Andrew Jackson has horrible sentence

structure.

Seriously, his proclamation sentence structure is making my essay like, six times as hard.

My English professor would have awarded him a 42% stamp if she had graded his writing.

Edited by Gatyr - 08 May 2007 at 5:24pm

Gatyr wrote: My English professor would have awarded him a 42% stamp if she had graded his writing.

I approve.

"Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

EDIT: Or in your case, South Carolina Exposition and Protest.


Edited by WGP guy2 - 08 May 2007 at 5:47pm

I tend not to like Jackson, as I also do not like Truman or Theodore Roosevelt. The more research I'd do, the more stuff I'd pull up that made me dislike them.

WGP guy2 wrote: Cedric wrote: He was such a bad person. Such a waste of life. If you truly believe that then you don't understand much about Jacksonian Democracy.

Or maybe you've only read a tip of the iceberg report on him.

That makes sense. I just find a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to the removal of Native Americans, the Phillipinos, and the Japanese. So I tend not to like those presidents, among others.

Dune wrote: That makes sense. I just find a bad taste in my mouth when it comes to the removal of Native Americans, the Phillipinos, and the Japanese. So I tend not to like those presidents, among others.

While removal of the Native Americans probably wasn't in good taste, he did do a lot for Americans.  The spoils system is a good example (in my opinion). 

The treatment of the Philippinos is debatable as to whether it was good or bad.  The United States definately did a lot to improve life in the Philippines, however while doing that part of the culture and many lifes were destroyed.  You can't really blame the United States for attacking Spain in the Pacific though, it probably wouldn't have been smart to just fight the war in one place, and not the other.  Plus Mahan's book drove into Americans the need to dominate the seas.

The removal of the Japanese-Americans to detention camps certainly resembled what Hitler was doing to the Poles and Jews (and many others), minus the amount of deaths.  I'm not saying it was right, but the majority in Korematsu v. US did state that what was done was constitutional.

Dune wrote: Roosevelt's order in the Phillipines was to kill every boy above the age of ten. So I'm not so sure life was greatly improved. While I was partially talking about removing Japanese-Americans to camps, I was referring to Trumans order to drop the bombs, thus "removing" Japanese from the planet. Poor pun, but still.

Roosevelt wanted to "civilize uncivilized countries".   I'm not aware of any order to murder men in the Philippines, although I know many murders did happen.  I haven't seen any official statement giving that order, care to prove it to me?

WGP, sounds like your APUSH teacher sucks.

Not sure what you're countering? That his massacre of the Philippines is better than the Spanish massacre?