My brother's Facebook campaign to take Jackson off the $20

[Green Monstah]

That's a copout. If you keep reading American Lion you will see that the indian relocation was highly controversial at the time. Jackson sided with the worst elements in the battle.

Copout from what? It's something I'm sure Meacham would agree with...

We can look back and say, "what a horrible time in history," but it's difficult to moralize and attack individuals based on our own morals.

I'll keep reading, but I tend to disagree that there was a huge outcry from the general populace regarding Indian relocation...for the most part, Indians were viewed as a constant impediment to American progress.

This isn't to say that I condone Jackson or the trail of tears. Horrific acts of genocide....but when taken in context, I'm not sure he was considered immoral or delinquent in his time. So far, Meacham's taken a very even-keeled approach, but I do need to read on....

[Jeff Lebowski]

Copout from what? It's something I'm sure Meacham would agree with...

We can look back and say, "what a horrible time in history," but it's difficult to moralize and attack individuals based on our own morals.

I'll keep reading, but I tend to disagree that there was a huge outcry from the general populace regarding Indian relocation...for the most part, Indians were viewed as a constant impediment to American progress.

This isn't to say that I condone Jackson or the trail of tears. Horrific acts of genocide....but when taken in context, I'm not sure he was considered immoral or delinquent in his time.

There was enough of a split over the issue that it most likely would not have happened without Jackson siding with those promoting expulsion.

And again, the cherokee nation was completely unlike your typical "frontier savages" of the time. They had long since assimilated into the dominant white society and culture. This was land theft, pure and simple, and a significant part of the American public, in spite of the racism so prevalent at the time, saw it exactly that way.

... So far, Meacham's taken a very even-keeled approach, but I do need to read on....

I never said that Meacham wasn't balanced. How did you infer that?

[Green Monstah]

There was enough of a split over the issue that it most likely would not have happened without Jackson siding with those promoting expulsion.

And again, the cherokee nation was completely unlike your typical "frontier savages" of the time. They had long since assimilated into the dominant white society and culture. This was land theft, pure and simple, and a significant part of the American public, in spite of the racism so prevalent at the time, saw it exactly that way.



I never said that Meacham wasn't balanced. How did you infer that?

I didn't infer it...just a random observation and little bit of praise for the guy.

And yet...American history is littered with examples of Americans being more skeptical of assimilated, Anglicized Indians than those of the "savage" variety. I need to continue reading, but if there was an outcry, that speaks volumes. But, I have a sneaking suspicions that there was either (a) a vocal minority in opposition to the expulsion or (b) Meacham cherry-picked his sources. That's not really a harsh criticism (every monograph I've read usually does the same thing to varying degrees), I just don't have enough faith in early Americans to actually show mercy when gold or other natural resources are at stake (wasn't it gold that led to Cherokee expulsion??)

[All-American]

It's a troubling sign if we cannot admire virtue while recognizing vice in the same being. Absent such discernment, we'll be throwing out a lot of babies with history's bathwater.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's a troubling sign if we cannot admire virtue while recognizing vice in the same being. Absent such discernment, we'll be throwing out a lot of babies with history's bathwater.

Certainly.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I didn't infer it...just a random observation and little bit of praise for the guy.

And yet...American history is littered with examples of Americans being more skeptical of assimilated, Anglicized Indians than those of the "savage" variety. I need to continue reading, but if there was an outcry, that speaks volumes. But, I have a sneaking suspicions that there was either (a) a vocal minority in opposition to the expulsion or (b) Meacham cherry-picked his sources. That's not really a harsh criticism (every monograph I've read usually does the same thing to varying degrees), I just don't have enough faith in early Americans to actually show mercy when gold or other natural resources are at stake (wasn't it gold that led to Cherokee expulsion??)

a) it passed congress by one vote
b) Meacham is not my only source

[Green Monstah]

a) it passed congress by one vote
b) Meacham is not my only source

I'd be curious to see the voting records. My suspicion is that it was a North-South divide, which only serves to strengthen my point (since Jackson was a Southerner and all).

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'd be curious to see the voting records. My suspicion is that it was a North-South divide, which only serves to strengthen my point (since Jackson was a Southerner and all).

Given that the lands being stolen were all in the south, that's a pretty safe bet.

How does this strengthen your point? What exactly is your point again?

[creekster]

What exactly is your point again?

It's the same point we all have:

"I am right. You are all wrong."

[venkman]

Since his only claim to fame otherwise was (a) destroying the the Bank of the United States and thereby precipitating a financial crisis, and (b) fighting a battle at New Orleans some weeks after the War of 1812 was over, I'm not really clear on what good he accomplished to outweigh the Trail of Tears.

He should be removed from our currency."

The bit about New Orleans is a cheap shot. That was a great military victory.

We had a financial crisis during the Second Bank of the U.S. so the fact that we had one after the charter ran out doesn't prove it the 2BoUS was a good thing. The 2BoUS was a private bank made up of primarily foreign (British) stockholders. Given we had just fought a war against the British and given Whig support for the Bank (a good chunk of Whig sentiment/action during the War of 1812 tells you which country many of them were loyal to - hint, it wasn't the U.S.), I think he had a right to be suspicious.

Trail of Tears is difficult to defend, even given the times, as Lebowski has pointed out. I'm sure his attitude towards indians was colored by his time fighting them in Tennessee, particularly the Fort Mims massacre, but it's still a black mark on his presidency.

In many respects, he was a great President: a true friend of the common man, and not from a "let's get as many people on the dole as we can" "friend" the modern democratic party tries to pass itself off as.

[Green Monstah]

Given that the lands being stolen were all in the south, that's a pretty safe bet.

How does this strengthen your point? What exactly is your point again?

Please scroll up. You can't simply write off historical figures as immoral sluts simply because their behavior doesn't conform to our norms. You called it a copout. I said it's not.

It strengthens my point that our current condemnation of his conduct may be misplaced and/or inappropriate based on historical context. You claimed that he was practically breaking formation by booting the Cherokee...and you based it on a near 50/50 split in Congress. But if he was in line with the 50% that are from his area/share his values, etc., it only goes to support the assertion that he was a "man of his time" so to speak (an assertion you disagreed with).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Please scroll up. You can't simply write off historical figures as immoral sluts simply because their behavior doesn't conform to our norms. You called it a copout. I said it's not.

It strengthens my point that our current condemnation of his conduct may be misplaced and/or inappropriate based on historical context. You claimed that he was practically breaking formation by booting the Cherokee...and you based it on a near 50/50 split in Congress. But if he was in line with the 50% that are from his area/share his values, etc., it only goes to support the assertion that he was a "man of his time" so to speak (an assertion you disagreed with).

my oh my... I think creekster was right.

It is a copout in the sense that you can't look at every event like this and simply dismiss it as "Oh he is just a product of his times". There was sufficient opposition to his actions that it narrowly passed.

And don't give me that "He was a southerner" nonsense. And if you are reading that book carefully, surely you would have noticed that Jackson had no problem going against the south on many occasions. Witness his ongoing battle against South Carolina and nullification.

It seems that the crux of this debate is where Jackson should rank in terms of great American presidents. I acknowledge that he did some great things, but that has to be balanced against his pivotal role in Indian removal.

And one more thing:

And Washington owned slaves....what's your brother's point?

Funny that you should mention Washington to make your point. The Cherokee Nation fully adopted the cultural assimilation program started by none other than Washington and Knox. No way in hell Washington would have driven them out. They were a shining example of his vision.

[Clark Addison]

It seems that the crux of this debate is where Jackson should rank in terms of great American presidents.

I think this is the important point. I can understand the argument that Jackson was a man of his times, even if I don't completely agree with it. But if the question is "Was he a great President?", you have a different standard. If 50% of the congress supports genocide, and 50% doesn't, I think we could expect someone who is a great president to go along with the non-genocidal group.

[Green Monstah]

my oh my... I think creekster was right.

It is a copout in the sense that you can't look at every event like this and simply dismiss it as "Oh he is just a product of his times". There was sufficient opposition to his actions that it narrowly passed.

And don't give me that "He was a southerner" nonsense. And if you are reading that book carefully, surely you would have noticed that Jackson had no problem going against the south on many occasions. Witness his ongoing battle against South Carolina and nullification.

It seems that the crux of this debate is where Jackson should rank in terms of great American presidents. I acknowledge that he did some great things, but that has to be balanced against his pivotal role in Indian removal.

And one more thing:



Funny that you should mention Washington to make your point. The Cherokee Nation fully adopted the cultural assimilation program started by none other than Washington and Knox. No way in hell Washington would have driven them out. They were a shining example of his vision.

What was Creekster right about?

You're absolutely right...there comes a time when you can look at historical figures and (in essence) wax moral on the issue--e.g., when they do something that is out-of-line both within the context of their own time and ours. I'm not convinced that Jackson fits that category. From the time the English landed on Plymouth Rock, Euro-Americans consistently "assimilated" and removed Native American Populations. We struck treaties, we broke treaties; we promised we'd go no further West, then we went further West. It's seemingly in step with American policy regarding Indians for 125 years.

Washington also hated slavery, yet owned hundreds. Not exactly the guy you want to use as your moral authority on the matter. The few slaves he owned outright (most he held as a life tenant--they originally belonged to Martha's first husband, who died), he manumitted after his death....BUT, in the years prior to his death his leased nearly 100 additional slaves. And this is a guy who wrote to the Marquis de Lafayette that he longed for a South without slavery. Dude was conflicted. There's no way either of us could say whether Washington would or would not have driven the Cherokee out....but the question probably depends on how much the land underneath them was worth (he was a land prospector afterall....).

Point being...it's easy to condemn Jackson for his acts when you look at him through a 21st Century lens. Early 19th Century American frontier's lens??? Not so much.

[Green Monstah]

I think this is the important point. I can understand the argument that Jackson was a man of his times, even if I don't completely agree with it. But if the question is "Was he a great President?", you have a different standard. If 50% of the congress supports genocide, and 50% doesn't, I think we could expect someone who is a great president to go along with the non-genocidal group.

Unless they don't have a concept of genocide (or at the very least, a far different definition than you or I have). They may have viewed Native Americans as sub-human (in fact, it's almost certain they did). Remember, at this time certain human beings were a commodity...chattel (African slaves and to a lesser extent, women). It's difficult for me, even as someone who appreciates history, to put myself in that mindset and fully understand it. As such, it's then equally as difficult to fully condemn the person for their actions.

I see your point, however. The fact is, using those type of comparisons will leave you with an extremely short list of great presidents, and I think there have been many.