what was president andrew jacksons reaction to the worcester v. georgia case
In 1860, biographer James Parton concluded that Andrew Jackson was "a near police force-defying, law obeying citizen." Such a statement is obviously contradictory. Yet it accurately captures the essence of the famous, or infamous, Jackson. Without question, the seventh president was a man of contradictions. To this day, historians have been unable to go far at accustomed conclusions about his character or impact on the nation. Was he, every bit Robert Remini has argued beyond the pages of more a dozen books, the groovy leader and symbol of a burgeoning mass republic? Or was Jackson but a vainglorious bang-up with no vision for the nation, reacting in response to his own sensitive pride, as Andrew Burstein and others accept insisted?
There is much that one tin can expect at in Jackson's life when attempting to arrive at conclusions. In detail, his relationship with the police force and Constitution offer a pregnant window into his worldview. Whether it was illegally declaring martial law in New Orleans, invading Spanish Florida and executing British citizens, removing federal deposits from the Bank of the United States, or questioning the Supreme Court'south dominance in Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson acted in a manner that was at times distinctly illegal yet widely hailed by supporters as existence in the nation'south best involvement. And earlier we conclude that this support was partisan barrack bestowed past his ain Democratic Party, we must call up that historians and legal scholars to this day have wrestled with the larger ideological and constitutional meaning of Jackson'southward beliefs and deportment. One matter is certain: Jackson had no qualms almost overstepping the constabulary, even the Constitution, when he believed that the very survival of the nation required it. Moreover, this perspective remains at the heart of debate in a post-ix/11 America. The essential question stands—can a leader violate the law in social club to ultimately salvage information technology and the nation?
Andrew Jackson's fame came with the Battle of New Orleans in 1814 and 1815, where he demolished a seasoned British army with virtually no loss to his troops. The victory launched the general to national stardom and ultimately the presidency. All the same at that place were looming, constitutionally frail issues that roiled below the surface of this victory, namely Jackson's suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law. The first was authorized by the Constitution, simply the Supreme Court had determined that only Congress could suspend the privilege of the writ, which allowed a gauge to "bring a body" before the court thus making it incommunicable for an arresting dominance (the police force or military machine) to agree a person indefinitely without filing charges. Jackson suspended the writ anyhow, and went even further by imposing martial law, which canceled all civilian dominance and placed the military in control. The human action was wholly illegal. There existed no provision in the Constitution authorizing such an edict. The rub was that martial constabulary saved New Orleans and the victory itself saved the nation'south pride. After several years of dismal military encounters during the War of 1812 and the called-for of the nation'southward capitol to the ground in the summer of 1814, no one, especially President Madison, was in the mood to investigate, let lonely chastise, the victorious General Jackson'southward illegal conduct. Thus Jackson walked abroad from the upshot with two abiding convictions: i, that victory and the nationalism generated past information technology protected his actions, even if illegal; and two, that he could do what he wanted if he deemed it in the nation's best involvement.
Jackson'due south convictions came into play only 3 years afterwards in 1818, when the indomitable full general exceeded his orders to protect the Georgia frontier by crossing into Spanish Florida, where he invaded ii towns and executed two British citizens for making state of war on the United States. Again, Jackson's actions were questionable, if non outright illegal. He essentially made war on Kingdom of spain without congressional approval, overstepped his own boundaries equally a commander, and summarily executed two men, which could very well take incited legal and military difficulties with Great Britain and Spain. Withal, Jackson's conduct was one time again seen by many, including himself, as a necessary defence force of the nation. The Castilian had done nothing to end the marauding Seminole Indians from crossing the border and attacking American farms. The general's actions were therefore justified as national self-defense force past Secretary of Country John Quincy Adams, the sole member of President Monroe's cabinet to support Jackson. Adams used the turmoil over the incident to convince Spain that they should sell Florida for a beggarly $5 million.
Unlike Jackson's use of martial police in New Orleans, Congress debated Jackson'south rogue behavior in Florida, with Henry Dirt announcing that the general was a "armed forces chieftain" and dangerous to a young democracy. Although legislators wrangled over the matter, nothing significant resulted except that Jackson became a more and more polarizing figure, peculiarly considering of his political aspirations. When he ran for president in 1824, critics unleashed a torrent of corruption, much of it focused on his lawless ways. Jackson was forced to respond, and commented specifically on his violations of the Constitution. He noted that some in the nation believed him to be "a most dangerous and terrible human. . . . and that I can break, & bruise under pes the constitution of the state, with as much unconcern & careless indifference, as would 1 of our backwoods hunters, if suddenly placed in Britain, suspension game laws." He continued, "information technology has been my lot oftentimes to be placed in situations of a critical kind" that "imposed on me the necessity of Violating, or rather departing from, the constitution of the country; yet at no subsequent flow has information technology produced to me a single pang, believing every bit I practise now, & so did, that without information technology, security neither to myself or the nifty cause confided to me, could accept been obtained."
Jackson's ideological conviction almost the flexible nature of the law and Constitution in the face of dangers confronting the still-fledgling nation can be seen in many subsequent Jacksonian battles. When President Jackson confronted the Bank of the U.s.a. in 1832, he did then with the conventionalities that information technology was a corrupt fiscal monster threatening the nation's economic security. He not only vetoed the Banking company's recharter, which was within his right as chief executive, but went a step farther by removing federal deposits even after Congress had deemed them safe. Jackson transferred one secretarial assistant of the treasury and fired some other in order to secure the deposit removals. His actions were questionable, if non completely illegal, and the Senate censured him by making a annotation in their journal. They didn't attempt impeachment for lack of back up.
Other legal conflicts surfaced. Jackson allegedly defied the Supreme Courtroom over Worcester five. Georgia (1832), announcing, "John Marshall has fabricated his decision now permit him enforce it." The case revolved around Georgia'due south attempt to utilise state laws to Cherokee lands. The Court had ruled against Georgia'south authority to practice so and Jackson, dedicated to Indian removal, allegedly challenged Marshall. Although there is little show to back up the above quotation, it certainly sounds like Jackson. Nonetheless, the example required nothing of Jackson and was ultimately settled out of court. The fact remained, nonetheless, that in this instance and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when information technology was ruled that the Banking company of the The states was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court's authority as the final arbiter. Equally president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court's.
Jackson's views regarding American Indians also challenged the constabulary. Treaties were and continue to be legal agreements among sovereign nations. However, Jackson refused to believe that Native American tribes were sovereign and thus viewed Indian treaties equally an absurdity. Ultimately, he forcibly removed a number of tribes, most notoriously the Cherokee, from their homes. The Trail of Tears is one of Jackson'southward most infamous legacies. Yet even removal and issues of tribal sovereignty fit within a larger context of Jackson's convictions regarding national security and state sovereignty. The general's rise was due to his success as an Indian fighter on the frontier. He e'er, and to some extent legitimately, viewed American Indians as a serious threat to settlers. As president, Jackson understood the sentiment of southern states and their conception that states could not be erected within sovereign states such as Georgia. All of this, of class, revolved around the larger issue of Native American dispossession and who rightfully owned of the land. This ideological—and to some extent legal—event remains unresolved.
A variety of other incidents in Jackson's life and career expose the nature of his relationship with the police and Constitution: the fact that he was a lawyer who engaged in dueling; his actions during the Nullification Crisis; and his failure as president to follow federal guidelines apropos mail delivery of abolitionist propaganda. Most fit within his larger conception of duty, accolade, and what was necessary for the sanctity of the Union. Jackson'southward ideology remains as controversial now as information technology was in his own time. There are few easy answers. Yet this is what makes Jackson'south views and conduct and then relevant today. When presented with Jackson'southward history, students invariably split down the centre over whether he was justified in his conduct, regardless of legality. In this sense, Jackson continues to serve as an important source of reflection when considering how America should and should not human action when it comes to matters of national security.
Matthew Warshauer is a professor of history at Central Connecticut State University and author of Andrew Jackson in Context (2009) and Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Constabulary: Nationalism, Civil Liberties, and Partisanship (2006).
Source: https://ap.gilderlehrman.org/essay/andrew-jackson-and-constitution
0 Response to "what was president andrew jacksons reaction to the worcester v. georgia case"
Post a Comment