So I won't go into too much detail given the nature of the forum, but beyond the complete change in tone that Jackson brought to the presidency, something that Trump is also routinely criticized for, prior to Andrew Jackson we had an entirely different banking system.
He engaged in a conflict with the central bank overseeing national finances and banking and vetoed the bill renewing its charter, in part because he perceived the bank as supporting his political opponents. It still had four years to go, but the next year he unilaterally pulled all federal deposits from the bank, putting them in smaller state banks. This crippled the Second Bank of the United States with no Congressional approval or oversight. In fact, he was officially censured by the Senate for doing it.
Some other similarities in tone or type:
Jackson wasn't initially taken seriously as a presidential candidate - he was a political outsider and "a man of the people." He thought the federal government was corrupt and against him. This feeling was not helped by his winning the popular vote in the election of 1824 but it being taken away by the electoral college and ultimately decided by the House of Representatives in a "corrupt bargain."
He basically replaced his entire cabinet because of a conflict between the wives of his cabinet members and the wife of his chief of staff, who had married the widow of another cabinet member after a rumored affair and that member's subsequent suicide.
He had a "kitchen cabinet" of unofficial and unappointed advisors who had extremely significant power in the Federal government, such as Martin Van Buren (who would later become VP), John Overton, and Francis Blair (Editor of the Washington Globe), including some of the richest people in the country at the time - some of whom were bankers, by the way, and directly benefited from the destruction of the 2nd National Bank.
He criminally investigated his presidential predecessor's staff, alleging (and allegedly finding) corruption.
He was accused of being a dictator and a despot, and rattled his saber against Europe, almost going to war with France.
He nominated and successfully appointed completely unqualified judges.
We didn't have the current system of executive agencies until the latter half of the twentieth century, but if we did Jackson would probably have dismantled it.
I understand, but I was not the one who introduced Andrew Jackson as a comparator. I see that our friend has provided some of his arguments above. That's good.
I find it hard to compare the two men in question. They will have their similarities, being humans and politicians. But Andrew Jackson lived two hundred years ago. The modern era has seen the USA become a "superpower" with brokering influence (political, financial, military) all around the world.
The current administration appears intent (despite its slogans) on dismantling its own influence in the world... as well as Democracy. Nations and economic zones that considered themselves long-standing allies only a month ago now openly express distrust.
So I won't go into too much detail given the nature of the forum, but beyond the complete change in tone that Jackson brought to the presidency, something that Trump is also routinely criticized for, prior to Andrew Jackson we had an entirely different banking system.
He engaged in a conflict with the central bank overseeing national finances and banking and vetoed the bill renewing its charter, in part because he perceived the bank as supporting his political opponents. It still had four years to go, but the next year he unilaterally pulled all federal deposits from the bank, putting them in smaller state banks. This crippled the Second Bank of the United States with no Congressional approval or oversight. In fact, he was officially censured by the Senate for doing it.
Some other similarities in tone or type:
Jackson wasn't initially taken seriously as a presidential candidate - he was a political outsider and "a man of the people." He thought the federal government was corrupt and against him. This feeling was not helped by his winning the popular vote in the election of 1824 but it being taken away by the electoral college and ultimately decided by the House of Representatives in a "corrupt bargain."
He basically replaced his entire cabinet because of a conflict between the wives of his cabinet members and the wife of his chief of staff, who had married the widow of another cabinet member after a rumored affair and that member's subsequent suicide.
He had a "kitchen cabinet" of unofficial and unappointed advisors who had extremely significant power in the Federal government, such as Martin Van Buren (who would later become VP), John Overton, and Francis Blair (Editor of the Washington Globe), including some of the richest people in the country at the time - some of whom were bankers, by the way, and directly benefited from the destruction of the 2nd National Bank.
He criminally investigated his presidential predecessor's staff, alleging (and allegedly finding) corruption.
He was accused of being a dictator and a despot, and rattled his saber against Europe, almost going to war with France.
He nominated and successfully appointed completely unqualified judges.
We didn't have the current system of executive agencies until the latter half of the twentieth century, but if we did Jackson would probably have dismantled it.
A couple of books I liked about this era are: The Birth of Modern Politics - https://archive.org/details/birthofmodernpol00lynn
American Lion by Jon Meacham
I don't agree with our friend's equation of then and now, but here is some information about Andrew Jackson.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson
I was hoping for something more specific.
I understand, but I was not the one who introduced Andrew Jackson as a comparator. I see that our friend has provided some of his arguments above. That's good.
I find it hard to compare the two men in question. They will have their similarities, being humans and politicians. But Andrew Jackson lived two hundred years ago. The modern era has seen the USA become a "superpower" with brokering influence (political, financial, military) all around the world.
The current administration appears intent (despite its slogans) on dismantling its own influence in the world... as well as Democracy. Nations and economic zones that considered themselves long-standing allies only a month ago now openly express distrust.