We have been reading and discussing the numerous actions of Andrew Jackson as a president. Within these discussions we have looked at Jackson's fight against the Bank of the United States, his Tariff of "Abominations," his displacement of the Native American population as well as his mixed feelings on patronage. Certainly there is much the United States gained from President Jackson, but there can also be considered many mistakes that were made under his administration. Jackson fought to free the American people from aristocracy and the tyranny of a government that he felt, at the time, was overreaching. However, Jackson from time to time was not above throwing his executive power around either.
So the question remains, was Andrew Jackson more positive or negative for the United States? A few links that may prove helpful if you're stuck: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson http://www.biography.com/people/andrew-jackson-9350991 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/The-Cherokees-vs-Andrew-Jackson.html
20 Comments
As you know we have studied fairly thoroughly the first two administrations in the history of the American government. One major constant fighting two more Federalist presidents was the Republican/Anti-Federalist Thomas Jefferson; first as Secretary of State under President Washington and then as Vice President under President Adams. Jefferson fought the increasing power of the government, continuing to question the constitutionality of their policies and even to question the amoung of power the U.S. Constitution grants the President. However, as our third president, Jefferson begins to seemingly alter his stance on the power of the president once he is occupying the office. With the 4 events listed below, please describe whether or not each of them is constitutional.
1. The Louisiana Purchase 2. Removal of President Adams' "midnight judges" 3. Sending U.S. Navy/Marines to fight the Barbary Pirates 4. Embargo Act of 1807 Here are some links that could prove helpful: http://www.libertyclassroom.com/warpowers/ http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/embargo-1807 http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/lessons-plans/presidents/louisiana-purchase/ http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Midnight+Judges+Act Your assignment is to support your argument either for or against my comments below. Remember, a simple "I agree" or "I disagree" will not suffice. I've elected to support Taft's Dollar Diplomacy for no other reason than I anticipated that many of you would not. This in no way reflects my actual beliefs in foreign policy at the turn of the century... Or does it?
Dollar Diplomacy was clearly the best foreign policy for America at the turn of the century. America was approaching the pinnacle of its own industrial might, and was quickly becoming an economic superpower. The days of the Jeffersonian, self-sufficient agrarian society are long gone. This era put America on the precipise of globalization. Economic options can most certainly replace military options as the United States grows more and more wealthy and powerful. Exchanging "Dollars for Bullets" as Taft said will gain the United States more friends through diplomatic means than any army ever could. Also, by sending cash instead of bombs to other countries, those countries will be more likely to allow the U.S. to sell their goods in that country tariff free! Thats more people to buy American goods, and more money for American businesses! Due to neglect and technical difficulties, I've decided to just combine the first 2 blog posts into one. I want you to post an answer to each question and then respond to 2 other people's response to one of the questions. So, in total you will post your answer to questions 1 and 2 and then a reply to someone else's question 1 and then another person's question 2.
Questions: 1. We've talked about the development of American foreign policy throughout the Cold War; moving from George Kennan's containment policy to the Truman Doctrine. We've also discussed how Vietnam was divided into 2 countries at the Geneva Conference after the defeat of the French. Those involved in launching American forces into Vietnam, the Kennedy and later Johnson administrations justified this by using the Truman Doctrine. Others have argued that this does not apply, as South Vietnam was a country created by this conflict. Which do you agree with? Does the Truman Doctrine justify our actions in Vietnam? 2. We've also talked about the many difficulties around winning the Vietnam War. The jungle terrain, the Viet Cong, difficulties with Search and Destroy missions, little support on the home front; all of these contributed to the difficulties we face in Vietnam. In your opinion, could the war have been won by the United States, or was South Vietnam destined to be united with communist North Vietnam? |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
May 2014
Categories
All
|