ipl-logo

Andrew Jackson: Not Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity

1737 Words7 Pages

After three days of Jackson on trial, the jury has decided that the defendant, Mr. Andrew Jackson was not guilty of crimes against humanity. The vote was very close though, Andrew won by a hair, with the votes being 5 versus 3. The jury found that even though the prosecution proved Jackson was a bad man, he did not commit the crimes against humanity. I decisively voted for the defendant’s side. I could’ve been the deciding factor on if Jackson is hanged or if he’s spared. Coming into the courtroom I believe Jackson was a vicious president who just wanted to kill to get his way, but in the trial, I came to the consensus that Jackson isn’t always that angry old man people perceive him to be. Sure, he’s killed many people and could’ve possibly led to many more deaths, but his crimes against humanities was never fully brought to light. I believed, that prosecution proved that he was an immoral, violent and at times vicious president, but they never proved he committed a large enough crime to affect humanity. In the opening statements, prosecution called Jackson a president that failed to do his job. He led to …show more content…

He believed Jackson needed a reality check. The Indians were there first, it was their land. He force the Natives to move away from their homeland, with brute force. He believes Jackson could not justify his actions just because it was for America’s benefit. He also stated Jackson refused to listen to many people, and he refused to let Indians live. Theodore believed that the Natives could’ve just assimilated into America’s culture and they 'd be fine.The prosecution then showed that Theodore had a religious bias to this case, which made his statement feel as if they had less weight on the case. They also proved that Van Buren was the president during The Trail of Tears, not

Show More
Related
170 Words | 1 Pages

The Indian Removal Act authorized Jackson to give the Indians land west of the Mississippi in exchange for their land in the states, but could not force them to leave. He violated and broke commitments that he even negotiated with them. He tried to bribe the Indians and even threatened some of them. Alfred Cave organizes his article thematically and is trying to prove

Read More
889 Words | 4 Pages

President Jackson claimed that it was in the best interest of the States, the citizens, growth of the Southwest and of the Indians for Indians to be relocated west. One of President Jackson’s main point was that “it will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; and allow them to pursue happiness in their own

Read More
277 Words | 2 Pages

Under influence of president Andrew Jackson, the congress was urged in 1830 to pass the Indian Removal Act, with the goal of relocated many Native Americans in the East territory, the west of Mississippi river. The Trail of tears was made for the interest of the minorities. Indeed, if president Jackson wished to relocate the Native Americans, it was because he wanted to take advantage of the gold he found on their land. Then, even though the Cherokee won their case in front the supreme court, the president and congress pushed them out(Darrenkamp).

Read More
480 Words | 2 Pages

Jackson supported the white men who wanted to see this plan through, because the Indians land was very valuable. They felt they had a legal right to their land, so the Cherokee Indians took Andrew Jackson to court. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Even though the Supreme court had ruled that the Cherokees had a legal right to stay on their land in Worcester v. Georgia, but Jackson still forced them out of their land. The law required the government to negotiate removal treaties fairly, voluntarily and peacefully, which Jackson did not even attempt to

Read More
1427 Words | 6 Pages

Notoriety a Modern Myth High profile court cases have been getting increasingly popular as time goes on. Court cases like the Casey Anthony and Scott Peterson trials are media dynamite. Although the media is legally allowed to be a part of these court proceedings, they still cause drama and stipulations that many feel would not be a factor if their presence were withdrawn. Notoriety, or being famous for bad deeds, is a characteristic engulfing many of Hollywood’s elite personnel; for this reason, many high profile cases have become even more of a media magnet. Many may believe that notoriety is a determining factor in high profile cases, but all legal proceedings are conducted in the same manner whether heavily documented in the

Read More
868 Words | 4 Pages

One, he didn’t want to incorporate Native Americans into the United States, as shown in documents K, J, L and M. Secondly, he did not actually listen to the people, as shown in documents E, F, and G. Lastly, Andrew Jackson was also against African Americans, as shown in documents N and O. Andrew Jackson was not democratic because of his actions towards Native Americans, who were also citizens of America. As document L shows, Andrew Jackson forced Native Americans out of their homes into a small area that he called “Indian Territory” and document J supports this fact. In document J, Andrew Jackson calls the natives “savages” and claims they should be asked to move.

Read More
790 Words | 4 Pages

In conclusion, there is much evidence to support the idea that Andrew Jackson was a tyrant and vastly abused his power in presidency. Jackson was a cruel ruler for his actions, some including the Indian Removal Act, his overuse of vetoing, and his temper and personality. Overall he was just not right for the position of a political

Read More
514 Words | 3 Pages

Guilty or not? The fate of Genghis Khan lay in the hands of the people. Both the prosecution and defense had compelling arguments on the leadership of Khan. The first person that made a compelling argument from the prosecution side was philosopher Ibn al Athir, which was portrayed by Dylan. The testimony of the Ibn al Athir touched on the ethical response to the mass killing and religious tolerance during Khan’s rule.

Read More
475 Words | 2 Pages

However, the final nail in the coffin in Jackson’s case for innocence was his treatment of the Native Americans. Jackson said that his priority would be to get the Natives off of their land, and he did so in an extremely gruesome way: after allowing white settlers to encroach onto natives’ land, with the Indian Removal Act, Jackson outright refused to enforce a Supreme Court decision, and forced the Natives to take a snow-ridden several-hundred-mile trek towards the West, without anything but what they could carry on them. In fact, the actions committed by Jackson’s government were so atrocious that they have been compared to the Holocaust by several

Read More
1012 Words | 5 Pages

The time has come to make a judgement of the great Andrew Jackson, the 7th president of the United States from 1829~1837. Although some people didn’t like Jackson very well due to very few of his decisions, he made many good decisions during his presidency. Andrew Jackson should be remembered as a hero of the common man due to his unifying leadership, generous approach of governing, and concern for economic equality. The first reason that Andrew Jackson should be remembered as a hero is because of his unifying leadership.

Read More
865 Words | 4 Pages

Andrew Jackson’s sentiment towards the Native Americans was certainly not a kind one. Manifest destiny was a popular belief among Americans, including Jackson, and he would go to the extent of forcing Native Americans out of their homes to reach their “ordained goal”. He believed in the expansion of southern slavery which is why he pushed for removing the Indians west of the Mississippi, which makes it the more disgraceful. The Indian Removal Act of 1830 said that it will allow American government to offer in-state territories to the Indian’s for their western land. This wasn’t the case when the U.S. went in and drove the Indians out by force.

Read More
516 Words | 3 Pages

Although Jackson was important, he was part of many terrible things. Around the 1820s there were many major indian tribes in eastern United States such as Cherokee, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole. This soon came to a change. Andrew Jackson thought these Indians were in the way of eastern development, using the Indian Removal Act which the congress had approved he decided to kick them out and send them west. In 1831 the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Indians had the right to self government and the United States could not interfere with that.

Read More
160 Words | 1 Pages

In 1829, when President Andrew Jackson took office, one of his main goals were to move the Native Americans to the west of the Mississippi River. Jackson's purpose for their movement was to give the white settlers the land that the Native's had resided on and Jackson also had a strong belief that a good Indian was a dead Indian. When the Native Americans were ordered to move, the Cherokees went to the Supreme Court to challenge the removal order. In the case of Worester vs. Georgia, the verdict stated that the Cherokees had the right to keep their land, but Jackson refused to recognize the Court's decision. Jackson's Native American policy resulted in the removal of the Cherokee from their homeland to settlements across the Mississippi River,

Read More
568 Words | 3 Pages

“Jackson argued that the United States policy of attempting to assimilate the tribes into white society had failed and the Native Americans’ way of life would eventually be destroyed.” (thehermitage.com) Thousands of Native Americans died due to his decisions; he seemed to show his total disregard for their culture and rights. This displays his autocratic tendencies, but his crisis involving South Carolina does as well. When the Tariff of 1832 began to harm South Carolina but aid the North, our state threatened to leave the union in order to protect our economy. However, Jackson was going to use force to make us follow his laws; he wasn 't willing to bend at all.

Read More
530 Words | 3 Pages

Jackson completely disregarded the Supreme Court's ruling “ Although the ruling was in favor of the Cherokee, Jackson manipulated a deal with some tribe members, giving them two years to relocate to Oklahoma”. All of which is evidence Jackson going outside of his jurisdiction. Jackson allowed the theft of Native Americans sovereign state “Georgia, with the support began to annex the Cherokee land; abolish their government, courts, laws; and establish a process for seizing Cherokee land distributing it to the white citizens”. Determining that Jackson was prejudice against Native Americans. The elimination of the National Bank is the final reason I am certain Jackson was a dictator.

Read More

More about Andrew Jackson: Not Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity

Open Document