Jackson

OBJECTIVE: SWBAT Define and Evaluate **nullification** in the conflict over States' Rights.

4/8/11 **Do Now:**
 * Under what circumstances, if any, can a State reject a Federal Law? Why do you say this?
 * The circumstances are if a State has any problems within the state about the Federal Law, then they can reject it. States, I believe usually do not have the power to reject a Federal Law, but maybe in specific cases, they can.


 * __The Hanye-Webster Debate__**
 * **__Who:__** Senator Robert Hanye of South Carolina and Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts
 * **__What:__** Hanye and Webster had a disagreement on the Nullification Theory, Hanye stated that nullification was a way states could respond and react to federal laws, Webster stated that the U.S. was one country. ﻿A national debate that was famous, whether or not a state could nullify a law.
 * **__Where:__** It happened in the Senate House, Congress
 * **__When:__** 1830
 * **__Why:__** The Senate wanted to know if states should have the right to nullify federal laws to have a justified union. ﻿To see if it would be suitable for people's right.
 * **__Why:__** The Senate wanted to know if states should have the right to nullify federal laws to have a justified union. ﻿To see if it would be suitable for people's right.

The Hanye-Webster debate was between Senator Hanye and Senator Webster that was the most famous in Senate history. This debate was whether or not the nullification theory was justified or unconstitutional. Hanye believed that nullification was an approach to say if states could react to federal laws. Webster believed that the United States was one nation and that states should not be able to reject a federal law. Nullification is warranted, in my opinion, because if states have a reaction to one of the laws, such as this great debate, that the state can react to that specific law. Even if nullification is only an approach, the states are still one step closer to having power and able to reject a law.
 * __ ﻿Summary of The Hanye-Webster Debate: __**


 * Document-Based Investigation:**

2.**Analyze** In the song, southern men are depicted as favoring nullification. What lines in the song express the opposite view?
 * DOCUMENT 1 TASKS:**
 * Copy, Paste and Answer the following questions in your wiki Page Jackson**
 * 1. Identify.** Refer to Document 1. According to the song, what were the people willing to do to show their support for Jackson?

1. The people, according to the song, were willing to fight for Jackson in order to show that they supported him. This means to put up arms and have weapons ready for Jackson. This was because he was very popular at the time of his election and he had a numerous amount of supporters that would do anything for him. 2. Lines in the song that express the opposite view of southern men favoring nullification would be, "Without their trade we are not afraid," "But we can live in peace and plenty," "We ever will defend, Sir," and "We Jackson boys will quickly come."

2. **Elaborate** What do you think was the cartoonist's Point of View? Explain your answer.
 * DOCUMENT 2 TASKS:**
 * Copy, Paste and Answer the following questions in tyour wiki Page Jackson**
 * 1. Identify.** Refer to Document 2. To whom is Jackson being compared in this image?

1. Andrew Jackson is being compared to Kind Andrew the First in this image. It states this on the bottom of the image. This image and comparisons are those similar of Hamilton and King George. 2. I think the cartoonist's point of view was, that the cartoonist thought that Jackson went overboard with his presidency. By this I mean that he expanded his powers that no president has ever expanded too before. No one was used to this and therefore thought that he was being forceful, had too much power, and was acting like King Andrew the First. Also, in the image it says "Born to Command" which is probably comparing King Andrew and Jackson.

1. **Identify** Refer to Document 3. Who does the cartoonist seem to support in this image? 2. **Interpret** Why do you think Nicholas Biddle is shown as the biggest head of the hydra? 3. Complete the APPARTS Chart. On the bottom of the chart, Identify the artist's Point of View.
 * DOCUMENT 3 TASKS:**
 * Copy, Paste and Answer the following questions in tyour wiki Page Jackson**

1. The cartoonist seems to support Jackson and his presidency because Jackson is trying to destroy the hydra, or the national bank. He is the hero in this image by doing so. 2. I think Nicholas Biddle is shown as the biggest head of the hydra because he was the president of the Second National Bank. Jackson wanted to get rid of the national bank, therefore he tried to kill the hydra's (or national bank's) strongest point, or person that is represented. In order to get rid of the national bank for good, you must attack the strongest point.




 * Document-Based Essay:**
 * Consider the question below, AND your original postition you answered for the Do Now.
 * F**orm a thesis statement**. (Should be in your wiki)
 * Using **evidence** from Documents 1, 2, and 3, **create an outline of a short essay.** (Should be in your wiki)
 * **Write a short essay** supporting your position. (Attach to your wiki)


 * Question: How did Andrew Jackson change the power of the presidency? AND was this justified according to the Constitution?**

Andrew Jackson was a strict constructionist who was adjusted the powers of the president in many different ways. By changing and using more power, this lead to momentous events during the time of his presidency.
 * __Thesis Statement:__**


 * __Outline:__**

__Introduction:__ I. Thesis Statement II. How Jackson was a strict constructionist and a general overview of how he changed/adjusted presidency. III. How Jackson led to changing presidency IV. Introduce 3 main points: 1. Indian Removal Act; 2. Second National Bank; 3. Nullification Crisis

__1st Main Body:__ I. Topic sentence-Indian Removal Act II. Explain a brief summary of the Indian Removal Act and what Jackson did during it. III. Explain how Jackson used this Act to adjust power IV. BE SURE TO USE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE FROM ALL 3 DOCUMENTS! V. Conclusion sentence—leading into 2nd main body

__2nd Main Body:__ I. Topic sentence- Second National Bank and Nullification Crisis II. Explain how Jackson did not want the Second National Bank- Anti-Federalist III. Explain how Jackson did not support nullification therefore he was a Federalist towards the nullification crisis IV. Textual evidence from documents 1,2,3 (especially 1&3) V. Conclusion sentence—leading into conclusion paragraph

__Conclusion:__ I. Topic sentence-summarizing the whole essay II. Brief summary of Jackson and how he adjusted the powers III. How Jackson did this with the 3 main points IV. Was this unconstitutional/constitutional/justified/immoral? V. Final comments/sentence VI. Done.

Cara Mulligan 5/12/11 Period 6 Jackson Essay
 * How did Andrew Jackson change the power of the presidency? AND was this justified according to the Constitution?**

Andrew Jackson was a strict constructionist who adjusted the powers of the president in many different ways. By changing and using more power, this lead to momentous events during the reign of his presidency. Jackson had an interesting journey in order to become president. First of all, he ran twice for president, he loss once and then won the second time. He was a man with many different views and opinions regarding everything. He was a popular man, but had a numerous amount of opposing views from different people. Since Jackson himself had many different views, he wanted different powers that no other president had used before. Jackson had three main ways that he used to change the power of presidency, which include the Indian Removal Act, the Second National Bank of the U.S. and finally the nullification crisis. The Indian Removal Act happened during the presidency of Andrew Jackson in 1830. This act was all about change and it certainly did change the way people thought of Jackson as a president. The Indian Removal Act was the relocation of moving Native Americans – the five nations, into an area west of the Mississippi River that was called Indian Territory. Of course, Congress had to pass this in order for Jackson to carry out this order. When Jackson forced these nations into one region, it was a long journey and there were some revolts, the Seminole especially tried to fight back with armed forces. There was also a very tragic event that happened during this act, and this event was the Trail of Tears. The Trail of Tears was when thousands of Native Americans died along the way of being forced out of their own home and moving to the west. In one of the documents, it states that Jackson was “born to command” and he was “King Andrew the First” which suggests that some people had very strong opinions about Jackson. These opinions implied that not everyone liked Jackson as a president and did not like how he was adjusting the power of the president. Some people firmly stated that they “ever will defend” Jackson. Jackson personally did use this act to change presidency to show that he can force people to do something that he wants done. He wanted to show that he can change America. This act later leads to more problems that Jackson conflicted onto the young, new nation. Andrew Jackson was a strict constructionist who only liked to have everything done by what the Constitution firmly stated. The Second National Bank was a national bank that was supposed to be used by all the states, but was overridden when Jackson used the veto power to get rid of it. Jackson was Anti-Federalists towards the bank, but so were plenty of other Americans. They thought that the Constitution had no right to give Congress the permission to create the Second National Bank, which was created in 1816. In one of the documents, it shows Jackson holding a cane that says “veto” and he is trying to kill the hydra which represents the national bank. Unfortunately, hydras are impossible to destroy and Jackson is still trying to get rid of the hydra. The nullification crisis was a huge crisis back when Jackson was president. Everyone had a different opinion towards it. Southern men supported the thought of being able to nullify a law, while Jackson and his supporters were completely against the idea. The southerners “think Nullification it is handy,” even though Jackson thought otherwise. Jackson personally was Federalist towards the crisis and did not support the idea. He wanted to “live in peace and plenty” with the south, even though they wanted to start war. This all later lead to the Civil War, the clash between the north and the south. It is obvious that Jackson had many supporters, where he had “Jackson boys [that] will quickly come” and have weapons ready. Jackson was a man with many supporters and a man with conflicting feelings towards everything he did during his presidency. However, this man, did change the power of presidency, by doing things no other president before him did before. He used the veto power on the Second National Bank; he forced Native Americans into the Indian Territory during the Indian Removal Act, and completely hated the idea of nullification. None of these, however, were unconstitutional. Were they immoral? Yes. Were they justified? Depending on how each person felt towards Jackson. Jackson liked going by what the Constitution said and only stated. Andrew Jackson was a president during the 1800s and he completely changed the powers of presidency.