This is nonsense. He was a terrible President. Touting him paying off the national debt (which was paltry relative to today's) while ignoring genocide and stealing of an entire group's possessions means you either don't think of those people as humans or you just don't give a damn about morality.
Look it up. Article 8 of the 1817 treaty with the Cherokees. And that's just one example. We could go all day about the broken agreements between the native tribes and US government (and the colonial powers before them). The truth is that the Choctaws and Seminoles that Jackson fought were doing so for their very homes and way of life. He wasn't a hero, he was the instrument of a tyranny worse than the British we fought just a few decades prior.
Well ****... If we're going to judge an early 19th century President by 21st century moral standards, they're pretty much ALL pieces of shit.
Honestly, me too. I don't lie awake at night fuming over shit that happened 200 years ago but maybe I should read up. I did that after somebody was knocking Eisenhower and ended up reading some pretty good books about Ike.
How he handled the central bank was his high point and low point was the handling of Native American affairs.
Except that the Supreme Court specifically told him that he couldn't do it and he ignored them anyway. So, not exactly 21st century standards, especially since stealing isn't some kind of new morality.
And yet even with the 19th century filter in place, Jackson stands above the rest. I'm curious as to your opinion on state rights. Jackson was vehemently opposed.
Give it back to who? What shit did you or I receive? Unless you mean we should all give our shit to the Basques too. I'm just pointing out that a 19th century man was terrible to other 19th century people. You're making this leap into 21st century action, not me.
You're not going passive aggressive on this, are you? I mean, you decided to go all in with the "you know this is bullshit" line, so might as well defend your position.
Y'all mad? Tell you what. I'll go read up on Jackson since I really haven't given the guy much though since I was in college some 25 years ago. Maybe I can gain some perspective. Y'all seem pretty worked up about the fact that I don't see him as the monster you guys do.
Jackson had plenty of support at the time, as I recall. It was a different time and yes, you and Uni both come across as judging his actions through a modern prism.
He fought the bloody British at the Battle of New Orleans. Too bad the war of 1812 had ended prior to the battle.
Andrew Jackson's term featured fairly rampant corruption in the Executive branch. Perhaps they kept it from AJ, and he was just a "good ol' boy" never meaning no harm.
I don't have to defend shit. You said he was worthless and pooh pooh anything that doesn't agree with your presupposition. Was he great? No, not by a long shot. Was he Satan incarnate? Again, no. He, like many presidents (good ones, bad ones and every type in between) before and after, did what what was politically expedient at the time. His dealings with South Carolina vs his dealings with Georgia are a case in point.
I'm not mad at all. You made a claim and now you admit you aren't very knowledgeable with him. Don't project emotions as a deflection.
