Response of at least 150 words to classmates.
Classmate Response 1:
Andrew Jackson was a “contradiction” in terms of his attitudes and actions toward the “common man,” Indians, women, blacks, the role of federal versus state government, and expanding opportunity versus maintaining the status quo. Explain WHY Jackson’s actions and attitudes were contradictory. Give specific examples and be sure to provide the relevant facts and citations for your answer.
President Jackson was a respected president known for his devotion to democratize the political realm and improve economic opportunities for the “Common Man” during his term in office. It would be evident that he would live up to the slogan of his campaign when his inauguration ceremony was opened to anyone. President Jackson replaced roughly a fifth of the federal officeholders with his friends and supporters regardless of their qualifications. “No political figure was so widely loved or more deeply despised, yet he stamped his name and, more important, his ideas, personality, and values on an entire era of American history” (Shi; p. 327). It was clear that President Jackson’s vision of the common man would be defined as white men, poor and did not own land. In fact, Jackson felt compel to protect them from wealthy upper-class white men and elevate them to have equal rights and opportunities. The African Americans, Native American, and white women would continue to be denied equality that he fought so desperately to defend. Jackson hailed from South Carolina, and his views on slavery and plantation owners would show no opposition even after to becoming the President. When abolitionist from the north began mailing anti-slavery pamphlets and newspapers to southerners hoping to convince them to end slavery, Jackson missed an opportunity to redefine his support for common people desperate for equality in America. Jackson pleaded to Congress to pass a federal censorship law that would prohibit abolitionist from anti-slavery campaigns to southerners. When Congress denied his request, he did not hold southern post offices accountable for their actions of continuing censoring. “Democrats decided that Jackson, for all his celebration of democracy and equality, was not different from John C. Calhoun and other southern racists” (Censoring Mail; p. 345). The Native Americans would feel the wrath of Jackson, when he proposed an Indian Removal Act that would relocate 74,000 Natives in the East and South. Cherokees went to the Supreme Court which ruled in their favor, both in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Worcester v. Georgia that their land could not be taken from them. “President Jackson, however, refused to enforce the Court’s decisions, claiming that that they had no constitutional authority to intervene in Georgia to protect the Cherokees. Jackson’s rejection of the Court’s ruling reflected his many contradictions” (Shi, p. 341).
Classmate Response 2:
The Tariff of 1828 as an impetus behind Nullification Theory
Andrew Jackson was obstinate and believes by most to be defiant to adhering to the congress on most decisions. Uneducated as he was, he’s monarchical in enforcing his wishes, he vetoed most bills and wouldn’t accept states to secede from the Federal Union and won’t as well accept any states insubordination. “Critics claimed that his behavior was “monarchical” in its frequent defiance of the will of Congress. Jackson, however, remained determined to strengthen the executive branch in order to strengthen the Union.” (Shi, pg.333). President Andrew Jackson isn’t in good term with his vice; John C. Calhoun, the theory of nullification initiative of Calhoun, was a poison to Jackson, and he was ready to make sure the theory didn’t see the light of the day.” Vice President John C. Calhoun became President Jackson’s fiercest critic because of changing conditions in his home state of South Carolina.” (Shi, pg.333) South Carolinians believed that the Tariff of 1828 where Tax is been raised for Great Britain import fabrics, became the consequential why their raw material, grown cotton at South Carolina had received a lot of setback, as the foreign buyers turned to get their raw materials elsewhere. The cotton price dropped dramatically, also most especially, the residents were relocating to another states where they could engage in a better productive jobs. “By taxing British textiles coming into U.S. markets, the 1828 tariff on imported cloth hurt southern cotton growers by reducing British demand for raw cotton from America.” (Shi, pg.333)
The vice president campaign to embarking on an allegation stating that; Tariff 1828 is of much benefit to northern textile manufacturers to the agriculture sector of the South, and thus using mailing system to create awareness to theory of nullification “In a lengthy pamphlet called the South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828), written in secret by John C. Calhoun, the South Carolinian claimed that the Tariff of 1828 favored the interests of New England textile manufacturing over southern agriculture.” (Shi, pg.333). Calhoun advocates the need to veto or to ignore federal law it deemed unconstitutional, he argued that in circumstances of violation of constitution, the states could nullify or veto such recklessness. “Under such circumstances, he argued, a state could “nullify,” or veto, a federal law it deemed unconstitutional.” (Shi, pg.333). Hitherto enact of Tariff 1828, Southern agriculture flourishes, but there was competition with foreign imported fabrics, this prompts the raise in tax to the Great Britain importations. This was to dissuade the masses from buying the foreign fabrics and thus implementing opportunity cost, i.e.; going for the available homemade fabric while the foreign goods will be an alternative forgone due to the high in price cost. Vice president was certain that the Great Britain reduction in demand for America cotton, mainly grown in the south was direct impetus to the Tariff of 1828, thus; he believed that theory of nullification was inevitable as it’s the only weapon to counter the federal authority. “Nullification was the ultimate weapon for those determined to protect states’ rights against federal authority. As President Jackson and others pointed.” (Shi, pg.333).
Andrew Jackson was ready for a civil war, needed congress approval to use nation’s army against its subject. “In early 1833, the president requested from Congress a “Force Bill” authorizing him to use the U.S. Army to “force” compliance with federal law in South Carolina.” (Shi, pg. 337). Webster made it clear that, oneness of the nation was paramount; he went further to explain that if the states were allowed to nullify federal laws enacted by the people, then the Union would be nothing but a rope of sand. “If states were allowed to nullify a federal law, the Union would be nothing but a “rope of sand.” Shi, pg.334). Perhaps his eloquent speech resonates even to the understanding of the opponents as he concluded that South Carolina nullifying federal law is a disunion by force. “South Carolina’s defiance of federal authority, he charged, “is nothing more than resistance by force—it is disunion by force—it is secession by force—it is Civil War.” (Shi, pg.334-335). A compromise was eventually reached, the South Carolinians backed down on the nullification theory, as Senator Henry Clay intervention paid off by agreeing to reduce the federal tariff which was much of a significant relief to the southerners. “On February 12, 1833, he circulated a plan to reduce the federal tariff gradually.” (Shi, pg.337). The both party compromised to avert impending civil war, they both emerge as winners as the party concerned were both treated fairly. “Both sides were able to claim victory. Jackson had upheld the supremacy of the Union, and South Carolina had secured a reduction of the federal tariff.” (Shi, pg.337).