Skylar Antoniewicz Sources: Creating America Textbook, Chapter 12; US History, 24.d; and Learning English Website, Andrew Jackson Proclaims Federal Power Over State's Rights
OK, meet me at my house later. We can talk there.
So, I was wondering about what you thought about Andrew Jackson being on the $20 bill. It's an ongoing debate and I'm not sure which side I should choose.
Well, I personally am against it due to the reasoning behind the Jacksonian Democracy, the Spoils System, Indian Removal Policy/Act, State's Rights and the Doctrine of Nullification, and the War against the National Bank. I'll explain more later.
I have homework to do, I'll explain a bit more later. Meet me in town tomorrow.
Let's start off with the Jacksonian Democracy. I like the idea, supporting majority rule and distributing power to the people, but the way Andrew Jackson used it, to get more voters so he can win the election, was rather self-enriching.
So, this has a bit to do with how one thinks a president should be like. Interesting observation.
Next up is the Spoils System, which is where you replace government officials with your own supporters. I am honestly very against this system because I think it is another self-centered way of boosting yourself so others can't take his presidency before his second term rather than trusting the people to choose the right leader, even if it isn't him.
That's the short way of saying it. (Buzz, Buzz). Oh! My mom wants me home. Meet at the tennis courts tomorrow ok.
Your saying that Andrew Jackson, in a sense, gave more people the power to vote and then took it away again, from everyone.
Next up, the the Indian Removal Policy/Act that called for the government to make treaties with the Native Americans to force them to move further west. It's tough to prove that Andrew Jackson shouldn't be on the $20 bill using this, but to me, this did seem like a way for him to just make up for the Spoils System. It is a good way to move the Native American tribes but once again, it leaves the impression that he's trying to just make the people happy and keep them oblivious to the harm he's been doing to the country.
The things he was doing left behind a pretty bad impression, and that is effecting the way people think about him. I suppose that just makes sense.
Looks like you're beginning to understand! This afternoon, my house at the balcony!
And let me guess, the next topic is going to be the State's Rights, which gave the states the right to decide on a law that has been declared unconstitutional, and the Doctrine of Nullification. He was against the Doctrine of Nullification because it gave the states more power by allowing them to leave and without it the federal government's power is increased, a government that he is in and running.
Hey! Glad we could meet up again!
Indeed. The last topic is the War against the National Bank, which was a conflict between Jackson and the National Bank that led to shutting down the bank when it's new charter was vetoed and the old charter ended in 1836. He said that the National Bank was unconstitutional and that it took money from the common person and gave it to the powerful government. However, if you do your research, in reality, it increases the amount of money there is, therefore increasing the amount of money people get, and will also help pay off debt from a war that the government can call for, or another cause. And that sums up my reasoning for believing that Andrew Jackson shouldn't be on the $20 bill. I look forward to discussing other topics with you.