To me, it sounds like even though the government had many reasons for wanting to impeach Andrew Jackson, he seemed to have a reason for everything that he did. Even though he did some things that were considered unconstitutional, it seemed like, in his arguments against the accusations, he was only doing it for the welfare of the country. Two of the major reasons that Jackson was being considered for impeachment were his opposition to Bank of America, and his misstreatment of the Native Americans. I can understand how the cruelty to the Native Americans could be a reason to impeach him, but the Bank of America issue is very controversial. Jackson was a fan of state rights, so of course he would think a national bank was a bad idea. Although I think that Jackson might have done some horrible things during his presidency, the fact is that plenty of presidents did some controversial things and were cruel to some other culture (Can anybody say George Bush?) and they haven’t been impeached yet.
Well, there are always two sides to a story, and it is pretty easy to attack someone, when their not around to correct themselves...I mean, these situations came out, and now people can talk on and on about it. But Bush, like bhand said, did similar situations, but I bet if a group tried to speak out against it, the group would be silenced. But if Bush were dead, (or when he eventually dies) I bet there is going to be a lot more negative things said about him.
Well first Sarah, negative things are already said about Bush. And second I don't think he would try and silence anyone. He's been taking crap for six years, he isn't going to start "silencing" groups now. No one impeached Bush, because we voted for him in 2004, its too late now to do anything to him, and he din't really give us any reasons to impeach him until recently. As far as Jackson goes, i don't know. He obviously did not do some good things, but he was the peoples president. he did what he did for the welfare of the states. Maybe he should have, maybe we were right keeping him. we will never no for sure.
I agree with most of what Ben and Bri said about how he didn't do only good things. This doesn't mean that he was a bad president. His policy against the indians was terrible, but you can't judge him on that, it wasn't the only thing that he did. Comparing him to Bush is not fair, Bush's whole presidency has been about "defending" us against terrorism. Also he gained office in the exact opposite way that Bush did. With Jackson, he was cheated from winning, Bush on the other hand, lost the election and used his brother and family friends to rig Florida and win. The Bank of America thing I don't think warrented any impeachment as the Bank was not even wholly established in the Constitution. To play the devils advocate however, all Clinton did was have extramarital relations and that caused him to be impeached, so Jackson probabaly could have been impeached for his treatment of Native Americans or the Bank of America or even both.
Jackson's presidency was an eventful one. Whether these events are seen as excessive or heroic is for you to decide. However, it is for sure that Jackson broke the law, on the other hand if all of our presidents had followed every law we would not have become the country we are today. We would not have acquired the Louisiana Territory and perhaps the south would be a separate country today. Some of our greatest presidents have broken the law in the name of our countries well being and we are a better country for it. Jackson had reasons for every acquisition and stood by his positions. However, he was a bit to hasty to disregard the laws, it did not seem like Jackson respected the laws very much and therefor simply disregarded them. This is not a good example for a president to set for his people. Jacksons actions actions were for the good of America as he said, but the way he went about this was not in a very presidential manner.
I think that Jackson's intentions were good. He didn't like the Bank of America because he thought that its creation was not beneficial to the states. So, he had what he thought was the peoples' best interest in mind. I think that's admirable. Maybe we would be better off today if every president of the US had the peoples' best interest at heart instead of their own.
In my opinion, Andrew Jackson was not the kind of person who tried to cause trouble. It seems to me as though he had good intentions, except for the whole indian removal policy, but other presidents had done plenty to upset the Natives, and they were not impeached. The decision to not have a national bank was not a wrongdoing, considering there was nothing in the constitution that said there had to be a national bank. In general, Jackson had the best interest of the people in mind, and his impeachment was uncalled for.
Personally, I think that Jackson had good ideas-he most likely didn't purposely try to violate the Constitution (such as separation of powers, states rights and laws, treaties and court orders). As Jamie said, his intentions were good, he was trying, what he thought, to create a more stable country. Jackson, however, did violate the separation of powers in wanting to destroy the Bank of the United States, and his major crisis of the nullification crisis in SC. Also the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a negative result of disrespect towards the Native Americans, and his ignorance of the laws, and treaties pertaining to the issue. I don't know if the government should go to the extent of impeachment, because Jackson came across as such a powerful president, although some of his actions created strong disagreements towards them.
The impeahment of Jackson seems to be somewhat legitmate, for he broke many rules and promises he made. He claimed he would abide by the constitution strictly in his first inaugural address, which he did not. this, though it is not illegal, is quite lame. His claim that the national bank had a monopoly is somewhat true, though the second national bank did exist. this is perposturus however, because the bank is, for the most part, a government insitution. His removal of the indians was quite illegal, for the government claimed it would be on a strictly volutnary basis. This was not the case, for thousands of natives were forced from their homes. The Nullification crisis was even more absurd. the use of military against a state is just out of the question. the nullification of laws was already established, not to metion, the constitution does not say the president can command the army against internal states. All in all, though the legality of actions are questionable and could be proven just, his attacks against his own country and its different peoples against past claims show that the man has no right being president.
Andrew Jackson, a man not afraid to make the tough decision, whether it be shooting people, killing Prophets, stabbing people with similar last names, or simply putting people to death; a man dedicated to ruling a nation...
Jackson seemed to have POed everyone. He angered teh feds by taking apart the Bank of America; he upset teh states by brutally dealing with South Carolina and their Nullification issue; he even got all up in teh indian's grill and killed their prophet. So I can see why teh government was all like, "Impeachment dude." But on the flip side, Jackson was the People's President. They elected him because they wanted a blood thirsty barbarian man as a president. In their eyes, he was HE-MAN or Conan. In mine eyes, if he's good enough for the $20 bill then he's good enough for me.
I think that Jackson had good intentions with his actions. and while he may not have done the right thing with the indians, everybody makes mistakes. that is prevelant in everyone's lives everyday. Jackson was a republican, which means he was for state rights. So why would he want a national bank that supports a strong central government when those aren't his ideals. the people elected a republican president and that is what Jackson represented. Like other's have pointed out there is not one president who went through a whole term of service without messing up and displeasing the people of the United States. And yet only 2 (i think) have been impeached. yes he did things that pissed off people, but don't we all. At the time he did things that he thought would benefit the country.
Jackson was not a good guy. He was power-hungry. If he was not impeached, the balance of power that had been formed in the United States could have been and most likely would have been destroyed. I believe it was the right thing to do because he could not be controlled.
I think that Andrew Jackson thought that he was doing the right things. For all the reasons the government wanted to impeach him, he defended himself as just doing what he thuoght was right for the country. And i think that is the truth. He didn't like the national bank because he believed in state power, not a strong federal goverenment. He may have done some bad things during his presidency, but he was just doing what he thought was best for the country.
To what Sarah said earlier, I apologize but you could not be more misconstrued. George Bush has the unyielding support of about twenty five percent of the country. Which amounts to about eight toothless hill-billies in vicksburg mississippi. You can't tell me people haven't spoken out against Bush and he damn well better not be silencing people for it. Although it'd just be another kink in the chain of criminal acts he's committed while in office. Something that's being missed here, something that I believe only Woody mentioned was that not only George Bush, not only Andrew Jackson, but every president is sworn in with his hand on a bible with hundreds of millions of witnesses that he will uphold protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and any act to undermine that is against the law. I don't care how much it may shape or better the country there are laws for a reason. I'm not saying there can't be radicals. For they are the ones who affect real change, who lead a movement, who protest an injustice. Countries are shaped and bettered by those who break the rules. However those people can't be the president. I'm sorry but once someone enters into that office they should immediately loose all of their bias and partisanship and focus on issues that matter and pertain to the government. Andrew Jackson was way out of line, he broke the oath of office, and I'm sorry he wasn't impeached.
Andrew Jackson was tried by the US government for impeachment. But he had a reason for everything that he did so how could he possibly be convicted. With his opposition to the Bank of America and his poor treatment of the natives the government believed that they had good reason to impeach him. But they would then have impeached him for his beliefs because he believed strongly in the power of the states. Although very controversial, Andrew Jackson did everything that he did with good reason and believed that what he was doing was the right thing to do. So in the end they he wasnt impeached because the courts found that this was true. After all he was...Andy-freakin-Jackson!
I agree very much with Bri, even though what Jackson was doing seemed to be "unconstitutional" he did have reasons for doing the things he did and he felt they were justified. As for impeaching him, the only thing against him was the mistreatment of the Nativesm, and the Bank, but that situation really depends on your point of view. I dont think that Jackson should be impeached because as the website said, the people voted him into office because he was everything they wanted in a leader--he didn't go back on his word, was confident and had the best interests of the country on his mind.
This is in response to m. horan...I DON'T CARE!!! The point is fine, and the last time I checked, your niether my English teacher, nor my mother, so worry about yourself, before you worry about me....K???
Andrew Jackson was the very first president to totally sell out our nation to Big Money, and our government has been OWNED by big money (which also owns most of the media from which we get our information) ever since. People need to research deeply in order to obtain the truth, and to quote President Abraham Lincoln, "History is not history unless it is the truth." Don't let people with ulterior motives tell you what to believe.
21 comments:
To me, it sounds like even though the government had many reasons for wanting to impeach Andrew Jackson, he seemed to have a reason for everything that he did. Even though he did some things that were considered unconstitutional, it seemed like, in his arguments against the accusations, he was only doing it for the welfare of the country. Two of the major reasons that Jackson was being considered for impeachment were his opposition to Bank of America, and his misstreatment of the Native Americans. I can understand how the cruelty to the Native Americans could be a reason to impeach him, but the Bank of America issue is very controversial. Jackson was a fan of state rights, so of course he would think a national bank was a bad idea. Although I think that Jackson might have done some horrible things during his presidency, the fact is that plenty of presidents did some controversial things and were cruel to some other culture (Can anybody say George Bush?) and they haven’t been impeached yet.
Well, there are always two sides to a story, and it is pretty easy to attack someone, when their not around to correct themselves...I mean, these situations came out, and now people can talk on and on about it. But Bush, like bhand said, did similar situations, but I bet if a group tried to speak out against it, the group would be silenced. But if Bush were dead, (or when he eventually dies) I bet there is going to be a lot more negative things said about him.
Well first Sarah, negative things are already said about Bush. And second I don't think he would try and silence anyone. He's been taking crap for six years, he isn't going to start "silencing" groups now. No one impeached Bush, because we voted for him in 2004, its too late now to do anything to him, and he din't really give us any reasons to impeach him until recently. As far as Jackson goes, i don't know. He obviously did not do some good things, but he was the peoples president. he did what he did for the welfare of the states. Maybe he should have, maybe we were right keeping him. we will never no for sure.
I agree with most of what Ben and Bri said about how he didn't do only good things. This doesn't mean that he was a bad president. His policy against the indians was terrible, but you can't judge him on that, it wasn't the only thing that he did. Comparing him to Bush is not fair, Bush's whole presidency has been about "defending" us against terrorism. Also he gained office in the exact opposite way that Bush did. With Jackson, he was cheated from winning, Bush on the other hand, lost the election and used his brother and family friends to rig Florida and win. The Bank of America thing I don't think warrented any impeachment as the Bank was not even wholly established in the Constitution. To play the devils advocate however, all Clinton did was have extramarital relations and that caused him to be impeached, so Jackson probabaly could have been impeached for his treatment of Native Americans or the Bank of America or even both.
Jackson's presidency was an eventful one. Whether these events are seen as excessive or heroic is for you to decide. However, it is for sure that Jackson broke the law, on the other hand if all of our presidents had followed every law we would not have become the country we are today. We would not have acquired the Louisiana Territory and perhaps the south would be a separate country today. Some of our greatest presidents have broken the law in the name of our countries well being and we are a better country for it. Jackson had reasons for every acquisition and stood by his positions. However, he was a bit to hasty to disregard the laws, it did not seem like Jackson respected the laws very much and therefor simply disregarded them. This is not a good example for a president to set for his people. Jacksons actions actions were for the good of America as he said, but the way he went about this was not in a very presidential manner.
I think that Jackson's intentions were good. He didn't like the Bank of America because he thought that its creation was not beneficial to the states. So, he had what he thought was the peoples' best interest in mind. I think that's admirable. Maybe we would be better off today if every president of the US had the peoples' best interest at heart instead of their own.
I LOVE ANDREW JACKSON!!! He was such a rebel...long live Old Hickery!
In my opinion, Andrew Jackson was not the kind of person who tried to cause trouble. It seems to me as though he had good intentions, except for the whole indian removal policy, but other presidents had done plenty to upset the Natives, and they were not impeached. The decision to not have a national bank was not a wrongdoing, considering there was nothing in the constitution that said there had to be a national bank. In general, Jackson had the best interest of the people in mind, and his impeachment was uncalled for.
Personally, I think that Jackson had good ideas-he most likely didn't purposely try to violate the Constitution (such as separation of powers, states rights and laws, treaties and court orders). As Jamie said, his intentions were good, he was trying, what he thought, to create a more stable country. Jackson, however, did violate the separation of powers in wanting to destroy the Bank of the United States, and his major crisis of the nullification crisis in SC. Also the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a negative result of disrespect towards the Native Americans, and his ignorance of the laws, and treaties pertaining to the issue. I don't know if the government should go to the extent of impeachment, because Jackson came across as such a powerful president, although some of his actions created strong disagreements towards them.
The impeahment of Jackson seems to be somewhat legitmate, for he broke many rules and promises he made. He claimed he would abide by the constitution strictly in his first inaugural address, which he did not. this, though it is not illegal, is quite lame. His claim that the national bank had a monopoly is somewhat true, though the second national bank did exist. this is perposturus however, because the bank is, for the most part, a government insitution. His removal of the indians was quite illegal, for the government claimed it would be on a strictly volutnary basis. This was not the case, for thousands of natives were forced from their homes. The Nullification crisis was even more absurd. the use of military against a state is just out of the question. the nullification of laws was already established, not to metion, the constitution does not say the president can command the army against internal states. All in all, though the legality of actions are questionable and could be proven just, his attacks against his own country and its different peoples against past claims show that the man has no right being president.
Andrew Jackson, a man not afraid to make the tough decision, whether it be shooting people, killing Prophets, stabbing people with similar last names, or simply putting people to death; a man dedicated to ruling a nation...
Jackson seemed to have POed everyone. He angered teh feds by taking apart the Bank of America; he upset teh states by brutally dealing with South Carolina and their Nullification issue; he even got all up in teh indian's grill and killed their prophet. So I can see why teh government was all like, "Impeachment dude."
But on the flip side, Jackson was the People's President. They elected him because they wanted a blood thirsty barbarian man as a president. In their eyes, he was HE-MAN or Conan. In mine eyes, if he's good enough for the $20 bill then he's good enough for me.
I'm Kyler Mulherin and I approve this message.
I think that Jackson had good intentions with his actions. and while he may not have done the right thing with the indians, everybody makes mistakes. that is prevelant in everyone's lives everyday. Jackson was a republican, which means he was for state rights. So why would he want a national bank that supports a strong central government when those aren't his ideals. the people elected a republican president and that is what Jackson represented. Like other's have pointed out there is not one president who went through a whole term of service without messing up and displeasing the people of the United States. And yet only 2 (i think) have been impeached. yes he did things that pissed off people, but don't we all. At the time he did things that he thought would benefit the country.
Jackson was not a good guy. He was power-hungry. If he was not impeached, the balance of power that had been formed in the United States could have been and most likely would have been destroyed. I believe it was the right thing to do because he could not be controlled.
I think that Andrew Jackson thought that he was doing the right things. For all the reasons the government wanted to impeach him, he defended himself as just doing what he thuoght was right for the country. And i think that is the truth. He didn't like the national bank because he believed in state power, not a strong federal goverenment. He may have done some bad things during his presidency, but he was just doing what he thought was best for the country.
To what Sarah said earlier, I apologize but you could not be more misconstrued. George Bush has the unyielding support of about twenty five percent of the country. Which amounts to about eight toothless hill-billies in vicksburg mississippi. You can't tell me people haven't spoken out against Bush and he damn well better not be silencing people for it. Although it'd just be another kink in the chain of criminal acts he's committed while in office. Something that's being missed here, something that I believe only Woody mentioned was that not only George Bush, not only Andrew Jackson, but every president is sworn in with his hand on a bible with hundreds of millions of witnesses that he will uphold protect and defend the constitution of the united states, and any act to undermine that is against the law. I don't care how much it may shape or better the country there are laws for a reason. I'm not saying there can't be radicals. For they are the ones who affect real change, who lead a movement, who protest an injustice. Countries are shaped and bettered by those who break the rules. However those people can't be the president. I'm sorry but once someone enters into that office they should immediately loose all of their bias and partisanship and focus on issues that matter and pertain to the government. Andrew Jackson was way out of line, he broke the oath of office, and I'm sorry he wasn't impeached.
Andrew Jackson was tried by the US government for impeachment. But he had a reason for everything that he did so how could he possibly be convicted. With his opposition to the Bank of America and his poor treatment of the natives the government believed that they had good reason to impeach him. But they would then have impeached him for his beliefs because he believed strongly in the power of the states. Although very controversial, Andrew Jackson did everything that he did with good reason and believed that what he was doing was the right thing to do. So in the end they he wasnt impeached because the courts found that this was true. After all he was...Andy-freakin-Jackson!
I agree very much with Bri, even though what Jackson was doing seemed to be "unconstitutional" he did have reasons for doing the things he did and he felt they were justified. As for impeaching him, the only thing against him was the mistreatment of the Nativesm, and the Bank, but that situation really depends on your point of view. I dont think that Jackson should be impeached because as the website said, the people voted him into office because he was everything they wanted in a leader--he didn't go back on his word, was confident and had the best interests of the country on his mind.
my post is in response to that of sdubey who said that bush "did similar situations" this is gramatically incorrect.
This is in response to m. horan...I DON'T CARE!!! The point is fine, and the last time I checked, your niether my English teacher, nor my mother, so worry about yourself, before you worry about me....K???
posted by mwhybrew
Andrew Jackson was the very first president to totally sell out our nation to Big Money, and our government has been OWNED by big money (which also owns most of the media from which we get our information) ever since. People need to research deeply in order to obtain the truth, and to quote President Abraham Lincoln, "History is not history unless it is the truth." Don't let people with ulterior motives tell you what to believe.
Post a Comment