Posted on 06/08/2011 6:26:35 PM PDT by Mozilla
I figured Andrew Jackson is one the bad guys in history. And I believe people like Glenn Beck hate him. For one thing he was a democrat who help his party gain control that they had for a long time afterward. I figured he was instrumental into ruining the nation into what we have today. I maybe wrong, but I wanted to search him on this website and it seemes every article likes him a lot. How come? Do people like Andrew Jackson like they hate Abe Lincoln? Strange stuff.
I have never met him. He may have been a nice guy.
I have been reading about Burr lateley. Interesting character. I think LS might disagree with me on this one but I found Nancy Eisenberg’s book on Aaron Burr one of the best. Also Thomas Fleming’s book “Duel” is amazing.
This was, of course, why he ignored a Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Cherokees.
They had fought alongside Jackson against the Creeks and the British.
In response to an earlier post about Jackson’s veto of the Maysville Road bill and his caring about world opinion, let me say a few things.
First of all, Jackson opposed the Maysville Road bill because in his view of the constitution, spending federal money on a project in one state was an abuse. Jackson was not for government waste or big government. His dislike for Henry Clay (which was well founded) not withstanding, he did not veto it simply out of dislike for the man. To say so, would be to say that he declared war on South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis just so he could punish John C. Calhoun. Of course this did not happen.
Secondly, you are right, Jackson didn’t care as much about world opinion...he cared more about what Americans believed. And he didn’t always do the most popular thing, but the right thing. His denounciation of nullification was certainly not popular in his own party, and his destrcution of the bank was not popular in some circles. No, Jackson was not a people pleaser, he was not someone serving because it made him look good....as many of our politicians do today. Jackson served because people wanted him too, and believing he had a mandate, he actually did what few politicians in our time do today....he lead! Great leaders do not bend in the wind, and occasionally their decisions will be unpopular. My last example here: In 1833, Jackson was in the process of destroying the national bank. When one of confidants asked him if he was worried about the what the bank war would do to his reputation, he stated he believed he was doing what the people wanted...and if they asked him to leave...he would do it. By the way, when folks asked him to take out parts of his Nullification Proclamation that would damn the idea of secession, Jackson stated: “These are more words...and I will not have them removed, or stricken out.” Jackson and his cabinent knew that idea wasn’t going to be popular. And Jackson stuck to his views, despite the anxiety of those around him. Thats leadership.
Lastly I’d like to address Jackson’s “not caring what others thought of his actions.” This is not true either. To get Jackson, you have to look past what he did before President, and you have to look past what he said he would ‘like’ to do in private. Let me use the example of the Nullification Crisis. Most folks at the time, thinking back to things like Jackson’s duels, the Battle of New Orleans, and his impromtu invasion of Spanish Florida, believed he would blindly strike out against South Carolina and Calhoun. Nothing is further from the truth. Jackson methodically beefed up fortifications in Charleston, and day after day in January 1833, he denied request by his agent in the state, Joel R. Poinsett, to insert federal troops into the area for fear of inflamming the Nullifiers. That same month, a response from Jackson to Poinsett’s pleas for a federal presence demonstrates how much Jackson actually did care about what others thought of him. He told Poinsett: “Were I to act without the permission of Congress, I would be branded with the epithet, tyrant.” The Jackson that most people have in their head, would not care if he was called a tyrant or not. And that is the wrong idea of the man. The Force Bill his party members finally shoved through the House, would make it possible for the President to call upon Congress to allow him to put down an insurrection. And if thats not enough to prove to you that he cared about what folks thought of him, consider this: Jackson didn’t need congress’s approval in the first place, President Washington had already established precedent for the executive to unilaterally put down rebellion in a state, without first asking Congress. Jackson being a military man, knew this, and yet he still went the extra mile. Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking this man did not care about what others thought of him. His honor, a novel idea to us today, meant everything to him.
>The good news for people such as you who like him is that he can run for president again, because the constitutional qualifications obviously mean nothing any more.
>
>The bad news is that he’s dead. But that won’t stop a lot of dead voters from voting for him.
Wasn’t he grandfathered in with the OR portion of the qualifications for President?
History Bump! - US, Presidents, Constitution, Dem Party, Banks, Cherokee / Trail of Tears, etc.
Thanks. The following excerpt from Jackson's speech, like Washington's "Farewell" warning, sounded a warning which might be worth repeating today:
"You have no longer any cause to fear danger from abroad; your strength and power are well known throughout the civilized world, as well as the high and gallant bearing of your sons. It is from within, among yourselves, from cupidity, from corruption, from disappointed ambition, and inordinate thirst for power, that factions will be formed and liberty endangered. It is against such designs, whatever disguise the actors may assume, that you have especially to guard yourselves. You have the highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence has showered on this favored land blessings without number, and has chosen you, as the guardians of freedom, to preserve it for the benefit of the human race. May he who holds in his hands the destinies of nations make you worthy of the favors he has bestowed, and enable you, with pure hearts, and pure hands, and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time the great charge he has committed to your keeping."
From now, until the election of 2012, those who love liberty and wish to "preserve it for the benefit of the human race," and for their posterity, must rediscover the enduring ideas and principles which are essential to its survival, and then articulate those ideas in their homes, communities, and through every means possible.
Technology has made it possible for the Founders' own powerful words to penetrate the censorship of the ideas of freedom imposed over the past few decades by the so-called "progressives."
Books could be removed from libraries, and textbooks could be revised to promote "other" ideas, but perhaps Divine Providence has allowed technology to override the censors and expose current generations to the ideas of liberty upon which their Republic was founded.
I've heard it said that Lincoln basically changed United States
from a plural noun to a singular noun.
And the power of the federal government has been on the rise ever since, the next big steps being the 16th Amendment and the stretching of the Commerce clause to enable FDR's New Deal shenanigans.
>>There are ways to avoid the endgame; but they involve reading and some balls.
We are way beyond the point where some slick procedural maneuvering will save us from serfdom. The time for that was about 40 years ago. Now, the FedGov has its hooks into the state too deeply. They confiscate our wealth through taxes and give it back if we do what they want us to do. The brave Governor who starts his 10th Amendment revolt has to deal with the loss of federal money first. The welfare class will not like that a bit and they always seem to have time to take to the streets while the productive citizens are busy working.
The next problem is with the rest of the world. It is socialist at best and a lot of it is just plain communist. It sees America as finally being ready to join them, and any revolt may find itself being put down by African soldiers in blue helmets.
The final problem is Corporate America. It has a vested interest in this government, a government that has a tax code that favors the corporation over the individual and one that maintains order by giving spending money to people who won’t save it. People like you and I, who are frugal and sensible and would save or invest or just reduce debt if we came into money are useless to the Corporation. But the foolish welfare recipient will take a welfare check and spend it on goods and services immediately. Corporate America likes the present arrangement, regardless of how much they may complain about Obama. The know that their bread and butter is the continuation of the one-party Republicrat system.
>We are way beyond the point where some slick procedural maneuvering will save us from serfdom.
Yes, but like my links show: some slick procedural maneuvering, combined with the will to fight for what you believe (even to the shedding of ones own blood) could.
>The time for that was about 40 years ago. Now, the FedGov has its hooks into the state too deeply.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If a state were to do what I described and illustrate that the Federal Government has NO INTENTION of keeping to its Constitutional obligations that only adds to the justification of a wide-spread tax-revolt. If enough people say f-you to the fed-gov (this may entail only using physical monies or barter) then the federal government will have no money to give away that will not be [plainly] monopoly-money.
>>Perhaps, perhaps not. If a state were to do what I described and illustrate that the Federal Government has NO INTENTION of keeping to its Constitutional obligations that only adds to the justification of a wide-spread tax-revolt.
Everyone already knows that the FedGov doesn’t care what the DWMs wrote in the Constitution over 200 years ago. Half of the population is too busy working to push back (because spending a night in jail on a civil disobedience charge is enough to get a lot of us fired).
The other half is just screaming “show us the money” and they don’t care where it comes from or who has to pay for it. That “other half” by the way, educates the children and enforces the laws so every year we spiral down more and more to our eventual high-tech serfdom).
Oh sure, if some state were to cut the FedGov off, it might wake people up, but Governors are politicians and politicians just don’t have it in them to take an action like this. Also, the people aren’t poor enough yet to be in a place where they have nothing to lose by going to war with the FedGov.
>Also, the people aren’t poor enough yet to be in a place where they have nothing to lose by going to war with the FedGov.
THAT is quickly changing.
Fanciest head of hair of all the presidents. It’s like his hair is a separate entity unto itself.
Adams certainly wasn’t capable, but Clay was absolutely capable of stopping the nullification acts, and anyway, nothing really “stopped” them short of rewriting the Tariff of Abominations so that they were not needed. No, Jackson as not indispensable.
Very similar. He of course dumped all the BUS money into his “Pet banks,” absolutely similar to what modern Dems do.
No, this has been completely disproven. I hate his policies, but Peter Temin (The Jacksonian Economy) has shown that international silver flows---which dried up in the early 1830s and then the effects circled the globe to raise British interest rages---cause the depression. Virtually all economic historians, including Libertarians like Richard Timberlake, pretty much give Jackson a pass.
Give me a specific. Do you doubt the docs I found in Jackson’s presidential library? Or his bill to remove all “small note issues” so as to control the money supply? Or Edwin Perkins’ research that showed that he deliberately rebuffed Whig attempts to re-draw the BUS legislation so it would meet his concerns?
I haven’t read the new Burr bio. I did read Lomask’s old biography from the 1970s, and found it agreed with Ellis’s newer assessment that he was almost a sociopath.
True, but I think this has also created a massive danger of an Owellian "editor" who can with a single program re-write virtually all the material on the web pertaining to, say, the Constitution. You can always produce a physical book. You'd be surprised how many times I go to the web to check a source that has mysteriously disappeared or is no longer available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.