Andrew Jackson was the Best President Every.
Debate Rounds (3)
My criteria for deciding how awesome something is will be how daring it is and how story worthy it is.
I would like to present this information as a list, so here is the awesome stuff AJ did.
1. The Trail of Tears, he just up and told a bunch of people they had to move , so that there land could be mined for gold or something. And they won a lawsuit against the government in the supreme court. Andrew Jackson then told the supreme court to enforce their decision if they could. (they couldn't)
2. He won anywhere between 16 and 100 duel's (John Green Crash Course)
3. He won a duel where he let the other man shoot first.
4. A man tried to assassinate him, and both of his pistols misfired. Andrew Jackson then beat the man nearly to death with his cane.
5. His dying regrets were "I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun."
I would say that is enough preliminary evidence.
My values are honor, integrity, and dignity.
Supporting slavery: um so? slavery can be a good way of creating an awesome upper-class. Also capitalism is a kind of slavery.
He didn't live up to his duty: A free spirit can't be hindered by silly things like duty. He did what he wanted like most really interesting people do.
Your third claim is unwarranted. I have read sources that say The National Bank was a very bad thing that would corrupt politics.
Honor as a value is respectable only in warriors. Jackson did fight honorably in the war of 1812. Integrity is a bad value because it traps you into doing what other people want to often. In some circumstances it is appropriate, but not when your off being a badass like Jackson was.
Dignity you'll have to elaborate more, I don't know what you mean by this.
As I have shown your values pale in comparison to awesomeness. Andrew Jackson was one of the most interesting and awesome people to live. This makes him the best president ever.
(5) He destroyed the Bank of the United States, in the main, for personal reasons. Jackson hated the bank before his presidency because as a wealthy land and slave owner he had lost money due to its fiscal policies. Consequently, he refused to recharter the bank when Henry Clay proposed it in 1832. Even though it was passed through Congress, Jackson vetoed it claiming that it was unconstitutional when it had already been declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1819 through the "McCulloch vs. Maryland" case.
First I could not access either of your links so I suppose I will have to take your word on it.
The spoils system is just the word Jackson's adversaries used. Jackson had this to say according to pbs.org "In his first message to Congress, he defended his right to remove people from government positions as a way to help the nation achieve its republican ideals. " It makes sense that if a people elect a republican to office they want a wholly republican government. Even if offices went to pay off debts they were also for getting rid of lifetime office holders which could be just as bad. Also It is hard to be awesome while constantly worrying about other people, so the best president would do this system whether it helped the country or not.
According to Shah Gilani it is a good thing when central banks fall "Well, actually, it could be good news, as in really good news if it"s the beginning of the end of what central banks do to manipulate free markets to the benefit of their only real constituents, the world"s big banks. " We can see the problems with the Fed today, how they inflate currency effectively robbing everyone's savings. So I don't see how stopping the national bank was really a bad decision. If I remember correctly Jackson's dying words were that he killed the bank.
Also the idea that a man has a personal vendetta against a bank and becomes president to stop it sounds pretty awesome to me.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.