English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have to determine if he was more positive or negative and I am finding reasons for both. Any opinions?

2007-07-12 08:26:01 · 7 answers · asked by wilson314 1 in Arts & Humanities History

7 answers

Positive.

1. He equalized the power structure between the three branches of government by taking some legislative and judicial powers. He did not enforce Marshall over the Georgian Indians and beat Congress by getting rid of the National Bank.

2. He can't be villified for forcing the trail of tears. If so, are you gonna villify everyone who did it and similar things? Do we villify Lee, Cortez, Columbus, W.H. Harrison, Custer, and countless others? No we don't b/c that was the way of life back then. If wearing facial hair on your body say two hundred years in the future becomes taboo, do you think Billy Givens should be villified? Or many men around the world? No, because it is acceptable now just as moving & conquering 'lesser civilizations' was back then.

3. He was a manly man. When Richard Lawrence tried to kill him (both of his pistols misfired, a most unlikely thing to happen), Jackson didn't miss a beat and started to cane whip his would be attacker into a bloody pulp. If not for several aids restraining him, it woulda been Jackson committing justifyable homicide on that day.

2007-07-12 09:10:28 · answer #1 · answered by IamCount 4 · 0 2

Positive

2007-07-12 15:28:56 · answer #2 · answered by noturbizniss 1 · 0 1

Well, the correct answer is the one you have already come up with, his influence is both positive and negative.

However, do to the facts that he took the US Treasury out of the national bank and put it into state banks(7 of which had Jackson on its Board of Directors taking a salary), the indian removal, the political corruption, if it leans any direction, it leans towards negative.

whale

2007-07-12 16:12:29 · answer #3 · answered by WilliamH10 6 · 0 0

Considering what he did to the American Indian people (start reading about The Battle of Little BigHorn and Crazy Horse), I consider him an evil force in history; however, he is also a learning one -- learn from past mistakes. Perhaps trying to force his greedy ways upon others, he should've learned to compromise. I wonder where the US would if it had not been for greedy people like Jackson????

2007-07-12 15:35:18 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 2

I'm sure the Indians in Florida feel he was a negative, as did the Banking Industry

2007-07-12 15:29:01 · answer #5 · answered by Experto Credo 7 · 1 0

Negative -- he went against the Supreme Court's decision in regards to the Cherokee Nation.

2007-07-12 17:29:59 · answer #6 · answered by Marvin R 7 · 1 0

if your trying to find anwsers for an essay I say you just read it

2007-07-12 15:31:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers