on enacted legislation. His veto of the Second BUS is one example where he and the courts disagreed, and his viewpoint displayed a profound effect on governmental policy. In addition, it states in the text that “Jackson did not deny the right of the Supreme Court to judge the constitutionality of a bill”, but he ignored the court’s verdict on Worcester v. Georgia, a critical case that he slyly discounted, hypocritically countering Remini’s statement.
It also mentions at the start of the work that Remini fell toward Jacksonian ideology, even going so far as to defend his major unethical decisions (like the Indian Removal Act), choosing to promote the president as a revolutionary. I disagree with this statement because it portrays Jackson in a mainly positive light when he didn’t make many great decisions. Sure, you could argue that he did what he did to aid Americans and generally changed the course of where America was headed, but was that really for the benefit of everyone? Or at the cost of many Americans that he said he sought to protect? In addition, numerous times Jackson seems to have an ulterior motive to his decisions (like demanding Congress review all possible bills with him before they were officially voted on which gave him more unchecked power), ones that solely benefit himself and his party.
1, Jackson was a common man in many ways, for example in Jackson’s election, he told Thomas Ritchie, editor of the Richmond Enquirer., “as the result of his military services without reference to party, and, as far as he alone is concerned, scarcely to principle, would be one thing.” Jackson had little to no education experience and was widely known as a military hero who won the battle of New Orleans. Many people saw Jackson as a hero of the common man since he didn’t have proper education and became president which means that people who don’t have as much education(common man) could reach higher roles and status in the government and in life.
“ Jackson became a symbol of the best in America, a self-made man” Jackson was also self- made which represented a lot of the common man that were voting during that time period. They saw someone who was self made and thought how similar they are to the president which made them view Jackson as the hero of the common man.
Jackson helped white manhood suffrage during his presidency , “Finally, many of the older eastern states began to imitate newer western states by democratiz- ing their institutions, for example, amending their constitutions to eliminate property qualifications for voting and holding oEce, thereby establishing universal white manhood suffrage.” Towards the beginning of his presidency Jackson did not have many states who had abolished property requirements for voting. By the end of the Jacksonian Era many states had abolished property requirements for white men so they could be able to vote.
2, Jackson Was also a dictatorial president. Jackson thought that he held the power over congress, “Jackson summed up his assertion of presidential rights by declaring that he alone- not Congress, as was usually assumed – was the sole representative of the American people and responsible to them.” This view of being more powerful than congress changed the view of how people viewed the president’s power. Many thought that Andrew Jackson was vetoing too many bills and was allowing his own ideals to rise above the ideals of the people.
The spoils system meant that Jackson could hold all his own people in government, “Unfortunately, hack politicians equated rotation with patronage and Jackson’s enemies quickly dubbed his principle “the spoils system.” While many say that this was good for everyone, Jackson had many people in office that were his loyal followers and allowed them to make a lot of decisions in government.
3, Robot Remini thought Andrew Jackson as more of a man of the common man, “I contend that Jackson was in fact a man of the people, just as the Progressive historians had argued, and that he actively attempted to advance democracy by insisting that all branches of government, including the courts, reflect the popular will.” I do agree that Andrew Jackson did do some things that were good for the common man but I also believe that he made a lot of wrong decisions that led to disaster after his presidency. He demolished the National Bank and put all the money and loans into bet banks which then led to the panic of 1837. The panic of 1837 did not end until the mid 1840s which is a long time for an economic crisis to last for. I disagree with what Robert Remini said. I agree that Jackson was a common man for the people but I think the dictatorial things he did as a president outweighed the good that he did. I think that Jackson made a lot of changes to congress as well and vetoed a lot of things during his presidency that would have benefited the people.
1) Many people believed that Jackson was the hero of the common man. He resembled what a lot of people aspired to be, since he was a “self-made man” and encouraged other men who likewise saw themselves as common people to follow in his footsteps. Remini states “Old Hickory’s personality and military accomplishments made him an attractive and viable candidate for the ordinary voter. Indeed his career and personality stirred the imagination of Democratic leaders around the country and they devised new methods, or improved old ones, to get across the message that Andrew Jackson was a “man of the people.” This show’s how Jackson was a hero of the common man because his ideals were well received across the country and he appealed to the majority of the voter’s at the time, so they all agreed with him and gave him their vote.
2) Despite this, many people saw Jackson as controlling and some even compared him to a monarch. He overshot the realms of what a president has power over. For example, Jackson vetoed more bills than all of the previous presidents combined and despite congress voting to expand the second Bank, Jackson vetoed this. Jacksons poor control of the National Bank contributed largely to the Panic of 1837. Also, when South Carolina nullified Jackson’s bills and mentioned seceding from the nation, Jackson became aggressive and said he would invade South Carolina, ultimately forcing them to negotiate the bills with Jackson.
3) I believe that Remini saw Jackson as a hero of the common man and agreed with many of his principles and ideals. This becomes apparent when the “spoils system” is mentioned, and how he defends Jackson when his opponents cause an uproar about this. Remini says that the spoils system was never meant to be interpreted in this way and uses quotes from other authors’ articles to continue to defend Jackson. Remini was very defensive of Jackson when talking about how the President has as much of a say as the House and Senate when deeming whether a bell is unconstitutional or not. Remini defends Jackson and does not acknowledge that Jackson might be in the wrong, saying that Jackson simply expressed his point of view on how the Branches should operate. I believe that Remini showed a slight bias towards Jackson, but I agree that Jackson revolutionized politics in America and agree that his principle of working for the “common man” was beneficial in his presidency.
1. Jackson was the first president to be elected who didn’t come from the upper class. Jackson lived in South Carolina and was tragically orphaned at 14. Jackson was a hero to the common man because he grew up living a working-class life, and made himself into the powerful man he was. The Jacksonian revolution changed the faces of political leaders. The noble republican standards were overthrown by the common people all because of how Jackson inspired others. As the country was changing to be run by the common people, the expansion of voting occurred. Property restrictions were eliminated and the “common man” could rise to political power from the hope Jackson gave when he did.
2. On the other hand, once Jackson rose to power, he started being consumed by it. As portrayed in the 1832 cartoon “King Andrew” Jackson was seen as a ruler and someone who kept vetoing bills. (the roll of paper labeled VETO in Jackson’s hand) Jackson vetoed 12 bills in his presidency, people see this as Jackson overusing his power. Jackson’s vetoing of so many bills influenced his dictatorship and how people now see him. Even senators of the time agreed with John C. Calhoun and spoke against Jackson’s “imperial” ways. The Whig Party was very against Jackson and often spoke of him as King Jackson. Jackson was more of a dictatorial president because of his control over the United States and his constant speaking for the United States.
3. I think Robert Remini believed Jackson was a man of the common people. He even says on the last page of the article that Jackson was trying to protect the Indigenous people by enforcing the Indian Removal Act. Remini also suggests that Jackson was always trying to advance democracy and that he tried to always make the right decisions for the entire United States. I disagree with Remini’s thoughts primarily because of how Jackson “ruled” the United States. Jackson made major decisions for the United States by himself and he vetoed 12 bills, not really thinking about how everyone in the United States felt. Although Jackson came from the “common people” once he became powerful and rose up from his roots he changed and became someone who acted above others. Many common people saw Jackson as a hero because of how he changed, but how Jackson acted when he was at the top doesn’t reflect where he came from. Jackson wasn’t fully a “hero of the common man” or a dictatorial president, but no matter what he was he changed the US forever.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Andrew Jackson can be considered to be the hero of the common man because of the normalcy of his upbringing. Jackson was born and raised in Waxhaws which is located on the border of todays North and South Carolina. He was the child of not very wealthy or well educated Scot-Irish immigrants. He grew up on what was considered to be frontier land as well and did not go to school often. Not only that but he was a war hero from the War of 1812. This was a very different background compared to the background of the presidents preceding him. Most of the prior presidents were wealthy landowners, most often from Virginia, whos families were already semi well known in the country at the time. This was not the case with Jackson which is one thing that enticed the people to be more inclined to support him. Not only that but one goal that Jackson made very clear throughout his presidency was his want to make the government more accurately display and follow the wishes and views of the people.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Throughout Andrew Jackson’s presidency he was believed to be a dictatorial president rather than a democratic president due to his very radical decisions that he made throughout his terms. The first case that may cause someone to believe that Jackson was a dictatorial president may be the fact that he used more veto power than all six of the presidents preceding him. This caused congress to in a way be forced to listen and follow his ideas and his ideas only, which is not a democratic way of running a country if you are not listening to the people. Also, his use of the spoils system during his presidency caused the views of the opposite party than him to not be heard by replacing their representatives in the House and Congress with people of his party. This all together brought a sense of corruption and dictatorship to Jackson and his presidency.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
While reading Remini’s writing about Andrew Jackson and his presidency I got the sense that he believed that Jackson was more of a hero of the common man than a dictator. I think this because throughout the reading Remini often defends some of the actions of Jackson that can be interpreted as being a dictatorial president rather than a democratic president. Some of these instances are when he talks about Jackson’s participation in the use of the spoils system. I also think that Remini shows some bias towards Jackson not being a dictatorial president through the words that he uses while talking about how Jackson interacted with the supreme court and the use of his vetos. I both agree and disagree with Remini because I do think that in some aspects of Jackson’s life and presidency that he can be viewed as a hero of the common man, but there are also some instances where he also is a dictatorial president and I think that this is most prominent when talking about his use of the spoils system during his presidency.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
From reading the article “The Jacksonian Revolution”, some could argue that Jackson was a hero of the common man. In his campaign he campaigned for the fact that he didn’t want the government money to go towards the rich people that already had money. He wanted it to go toward the people with less money. In the article on the first page it says “Robert V. Remini describes him. He became the symbol of the ‘common man,’ Remini says because he was devoted to liberty and democracy and had a powerful ‘faith’ in the people” (The Jacksonian Revolution 236) This shows that people saw him as a common man and he wanted to help other “common men” as well.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
When reading the article “The Jacksonian Revolution” Jackson can also be portrayed as a dictatorial president. In his presidency he often made his own decisions by vetoing many bills and taking things into his own hand. As I said for question #1 about Robert V. Remini said about him being a “common man” but he also describes some of Jackson’s traits. He says that Jackson was, “aggressive, dynamic, charismatic, and an intimidating individual” (The Jackson Revolution 236). In this quote we see that these traits that he is described are not always the most positive traits for one to have. It seems as if he was sometimes not kind and did things on his own terms.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
Throughout the article, Robert Remini shows views of Jackson being a “common man” and a dictatorial president. Throughout the article he goes back and forth portraying Jackson being both of a “common man” and dictatorial president at separate times and at the same time throughout his presidency. I think that throughout the article Remini portrays overall that Jackson stood for the common man. He uses the examples that I have above and ultimately pushes that on the reader more than Jackson being stern and overruling. I agree with him because compared to all the presidents before him in this time period, none of them stood with the common man or tried to help the underclass United States citizens. I think that it is very important for Jackson to be known as helping the “common man” because it shows a change in presidents and how he starts the switch from presidents only wanting to help the wealthy, to him trying to relate and help the middle class citizens.
During the time of Jackson, some Americans viewed Andrew Jackson as the hero of the common man. People looked up to him because of his childhood life. Andrew Jackson grew up in a poor family. This set him against the odds to become president because most of the presidents before Jackson had grown up rich and with a high status. Jackson’s rise to popularity was inspirational to the common man. Jackson gained popularity through his military action. This appealed to the common man because anyone can join the military and work their way up to being a general like Jackson. Jackson also didn’t get a college education, which appealed to the common man because common people rarely get a college education. As the common people started to realize the similarities between themself and Jackson, they became increasingly inspired by Jackson. The relationship between the common man and Jackson also allowed the common man to trust Jackson in his decisions as president. Jackson clearly supported “majority rules” because he appealed to the majority of Americans. This is a reason why Jackson gained popularity among common people and was elected to president 3 times by them. Although he only served two terms as president because of “the corrupt bargain”
Jackson can also be viewed as a dictator. First, even before he was president. He overstepped his directions as a general. Jackson was supposed to calm things down near the Florida border, and stop native american conflict there. He did this, but he also invaded Florida, killed people in his path, and took control of FLorida. He was never told to do this action. When Jackson was president, he also overstepped and abused his powers. He used the power to veto 12 times, which was more than all presidents before him combined. He also encouraged congress to pass laws that gave him more power to do what he wanted. He passed the force bill, allowing him to take military action to get his policy enforced. He also removed Native Americans from their land and put them in Oklahoma. Jackson did many that were outrageous and this may have some people to believe that he was acting like a dictator.
I think Remini’s view of Jackson was that he was a hero of the common man. Remini saw Jackson as someone who made democratic decisions for the better of the citizens. Jackson increased voting to more people, replacing an old aristocratic system where only the rich voted. Remini believes that Jackson launched a movement toward America becoming more democratic. Since Jackson expanded suffrage when he was in charge, there has been even more increased suffrage since. This is why Remini believes Jackson was a hero of the common man. I agree with Remini because although Jackson did some bad things while he was president, he created opportunities for the common man to gain power.
Jackson implemented policies that appealed to the common man, such as his opposition to the Bank of the United States, which he viewed as favoring the wealthy elite. His efforts to dismantle the bank were framed as protecting the interests of the common people against powerful financial institutions. The elimination of property ownership requirements for white men to vote was seen as a move towards a more inclusive democracy, allowing a larger portion of the common population to participate in the political process. Jackson was celebrated for his military leadership, especially during the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. His image as a war hero resonated with the common people, and he was often portrayed as a symbol of the common man’s triumph over external threats.
Jackson was known for his strong and assertive use of executive power. His actions in the nullification crisis, where he opposed South Carolina’s attempt to nullify federal tariffs, demonstrated a willingness to use force to maintain federal authority, raising concerns about the concentration of power in the executive branch. Things such as the Indian Removal Act, lead to the forced relocation of Native American tribes is often criticized as a dictatorial use of government power. The removal policy disregarded the rights and well-being of Native American communities, reflecting a unilateral decision-making process. He was seen as a dictatorial approach that undermined the meritocratic principles of governance. Critics argued that this practice compromised the efficiency and fairness of government operations.
In the initial section of the article, it is evident that Robert Remini strongly asserts his belief in Andrew Jackson as a figure who, despite making questionable decisions alongside other politicians of his time, focused on the morality of the country. For example, the quote “gave way to the vestiges of popular democracy.” He explores how Jackson’s policies, such as the expansion of suffrage, contributed to a more democratic society. His presidency, marked by a resolute and often controversial leadership style, left an indelible impact on the trajectory of American politics, shaping both the expansion of democracy and the enduring debates over executive power. However, he does not shy away from critiquing the controversial aspects of Jackson’s presidency, including his forceful use of executive authority in the nullification crisis and the divisive Indian Removal Act. This nuanced analysis reflects the complex legacy of a leader who shaped American politics in profound ways, for better or worse.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Jackson is often portrayed as the hero of the common man, largely due to his reputation as a self made frontiersman. He worked hard in the military to gain recognition and eventually transition into politics after being born into poverty. During his presidential campaign he used this to appeal to the masses. Even during his presidency he kept his philosophies and continued to be ‘a man of the people.’ In the portrait article, it says “The people are the government,’ he wrote, ‘administering it by their agents; they are the government, the sovereign power.” Most if not all of Jackson’s political actions stemmed from the idea that a strong government removes the rights of the common man, and aimed to prevent that from happening, hence making him the hero of the common man.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
On the opposing side, Jackson is often also portrayed as a dictator. Some examples supporting this argument could be his use of the veto power, opposition to the national bank, or the Indian Removal Acts, but in my opinion, the strongest evidence is his reaction to the nullification crisis. When South Carolina declared that they were nullifying the tariff of 1832, Jacksons immediate response was military action. The Force Act (or Bloody Act) if enacted would have sent military troops into South Carolina to enforce the tariff which was considered by many an overstep of the government, viewing the idea as authoritarian. Throughout his presidency, Andrew Jackson simultaneously expanded the powers of the president while also significantly lessening the power of the rest of the government.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
Although Remini did a good job of balancing his portrayal of Andrew Jackson, including both good and bad aspects of his presidency, he leaned more towards the idea that Jackson was the hero of the common man. In the article, Remini often praises Jackson’s leadership qualities, specifically his strong desire for majoritarian democracy. The author emphasizes Jackson’s military prowess and ability to connect with the people, and often defends him from criticism. “Unfortunately, hack politicians equated rotation with patronage and Jackson’s enemies quickly dubbed his principle ‘the spoils system.’” Remini then continues to defend Jackson and the spoil system, claiming that it wasn’t the intention. This is just one of multiple examples where the author defends some of Andrew Jackson’s more questionable decisions. However, Robert Remini does admit that Jackson wasn’t all good, pointing out a few negatives such as his killing the US bank, opposition of supreme court rulings, and view that he himself was the sole representative of the United States. Oftentimes however, in the article, these flaws are briefly mentioned and quickly dismissed, showing the authors slight bias towards Jackson.
Arguing Jackson as the Hero of the Common Man: Jacksonian democracy is often associated with the expansion of voting rights. During his presidency, there was a significant broadening of voting rights as property qualifications for voting were eliminated in many states. This expansion allowed more common men to participate in the political process. One of Jackson’s most notable actions was his veto of the rechartering of the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson believed that the bank favored the wealthy and privileged few at the expense of the common man. His veto was a demonstration of him representing the interests of ordinary citizens against what he perceived as an institution that concentrated power in the hands of the elite. During the Nullification Crisis, Jackson took a strong stance against South Carolina’s attempt to nullify federal tariffs. He argued that nullification threatened the unity of the nation and the authority of the federal government. Jackson’s position was seen by many as defending the common man against what he perceived as a challenge to the authority of the federal government. Another example is Jackson’s policy of Indian removal, particularly the forced relocation of Native American tribes such as the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, this was/is a controversial aspect of his presidency. However, supporters argued that Jackson believed he was protecting the interests of white settlers, including many common men, who sought access to land for farming and economic opportunities. The last example is that Jackson relied on an informal group of advisors known as the “Kitchen Cabinet,” which included friends and informal advisors rather than traditional politicians. This approach was seen as a way for Jackson to remain connected to the opinions and concerns of the common man.
Arguing Jackson as a Dictatorial President: There are many ways in which the examples above could be argued from another perspective. One of these is the Nullification Crisis which emerged over the issue of tariffs. When South Carolina declared certain federal tariffs null and void within the state, Jackson responded with a strong stance against nullification, asserting the supremacy of federal law. He even threatened to use military force to enforce federal laws, which some people argue was an overreach of executive power. Jackson’s opposition to the Second Bank of the United States is another point of his overreach of power. He vetoed the rechartering of the bank, arguing that it concentrated too much economic power in the hands of a few elites. Jackson proceeded to remove federal funds from the bank, which contributed to the economic instability of the time, explaining issues like the Panic of 1837. Some may argue that his actions in the Bank War displayed a disregard for established institutions. One of the most controversial aspects of Jackson’s presidency was the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the forced removal of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands in the Southeast to west of the Mississippi River. The most infamous result of this policy was the Trail of Tears, during which thousands of Native Americans died. Critics argue that Jackson’s approach in implementing this policy demonstrated a disregard for the rights and well-being of indigenous peoples. Jackson was known for his frequent use of the presidential veto. He vetoed more bills (12) than all of his predecessors combined, often using his veto power to assert his own interpretation of the Constitution and to oppose policies he disagreed with. The argument that this frequent use of the veto power indicated an exercise of executive authority.
#3) Remini views Andrew Jackson as a champion of the common man and justifies his actions. In my opinion Jackson used an excessive amount of power. According to Remini, Jackson marked a significant shift in the power dynamic, steering the nation toward a more democratic system by extending suffrage to all white males. Unlike the previous era, where the government favored rich white men. Remini even went as far as defending the Indian Removal Act. This act is extremely controversial in nature as it ruined so many people’s lives. Remini believed it was the only thing Jackson could do at the time, and that it spared the Cherokee from “certain extinction.” While Jackson’s presidency may have steered the nation toward a more democratic system, he was still wrong in the Indian Removal act. This is one place where I disagreed with Remini. I think it’s unfair to say they were doomed for extinction because even if they were, they didn’t have the choice to move or not. And it’s not someone else’s right to dictate their lives yet again showing Jackson’s overreach in power.
Andrew Jackson was a very confusing president, many arguing he was the people’s savior, and others claiming that he was their nemesis. To argue that he was one for the common man, firstly, Jackson was the first self made president. He grew up on the prairie, and through years of climbing the social ladder, greatly boosted by his victories in the war of 1812, he managed to be able to own a plantation in Tennessee. Even back then, in the early days of capitalism, people were looking to get rich quick. The social mobility that was granted by being an American citizen, coupled with the fact that their president had made the leap from poor to powerful gave many people hope that they could rise the ranks as well. In addition to representing hope, he instilled opportunity in the communities of the poor people on the prairie. By dissolving the Second Bank of the United States, he attempted to redistribute wealth from the Northeast around the country. This not only allowed for smaller banks to prosper in this gap, it also removed some of the governmental power from the region, especially in a time when opinions were very sectional and cross-continental communication was not easy. Public interest in Philadelphia was not the same as public interest in St. Louis, so this policy increased independence and allowed for regions to have economic policies that fit them the best. Unfortunately, the closing of the BUS did much more harm than its intended good. One could perceive Jackson as a villain of the common people, because the chain reaction of regional bank failures caused by the BUS’s death sent the United States plummeting into a recession, the panic of 1837. In a recession, the only people who benefit are the upper class with a lot of capital, who are able to invest at astronomically low rates. Everyone without enough saved money to support themselves will suffer often being sent into more debt, or worse left homeless. While the idea behind closing the Second Bank of the United States was rooted in evening the wealth disparity, in practice it merely increased it, the rich getting richer while the poor got poorer. The author of the portrait titled Jacksonian Revolution, Robert V Remini, attempted to stay neutral about his opinions on Jackson, but he didn’t hide them well enough. Remini appears to be pro-Jackson, as can be seen in his telling of the non-rechartering of the BUS, focusing more on justifying that Jackson had the right to veto the bill, rather than what evented from the veto. Later, when mentioning the nickname “Jacksonian Revolution”, he almost mocked the term, as to say that the Whigs were wrong and Jackson wasn’t much different from past presidents. All in all, Jackson was a very polarizing president, one of the first that people couldn’t come to a consensus about.
1. Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Andrew Jackson was both a common man hero and a dictatorial president. But before he became president he was a part of the common men and made that a point in his candidacy for president. He used that specific art of himself to win over a lot of Americans. As stated here “Hickory’s personality and military accomplishments made him an attractive and viable candidate to the ordinary voter.” Because of his unprecedented background and as more men were able to vote, Jackson became a staple for the common folk and favored by them as well by being relatable. Since he not only had the background for it but also the beliefs for it. He believed that the federal government should not favor a class over the other and that all white males should be protected no matter what. Also that the federal government should be limited, as to give many rights and freedoms to the American people and their states. Then that the majority should rule over. This all appealed to the more common/middle class, as their wants were finally being advocated for. Not only the rich minority. As President, Jackson wanted to change the government to fill it with less people who opposed him. To make it more diverse between political parties, he placed in a system that allowed his supporters to join him in office. The Spoils System. This system became very controversial and known as a corrupter. But it benefited Jackson’s “common men” supporters by directly giving them jobs in the government to speak. By doing this, common Americans could see that Jackson was giving them more ontrol in the government and led them to believe and support him more during his time as president.
2. Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Despite Jackson being a big advocate for the common men on the outside. Inside the government he was seen as more controlling than all the past presidents that came before him. As stated here “Jackson summed up his assertion of presidential power. By declaring that he alone—not Congress, as was usually assumed –was the sole representative of the American people and responsible to them.” His belief of being over congress showed remarkably when he became the first president to veto as many bills as his past precedents combined. Which in turn led to suspicion from the American people especially the ones against him. Later we then see “He decided to kill the Second National Bank by removing: federal -deposits because, as he said, he had received a “Mandate” from the people to do so. The Senate objected and formally censured him, but Jackson, in response, merely issued another Statement on presidential rights and the democratic system.” His veto of the second BUS even after the Senate had formally objected to his decision became another presidential power move by Jackson. Which in return caused more upset with Americans as the veto became one of the main reasons for the panic of 1837. In the picture of “King Andrew” we see how some of Jackson’s opponents viewed him. As a monarch. Leading up to this viewpoint, Jackson had vetoed a plentiful amount of bills, killed the second BUS and refused to put in money for internal improvements. Which led to the picture of Jackson as a king. He had overpowered too many operations with his only excuse of him being president and that he had the power to. Many Americans worried that the president had too much power and led them to think of him as king-like.
3. Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
I think Robert Remini came down on the side of Andrew Jackson being more of a common man supporter. As Remini seemed to back up Jackson’s ideals and actions by defending him throughout the paper. Especially when it came to the spoils system. As stated here “But it was never meant to be a spoils system. Jackson wanted every office of government, from the highest to the lowest, Within the reach of the electorate, arguing that “where the people are everything . . there and there only is liberty.” Remini defends Jackson stating that he didn’t want the spoils system to become the spoils system and elaborating what the system was going to be like. I don’t disagree or agree with Remini. At least, I don’t think he should have defended Jackson so hard. I wish he pointed out more of what Jackson’s actions and decisions did that affected the American people. I do think Jackson was more dictatorial than an advocate for the common man. I think he used that to seem like a good candidate and when he finally was in office he had too much power in his hands. It was unnecessary that he vetoed so many bills and that his actions led to the Panic of 1837. Also it was unfair to congress’s decisions that kept being overruled. Overall I think Jackson made good strides in America’s development but he was too overzealous.
Andrew Jackson came from a farming family, much like all of the other families at the time. When Jackson stepped into office, he became the first president without a college education, but he represented the common man by being a heroic Indian fighter and a rustic and tough person. Once being a common man, Jackson still heavily sympathized for westward expansion at all costs. Thus he passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forced a multitude of native tribes out of the land east of the Mississippi River. Many congressmen liked the idea. Jackson also sought to increase the influence of the common man in politics, so he ensured that old systems like the King Caucus were eliminated and more officials were elected instead of appointed.
On the other hand, near the end of Jackson’s presidency, he essentially set the country up for a disaster. His refusal to recharter the second bank of the United States caused heavy economic distress, too much for the next president, Martin Van Buren to handle. In the end the Panic of 1837 influenced voters not to vote for Jackson’s Democratic Party, and the Whigs took control. Nonetheless Jackson could have prevented this if he was not so adamant about refunding the BUS. At the beginning of his second term, Jackson sought to end the BUS by withdrawing all of the government’s money and putting it into various state (”pet”) banks. As a result of these poor decisions, prices become inflated and so he passed another order called the specie circular. This required all transactions of land to be done in gold or silver. This made banknotes irrelevant and caused land prices to go down exponentially. Then Jackson left office just as the depression had begun.
I would say that Remini leaned toward Jackson’s heroism instead of being a dictator. Even if some of his opinions were warped, his defense of the Indian Removal period ultimately decides that he thought Jackson to be one of the greatest presidents. Remini strongly sides with the perspective of the common people in that democracy had been shifted in the right direction greatly. He also argues that by using his veto power extensively, he legitimizes the power that the legislature had and by doing that, Jackson created a solid government. Remini also favors the Jacksonian effect on universal male suffrage, and by creating a society where the people are represented is not something to overlook.
#1 – Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Andrew Jackson was the hero of the common man for many reasons. Jackson grew up as one of the common people into the president. He came from a poor background and was a military commander. He fought for the people politically and physically. According to the article, Jackson was a military hero, frontiersman, and populist. Jackson made it clear throughout his presidency that the executive branch (the president) and the people should have a direct and strong connection. This shows that he cares for the people’s opinion and he believes that they should have a say in political decisions. Jackson also played a role in the shift towards democracy. This is why he is referenced as the hero of the common man.
#2-Argue on the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text/PPT.
Andrew Jackson was a dictatorial president for many reasons. Throughout his presidency, Jackson had the attitude of a military commander. He felt as though because he was the president he had the right to do what he wanted. If Jackson didn’t like something being done he made sure for it to be put down. An example of this is in the document where it says that Jackson used 12 vetoes over the time he was president, which was more vetoes than all used by the presidents before him combined. We can see that the public agreed with this idea because of the portrait of Jackson made to portray him as a king with a crown, who is stepping on the constitution, and holding vetoes in his hand. This just showed that Jackson did what he wanted (crown), disregarded the constitution(stepping on the constitution), and abused his power of veto (holding vetoes in his hand).
#3 – Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree with/ him? Why or why not?
I think that Robert Remini is not on any side. I thought that he tried to sum up Jackson’s presidency from all aspects, he addressed everything about Jackson in detail. Remini for me was more of a detailed summary of Jackso. He did provide him with compliments about his leadership but also talked down on him for doing whatever he pleased. If I were to choose a side on what he thought of Jackson I think he was trying to portray him as more of a hero because he tried defending Jackson’s irrational and radical actions. I do not agree with him because I felt that Jackson was a little bit of a tyrant. He was not evil, but he disregarded other government branches and the Constitution. I think that he tried to justify this by connecting with the people of America which is a good thing but does not cover his irrational and explosive personality.
Andrew Jackson aka “Old Hickory” was considered to be the hero of the common man for many reasons. First, he started off as a war hero who was loyal to his soilders which is a good thing. He often aligned his policies with the West (where there were a lot of common men) which made them support him even more. One example of this was the removal of the BUS which the West agreed with because they thought the bank was corrupt. Jackson also really pushed for the removal of indigenous people and western settlers really appreciated this. Jackson built a very similar campaign to Thomas Jefferson who was all for a relatively small government which the ‘common man’ liked. He was such a common man, that it started upsetting people who said his regularness was a disgrace to the founding fathers and previous presidents, one North Carolina lady said “Well, if Andrew Jackson can be president, anybody can!” Jackson being a self-made, illiterate man who ended up very wealthy with power became an inspiration for average people that they had the ability to grow.
Jackson is often considered a dictatorial president because of his policies. He vetoed a lot of bills during his presidency which many people saw as overly controlling because the laws that were vetoed were written by Congress which was elected by the people so in turn he was vetoing things that represented what the people wanted. An example of this was when he vetoed the Bank of the United States. Because the BUS was very helpful in preventing bank failures, the combination of it going away and other bank problems led to the collapse of most small banks in America. He also got the Force Act passed which if it weren’t for Clay stepping in would have potentially caused a civil war and some people were worried about the president being allowed to force a state to do something (ex. accept a tariff) Overall, Jackson put his wishes (which typically aligned with the West) over what was best for the country and this can be seen in the political cartoon in the PowerPoint depicting him as a king holding his veto power.
I think that in the end, Robert Remini sees Andrew Jackson as a hero of the common man more than a dictatorial leader. I think this because, throughout the article, he mainly talks about his impact on the common man more than anything else. He does talk about how some people did not like that he was common but he follows this up by saying that Andrew Jackson simply changed what it meant to be president and that some people will disagree with that change but it was not inherently bad. Remini said “Jackson himself played a major role in the shift toward democracy — that is, toward a system of true- majority rule, not just rule by a propertied elite” showing how he made the presidency (in Remini’s opinion) better and more democratic.
1. There are several reasons that Andrew Jackson can be seen as a hero of the common man. First, because of his view that the federal government shouldn’t favor any specific class or religion. Second, his view that white male citizens should have equal protection and equal benefits. Because white male citizens were the common man of the time, he played to his audience and they thought of him as a hero. Jackson’s spoils system was another reason he came to be the common man’s hero. The spoils system allowed presidents to replace officeholders with those who had supported their election bid. Jackson believed that positions in the government belonged to the people, not the officeholders. This helped him become the hero of the common man because during his presidency, he replaced about twenty percent of the government officials with the people who were a part of his election bid. By doing this, he upheld his image as the hero of common men and gained more support during his elections.
2. Jackson can also be seen as a dictatorial president because of his extreme (for his time) use of his veto powers. During his presidency, Jackson used his veto power 12 times, more than the 6 presidents before him combined. By doing this, he ignored the Supreme Court many times and ordered respect from other members in office. Also, he maintained his ideal that the Union was sacred, and that he had complete federal power and control over the states. This shows he was a more dictatorial leader because he valued the one supreme power (his presidency) over other powers like the Supreme Court and the state legislatures. Also, when Henry Clay sent the recharter bill of the BUS through congress four years early, Jackson vetoed it, using his powers, and deemed it unconstitutional. This completely ignored the fact that John Marshall of the Supreme Court ruled that the BUS was okay. Once again, Jackson ignored the Supreme Court and ruled that his power was supreme.
3. I think that the author, Robert Remini, decided that Jackson was a more dictatorial president because of the way he described him. Remini described him as a “pure republican character.” Jackson transformed the presidency into a system where there was a “concentration of all powers in the hands of one man” as Remini called it, which makes Jackson seem more and more like a dictator. Overall, Remini shows that Jackson could be perceived as a dictator as well as a hero of the common man. However, I agree with Remini’s depiction of Jackson as a dictator because it seemed like he ruled over the US by himself during his presidency, rather than rely on and work with the powers around him, such as the Supreme Court and the state legislatures.
Andrew Jackson was a hero of the common man due to his beliefs that all white men should have equal rights under the government despite their social status. His creation of the Spoils System, which allowed his supporters to replace his representatives was one example. Jackson was “fiercely committed to democracy” according to Remini, and was able to provide the country with a leader they trusted. His career greatly influenced many democratic ideas and helped increase voting turnout. One reason the people were so trusting of Jackson was because of his image as a “self-made man.” He was a war veteran who encouraged other men to follow in his footsteps. His personality made him a popular candidate, as he was seen as an “average” citizen that voters could relate to.
Later into his presidency, the people began to see the more dictator-y side of Jackson, mainly with his constant vetoes. During his presidency, he vetoed more bills than any of the past presidents combined, one being the expansion of the 2nd Bank of the US, which largely contributed to the Panic of 1837. The country began to view him as a dictator, an example of this being the “King Andrew” cartoon, in which he is depicted as a British monarch. During his presidency, Jackson was too focused on satisfying his own beliefs rather than what would be best for the country.
Though Remini was able to portray Jackson in a negative and positive light, it is more evident that Remini believed Jackson was a hero of the Common Man. There is a specific instance where the author states that Jackson was just “expressing his own opinions,” which is where I disagree. A president should be focused on what is right for the entire country, not just what he believes is the best option for himself. Jacksons disapproval of the Supreme Court showed that he didn’t really care about the balance of government, he just wanted as much power as he could possibly have, which is why he denounced the importance of the three branches and gave himself greater authority. His constant vetoes demonstrated a massive abuse of power which was evident his entire presidency. While Andrew Jackson was an influential figure/president who allowed for important improvements to the government to benefit the common man, his dictatorial reign was one that started heaps of conflict in the United States, and cannot be looked over.
1.) Jackson was regarded by many as the common man’s hero. As a “self-made man,” he embodied the ideal that many people sought, and he inspired other men who also considered themselves to be regular people to follow in his footsteps. According to Remini, “Old Hickory was an appealing and realistic candidate for the average voter because of his demeanor and his military achievements. Democratic leaders across the nation were undoubtedly captivated by Andrew Jackson’s career and persona, and they developed fresh approaches—or refined existing ones—to convey the idea that Jackson was a “man of the people.” This shows how Jackson was a hero of the common man because his ideals were well-received across the country and he appealed to the majority of the voters at the time, so they all agreed with him and gave him their vote.
2) Jackson was nevertheless perceived by many as being in charge, and some even likened him to a king. He went beyond the purview of the president’s authority. For instance, Jackson vetoed more bills than all of the presidents before him put together. Additionally, Jackson did so even though Congress had voted in favor of expanding the second bank. The Panic of 1837 was partly caused by Jackson’s inadequate management of the National Bank. Additionally, Jackson threatened to invade South Carolina and became aggressive when the state rejected his bills and suggested leaving the country, which ultimately forced South Carolina to negotiate the bills with Jackson.
3) Remini, I believe, agreed with many of Jackson’s beliefs and ideals and considered him a hero of the common man. This is made clear by his defense of Jackson in the face of his opponents’ outcry over the “spoils system” and when it is brought up. Remini claims that this interpretation of the spoils system was never intended and continues to support Jackson by quoting other writers’ works. Remini became very protective of Jackson when he discussed how the President has the same authority to declare a bell to be unconstitutional as the House and Senate. Remini stands up for Jackson, refusing to accept that he might be at fault, claiming that Jackson only made his view on how the Branches should operate. I believe that Remini showed a slight bias towards Jackson, but I agree that Jackson revolutionized politics in America and that his principle of working for the “common man” was beneficial in his presidency.
1. Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Andrew Jackson was often described as the ‘hero of the common man’ and for good reason. To start at the very beginning of his presidency, he was not a big political figure before being elected. He had made himself known after the Battle of New Orleans where he delivered a sweeping victory against the British. However unlike most presidents before him, he did not hold a government position before becoming president. The article even opens with a quote from a woman saying that if Jackson can be president, anyone can. This self made reputation gave hope to the common people of America. Another time when Jackson earned the title of a hero was during his running campaign. His idea was that America had begun to resemble a monarchy, with a small minority ruling the majority. Jackson was very opposed to this and advertised himself as holding the same ideals as the majority and promised a fairer country to the majority. He also introduced a rotation of power, allowing for no one position to become too corrupt and giving more opportunities to people who did not have a background in politics.
2. Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Despite the beginning hope that Jackson would be a new hero of the government, there’s a lot of evidence that he became more of a dictatorial president. He used the presidential veto 12 times, more than all of his predecessors combined. The most obvious example of Jackson’s dictatorial tendencies was when he vetoed the renewal of the national bank. The Bank of the U.S. has constantly faced controversy since Hamilton introduced it. Throughout all the drama, the Supreme Court declared the B.U.S. was constitutional in the McCulloch vs. Maryland court case. Despite this, when given the option to renew the bank, Jackson vetoed the bill. After confirming the B.U.S. wouldn’t be renewed, he turned to trying to kill the bank where it stood. He planned to do this by distributing all of the bank’s money to different state banks (‘pet banks’). However only the secretary of treasury could handle the bank’s funds and when Jackson asked his sec. of treasury, he refused. In response to this, Jackson removed him from office and had to go through another secretary of treasury before successfully killing the B.U.S. Jackson claimed to support the needs of the people, but time and time again he was only shown doing what he wanted to do. Early fears of unqualified people becoming presidents began to gain merit during Jackson’s presidency.
3. Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
Robert Rernini seemed to have believed that Jackson was more the ‘Hero of the common man’ than he was a dictatorial president. In Rernini’s interpretation, Andrew Jackson was a powerful political man who sought out equality in opportunity among white men. And while it’s true that Jackson created a lot of good for the nation, it’s unfair to brush aside the more negative impacts his presidency had. Throughout the article, Rernini would occasionally mention the more dictatorial choices Jackson made, but he would never go more in depth to acknowledge what the impact those choices had. I disagree with Rernini’s interpretation and I believe that Jackson was more of a dictatorial president. He constantly used the presidential veto on bills that didn’t specifically benefit him and was cruel during the Indian Removal Act.
Jackson was considered the champion of the “common man.” Jackson gained fame as a military hero during the War of 1812, particularly for his leadership in the Battle of New Orleans. His military success enhanced his public image and contributed to the perception of him as a strong and decisive leader. Jackson and others created the Democratic Party on the principles of defending individual liberties from the powerful federal government. In his campaign for the presidency, Jackson presented himself as a champion of the common man, portraying his political opponents as elites who favored the wealthy. He positioned himself as an advocate for the rights and interests of ordinary citizens, emphasizing his own humble origins. Jacksonian Democracy is associated with the expansion of voting rights for white males. During his presidency, there was a movement to eliminate property ownership requirements for voting, which allowed more of the population to participate in elections. This was seen as a step toward a more inclusive democracy. Jackson’s opposition to the Second Bank of the United States, which he believed favored the wealthy and acted against the interests of the common people, resonated with many Americans. His veto of the recharter of the Bank and removal of federal deposits from the bank contributed to his reputation as a defender of the common man against economic elites.
While Andrew Jackson is celebrated for his role as a champion of the common man, aspects of his presidency demonstrate a dictatorial approach. The evaluation of Jackson’s legacy often depends on one’s perspective and values, considering both his populist appeal and the potential overreach of executive power during his time in office. Jackson abused the powers of the presidency, exceeding the limits set by the Constitution. Jackson is associated with the widespread implementation of the spoils system, in which he replaced many government officials with his own supporters upon taking office. This approach undermined the merit-based system and allowed for the concentrating power in the hands of those loyal to the president rather than those best qualified for the job. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled in favor of the Cherokee Nation over their lands in Georgia. Jackson declined to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision. Jackson’s defiance of the Court’s decision showed a disregard for the system of checks and balances, as well as the principle of judicial review. Jackson set a record for the number of vetoes issued during his presidency, frequently using this power to reject legislation he disagreed with. While the veto is a legitimate constitutional power, Jackson’s frequent use of it, particularly in the case of the Bank of the United States, demonstrated a willingness to override the decisions of Congress and pursue his own agenda.
Remini believes that even though Jackson made a lot of bad decisions he stood for the common man. In a quote it states. “Remini says, because. he was devoted to liberty and democracy and had a powerful faith in “the people.” This illustrates Jackson’s ideas of the common man and gives evidence to Remini’s beliefs about Jackson. I disagree with Remini’s belief. Although Jackson was respected by the general public, and was a military hero, Jackson used the presidency as a dictatorship. An example of this was the Indian Removal Act, where he removed whole societies and populations for wealth and power. Another example is the spoils system, where he removed previously appointed officials from the government and hired his own advisors. In summary, while Jackson did many good things for the “common man,” the unnecessary and immoral things he did during his presidency make me think of him as a dictator.
1. Argue that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT
Andrew Jackson was a hero of the common man because he was different from the previous presidents. Unlike them, he didn’t have a college education, hadn’t fought in the Revolutionary War, and didn’t play a part in drafting the Constitution. Since he wasn’t an elite like all the other presidents, his background made him relatable to everyday people. For example, his western frontier origins made people see him as a “rough man from the frontiers,” which strengthened his relationship with common people. Jackson also believed in the two-party system and formed the Democratic Party, stressing the importance of majority rule. He aimed to eliminate the College of Electors, considering them an “intermediary agency.” He wanted to remove all institutions that stood between the people and their government. According to the article, he said that they should be “swept away, whether affected by the founding fathers or not.”
2. Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
During Andrew Jackson’s presidency, there was a significant shift in the balance of power within the government. Jackson frequently used his veto power, not only for constitutional reasons but also to make sure that Congress followed his lead and decisions. This made him the central figure in creating and establishing national policies and leading the nation. For example, according to Senator Benjamin W. Leigh, before Jackson’s presidency, the executive branch was considered less powerful than the legislative branch. However, Jackson’s use of the veto power and other self-proclaimed powers strengthened the executive branch. The text mentions that he “vetoed congressional legislation more times than all his predecessors combined,” triggering problems related to the principle of checks and balances. Jackson’s decision to remove federal deposits from the Second National Bank without congressional approval and his removal of the Treasury Secretary, William Duane, without the Senate’s approval also show that he was more of a dictatorial president and his powers were unchecked. Jackson also thought that everyone leading government departments should always obey him without question.
3. Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
Robert Remini comes down on the side that Andrew Jackson was a hero of the common man. He praises Jackson’s qualities, describing him as “aggressive, dynamic, charismatic, and intimidating,” and emphasizes Jackson’s dedication to liberty, democracy, and the power of the people. I agree with Remini to some extent because Jackson did challenge traditional beliefs. For example, because of him, the property requirement for men to vote was removed. He was, in addition, the first president to not come from one of the original colonies (the east). Jackson’s presidency also marked a shift towards a more inclusive democracy, and this all gave hope to the common people. However, I also disagree with Remini because I see Andrew Jackson as more of a dictatorial president. He expanded the power of the executive branch by using his veto power. He didn’t always get congressional approval, and the use of the spoils system, where government jobs were given based on political support rather than qualifications, made the government less effective and concentrated too much power in his hands. This is seen in the article when it says, “All department heads were his appointees, and they would obey him or pack their bags” and “Presidential control over all executive functions gave the chief executive increased authority over the collection and distribution of public funds.” This shows how Jackson had significant authority at the expense of a more balanced government system, and if people didn’t listen to him, they would be fired.
1.Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
I believe that Jackson was a hero of the common man because of his devotion to democracy and his trust in the people. Jackson felt the government should be shaped by the people. We see this by many quotes of him saying “the people are the government”. He also believe that the people, being the voter, should have a way to contact him directly and other politicians to be able to discuss this. He sets out to make the president and every other federal position answerable to the people of America and does this by allowing letters and communication with said positions. This shows his connection with the people of American and the “common man”.
2.Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
He was not intentionally dictatorial, but that being said, he did have a few times where he could have been seen as a dictator. An example of this dictatorial behavior would be the Louisiana purchase in 1803. Many saw the government as not having the ability to buy foreign land under the constitution. Jackson however, decides that the implied powers give him the right, bending the rules a little for his benefit. This shows he is willing to bend the rules a little just for his own benefit which could lead to him being a full dictator or future presidents.
3.Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
I think Remini came down in the middle but leaned more to a more disliking of Jackson and his decisions. I can’t really disagree with him because, although most of his decisions worked out in the end, they still gave a way for future presidents to potentially rip what had been so carefully crafted apart. This could be Reminis motive as to why he still thinks he was a very moderate president. I would have to agree with this just because of the risks Jackson forced the young country to take.
Andrew Jackson was a man of the people for many reasons. The biggest reason being that he did not grow up with wealth or power and was uneducated, as was “the common man” at the time. By being elected, Jackson proved that an uneducated, common man, has the same right and chance as a rich, highly educated president. Throughout his presidency, Jackson continued to make decisions that favored the people. He made it easier for white men to vote. Previously, a voter had to have property to vote (And be white and male). But after Jackson changed the requirements, all white men could vote, regardless of whether or not they owned property. This benefited the common man immensely because it allowed people who previously could not vote the opportunity to do so which put more power in the hands of the people rather than just the elite.
Jackson was a dictatorial president. The most obvious reason that demonstrates this is his abuse of the veto. A veto can occur when the house and the senate each pass a bill by a simple majority. The bill then moves to the president. If the president doesn’t like the bill, they can veto it. It then gets sent back to the house where it needs a two thirds majority to pass again. Jackson used the veto 12 times, more than all of his predecessors combined. His most notable use of the veto was to stop the recharter of the second bank of The United States. Through his abuse of the veto, Jackson can be seen as a dictator This is especially demonstrated by the political cartoon, “King Andrew the 1st,” where he is a king, similar to King George III during the American revolution.
Remini portrays Jackson as more of a president of the people. Throughout the article Remini seems to defend some of Jackson’s decisions and promote his more promising ideas. For example, Remini writes, “But it was never meant to be the spoils system. Jackson wanted every office of government, from the highest to the lowest, within the reach of the electorate.” (243). Remini claims that the spoils system was a name given to the idea by opposing parties to be used to shine a bad light on Jackson. While this may be true, Remini describes the spoils system as a way to promote democracy, but fails to mention the fact that through the spoils system, Jackson placed other members of the democratic party in office and if they switched sides, he would replace them with someone more democratic.
Andrew Jackson was both the hero of the common man and a dictatorial president, although some may argue one or the other. The reason that one could argue that he was the hero of the common man was that he supported the interests of the common person and showed them that they could rise up to increase power and wealth. Jackson himself was a self-made planter and a slaveholder, like a lot of white men were at the time. Jackson also “could not spell, he lacked education and culture”. Like Jackson, the majority of white men at the time were not very educated and focused on their farming interests. Jackson’s reputation as a war hero also contributed to people considering him the hero of the common man. Many people valued Jackson’s victory in New Orleans and aspired to be like him. Also, Remini said that Jackson had faith in the people. He said that he “contributed to a more democratic system in which the government was responsive to the popular will” . The average farmer of the time who valued their farming interests the most would likely support a president who is pushing to give them more power and someone who grew up like them. People who were similar to Jackson could see his rise in political power and gain hope from it, aspiring to be like him. Jackson also let people into the White House and although it didn’t turn out great it showed his openness for the common man to experience a feeling of equality compared to higher-status individuals. The reason that one could argue that Jackson was a dictatorial president was because of his ignorance of other branches of government and his oppression of other races. “Women, slaves, and free blacks outside New England were all denied the electoral franchise and were excluded from the idea of ‘the people’. They had no will to which Jackson or any other government official could be responsive”. Although Jackson is considered to be the hero of the common person, he definitely wasn’t the hero of everyone. Jackson owned slaves and established the Indian Removal Act, ignorant of other races. Jackson kicked the Native Americans out without letting them get their belongings or anything. A decent human would account for everyone’s rights and not be so brutal towards other races. When Jackson was pushing for power for the people, he wasn’t accounting for black people, women, Native Americans, and others. Since many people treated Jackson like a king, he acted like a king. He abused his powers, like vetoing 12 laws, and had king-like tendencies. I think Robert Remini comes down to believe more of the side of Jackson being a hero of the common man than a dictator. Remini said that Jackson “became a symbol of ‘the common man’”. He believed Jackson was trusting the people to have more power and was increasing democracy in America. Remini even defended the Indian Removal Act. I don’t agree with Remini because how can someone be a man of the people when they own slaves? I do think Jackson was a hero of the “common man,” if you are referring to common men as white men. He was the hero to only the white men because he pushed for white men suffrage and allowed more of them to vote. Some may argue that Jackson was a good president because he laid the framework for democracy, paid off the national debt, and gained new lands for America, but he did all this for self-benefit at the expense of anyone who is not considered a “common man”.
1.Jackson is seen as a hero of the common man because of his humble beginnings on the frontier making him relatable, unlike the era of previous presidents who were from the Northeast, and were college educated scholars. He was also known for his military successes such as the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812. During the time period, the political power moved away from rich southern planters and Northern Merchants to the middle and lower classes that Jackson was a symbol of. He said he was the direct representative of the people. Jackson was a self-made man that many Americans aspired to be.
2.Jackson was a dictatorial president when he abused his powers as president. Jackson used his veto power 12 times, which is more than all of the previous presidents combined. When he sought to destroy the Bank of the United States he attempted to remove the funding from it which many disapproved of and thought he had no right and so he had to fire employees until they would listen to his requests. With the Indian Removal Act Jackson established he was dictating where they could live and caused thousands of deaths. Even after the Native American groups did everything they were asked to assimilate. Because of Jackson’s actions to veto and other controversial actions he took it was as if he was making himself a king and trampling and tearing apart the constitution and the powers of other branches such as the Judicial powers.
3.Robert Remini leaned toward the first idea that Jackson was a hero of the common man. In the last section, when he writes about all of the interpretations of Jackson he includes his own thoughts clearly stating, “I contend that Jackson was in fact a man of the people, just as the Progressive historians had argued, and that he actively attempted to advance democracy by insisting that all branches of government, including the courts, reflect the popular will.” Remini supported Schlesinger, who we know from the article argued that class conflicts defined the era and it was a struggle for the less fortunate overcoming those with more power. Furthermore, democracy that was critical to the changes in the era evolved from conflict between classes. Remini stated that Jackson was a strong believer in democracy and implemented these ideas in his presidency which when noticing the increased inclusion and advanced democratic ideals made him truly a man of the people and good president. And when Remini could have made himself neutral on the topic, he instead argued that even the bad things Jackson did, such as the Indian Removal Act that killed a majority of indigenous population, was still beneficial saying better than what the native Americans would have received otherwise.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Andrew Jackson was very different from all of his preceding presidents due to the fact that he was a man that reflected the common people rather than the rich and powerful. To begin with, Jackson was a reflection of the people who had built a name for themselves in the United States. In the article “Jacksonian Revolution” by Robert V. Remini, the author states that, “Jackson became a symbol of the best in American lifefe — a self-made man, among other things,” (Remini 241). Jackson was showing Americans that even if you weren’t essentially a nepo baby that came from money and stayed in money, you could still become the president. Remini later went on to talk about how Jackson was somebody that was devoted to his soldiers and how Jackson’s campaign was the fact that he was all for the common people. Jackson’s campaign was also very targeted at the ‘common people’ due to the fact that he held parades and gave away ‘gifts’ to other regular people to encourage them to vote. Jackson gave the common people hope for more representation for themselves and not for the rich and wealthy people.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Sadly, Jackson was also a very controlling/dictatorial president. To begin with, Jackson vetoed twelve bills during his presidency, which was more than all of his predecessors combined vetoes. And, his only reasoning behind this was that they were deemed unconstitutional to him and that was it. He also fired and inaugurated a large portion of the the government powers, trying to make sure that his party ended up in control and, with that, that he was in control. He also rejected the second Bank of the United States (also known as the BUS) because he deemed that the bill that would have allowed the BUS to continue didn’t have the authority to do that because it wasn’t a power that the Constitution had listed. Jackson’s dictatorial ways continued throughout his presidency, and he was continuously proved controlling in Remini’s article.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
While it seems like Remini attempted to stay neutral throughout the article, it appears that he ended up taking an anti-Jackson approach, in the end. And, I do agree with his viewpoint on this. Jackson may have claimed that he was a president that would do everything for the people and the people alone, but he was very controlling and made poor decisions that affected the U.S. to a large extent. His actions left the U.S. without a national bank for 81 years. Also, Jackson was the first president to fire somebody from the cabinet, as well as the fact that he didn’t prioritize his cabinet battle as much, and held his ‘kitchen cabinet’ above it, which wasn’t something that was heard of or looked on kindly. Remini talked about all of these things in his article, showing how he was against Jackson, but these points also prove why I am also anti-Jackson.
Jackson proved himself as a hero of the common man because he had a normal beginning and was not a rich politician before his career as president. Throughout his campaign, Jackson promoted democracy and ran as a Democrat, having very Jeffersonian views. Additionally, during the Peggy Eaton Affair, Jackson supported Peggy Eaton, who had rumors spread about her by Cabinet members and their wives. Jackson held his position because he believed that it was the right thing to do, even though most of Jackson’s Cabinet resigned because of the issue.
Despite the positive things that Jackson did, he also often acted as a dictatorial president. For example, when South Carolina nullified the Tariff of Abominations, Jackson used the Force Act to get South Carolina to accept the tariffs. On top of this, Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act, forcing Indigenous people out of their land while ignoring a Supreme Court decision and other treaties made with the Indigenous people. Jackson also vetoed the BUS, and this veto on top of others contributed to the fact that Jackson used his veto power more times than all of the past presidents combined. The veto of the BUS caused opponents of Jackson to create the 1832 political cartoon titled “King Andrew,” displaying Jackson dressed as a king while stepping on the Constitution and holding a veto in his hand.
Robert Remini seems to believe that Jackson was a hero of the common man, but I don’t agree this is necessarily true. Although Jackson’s humble beginnings suggest that he represented the average American during his presidency, Jackson’s actions were mainly to help himself and support his own interests, not the interests of the country. Jackson did not let South Carolina nullify the Tariff of Abominations, which appears to be justified based on the Constitution, and Jackson seemed to have the interest of the whole country in mind when deciding to make South Carolina follow the tariff even though Jackson himself did not like it very much. However, Jackson’s methods of doing so were overkill, as it was unnecessary to pass a Force Act, which let Jackson use the military to force South Carolina to collect the tariff. Jackon’s veto of the BUS is another example of him being a dictatorial president, since it was unnecessary for Jackson to be so suspicious of the BUS and decide to destroy it. In doing so, Jackson caused the Panic of 1837 and many years of economic hardship for the common American man, proving that Jackson was not, in fact, a hero of the common man.
1. Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT
Andrew Jackson was the hero of the common man because of his life before the presidency. Jackson grew up on the western frontier of America, and his mannerisms reflected it. He didn’t grow up rich, like the previous presidents, so he didn’t have the same “proper” manners that they did. This appealed to voters because they saw him as equal to themselves. Jackson was also a war hero from the War of 1812. He won the Battle of New Orleans for the United States, which gave Americans a sense of pride in themselves and their country. Previous great presidents, like George Washington, were heroes of the American Revolution. He also was very interactive with the voters when he campaigned for the presidency. He had barbecues and parades that many voters came to, which was a newer way of campaigning. Overall Andrew Jackson was seen as a man of the people because he grew up as a common man, and worked his way up. He was self-made, and that’s what people liked about him.
2. Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT
Jackson was seen as a dictatorial president, mainly because of his amount of vetos. He vetoed 12 bills in his 8 years as president, which was more than all the previous presidents’ vetoes combined. He made choices that extended the power of the president and executive branch and used his title of “self-made man” and “man of the people” to do whatever he wanted. Jackson also had some views that were common at the time, but he acted on these views in ways previous presidents didn’t. For example, the Indian Removal Act. Jackson wanted more land, and his way of doing this was removing Indigenous Peoples from their ancestral land and forcing them to move west in a process that killed thousands of Native Americans. He also believed in the establishment of slavery. These things add up to Jackson using the presidency for his own benefit, proving he was a dictatorial president
3. Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
I think Robert Remini mainly believed that Jackson was a hero of the common man. Remini says, “he was devoted to liberty and democracy and had a powerful faith in ‘the people.’”(Remini 1). The article states that Remini defends a lot of what Jackson does including The Indian Removal Act. For this reason, it is apparent that Robert Remini views Jackson as a hero. I think Andrew Jackson was a very complex person, and it’s hard to place him in a box. But I do think he was mainly a dictatorial president. He did some good things to help America, but in my opinion, the negatives that came from him being dictatorial such as the Indian Removal Act and Trail of Tears, outweigh any positives that he did.
1.Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Jackson was a hero of the common man due to his expansion of democracy to the common man and his belief in majority rule. Jackson advanced political rights by eliminating “property qualifications for voting and holding office, thereby establishing universal white manhood suffrage. ”His supporters viewed him as a man of the people and grounded as demonstrated in the article “It is true, he might have taken him out to tire stable to weigh horses for a race, and might have drunk a glass of whiskey with him there. Well, if Andrew Jackson can be president, anybody can!” He was seen as a self-made man due to his humble beginnings, and in contrast to the previous more noble presidents as a “crude frontiers-man”. In addition, he believed the president should be the direct representative of the common people, and he had immense faith in the people believing he should act on what they want. In conclusion, he was seen as more similar to the common people than previous presidents and his expansion of democracy to all white men made some people view him as a hero of the common people.
2. Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Jackson was a dictatorial president due to his abuse of the veto power as he vetoed “congressional legislation more times than all his predecessors combined and for reasons other than a presumed lack. of constitutionality example of this can be seen when he wanted to veto the Second Bank of America and fired the secretary of state until they agreed to authorize removing deposits from the Second Bank of America effectively killing it. The Supreme Court decision was violated when they determined the national bank to be constitutional, and he attempted to veto the recharter of the Second Bank of America. Another example would be when he violated the Supreme Court in the case Worcester v. Georgia. Instead of following the court’s decision that the states didn’t have the right to impose regulations on Native American Land, he did it regardless, eventually leading to the trail of tears.
3. Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
Remini came down on the side of his portrayal of the common man, due to his defense and portrayal of Jackson, and saw Andrew Jackson as a shift of power from an oligarchy to more of a true democracy as illustrated in this quote “The Jacksonian revolution, Remini argues, moved America toward a more democratic system in which the government was responsive to the popular will.” An example of him defending Jackson would be when he was talking about the spoils system he defended Jackson’s creation of it citing that it was intended to stop corruption and to “perpetuate liberty” and that it was merely the case of hack politicians using the rotation as patronage. I partially agree with him that Jackson did make some good changes from the expansion of democracy, by removing most property requirements for voting, to making it seem like anyone could be president. In addition, I believe that he made some horrible abuses, particularly towards the Native Americans, and abused his power to continue his trail of ill-treatment towards them.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Andrew Jackson could and commonly was to be considered the hero of the common man because relatively average childhood. Additionally to him being the hero of the common man he was also a proclaimed war hero from the War of 1812. He was born and raised in Waxhaws now located on the border of North and South Carolina. Where he grew up was considered a frontier and didn’t have the best education considering he did not go to school often. His past and his childhood differed from the very few past presidents. Most of the past presidents were wealthy landowners, and oddly enough were mostly from Virginia. Throughout his campaign and his presidential career Jackson made it very clear that he wanted to make the government more for the people, not all the people of course,mainly just the white ones.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Despite Jackson’s efforts to portray himself as the hero as the common man he was even more controlling than all the presidents that came before, this is shown when the author states “Jackson … declaring that he alone—not Congress, … –was the sole representative of the American.” His view about being the absolute savior, if you will, was truly shown when he vetoed more laws than all of the past presidents combined. I honestly don’t understand why they elected him twice because he was very monarch-ish and for the huge struggle there was to get away from one, why would you put yourself in that position, not once, but twice. He also “decided to kill the Second National Bank by removing: federal -deposits because, as he said, he had received a “Mandate” from the people to do so. The Senate objected and formally censured him, but Jackson, in response, merely issued another Statement on presidential rights and the democratic system.” This veto of the second BUS was really just a powermove by Jackson to show that he, again, was in control, and not congress. In the political cartoon of “King Andrew” we see how some of the country saw him. All the vetoes, including the BUS and refusing to implicate improvements in a national level. A lot of americans and I’m sure parts of congress thought that he held too much power and that’s how the image of him being king like came from.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
Remini agreed that he was the hero of the common man. Nearing the end of the passage, he writes about his own point of view of Jackson, specifically referring to the book Remini wrote about him,what a fanboy. Remini believed that he was attempting to drive democracy forward. Also, he found Jackson’s view and actions of the Indian removal, or the Trail of Tears justified because he believed that it was the only correct route of political action at the time. I believe that Jackson had really only bad traits, in general he was a bad president and a bad person. It seems to me that he only ran for office to have the power and to get his own personal agenda done, and everything else was just not his priority. And I really don’t understand how he is still on one of the most popular bills in circulation today.
Jackson was called the hero of the common man for several reasons. One of them being that he was a “common man” himself, he did not come from a wealthy family and he worked his way to becoming president through his intelligence as a general. This gave people hope and encouragement because they saw that really anyone could become president. It didn’t have to be a super rich farmer. Another reason that he was called the hero for the common man was because of his constant battle with the B.U.S. He thought it was a tool of the rich, and that it took money from the poor and many of the people agreed. A third reason could have been his “spoils system”. The system meant that he would give the people who supported him government jobs, and get rid of whoever he replaced. This meant that any person could possibly become a government worker and get paid higher because of it.
However, he was also called a dictator because of the way he conducted business in the office. He vetoed twelve different bills during his time in office. That was more than any other president had vetoed combined. The Whigs used this as fodder to slander him publicly and calling it the end of democracy. He also vetoed the B.U.S. in 1832, after the supreme court had deemed it constitutional, meaning that directly ignored the rest of his government and took all the power himself. He even then took all government funds out of the B.U.S and it failed. He was not elected again, and the country fell into an economic depression. Banks were crashing all over the place. The Specie Circular was also a reason he could be viewed as a dictatorial president. The Specie Circular deemed that all acquisitions for Western land had to be made with gold or silver. This was to try and stop inflation, but the paper money completely depreciated and helped cause the Panic of 1837.
Robert Remini believes that Andrew Jackson was a hero of the common man. He says this himself at the end when he says that Jackson was a man of the people. I disagree with this statement. Jackson might have said he was a man of the people, and sure, he did do things with the intention of helping the common man. However, his actions in the end were catastrophic for the people. He plunged them into panic and depression with the Specie Circular and the B.U.S veto. He didn’t help them in the end, he hurt them. As we learned with Jefferson and his slaves, just because you say something, doesn’t mean that it’s true.
1. Andrew Jackson did many things during his presidency to appeal to the common man, making government more democratic and accessible. Jackson supported abolishing the electoral college which would have further aligned the country with democracy. Rather than being chosen by the few elite electoral college members, the president would be chosen directly by the popular vote. Meaning, the people and the common man would have a more direct say in government. He also favored rotating in every elected office, which would have given the common man more opportunities to participate in government directly. It wouldn’t be possible for one elite man to hold an office for life or a very long time. This was a very controversial idea and was called the “spoils system” by Jackson’s enemies but Jackson’s actual intention was to give everyone who could vote a realistic chance to achieve a governmental role if they wanted one.
2. But, on the other hand, Jackson also used his power as president to their fullest, sometimes unintended extent. The most obvious example of this is Jackson’s use of the power to veto congressional bills and laws. He not only used this veto often but he used it more than all of the previous presidents in American history and the two after him combined. In doing so, Jackson made himself the most powerful part of the lawmaking process. Rather than legislation starting in Congress, Congress had to start legislation with Jackson to make sure that he wouldn’t veto it. This changed the entire dynamic of the government and made it so only bills Jackson liked would be passed. The idea that only the bills Jackson likes will be passed through government closely resembles a dictatorship that passes laws only benefiting the leader.
3. In Robert Remini’s opinion, he sees both sides of the argument about Jackson, listing evidence for each but he generally supports Jackson as a champion of the common man and denies that he resembled a dictator. It says in the article that Remini dismissed the opinions of those who thought Jackson was a bad president and even defended some of Jackson’s most controversial acts that he carried out during his presidency. Remini went so far as to defend Jackson’s Indian Removal Act which was not only controversial at the time, narrowly passing through the House of Representatives with a 102-97 vote, it became even more controversial as modern views concerning race emerged.
Jackson was undoubtedly a hero of the common man. He changed the country to fit not only rich white men, but poor white men as well. He was a sign to the common man that they had a place in society. Jackson was popular from his “unusual” upbringings. Yet, his upbringings were not unusual at all. He lived the life of the majority of the country. He did not have a formal education, and was not born into a wealthy family, unlike his predecessors. We see this in the text as it states: “Old Hickory’s personality and military accomplishments made him an attractive and viable candidate for the ordinary voter.” Importantly, he served on behalf of the people. He felt the need to almost repay them for electing him. We see this in the spoils system, as he elected his supporters to repay them. Overall, Jackson played a major role in expanding the suffrage for white men.
2.) The counter arguement is that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Throughout his presidency, Jackson vetoed more laws than his predecessors combined. He even earned the title “King Andrew” in an ode to his tyrannic tendencies–from the view of his opposers. An instance where we see his dictatorial side is the topic of the Second National Bank of the United States of America. Jackson believed that the bank was ran by the aristocrats of this country, and did not serve the common people. Though passed by congress, Jackson used one of his countless vetos to veto the recharter of the bank. One of his efforts to end the bank was removing all federal funds. Though, Jackson technically could not do this, his Secretary of Treasury, William Duane could. Though, Duane refused: “By law, only the secretary of the treasury Was authorized to remove the deposits, so Jackson informed his secretary, William Duane, to carry out his order, Duane refused pointblank. And he also refused to re-sign as he had promised if he and the president could not agree upon a common course of action with respect to the deposits. Thereupon, Jackson sacked him. This was first time a cabinet officer had been fired, and there was some question whether the president had this authority.” As said in this excerpt, Jackson firing a cabinet officer was historic. This, and many more of his actions all feed into the claim that he was in fact a dictatorial president.
3.) I think that Robert Remini views Jackson as a hero of the common man. Remini views Jackson as a president who made decision on behalf of the citizens of America. Remini even went as far as to defend Jackson’s actions, even the horrible ones of the Indian Removal Act. I agree with Remini to a certain extent. Yes, I believe that Jackson aided in turning America into a country that responds to people from all classes, not just those who came from the wealthiest class. Though, I start to disagree with Remini when he defends Jacksons wrongs in his presidency. For example Remini defending the Indian Removal Act. I do not believe that Jackson seriously affecting a group of Native Americans will ever fit into him being “hero of the common man.” Instead, I believe that this completely defends the argument that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Personally, I believe that he fits in between these two claims.
When Remini writes: “In his veto of a bill to recharter the Second, National Bank in 1832, he claimed among other things that the bill lacked authority under. the Constitution, despite what the high court had decided.” (244). This just proves that Jackson was a hero of the common man because he believed recharting the second bank would only benefit that of the rich elite. The bank did not benefit the common man, which Jackson recognized. The people who were oppressed by the financial institutions of the time appreciated this. You could argue that he was thinking of the common people in by vetoing the bank. He had the common peoples best interest at heart rather than just thinking of himself and the wealthy people of America at the time.
When Remini writes: “In his veto of a bill to recharter the Second, National Bank in 1832, he claimed among other things that the bill lacked authority under. the Constitution, despite what the high court had decided.” (244). It proves that Jackson could also be a dicatorial president because he went against the Supreme Courts ruling, and overstepped his ruling as president. This proves he might havejust had his own interest at heart instead of those of the common people. Some argue that the situation was more personal and political rather than being concerned about the Constituions authority in the government.
I think Remini believes that Jackson was a hero of the common people, see this when Remini states: “I contend that Jackson was in fact a man of the people, just as the Progressive historians had argued, and that he actively attempted to advance democracy by insisting that all branches of government, including the courts, reflect the popular will. I also tried to show that, for a number of reasons, the president’s policy of Indian removal was initiated to spare the Indian from certain extinction.” (248). I think that Jackson was a hero of the common people (only including that of the white man) because he expanded suffrage, his speeches, military success, etc. Some might argue other wise because of the Nullification Crisis, but some could say he did the best he could with the time period and how society was at the time. Jackson was a strong leader even though he was complex and difficult with his decision making. There were negative and positive aspects of Jacksons presidency, but overall he was a “hero of the common people”.
1. One point that someone arguing to prove that Andrew Jackson was a hero of the common man would be the way he was elected. Instead of only wealthy white men being allowed to vote, most property restrictions for voting were gone during Jackson’s election in 1828, meaning he was the first president to be elected by not only those of a higher social class, but everyone below that too. Another point that might be made is the fact that he was a part of the Democrats, who were notorious for favoring a small central government in order for the power to be at the hands of the people.
2. On the other hand, one of those same points could also be used to argue the opposite, that Jackson was a dictatorial president. That point being that the overwhelming amount of support he got from the majority during the election gave him too much power, therefore leading to him receiving the nickname “King Mob” as mentioned by Remini on page 242. Another example of how his actions could be viewed as dictatorial is the amount of vetos he used. As stated in the debrief of the article, “He used his veto power more than all his predecessors combined and asserted the right of the chief executive to initiate legislation, which altered the president’s relationship with Congress and made the president the head of state.” This could reasonably be seen as abusement of Jackson’s power as president. He undermined how the government had been running, with each branch having checks and balances, in order to give himself the majority if not all of the power.
3. Remini seemed to agree with the people who viewed Jackson as a hero of the common man. This is made obvious in a few points through the article, one being where he says, “Indeed his career and personality stirred the imagination of Democratic leaders round the country and they devised new methods, or improved old ones, to get across the message that andrew Jackson was a ‘man of the people.’” Remini painted Jackson in a positive light here, claiming he made improvements to methods used by political leaders, and seemingly agreeing with his title of “man of the people.” I disagree with Remini for a few reasons. One, as brought up before the article, is that Jackson was a slave owner. I believe that someone who claims to support equality and be a “man of the people” would be entirely against an organization as cruel and discriminatory as slavery. That alone disqualifies Jackson for the title of “hero of the common man.”
1.
Andrew Jackson is considered a common man because he comes from humble beginnings. It mentions in the article that a North Carolina lady states she would not have let Jacson into their house because of his status, instead talking to him in the stables. The lady also claims that if Jacson can become president, so could anyone. Jackson was a stark contrast to George Washington, John Adams, or Thomas Jefferson because of his background and reputation, and with his presidency came the era of the common man, as the people could relate to President Jackson and the tolerance for aristocratic people who did not labor lessened. Jackson was also known as a war hero for winning a major battle at New Orleans during the War of 1812. Although the battle occurred two weeks after the war ended, it didn’t fail to bring a feeling of patriotism to the Union. Because of this Jackson was known as Old Hickory, meaning he was a brave and stubborn man. Due to his history and reputation, Andrew Jackson was seen as the hero of the common man.
2.
Andrew Jackson can also be perceived as a dictatorial president for many reasons. First, When he was elected, Jackson was in a wealthy position and even owned 20 to 44 slaves between 1812 and 1820. This number reached about a hundred by the time he was in office. Jackson also beaded the constitutional laws when he wanted. An example of this is the Worcester v. Georgia supreme court case, which ruled the Cherokee nation could not be forcibly moved and were sovereign entities. Despite this, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which led to the trail of tears and controversy among the nation. In the article, it also mentions Jackson’s ample use of the veto, vetoing more laws than any of his predecessors combined. Although the ability to veto laws as president was constitutional, Jackson did not follow the precedent set by others, along with his reputation of firing his cabinet members who did not comply with him, as well as disobeying Supreme Court rulings, this showed Andrew Jackson as a dictatorial president.
3.
Robert Remini wrote this article explaining both sides of Andrew Jackson and gave many different perspectives of different people through specific quotes, as well as evidence from Jackson himself. However, I believe he perceived Andrew Jackson as a hero of the common man because of the phrasing and specific historical references he used throughout the article. One example is when Remini refers to politicians who oppose Jackson’s belief as “Hack politicians” when referencing his idea that if a man has held office for 20 years or more, the office should be passed down to their children. Remini also uses the term, unfortunately, as they seem to be disappointed in the other politicians shutting Jackson’s idea down. Remini also goes on to mention the “important changes” Jackson has brought to America, beginning with his absurd number of vetos. The author calls this creative and successful, although many people at the time had negative thoughts about this, as Jackson did not follow the president of former officeholders, and vetoing so many bills made him appear more of an aristocratic or dictatorial president. Because of the information highlighted and the author’s own opinions mixed into the article, it is apparent that Robert Remini believed Andrew Jackson was a true hero of the common man.
1. During the time of Andrew Jackson, democracy overruled privilege and elitists, for white men. Everyone witnessed how white males got more rights to vote no matter their class or landholdings and moved towards majority rule. Jackson proved he was a hero of the common man by being devoted to liberty and democracy, and being a president, his goals did not consist of making money and rising in military praise. He also had a lack of education but had a very passionate belief in the people of America. Furthermore, he desired to take the position of president and office positions attainable to the people and even abolish the Electoral College and was for the rotation of office.
2. Jackson in some ways abused the power of the veto when he used it more than all of the previous presidents combined. An example of this is when he vetoed the Second Bank of America, which came off as putting his wants over the people’s showing he didn’t care for them when the panic of 1832 happened, majorly affecting the economics and how people dealt with it at the time. Jackson, during his time of presidency also challenged the role of the Supreme Court as the final negotiator in how the Constitution was to be interpreted. This can be seen as a character of a dictator since the constitution was the backbone of how the people lived their lives and how they also viewed politics at the time; so to undermine the Supreme Court meant he was undermining the people’s beliefs too.
3. Robert Remini agreed with other historians and concluded that Jackson was a man of the people instead of a dictatorial president. He believes this because Jackson made a continuous effort in advancing America to democracy with a strong belief that all branches of the government, which also involved the courts, to stand with the majority vote of the people. Personally, I don’t agree with Remini’s idea that Jackson was a man of the people. If it’s discussing “the people” in the way Jackson perceived, with him addressing only those who can vote, which was only white men at the time, then yes, he was a man of people because he stood with them through expanding male suffrage. However, since that is not the case, to be a man of people means he had to stand with white men, women, enslaved people, and free black and indigenous people too.
Andrew Jackson can be seen as a president that was the hero of the common man because he was seen as someone who came from a standard house and could relate to many problems that Americans of the time faced. In the article “The Jacksonian Revolution” it is said that: “Like most aristocrats from the Tennessee country of his day, Andrew Jackson could not spell, he lacked education and culture, but he did aspire to wealth and military glory, both of which he won.” Because Jackson was seen as someone who built himself up from what the average American was, he was seen as a figure to look up to and a man who could support the country.
Although Jackson was seen by some as someone who stood for the good of his country, many of his actions seem to contradict that idea. “He used his veto power more than all his predecessors combined and asserted the right of the chief executive to initiate legislation, which altered the President’s relationship with Congress and made the president the head of state.” Jackson can be seen using his veto power more than anyone else and set many other precedents for the president. Another question that is later brought up is how can someone who is a slave owner, or be someone who signs laws that so negatively impact the Native people of the country, truly represent the “common man”? Although at the time the “common man”’s beliefs were mostly those of the white men who had the right to vote I think it is extremely contradictory.
Throughout the article Remini gives examples from Jackson’s time that could be used to support either side of the argument of whether Jackson stood for the common man or was a dictator, but at the end Remini states “I contend that Jackson was in fact a man of the people, just as the progressive historians had argued, and that actively attempted to advance democracy by insisting that all branches of government, including the courts, reflect the popular will.” I can agree and disagree with what Remini argues. Jackson did many things that may have seemed to benefit the majority of the people at the time, and therefore could have been seen as a good representation of most white men of a certain class, but because of many of his other harmful actions I can not say I agree. Through the Indian Removal Act and Trail of Tears Jackson harmed and killed the Indigenous community in a way that’s effects can still be seen today, and I do not believe that someone who owned enslaved people could truly reflect and carry out what was best for the majority of the country.
1. the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
In the article “The Jacksonian Revolution” by Robert Remini, we see that Jackson is a strong supporter of democracy: “Jackson himself played a major role in the shift toward democracy — that is, toward a system of true majority rule, not just rule 236 by a propertied elite. He set out to make the president and every other federal official answerable to the people.” Jackson also argued for the expansion of suffrage. Before, only white males who owned property could vote, but as Jackson became president, states began to peel back on the qualifications of voting, making it accessible for any white male. Another instance where Jackson was a “hero of the common man” was when he vetoed the Second Bank of the United States. He did this because he claimed that it was unconstitutional, and it corrupted politics with too much money. Another reason he was well liked by common people was because he did not get a formal education. As a child, he did not get an education. Instead of going to college for a degree, Jackson was an apprentice to lawyers and became one himself without attending law school.
2. Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Andrew Jackson demonstrated a dictatorial presidentship with his decision on the Indian Removal Act. Despite the criticism, Jackson decided to follow through with the act, even with moral and legal concerns. When he followed through with the Trail of Tears, he killed an estimated 6,000 Native Americans. He constantly went against the rights of Native Americans. Not only did him forcibly removing the Native Americans from their homes cause intense suffering, but also ignored his ideas of justice, fairness, and democracy. Jackson also expressed dictatorial power when he used the ability to veto multiple times. This is shown in the article “The Jacksonian Revolution”: “He used his veto power more than all his predecessors combined and asserted the right of the chief executive to initiate legislation, which altered the president’s relationship with Congress and made the president the head of state.” Jackson used the veto twelve times.
3. Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
I believe that Robert Remini was a believer in Andrew Jackson being a hero of the common man. Remini describes him as being “devoted to liberty and democracy and had a powerful faith in ‘the people’”. He saw Jackson’s presidency as a revolution in multiple ways. He highlights Jackson’s role in promoting democracy, like when he expanded the qualifications for who could vote. I agree that Jackson was a hero to the common men when he promoted more rights for voters, and the fact that he appealed to common people with the fact that he never got a formal education. However, I think the more dictatorial things he did greatly outweigh that. The Indian Removal Act was one of the most heinous events in human history, and while Andrew Jackson contributed a lot to democracy, it’s hard to overlook the bad that he did.
Argue the side that Jackson is the hero of the common man. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Argue the other side that Jackson was a dictatorial president. Use examples from the article and your text / PPT.
Which side do you think the author, Robert Remini, came down on? Do you agree w/ him? Why or why not?
1. Andrew Jackson can be considered the hero of the common man for many reasons. One of these reasons is that Jackson considered the federal government to be for only the privileged. He ignored the Supreme Court, vetoed more bills than any other president had done before him (combined) and even let common people into the White House for his inauguration. Andrew Jackson loved democracy, liberty, and wholeheartedly trusted the people of the United States. He wanted to make the President and other federal workers answerable to the people of the country and wanted to even abolish the electoral college. Jackson even saw the Bank of the United States as something that brought down citizens of the country. His removal of the Indians could even be considered a hero-esque thing to do when Remini states that he did it to spare them from extinction. Him lowering the voting restrictions for white males was also something that portrays him as a hero of the common man.
2. Andrew Jackson can be considered a dictatorial president for numerous reasons. Firstly, the myth that he was a common man. He lived in a mansion (The Hermitage), was an aristocrat, and owned multiple slaves. Referring back to the last question, Jackson’s use of the veto power endowed upon him could also be considered dictator-esque. His vetoing of so many laws shows him abusing the presidential power he was given. Andrew Jackson’s removal of the Native Americans can also be considered dictator-esque. The removal showed Jackson was abusing his powers in office. Additionally, the Powerpoint has a slide of Jackson sitting on a throne like a king. This displays him as a dictator of the country.
3. I believe that Robert Remini came down on the side that Jackson was a hero and a symbol for the common man. Remini makes his statement in the article saying, “…Jackson was in fact a man of the people, just as the Progressive historians had argued, and that he actively attempted to advance democracy by insisting that all branches of government, including the courts, reflect the popular will” (Remini). I don’t agree with Remini. While Jackson was a hero for white men, he wasn’t a hero for the common man (unless the common man is defined as white men). I believe that Jackson was someone who abused his powers and wanted to be the only one in control of the country,
People tend to argue that Jackson can be seen as either a hero to the common man or a dictatorial president. Arguing that he was more of a hero to the common man, from the beginning of his presidency, Jackson was a firm believer in the strength of America’s common man. He had believed that the federal government should not have been allowed to favor any class over one another. As well as this, he supported the idea the majority ruled which benefited the common people. The beginning of the article begins with a bit of a small story, which helped show that Jackson himself used to be a part of this ‘common man’ compared to the rest of the former presidents who typically had come from more wealthy backgrounds.
On the other hand, people view Jackson as more of a controlling or dictatorial president rather than a hero. This is reasonable because Jackson did happen to ignore several of the Supreme Court’s decisions, as well as the fact that he replaced government officials with people of his party so that he would appeal more to them. To add onto this, people believed that he also abused his power by his seeming “overuse” of the veto. Back then, the presidents prior to him had way fewer, though in the modern day the amount of vetos he used would be normal. One thing that wouldn’t necessarily be seen as bad back then but would today was his treatment of the Native Americans and how he continuously pushed them West and out of their lands.
I think its apparent that the author of the article, Robert Remini, came down more on the side that President Jackson was more of a hero to the common man. At the very end of the article, the author writes a section that is based on the interpretations people have and had of President Jackson. He then begins to talk about how he had written his own volumes about Jackson that talked about his faith and commitment to liberty and democracy. Right below that, the author even states that “I contend that Jackson was in fact a of the people…” (248). All in all, I am conflicted about whether or not I view Jackson as a hero or a dictator since I believe that some of the things he did were very questionable, while other things were good.