2007-02-12 07:16:44 · 6 answers · asked by leidy101 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Jackson was President and leader when the US committed the atrocities of the Trail of Tears.
During his reign he sent American troops to route the Cherokee and Choctaw Nations out of their homes and re-locate them to Oklahoma Territory (“Indian Territory” later to be given away again). The Natives had appealed to the US Supreme Court that this was unlawful and they had WON their appeal. The president sent soldiers to force them out AGAINST the Supreme Courts decision!
The peaceful Native Americans had been living on their reservation for generations. They had been settled farmers since before the explorers came (they did not roam like the plains Indians) and many of them had even willingly converted to Christianity.
They were forced to walk 1000 miles on foot and many of them died on the way.
Jackson was, also, severely against a Federal monetary system. He would be rolling in his grave if he knew he was on the $20 bill!
Add:
“Andrew Jackson was the seventh President of the United States (1829-1837).”*
"Jackson was a leading advocate of a policy known as 'Indian Removal,' signing the Indian Removal Act into law in 1830."*
Yes, he was not president when the forced removal of Native Americans was ENFORCED, but he was the one the arranged the situation. The Indians were given a 2 year period to move voluntarily before being forced out. Van Burien was the unlucky president that got stuck with enforcing the removal.
Jackson's opinion of Native Americans was made pretty clear during the First Seminole War. Jackson had led a massacre of a large number of Seminole Indians; they had been supported by the British and Spanish as they fought to keep their lands. Jackson led his soldiers around the battle field and destroyed the village and all their crops leaving them with nothing. He claimed this was an act of self defense because the Indians were a danger and best left weak.
2007-02-12 08:17:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jackson was the first westerner to come to the presidency. That speaks to the rise to political power of the post revolutinary states. He gave impetus to the "strong executive" concept. He also brought together the first true political party in the U.S. He also was the first of the presidents to come from humble beginnings (he was born in either N. Carolina or S. depending on which state is deciding.
2007-02-12 07:24:58 · answer #2 · answered by bigjohn B 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
confident, i think of Jackson replace into an brilliant president. i've got no longer considered that perspective on the path of Tears earlier. I oftentimes ask your self why human beings in potential do likely ignorant issues, yet often there are motives previous my ken. BTW: Habe(a)s Corpus isn't an modification. that's in Article a million section 9.
2016-11-03 06:27:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no offense to that but the trail of tears was from 1838 to 1842 so in reality it was in vanburens days. but who would think jackson was a great president . yes he was a commoner but he was a popular war general with no political experience. he used vetos left and right his vetoing of the bank had a later effect of the panic of 1837.
2007-02-12 12:23:36 · answer #4 · answered by random at its finest 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great: populism (that whole government of the people thing).
Bad: Indian removals and corruption. Lots of both.
2007-02-12 08:33:21 · answer #5 · answered by umlando 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
pro--. he was a 'common man'- as in he grew up and lived a normal childhood, he wasn't in a wealthy family.
con-- hmm i forget some
2007-02-12 07:25:26 · answer #6 · answered by .Frequently♥Dazzled. 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋