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.
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.