Andrew Jackson's Presidency Essay Example

The presidency of Andrew Jackson which this class is solely focused on is one that is discussed mightily between historians. Andrew Jackson became the 7th president of the United States of America in 1829, and would serve two terms lasting until 1837. Throughout his presidency, Jackson would come to have a lot of successes, but as I later will point out and many would come to agree, he also had his share of failures. Jackson's presidency some will point out is a turning point for America. Between the Bank Wars, Nullification Crisis, his political idealogy, personal relationships, and thoughts on issues such as slavery, Jackson was a man of whos ambigous morals are still left to be questioned by historians today. Was he this bull headed feeble minded man who only appealed to the hearts of the back country citizens which he was raised among, or was he much more intellectual and thought out then what many people give him credit for. Either way, out of all these major nation changing events, one stands out in particular as one of Jackson's biggest failures and impacts to his reputation, his Indian removal policy. Although, what if Jackson never signed off on Indian removal? Would the cascading events that would follow change the outcome of history as we know or how we feel about our 7th president? Before we jump straight into that, I feel it's important that we go back in time a bit and set the stage properly. 

 As most everyone knows, the story of Native Americans and their presence in North America over time is in general a sad and depressing tale. By the time of Jackson's young childhood, American thoughts on Indians were already pretty heavily shifted towards displacing, removal, or in some cases, extermination. Jackson's first experience with Indians came as a young boy in the Waxhaws district located near the borders of South Caroline and North Carolina. Here he grew up among other Scott-Irish families and lived a very stereotypical frontier lifestyle, which meant never having very much and living a rough life. Despite this, Jackson's views on the Catawba Indians, who were the local residing tribe at the time, were pessimistic at best. It is known that Jackson thought of the Indians as depraved and immoral beings, and saw their decline as a sign that they are on the outs, and for good reason. Jackson would continue to have this moral standing on Natives for almost his whole life, and felt it was validated for a number of different reasons. Jacksons next notable run-in with Indians occurred throughout the 1820’s where Jackson, now a military man, led troops down into the lower South. Again, by this point, Jackson's views on Indians haven't changed and if anything have only gotten worse. He is even quoted as saying they are a disease and the cause of the violent nature that is present on the frontier. So in response to the Fort Mims massacre that happened earlier in 1813, Jackson and his troops engaged in their own slaughter of a Creek Village at Tallushatchee. Now it is important to note that this is how Jackson ends up in the care of an Indian child who was left orphaned at the hand of the slaughter. Following this Jackson and his troops marched on, claiming victories at Talladega and Horseshoe Bend, resulting in the seizing of millions of acres of land for the United States government. Jackson would then later return to Spanish controlled Florida in 1818, taking command of the suppression of the Seminoles in the Seminole War. Jackson does well in Florida and essentially earns it for America. Now that there is a proper background on Jackson's history with Indians, let's jump back to his presidency where Indian removal really takes shape.

After winning one of the most scandalous presidential elections in history and becoming president in 1829, Jackson began tackling the Indian issue that was affecting much of the Southern states almost right away. At the time, issues between states and Indian nations were becoming a major problem. Most Southern states like Georgia for example saw Indian lands as part of their own, and did not recognize the sovereignty of the Indian nations. Due to this, conflicts over land disputes were flaring up. Even Indian nations like the Cherokee, who most would argue were trying to assimilate the most into white society, were having issues. The Cherokee even took their fight to the courts, yet not much was done. That's why in May of 1830, Jackson's Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress. This Act authorized the President to negotiate removal treaties with Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi River, and to grant them lands West of the Mississippi River which would forever be theirs. And as incentives, the law even provided the Indians financial and material assistance to travel to their new locations where they could start their new lives on their new property under the protection of the United States Government forever.

So as we discussed earlier, Jackson wasn't buddy buddy with Indians much of his life. Yet, how responsible is Jackson for Indian removal, or better yet, to what extent is he to blame for causing it? What if Jackson never had any personal issues with Indians before his presidency, would he still have done it? If someone was looking for the short answer, they probably would come to the conclusion that in one way or another it would have. Under a deeper analysis though, it's easier to understand why that answer is so. While Jackson's views were predicated on his experiences with Indians, that did not necessarily mean he had it out for them. Jackson became president at a time when Indian removal was unavoidable. The issue between Indian sovereignty and state sovereignty was at a peak and a decision had to be made. Jackson decided that the best outcome for Indians to avoid total warfare was that he grant them peace treaties to move to land out West. This ended up being a major success in the eyes of Jackson as he signed around 70 peace treaties throughout his presidency and moved around 50,000 Indians West, clearing upwards of 25 million acres for the American public to settle peacefully. Even if you decide to look outside of the Jackson presidency, Indian removal was destined to happen. White settlers had been skirmishing with Natives for nearly their entire coexistence in North America, and with the continued westward expansion of the United States, something had to give. Just looking at the past policies by U.S presidents, I think it's privy to say that no future president was about to give in to any Indian demand. So although I believe Indian removal would have happened either way no matter Jackson's history with them, did it secure his chances at being reelected for a second term. In the above scenario, what if Jackson hadn’t handled Indian removal at all and just ignored it all together. It's important to remember first what other issues were present at the time of Jackson’s reelection campaign. He was dealing with two other cornerstone events of his presidency, the Bank Wars and the Nullification Crisis. When it came to the National Bank, Jackson made it very clear that he was not fond of it, and was prepared to oppose its upcoming recharter in 1836. But in 1832 Henry Clay convinced Nicholous Biddle to propose an early recharter to Congress, thinking that if Congress passed it Jackson wouldn’t veto. Jackson would end up vetoing it and go as far restricting credit in retaliation to Biddle. The Bank Wars would come to be seen as Jackson’s biggest failure, yet it wasn't all bad. During the same time this was going was the Nullification Crisis where South Carolina was threatening to secede due to the recent tariffs of the last 4 years severely hurting their state economy. These tariffs at the time were part of Jackson's plan to eliminate national debt, which it definitely did. Jackson, while a staunch supporter of state rights, saw nullification as a direct threat to the union and a prelude to secessoin. Jackson ultimately was able to appease the State of South Carolina and eventually keep them in the union, marking potentially one of Jackson's greatest victories. Jackson's attitude and handling of the situation made him a hero to nationalist, and toppled on that Jackson was already beloved by most of the country following his first campaign. With all this evidence I believe it's fair to say that even without Indian removal, Jackson would still have been primed for a reelection to a second term. 

I feel the last great topics of discussion following what if Jackson never proceeded with Indian removal center around the fate of the Indians, and the eventual disaster that was the Trail of Tears. As briefly touched on above, Southern states saw no room for Indian sovereignty, and believed it was their states right to do whatever they saw fit with Indians in their borders. And as already discussed, Jackson being a supporter of state rights saw no means of having the federal government interject in these matters. Yet the situation was deteriorating so badly in states like Georgia, where Indians don't even have the right to assemble against whites in court, to the point that he stepped in himself. If Jackson had not done this, I believe it's safe to say that Indian tribes like the Creeks would have suffered a fate worse than the Trail of Tears, bearing witness to a potential genocide or slavery of their people. Speaking of the Trail of Tears, I, as someone who has backed Jackson's policy on Indian removal, have to relinquish the notion that the Trail of Tears was on anyone but Andrew Jackson. Though the Indian Removal Act was based on the premise that it would be peaceful, there are many scenarios where this wasn't the case. This came to be known as the Trail of Tears, which overtime saw the forceful removal of tens of thousands of Indians, and thousands of deaths.