Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad President

Overview:The resolution states, "Andrew Jackson: Good or Bad President". Thus to oppose the resolution, I must argue that he was a good president. My job is not to argue that he was a good husband, an upstanding member of society, or even that he treated other people well. In the same vein, my opponent must argue that Andrew Jackson was a bad president. Arguments about his personality, overall character, and actions are only meaningful in-so-far as they pertain to Andrew Jackson's presidency. My opponents case: 1. My opponent states that Andrew Jackson slaughtered over 1000 Indians during the battle of horse shoe bend. If we assume that the battle lasted no longer than an hour (that's a pretty long battle), then Andrew Jackson would have to had been personally slaughtering an Indian every 3.6 seconds. I wouldn't like my opponent to offer a source suggesting that Andrew Jackson actually was capable of doing so. My knowledge of the time suggests that reloading a firearm took significantly longer than 3.6 seconds. However, it should also be noted that this battle occured in 1814 [1] which suggests that it preceeded Andrew Jackson's presidency by over a decade. 2. My opponent next reveals that Andrew Jackson called Indians "savages" and degraded them to a very low class. I'll agree, Andrew Jackson was not a fan of Indian's during his presidency. Luckily for my case Indian's are not the only component of the American population. 3. Con argues that Andrew Jackson tried to outlaw abolitionist literature which violates the 1st ammendment. However, the key word here is "tried", his inability to do so had no detrimental impacts to the American people. As a president, his attempt did not hurt nor help the American people. 4. Finally I'll make an argument for my opponent. Legislation that Andrew Jackson signed directly lead to the trail of tears through the Indian Removal Act of 1830 [2]. This displaced hundreds of thousands of Indians and killed many of them en route. It remains the largest black mark against Andrew Jackson's record. My Case:1. I would like to start with a distinction. The resolution does not ask whether Andrew Jackson was knowingly a good president. In other words, whether or not Andrew Jackson intended for the results of his presidency has no bearing on the resolution. Just because Andrew Jackson didn't want X to happen, if his presidency lead to X happening then it is still a factor of his presidency.2. The Nullification Crisis outweighs the Trail of Tears in every aspect. Andrew Jackson was the first president to rigoriously expand the powers of the executive. He was the first president to insist on national power over state power. Between 1828 and 1832 southern congressmen argued that high import tarrifs were unfairly effecting the plantation owners of the south. Their solution to this problem was to "nullify" their participation in the Union. On the brink of South Carolina's sucession from the Union, Andrew Jackson threatened to send the Army and accuse them of treason. His forceful personality was the deciding factor in Henry Clay resuming talks to lower the Tarrifs (the action which ultimately preserved the union) [2].The impact of this argument is three-fold. First it is utterly unique to Jackson. Neither the founding fathers nor most diplomats of the times supported Jackson's outlook on national laws being greater than state rights. This viewpoint is epitomized by his own Vice President (John C. Calhoun) who resigned over the issue. Second, South Carolina's succession would likely have had a dominoe effect which would have lead to other southern states joining the cause. And third, a world in which the southern states had formed their own union would have had been pretty terrible for African American people. The Unites States enforced the emancipation proclamation in 1865 [3]. If only the North had enforced the proclamation then millions of African American's would have remained in slavery. Over 12 million slaves were imported from Africa. The census of 1860 suggests that nearly 4 million slaves existed within the United States at the time. If Andrew Jackson had allowed the Union to dissolve, barring extreme international pressure, it is likely that the south would still have slavery today. I would suggest the perpetual dehumanization and death of millions of people significantly ouweighs the relocation of Indians. Although both events are characterized by the deaths of minority groups, slavery is longer lived and results in many more deaths. 3. The electoral college is the final argument I will make for Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson reformed how voting works in the United States. Instead of a few political elite choosing the presidency, he advocated for the population as a whole electing elctorates. This fundamentally modified power distribution within the United States. Had the action not been taken, the federal government would likely be much prescient to the needs of the elite rather than those of the people. I'll simply argue that this would degrade the quality of life for most Americans [5].I await my opponents response. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...(1814) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.pbs.org...