Sammy Dawson

Mr. Herrmann & Mr. Rutherford

AP History, per. 5
22 October 2015

Pro Bank:

Jackson had violated his power to destroy the Bank of the United States
denies judicial branch
sees himself as over the legislature
Jackson uses the veto power 12 times - almost uses it like a tyrannical tool
causes the Panic of 1828 which destroys the countrys economy

Rebuttal
It is wrong to hinder part of the economy to help another side
The Bank is legal since the legislative voted for it
destroying the bank caused inflation and hurt the farmers, who he was trying to protect

Closing statement
not the fact that he vetoed the bill, the fact he used it recklessly

Con Bank:

The Constitution does not say that you can make a bank
Jacksons decision was for the good of everyone, not just the farmers
Jackson was worried that the rich were getting too rich
Jackson wanted to stand against the aristocratic Congress for the people
The Bank was operating in illegal ways
anything not said in the Constitution is left open to the states, not the federal government
Jackson has the power to veto

Rebuttal
Only vetoed the recharter of the bank, not the whole establishment
Jackson had a good grasp of the people since many farmers and common fold on his side
Thought the veto would benefit everyone

Closing Statement
he had the right to veto

Pro Indian Removal

Jackson did not help the Indians even though he said he was for liberty
Jackson broke treaties to remove the Indians
The Supreme Court even said that the United States did not have a right to move the Indians
gov. cant enforce laws on the Indians since they are not a part of the Union
There were many people that did not agree with Jackson at all

Rebuttal
Van Buren wasnt president yet, so all of Jacksons actions were his

Jackson represents the whole nation, not just one of the states
some states didnt agree with what he was doing
Jackson didnt involve the Indians, who were going to be the most drastically affected by the
removal
Closing Statement
Jackson went against his word as president
no proof that he had good intentions or that any other decision would have been worse
Proof that he went against the Supreme Court

Con Indian Removal

Opening Statement
Original intentions was to help the Indians
Separate the Indians from the immediate contact with the whites
help prevent violence
recognized that expansion of the nation west was unstoppable and this will cause upsets
between the Indians and the whites
Jackson is willing to pay for the Indians new homes

Rebuttal
Jackson had no idea that his decisions would result in the death of millions
If Indians had stayed, it would have been worse for them as the whites got restless
Jackson doing the best he can with the powers that he had
Jackson went against previous treaties that were already set up
laws against foreign nations that

Closing Statement
Jackson was responsible for the killing of millions of people
He had no right to do what he did