Who knew that former President Andrew Jackson could be so contradictory? Several McConnell Scholars had the opportunity to discuss the impacts and beliefs of Andrew Jackson with University of Tennessee (Knoxville) History Professor, Dr. Daniel Feller just a few weeks ago.
Dr. Feller brought to the forefront several contradictions about Jackson: his belief in people, small government, and equality. Jackson's ascent into politics and the changes in rhetoric in Washington were also discussed. Andrew Jackson, a "good 'ole boy" according to most historians, was a man a firsts. His emergence into national politics began with an interesting "grass roots" campaign in Philadelphia, and he was the first president in seven to take office who wasn't a Virginian. Jackson was the first president to alter the course of rhetoric used in Washington, as exemplified by his accusations against the "too powerful" and their selfish intentions.
I guess I never realized just how much Jackson "shook-up" the American Presidency. His humble beginnings and rambunctious nature did more than alter the image of this prestigious office, they altered the role forever! As discussed in the seminar, I think it's the contradictions that emerged during his presidency that revealed that he in fact wasn't so in touch with the people, and that government needed to be larger to manage the growing issues in society. This conclusion prompts me to ponder. . . How much can becoming President of the United States alter one's opinion? Are the contradictions within our political ideologies contingent upon current circumstances, or does the desire for power motivate people to abandon their beliefs? These answers can surely be debated in the next seminar.
I guess I never realized just how much Jackson "shook-up" the American Presidency. His humble beginnings and rambunctious nature did more than alter the image of this prestigious office, they altered the role forever! As discussed in the seminar, I think it's the contradictions that emerged during his presidency that revealed that he in fact wasn't so in touch with the people, and that government needed to be larger to manage the growing issues in society. This conclusion prompts me to ponder. . . How much can becoming President of the United States alter one's opinion? Are the contradictions within our political ideologies contingent upon current circumstances, or does the desire for power motivate people to abandon their beliefs? These answers can surely be debated in the next seminar.