Andrew Jackson was a Good President

First off, I would like to apologize if I come off as "boastful", as the Con claims, for stating a point goes Pro. However, it seems as a typical debate in which you claim points go your way. ConclusionAmerican IndiansThis argument is sufficiently rebutted. The natives were not citizens at the time, so Andrew Jackson did not have an obligation to help them out. However, my opponent extends the definition of citizens to ALL citizens, past and present. Andrew Jackson is certainly NOT responsible for all of the natives conditions, and the natives were compensated fairly for their land, similar to eminent domain. While the Trail of Tears had bad conditions, which I concede, Jackson was not responsible for those. EconomicMy opponent states that vetoing the Second Bank of the US was detrimental. However, the bankers were corrupt and only lent out money to their friends and associates, something gone unrefuted. The Panic of 1837 WAS NOT Jackson's fault in any way."A survey of economic historians (Whaples 1995, 142) shows that the vast majority concur with Temin’s conclusion that “[t]he inflation and financial crisis of the 1830s had their origin in events largely beyond President Jackson’s control and would have taken place whether or not he had acted as he did vis-a`-vis the Second Bank of the U.S.” (1969, back cover)."https://www.independent.org..."Likewise, critics of Jackson have characterized the “free banking” era that emerged after the demise of the BUS as a chaotic free-for-all of rampant unregulated banking, but Hugh Rockoff (1974) shows that the cumulative losses to note holders due to bank failures during the decades after Jackson destroyed the BUS were miniscule—less than one one-hundredth of one percent of national income—largely because sensible state banking rules and the prudence of bankers and their customers meant that banks had high levels of equity (for example, specie) backing their operations. The gains to customers in terms of lower interest payments due to banking competition would have far exceeded such losses. "My source ALSO states that the Second Bank of the US worsened the Panic of 1819, so vetoing it was a good decision by Jackson.Nullification CrisisMy opponent states that Jackson threatened to kill his own citizens and the civil war had roots down to the Crisis. However, without any threats, South Carolina would've left the Union. They wouldn't have been citizens if Jackson were not such a strong leader. The civil war had roots FAR BEYOND the Nullification crisis, such as slavery.Now that the Con case falls, the Pro case will be presentedPro CaseEconomicThere is a CLEAR consensus among economists and historians that Jackson benefited the economy. Remember voters, he is the ONLY president to lower national debt to zero, making him one of the greatests presidents of all time in terms of economics. My opponent attempts to refute this by saying it did not last. However, making the debt zero at any time is quite a feat. If it were so easy to lower the debt to zero, why couldn't a single other president do it?Jackson acquired over 50 million acres of land to the United states. He single handedly expanded our borders, much like Thomas Jefferson. Andrew Jackson made the price of land cheaper also, as stated in Rebuttal. This goes unrefuted by Con.Nullification CrisisCon concedes this argument with "I agree that that Andrew Jackson was a success in the nullification crisis". However he tries to refute it with saying that threats are immoral. However, the situation called for a strong leader to take action. The Nullification Crisis was not a time for pretty words, it needed a strong man to lead, and Jackson did just that, keeping the USA together.Jacksonian DemocracyNotice Con has dropped this argument, and as the rules CLEARLY say, drops are concessions. But I will extend it anyways. Before Jackson, all politics was done by the aristocrats, and the poor had no access to vote or have a fair say. But under Jackson, Jacksonian democracy went underway, saving the foundation on which this nation was made.SourcesWhile it is true that ONE of my sources is not found, remember that my main source, Independent, was written by an Economics Professor. His main sources are googlesites, RationalWiki and Wikapedia. These are written by bloggers and any random person who pleases to write about whatever they wish.ConclusionMy opponent stretches the definition of citizen to past and present, something I'll concede. But let's picture Andrew Jackson's effects on citizens, past and present day. The USA now has large, expansive borders that allow for growth. Without Jackson, the US would still be far east of the Mississippi. Jackson created an economic powerhouse able to compete and trade with others in a globalized world. The country is still together and strong because of his leadership. But most importantly, all citizens nowadays have a fair vote and chance to speak up for themselves because of Andrew Jackson. We must preserve Jackson's vision of a free America led by We the People.