# data[].attributes.headline
Do you think Andrew Jackson went after the Bank of the United States because he truly believed it was undemocratic? Or could it have been more about how Nicolas Biddle challenged his authority?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do you think Andrew Jackson went after the Bank of the United States because he truly believed it was undemocratic? Or could it have been more about how Nicolas Biddle challenged his authority?

# data[].attributes.headline
What grade (A-F) would the American citizens give Jackson for his bank policy and what happened in the aftermath of its dismantling?

# data[].attributes.subject
What grade (A-F) would the American citizens give Jackson for his bank policy and what happened in the aftermath of its dismantling?

# data[].attributes.headline
Were Jackson's actions with regard to the nullification crisis prompted more by his need to save the Union or a mere reaction to his own Vice President's actions?

# data[].attributes.subject
Were Jackson's actions with regard to the nullification crisis prompted more by his need to save the Union or a mere reaction to his own Vice President's actions?

# data[].attributes.headline
Did Jackson really have anything to do with lowering the tariff--the compromise tariff of 1833? Could the tariff have been lowered if Jackson did not get involved and "force" the Force Bill?

# data[].attributes.subject
Did Jackson really have anything to do with lowering the tariff--the compromise tariff of 1833? Could the tariff have been lowered if Jackson did not get involved and "force" the Force Bill?

# data[].attributes.headline
Jackson thought he was creating something that Americans wanted--more land--but how was he actually creating more conflict down the line?

# data[].attributes.subject
Jackson thought he was creating something that Americans wanted--more land--but how was he actually creating more conflict down the line?

# data[].attributes.headline
What percentage of the population might have supported Jackson's actions here? Did all regions of the country support this policy? All people? Who might have supported this? (Be specific on the type of person) 

# data[].attributes.subject
What percentage of the population might have supported Jackson's actions here? Did all regions of the country support this policy? All people? Who might have supported this? (Be specific on the type of person) 

# data[].attributes.headline
Was Jackson's biggest fault his ego or his principles? Or something else?

# data[].attributes.subject
Was Jackson's biggest fault his ego or his principles? Or something else?

# data[].attributes.headline
Did Jackson leave America in a more stable position economically and politically after his two-terms? (answer this as an average American living during his presidency)

# data[].attributes.subject
Did Jackson leave America in a more stable position economically and politically after his two-terms? (answer this as an average American living during his presidency)

# data[].attributes.headline
What do you think Jackson's lasting legacy is to the American presidency? How did he make his mark on America and American politics?

# data[].attributes.subject
What do you think Jackson's lasting legacy is to the American presidency? How did he make his mark on America and American politics?

# data[].attributes.body
I would grade it as a C. In the moment getting rid of the bank appeared to be very democratic as it gave oppurtunity and control to the people over the economy. But by more people having nanking oppurtunities and giving away/making their own money, it made the value of the economy drop and many people to fall into debt and bankrupcy. In the long term it also contributed to the Panic of 1837 and and 1839 as their was no stable system for getting the country out of that situation

# data[].attributes.body
I would give him a B. His actions in destroying the Bank represented a democratic check on the growing power of merchants, creditors, and entrepreneurs due to the Market and Industrial Revolutions.  Of course, this opinion would be different for people in different regions of the country and in different socioeconomic situations. I think most American citizens would appreciate the shift in economic power towards the common folk and the state banks. I refrain from giving him anything higher because the aftermath of two economic depressions demonstrated that Jackson may have went too far in completely destroying the bank. It seems that he should have restrained the state banks and controlled the economy more to prevent those panics.

# data[].attributes.body
Although the policy did bring more land for settlers moving west, this descion would create more conflict in the future with the indigenous populations. Congress instead lied to the populations and forced them to move out of their sacred land, causing more tension between Americans and the Natives. This tension would continue building up and could cause a more violent uprising in the future unless a true and fair compromise was made. The policy also ruined any possible reconcialation bewteen Natives and Americans in the future due to the Trail of Tears and the start of a mass genocide.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kaylan So - Nullification Crisis Question 1

# data[].attributes.subject
Kaylan So - Nullification Crisis Question 1

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Jackson's actions in regard to the nullification crisis was prompted more by the need to save the Union. As a president, it was his duty to try to keep the unity of America and prioritize that over his ideals and political beliefs. As a result, he tried appeasing the North and South by having new policies that benefitted both sides of the nation which temporarily helped save the Union.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson did not have much to do with the lowering of the tariff and the lowering of the tariff was created by Henry Clay, one of Jackson's rivals in fact. He did not influence the creation of the tariff, mostly Henry Clay created and pushed the tariff through Congress. The tariff could have been lowered if Jackson did not get involved and force the force bill because Henry Clay and his allies separately passed the Compromise Tariff without regard to what Andrew Jackson was doing

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Jackson's actions during the Nullification Crisis were more motivated by a desire to maintain the unity of the country. Jackson was elected with a coalition of voters from across the nation in both of his elections. Therefore, even if he was acting in his own self-interest, he would have opposed any measures taken that threatened the Union.

# data[].attributes.body
Many of the tribes that were processed due to the Indian Removal act were transported peacefully. However, some retaliated violently to being moved from their homelands. In addition, many saw Jackson's actions as unethical, especially when he overruled the supreme court's decision to keep the natives on their lands. It created many uncertainties regarding the government's precedence over the Native American Tribes. There were no set laws as to what could and could not be done to them, and this caused great confusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson's policy was creating more problems with indigenous people further down the line. The Indian Policy was a temporary solution that did not create lasting peace between Native Americans and the US. Citizens would continue moving westward at the expense of the natives inciting more conflict instead of the actual purpose of the policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alex Migrditchian - Bank Wars Question 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Alex Migrditchian - Bank Wars Question 2

# data[].attributes.body
The American citizens would likely have assigned a grade of B to Jackson's bank policy and its subsequent consequences in American politics. One one end, many could argue that his bank policies more so benefited the common American, preventing the economic oversight of powerful bankers and reducing the scope of the national bank's power. In doing so, he also maintained constitutionality (what many would argue to be the contrary of the national bank) and gave way for individual Americans and states to have greater economic liberty. On the other end, some could have viewed his actions pertaining to the bank as an example of executive tyranny, to an extent acting independently of Congress. However, the benefits of his bank policies to the common American slightly outweighed how some viewed his economic policymaking to be radical, so Americans would likely give him a grade of B in this regard.

# data[].attributes.body
Although Jackson's policy benefited the expanding white population, it greatly hurt and reduced the Indigenous population. This created a divide between the two populations that could lead to conflict in the future, creating instability on both sides. Claiming this act had the American people in mind also creates a distinction between the Indigenous peoples, and those considered "American", creating more and more tension between the respective groups.

# data[].attributes.body
I think they would give him a C because by establishing state banks and getting rid of the national bank, there was an inflation of the currency. This inflation hurt the economy significantly and caused many people to be unemployed and businesses were forced to shut down. However, it did represent the views of many of the citizens in the South who believed that the national government should not have too much authority. On the other hand, people in the North believed that the national bank was necessary to sustain the economy, and since Jackson's policies led to the Panic of 1837, I think that most citizens would have agreed that they led to instability in the nation.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Jackson's actions in the nullification crisis were actions that were meant to keep America united, and establish that the Federal government was the main power in United States . Jackson himself being a product of the Southern states as well as one who believed in stronger state governments was going against his own self interests. By doing so, he does show that he was looking for the best of the country rather than the best for himself. As for the force bill, Jackson could have been establishing the dominance of the federal government by involving the military, and making sure that the union remained a union even if he had to use extreme measures.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nullification Crisis 1- Jyothikaa Ramann

# data[].attributes.subject
Nullification Crisis 1- Jyothikaa Ramann

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Jackson's actions during the nullification crisis were motives to help save the Union. He believed that the implementation of the Force Bill, an action he made in response to this crisis, was to ensure safety and prosperity/welfare of the nation. He wanted the South to be more obedient and complying overall to future national measures.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the reaction was both for the Union and as a response to Calhoun, but I think Jackson was more focused on saving the Union than Calhoun's "betrayal" since Jackson, as president, has the duty to keep the country together. Had it been anyone else leading the nullification movement, Jackson would've still had a quick and strong response since he took national power seriously. His response was definitely amplified, however, by the fact it was his trusted VP who was trying to undermine Jackson's power.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson's aspirations to create more land did succeed, but it solely benefitted the white land owners in the Southern areas. Considering the standards in that time, this was a good temporary fix for the predicament that was presented, but it soon created more conflict because of Manifest Destiny and the need to expand westward. The Indian Removal Act not only caused the Indigenous population to be abused and forced off their lands, but it also caused even more conflicts with the continuous expansion of the country.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson's biggest flaw was his ego, as he used his past as. a sucessfull war general as his personality that he believed he could not do anything wrong. Through giving more power to the states, and getting rid of the banks and indians, he believed he was being natioanlistic and Americans would have pride in him giving them more control, or so he thought. He never considered the down side to his actions and let his ego control him instead of facts.

# data[].attributes.body
I would give Andrew Jackson a C because of the opposing opinions many people had from his decision regarding the bank. While people in the North were upset with the dismantling of the bank as they were able to profit from it previously (the system worked in their favor). However, people in the South were more pleased due to the "monopoly" created by the elite that restricted many Southerners from participation or profit in the banks. Overall, while getting rid of the bank allowed for more freedom and control over the economy for more people, it also decreased the value of the economy, and caused many people to either go bankrupt or fall into debt. A while after the bank wars occurred, America was still struggling to recover from the economic upset that the closure of the bank caused.

# data[].attributes.body
I think it was actually because he considered it unconstitutional. Because he was a self made man from the west, most of the people around him would have also held this same view, and this shaped his opinion on its constitutionality. Biddle may have challenged his authority, but Jackson would have already despised how Biddle represented the east.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Jackson left America in a more stable position politically because he dealt with the secession crisis relatively well and the compromise tariff pleased the South and did not anger the northerners that much so the country was more stable politically. Economically he left the country less stable because he got rid of the Bank of the United States which would lead to the panic of 1837 and 1839 and would cause further economic problems for future presidents. The two panics were results of his presidency so he left the country less economically stable but more politically stable.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Jackson believed that the bank favoured the wealthy and considered it to be unconstitutional. He hated the bank's unusual political and economic power. It was more of what he truly believed than Nicholas Biddle challenging his authority.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Andrew Jackson's biggest flaw was his ego. His policies as president was rather sound and a lot of them didn't directly reflect his principles. An example of this would be the Nullification Crisis where he refused to take one side over the other and acted as the mediator to the conflict despite his personal penchant for the South's cause.

I digress. A big part of his campaign was the fact that he was a "successful" war general. This was used to fuel his ego and such. This got to his head which also motivated him to create policies later on in his presidency that reflected "well" on his self-image. This is why there were many policies that were not proven to be beneficial in the long run but may have been somewhat helpful at the moment.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that Andrew Jackson did promote the stability of the country during his time in office, though his methods were certainly questionable. Through his firm stance against both nullification and the National Bank, he helped establish the supremacy of the federal government over the states, reducing the chances of immediate disunity in the nation. In addition, he tried to pursue policies that were the most popular, and that reflected the mandate of the people. Some of these policies, such as the Indian Removal Act, would be seen from the modern perspective as reprehensible, but were still broadly supported.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson certainly did not leave the country with more economic stability, as the recessions in Van Buren's terms can attest to. I think he also caused great political upheaval, due to the large number of new voters he inspired, which made politics more fluid than ever before.

# data[].attributes.body
For an average American citizen at the time, Jackson left America more economically and politically stable. Economically, both federal and state governments had limited roles in the economy giving more control to people take charge in their financial lives. Also, chartered corporations would not be able to dominate the economy. Politically, states adapted their constitutions to give voting rights to all white males. Democracy was further expanded during Jackson's presidency giving people, at least white men, more say in the welfare of the nation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nullification Crisis 2 - Jyothikaa Ramann

# data[].attributes.subject
Nullification Crisis 2 - Jyothikaa Ramann

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson did not have any intentions or any actions to do with the lowering of taxes in 1833. In his presidency, he wanted to bring national order, especially in the South. He believed that the expansion of Suffrage, Manifest Destiny, Patronage would help further the Southern Economy overall. To do this he needed to bring the South under his wing and make them more obedient, The only way Jackson saw that this feat was possible was through by "forcing" the Force Bill on to the South.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Jackson's biggest fault was definitely his ego. As seen by many of the decision he made as president, a lot of them were dictated by whether or not they hurt his self-image and not by the consequences they could manifest. He ignored many of the parts of the Federal Government that were designed to keep him in check. Such an example would be his refusal to honor the supreme court's decision regarding the Indian Removal Act.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Jackson's legacy in America varies depending on those discussing it. While some may praise Jackson's contributions to political and economic stability during his time, others would criticize his policies that lead to the genocide of Indigenous peoples, a population that would never truly recover.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that his ego played a role in the policies he decided to pass; so both were flawed. He was seen as this great and tough soilder from the War of 1812, so when he was in office, he had to continue "playing" this personna in order to keep the followers he earned. His ego was shown through the Indian Act mostly since he was very open about his dislike about the indigenous popualtions and knew many of his supporters also didn't like the Natives.

# data[].attributes.body
Both his ego and principles were flawed, yet his ego is inexcusable as the principles and standards in those times were gravitated towards his ideals. He wanted expansion in the executive branch, yet ironically also wanted the government to be more decentralized. As a result of this he would go against many things that congress or the supreme court would say, such as the passing of the carter for another bank of the United States. Furthermore, his ego was fueled because he was seen as the "people's president" which probably gave him the conclusion that he could do whatever he wanted.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe Andrew Jackson's biggest fault was his adherence to what his party and his voters wanted, without necessarily taking in the will of the entire population. The emergence of the spoils system during his tenure led to political power being concentrated in political machines (later aided by Van Buren), and the pursuing of inhumane policies (such as the Indian Removal Act).

# data[].attributes.body
I ]think Jackson left America in a more stable social and economic position. His bank war and destruction of the American system prevented the country from becoming too dependent on the Commonwealth System and the wealthy members of society who could influence government. His Indian Removals stabilized the country's core east of the Mississippi ensuring that conflicts between Indians and Americans would cease for the next few decades. Popular discontent with Adams's tariff was successfully managed through his actions in the nullification crisis. Ultimately, the country was left on a more moderate and democratic position.

# data[].attributes.body
From the perspective of an average american living during Jackson's presidency, Jackson left America in a relatively more stable position after his two terms. He was initially known as the man of the people, since he came from a common background himself and inspired people to rise in the ranks of the social hierarchy. He also generally founded the democratic party, supporting individual liberty. He also got rid of the wealthy elite government men and elected average americans for a wider say and opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
Jackson's biggest fault was more so his tendency to go to significant extents in order to achieve his political and economic goals (in addition to his ego). His strong opposition to the Second National Bank fueled his veto of its rechartering; however, it should be noted that he acted independently of Congress while doing so. A consequence of this ambitious economic policy was how he undermined his own trustworthiness as a policymaker, bringing about a national fear of executive tyranny. This lack of trustworthiness led many to oppose his controversial economic goals, ultimately a characterization of his arguably biggest fault.

# data[].attributes.body
I think both Jackson's ego and principles were flawed, but it was mainly his ego that made his presidency so controversial. Many of the principles he supported and believe in were violated by his action during the term. As a champion of decentralizing the government and limiting national power, his arguably emotional response to the nullification crisis with Force Bill was the opposite of what he said he believed. The transfer of national specie to his "pet banks" also undermined the democracy and equal rights Jackson supported.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, Jackson's legacy is a very good and that mainly goes for his actions in terms of the trail of tears and the removal of the indigenous population. The actions that he took and the consequences that the indigenous populations had deal with as a result. Even if Jackson did bring stability politically with the nullification crisis, his actions against the indigenous would outweigh the stability and leave an overall negative legacy. Not only this, but the panic of 1837 was also a direct result of Jackson's banking decisions that would also have negative affects. These combined leave a negative legacy on Jackson in my mind.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Jackson's lasting mark changed the course of American politics. It set the Executive branch with a stronger influence aligned with Congress to shape law and policies. His policies were quite simple in their main motive, he wanted to end what he deemed a "monopoly" of the American government by the aristocratic class.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Jackson is an interesting case of precedency. There was much good and much bad. However, it is all dependent on the point of view you are in. If you were someone against the brutal treatment of natives then of course he was a mass murderer. But, if you were a simple farmer looking for a new life with cheap land, a chance to make a new, he was the best president.  His policies did however allow the chief executive branch to have more power in the government, which was a nice change. He also did his best to keep the Union together, trying to keep the South and the North together despite the growing number of differences and tension.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the grade they would have given would have been a D. I wouldn't go lower due to the support from the Jacksonian Party, but we must take account of the Panics of 1837/39 that were contributed to by the abolishment of the US national bank.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Jackson, aside from being known for his shortcomings, had some accomplishments that he was known for. I think he I most remembered as a very good representative of the common man, which was his intentions when running for president.He was very well known for his support of individual liberty. His actions in American politics brought the Executive Branch on an equal status of power and status with Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Jackson hated the Bank of the United States since he thought it favored the aristocratic class. He distrusted any official representative from the BUS. He truly did believe it was unconstitutional since it did not help the common man. People around his shared these same views with him. Nicolas Biddle was another situation as he was convinced by two senators to apply for a charter for the new bank. Eventually, Jackson had the money taken out from the National Bank and put them in banks in favor of Jackson's policies.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that Jackson's biggest fault was his ego. This became true through all the praise and attention he received by being a general and his portrayal as an American "hero." His popularity is one of the primary reasons he won the presidency, and he let that factor grow to be too important. In an attempt to preserve his self image as a result of his grand ego, he ignored the Supreme Court in regard to the Indian Removal Act. His equals were advising him against it, but he wanted to please a majority of American people and fulfill the vision of American land expansion, which would have only been made possible through the Indian Removal Act. Rather than do what was best politically, he did what he wanted and what would allow him to be seen as a "hero" once again, even if only during that time.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Andrew Jackson's main legacy on the presidency is the expansion of the role of the president - and therefore the voters who elected the president - in the government. He ushered in a focus on popular rule, and through expansions of federal power such as the Force Bill enforced such popular rule in the nation.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the biggest issue with Jackson was his superiority complex that he created  in his persona. He did not listen well to others and their needs as a president truly should. This is a major flaw in his character and ethics as a president. His strong opposition to the Second National Bank fueled his veto of its rechartering; however, it should be noted that he acted independently of Congress while doing so. A consequence of this ambitious economic policy was how he undermined his own trustworthiness as a policymaker, bringing about a national fear of executive tyranny. This lack of trustworthiness led many to oppose his controversial economic goals, ultimately a characterizing his arguably biggest fault.