Skip to comments.Do people on here like Andrew Jackson?
Posted on 06/08/2011 6:26:35 PM PDT by Mozilla
click here to read article
That did not last long enough.
In talking about Andrew Jackson and the Indians, one thing people who don’t understand those times very well need to keep in mind is that strictly speaking, it wasn’t ethnic Indians vs. ethnic whites.
It is better thought of as Indian tribal culture vs. American society.
Lots of people on the frontier as part of the American society were of mixed blood or ethnic Indians or married to an ethnic Indian. Some of my own ancestors were these ethnic Indians who married into whites and became a part of American society.
At the Fort Mims massacre, a large part of the people who were slaughtered by the Creek tribe were themselves ethnic Indians or mixed-blood or married to an Indian. It’s just that those folks were more a part of frontier American society than they were to the old tribal culture.
I think of them as the “hidden” Indians that liberal historians don’t like to talk about. It muddies their message of racist violent greedy white Americans against peaceful, eco-friendly, noble state-of-nature tribal Indians.
Too many folks think everyone should be all good or all bad but that’s seldom the case on the best of days.
It was a death march for a lot of them
The "Radical Republicans" (with their carpetbaggers, scallywags and other thieves) during Reconstruction WERE the "bad guys".
Note, I have never voted Dem for any national office and few local offices. Have always been Republican.
He could have - and lead one of the armies of one of the three nations America would have divided its self into if he HAD NOT been President. There was no one else on the national scene at the time, that as president, could have stopped the “nullification” acts being proposed. Had they succeeded, undoubtedly the South, New England, and the middle states would have gone there separate ways.
Sometimes only a madman can stop mad ideas. Since I like the country better in one piece, I'm glad we had him. If John Quincy Adams had been reelected, America as we know it would not exist.
He was probably our best president; next to Washington.
In 1832 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees being able to keep the gold found on their lands after the state of Georgia tried to seize their land.
President Andrew Jackson reputedly said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
Jackson sent troops to evict the Cherokee. The “Trail of Tears” to Oklahoma ensued.
There are times I long for words like that uttered to Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and their like in the lower federal courts. Am entitled to some fanciful thinking.
>>wasnt that known as the Trail of Tears?
>It was a death march for a lot of them
I know that’s what the Trail of Tears was; I just wasn’t so sure if it was a Jackson-era event, I suspected it was later but the references sounded like it might be what was being referenced, but that suspicion was wrong.
>Too many folks think everyone should be all good or all bad but thats seldom the case on the best of days.
Jesus Christ is the only man that fits that bill (and on the all good side*!).
* Bad pun: also on the all God side.
"Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions."
As an American Indian, Jackson leaves me with a Trail of Tears.
Okay. I get that Jackson was not around during the past 100 years when the government grew larger under the democrat rule. But LS is saying that he was for big government. So I lumped him in with Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter as one of the people responsible for the size of government today.
I agree that Lincoln did have his bad points. But, once the civil war started, I am not sure having the confederacy win would have been good.
>If John Quincy Adams had been reelected, America as we know it would not exist.
An intriguing thought, I think, is “What if Arron Burr had been President?”
Reprinted below is the Valedictory from the nationalcenter.org web site.
Andrew Jackson's Farewell Address
by Andrew Jackson
"This speech was given on the occasion of Andrew Jackson's retirement from the presidency, and from public life. Jackson spent the remainder of his life at his home, known as the Hermitage, near Nashville, Tennessee. He died in 1845."
"The necessity of watching with jealous anxiety for the preservation of the Union was earnestly pressed upon his fellow citizens by the Father of his Country in his farewell address. He has there told us that "while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its bonds"; and he has cautioned us in the strongest terms against the formation of parties on geographical discriminations as one of the means which might disturb our Union, and to which designing men would be likely to resort.
"The lessons contained in this invaluable legacy of Washington to his countrymen should be cherished in the heart of every citizen to the latest generation; and perhaps at no period of time could they be more usefully remembered than at the present moment. For when we look upon the scenes that are passing around us, and dwell upon the pages of his parting address, his paternal counsels would seem to be not merely the offspring of wisdom and foresight, but the voice of prophecy foretelling events and warning us of the evil to come. Forty years have passed since that imperishable document was given to his countrymen. The federal Constitution was then regarded by him as an experiment, and he so speaks of it in his address; but an experiment upon the success of which the best hopes of his country depended, and we all know that he was prepared to lay down his life, if necessary, to secure to it a full and fair trial. The trial has been made. It has succeeded beyond the proudest hopes of those who framed it. Every quarter of this widely extended nation has felt its blessings and shared in the general prosperity produced by its adoption.
"But amid this general prosperity and splendid success, the dangers of which he warned us are becoming every day more evident, and the signs of evil are sufficiently apparent to awaken the deepest anxiety in the bosom of the patriot. We behold systematic efforts publicly made to sow the seeds of discord between different parts of the United States, and to place party divisions directly upon geographical distinctions; to excite the South against the North, and the North against the South, and to force into the controversy the most delicate and exciting topics upon which it is impossible that a large portion of the Union can ever speak without strong emotions. Appeals, too, are constantly made to sectional interests, in order to influence the election of the chief magistrate, as if it were desired that he should favor a particular quarter of the country instead of fulfilling the duties of his station with impartial justice to all; and the possible dissolution of the Union has at length become an ordinary and familiar subject of discussion.
"Has the warning voice of Washington been forgotten? or have designs already been formed to sever the Union? Let it not be supposed that I impute to all of those who have taken an active part in these unwise and unprofitable discussions a want of patriotism or of public virtue. The honorable feeling of State pride and local attachments find a place in the bosoms of the most enlightened and pure. But while such men are conscious of their own integrity and honesty of purpose they ought never to forget that the citizens of other States are their political brethren; and that, however mistaken they may be in their views, the great body of them are equally honest and upright with themselves. Mutual suspicions and reproaches may in time create mutual hostility, and artful and designing men will always be found who are ready to foment these fatal divisions and to inflame the natural jealousies of different sections of the country. The history of the world is full of such examples, and especially the history of republics.
"What have you to gain by division and dissension? Delude not yourselves with the belief that a breach once made may be afterward repaired. If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and be determined by the sword. Neither should you deceive yourselves with the hope that the first line of separation would be the permanent one, and that nothing but harmony and concord would be found in the new associations formed upon the dissolution of this Union. Local interests would still be found there, and unchastened ambition. And if the recollection of common dangers, in which the people of these United States stood side by side against the common foe; the memery of victories won by their united valor; the prosperity and happiness they have enjoyed under the present Constitution; the proud name they bear as citizens of this great Republic,--if these recollections and proofs of common interest are not strong enough to bind us together as one people, what tie will hold this Union dissevered?
"The first line of separation would not last for a single generation; new fragments would be torn off; new leaders would spring up; and this great and glorious Republic would soon be broken into a multitude of petty States armed for mutual aggressions, loaded with taxes to pay armies and leaders, seeking aid against each other from foreign powers, insulted and trampled upon by the nations of Europe, until, harassed with conflicts, and humbled and debased in spirit, they would be ready to submit to the absolute dominion of any military adventurer, and to surrender their liberty for the sake of repose. It is impossible to look on the consequences that would inevitably follow the destruction of this government, and not feel indignant when we hear cold calculations about the value of the Union and have so constantly before us a line of conduct so well calculated to weaken its ties.
"There is too much at stake to allow pride or passion to influence your decision. Never for a moment believe that the great body of the citizens of any State or States can deliberately intend to do wrong. They may, under the influence of temporary excitement or misguided opinions, commit mistakes; they may be misled for a time by the suggestions of self-interest; but in a community so enlightened and patriotic as the people of the United States, argument will soon make them sensible of their errors, and, when convinced, they will be ready to repair them. If they have no higher or better motives to govern them, they will at least perceive that their own interest requires them to be just to others as they hope to receive justice at their hands.
"But in order to maintain the Union unimpaired, it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country, and that every good citizen should at all times stand ready to put down, with the combined force of the nation, every attempt at unlawful resistance, under whatever pretext it may be made or whatever shape it may assume. Unconstitutional or oppressive laws may no doubt be passed by Congress, either from erroneous views or the want of due consideration; if they are within reach of judicial authority, the remedy is easy and peaceful, and if, from the character of the law, it is an abuse of power not within the control of the judiciary, then free discussion and calm appeals to reason and to the justice of the people will not fail to redress the wrong. But until the law shall be declared void by the courts or repealed by Congress, no individual or combination of individuals can be justified in forcibly resisting its execution. It is impossible that any government can continue to exist upon any other principles. It would cease to be a government, and be unworthy of the name, if it had not the power to enforce the execution for its own laws within its own sphere of action.
"It is true that cases may be imagined disclosing such a settled purpose of usurpation and oppression on the part of the government as would justify an appeal to arms. These, however, are extreme cases, which we have no reason to apprehend in a government where the power is in the hands of a patriotic people; and no citizen who loves his country would in any case whatever resort to forcible resistance unless he clearly saw that the time had come when a freeman should prefer death to submission; for if such a struggle is once begun, and the citizens of one section of the country be arrayed in arms against those of another in doubtful conflict, let the battle result as it may, there will be an end of the Union, and with it an end of the hopes of freedom. The victory of the injured would not secure to them the blessings of liberty; it would avenge their wrongs, but they would themselves share in the common ruin.
"But the Constitution can not be maintained, nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the general government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people; in the security it gives to life, liberty, character, and property, in every quarter of the country; and in the fraternal attachments which the citizens of the several States bear to one another, as members of one political family mutually contributing to promote the happiness of each other. Hence the citizens of every State should studiously avoid everything calculated to wound the sensibility or offend the just pride of the people of other States; and they should frown upon any proceedings within their own borders likely to disturb the tranquillity of their political brethren in other portions of the Union.
"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.
"My own race is nearly run; advanced age and failing health warn me that before long I must pass beyond the reach of human events and cease to feel the vicissitudes of human affairs. I thank God that my life has been spent in a land of liberty, and that he has given me a heart to love my country with the affection of a son. And filled with gratitude for your constant and unwavering kindness, I bid you a last and affectionate farewell."
Sometimes I think the animosity toward Lincoln is greater today than it was then.
After all, Lee said that he surrendered as much to Lincoln’s goodness as he did to Grant’s armies.
Well then, it seems he was right to Kill BUS II. I am against Centralize government and big banks. After reading up on the Federal Reserve; I began opposing it. So I he did do one thing right. But LS said it was all hogwash.
I don’t know much, but he’s talked about as being one of the toughest people in history. I remember reading about a battle he won that was one of the most lobsided victories in history. Unfortunately the battle took place after the war had ended, messengers couldn’t reach the participants in time to let them know there was no point in fighting.
Correction: So he did do one thing right.
Also he wanted to get rid of the Electoral College..
“from corruption, from disappointed ambition, and inordinate thirst for power, that factions will be formed and liberty endangered.”
— it needed to be said again. (Thank you for posting it, btw.)
His reason was like lightning and his action like a thunderbolt" Amos Kendall,.
Prominent Jacksonians: Sarah Palin, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson, Oliver North, Pat Buchanan, Zell Miller
Jackson was a real man and a patriot. To much of a man for today’s America.
>>Okay. I get that Jackson was not around during the past 100 years when the government grew larger under the democrat rule. But LS is saying that he was for big government. So I lumped him in with Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter as one of the people responsible for the size of government today.
In the early 1800’s, “big government” meant monarchy and AJ wasn’t in favor of that. Furthermore, he destroyed the federal bank, which was about the only aspect of modern “big government” the US had at the time.
Lincoln started “big government” when he took the sovereignity from the states by force. After the war, Reconstruction cemented the principles in place for the big government takeover of the United States. By the time of Wilson and FDR, Americans were accustomed to a massive federal government that “does stuff for them”, especially when it is done at someone else’s expense.
Sure, a CSA win in the Civil War would have been bad, but the endgame that is taking place today will have us all as slaves.
George Washington was our greatest president.
One of the reviewers said that Robert Merry’s writing did a very creditable job of making Jame K. Polk ‘interesting’.
I would like to see more boring Presidents. No scandals, no self aggrandizement. People who do the job they were elected to do and believe a return to private, civilian life, is a promotion.
(Gosh! That sounds familiar. Some President in the past has probably already said something similar.)
Bumping for later
Like him? Couldn’t say; never met the man.
Some THINGS he said or did, I like; others, not so much.
It's not only grammar, sir, it's spelling, too.
And besides, why not review your stuff before posting? It's only courteous that you do so, for the readers' sake.
>Sure, a CSA win in the Civil War would have been bad, but the endgame that is taking place today will have us all as slaves.
There are ways to avoid the endgame; but they involve reading and some balls.
Here’s one way, enacted by a state (NM in my example) against the federal government’s elite*: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2698298/posts
And here’s one against the state’s elite* using federal law: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2711585/posts
* - By “elite” I mean those who think that the law does not apply to them, or view their own power/authority to be superior of their Constitution(s), thinking that they are above and beyond it... i.e. the entire mentality of the 111th Congress and the bailouts.
Neat theory... how do you explain the westernized Indian farmers whose land he stole?
Bumping for later
Ok. You have my permission this one time, but don’t do it again.
>I would like to see more boring Presidents. No scandals, no self aggrandizement. People who do the job they were elected to do and believe a return to private, civilian life, is a promotion.
>(Gosh! That sounds familiar. Some President in the past has probably already said something similar.)
President Calvin Coolidge, nicknamed “Silent Cal”?
That man doesn’t get the good reviews he deserves! He stopped the economic recession Woodrow Wilson created post-WWI.
And yet Woody gets all the glamorous attention, while President Calvin Coolidge is called “Silent Cal”.
It’s not just a neat theory, it’s fact. History isn’t as black and white as people make it out to be.
Another fact that a lot of people don’t know is that not a few of the leaders of the tribes who led attacks against Americans were not even full Indians.
There are a number of instances where half-whites rose to leadership position in the tribal culture and led the tribe in attacks against Americans.
Is he still dead?
There is so much that is contradictory and just plain wrong in your post, it is difficult to know where to begin.
Andrew Jackson should be on Mt. Rushmore.
That was a small period of time in the 30's and 40's where a bunch of radical leftist historians like Charles Beard (A big FDR fan) used this Presidency to bash the GOP. No one believes that Johnson had any good qualities anymore and his bungling of Reconstruction was a disgrace. It set us up for decades of racial BS in this country. He is at least in the top 10 worst presidents.
His racial attitudes are deplorable but were very widespread at the time--so there was a limit to what could be accomplished. Grant was more in tune with the Radicals--but that didn't mean that everything became fine once Johnson left the White House.
Racism was very prevalent in the North--in 1865 the majority of Northern states restricted voting to white men, and most Northerners seem to have gotten tired of trying to help the freedmen pretty soon. Reconstruction failed (not totally but in many respects) not only because of resistance from Southern whites, but also because of indifference on the part of Northern whites.
One of the problems of the Radical Republicans was their arrogance--they wanted the Southerners not only to submit to federal authority but to admit that they had been wrong to support Southern independence, and Confederate veterans or their surviving kinfolk were not going to give them that satisfaction. The Radical Republicans were the forerunners of modern liberals who know what's best for everyone else.
Allow me to clear some things up about Andrew Jackson. First, many in our society blame Andrew Jackson for the Trail of Tears, otherwise known simply as Cherokee Removal from Georgia. It is innacurate to blame Jackson for this for one major reason; it occured in 1839, Jackson was no longer president. His hand-picked successor, Martin Van Buren, was president at the time. What Jackson was responsible for was the 1830 Indian Removal Act, which did make something like the Trail of Tears a possibility. This act was not something Jackson conjured up just because of a fear of Indians being pawns of European powers, it was the fulfilment of a promise made to the state of Georgia by President Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson could not bring himself to do it, and neither could Madison, Monroe, or Adams. And after 30 years of waiting, people in north Georgia were tired of waiting. People are quick to judge Jackson, but they can’t even state the year Cherokee Removal occurred, and they certainly don’t think that the actual residents of north Georgia might have actually had something to do with it all. Jackson also had the Nullification issue in South Carolina to be concerned with. By not following through on this 30 year promise, that state might have been encourgaed to go along with the nullifiers in SC.
Something else I’ve noticed here I want to address: Jackson would HATE our government today. He would most definatley not like big government, and let me explain why. Big government means big spending. As president Jackson vetoed almost every bill that we would consider today as a works progress act. For example, the same year he signed the Indian Removal Act into law, he vetoed a bill called the Maysville Road bill. It was to be an extension of the national road through Kentucky (which happened to be the home state of one of his greatest poltical rivals, Henry Clay), but only through that state. Jackson vetoed the bill on the basis that federal money should not be spent on something benefitting one state. Other examples that Jackson is not a proponent of big government: He is the only president to pay off the national debt. He destroyed the national bank. In many ways Jackson was a decentralist.
While he would not have been a proponent of big government, he was certainly the first president to expand the power of the executive branch. He vetoed more laws than all presidents before him combined. He was not afraid as president, to express his views on goverment and the constitution. Strong Presidents after Jackson admired him. Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, JFK, all admirers of Jackson’s use of executive office.
I think most people realize the Democratic Party Jackson created was not the same as the one FDR created, or the one in existance today. However, Democrats do still hold an annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. This tradition goes all the way back to Jackson’s time when it was only known as the Jefferson Day Dinner. As a matter of fact, it was at this dinner in 1830, that Jackson and another political opponent of his, John C. Calhoun, had an interesting moment which most historians include when discussing the Nullification Crisis.
Which leads me to my final say on Jackson. It has been stated that Jackson did not care for the constitution. This could not be farther from the truth. As I said, most people know Jackson erronously for the Trail of Tears. Some people might know about the bank, or the Battle of New Orleans. What most people don’t know about, is Jackson’s most important role, and that was President during the Nullification Crisis of 1830-1832. South Carolina in Nov 1832 nullified a federal tariff. A conflict was brewing between the federal government and that state. It very well could have come to civil war 30 years before 1860.
Jackson was masterful in not only avoiding conflict, but winning the philosophical debate against a very smart politician, John C. Calhoun, the author of nullification. Most people would have expected Jackson during this moment to act brash and reactionary. Most people living at the time thought this as well. Few people living today or then, give him credit for the shrewdness he displayed here. Jackson did not strike out; he methodically built up the defenses in the harbor around Charleston (where most thought the issue of not paying the tariff would come to blows), and through Joel R. Poinsett, had militias created in the state. And had he tried tariff reform? Yes, he had, and the Palmetto state would not budge.
Jackson’s answer to the doctrine of Nullification was his Nullification Proclamation of December 10, 1832. In this document, Jackson becomes the first President to publicly state secession and nullification are treason. With that, not only does he win the majority of Americans to his side, he aptly defends the constitution and accomplishes something most don’t give him credit for....and that is he had a better understanding of the constitution than anyone at the time, save Daniel Webster and Joel Poinsett. Moreover, Jackson refused during this crisis to strike the first blow at South Carolina...its all in his papers.
Jackson had personal flaws, and his role in the removal of native americans is a stain on his record. However, he was not the first, or the last President to remove Indians, and thus should be seen that way. He was not a mass murderer; he like many Americans, wanted their land, even if they had become farmers. Being racist or greedy doesn’t make one a murderer. Jackson’s crowning achievement is his belief in an inseperable Union. Lincoln even stated this in his first inagural address.
Lastly, Jackson was the people’s President. He was the first man to be elected from the west. Every other president had been from Virginia or Massachussets. He was not formerly educated, yet he was a shrewd operator with a keen intellect, but a bad speller. People loved him because they could identify with him, and Jackson connected with them. It’s not unlike Reagan’s connection, or FDR’s to folks living in the Depression. Jackson wasn’t someone who seemed untouchable or unnaproachable. People trusted him for this. The love the nation had for him combined with his past is what caused many of his contemporaries to fear him as president. Yet, for all the trust he was given, Jackson never abused his power.
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.
Sad thread full of weak brainwashed conservatives who see America mostly thru the prism of race
The libs won
I respect Jackson for the same reason I have a grudging respect for Putin. He did not care about "world opinion" or what others thought of his actions.
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.