Today in class you voted whether or not you thought that Jackson should be impeached. Explain your reasoning.
Make sure you:
§Articulate your point of view (5 points)
§Bring in specific examples that support your argument. (bring in key terms, ideas…) Now you can make references to issues that you were not arguing in class. (10 points)
§Make comments to the person who blogged before you/either agreeing and explaining why, or disagreeing and explaining why . (10 points)
Andrew Jackson should be impeached because he went against the Constitution by not working with the legislative and executive branches, and abusing his power. In his inaugural addresses, Jackson promised to work in compliance with the other branches of government, and maintain his stance as a "common man." However, a common man is not someone who steals from the people, dismantles the union and abuses Native Americans. By creating pet banks and transferring people's money without Congressional approval, Jackson overstepped his boundaries as President. In doing so, he led to the credit crunch- a major factor in the Panic of 1837. Jackson also created the specie circular without approval, which once again led to economic distress. Even if Jackson had good intentions, he was not doing what was right for the people and what they wanted. If he had taken advice from his official cabinet, instead of his "kitchen cabinet," and congress, Jackson would have been able to receive a clear view of what the people needed. In regards to the Nullification crisis, Jackson acted without thinking of the whole country- the south did not agree with his plans. He also ordered military into South Carolina, without consent. He broke the 10th amendment. Also, isn't it true that changes and nullification are the basis of our nation and what freed us from tyranny? South Carolina was simply continuing using the idea that we must challenge what we disagree with. Also, Jackson was being a hypocrite because he claimed he wanted to preserve the Union. However, he tried undermining the rights of the states (South Carolina in particular) and almost broke apart the union. In regards to the Native Americans, Jackson mistreated them and gave them an ultimatum- stay here and change who you are (become Americanized) or leave. In kicking the Native Americans out of their land, Jackson acted much more like a King than a common man. He took action before consulting the judicial branch. Once again, there were negative consequences for Jackson's actions. On the Trail of Tears, thousands of Native Americans died on their journey out of their homeland. In summary, Jackson's powerhungry attitude got him in trouble when he thought he could make decisions for the country on his own. Our government structure is the way it is for a reason, and it was not Jackson's job to change that. He was simply one piece of the puzzle within the government, not the sole authority.
ReplyDelete-Chloe Williams
Andrew Jackson has certainly used his power as president more so than any other one before him. He did not consult with the legislative branch in some decisions and even influenced them to pass certain Acts to implement his ideas upon society. If his actions benefited the country, then maybe abuse of his power could be overlooked. However, pushing the Natives west was immoral and inhumane. The Indian Removal Act, the Cherokee not being able to present their case in the Supreme court until they became an independent nation, and the Trail of Tears are all proof of that Jackson seemed to be looking out for the country's growth but not of its people; the minorities anyway. Jackson had definitely tried to provide better opportunities for the common man with his pet banks and dissolution of the national bank. The national bank favored rich Americans, and with local banks the idea was to allow poor whites the chance to increase their revenue. However, along with the creation of Specie circular, this led to the Panic of 1837 and provided an economic impasse until he went out of office. His intention was certainly not to put the country in debt; he bypassed Congress in order to make a difference. Isn't that what America was founded upon; the idea of major change even if it meant going against the rules? Nonetheless that idea in the past presented a positive outcome unlike this case. Jackson's actions regarding South Carlina's choice to nullify tariffs led to a pause in the anti-slavery movement. Though he lowered the tariff and did not send any troops to South Carolina, (he just had them formed and ready and also had the Force Act in order to make any military movements completely legal) then tension that was present between the government and South Carolina later led to the state seceding. Chloe provides excellent evidence to why Jackson should be impeached. I agree with her analysis of his actions proving harmful to Native Americans and that they did not really have much of a say in their fate. Her main point is that Jackson did not consult with the other branches when going forth with his actions. Therefore he violates the separation of powers, checks and balances, and seems to be rather tyrannical, similar to a king. however many presidents before him did not always do the right thing or follow the rules set before him. So whether her should just be completely put out of power because of his actions, while other presdients have made similar decesions to him have not been impeached, must answer this question : Were jackson's intentions related to the President's job of protecting the rights of the people, advancing the nation and preserving it, and did his actions provide a positive outcome as a whole? I believe that Jackson should not be impeached under the grounds that he tried to do what is best for the people, even at the expense of rules and regulations. But i also believe his power should have been limited, regulated more since his ideas did not seem to work very well.
ReplyDelete~Joe Albanese
While he did overstep the boundaries of the the Constitution of the United States, he does not deserve to be impeached for his actions. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Jackson's actions were not treason or bribery, so the impeachment cause would fall under other high crimes. Jackson did not consult the judicial branch or Congress regarding some matters during his presidency. Looking at his dealings with the bank, Jackson did not do anything the Constitution limited him by. The Constitution does not state the rights of the people but the restricts placed on the government. Taking out money from the 2nd National Bank was a clever and sneaky way to get what he desired, but Jackson was merely looking out for the common man. He believed that the National Bank was strictly for the rich, and wanted those who were not as fortunate to have a place for their money as well. While Jackson's method of going about making pet banks was not the best way to go about it, he was not committing any crimes by doing so. His dealings with South Carolina were to stop a possible violet rebellion. By assembling an army Jackson attempted to stop South Carolina from succeeding. As president, Jackson had to preserve the Union. Furthermore, he ended up negotiating a lowering of the tariff after South Carolina decided not to succeed. His dealings with the native Americans may be looked on as inhumane today was not uncommon during the 19th century. The fact that Jackson ever even considered giving them space for a reservation is unheard of. While it is true that he did not provide the guaranteed protection to the natives, he allowed them to escape the possibly horrific outcome of the natives remaining in Georgia, near very violent locals. The Cherokee Nation was essential a soveregin nation inside the US, making them "visitors" in a larger country. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress, not as if Jackson thought of it and acted on it himself. He merely wanted to do the best for his nation, yet his methods were not the best or well recieved.
ReplyDeleteWhile Jackson did overstep his boundaries as president impeachment isn't something he deserves. As Rachel mentioned earlier Article II Section 4 of the Constitution states that impeachment is necessary for "high crimes or misdemeanors." While his actions may not have been the best in hindsight they were certainly not high crimes. The first example is Jackson's dealing with the Bank. Jackson thought that dismembering the Bank would be a good idea based on Jeffersonian views. The problem is the way Jackson dismembered the bank. His use of pet banks the the specie circulation lead to a economic downfall and the panic of 1837. Jackson was just doing what he thought was right as President. Its not fair to impeach every president who isn't necessarily the best president. Many american citizens would agree that George W. Bush or even Barack Obama (even though the statements regarding President Obama have little credibility due to his short time in office so far) aren't great presidents, however this does not mean a President should be impeached. Jackson's actions lead to a economic panic and his dealings with the Native Americans killed thousands (Indian Removal Act) but other things like the nullification act were necessary steps in Jackson's presidency that show that he indeed is competent. While Jackson didn't have the foresight to see the consequences of some of his actions, no one really did. Not even Thomas Jefferson did when he signed the Embargo Act of 1807. Jackson's presidency wasn't exactly successful, but regardless of that he did nothing that would be worthy of impeachment and on no grounds should impeachment be even discussed.
ReplyDelete-Matthew DiRe
President Jackson does not deserve to be impeached for his actions. In order for a president to be impeached he must be convicted of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors as it states in article 2, section 4 of the constitution. Although Jackson disregarded to seek advice from the judicial branch in some of his decisions, he did not commit any high crimes, he was not treasonous, and was not bribed. His first decision was the decision to destroy the bank. Jackson thought that abolishing the bank would be a good idea because he based his decision on the views of Jefferson. As a result of the destroying of the bank, there was a replacement of pet banks and the specie circular. These did not result in an overall good outcome, as it resulted in an economic downfall and later the Panic of 1837. His decision was certainly not a high crime nor treasonous, but just a poor decision. Jackson believed it would be best but later found out that he was indeed wrong. Jacksons dealing with the Native Americans was also another decision that was just done poorly. His attempt to move the Indians out west angered the Native Americans. But if they were to stay put in their original location they would have been killed by greedy white southerners, so Jackson really had no choice. Many thought that the nullification act was an act that was unconstitutional, South Carolina especially. Andrew Jackson took action and it paid off. The force bill lead to the repealing of the nullification ordinance act. Although Jackson style of presidency was unorthodox compared to other presidents he does not deserve to be impeached. Jackson did not have the luxury of seeing what the outcomes of his decision would be and therefore just based his decisions on what he thought would be best for the country. Jackson did what he thought would be best for not only the country but for the common people as well. Because of this I believe Jackson doesn’t deserve to be impeached and convicted of high crimes and the violation of the constitution as a whole.
ReplyDelete-DOM
President Jackson should not have been impeached for his actions. Yes he did overstep his boundaries like Matt said but he did these actions for the common people and to try to make the US a better and strong country. One example if Jackson trying to preserve the Union. Sending an army to South Carolina does go against the 10th amendment, however, Jackson knew if South Carolina broke away from the Union, by themselves they wouldn't last economically and they may try to get neighboring states to join them against the union. The second reason is the Indian Removal act. The Indian removal act was a good idea for trying to expand our nation and to complete manifest destiny but it ended up in a mini genocide. Thousands of Indians were force out of their own lands to move west ward and many died on this journey. This journey was called the Trail of Tears. Jackson was looking out for the common man, to expand the US's resources and for more living space but he failed to see that the Indians were the ones who helped the US to prosper. Lastly Jackson was did nothing wrong by getting rid of the national bank. He didn’t commit any crimes or went against and rule. he believed that the states should have their own banks and a national bank should not support the wealthy by letting the rich chose what bank they want to lend to, print useless money etc. The development of pet banks was an attempt by Jackson to help the common man in the US to be equal. But this idea failed also. It cause a major financial dept and citizens were worried. if Jackson did not get rid of the bank the gap between the rich and poor would keep growing and this would cause an unstable economy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt, Jackson's presidency wasn't exactly successful, but regardless of that he did nothing that would cause him of impeachment. Jackson was simply looking out for the common man and for every man to be equal.
-Dean
President Andrew Jackson should not be impeached due to his decisions made while being in office. According to Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution the President can only be impeached if convicted of a high crime. The president obviously has not committed any such thing, but he has made some decisions that if they were presented to the judicial branch, could have been improved. When regarding with the 2nd United States Bank, Jackson viewed it as a problem many because he felt that the bank only was only beneficial for the wealthy. Jackson always made decisions that were in the best interest of the common men of America, he replaced the bank wit pet banks. These pet banks were a extreme failure which led to Jackson having to enforce the Specie Circular, which demanded that metallic coins of value should be used as currency. These ineffective decisions spun the nation into a vast economic depression which eventually leads to the Panic of 1837. His decision was not a high crime of any stature, but it was just an ill thought decision that could have been prevented if he took into the account the opinions of his "kitchen cabinet" and the judicial branch. Another example of this would be Jackson's dealing with the Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 allowed the President to negotiate terms of agreements on land resettlement of Indian Nation east of the Mississippi River. Many people down south were becoming impatient and demanding on the idea of westward expansion. So Jackson took into his highest interest the wants of the people, so he negotiated with several Indian tribes and agreed on terms that would have them resettle more west. But once the south got some land they desired all of it, which lead to massacres of some of the Indian tribes that respectively decided to stay within the boundaries of the United States. The President had no other option but to protect the Indians by forcing them west. Which leads to the Trail of Tears, where over 4,000 Indians die due to the harsh expedition from their homelands to the west. This terrible tragedy could have been avoided if Jackson took into account the needs of everyone and not just the common man. Another controversial topic during Jackson's presidency was the Nullification Crisis. The Nullification crisis was caused by congress passing the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. South Carolina who was reliant on the transporting of their harvests and crops to Britain in exchange for their manufactured goods was enraged when a tariff was passed to but a higher tax on imported items. South Carolina who already at the time was economically struggling, decided to nullify the tariff stating that they were "unconstitutional". Jackson immediately took strict military action as he made it his sole mission to keep the nation unified. So congress passed the Force Bill, which allowed Jackson to take military actions on South Carolina, as they have no right to nullify a tariff passed by congress. Jackson's swift actions preserved the nation for the next 2 decades until the Civil War. I agree with Dom when he says "Jackson style of presidency was unorthodox compared to other presidents", as Jackson was no ordinary President. He ignored precedents made by the great former presidents, such as Washington's cabinet but Jackson was very decisive, he would make a decision and would only believe in his own beliefs, eliminating outside advise from his cabinet or his judicial branch. This would both hurt and help his presidency as it helped keep the union unified, but it caused horrible economic problems and domestic affairs with Indians. Overall Jackson always had the desire to help the people with little voice in the country, the common man. Even though Jackson's decisions during his presidency might have been ill thought out, he always had his heart in the right place which is why Jackson should not be impeached, as he never committed a high crime against his people.
ReplyDelete--Stephen Cirillo
President Andrew Jackson should not be impeached due to his decisions made while being in office. According to Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution the President can only be impeached if convicted of a high crime. The president obviously has not committed any such thing, but he has made some decisions that if they were presented to the judicial branch, could have been improved. When regarding with the 2nd United States Bank, Jackson viewed it as a problem many because he felt that the bank only was only beneficial for the wealthy. Jackson always made decisions that were in the best interest of the common men of America, he replaced the bank wit pet banks. These pet banks were a extreme failure which led to Jackson having to enforce the Specie Circular, which demanded that metallic coins of value should be used as currency. These ineffective decisions spun the nation into a vast economic depression which eventually leads to the Panic of 1837. His decision was not a high crime of any stature, but it was just an ill thought decision that could have been prevented if he took into the account the opinions of his "kitchen cabinet" and the judicial branch. Another example of this would be Jackson's dealing with the Native Americans. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 allowed the President to negotiate terms of agreements on land resettlement of Indian Nation east of the Mississippi River. Many people down south were becoming impatient and demanding on the idea of westward expansion. So Jackson took into his highest interest the wants of the people, so he negotiated with several Indian tribes and agreed on terms that would have them resettle more west. But once the south got some land they desired all of it, which lead to massacres of some of the Indian tribes that respectively decided to stay within the boundaries of the United States. The President had no other option but to protect the Indians by forcing them west. Which leads to the Trail of Tears, where over 4,000 Indians die due to the harsh expedition from their homelands to the west. This terrible tragedy could have been avoided if Jackson took into account the needs of everyone and not just the common man. Another controversial topic during Jackson's presidency was the Nullification Crisis. The Nullification crisis was caused by congress passing the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. South Carolina who was reliant on the transporting of their harvests and crops to Britain in exchange for their manufactured goods was enraged when a tariff was passed to but a higher tax on imported items. South Carolina who already at the time was economically struggling, decided to nullify the tariff stating that they were "unconstitutional". Jackson immediately took strict military action as he made it his sole mission to keep the nation unified. So congress passed the Force Bill, which allowed Jackson to take military actions on South Carolina, as they have no right to nullify a tariff passed by congress. Jackson's swift actions preserved the nation for the next 2 decades until the Civil War. I agree with Dom when he says "Jackson style of presidency was unorthodox compared to other presidents", as Jackson was no ordinary President. He ignored precedents made by the great former presidents, such as Washington's cabinet but Jackson was very decisive, he would make a decision and would only believe in his own beliefs, eliminating outside advise from his cabinet or his judicial branch. This would both hurt and help his presidency as it helped keep the union unified, but it caused horrible economic problems and domestic affairs with Indians. Overall Jackson always had the desire to help the people with little voice in the country, the common man. So even thought Jackson's decisions during his presidency might have been ill thought out, he always had his heart in the right place which is why Jackson should not be impeached, as he never committed a high crime against his people.
ReplyDelete--Stephen Cirillo
I think President Jackson should not be impeached looking over his poor decisions he made during his presidency. A president can only be impeached if commits a high crime according to article 2 section 4 of the constitution, and clearly trying to help his country and his people wasn't a crime that Jackson attempted. Andrew Jackson did make some poor decisions such as putting high taxes which were not accepted by the people in South Carolina specifically. The people overreacted, the taxes were later reduced and the force which was supposed to be sent to South Carolina never stepped foot in the state. Even though he reduced the taxes back, he raised them so he can help the economy of his country so they can become more powerful but it didn't turn out to be that well. He removed the banks due to his thinking that the banks were only beneficial to the wealthy rather than the Americans in whole. He introduced pet banks which was a huge backfiring plan as it brought the whole nation in depression, Panic of 1837. The Indian Removal Act he passed, moving the natives to the west, was to secure the natives from the white southerners who were attacking them, and also their moving to the west would have gained the U.S some more land for industrialization and farming. This act was also considered legal as the natives were not mentioned in the constitution. I agree with matt that Jackson did go over his limitation of power and should have concerned his officials about his decisions but every president has made some mistakes and poor decisions and he shouldn't be impeached for trying to help his country, he did not commit any crime either so i believe that Jackson shouldn't be impeached.
ReplyDeleteFarhan Nasim
Andrew Jackson should be impeached because he did not consult with the legislative and executive branches therefore he went against the constitution. Jackson promised to work together with the other branches of government in his inaugural address. Jackson failed to follow through with his promises of being a “common man.” Jackson took money from federal banks and abused Native Americans. He overstepped his boundaries as president by not consulting other branches and disregarding the constitution as well as amendments. Jackson created pet banks, which transferred people’s money without congresses approval. This ultimately led to the credit crunch and panic of 1837. The specie circular also created an economic down fall. Although Jackson may have had good intensions, he still went against the constitution, which was wrong. Therefore he should be impeached. Jackson should have taken advice from congress and his official cabinet members instead of his “kitchen cabinet.” If Jackson would have done this, he would have received and clear understanding for what the people wanted and needed. Jackson also acted without the entire country in mind during the Nullification crisis. The south was not in agreement with his plans, yet Jackson continued to in force his thoughts. He also broke the 10th Amendment, by ordering the military to take forceful actions towards the people in South Carolina. Lastly, Jackson mistreated the Native Americans by telling them to leave or stay and have to change their ways of life. In this case Jackson acted more like a “king” than a common man. This contrasts his opinions made in his inaugural address. Overall Jackson took action before consulting with congress and abides by the constitution. In all of Jackson’s decisions there were negative consequences. For example the Specie Act lead to economic distress. Also, relocating the Native Americans lead to many deaths. Each and every decision Jackson made has a negative consequence, which out weighed the good intensions. If Jackson had not listened to himself but to the country he was representing he would have had a better outcome.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chloe, Jackson’s made his decisions based on his own opinions and did not consult with congress. Therefore he was a disservice to our country.
Elisa Santelia ^
ReplyDeletePresident Jackson does not deserve to be impeached for his actions performed during his presidency. While I do agree that Jackson did somewhat overstep his presidential boundaries, none of what he did was against the law or unconstitutional. Article two, section four of the constitution states that a president shall only be removed from office by impeachment if they are convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors; none of Jackson’s actions as president, despite their questionability, fall under the categories of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. Jackson could have definitely consulted with the other branches on many of this issues he dealt with, but was not required by law, to go against his beliefs. Jackson always worked in favor of the common man; as he believed the bank to be an unfair institution favoring the wealthy, he sought to take money out and place it in small pet banks more locally available to the lower class majority. His decision to destroy the bank, while eventually leading to an economic crisis (the Panic of 1837), was not of any form of unconstitutionality, and it could certainly not be predicted that it would have a negative effect on the nation. Jackson’s decisions with South Carolina, as well, were not in any form against the regulations of the constitution and therefore give no support of his impeachment. As the president, it was Jackson’s sworn duty to protect the nation and preserve the union; the constitution gives him the power to do so in order to seek out the best for the nation. Even after raising troops for if they were needed in South Carolina, Jackson came to an agreement with the state to lower the tariff and not act with force; by doing so, he continued to preserve the union and prevent South Carolina’s attempted secession. Of all of Jackson’s untraditional actions as president, the most controversial of all would have to be the Indian Removal Act. Although very immoral and cruel to Native Americans, Jackson had every right to do so and enforce such rules on them being a sovereign state, as Congress had passed the act. Had congress rejected this act and Jackson continued to treat the Native Americans as such, then his impeachment would be more up for debate—but following the law, President Jackson did nothing worth losing his position.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel, on the idea that in that time period, Jackson was being more than generous even considering the safety of Native Americans; by setting aside land for their reservations and moving them away from angry southerners, Jackson seemed to give more consideration toward the Native Americans than many others would at that time.
Andrew Jackson definitely overstepped his power as the president. Despite all of the mistakes(or concious decisions) that Jackson made, he does not deserve to be impeached. President Jackson decided to do so many things on his own, and acted without consent from the other branches, but if you were to take a look on the inside of everything going on, Jackson had reasoning behind not all, but most of what he did. First off, in regards to Jackson and the bank, I think that it is not clear what happened in the background of everything. 1832 was an election year, and Jackson was running for his 2nd term against Henry Clay. Clay had been enimies with Jackson in the past, and Clay also knew Jacksons plan to destroy the bank. Seeing as Jackson represented the common man, destroying the bank is something that definitely should have been expected during his presidency. The bank supported the rich men and the north. Clay, knowing of this plan, decided to recharter the bank early, and use it as a huge campaign for himself. Surprising for Clay, but not for me, Jackson ended up recieving 2/3 of the electoral votes during that election. I think its because it was the second election where the real common men were allowed to vote. Because of this overwhelming amount of support he rallied, Jackson felt like his idea to destroy the bank was agreed upon by the citizens. He continued on to make pet banks and create a specie circular, which were the flaws of the whole plan, but hey, the original idea was fine. There are flaws for almost everything that happens, and Jackson did believe that he had the backings to start off the whole process. In addition to just the bank issue, with the Indian removal acts, Jackson might have gone against countless morals, but he did nothing unconstitutional. The fact that anything having to do with the Cherokee even came up in the supreme court is surprising in itself. The Cherokee were in their homeland, but at the time, it was Americas property. Yes, the americans had treatys with them, and yes they lived like men of America, but in reality they had theyre own constitution and they didnt really live by Americas rules. They were given a trial, and although forcing them out caused so many deaths and was immoral, it was not impeachable of Jackson even if he did go against rulings. Last but not least, with the nullification act there is no way that it was impeachable. Jackson was forceful in order to preserve the union by any means and he did eventually open his eyes to a compromise with Calhoun. I do agree with Elisa that Jackson indeed overstepped his balance and failed to work with other branches, and he also vetoed a little too much, but he was doing what he thought would be better for the nation as a whole. Nothing that he did was impeachable because he always had something to justify his actions. Was he the best president? definitely not. But did he not deserve his spot at all? i think were going a little far to say that.
ReplyDelete-Julia Coash
Andrew Jackson should be impeached because he went over his boundaries and abused his power. For example he went against the Constitution and didn’t consult with the legislative and executive branches. He was acting more as a king rather than a "common man". He failed to follow his promise of being a common man to the American people. He contradicted what he said in his inaugural address when he stated that he wanted everyone to live with equality and glory. The Native Americans didn’t live with equality or glory. . He relocated Native American tribes living east of the Mississippi River to lands west of the river. This removal act required thousands of Native Americans to leave their traditional homelands and resettle. The removal of Native Americans from their lands by the Indian Removal Act of 1830 violated their political, legal, and human rights. They were considered a part of the United States, yet no democracy even existed for the Native Americans. The Native Americans reasoning and advocated desires were ignored. He took action and didn’t even verify it with the judicial branch. When he moved the Native Americans out west he stated that he would protect them but he didn’t. On the Trail of Tears, 4,000 Native Americans died on their journey. He failed to follow his promise of being a common man to the American people. Another reason why Jackson should be impeached was when he formed “pet banks”. He transferred people’s money without congresses approval. Pet banks totally destroyed the economy and this led to the panic of 1837. The specie circular also didn’t help the economy. The devaluation of paper currency only increased with Jackson's proclamation. This sent inflation and prices upwards. His actions made a major dip in the economy due to the increased debt created by this banking system. Even if Jackson wanted to do what was best for the country, he made to many mistakes for being a president. He should be impeached because when he formed “pet banks” he should have verified it with congress before he did anything. He is the president but he can’t do whatever he wants and go against the constitution. If he had went to congress about “pet banks” the economy maybe would have been different and not have to suffer. Therefore Jackson abused his source of power too much, and had a negative effect on the Americans. As a president he chose to make decisions all by himself and didn’t get any approval on his choices. The constitution is guidelines for the American people and Jackson needs to understand that it is required for the president too. The actions he encountered as president had a negative effect on America because he put the American people in horrible situations.
ReplyDelete