Scored Discussion #1, Spring 2019

2/27/2019

Use the reading selections, your take away's from the in-class discussion, and your knowledge of history to:

Post one original question or thought provoking statement with references to the reading or outside knowledge related to your post.
Reply with a question or thought provoking statement to at least 3 other original questions.

A reply to other's comments will only receive credit if it EXTENDS the discussion. Any "I agree, now let me say exactly what you just said or repeat what I said in my own original post again..." will not receive credit.

If you were ABSENT you may post extra comments here to make up the in-class portion of the scored discussion. Each comment is worth 3 points AS LONG AS IT IS A NEW, ORIGINAL THOUGHT ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAN YOUR OTHER POSTS. You need to comment enough to earn the 15 points of in-class participation.

This board will close at 11:59pm, Friday, 3/1/2019. All comments must be posted before that time! If you posted to this board before it was updated for the Fall semester, I tried to save all of your comments, but I may have missed some and you may just have to re-post.

Students who need to post on this board:

1st Period:
Shlok Dave (3)
Karina Sethi (3)
Kai-En Wang (2)
Isabella Prieto
Dhananjay Raghu
Calvin Chu (2)
Aziz Norbekov (3)
Anthony Amarante (3)
Anjana Pranavi (2)
Aneesh Namballa (3)

2nd Period:
Tommy Lee
Teagan Mizlo (2)
Riti Salan (2)
Kyungho Kim (2)
Garway Mei
Daniel Heintz
Alice Barry (3)

Calvin Chu

2/27/2019 09:51:18 pm

During the Jacksonian Era, the removal of Indians was a way for the U.S. to gain territory. Do you think this was a necessary move? Why or why not?

Kai-En Wang

2/28/2019 07:33:59 am

I believe that removal of the Indians was vital to the territorial gains of the US. Without their removal, the US would have had to broker treaties with each individual tribe and that may have proved to be to costly for the US to manage financially, and perhaps we would not have extended all the way to the West coast of North America.

Anjana Pranavi

2/28/2019 07:50:04 am

I believe that, although it may seem as a cruel move more of a necessary move to us today, at the time it was beneficial along with its benefits. According to the primary source Document 12, President Jackson's Message to Congress "On Indian Removal", the speedy removal put an end to dangerous collisions, gained more U.S territory, protected the government, and enabled states near the once indian territory to advance rapidly in population, wealth, and power. Today kicking people out of their homes is viewed as very cruel, however, this was a necessary move. The world today may have not been the same, such as a society, and amount of the territory of America.

Shlok Dave

2/28/2019 06:42:43 pm

I think that Jackson's move to remove Indians from US was a necessary move to achieve his goal of "All Indians be beyond the great river of Mississippi." Passing the Indian Removal Act, made it successful for Jackson to aquire more terrirotry and expand his land out.

Dhananjay Raghu

2/28/2019 09:58:06 pm

The Indian removal act was indirectly necessary, as the removal act was brought to the supreme court and I believe their ruling was more significant for land gain. The supreme court came to the decision that Indians could occupy and control lands within the United States but could not hold title to those lands. I believe this justified the act and helped with public support.

kyungho Kim

3/2/2019 06:42:53 pm

I don't think it was necessary to just force the Indians to remove out of their land because it was them who were living there first. The Indians could've helped them with things like geography because they know the land better than the Americans. Also ignoring the treaty wasn't necessary to do either. Jackson should've done something that also benefited the Indians when he was trying to remove them

Tommy Lee

3/3/2019 08:50:03 pm

Since Jackson's goal was to expand America, it was a crucial move but that does not mean I agree with it nor is it ethical. It was a crucial move because this allowed richer white men to take over Native land and this contributed to the urbanization of cities. Although we view it as immoral, it's difficult to say that in the current situation and White men in the past only cared about how it benefited them and not about how it affected others.

Calvin Chu

2/27/2019 10:30:29 pm

Based on the four historians that we have talked about in class, it seems that a quite a few of us agree more towards Schlesinger's views. Why do people agree on his views if his argument was mostly neutral and if he believes that Jackson was not a leader or an active role player? Why would others beg to differ on Schlesinger's views?

Anthony Amarante

3/1/2019 07:59:44 am

I agree with Schlesinger's views that Jackson was more of a catalyst for change and less of a revolutionary leader. I think ideas about democracy spread from the west throughout the states due to increased transportation and infrastructure. The market revolution also cause working class men to want more control over their lives, meaning they were more likely to accept the ideas from the west.

Aziz Norbekov

3/1/2019 05:47:53 pm

I beg to differ from Schlesinger's views on Jackson's impact on the US and on the ideal of democracy, as I think that Jackson was a revolutionary president. I believe Jackson brought about many changes that have positively shaped the country we live in today, not only including his reformation of the first bank and his push for westward expansion, but also through his role in exemplifying democratic ideals by doing what the majority of the people wanted at the time, even if it does stain our countries history as in the Indian removal act. I would say I'm on the viewpoint of Remini.

Kyungho Kim

3/2/2019 06:45:47 pm

I don't agree with Schlesinger's views on Jackson. I agree more towards Warshaur's views. Even though people say that he did do a lot of things that made America grow and what he thought was a good thing to do back then. He did abuse his power and do illegal things that others didn't agree like the trail of tears, invading spanish florida and the american banks

Tommy Lee

3/3/2019 08:38:20 pm

People are more likely to agree with Schlesinger because they're not as extreme as Warshauer to state that he was the worst president in the world but he wasn't necessarily good either. Schlesinger was a middle ground in which many people are. Although I am a bit more on Warshauer's side because the way he expanded America was not worth the heartache that was caused. He did more things that were considered immoral and bad than good.

Kai-En Wang link

2/28/2019 07:32:03 am

During Jacksonian Democracy, the elite class became the minority voice, as shown by Jackson's constant vetoing of elitist power with the Bank. In this case, is it right to always favor the majority of poor landowners over a smaller elite class?

Calvin Chu

2/28/2019 07:40:35 am

No, it is not right to always favor the majority of poor landowners over a smaller elite class because at times, the majority could have made poor choices that impacted manufacturing and their society. By having both the poor landowners' opinions and the elite class' opinions, it would be beneficial because Jackson would be able to hear both sides of the spectrum and make the final decision by himself.

Garway Mei

2/28/2019 09:35:16 pm

While it is true that the opinion of the majority could be detrimental to the country, I want to highlight that Jackson would often ignore the cabinet member's opinions. He values his own opinion over the cabinet members that he assigned.

Tommy Lee

3/3/2019 08:54:40 pm

No, it is not right to always favor the majority of poor landowners over the small elite class because they can just as easily decide on something that will have poor outcomes. Not only this, but just because the majority agrees on something, doesn't make it correct. In the end, the poor landowners aren't 100% opposed against the elite rich, every one has mixed feelings about everything.

Kai-En Wang

2/28/2019 08:04:56 am

As a class, we agreed that "Jacksonian Democracy" was really just majority rule, what really is the definition and process for creating a "democracy"?

Calvin Chu

2/28/2019 08:14:45 am

Democracy is a system run by the whole population, not just a majority. The Jacksonian Democracy was not a true democracy because Jackson followed what the majority said but not what the minority said.

Dhananjay Raghu

2/28/2019 09:31:24 pm

Democracy would be considered rule by just majority. In a democracy, an individual, and any group of individuals composing any minority, have no protection against the power of the majority. However with a republic has a written constitution of basic rights that protect the minority from being completely unrepresented or abused by the majority. Under Jackson's presidency we saw majoritarian rule which is technically pure democracy, conflict arises as the US government uses a democratic republic and not a democracy.

Shlok Dave

2/28/2019 06:56:37 pm

The real definition of democracy could be a type of government that basically gives the power in the hands of the people. The process for creating a democracy could be to convince the people and the government itself to agree on this form of government.

Anjana Pranavi

2/28/2019 08:06:03 am

Although much of the non-elite class supported Andrew Jackson, the elite class/cabinet did not support him. Since the cabinet has the power to impeach a president, how come they didn't impeach Andrew Jackson?

Kai-En Wang

2/28/2019 08:10:22 am

The cabinet does not have the power to impeach

Anjana Pranavi

2/28/2019 08:12:24 am

Sorry, I meant how much the congress hasn't impeached him?

Shlok Dave link

2/28/2019 06:45:46 pm

Well, if Congress did impeach the President, they would be the first to do it in history. It would seem that Congress did not that much of a big thing occuring if they impeached Jackson. It would be a big deal in history if Congress had impeached him, so they felt scared to say at first of what to do. Congress didn't want to make the wrong decision.

Dhananjay Raghu

2/28/2019 09:40:04 pm

Andrew Jackson was censured by the senate formulated by Henry Clay, Clay was the leader of the Whigs they were in majority in Senate. However Jackson was too popular and they could not get enough votes in House of Representatives, a reason this could have happened is because the house reps were elected whereas senate during this time period were selected by state legislators. And voting to impeach Andrew Jackson would have been the end of their political careers so they were forced to keep him in office.

Gabriella Torres

3/1/2019 11:13:42 am

Congress was still unaware of how and to what extent their powers reached, so impeachment seemed like a scary or new tactic.

Karina Sethi

3/1/2019 03:15:57 pm

Impeachment was new to them, and in a way I think Congress was scared of Jackson. While many people may have in fact wanted to impeach Jackson over his actions, nobody wanted to be the first to do it.

Calvin Chu

2/28/2019 08:08:23 am

How can there be a democracy when the people of higher power want everyone to be Christian?

Garway Mei

2/28/2019 09:27:39 pm

You bring up a really good point. This is one of the hypocrisies of the "expansion of democracy." An example of this is the lack of rights from the natives. They are seen as "savages," which revoked them of many freedoms and goes against the idea of democracy.

Dhananjay Raghu

2/28/2019 09:51:44 pm

Democracy still exists no matter what the higher ups want, the establishment clause of the first amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Aziz Norbekov

3/1/2019 05:57:23 pm

Again, I think contextualization is a needed form of analysis when tackling these questions. Most immigrants coming into the US and ones that already resided there were strong, faithful christians, and as any believer, they saw non-believers as people that won't be able to go to heaven because of their misguidance. So naturally, Christians, a majority population of the US, wanted to convert other groups of people to Christianity because they believed it was the right thing. They didn't see a reason as to why they would want to stay as they were. Now, bringing in race obviously stained this movement, but the underlying ideal is that they weren't spreading christianity with a malicious intent.

Shlok Dave

2/28/2019 06:39:51 pm

Why did the historian Schelsigner think Jackson's role was just a voice for the people?

Garway Mei

2/28/2019 09:19:07 pm

Schelsigner believed that Jackson was a voice of the people, because it could be argued that Jackson did not do much with the expansion of democracy. Many wanted expansion to the west, which meant conflicts with the natives living there. Jackson was known for fighting the natives, which helps with speaking the voice of the people.

Gabriella Torres

3/1/2019 11:07:20 am

Schelsigner thought Jackson was solely a voice for the people, because Jackson was well known as a very vocal and affirming president. He made rare moves and what better person to have a voice for the people than someone who stands strong in what he believes.

Tommy Lee

3/3/2019 08:31:40 pm

Schlesinger felt that the Age of Jackson reflected the problems of classes of people. Jackson’s policies during his presidency were influenced mainly by the needs of the working people rather than by the people of the frontier. Schlesinger also thought that even though people believed that the majority of the class conflict happened on the frontier during Jackson’s presidency, it actually occurred the most on the east coast where large portions of the working people were located. He was simply the catalyst or the face of the working class which made him get more recognition than he actually deserved. Although this was not as extreme as Warshauer.

Garway Mei

2/28/2019 09:14:06 pm

While a lot of Jackson's controversial actions had negative side effects, he seemed to have had the idea that he was doing it for the people. An example of this is the veto for the second national bank. He believed that the bank made the wealthy wealthier, however, by removing the bank, he caused an economic depression.

Husna Kider

4/2/2019 08:04:42 pm

Some say that bad guys think they are good, for their own reasons. Inadvertently, Jackson may have dodged one bullet for it to hit the American people, but he must have known that what he was doing would have some negative consequences. Perhaps he viewed these consequences as not as bad as those that could arise from passing the bill for the second national bank.

Dhananjay Raghu

2/28/2019 09:43:38 pm

What precedence did Jackson set for future presidents?

Gabriella Torres

3/1/2019 11:11:41 am

Jackson, in a way, expanded future beliefs and opportunities for the next presidents. His out of the ordinary ways somehow brought up a new way of thinking for many people.

Karina Sethi

3/1/2019 03:12:12 pm

Jackson set the precedent for limited government in the economy, one that was upheld for a century. He popularized many major campaign strategies, and he was a catalyst for democracy.

Anthony Amarante

3/1/2019 07:10:08 pm

I think Jackson set less of a precedence for future presidents, he really set an example for future presidents as to how future presidents can use their power. This is evident in his use of the veto, which had never been used that frequently up until this point. He also questioned the authority of other branches in the government and made the president a force to be reckoned with.

Anthony Amarante

3/1/2019 08:06:51 am

To what extent did the Second Great Awakening influence the rise of Jacksonian democracy?

Gabriella Torres

3/1/2019 11:09:31 am

I believe the great awakening inspired people like Andrew Jackson to have more diverse views such as democracy over the republic.

Gabriella Torres

3/1/2019 11:14:43 am

What was the main reason that you believe Jackson is remembered the way he is?

Aziz Norbekov

3/1/2019 06:00:35 pm

For me, Jackson is remembered as the first president who practiced the powers he was given actively and he basically just did what he wanted to all the time. That's why I remember Jackson as a President to be reckoned with, and someone that "shocked" the social norm in the elite class and in the powers of government for using his power to its fullest potential.

Husna Kider

4/2/2019 08:01:07 pm

The fact that he did what he said he would can be good and bad. Good in the sense that he lives up to his word, bad in the sense that he fulfills promises that not everyone may agree with and promises that are immorral, like the forced relocation of thousands of Native Americans which led to a massive loss in Native American tribal culture and a plummet in the population.

Tommy Lee

3/3/2019 08:28:14 pm

He was overall a controversial president and made some questionable decisions. For example, how Andrew Jackson kept vetoing laws or how he immorally kicked out the Natives out of their homes which causes a high fatality rate

Karina Sethi

3/1/2019 03:19:41 pm

How have Jackson's actions influenced the values of America today?

kyungho kim

3/2/2019 06:40:13 pm

Alot of people say the jackson was a great president that gave a positive influence to the country and expanded democracy. But others think that he was a bad president that vetoed everything and did illegal things. What were some main flaws about him that people didn't like about

Danny Heintz

3/3/2019 01:44:37 pm

Did the different views on Jackson, the government and the overall condition of the country have a big effect on the reasons for starting the Civil War?

Tommy Lee

3/3/2019 08:23:20 pm

What specific impact do you think that The Age of Jackson has had on future presidencies? Do you think that this has had a positive or negative impact? How do you think the US would be different if Jackson’s presidency was less focused on preserving the union?

Comments are closed.

Scored Discussion #1, Spring 2019

Scored Discussion #1

Archives

Categories