Jacksonians-Expectant+Capitalists

MRL - Week 2 - The Age of Jackson is perhaps one of the most defining periods in American history. The rise of capitalism in 19th century America was an occurrence that shaped the future of America to the present day. It is interesting that, when left on their own and by adhereing to the concept of //laissez faire,// the American public had an inlcination towards aggressive capitalism, and thus the concept that if one puts in hard work in his life, he will be rewarded for his effort. In the article, __The Jacksonians: Expectant Captitalists__, by Bray Hammond, it is made clear that Andrew Jackson, a "self-made man", firmly believed in this concept. This contrasts present day American government, due to the fact that under the Obama administration the money earned by a small group of wealthy people is redistributed to less-wealthy people in forms such as health care. When examined, the morals of this idea are questionable, in some peoples' opinions. Although in some cases the redistribution of wealth is appropriate, in the article it is implied that during the Age of Jackson the Americans who put in extraordinary effort monetarily gained more than others in the world of business. This implication can still be applied to the present day, although thankfully in the modern era there are laws against some immoral or unfair business practices such as the formation of monopolies, yet some groups continue to believe that the redistribution of wealth is the better path for America to take, rather than the path of capitalism that encourages entrepreneurship rather than idleness. Although both beliefs have their pros and cons, it is speculated that the rise of America as the most powerful country in world is due in part to its inherent capitalistic nature. It is impossible for one perspective to completely win over the other in politics, though it must be remembered that a capitalistic society gives the far majority of citizens an equal oppurtunity to rise to an infinite level of success, while a society of extensive wealth redistribution regulates the potential success of people while compensating for those who are less successful, in some cases, by their own device.

SFH – Although many of today’s American citizens would argue laissez faire would not be their chosen economic pathway, to the Americans of the 19th century laissez faire was transformed into a symbol of liberty. Brayn Hannond the author of “The Jacksonians: Expectant Capitalists” asserts that laissez faire opened economic advantages to those who previously had not been exposed to such opportunities; in turn creating a greedy and lawless American democracy. Yet this ‘greedy and lawless American democracy’ was one in which nearly any individual in America could become profitable through his or her own efforts given a fair chance, (certainly seaming to be liberty to the post-Revolution workforce). Although the Americans embracement of laissez faire economics may have been because anything other than English rule would have been a welcome change from their previous dependent state, but laissez fair economic policies did instigate further economic growth. Noted author Brian Balgoh supports this point where upon he emphasizes Americans embraced the free market laissez faire principals of the 19th century not only because of the American publics fear of overbearing and powerful government (from their previous experience with England), but also out of their desire for lucrative entrepreneurships. This contemporary economic idea in America shaped the democratic principals upon which America was founded. Although as time has passed Americans have generally wanted a stronger government, for the 19th century the less involved economic policy of laissez faire became a pathway to liberty.

Used as a reference: []

checked

RIL:
 * wweek** 2v

Even though Andrew Jackson was an intelligent man, his friends sometimes lead him to make mistakes; such is the case of how he closed the United States Bank. It is partly because of his friends that Andrew Jackson decided to close that bank. It is clear that Jackson was a cunning leader, as shown by his military skill and his presidency itself. So then how he could let his own personal feelings become involved with his decision concerning the United States Bank is odd. Granted, he disliked the banks. But that was not the only reason he had decided to shut it down. Jackson cared for his friends and their opinions were important to him, but this does not mean they should have been. Because he valued his friends’ thoughts, he had elected his friends to positions in his cabinet; hence, his cabinet was called the Kitchen Cabinet. So when Mr. Taney, one of Jackson’s friends, started to fill Jackson with feeling of distrust toward the bank, Jackson took him at his word. Mr. Taney made it seem as though the bank was Jackson’s enemy. He implied that the bank was disrespecting the power of the president and in so doing attributing power to itself. This was a misrepresentation of the facts. In reality, the bank was just trying to gain some support, including Jackson’s support, for the bank since it was going up for charter. Once convinced by his friend, Jackson held nothing back against the United States Bank and closed it down. If it had not been for Jackson’s friend, Mr. Taney, Jackson might not have come to such a conclusion. It is also hard to see it as coincidence that the funds from that bank went into his friends’ state banks. Again, it is shown that Jackson thinks his friends are competent people deserving of power and rewards. Jackson trusted his friends and they were important in his decision making process even when perhaps they should not have been.

CJD- Andrew Jackson was elected President of the United States in 1829 with the help of on his agrarian principles. Following these beliefs, he picked a cabinet that would fully represent his “Jacksonian” figure to the common man, but according to Bray Hammond, this was a mistake that led to a number of ignorant political decisions Focusing on the prejudicial influence that Jackson’s everyman kitchen cabinet bestowed upon the president, the passage gives evidence that the dissolution of the Bank of the United States was not done for proper reasons. However, there is little evidence of this decision’s negative impact, only that it caused “the inflation, the speculation, and the various monetary evils” (CC, 205) which it was meant to end. Only one member of Jackson’s cabinet, Roger B. Taney, did not openly condemn the Bank of the United States. Through popular appeal of his political advisors, many of whom were also his friends from the farmland of Tennessee, Jackson rallied against the large bank and was able to bring it down. Upon taking the money out of the Bank of the United States, Jackson delivered it to smaller “pet banks,” an act that Bray Hammond construes as biased and negative, but clearly one that aided the multifaceted U.S. economy. Jackson’s presidency was much different than the preceding six, but he was popular with the American people. Deciding to end the massive Bank of the United States was a positive thing for the vast number of people living in rural places, so it should not be condemned as foolish.

checked


 * week** 3 b

*** AJJ- Though Andrew Jackson had a dislike of banks, it is clear that he knew of his own bias and let his cabinet members influence his decision. Unfortunately, he let Attorney General Taney influence his decision too much. Though Taney was an advisor to the president and had a say, Jackson could have listened to others who disagreed with closing the bank and not jump to an irrational decision that would eventually plunge the country into the Panic of 1837. Jackson clearly trusted Taney to the point that he took his opinion as near fact therefore it is important to listen to a diverse group of people so that there won‘t be extreme bias like there was.

The result of the end of the national bank was the creation of Jackson’s pet banks which had a negative effect on the economy. Though they did help somewhat to concentrate on the local aspects of the economy and to make it more diverse, for the most part they were not helpful. It has been agreed upon that the lack of a national bank was a serious issue when it came time for the government to collect money. Since there was so much trouble getting the government its rightful money due to the decline of any local money and only hard currency, the country went into recession. Many people would argue that this increased Jackson’s power as a president and it did. Jackson himself even claimed that the banks were disrespecting the powers of the president. Therefore with the removal of the bank he gained the power of it. But the failures that ensued with Jackson’s pet banks made Martin Van Buren a seemingly unsuccessful president. The Panic of 1837 can be directly traced to Jackson’s policies and no blame whatsoever should be attached to Van Buren who had nothing to do with the severe recession. The closing down of the banks made Jackson wield enough power to single handedly plunge the economy into the second worst recession in its history. With great power comes great responsibility and it is obvious that Jackson did not use his powers responsibly in this instance.

*** VB – The Era of Jackson allowed men in poverty to gain wealth through certain occupations in combination with hard work. Bray Hammond postulates that Jackson, who was labeled as “self-made” man, was a capitalist who showed animosity before any establishment of hereditary wealth. These beliefs developed into the views of Jackson and fellow common men became strong advocates of what Jackson believed in. The men who had to work diligently to gain their wealth would despise the individuals who inherited their wealth. Jackson was one of the individuals in this crowd. As a result of having to pay many debts, Jackson grew a distinct hatred toward banks that would later result in the vetoing of the United States Bank. Jackson formulated his views with other individuals who had the similar circumstances and created the Jacksonian ideology that would govern and foster the growth of capitalism.

Alternatively, Thomas P. Abernethy, in //Andrew Jackson and the Rise of the South-Western Democracy//, describes Jackson as manipulating the discontentment of the American people in order to gain power. Abernethy recognizes that outside individuals and experiences also influenced Jackson, but shows individual instances while Jackson was part of the Tennessee legislature where Jackson manipulated the emotions of the people. Both authors establish an interesting point of view, however based on Jackson’s personality Abernethy presents a more valid case. Jackson presented himself as someone he was not in order to gain power, ultimately leading to his presidency.