Difference between revisions of "HIST 131--Week 12 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Elijah Lovejoy and the Anti-abolitionist Mob, letter to a friend, 1837) |
(→Jackson’s Farewell Address – March 1837) |
||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo | Jackson comes off really harsh in his Farewell Address speech. But I do not know how he can argue that any power not enumerated in the Constitution should be not allowed. The Cabinet is not defined in the Constitution but would he have been opposed to that also? And did he have a cabinet while he was in presidency, becuase if he did how would he justify that? -Ally Campo | ||
| − | In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? | + | In response to Jake's question: Yes, Jake, he would. He was stubborn. Then again, if Jackson were around today, he would have a lot more on his mind than the national bank (my grandpa is afraid of his answering machine, and he's only 80). But this is an interesting idea though, Jackson living today, because though some consider him radical, I believe at least one of his economic theories connects surprisingly very well to modern times. If you read over the paragraph about "The means of profuse expenditure for the purpose of purchasing influence in other quarters...should indulge in lavish expenditures exceeding their resources...they will long find themselves oppressed with debt," one can infer that he would be very much against American foreign policy today, which emphesizes the borrow now, spend lavishly, pay later concept that the America of this young century has come to embrace. This isn't so much a question, but I found it a noteworthy concept for discussion. Did Jackson have any political or social theories that may actually reasonably apply to modern America? -Adam Shlossman |
== Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 == | == Sarah Grimké, Letters on the Equality of the Sexes, 1838 == | ||
