Many of Jackson's policies are poorly understood by today's contemporary audience. He is known more for his personality and a few controversial actions than for the majority of his solid governing decisions. His two most unpopular decisions (the Indian Removal Act and the Bank War) are perhaps two of his most mischaracterized and understood decisions. The Indian Removal Act was certainly a controversial and unfortunate decision. But Jackson's reasoning for support of it was not due to racism or a genocidal tendency, as some have hinted at. Jackson saw the Act as an opportunity to prevent the mass genocide of the Free Tribes. He believed that if the tribes weren't relocated that the Georgia militia (larger than the United States Army at the time) would overrun the natives and slaughter them. He believed that by moving them peacefully the tribes would be able to safely relocate for the time being. Once again, not the ideal solution by any means, but one that was driven by good intentions.
The issue of the bank is also an area of controversy where Jackson's view has been misconstrued. He was not an economic ignoramus who opposed the banks merely due to a personal distrust of them. The Second Bank of the United States was quite different from the current Federal Reserve System. It was far more centralized, and was involved much more in rampant and often reckless speculation. Yes, it provided credit to many growing industries. But even it that respect its decisions and practices were highly questionable. Most importantly, the Bank had become quite corrupt and entangled with Congress. Nicholas Biddle was particularly invested in the politics of the time. Therefore, when Jackson vetoed the bank's charter, he had many legitimate reasons to do so. The corruption and special privileges that the Bank was so heavily involved in were reaching a head, as was the fact that the Bank concentrated power in the hands of a few. Jackson's veto helped to delay the massive concentration of wealth in the United States that came with industrialization.
Was Jackson a good or bad President? It's a very difficult question to answer, as is the case with any President of a time other than our own. He did quite a bit to shape the nature of the Chief Executive and the nation overall. At the same time, he was unfortunate not to be able to predict the future and know what would happen to the Native Americans and the world's economy as a whole. The way he saw it, he was fighting for the common man against the entrenched special interests that had come to inhabit Washington. Using his own objectives as a criteria, he was a good President.