[fieldmarshaldj]

"In Arkansas, party representative Candace Martin acknowledges that “If you look at the overall values of the Democratic Party, then Andrew Jackson probably would not be representative"

So Jackson stood for disregard of the law, for slavery, oppression, murder ? Well, that's pretty much the hallmark of the values of today's Democrat Party.

[Theoria]

' His states’ rights, small-federal-government philosophy led him to veto much-needed federal money for transportation improvements like one extending the National Road in 1830.'

Lol. A small crumb isn't a whole pie.

The Dems will come to love Jackson again once understand that some States today are passing laws with the idea of disregarding Federal Guns laws and Obamacare. The age of Nullification will hid the papers again.

[drew]

P.J. O’Rourke refers to Jackson as an “ignorant backwoods thug who perpetrated genocide upon the Indians, created the spoils system in Washington, and fathered that bastard political party of rum, rebellion, and Hillary Rodham.”

[Sherman Logan]

Battle of New Orleans, baby.

[Sherman Logan]

From 1830 to 1842, 85 percent of opposition Whig Party congressional votes on removal were cast in opposition to Jackson’s policy, according to a 1993 journal article by historian Fred Rolater.

Since the Whig Party was founded by those opposed to Jackson, it shouldn't be surprising that its members opposed his policies.

[smokingfrog]

As democrat presidents go, I’d say A.J. was probably one of the better ones. So I can see how they might want to disown him.

[piasa]

With Republicans also raising money with Lincoln-Reagan dinners this spring, Democrats have to take a harder look at what the past means for their future. If so, they’ll find it’s not hard to do better. Roosevelt-Kennedy has a nice ring to it.

Roosevelt-Stalin would be more accurate. Kennedy's likely been rolling in his grave since the communists took over the rat party.

[piasa]

Seven years later, as president, Jackson would make way for the slave-based cotton empire in the South by forcing native tribes off their land. That he did so by violating the terms of his own Indian Removal Act, the precursor to the Trail of Tears, should matter at least a little. Indian tribes actually had the right under that law to voluntarily choose to give up their land in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia, as University of Toledo history professor Alfred Cave demonstrated(PDF) in a 2003 article in the journal the Historian. What the law didn’t authorize Jackson to do was precisely what he did — allow the Indians to be removed from their land at bayonet point.

Maybe it was just subject to interpretation- like Obamacare's fines/fees/taxes and its reviewboard/deathpanel.

[Gene Eric]

To Hell with the premise that Jackson was a slave/indigen killer unlike today’s angelic Democrat.

The form of today’s Democrat fealty is soviet style submission.

[Liberty Valance]

'Normandy Invasion' for the win.

[beaware]

and I quote from the article “And they’re bringing in the big guns: Vice President Joe Biden will keynote the South Carolina Democrats’ dinner tonight.”

That’s just too sweet in light of recent gun control debate! I’d like to see them try firing their “Big Gun” 3 times into the air to see if it will scare off the bad guys! haha! and he is a big gun??!!

[txrefugee]

What about the Republicans’ dumping their Lincoln Day dinners because he would be charged with war crimes today for his systematic destruction of civilian homes in the South during the War Between the States?

[3Fingas]

Yes. The democrats should ditch Jackson. They no longer have anything in common with him. Jackson was a patriot and a fighter. Dems today have neither of those qualities.

Dems should just admit that they follow this guy instead.

[Teacher317]

Allman says. “His main contribution was expanding slavery.”

Considering that the Democrat Party fought for slavery, created and passed all the Jim Crow laws, and have treated blacks as second-class citizens since their creation (treating them differently by statute, including Affirmative Action and hiring quotas), they should toss out their entire party, past and present.

[popdonnelly]

Jackson, not Jefferson, was the true founder of the Democratic Party.

[cotton1706]

If democrats are beginning to get uncomfortable with the history of their party, wait till they get to the segregation and the lynchings!

[BuffaloJack]

I fail to see the connection of Andy with the Democrats.
Andy Jackson seized the reserve bank, sold all its assets and paid off the national debt. The Dems love the bank and would borrow and print money at every chance they had.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

It’s time for Democrats to ditch Andrew Jackson

They're stuck with him. Andrew Jackass is the source-name of the RAT's famous mascot.

[sauropod]

Personally I think they should call it the Connor-Wallace dinner.

For Bull Connor and George Wallace.

Both Democrats.

[Sherman Logan]

So he invented a pretext for doing away with them, telling his subordinates they were villains bent on “rapine and plunder.” In reality, they were guilty of nothing more than raising crops, and Allman says no historian has ever produced a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Allman is just plain wrong, and his book is renowned in Florida for being wrong a LOT of the time.

Jackson had a fort in US territory that had to be supplied by boats that went past the Negro Fort. It was probably established to pick up a fight with the Negro Fort occupants. Here's what happened with the first such convoy.

Soon, a rowboat filled with Negro Fort warriors approached the schooners, waved, then fired several volleys. The Americans returned fire, but they fell short as the Indians withdrew. Two days later, after waiting a week, the U.S. Navy commander of the supply convoy - Jarius Loomis - dispatched four sailors in a rowboat ashore for fresh water and oysters. They carried empty kegs and buckets.

After steering through the mudflats and putting ashore, the men were attacked by 40 Negro Fort defenders who killed two sailors and captured a third, who they later burned alive in hot tar. The fourth sailor hid and was found the next day by a U.S. rescue party. The incident became known as the "Watering Party Massacre".

http://seminolesmoke.org/faqs-negro-fort-bombing_392.html

While Jackson's incursion into Spanish Florida may or may not have been legally justified by these events, it's really difficult to say he attacked innocent farmers just minding their own business.

Couple other distortions in the article, there may be more:

Jackson was not present at Negro Fort. Or probably anywhere nearby. The attack was commanded by a Col. Clinch.

The Negro Fort was indeed destroyed by a "hot shot" that took a lucky (or unlucky) bounce into a powder magazine holding tons of powder left over from the British occupation. It was one of the largest explosions in American history to that point. The slave raiding troops had no incentive to intentionally massacre the blacks, as implied in the article. The blacks were their potential loot.

As usual in real history, as opposed to liberal revisionism, things are more complicated than the evil white American intentionally massacring inoffensive black farmers.