Final answer:
The cartoonist likely sides with Andrew Jackson against the Second Bank of the United States, as indicated by Jackson's heroic portrayal in the battle against the bank. The representation of Jackson with the 'Veto' cane and his popular stand against the 'monster bank' suggest the cartoonist's disapproval of the bank. However, without specific images, interpretations may vary.
Step-by-step explanation:
The cartoonist's position in the depiction of Andrew Jackson and the Second Bank of the United States greatly depends on the context and the specific cartoon in question. However, several clues suggest that the cartoonist's sentiment may be in favor of Jackson's stance against the Bank. In the illustration titled 'GENERAL JACKSON SLAYING THE MANY HEADED MONSTER', Jackson is portrayed as a heroic figure using a cane marked 'Veto' to battle a snake representing the state banks and, by extension, the national bank. His actions in the cartoon align with his real-life opposition to the bank, which he viewed as an emblem of special privilege and a threat to democracy. This depiction, coupled with Jackson's historical popularity for his stand against the 'monster bank', indicates that the cartoonist may sympathize with Jackson's position. Figures like Nicholas Biddle, the director of the national bank, are portrayed negatively, reinforcing the notion that the cartoonist may not be in favor of the Bank. Conversely, other cartoons that label Jackson as 'King Andrew the First' suggest disapproval of Jackson's tactics, aligning the cartoonist with the Bank's defenders. Without a specific image, the question is open to interpretation based on the array of political cartoons from the era.