Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson and read about Andrew Jackson's presidency. Do you think he was deserving of being called King Andrew the First? Provide justification for your response by using information from the website. Be sure to respond to a classmate.
29 Comments
Amberleigh Varney
11/17/2009 07:39:32 am
During Jackson’s presidency he was praised and looked upon as a great man for being with the common people, and because he defeated the British at New Orleans. But if you analyze his behaviors in today’s standards, he was not worthy of being called ‘king.’ His education was minimal, only studying law for two years. He killed a man because someone spoke against his wife… he could have just given him a bruising, or ignored him. He had slaves build his mansion instead of hiring workers. Jackson did not defer to Congress in policy making, but used his power to veto and used his party leadership to assume command. When South Carolina was going to end the tariff, Jackson threw a fit and sent armed forces to Charleston to threaten to hang Calhoun. Jackson was a determined man, he wanted what he wanted, but he could have done things in a more civil manner. He possessed a belligerent mind, which to me does not scream “king” material.
Reply
Craig
11/17/2009 11:15:48 am
Yeah, Jackson deserved being called King Andrew the First. He was all about the power of the executive branch. Instead of, like all prior presidents, giving Congress policy making power, he often used the power of veto to get what he wanted. For example, the monopolistic, government-sponsered Second bank of the US threw its power against Jackson acted hostile toward it. Andy boy flipped his lid and vetoed the recharter bill. He had power, and wasn' about to let anything or anyone take it away.
Reply
Craig
11/17/2009 11:18:47 am
I disagree with Amber. She sort of missed the point of calling Jackson King Andrew the first. It wasn't about his upbringing or slave tactics, it was about his power trip as head of the Exucutive branch. They were calling him a monarch because of the limited power he gave the government.
Reply
Paige Luppo
11/18/2009 01:20:59 am
I do believe Andrew Jackson was deserving of being called King George the first. First of all, he seems to have been a very aggressive person. He was named a war hero in the War of 1812, where he killed and hung British and Indians like nothing. In the office, Jackson, unlike previous Presidents, did not defer to Congress in policy-making but used his power of the veto and his party leadership to assume command. In the party battle of the Second Bank of the United States, Jackson, in vetoing the recharter bill, charged the Bank with undue economic privilege. All in all, Jackson got things accomplished. If it wasn't his way it was the highway and he made sure people understood that. And it showed that the people liked this in the 1832 election where he polled more than 56 percent of the popular vote. I believe he deserved this name because he did like to do things his way and sometimes he wasn't so nice about how he accomplished it.
Reply
Mystery man
9/30/2018 08:25:02 pm
Please learn grammar And learn how to write more appealingly.
Reply
Sarah Hopkins
11/18/2009 01:28:32 am
Many people during Jackson's presidency viewed him as a controlling tyrant, deserving of the name King Andrew the First. He may have done things that seemed aggressive and demanding, but he was nowhere near a king. He was a president elected by his people-twice-by a large margin. He may have overused his veto power and passed things such as the Protective Tariff which people did not like, but all presidents have their faults. if anything he was an abuser of power, not King Andrew the first.
Reply
Molly Gorczyca
11/18/2009 05:19:58 am
Andrew Jackson was not deserving of the name “King Andrew the First.” Yes, he was very powerful and used his rights as president forcefully, as the website says, but there were other things that he didn’t do or didn’t accomplish. He used much violence, and violence doesn’t earn respect, especially the kind of respect a king should have. The website also says Jackson was popular, but not all kings are popular. There are other people and leaders that have accomplished better and more things than Andrew Jackson and they hardly get recognition. Andrew Jackson should not be called “King Andrew the First.”
Reply
Molly
11/18/2009 05:28:45 am
I agree with Amber…
Reply
Bobby
11/18/2009 07:36:58 am
Andrew Jackson was far from a king. He did attempt to stay in complete command of all the major issues and did what he believed was right. He did not confer with Congress on policy making. Wasn’t he a very popular president because he remained in touch with the common people? Does anyone really think the members of Congress have a better touch with the common people over businesses or in that time the aristocracy? If he really was a king and so terribly aggressive that it was wrong and unethical he wouldn’t have gotten re-elected. He did not have unchecked power and was overly aggressive like a king. He was aggressive enough to get things done instead of being timid and political like presidents are today.
Reply
Bobby
11/18/2009 07:37:20 am
I disagree with Craig. If you are going to call him King Andrew based on his vetoing power he only vetoed Congress 12 times. He did that because he thought it was the best thing for the country and there had to be other people that agreed with him since there was no override to his veto and there was never any impeachment process.
Reply
Bruiser Branchaud
11/18/2009 10:38:44 am
So, for any who aren't aware that I dislike Andrew Jackson with a fiery passion that burns like the depths of hell and can be best described as utter hatred, it's true. The only reason anyone should refer to this lump of garbage as 'king' is to patronize him for his 'I get to do whatever I want and spoil the prosperity of an entire nation' attitude. So while King Andrew may have been a title given to him as a sarcastic joke, he deserves to be better known as Rat. This is a man who killed another man for probably just saying his wife made a dry pot-roast. He had his hoards of slaves build his mansion, tromped around the White House like a demanding toddler, and did I mention brought the Indian Nation to catastrophe? Sicko. He sure ACTED like a king, and therefore may have EARNED his title, but as I recall most colonists thought the king was a dirty piece of crap. And a king, to me, is someone to be looked to with some reverence. I have no respect for Jackson. So call it what it is. Dirty Piece of Crap Andrew... the First.
Reply
A. Branchilius, MD
11/18/2009 10:49:47 am
I shall have to agree with Amber on this blog, partly because her use of the word 'bruising' gave me an idea for my name on my first post. Secondly, and I guess more importantly, she makes a good reference to the way Jackson would skip and skedaddle around congress and play veto games so that the only way people would be happy was for them to let him have his way. I also very much agree with how she says he could have done things in a more civil manner, because he did seem very corrupt and belligerent. You don't get to do whatever you want just because you're president (Like destroy the pride of a peaceful and prosperous nation). It would be nice if I didn't think of a bony Nosferatu figure sitting on a throne of Native corpses every time I looked at a twenty dollar bill.
Reply
bryon 91
11/18/2009 09:26:28 pm
i think that andrew jackson was not a king he wasnt even a prince. he was one of the worst presidents ever. okay so he got lucky a lot of times. he wasnt even a war hero really. he was worst then howard dean. and thats really sad.
Reply
Muma
11/21/2009 01:09:59 am
He was well deserving of the title Andrew the First. Andrew Jackson was a tyrannt in every sense of the word. It was really rediculus that he was ever elected. The people really screwed up his elections.
Reply
Muma
11/21/2009 01:12:05 am
I agree with Austin (btw were still aren't friends). He was a giant bag of dou*** and deserved to die a slow and fiery death.
Reply
Taylor Dean
11/21/2009 11:01:52 am
Yes, I do believe that Andrew Jackson deserves the title of King Andrew the First. All he wanted in his time of presidency was power and control. He wanted to things to be done his way. He didn't care what Congress had to say because he had his veto power. Also, instead of dealing with South Carolina, he sent armed forces down there to deal with them. He also showed his power hungry attitude in his quote about Van Buren stating, "By the Eternal! I'll smash them!" This shows his need of control just like a king.
Reply
Taylor Dean
11/21/2009 11:04:39 am
I agree with Austin. I don't really care much for Andrew Jackson myself. I like what Austin said about him acting like a demanding little toddler in the White House. It's true, he wanted nothing to do with Congress. He wanted things to be done how he liked them. He forced thousands of Indians off their land for the sake of "protecting them from Georgia". Yes, Andrew Jackson, deserves the title of King Andrew the First.
Reply
Sharkey
11/21/2009 12:14:16 pm
Jackson deserved to be called a king. He created the image that he didnt want any of his power taken away. when he forced indians out of Georgia, he was doing whatever he wanted, no matter what his advisors said.
Reply
Sharkey
11/21/2009 12:15:16 pm
I also agree with Austin, he acted like a child and didnt pay attention to what the world wanted
Reply
Sharkey
11/21/2009 12:16:18 pm
I responded on last weeks so if you would please give me a grade on it, I would be very appreciative.
Reply
Zain
11/21/2009 11:29:29 pm
Jackson can be called king Andrew the first. he acted like a monarch demanding power and using it often. when a problem occurred he through the full weight of his authority, no matter how unjust it was, to get the problem solve. sometimes this was effective but other times it was completely unfair as in the bank issues and the Indian removal. his stressing of executive power completely undermines the 3 branch system making him ruler over the government and in a way king. his view on government officials also shows his tyrannical nature as he chose to put those that he saw fit, not the people, further solidifying his power.
Reply
Zain
11/21/2009 11:40:45 pm
i disagree with bobby
Reply
Amberleigh Varney
11/22/2009 02:01:29 am
I agree/disagree with Ted that he did deserve the title of king because his attitude showed that whatever he wanted, he got. He acted like a king, but not a good one in today's standards.
Reply
branflakes
11/22/2009 09:49:46 am
too bad you can't help but be friends with me muma.
Reply
Ryan
11/22/2009 12:13:34 pm
In my opinion, a king is someone who does what he wants to do and will do whatever it takes to get it. And that is exactly how Andrew acted. A king has his servants do his work for him, and Andrew has his slaves do his. In the old days, anyone who spoke against him could be imprisoned or killed. Andrew killed a man when he spoke dirty about his wife. This would be what I call... King material. Jackson used his power like a king. He dared people to act against him. And when someone did, Andy was willing to use his power to restrain them.
Reply
Ryan
11/22/2009 12:16:03 pm
Inagree with Craig about disagreeing with amber. Shebsaidbthat he wasn't a king because he used his power to get what he wanted. But as Craig pointed out, that is exactly how a king is upposed to act.
Reply
Paige Luppo
11/23/2009 03:11:40 am
I would have to agree with Ted when he says "Jackson deserved to be called a king. He created the image that he didnt want any of his power taken away. When he forced indians out of Georgia, he was doing whatever he wanted, no matter what his advisors said."
Reply
Zac Lantis
11/23/2009 12:29:47 pm
The only reason anyone would call A. Jackson a king is to critisize him. the reason why they called him a king was because he was a tyrant just like the one that the U.S. fought against and nobody liked kings or A. Jackson. He didnt play the president role fairly and only did things he wanted. So yea, i think the name fits.
Reply
Zac
11/23/2009 12:33:20 pm
I agree with Austin, A. Jackson was a pretty bad guy. I mean i dont absolutely hate the dude like Austin does, but i dont think he was the coolest guy runnin our country.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2010
Categories |