Andrew Jackson's Been Impeached?

Our AP Comp class has recently been delving into the topic of spoken arguments, and when I was assigned this blog post for class, I was originally at odds over what to write about. Luckily, I have a very obvious and easy choice; my AP US History class's simulation trial of the "impeachment" of Andrew Jackson. The arguments are pretty obvious, we should or shouldn't impeach President Andrew Jackson. I was a member of the jury, and I was given four articles of the Constitution to use to determine my decision. It was then up to the defense and prosecution to sway me and my peers to one direction or the other.

First, each side would make opening statements to hint at what their arguments were going to be. The attorneys making these statements were confident and poised, and looked directly into the eyes of the jury. These statements were formal and eloquent in language, and the defense's opening statement even included praises of Jackson as "the greatest man on Earth who would never do wrong" or "the friend of the common man". They were intended either to produce or remove support and sympathy for Andrew Jackson, and both held hints of truth within them.

Both sides used interpretations of the Constitution as the base of their arguments, and both sides had "witnesses" to use as well. Usually, an attorney would call a witness to the stands, and would then ask questions that prompted answers that would help to support their argument. They would have to ask prompt, precise questions, ones that wouldn't pry too deeply into the witness's life, and ones that didn't involve opinions. They didn't talk too fast or slow, but spoke in a moderate pace, making direct eye contact with the witness themselves. Following this, the opposing side would initiate cross-examination, asking questions that would help to debunk the argument in question. They often asked questions one by one, attempting to find flaws or trap the witness into a position where they either seem "unconstitutional" or contradict themselves. Questions would once again have to be prompt and non-opinion answerable.

At the end, both sides would make closing arguments that were meant to tie everything together and remind the jury of their main points. They often had impressionable endings that were meant to leave us contemplating and, hopefully, supportive of their side. The prosecution, for example, claimed that "if there was any doubt whatsoever into the nature of Jackson's actions", that Jackson must be held into account and impeached.

Obviously these arguments were made in a way to persuade the jury and I to vote one way or another, and were conducted in a fashion to make the opposing side look wrong or illogical. Although I liked both sides' arguments, in the end I was forced to make a decision, one which I don't regret. Despite the non-conciliatory tone of the "impeachment" trial of Andrew Jackson, I found that both sides acted cordially and respectfully, and it was certainly very entertaining for me, Senator Akef, to preside over.