#1
Yeah... I seriously doubt anyone will know this but...
I have an in-class essay due tomorrow and its your opinion on whether or not Andrew Jackson was the champion or king of the common man. Does anyone know either why he was the king (more like a tyrant) or a champion (supporter) of the common man?
#2
Wasn't he a democratic champion of the white man but an obstacle to the effect of democracy on minority groups?


(Sorry, it's been a year and I swore to myself I'd never think about "Jacksonian Democracy" ever again.)
#3
it was my understanding that he portrayed himself as he was but when it came to political power he acted as he was the king ..
#5
Want an real answer. he was both. His democracy brought voting to the common man. the election of 1824 and 1828 let all free white man vote. Thus brining power to the people. Some of his fought for the common man. Supposedly his bank war was for the common man trying to bring more power to the farmer in the form of inflation(higher prices better sale value for a short amount of time). However the way his used his powers was in the way of a king. He stretched the constitution its limits when he did his bank war(which lead to a panic in 1832), his handle on the South Carolina Nullificaiton crisis showed tyrannical power(he was about to use force) and his total disregard for John Marshall Supreme Court decision regarded Indians make that very clear(marshal ruled in favor of the Indians having their own land. but jackson was supposedly above the law)

theres more but im too lazy to get into it,

edit:forget to mention his upbring. Supposedly we was orphaned early and worked his way through the ranks to become a great general.However this was kind a facade. He lived on a plantation, but hey whatever works to get votes right.
I traded in my Real Books for Robbins and Cotran Pathology Textbooks
Last edited by mexican_shred at Feb 19, 2007,
#6
He was also batshit crazy.
Listen to mah discs.



And coming soon, THE CLEVER DEVILS VS. THE BLONDES.

Vote for me in the
#7
Quote by mexican_shred
Want an real answer. he was both. His democracy brought voting to the common man. the election of 1824 and 1828 let all free white man vote. Thus brining power to the people. Some of his fought for the common man. Supposedly his bank war was for the common man trying to bring more power to the farmer in the form of inflation(higher prices better sale value for a short amount of time). However the way his used his powers was in the way of a king. He stretched the constitution its limits when he did his bank war(which lead to a panic in 1832), his handle on the South Carolina Nullificaiton crisis showed tyrannical power(he was about to use force) and his total disregard for John Marshall Supreme Court decision regarded Indians make that very clear(marshal ruled in favor of the Indians having their own land. but jackson was supposedly above the law)

theres more but im too lazy to get into it,

edit:forget to mention his upbring. Supposedly we was orphaned early and worked his way through the ranks to become a great general.However this was kind a facade. He lived on a plantation, but hey whatever works to get votes right.
*ashamed of how much I've forgotten in a year*
#8
its not that shameful , history is just one of my strong suits. Plus its only been 5 months or so since i've studded it : P. dont worry, i even dont want to see it again.
I traded in my Real Books for Robbins and Cotran Pathology Textbooks
#9
Quote by mexican_shred
Want an real answer. he was both. His democracy brought voting to the common man. the election of 1824 and 1828 let all free white man vote. Thus brining power to the people. Some of his fought for the common man. Supposedly his bank war was for the common man trying to bring more power to the farmer in the form of inflation(higher prices better sale value for a short amount of time). However the way his used his powers was in the way of a king. He stretched the constitution its limits when he did his bank war(which lead to a panic in 1832), his handle on the South Carolina Nullificaiton crisis showed tyrannical power(he was about to use force) and his total disregard for John Marshall Supreme Court decision regarded Indians make that very clear(marshal ruled in favor of the Indians having their own land. but jackson was supposedly above the law)

theres more but im too lazy to get into it,

edit:forget to mention his upbring. Supposedly we was orphaned early and worked his way through the ranks to become a great general.However this was kind a facade. He lived on a plantation, but hey whatever works to get votes right.



thanks man. no mean to be a dick but could you go into detail about why he was the champion of the common man. thats all i need to know for the essay. sorry if that came off making me look like an asshole.
#10
Ok he was champion o the common man because he was the common man. Unlike earlier presidents who came from rich upbringings people could relate to him thus loved him as hed did everything they wanted. He worked to try and make their lives better. more of a very democratic president before the democratic party was arround. He was a man for the people.
Member of UG's Gain \/\/hores - pm gpderek09 to join
#12
Quote by poweroutlet
thanks man. no mean to be a dick but could you go into detail about why he was the champion of the common man. thats all i need to know for the essay. sorry if that came off making me look like an asshole.

he brought democracy to the common man. Now suffrage was extended from Land owners to every white man. A step towards "real" democracy. And his intentions with the bank war was to get rid of its monopolistic ways because it oppressed "western" farmer because of the loan and interest rates.

FYI a good essay will say its gray area. not just eon side
I traded in my Real Books for Robbins and Cotran Pathology Textbooks
#13
ok. do you have the link for the wikipedia article. and are there 3 good reasons why he was the champion of the common man?
#14
Quote by mexican_shred
he brought democracy to the common man. Now suffrage was extended from Land owners to every white man. A step towards "real" democracy. And his intentions with the bank war was to get rid of its monopolistic ways because it oppressed "western" farmer because of the loan and interest rates.

FYI a good essay will say its gray area. not just eon side


i know but my teacher says we need to be opinionated and will give us a zero if we say he was both the king and the champion of the common man. shes a stupid beach.
#15
Quote by Keef-is-king
I wrote a good chunk of the wikipedia article, so read that. It's quite accurate.

I cleaned up a bit of that article a while ago : ). its still a little too broad for my taste tho.

Syn: eh..he really did no actions as president that championed for the people(in the most part). he was just more like "hey he's not rich, sweet i could get there then" kinda of guy.

Edit:in that case its easier to argue that he was a tyrant.
I traded in my Real Books for Robbins and Cotran Pathology Textbooks
#16
andrew jackson, possibly the greatest president of the united states was a champion of the common man as showed by when during his inauguration he opened the doors of the white house to anyone who wanted to come in. the Jacksonian style of presidency is my favorite style and i never liked his rival (Henry Clay). he was not a king of the common man because it is shown that he had respected the common man because of his common upbringing in south Carolina and later tennesse. plus he was the common man champion as the first govenor of florida. not to mention he said that the corrupt bargain was a slap in the face of democracy and would cause a lack of trust in the common man electorate
I shot JR

Oh Canada Our Home and Native Land
#17
Quote by Drmckool
andrew jackson, possibly the greatest president of the united states was a champion of the common man as showed by when during his inauguration he opened the doors of the white house to anyone who wanted to come in. the Jacksonian style of presidency is my favorite style and i never liked his rival (Henry Clay). he was not a king of the common man because it is shown that he had respected the common man because of his common upbringing in south Carolina and later tennesse. plus he was the common man champion as the first govenor of florida. not to mention he said that the corrupt bargain was a slap in the face of democracy and would cause a lack of trust in the common man electorate

his upbringing still wasn't that common. He still came form a rather aristocratic family in the south. It was the idea that he was brought up in the "west" that appealed to the people.

oh and TR=greatest president . he was a true champion of the common man.
I traded in my Real Books for Robbins and Cotran Pathology Textbooks
#18
Quote by mexican_shred
I cleaned up a bit of that article a while ago : ). its still a little too broad for my taste tho.

Syn: eh..he really did no actions as president that championed for the people(in the most part). he was just more like "hey he's not rich, sweet i could get there then" kinda of guy.

Edit:in that case its easier to argue that he was a tyrant.


yeah, i did a paper on him a while ago, and in my research was able to add much to the article.... I am kind of bad at writing that kind of article, so I kept it broad so more people could pull what they want out of it.

That's what is so great about history, so much is debateable with regards to things like intent and the like.
#21
He overstepped his constitutional bounds when he killed the bank (according to even soem of his advisers)

His disregard for marshal's Decesions during the NAtive American trials made him elevate the power of the executive branch and undermined the judicial branch elevating him to the status of a king almost.

His handle with the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina over the the tariff(1832-1834) showed his dogmatic ways, and that he would do things his way even if it took force.


while these may be seen as strict interpretation of the constitution some can say its seem as tyrannical.
I traded in my Real Books for Robbins and Cotran Pathology Textbooks