Scott Oliver, Group 7

The reading covers a lot over the people who make up the Jackson presidency and affects on the party; in particular, Martin Van Buren. The reading covers a couple specific events that Buren took total credit but what I’m interested in is what the book doesn't specifically cover. Henretta states, " Martin Van Buren, the architect of the Democratic Party and Jackson's handpicked successor". The Whig party was banded together to oppose Jackson's policies and "kinglike" conduct. Jackson pushed through congress the Indian removal act. Jackson destroyed the national bank and the American system. His compromise with South Carolina's act of nullification, all of those things Jackson accomplished have strongly changed the future that lies in front of America. To consider a thought, how much advice does Buren give to Jackson, or how much influence does he have on the presidency? How much of the accomplishments can Buren take credit for? Is Jackson making the decisions based on his own thoughts, on Buren's thoughts, or a little of both?

Obviously the decisions made by a president completely affect the country or the world. Possible the president may only be a figure, and his advisors are the real politicians and decision makers. Society could be led to follow a man on T.V rather than his successors. Has an advisor or advisors ever put to much influence on the president and possibly impair him from making a decision that’s not his own? Have their been any presidents that have been suspected of being to influenced to where they are being completely run?

Jeff Thomason, Group 7

The reading had to do with the rise of political parties. Despite "Revolution era Americans" argueing that political parties were "dangerous to the commonwealth" and "anti-republican," Martin Van Buren still formed the first nationwide political party: Jacksonian Democrats. Do you think political parties could have been avoided, or do you agree with Van Buren and political parties are "inseperable from free government"?

With the rise of political parties came new political debates and heated presidential races. Basically any middle-class man could now get into politics and hold high office positions. When European visitors came to the United States they were often disgusted with our politicians. One French aristocrat said "the most able men in the United States are very rarely placed at head of affairs." Do you think this is true? Many politicians at this time seemed to have selfish goals and actions, but the whole country was being united and now almost any man could become a politician if he wanted. Was this a good or bad thing?

The presidential elections seemed odd to me at this time. Before each election, the opposition seemed to try and trick the president into doing something that would ruin their hopes for re-election. For example, the Jacksonians took control of Congress in 1826 and wanted higher tariffs on imported raw materials in order to win support of farmers for the presidential race in 1826. It also led to Adams' fall. It wasn't only Jackson's party though. When Jackson was president, his opponents persuaded the Second Bank of the United States' president Nicholas Biddle to seek an early extension of the bank's charter. They hoped that Jackson would veto the the bill which would split the Democrats right before the 1832 election.

In both of these situations it seems as though the opposition is wanting these government tariffs and bills only for their own good. It seems like Congress was just trying to trick the president into screwing up so one of them could be the next president. And as president, Jackson increased the president's authority and created a spoils system where he appointed his close supporters to high office positions. These actions led to the rise of another political party called the Whigs. Their goal was to put men of ability, talent, and wealth in political power. The Democrats and Whigs battled to office positions fiercely the next couple decades. Do you think you would have been a Democrat, Whig, or neither? Although both parties claimed to speak "for the people" did either actually do that at all?

Kirsten Felgate

This reading had a lot to do with the emerging political parties. From Martin Van Buren's idea of a Democratic party to the later found Whig party. The Americans were finally able to have a little more diverse thought process on government. There now were not only able to associate with a specific president that was running, but more for an overall idea of how they wanted the government to be. Do you think this new idea was good for the country? Since everything had been so new to them, would it have been better to keep with one basic form and idea of government until everything was stabilized. Or was it really necessary to them to have various ideas to change things until they were able to be made right?
It seemed as though as each new president that came into power had a whole new set of plans and opinions on how to govern the country. Was it more of who wanted to be right? Or was it more about what they thought would be best for the country? It seemed as though each president was on a power trip to prove their thoughts and ways to the country. Do you think that it was more about them wanting things the way they wanted them, or was it truly or the best of the country? With the tariff changes and the changes with the Second National Bank, there were big differences of opinions of that time span.