U.S. History

Who here knows a lot about Washington, Jackson, or Lincoln? If you're able to help me, I'll give you LGG.

I need to know about each of the three:
A) why they were important
B) what problems they faced
C) how they shaped the modern presidency

Only counts if it's something I don't already have (which I don't feel like posting, 'cause it's long, and not like anyone's gonna read it all anyway). Thanks and stuff. I guess I'll give 1k LGG for each fact that someone states that I don't already have. Maybe more, if it's good.

Washington
1. Lead the rebellion against the British both in the forming of our government and via military campaign
2. He had to get all of the founding fathers to agree on the structure of our government and the Deceleration of Independence. Then had to fight the British Empire with a rag tag group of poorly trained and equipped men.
3. He started the two term policy before it was an official rule and set all the decorum of being President. I.E> You call him Mr. President, not king, they don't wear a crown, and don't have their personal wealth tied to the country's.

Jackson
1. Strong position on loose interpretation of constitution and against the establishment of the national bank and he was a war hero
2. Hamilton and his supporter were for a national bank, bitter rivalry. Also nullification crisis. An he challenged the Supreme Court for the right to interpret the constitution without scrutiny, in other word attempted to expand presidential power
3. Established the spoils system( replace everyone in government with your supports after you win) and had some effect on the interpreting of the constitution to day and tariffs.

I don't know a ton about Lincoln that you wouldn't already know. I'm more into the Confederate side of things.

I love Lincoln. He and Jackson are the ones I have the most information on. Although I have an entire essay on Washington somewhere, just not in my notes. I'll look for it.

A few questions on the things I don't have:

@ Washington
#1: I'm hazy as to what wars/battles Washington participated in. He led the one that separated us from Britain? What else? Was there another one after that?
#2: I thought he just happened to be a founding father (if that; IDR if he was, or was just the person they agreed on to be the first president; my essay probably says, but IDR off the top of my head). He didn't have any more power in getting the founding fathers to agree on the Const./Dec. of Ind. than the rest of them. They all wrote it together without a leader.
#3: I know about the two-terms, but the other things I don't. He started the "Mr. President," no crown, and untied wealth? Was it the same way as the two-term thing, where he just didn't do it, and no one else did either, or did he specifically decide to do these things. Also, what do you mean by not having his personal wealth tied to the country's?

@ Jackson
#1/2: I know about the bank and wars. I need to know more about this loose interpretation of the Const. How so? And how does it tie in with his challenging the Supreme Court? What did he do? I haven't heard of this.
#3: More on these. Also haven't heard of these. Especially his effect on modern day Const. interpretation, as that sounds precisely what I need to write in my essay.

Spoils systems basically when you win an election as a reward you bring your people into other prominent offices. Like a president picking the treasurer or something. And he saiud the Constitution was just a guideline set out for us, not concrete black and white.

The 1 dude was on money.[;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabe

Spoils systems basically when you win an election as a reward you bring your people into other prominent offices. Like a president picking the treasurer or something. And he saiud the Constitution was just a guideline set out for us, not concrete black and white.

---

Well the Constitution-as-a-guideline certainly didn't shape the modern presidency, so I'm sure he didn't win that debate. I'm looking for things that actually had an impact.

He meant it wasn't to be taken completely literal. For example, the Louisiana Purchase. Since there was nothing in the Constitution on buying land some people wondered whether we were "allowed" to.

Washington was EMO.

Reason is..
If you cut yourself while you are cold.. It makes you warm. He did it during the war. or whatever..
I believe my teacher told me that.. Idr..

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gabe

He meant it wasn't to be taken completely literal. For example, the Louisiana Purchase. Since there was nothing in the Constitution on buying land some people wondered whether we were "allowed" to.

---

That's just interpretation of the "necessary and proper" part. Presidents have always disagreed on that. Doesn't sound like something that Jackson did that had any permanent effect on the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

That's just interpretation of the "necessary and proper" part. Presidents have always disagreed on that. Doesn't sound like something that Jackson did that had any permanent effect on the country.

---

The fact is Jackson hated the constitution. He felt constrained by it. He wanted it to be loosely interpreted rather than strictly word for word. I.E. "We don't have power to make National Bank" He was just kind of the first President to really argue with anyone about it. His sort of interpretation of the constitution has allowed since then for all kind of things.
Jackson interpreted the power of congress narrowly and vetoed more bills than all previous 6 presidents.
Launched the Indian Removal act. Which basically nullified all contracts we made with them and was a violent campaign against them. Set tone for dealing with them from then after.
Jackson shut down the nullification crisis where S. Carolina tried to say tariff levyed by Jackson was unconstitutional and that the states could decide it was and not levy the tariff. Jackson responded with force.
Two party system started under Jackson.
Jackson issued Specie Circular which combated inflation after the US purchased land. This lead to crisis later; the Panic of 1837.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GAMEchief

I love Lincoln. He and Jackson are the ones I have the most information on. Although I have an entire essay on Washington somewhere, just not in my notes. I'll look for it.

A few questions on the things I don't have:

@ Washington
#1: I'm hazy as to what wars/battles Washington participated in. He led the one that separated us from Britain? What else? Was there another one after that?
#2: I thought he just happened to be a founding father (if that; IDR if he was, or was just the person they agreed on to be the first president; my essay probably says, but IDR off the top of my head). He didn't have any more power in getting the founding fathers to agree on the Const./Dec. of Ind. than the rest of them. They all wrote it together without a leader.
#3: I know about the two-terms, but the other things I don't. He started the "Mr. President," no crown, and untied wealth? Was it the same way as the two-term thing, where he just didn't do it, and no one else did either, or did he specifically decide to do these things. Also, what do you mean by not having his personal wealth tied to the country's?

---

1. Yeah, revolutionary war. He was a general. He might have been in the French Indian War, not sure.
2. He was a leader and a strong presence among them. A key player, not an official leader but if he said something most of them listened to him. Very well respect more so after the Revolutionary war.
3. He did all that I said. It all became official due to his doing it. This was because they straight up glorified him after the war.

Lincoln felt that it was his duty to restore the Union, as the Civil War began to start up. NOTE:: THE CIVIL WAR, WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT ABOUT SLAVERY, only part of it was, most of it was about economy and politics, as well as selfishness.
> _ >

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ethan

Lincoln felt that it was his duty to restore the Union, as the Civil War began to start up. NOTE:: THE CIVIL WAR, WAS ABSOLUTELY NOT ABOUT SLAVERY, only part of it was, most of it was about economy and politics, as well as selfishness.
> _ >

---

I know that's why I still support Confederates. Stupid Union tellin' people how to live and destroying southern economy.
Slavery is wrong, not for that part.