Professor Daniel Feller talks in his article Andrew Jackson’s Shifting Legacy about how Andrew Jackson has received so much fame. He has not done anything as nearly significant as other presidents have, but yet he is almost always ranked in the top ten presidents. Jackson has a whole era dedicated to him, whereas other presidents simply belong to eras. Some of the main things Jackson did were that he defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans, dealt with the Nullification Crisis, had famous vetoes, and signed the Indian Removal Act. In Feller’s concluding sentence, he says that Americans will continue to argue about Jackson. I agree with this because people have their opinions about him and not everybody’s is the same.
To start …show more content…
Many people were caught up on the Indian Removal Act, mainly the Trail of Tears. In Feller’s article, he does mention it and says it actually happened during Martin Van Buren’s presidency even though Jackson’s law led to it (Feller). The Indian Removal Act allowed the president to negotiate with the southern tribes, asking for their land in exchange for them to move west of the Mississippi River (Wikipedia). Supposedly, it was voluntary; although, in a roundabout way, the Indians would want to if they wanted to survive. The south wanted land and were willing to kill the Indians to get it. Jackson believed that it was wise and humane and would save the Indians from annihilation. In the article, Feller says “the terms offered for their evacuation were reasonable and even generous” (Feller). Historian H. W. Brands wrote that given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction” (Brands). I have to mostly disagree with what Feller has to say in his article. He talks ill of Jackson and even calls him an “Indian-hater” (Feller). On the contrary, Jackson actually did adopt a Native American boy. I also do not find what Jackson did as awful as Feller did or what most people …show more content…
In Jackson’s veto message, he rejects a bill that rechartered the Bank. Jackson’s argument was that the Bank gave privileges and unfair advantages to the wealthy. He also opposed foreign ownership of stock. Not only this, but he also questions the constitutionality of the Bank. Jackson later warned that banks and corporations would steal citizens’ liberties away from them in his Farewell Address in 1837 (Jackson). Feller mentions in his article that “since the financial collapse of 2008, Jackson’s warning seem not only urgently relevant but eerily prescient” (Feller). This was mainly caused by deregulation, or the reduction or elimination of government power in a particular industry, in the financial industry which allowed banks to partake in hedge fund trading (Amadeo). I agree with what both Jackson and Feller have said about this topic. I agree with Jackson because the wealthy had too much power financially. I agree with Feller because he seems to side with Jackson and talks of how it happened in the future from Jackson’s
To start …show more content…
Many people were caught up on the Indian Removal Act, mainly the Trail of Tears. In Feller’s article, he does mention it and says it actually happened during Martin Van Buren’s presidency even though Jackson’s law led to it (Feller). The Indian Removal Act allowed the president to negotiate with the southern tribes, asking for their land in exchange for them to move west of the Mississippi River (Wikipedia). Supposedly, it was voluntary; although, in a roundabout way, the Indians would want to if they wanted to survive. The south wanted land and were willing to kill the Indians to get it. Jackson believed that it was wise and humane and would save the Indians from annihilation. In the article, Feller says “the terms offered for their evacuation were reasonable and even generous” (Feller). Historian H. W. Brands wrote that given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction” (Brands). I have to mostly disagree with what Feller has to say in his article. He talks ill of Jackson and even calls him an “Indian-hater” (Feller). On the contrary, Jackson actually did adopt a Native American boy. I also do not find what Jackson did as awful as Feller did or what most people …show more content…
In Jackson’s veto message, he rejects a bill that rechartered the Bank. Jackson’s argument was that the Bank gave privileges and unfair advantages to the wealthy. He also opposed foreign ownership of stock. Not only this, but he also questions the constitutionality of the Bank. Jackson later warned that banks and corporations would steal citizens’ liberties away from them in his Farewell Address in 1837 (Jackson). Feller mentions in his article that “since the financial collapse of 2008, Jackson’s warning seem not only urgently relevant but eerily prescient” (Feller). This was mainly caused by deregulation, or the reduction or elimination of government power in a particular industry, in the financial industry which allowed banks to partake in hedge fund trading (Amadeo). I agree with what both Jackson and Feller have said about this topic. I agree with Jackson because the wealthy had too much power financially. I agree with Feller because he seems to side with Jackson and talks of how it happened in the future from Jackson’s