Good Argumentative Essay On Jackson’s Judgment

Jackson was a smart individual who took deep analysis of issues before deciding on them. He was an accomplished military general who played a significant role in the 1812 war where he emerged victorious due to his good judgment and decision making. In his presidency Jackson depicted public interest in all his decisions a fact that saw him get into logger heads with the justice system. He did not shy away from defending his decisions and doing what he thought was right for the Americans. Some of the major events which depicted his strong judgment include his challenging of the Supreme Court and the vetoing of the bank bill.

How he Approached Issues

President Andrew Jackson was a straight forward person who was mainly mistaken to be arrogant of a person who took matters personal. When he lost to john Quincy Adams in the 1824 elections he pointed out that power brokers in Washington deprived the people their will. Many people thought that he was being personal but the will of the people was displayed in the 1828 elections when he enjoyed a landslide win. Jackson chose to work with everybody irrespective of their party affiliations and he even appointed the running mate of his opponent as his vice president. He was also taken to be person because he fired his cabinet for various reasons including embezzlement of public funds. Jackson had the best interests of the Americans at heart but the politics of the time portrayed his as a tyrant who took matters personal.

Jackson’s Appointments and Dismissals

Jackson was a no nonsense man who expected everyone to carry out their duties as required. He believed that the president had the right to hire and fire people based on performance. However, due to party politics people were being appointed based on their affiliations and could not be dismissed even after misusing public funds. When he defied all this through cross party appointments and dismissed people who did not perform he was viewed by many politicians as a villain.

Constitutionality of his Veto

The veto by the president was in accordance with the law and well informed because when some of the bills were drafted and passed, the southern states did not have representation in the house. It was therefore, unconstitutional to assent to a bill that will take effect on the people without involving all stakeholders and in this case the southern leaders. To add on this, most of the radical’s laws were being passed to hit on the south. They were basically hitting on their opponents after frustrating them to leave the two houses so that they can carry on with their business unopposed.

Human Rights Concerns during the Indians Removal and the Nullification

There were many treaties that governed life between the white community and the Indians in the south. Despite the swelling populations of the Indians and a looming crisis in the south, many presidents who came before him refrained from taking action in the region. His boldness made him deal with the issue to prevent a population crisis. He did this through negotiating with the people who agreed to this move. However, politics and the discovery of gold in the area made some of the Indians change their stance. Moreover, Jackson only acted from the act passed from the congress and carries the blame for the simple fact that he was the president. After the congress had passed the act to move the Indians, his administration organized for land in other areas meaning he was not planning to trample on the rights of the people.

Jackson as a Tyrant

Andrew Jackson was not a tyrant he was just a bold person who stood for the rights of the Americans. During his time, many changes were experienced in the country as he tried to avoid bipartisan approach in politics where people were served based on their affiliation. This was seen as a challenge by the elite who used all means to frustrate his administration. Of course he overruled the Supreme Court ruling on nullification and rejected the chartering of the second American bank. This was for the benefit of the country as these two issues had great negative effects on the welfare of the country. Although he was condemned at the time, his actions can be praised today as the nullification of south Carolina blocked any chance of secession that could have led to the collapse of the union contrary to the wish of the forefathers of the country such as George Washington.

Constitutionality of the Tariff

The argument by many politicians especially from the southern states and particularly South Carolina that the tariff of 1928 was unconstitutional was based on selfish interest. The tariff was crafted by the same people as a political strategy but passed into law contrary to their wish making them term it as unconstitutional. It went through the due process as required by the constitution until it was signed into law by President John Adams. The reason why it was being opposed is because it at first hurt the economy of the southern states which lead to the president revising its downward. Jackson’s great leadership is depicted in his upholding of the law which led to the development of the local industries. The same tariff that was being opposed at the time has contributed to the modern America.

Comparison with the English Rulers

Jackson was a firm leader but cannot be compared to the English rulers who were mainly autocratic. He was firm in a good way especially when defending the rights of the Americans.

Works Cited

Remini, Robert. Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845. Baltimore: JHU Press, 2013. Print
Parton, James. Life of Andrew Jackson. New York: Mason Brothers, 1861