Reasons for Jackson's Implementation of the Indian Solution Term Paper

Reasons for Jackson's Implementation of the Indian Solution - Term Paper Example Mississippi state and the western segment of Alabama will be relieved of Indian tenancy, and permit those States to progress swiftly in population, wealth, and power (Mark p134). The Indians were denied immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will retard the advancement of crumble, which is shrinking their statistics, and possibly cause them progressively, beneath the defense of the administration and through the influence of superior advice, to shed off their savage practice and develop into an interesting, cultured, and Christian society. These results, some of them so firm and others so possible, make the absolute implementation of the plan sanctioned by Congress at their last session an object of much solicitude. Impacts of Jackson destroying the National bank According to Terry, Bilhartz and Alan (106), in 1833, President Andrew Jackson announced that the government will no longer use the country's national bank. He then used his executive control to eliminate all national finances from the bank, in the ultimate round of what is referred to as the "Bank War." A national bank initially formed by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton in 1791 to dole out as a central repository for national finances. The Second Bank of the United States was founded in 1816; five years after this first bank's contract had run out. Conventionally, the bank had been managed by a board of directors with ties to industry and processing, and thus was partial towards the modern and developed northern states. Jackson, the embodiment of frontiersman, railed against the bank's deficient of financial support for development into the unsettled Western regions. Jackson also protested against the bank's uncommon political and economic power and to the lack of congressional oversight over its business dealings. Jackson, known as obstinate and bestial but a man of the ordinary people demanded for an inquiry into the bank's policies and political agenda as soon as he settled in to the White House in March 1829. To Jackson, the institution signified how a fortunate class of businessmen oppressed the will of the common Americans. He made it plain to confront the legality of the bank, much to the dismay of its cohorts. In rejoinder, the bank’s director, Nicholas Biddle, loosened his personal political power, spinning to affiliates of Congress, as well as the influential Kentucky Senator Henry Clay and leading businessmen sympathetic to the bank, to fight Jackson (Williams p 168). According to Hoffmann (44), shortly that year, Jackson presented his case against the bank in a speech to Congress; to his vexation, its members commonly agreed that the bank was certainly legal. Still, debate over the bank remained for the subsequent three years. In 1932, the troublesomeness resulted to a crack in Jackson's cabinet and, that similar year, the pigheaded president prohibited an attempt by Congress to make a new agreement for the bank. All of this occurred through Jackson's proffer for re-election; the bank's prospect was the central spot of a harsh political campaign between the Democratic