C1:Indian Removal Act
" However, the Native Americans were not considered citizens up 1924. But, citizens nevertheless. "
This is not true. The Native Americans were their own sovereign people, NOT citizens of the United States. Also, Andrew Jackson cannot be compared to Adolf Hitler as the Jews were very much citizens of Germany, while the natives were not.
"As a result, in just a few years Jackson's administration negotiated more than seventy treaties, acquiring more than 100 million acres of Indian land east of the Mississippi River."
Andrew Jackson's policies were of efficient land use. He DIRECTLY improved the economy and the land of the America.
"An Indian chief explained that “[w]e must have a great deal of ground to live upon. A deer will serve us but a couple days, and a single deer must have a great deal of ground to put him in good condition. If we kill two or three hundred a year, ’tis
the same as to eat all the wood and grass of the land they live on, and this is a great deal” (qtd. in Lebergott 1984, 13). Stanley Lebergott calculates that in the early 1800s Indian tribes required almost two thousand acres (or three square miles) per person, but that the white population could meet its food (and whiskey) requirements on a couple acres per person. Thus, “European settlers required fantastically less land than the largely hunting and fishing peoples with whom they came into conflict”.
"During his eight years in office, the federal government sold almost 50 millionacres to the public.4 The Land Act of 1832 cut the minimum lot size sold by the government from 80 to 40 acres and held the minimum price at $1.25 per acre, an amount that a common laborer could earn in about one day (Atack and Passell 1994, 258).5 Robert Gallman estimates that 41 percent of capital formation in the United States in the 1830s came from land improvements—farmers clearing, breaking, fencing, draining, and irrigating their land—almost twice as high as during any other period in his study".
Thus, Andrew Jackson's lan acquisitions have a HUGE benefit to the American people. Because of the Acts he passed, land could be cheaply bought by poor farmers who put the land to better use than the Indians.
Contention 1 goes Pro.
C2: Panic of 1837
"Peter Temin (1969) pulls data together to argue that most of the macroeconomic instability in the United States during this period was due to international events that triggered flows of specie into and out of the American economy. The
inflation seems to have been caused by a combination of events for which Jackson cannot be blamed—including political instability in Mexico (which caused capital flight to the United States plus inflation-driven exports of silver), surging drug
addiction in China (which reduced silver flows to China as its imports of opium soared), payment of war reparations, and Europeans taking advantage of what they saw as investment opportunities in the United States.6 Then, right after Jackson left office, the Panic of 1837 hit, which Temin ties to the Bank of England’s decision toraise interest rates to stem the outward flow of specie. 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).
My opponent also talks about infrastructure. HOwever, Jackson believed that local infrastructure should be funded locally, not paid for by the national government. Jackson also achieved some breakthrough trade agreements: ending restrictions on British ships coming from the West Indies in exchange for American trade access to the West Indies; gaining most-favored-nation status with Turkey; and signing trade treaties with Russia, Morocco, Mexico, Columbia, Chile, Venezuela, Peru, Siam, and Muscat, benefiting American trade. (https://www.independent.org...)
So studies from various economic historians shows that the Panic of 1837 was NOT Jackson's fault, but international events.
This point must also go Pro because I have shown that the national debt was reduced to ZERO under Jackson, something no president has ever done. His good trade policies and strong economic policies benefited the economy.
C3: Nullification Crisis
My opponent has a claim that Jackson caused the civil war "This incident would eventually lead to the civil war. (6) ". This is not true in any way.
"President Jackson was tired of threats from the nullies, and disgusted by the idea that one state could nullify a federal law and secede from the union. His response was firm. He met their challenge by raising an army and sending it to South Carolina. Shortly after his re-election, in his annual message on December 4, 1832, Jackson stated his intention to enforce the tariff, although he too encouraged Congress to reduce the burdensome tariff rates.
Jackson followed his speech six days later with the Nullification Proclamation, which further denounced South Carolina’s action. With his army standing ready to enforce the tariff, Jackson called South Carolina’s bluff. He called upon Congress to develop a “Force Bill” to authorize his use of army personnel to enforce the tariff."
As CLEARLY shown, Jackson's strength in the Nullification Crisis kept the Union together. There was no one with the backbone to stand up to the seceders but Andrew Jackson. Any other president could not have kept the US together in that time.
My Contention 3
Jacksonian democracy is the rule of the proletariats, of the commoners, of WE THE PEOPLE. Before Jackson, elections were only of the wealthy and priveleged. Jacksonian democracy led to all people having a say in the government that we all live in.
My main source this round was written by Robert Whaple, Professor of Economics. The opponent uses Wikapedia, rationalwiki, and a sites.google without any credibility. Vote Pro on Sources.
Because I have CLEARLY shown Jackson's positive effects in the aspects of economy, land, Jacksonian democracy, and Nullification Crisis, Pro wins the debate.
Report this Argument
I thank my opponent for taking his time to create a rebuttal. However, my opponent’s attitude bothers me, since it is evident that my opponent comes across as almost boastful. I encourage my opponent to not make any claims of who won or who lost since it is too early in the debate to do so. Furthermore, it is best not to urge the voters to vote so early on, in this debate.
R.1 American Indians
My opponent attempts to completely ignore-and discard, my argument since the American Indians were not U.S citizens. However, as of 1924, they are citizens of the United States. That being said, my opponent never clarified whether it had to be the citizens of the past, my opponent only stated “beneficial to its citizens”. That being said, we can assume that the citizens had to be of any time period. Therefore, American Indians are counted as citizens in this debate.
In regards to the Indian chief, it is true that the Indians had more land. However, what would be the outcome? Currently in the Indian reserves, (including those that are in Georgia and are the product of the Indian removal) the living conditions are almost unbearable. The disparity for American Indians living below poverty on the reservations is even greater, reaching 38% to 63% The disparity for American Indians living below poverty on the reservations is even greater, reaching 38% to 63%.There is a housing crisis in Indian country. Despite the Indian Housing Authority's (IHAs) recent efforts, the need for adequate housing on reservations remains acute. One legislator deplored the fact that (1)
“there are 90,000 homeless or underhoused Indian families, and that 30% of Indian housing is overcrowded and less than 50% of it is connected to a public sewer.”
My opponent drops the rest of my argument in regards to hunger, deaths, cruelty, etc. . .
R.2 Panic of 1837
Using my opponent’s own source, it states that
“Jackson may be culpable for one additional cause of inflation—the Gold Coin Act of 1834, which devalued the gold dollar by 6.6 percent without altering the silver dollar. The objective of the act was to get a gold–silver ratio that would overvalue gold slightly at the mint in order to attract exports of gold from abroad (Timberlake 1997, 514).”(2)
It is no doubt that Jackson caused inflation due to the Gold Coin Act of 1834. While it is true that Jackson is not the sole cause of the panic of 1837, it is clear that he was a major contributor. Jackson’s Gold Coin Act of 1834 was one of the main reasons for the inflation. Other sources explain,
Within the United States, there were several contributing factors. In July 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill to recharter the Second Bank of the United States (BUS), the nation's central bank and fiscal agent. As the BUS wound up its operations in the next four years, state-chartered banks in the West and South relaxed their lending standards, maintaining unsafe reserve ratios. (3)
R.3 Nullification crisis
I agree that that Andrew Jackson was a success in the nullification crisis, however his ways of dealing with the nullification crisis are regrettable and not showing much of a leadership initiative. While it is true that Andrew Jackson had little to nothing to do with the civil war, I am simply trying to advocate how the civil war had roots going down to the nullification crisis.
As my opponent stated, Andrew Jackson had his own personal army ready. Threatening to kill your own citizens is immoral and not the best way to handle a problem.
My opponent bashes on my sources since I used Wikipedia, RationalWiki, as well as one from google sites. Apparently none of these had credibility, however if you look for Wikipedia and RationalWiki, the sources/notes are clearly labeled on the bottom of the page with the citizations. Furthermore, I can cite my arguments from the main source if my opponent desired. I can go deeper into the nullification crisis by finding multiple sources supporting my argument.
I encourage my opponent not to “give himself points”, as it results in bad conduct. (E.g. This debate goes to pro)
I would like to point out that my opponent’s 5th source/link was not found. This is a bit hypocritical since my opponent bashes me of my sources, when his was not even there!
Thank you for your time.
3.Knodell, Jane (September 2006). "Rethinking the Jacksonian Economy: The Impact of the 1832 Bank Veto on Commercial Banking". The Journal of Economic History
Report this Argument
Democracy is defined as rule by the people, either directly or through elected representatives. Politically, being a democracy basically means the people have a say in government. A democratic person would typically believe in voting rights for all adults, the right to run for political office, freedom of speech, majority rule, and many other things. Andrew Jackson seemed to be the main political leader with this type of government. Some say that he was the founder of the Democratic Party, but he was not democratic in all circumstances. The policies that he put on the Native Americans did not show democracy at all. While some of his decisions, like giving everyone a chance in the government and closing the national bank, were fairly democratic. I believe Jackson was both democratic and undemocratic.
He did have democratic ideas, but his ideas didn’t actually always benefit all of the people. For example, “Andrew Jackson’s Bank Veto Message to Congress,” he explains that the bank is “almost a monopoly of the foreign and domestic exchange” (Document 4). I believe he had a point in when he talked about how much power the few rich men had. He said that they often bend the laws of government for their own self purposes using money. In the quote above it also seems like he is just trying to keep the money and power in America, but by shutting the whole system down he is taking down the rich and raising up the poor (Document 5). Yes it was democratic that he tried to balance out the power between the rich and the poor, but by doing so he took down the rich. This was undemocratic considering that it did not benefit all the people.
Another reason to consider Andrew Jackson as democratic was the presidential elections between 1816 and 1836 (Document 1). In the 1816 election all 8 states had the state legislature choose the president. In the next election 9 states had the state legislature choose and 3 states had the people choose. The amount of states that let people choose the president was still fairly low until 1824. On this election 6 states chose by the state legislature and 6 chose by the people. This also happened to be the year that Jackson campaigned by telling the People he would listen and do their will. Andrew Jackson, nicknamed “Old Hickory,” believed that all of the government must follow the wishes of the people after he lost to John Quincy Adams even though Jackson did have the most popular votes. Another significant increase in the method of electing presidents came in 1828, the year Old Hickory became president. Only 2 states had chosen their president by the state legislature, while the remaining 8 states gave the choice to the people. Andrew Jackson definitely seemed democratic according to Document 1.
Even in Document 2 it states that people came from five hundred miles away just to see the “people’s leader.” As previously stated above, not all of his ideas were the best. Andrew Jackson’s Spoils System was a prime example. The Spoils System was the use of public offices as rewards for political party work. In Document 6 we learn that Jackson thought that “The duties of all public officers are…so plain and simple that men of intelligence may readily qualify.” Jackson made it so that the average man could qualify and that everyone had an equal chance, but this came with a big cost. According to Document 7, The Life of Andrew Jackson, Jackson had appointed Samuel Swartwout to the collector of the Port of New York, and when Van Buren found this out he almost collapsed. Van Buren alerted the President that Swartwout was a criminal, but Andrew Jackson refused to listen. He let him keep the position since he had been an early supporter. Jackson was mortified when he found out that Swartwout had stolen $1,222,705.09 and fled to Europe. It was democratic to give everyone a chance, but everything should be to certain degree.
It was definitely undemocratic after losing a million dollars though. A true democratic leader believes in equality for all people, and Andrew Jackson did this….kind of. Andrew Jackson gave everyone an equal opportunity except Native Americans and slaves because he did not count them as citizens. At first in Document 8 Jackson seems to understand that the Native Americans are losing their land, but as it goes on he presents the idea of setting apart a section for them. This doesn’t seem too bad until you read what the Native Americans said in Document 9. They clearly say “We wish to remain on the land of our fathers.” Andrew Jackson thought he was being helpful and equal to them, but they didn’t want to move. Jackson, very undemocratically, then passed a law saying the Native Americans can be moved by force, and forced away they were.
The Indian removal is shown in Document 10. I believe Old Hickory was both democratic in some areas and undemocratic in other areas. Other than Document 1, all other documents prove to show that his actions had good intentions, but sometimes bad results. “King Andrew the First” was not as undemocratic as some made him seem. He was also not as democratic as the people believed. Jackson may have been the most popular President of the United States because people thought he could do no wrong. Overall Andrew Jackson was in some way democratic. Maybe not as democratic as he seemed, but he was democratic.