help my daughter with her homework

[muck]

"There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses." Andrew Jackson

 

************************************************

 

This is a quote from his message surrounding the veto of a banking bill. Here's a link to the entire message he delivered ==> http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/aj7/writings/veto.htm

 

The question to you is, how would you (i) restate the quote to provide the same meaning as it was originally intended, (ii) provide insight into another aspect of Jackson's views that would elaborate upon the sentiment in this quote, (iii) provide another quote/story unrelated to Jackson that would further corroborate the sentiment expressed in the above quote, and (iv) sum up the entire theme in a one sentence 'moral to the story'?

 

I'm having difficulty in explaining the quote to my 11yr old daughter and helping her with this piece of homework.

 

TIA.

[Kid Cid]

I would start by explaining what he meant conceptually. The short version of what he said was that a "thing" cannot be evil in and of itself. It is only when put to use that the "thing" exhibits good or evil properties. For example, a shoe by itself is neither good nor evil. However, when placed upon your foot, it becomes good, because it is helping protect your foot from damage. It could also be evil such as when her brother grabs it and starts hitting her with it. The shoe itself doesn't exhibit good or evil behavior, it is either good or evil when used in a particular manner. The same is true of government.

[Dutch Oven]

Leaving the office now, but I think you could use the fact that Jackson was the only president who left office with no national debt to your advantage.

 

I like this quote:

 

As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Dutch Oven

[Clubfoothead]

I like Kid's explanation.

 

I seem to take what Jackson said to mean government itself it not bad, it's what people do with it that makes it bad. I would then explain the Trail of Tears and the Indian Removal Act to her so she understands that not only did Jackson say it, he proved it.

[Yukon Cornelius]

humans be evil it is proven over and over in history.

[Azazello1313]

the quote strikes me as being framed as a sort of counterpoint to the idea perhaps best expressed by thomas paine in his 1776 pamphlet, "common sense":

 

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

 

I like the way James Madison put it:

 

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.

 

these kinds of thoughts and expressions (government as "necessary evil"), which were part and parcel of revolutionary era thought, would have still been well known in 1832. Jackson is expounding on that notion, trying to turn it somewhat on its head, in saying government isn't evil, it's corrupt people in government who make it evil. personally, I think such sentiment completely misses the point of Paine/Jefferson/Madison. Their point was, in essence, that power corrupts. absolutely. "power" and "corruption" are directly proportional. government is necessary, to "restrain men from injuring one another", but any expansion of its power is dangerous. contra to that, Jackson seems to want to point out that a beneficent expansion of government power is theoretically possible.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Azazello1313

[The Holy Roller]

Really? All the above mumbo jumbo (at least, that's what an 11 year old will receive it as), doesn't mean much to a preteen mind that is still developing a sense of where she is in the human race. Unless she is attending some kind of school for the Advanced Beyond Her Years/Welcome Rainman sort of place, the question appears to be something from a teacher that just wants to bust some parent's balls.

 

The concept of government is still pretty nebulous at the age of 11. I'd send back Yuk's response and see what happens.

[TimC]

Simple answer: Teach your daughter how to marry a rich guy and she'll never have to worry about this stuff.

[muck]

Really? All the above mumbo jumbo (at least, that's what an 11 year old will receive it as), doesn't mean much to a preteen mind that is still developing a sense of where she is in the human race. Unless she is attending some kind of school for the Advanced Beyond Her Years/Welcome Rainman sort of place, the question appears to be something from a teacher that just wants to bust some parent's balls.

 

The concept of government is still pretty nebulous at the age of 11. I'd send back Yuk's response and see what happens.

 

While the concept of government is pretty nebulous to any 11 year old, it is my view that she will learn the most if she jumps into the deep end...

 

And, FWIW, this is for her writing curriculum ... not a history, government or civics curriculum. The basic idea behind this writing curriculum is that the best way to learn how to write is by mimicing the best writers and most influential thinkers in the way they would take an idea and develop it.

 

The curriculum starts out by rewriting Aesop, Grimm Brothers, Greek myths, etc. and advances from there. By next year, she'll (hopefully) be delving into Plato. By the time she's done with the curriculum in five or six years, she will have been through authors/writers/philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Erasmus, Calvin, Darwin, Old and New Testament, Marx, Adam Smith, Shakespeare, Cicero, etc.. For anyone looking to develop a kid who is effective at communicating through the written word, I highly recommend it.

 

You can learn more about this curriculum here.

 

ETA:

 

Article 1

Article 2

Bibliography

Edited November 20, 2010 by muck

[muck]

Oh, and thank you for the help.

[satelliteoflovegm]

I just skimmed this...Andrew Jackson hates shoes. Is that the jist?

[Jackass]

While the concept of government is pretty nebulous to any 11 year old, it is my view that she will learn the most if she jumps into the deep end...

 

And, FWIW, this is for her writing curriculum ... not a history, government or civics curriculum. The basic idea behind this writing curriculum is that the best way to learn how to write is by mimicing the best writers and most influential thinkers in the way they would take an idea and develop it.

 

So you're having her mimic the people here at the huddle

[Clubfoothead]

So you're having her mimic the people here at the huddle

 

No, it appears they are having her mimic America's pol pot who was taking a shot at Madison for getting American into the war of 1812 without a military prepared to take on the British for a second time.

 

The Jackson quote is really a very interesting quote if you do a little research. That's one smart teacher.

 

It ties into the Louisiana Purchase (when the minimalist Jefferson doubled the size of the state). It ties into the first Barbary War and the creation of the US Department of Navy to protect American mechant ships from being pirated by arab devils off the coast of morocco and algeria (once again spearheaded by our minimalist Jefferson, call it Iraqi Freedom, the Prelude). It ties into the war of 1812 which Madison got us into over the British embargo of American trade with France and American westward expansion under Jefferson. Britian did not like Jefferson building a Navy capable of defeating the Barbary States and operating in the Medeterranian. This kind of Navy, operating in the European theatre, while Britian was already at war, represented a definite threat to British maritime supremacy. So you had the British embargo combined with the British support of the INdian tribes and Madison said f*ck you red coats. Problem was we didn't have the money or resources to fight the British again (see out two front war on terror with no plan to recover the costs of the wars). Jackson was the one doing the fighting in the South and was aware we weren't prepared.

 

My new take is he probably saw Jefferson and Madison as hypocrits and that's the genesis of the quote. All these career politicians like Jefferson and Madison are telling everyone how the government should be a minimalist one, yet their actions were just the opposite - constant expanison of the government. He's taking a shot at Jefferson and Madison. Maybe not because he believes what he said but because he sees them as saying one thing and doing another. It makes sense. If the jist of the argument by Madison and Jefferson is that all power corrupts absolutely and that governments are a necessary evil, then why would I be listening to a career politician like Jefferson or Madison since surely they must be corrupted as a result of being lifetime politicians?

[ts]

I don't know if this will actually help with the writing part of the given assignment, but it may help a bit with the 'interpretation of the quote' portion - at least by offering some additional background on the debate that the quote was related to - and by providing a few comments from politicians of the time on both side of that debate. If nothing else, maybe it will help put Jackson's remarks into context for the situation & the era and/or provide a launching pad for further research.

 

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/us13.cfm

Edited November 20, 2010 by ts