I was taught awesome stuff about Jackson in public school education regarding the war of 1812. And about destroying the Second Bank of the United States, which was similarly extra-studly. Also about how he was slandered regarding his wife. And I learned how he charged a would-be assassin with his cane and knocked him down after two misfires. And also about the Trail of Tears, which was ... a lot less favorable, and genuinely awful. But it was AP history back in the 80's. What were you taught?
Trail of tears has been propagandized, I'm a big fan of Jackson. Basically he said that Indians could stay anywhere they wanted, including the southeast but they had to start following US laws and basically not be given special favors and treatment anymore. The ones who left to mid-America were the ones who were going to get their free land and special treatment.
All but one band in NC ( a band is an alliance of smaller tribes ) are natives not recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that stayed as subjects to NC law as resident non-reservation citizens of NC (and thus US citizens). They receive no federal aid or allowances from any governmental organizations. They simply adapted to the changes and worked and owned businesses and paid taxes like anyone else in NC, and they even voted in elections, mostly for Republicans.
It's not sauce for "Jackson said..." But it is sauce identifying a pervasive and verifiably skewed narrative. It's easy to find numerous instances of tribes that never went West. That throws off the forced genocidal death march narrative.
The chiefs had a choice and the chiefs made a choice. Their tribes suffered their chiefs' choices and their chiefs shifted the blame off of their own shoulders when the going got tough.
Much of this is just incorrect. The real issue was dispute over who was the "rightful" chief of the Cherokee. The "Red Stick" War was essentially a civil war within the Cherokee Nation. The results played into how "diplomacy" with the USA ensued. Fact is, whites wanted Cherokees completely gone and wanted their land. States enacted laws to basically take it from them, "legally." Federal government policy prior, was to treat tribes as sovereign entities, just like they would European states. Jackson changed course and told SCOTUS to fuck off... "Mr. Marshall made his ruling, now let him enforce it." Thing is, SCOTUS was correct. Jackson was wrong. Treaty of New Echota wasn't valid, since the Cherokee signers were not the lawful leaders of the Nation. And yes, the removal of the Cherokee was forced.
Now granted, the rightful leader of the Cherokee, John Ross, was kind of a shit... he was mixed (Scottish father), and "civilized", owning slaves and a plantation. His brother owned even more slaves. Major Ridge also wasn't the greatest...
Point? The situation was much more complex than often taught. But ultimately, the US Federal government, under Jackson's command, absolutely fucked the Cherokee, especially those who allied with Jackson during the Red Stick War and against the British.
Thank you for the effort, I am sure it is meant well but the narrative has been to lump all natives together and then point at the Cherokee specifically to paint an over-simplified picture of native grievance. You mean well, but basically you just brought up specifically the Cherokee too. It seems like everyone does exactly this. (fair for you to do this, as this is a thread about Andrew Jackson.)
I am sure I am oversimplifying too, but bear with me, look at where most tribes settled (a third of the Cherokee tribes stayed put on ancestral land), the majority of native tribes in general carved out their reservations right where they chose to, on the lands they claimed ancestral affinity for. We definitely encroached on what they wanted to claim (they wanted to claim everything, often claiming other tribes' lands too).
Maybe Jackson didn't betray them, he just knew them well, and was sick of their bullshit.
While it is correct that the Cherokee were not the only tribes in the southeastern USA that were removed (or attempts were made to remove), the Cherokee were the largest tribe constituting the largest portion of land per capita and relative to the other tribes (Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, et al), and were the direct party impacted by the Treaty of New Echota, and the biggest issue in the state of Georgia addressed in Worcester v. Georgia.
While it is also correct that the nyth of the noble savage is just that, a myth, and tribes did fight each other over land and resources prior to Europeans coming along, by the time whites took over control of the colonies and then states compromising the USA, said white governments recognized the various tribes as sovereign entities and furthermore recognized their land claims. That began to change by 1800, under Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and culminating under Jackson and Van Buren.
The narrative actually isn't that complicated as far as legislative and executive efforts on the part of the states, particularly Georgia, and the federal government. States started passing laws asserting for themselves authority to deal with Indian tribes. They had no such authority under the Constitution. "Indian territory" was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. That's how we ended up with Worcester v. Georgia, in which Marshall ruled correctly that GA's law was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Nevertheless, Jackson ignored the Court and was not merely complicit in Indian removal, but literally directed it under his claim of enforcing the Indian Removal Act, which to note was a very close vote... Senate was 28 to 19, the House was 101 to 97. Moreover, the Act gave authority to offer treaties, not to force removal if treaties were rejected. Some resisted removal. That's how we ended up with the Seminole Wars. Also, if you actually read the Act, hardly any of the provisions were followed, like reimbursement for improvements made to the land, protection against other tribes where they were being relocated to, or the perpetual ownership of said new land.
The only "bullshit" was that of white men making promises to Indians, only to break them. Jackson sadly perfectly epitomizes this reality. He was a friend of the Cherokee when it was advantageous to get their help to suppress the Creek. But when it came to appeasing his fellow southern white plantation and slaveowners, he sided with the betrayal of his former allies. Such backstabbing even caused his friend and former ally David Crockett to leave the Senate and go to Texas. Again, not saying Jackson was the devil, but he certainly should take a significant portion of the blame for this black eye in our nation's history. Had he followed the example of Washington, Adams or at least even Jefferson (lots of interesting history of TJ's interactions with the Indians, particularly when he was younger), then grave injustice could have been prevented.
Very underwhelming comment here, void of context and nuance.
The creation and maintenance of a national bank by the federal government, is Constitutional (affirmed in McCulloch v. Maryland). Even Madison would charter the 2nd National Bank, after originally opposing the initial chartering of the 1st National Bank. Moreover, it is far wiser policy than the alternatives of the federal government dealing with state or private banks, which are far more prone to abuse and exploitation. Jackson was against renewing the charter of the 2nd National Bank because the people administrating it became corrupt, so instead of having to get rid of all of them, the easier solution was to just eliminate the charter. We can both agree with Hamilton's principles and policy (and the Constitution) AND with Jackson's policy to end the corruption.
Look at the shitshow that we have been dealing with since 1913 with the FED, which isn't actually a central bank in the same sense as the 1st and 2nd National Banks... alas, we learned nothing from history. Instead of fixing the problem, we replaced it with an even bigger problem.
Andrew Jackson would certainly advocate for ending the FED, due to the massively corrupt system it has become, which has enslaved the American people to private international banking cartels. I agree with Andy here. End the FED. Reestablish the 3rd National Bank of the USA.
Struggling here with wanting to not like you for calling me out and at the same time agreeing with what you’ve stated ( ;
You are correct, the First & Second bank we’re not structured or operated in the same manner as what we see today. That’s said, Jackson seemed to have enough insight to understand the “pit vipers”, as he called them, would screw us all at some point if we allowed for the existence of National Banks.
(McCulloch v. Maryland) Seemed to have good intentions, but like many of the SC’s rulings, it ended up screwing us in the end.
*I’d like to believe they had no idea that they’re ruling would led to the disastrous act of 1913, but I definitely believe the Rothschild family saw that decision and immediately started salivating.
Since I will never trust the government, nor should we, I’m not sure on how this should all shake out. If I had to choose between what we have now, that’s assuming the central banks are still operating in the same nefarious ways, or have something similar to the First and Second National Bank I’d chose the latter, even there I’d be EXTREMELY uneasy.
Maybe something that allowed only private, single ownership, no corporate vail, with low caps on revenue and VERY HIGH PUBLIC OVERSIGHT might work. They would need to be structured in a way that they would have to hold in reserve enough fluidity to take care of local/regional needs and at the same time be able to support governmental loans. At least this way we have an actual person to hold responsible for any fuckery that might occur.
You still run into the issue of creating new money, but I believe that should be solely the duty of the Federal Government, so we’re still going to be opened to getting screwed one way or the other. At least if we fix the elections we can vote the ppl out that screw us and if banks are private single ownerships we can go directly after the owner if he/she screws us.
Stephen Gerard was the sole owner of a bank that funded the war of 1812 and other things for the federal government. From what I’ve seen the structure of his bank being single ownership caused him to hold higher accountability. There’s obviously more to that and a lot more that would need to be added to make it work today, but his accountability looks to have been held in the public eye and on some levels worked.
His bank was the original 1st National Bank, which he acquired after the charter expired. He was also French born and sympathetic to the Jacobin revolution. Financing America's war against the British certainly benefited his pro-French sentiments... Ulterior motives eh?
Andrew Jackson was far from being great. But neither was he a devil. He was a conflicted individual, a man of his times, with both some terrible qualities and some redeeming ones.
I think it might be more appropriate to look at him as a champion for his own people and his own nation. His sense of honor excluded others. It may be he saw Indians, even former allied tribes as adversaries or as merely enemies of our enemies. And so acted accordingly without compromise or concern for history's account of him.
Thank you for investing time and effort to address complex history with due attention to accuracy and sources. I made a more contemplative effort which, although I tried to give good account of my points, they were unprepared by comparison and without the same depth of research.
If we play the historical psychoanalysis game with Jackson, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that he truly believed that what he was doing was in the best interest of "his" people (e.g. white Americans, more specifically southern slave owner planter aristocrats). And it's even somewhat reasonable to conclude that he did what he thought best to help the Indians, in the same way that Jefferson early on believed that if they couldn't assimilate, then it'd be better for them to live elsewhere outside of white society and free from likely conflict. The same could be said of Abraham Lincoln initially supporting the concept of sending freed slaves back to Africa (interestingly, Jefferson supported this early on out of legitimate concern over his belief that it wouldn't be possible for whites and blacks to live together free from conflict). It's certainly an interesting exercise to put yourself in the shoes of a historical figure and try to understand their thought process and decision making. But we do that for the purpose of furthering our own growth, of learning from their successes and mistakes. So when I say things like, Jackson betrayed the south eastern Indians and worse, established a change in US Federal government policy towards Indian Affairs, I can't help but acknowledge the incredibly poor judgment, lack of foresight and hypocrisy. I make this assessment not to demonize Jackson, but rather to simply give a fair judgment of his character, and more importantly explain how these actions impacted history, in hopes that we try harder to better solve problems and prevent such dire consequences as occurred in the past.
We are not their charge. It is absolutely cynical, but their charge was to protect their class and people in their own time. That is not us. It is possible some of them considered a 250 year old Republic and the people that would inherit their will and testament -- but such moments of considerations were likely brief, miscalculated and inconsequential -- with the exception of the framework for a lawful and free republic. That was consequential, well-calculated and deliberately done so the nation could endure up to this point at least. Longer, if we can shoulder it.
People are people, through history. The basics of psychology, e.g. self-defense, are the same. The expressions and values attached to those needs are frequently incomprehensible to another age, especially when vast amounts of explanatory detail are lost. I was taught that Jackson was basically a competent leader in his time, with an emphasis on international development in the New World. The relocation of the Indians was a black mark 70 years ago and I see time has only added to the controversy of that episode, not resolved anything. Not a peep about banks which preoccupy so many now.
I was taught awesome stuff about Jackson in public school education regarding the war of 1812. And about destroying the Second Bank of the United States, which was similarly extra-studly. Also about how he was slandered regarding his wife. And I learned how he charged a would-be assassin with his cane and knocked him down after two misfires. And also about the Trail of Tears, which was ... a lot less favorable, and genuinely awful. But it was AP history back in the 80's. What were you taught?
Trail of tears has been propagandized, I'm a big fan of Jackson. Basically he said that Indians could stay anywhere they wanted, including the southeast but they had to start following US laws and basically not be given special favors and treatment anymore. The ones who left to mid-America were the ones who were going to get their free land and special treatment.
Thanks!
Not disagreeing with you. But could you point me in the direction of these assertions?
https://www.ncpedia.org/tribes
All but one band in NC ( a band is an alliance of smaller tribes ) are natives not recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that stayed as subjects to NC law as resident non-reservation citizens of NC (and thus US citizens). They receive no federal aid or allowances from any governmental organizations. They simply adapted to the changes and worked and owned businesses and paid taxes like anyone else in NC, and they even voted in elections, mostly for Republicans.
It's not sauce for "Jackson said..." But it is sauce identifying a pervasive and verifiably skewed narrative. It's easy to find numerous instances of tribes that never went West. That throws off the forced genocidal death march narrative.
The chiefs had a choice and the chiefs made a choice. Their tribes suffered their chiefs' choices and their chiefs shifted the blame off of their own shoulders when the going got tough.
Much of this is just incorrect. The real issue was dispute over who was the "rightful" chief of the Cherokee. The "Red Stick" War was essentially a civil war within the Cherokee Nation. The results played into how "diplomacy" with the USA ensued. Fact is, whites wanted Cherokees completely gone and wanted their land. States enacted laws to basically take it from them, "legally." Federal government policy prior, was to treat tribes as sovereign entities, just like they would European states. Jackson changed course and told SCOTUS to fuck off... "Mr. Marshall made his ruling, now let him enforce it." Thing is, SCOTUS was correct. Jackson was wrong. Treaty of New Echota wasn't valid, since the Cherokee signers were not the lawful leaders of the Nation. And yes, the removal of the Cherokee was forced.
Now granted, the rightful leader of the Cherokee, John Ross, was kind of a shit... he was mixed (Scottish father), and "civilized", owning slaves and a plantation. His brother owned even more slaves. Major Ridge also wasn't the greatest...
Point? The situation was much more complex than often taught. But ultimately, the US Federal government, under Jackson's command, absolutely fucked the Cherokee, especially those who allied with Jackson during the Red Stick War and against the British.
Some good reading on the subject:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B008W3FTR6?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_image
Thank you for the effort, I am sure it is meant well but the narrative has been to lump all natives together and then point at the Cherokee specifically to paint an over-simplified picture of native grievance. You mean well, but basically you just brought up specifically the Cherokee too. It seems like everyone does exactly this. (fair for you to do this, as this is a thread about Andrew Jackson.)
I am sure I am oversimplifying too, but bear with me, look at where most tribes settled (a third of the Cherokee tribes stayed put on ancestral land), the majority of native tribes in general carved out their reservations right where they chose to, on the lands they claimed ancestral affinity for. We definitely encroached on what they wanted to claim (they wanted to claim everything, often claiming other tribes' lands too).
Maybe Jackson didn't betray them, he just knew them well, and was sick of their bullshit.
While it is correct that the Cherokee were not the only tribes in the southeastern USA that were removed (or attempts were made to remove), the Cherokee were the largest tribe constituting the largest portion of land per capita and relative to the other tribes (Muscogee, Seminole, Chickasaw, Choctaw, et al), and were the direct party impacted by the Treaty of New Echota, and the biggest issue in the state of Georgia addressed in Worcester v. Georgia.
While it is also correct that the nyth of the noble savage is just that, a myth, and tribes did fight each other over land and resources prior to Europeans coming along, by the time whites took over control of the colonies and then states compromising the USA, said white governments recognized the various tribes as sovereign entities and furthermore recognized their land claims. That began to change by 1800, under Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and culminating under Jackson and Van Buren.
The narrative actually isn't that complicated as far as legislative and executive efforts on the part of the states, particularly Georgia, and the federal government. States started passing laws asserting for themselves authority to deal with Indian tribes. They had no such authority under the Constitution. "Indian territory" was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. That's how we ended up with Worcester v. Georgia, in which Marshall ruled correctly that GA's law was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Nevertheless, Jackson ignored the Court and was not merely complicit in Indian removal, but literally directed it under his claim of enforcing the Indian Removal Act, which to note was a very close vote... Senate was 28 to 19, the House was 101 to 97. Moreover, the Act gave authority to offer treaties, not to force removal if treaties were rejected. Some resisted removal. That's how we ended up with the Seminole Wars. Also, if you actually read the Act, hardly any of the provisions were followed, like reimbursement for improvements made to the land, protection against other tribes where they were being relocated to, or the perpetual ownership of said new land.
The only "bullshit" was that of white men making promises to Indians, only to break them. Jackson sadly perfectly epitomizes this reality. He was a friend of the Cherokee when it was advantageous to get their help to suppress the Creek. But when it came to appeasing his fellow southern white plantation and slaveowners, he sided with the betrayal of his former allies. Such backstabbing even caused his friend and former ally David Crockett to leave the Senate and go to Texas. Again, not saying Jackson was the devil, but he certainly should take a significant portion of the blame for this black eye in our nation's history. Had he followed the example of Washington, Adams or at least even Jefferson (lots of interesting history of TJ's interactions with the Indians, particularly when he was younger), then grave injustice could have been prevented.
But alas, we're all humans, and prone to error...
More reading on the subject: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/jacksons-message-to-congress-on-indian-removal https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib//ourdocs/indian.html https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/llsl004.db&recNum=458
Nobody "left" to go west... they were forced. By Jackson, who betrayed them and unlawfully ignored a constitutionally valid ruling of SCOTUS.
Jackson was anti central bank, enough said.
Very underwhelming comment here, void of context and nuance.
The creation and maintenance of a national bank by the federal government, is Constitutional (affirmed in McCulloch v. Maryland). Even Madison would charter the 2nd National Bank, after originally opposing the initial chartering of the 1st National Bank. Moreover, it is far wiser policy than the alternatives of the federal government dealing with state or private banks, which are far more prone to abuse and exploitation. Jackson was against renewing the charter of the 2nd National Bank because the people administrating it became corrupt, so instead of having to get rid of all of them, the easier solution was to just eliminate the charter. We can both agree with Hamilton's principles and policy (and the Constitution) AND with Jackson's policy to end the corruption.
Look at the shitshow that we have been dealing with since 1913 with the FED, which isn't actually a central bank in the same sense as the 1st and 2nd National Banks... alas, we learned nothing from history. Instead of fixing the problem, we replaced it with an even bigger problem.
Andrew Jackson would certainly advocate for ending the FED, due to the massively corrupt system it has become, which has enslaved the American people to private international banking cartels. I agree with Andy here. End the FED. Reestablish the 3rd National Bank of the USA.
Struggling here with wanting to not like you for calling me out and at the same time agreeing with what you’ve stated ( ;
You are correct, the First & Second bank we’re not structured or operated in the same manner as what we see today. That’s said, Jackson seemed to have enough insight to understand the “pit vipers”, as he called them, would screw us all at some point if we allowed for the existence of National Banks.
(McCulloch v. Maryland) Seemed to have good intentions, but like many of the SC’s rulings, it ended up screwing us in the end.
*I’d like to believe they had no idea that they’re ruling would led to the disastrous act of 1913, but I definitely believe the Rothschild family saw that decision and immediately started salivating.
Indeed, conniving men will jump on any opportunity to bend the world to their own benefit.
Since I will never trust the government, nor should we, I’m not sure on how this should all shake out. If I had to choose between what we have now, that’s assuming the central banks are still operating in the same nefarious ways, or have something similar to the First and Second National Bank I’d chose the latter, even there I’d be EXTREMELY uneasy.
Maybe something that allowed only private, single ownership, no corporate vail, with low caps on revenue and VERY HIGH PUBLIC OVERSIGHT might work. They would need to be structured in a way that they would have to hold in reserve enough fluidity to take care of local/regional needs and at the same time be able to support governmental loans. At least this way we have an actual person to hold responsible for any fuckery that might occur. You still run into the issue of creating new money, but I believe that should be solely the duty of the Federal Government, so we’re still going to be opened to getting screwed one way or the other. At least if we fix the elections we can vote the ppl out that screw us and if banks are private single ownerships we can go directly after the owner if he/she screws us.
Stephen Gerard was the sole owner of a bank that funded the war of 1812 and other things for the federal government. From what I’ve seen the structure of his bank being single ownership caused him to hold higher accountability. There’s obviously more to that and a lot more that would need to be added to make it work today, but his accountability looks to have been held in the public eye and on some levels worked.
His bank was the original 1st National Bank, which he acquired after the charter expired. He was also French born and sympathetic to the Jacobin revolution. Financing America's war against the British certainly benefited his pro-French sentiments... Ulterior motives eh?
The Andrew Jackson hermitage is an awesome and inspiring place, if you're ever in Tennessee stop by and check it out.
AJ was a great President.
I remember being taught he was a President of the People and I’ve always loved him.
He was the best president aside from Trump.
I accidentally deleted the first post.
I learned more good history about him from this speech. Thanks for posting this.
BOOM over my left shoulder.
Andrew Jackson was far from being great. But neither was he a devil. He was a conflicted individual, a man of his times, with both some terrible qualities and some redeeming ones.
I think it might be more appropriate to look at him as a champion for his own people and his own nation. His sense of honor excluded others. It may be he saw Indians, even former allied tribes as adversaries or as merely enemies of our enemies. And so acted accordingly without compromise or concern for history's account of him.
Thank you for investing time and effort to address complex history with due attention to accuracy and sources. I made a more contemplative effort which, although I tried to give good account of my points, they were unprepared by comparison and without the same depth of research.
If we play the historical psychoanalysis game with Jackson, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that he truly believed that what he was doing was in the best interest of "his" people (e.g. white Americans, more specifically southern slave owner planter aristocrats). And it's even somewhat reasonable to conclude that he did what he thought best to help the Indians, in the same way that Jefferson early on believed that if they couldn't assimilate, then it'd be better for them to live elsewhere outside of white society and free from likely conflict. The same could be said of Abraham Lincoln initially supporting the concept of sending freed slaves back to Africa (interestingly, Jefferson supported this early on out of legitimate concern over his belief that it wouldn't be possible for whites and blacks to live together free from conflict). It's certainly an interesting exercise to put yourself in the shoes of a historical figure and try to understand their thought process and decision making. But we do that for the purpose of furthering our own growth, of learning from their successes and mistakes. So when I say things like, Jackson betrayed the south eastern Indians and worse, established a change in US Federal government policy towards Indian Affairs, I can't help but acknowledge the incredibly poor judgment, lack of foresight and hypocrisy. I make this assessment not to demonize Jackson, but rather to simply give a fair judgment of his character, and more importantly explain how these actions impacted history, in hopes that we try harder to better solve problems and prevent such dire consequences as occurred in the past.
Always appreciate good conversation with frens 😁
We are not their charge. It is absolutely cynical, but their charge was to protect their class and people in their own time. That is not us. It is possible some of them considered a 250 year old Republic and the people that would inherit their will and testament -- but such moments of considerations were likely brief, miscalculated and inconsequential -- with the exception of the framework for a lawful and free republic. That was consequential, well-calculated and deliberately done so the nation could endure up to this point at least. Longer, if we can shoulder it.
I appreciate your perspective fren.
People are people, through history. The basics of psychology, e.g. self-defense, are the same. The expressions and values attached to those needs are frequently incomprehensible to another age, especially when vast amounts of explanatory detail are lost. I was taught that Jackson was basically a competent leader in his time, with an emphasis on international development in the New World. The relocation of the Indians was a black mark 70 years ago and I see time has only added to the controversy of that episode, not resolved anything. Not a peep about banks which preoccupy so many now.