During Andrew Jackson’s time in office, he did a neutral job as president. He had his ups and downs, including how he handled Native Americans and the national bank. Overall, I think Andrew Jackson’s presidency wasn’t that bad nor that good due to how he handled some issues. Andrew Jackson wasn’t that bad a person as people may think, he was even nicknamed, “a man of the people”. He had gotten this nickname for letting the people be heard, Andrew Jackson grew up like a “normal” person. He didn’t have fancy stuff or had a ton of money, he was not rich and learned to fend for himself. This made the ordinary people have a connection with him. This wasn’t the only thing that gave him the nickname, but he had the peoples best interest in mind and …show more content…
Going on to the next problem, which was the Bank War, I think Jackson also did a good job handling this problem too. He was honest about his plans, and he did the right thing for the people. His plan was risky though because he chose to not keep it a secret about not renewing the bank, this could of either done good or bad and in the end he ended up winning big time for putting his plans public. Once he became president, in 1833, he stopped funding the bank and put the money in the state banks which at the end ran the national bank out of business therefore closing the national bank. So, Jackson did what was best for the people, he made sure that they knew what he was going to do to the bank if he won as president and in the end he kept his word and closed the bank. In the end, Jackson did a neutral job as president, he made good decisions and bad decisions. This is why it’s kind of tied in the middle because the way he treated the American Indians really weighed down his chances of being a good president. Overall, not looking at the bad things he did, I would say he did what he was supposed to do as president, especially when it came to listening to the