The Pros And Cons Of Andrew Jackson

Words: 453
Pages: 2

From 1829-1937, Andrew Jackson’s actions as president more accurately represented the ideals of a ruler who was not accountable for the people due in part to the Indian Removal Act, corrupt Spoils System and abuse of the presidential veto to attain further political power. In the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, the Cherokee fought to defend their treaty with the United States over boundaries from the state of Georgia (239). The Cherokee won the case; with the Supreme Court stating they had no jurisdiction as the Native lands did not belong to them. (239) This gave the Indians complete legal control of their land and the only way to lose it was by giving it up (239). Jackson ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling on Native rights and evicted the Natives from their homeland anyway (303). …show more content…
Jackson showed no remorse while evicting the Natives in the dead of winter, resulting in one quarter of the Cherokee’s dying on the journey west to be relocated. While the relocation of Indians did have benefits for American expansion looking to occupy the east due to increasing families, the unconstitutional methods and inhuman eviction, which Jackson used to attain the land, is unjustified. Andrew Jackson was obsessed greatly by political power; he centralized power in the White House by combining the roles of party leader and chief of state (302). Jackson wanted to be to be the centralized form of power in the White House. Jackson would rely more heavily on his friends than his fellow cabinet members, while also constantly rotating officeholders (303). This left hundreds of hardworking Americans who had worked to reach those positions