Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ek_hornbeck; Clintonfatigued; NFHale; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican
Can you say with a straight face that Harriet Tubman was a more important historical figure and contributed more to the development of our nation than Andrew Jackson, whatever you think of his specific policies?

No, you're right on that point. No woman has come close to contributing as much as any man currently on money. No woman was a founding father, or has ever been a President or a war hero General. Good point.

As for the democrats, yes their populist agrarian nonsense of the early to mid 19th century was the ideological antecedent of modern socialism. That doesn't mean they were pond scum who never did anything good but speaking for myself, I still wouldn't have voted for em. I think Jackson would hang every democrat politician today and a whole lot of Republicans too. His finest moment to me was he threatened to kick the *ss of anyone trying to secede from the union.

Cleveland was easily the best democrat President (not counting Jeffersonian Republicans). Civil rights is probably the only major issue where I'd have had a major problem with the Bourbon democrats. That post-civil war period was an interesting time. Sometime between Polk and Cleveland the dems went from "Manifest Destiny" (which appeals to me, though I wish we could give Cali back at this point) to anti-imperialists (I probably would have agreed with Harrison on annexing Hawaii, though likewise I wish now we could un-annex it).

Anyway this changing the money wasn't my idea, I would not be inclined to approve it. However since they're doing it replacing Jackson with Tubman is far from the worst outcome in my opinion, that's all I'm saying.

If they had replaced Hamilton with Eleanor, I'd be livid. I'm not livid over this but I certainly respect the position of those that are.

120 posted on 04/24/2016 4:11:03 PM PDT by Impy (Did you know "Hillary" spelled backwards is "Bitch"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]


To: Impy
As for the democrats, yes their populist agrarian nonsense of the early to mid 19th century was the ideological antecedent of modern socialism.

Some proto-socialist agrarians did gravitate towards the Democratic Party, but this was more the case in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with Bryan, etc. Creating a welfare state wasn't part of Jackson's agenda any more than it was part of Cleveland's agenda. Furthermore, if you're going to blame 19th Century Democrats for fellow party members with socialist sympathies, I could equally well point out that at the time of its birth, the Republican party attracted radical socialists as well because the American and European Left were on the side of the abolitionists.

121 posted on 04/25/2016 2:16:20 PM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson