Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD Masthead)

I like the new site design and have come to enjoy the anticipation of seeing which progressive icon would appear on the upper left hand corner of the screen with the MYDD logo. Just now I was appalled to find the face of Andrew Jackson.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time explaining this; I'll just put it bluntly. Andrew Jackson is to Native Americans as Adolf Hitler is to Jews. Period. "Indian Removal" was the proudest achievement of his presidency.

George Wallace had a lot of progressive policies in the 1960s but I'm guessing I'm never going to see a circa 1963 picture of Wallace  (at the schoolhouse door?) looking down at me from the MYDD home page.

Chris, Jerome, et al.: Please do the right thing and get Andrew Jackson off the masthead!!

Thanks.

Take the poll to choose a replacement. (My apologies if anyone on my list is already there. Also, I'm not familiar with a lot of Native American leaders who are also progressives or I'd have put them down too -- sorry!!)


Poll
Who should replace Andrew Jackson on the MYDD rotation?
Crazy Horse
Fannie Lou Hamer
Susan B. Anthony
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth
Thurgood Marshall
Cesar Chavez

Votes: 88
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (3.00 / 4)

Andrew Jackson certainly had his faults, ranging from his blatant racism to his ignoring the Supreme Courts decision in favor of the Cherokee.

He was lso the first commoner and first populist ever to become POTUS, began the process of democratizing an oligarchy, and spent hours daily meeting with America's common people.  He gave birth to the Democratic Party as we know it.

It's tough to find any of our country's greats without any faults.  Jefferson owned slaves and fornicated with them.  Franklin was a womanizer.  FDR interred the Japanese and largely ignored Progressive  democrats, who voiced concerns on civil rights, to keep the support of Southerners.   John F. Kennedy was not exactly a loyal husband.  LBJ was elected in '48 by a few hundred ballots that came in in alphabetical order.

I agree that it is essential that we recognize the faults and errors of our historical figures.  But this does not mean turning a blind eye to their achievements.


by ReviveThePopulistParty on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 05:55:26 PM EST

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (none / 0)

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I'm a political scientist and am well aware of the positive stuff you're talking about. But Jackson is in a different league -- Jackson was the absolute leader of the genocidal expulsion of Native Americans from East of the Mississippi. He also owned slaves, like several other presidents, but he wasn't some kind of leader of a slavery movement. He was that kind of leader on "Indian Removal" as it was proudly called in his time. Jackson is in a category all by himself -- I wasn't exaggerating when I compared him to Hitler. Hey, Hitler restored the German economy and German pride, but modern Germans seem to figured out that he's not an appropriate role model. We should do the same with Jackson.


In a mountain half-way between Reno and Rome We have a machine in a plexiglass dome Which listens and looks into everyone's home. -- Theodore Seuss Geisel
by joelspolls on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:21:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (3.00 / 1)

You seem to be BADLY misinformed about Jackson's Indian policy. Jackson was a leading proponent of the Indian Removal Act, but the ACT did not, repeat, did not, order the removal of Indians. Instead, it authorized the President to negotiate treaties to purchase tribal lands in the east in exchange for lands further west, outside of existing U.S. state borders. Moreover, Jackson never actually spoke the words "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!". Jackson's administration paid 68 million dollars for the Indian lands, and if you check your history books, the Trail of Tears didn't occur until 1838, two years after Jackson left office. Remember also before you judge Jackson that Great Britain and Spain had recruited numerous Indian tribes to wage war against the United States in the near past. Jackson fought the Creeks after they massacred 400 men, women and children at Fort Mims. For Jackson, it was in the national security interest of the United States to relocate potential enemies. And by the way, Jackson didn't have a crystal ball. He always conducted himself with honor. He most likely had no idea that following Indian removal, America would selfishly act to marginalize the tribes that had been removed.

In conclusion, Jackson was far from perfect where the Indians were concerned, but to compare him to Hitler and the Indians to the Jews is beyond idiotic.

If I recall correctly, Jackson freed his slaves when he died, which might make him more palatable.


by JRyan on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:31:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (none / 0)

I don't find the Hitler comparison particularly helpful.  If you want to say that someone was absolutely evil, might as well say "the devil" and be done with it; and, unfortunately, the national leaders in the founding generation and its successor generation - including Jackson and Van Buren - were without exception a pretty intensely racist bunch by modern standards.

But let's not sugar coat things, here.  There's every reason to believe Jackson knew the signers of the Treaty of New Echota didn't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Cherokee.  His negotiators used a common trick at the time: find nearly anyone who will mark an "X" on the line, whether or not they can reasonably be said to have the authority to negotiate on behalf of their people - and then (as Van Buren ultimately did) send in the army to enforce the provisions of the treaty.

Not sure where you get the $68mill figure from, by the way; got a source on that?  I'll have to look it up, but that sounds vastly inflated, I thought it was more like $4-5 million.

Jackson is also famous for looking the other way while Georgia tried to annex Cherokee lands with the assistance of some heavy duty thuggery by the Dahlonega gold rushers.  This was the subject of the Supreme Court case, which Georgia - not Jackson - lost.  But it was a politically convenient marriage - Jackson's removal policies were supported by Georgia's legal harassment and the gold rushers' thuggery, because it provided some pretty significant motivation for Cherokees to take the best deal they could and get out.  Which, of course, the Cherokee leadership declined to do anyway.

Not Hitler, no.  But not exactly "honorable" either.  And while much of your comment has some justification, this is bizarre:

And by the way, Jackson didn't have a crystal ball. He always conducted himself with honor. He most likely had no idea that following Indian removal, America would selfishly act to marginalize the tribes that had been removed.

That sounds suspiciously like hero worship.  What is your basis for saying he "likely had no idea" that America would marginalize the tribes?  


by arenwin on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:54:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (none / 0)

Jackson beat the British like a drum. He stared down South Carolina and the specter of civil war. Frankly, he was the 2nd best president of the entire 19th century. I don't worship him, but he is a hero to me.

"There's every reason to believe Jackson knew the signers of the Treaty of New Echota didn't have the authority to negotiate on behalf of the Cherokee."

True, I never said he was perfect.

"Not sure where you get the $68mill figure from, by the way; got a source on that?"

Robert Remini on Andrew Jackson. A less reliable source which states the same thing would be the Andrew Jackson page on wikepedia. That figure is total. Maybe you are thinking of the 4.5 million Jackson paid the Cherokees?

"Jackson is also famous for looking the other way"

He had no clear legal right to intervene on behalf of the Cherokees in Georgia (although to be fair, if he had he probably wouldn't have wanted to).

Jackson has his faults, but so does every great leader. That's why I think this thread is so ridiculous. It's just one more example of stifling political correctness.


by JRyan on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (none / 0)

Jackson beat the British like a drum.  True.  In 1815.  That's 17 years before he was elected President.

Jackson stared down South Carolina.  A magnificent moment and one some of Buchanan's cabinet members tried, unsuccessfully, to urge on him.

Jackson was a man of strong opinions and , yes, prejudices.  These were often based on his life experiences.  These included his hatred of bankers (led to the destruction of the Bank of the United States and the Panic of 1837) and distrust of Indians.  Jackson had a long and mostly honorable military career.  A lot of that was fighting Indians in the Southeast.  Again, the results were iffy (and largely dumped on his protege and successor Van Buren).

To me, Jackson is the 19th century Ronald Reagan. A strong old man who left the debris of his mistakes to his VP-successor (who lasted one problem-plagued term).

Better 19th century Presidents?  Surely Lincoln, Jefferson, and Polk.  The ones who built and kept this country. I don't know enough about Madison and Monroe but I suspect they'd also qualify.

Was he better than the string of weak Presidents like Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan.  By a longshot.  Was he better than many of the post civil war one termers or less?  Probably.

How does he rank with Cleveland and McKinley?  Harder to say.  It might help if I knew more about them.  On first blush, probably better than McKinley who let newspapers get us into a war (Spanish American) and then blundered us into the Iraq of a 100 years ago, the Phillipine Insurrection (over 4,000 dead in that turkey).

Jackson transformed the Democratic Party from the national, governing institution of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe to the party of the people.  As such he was a hero on the frontier but also in the south.  His party, like the FDR-HST-JFK-LBJ juggernaut would shatter on the issue of civil rights.

The Democrats from 1860 through 1932 were singularly unsuccessful.  They managed to "elect" two Presidents.  One because of corruption within the Republican party (Cleveland) and one because of a split resulting in two Republiccan candidates (Wilson).  Sound familiar?  Hey, one other democrat was elected but had the office stolen from him (1876).

Maybe the best answer is to put him up but be aware of all the problems.


by David Kowalski on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 10:39:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (none / 0)

"These included his hatred of bankers (led to the destruction of the Bank of the United States and the Panic of 1837)"

To be fair to Jackson, Biddle was an arrogant man who stepped outside the bounds of his position. And the bank crisis wasn't started by Jackson, it was started by Clay (who knew Jackson's feelings about the Bank and for some reason thought that the public would elect him instead of Jackson when Jackson went to war with the bank).

And I wouldn't carry that comparison of Jackson and Reagan too far. Jackson was infinitely more intelligent than Reagan, and also was far more distinguished in his service to the nation.

I said that Jackson was the 2nd best president of the 19th century, with Abe Lincoln at the number 1 slot.

Jefferson was a distinguished president when you consider that he presided over 8 years of peace. His Louisiana Purchase was a masterpiece of diplomacy and foresight. However, his Embargo Act was an abysmal failure, and he allowed the military to deteriorate to a point where victory against Great Britain became impossible (under Adams, we had a top-notch army and navy). Jefferson was a much better person than Jackson, but he wasn't a better president.

Once again, I think Polk was an excellent president. However, if people here disagree with Jackson's policies (and Bush's), how would they feel about Polk's questionable actions that led to the Mexican War? How would they feel about Manifest Destiny? I think it's a very close contest, but that Jackson comes out ahead.

Madison doesn't qualify. In my own personal opinion, he was a great man but a terrible president. I feel the same ab out Monroe, whose administration was tarnished by Henry Clay's obstructionism. Jackson was better than those two.

Given Cleveland's record with Depressions and with labor rights, I wouldn't count him as better than Jackson. I feel the same way you do about McKinley. That's why I rated Jackson the second best president of the 19th century.

I agree with your solution. What I don't agree with is all the idiots here comparing him to Hitler. That's just unconscionable.


by JRyan on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:54:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Trail of Tears (none / 0)

Actually the Hitler analogy isn't far off.  Yes, the original diary is correct.  Jackson really did leave one of the most disgraceful legacies in US history -- & he was quite proud of it.

Chickasaw History
http://www.tolatsga.org/chick.html

http://www.tolatsga.org/Cherokee2.html

After the initial Indian victories of Little Turtle's War (1790-94), most of the Ohio Chickamauga returned south and settled near the Tennessee River in central Tennessee and northern Alabama. From here, they had the unofficial encouragement of the Spanish governments of Florida and Louisiana and began to attack nearby American settlements. One of these incidents almost killed a young Nashville attorney/land speculator named Andrew Jackson, which may explain his later attitude regarding the Cherokee.
[. . .]
The Cherokee won both cases brought before the Supreme Court: Cherokee Nation vs Georgia (1831) and Worcester vs Georgia(1832), but the legal victories were useless. Jackson's answer: "Justice Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it." Without federal interference, Georgia and Tennessee began a reign of terror using arrest, murder and arson against the Cherokee.

http://americanindian.net/
September 18, 1813: After the "massacre" at Fort Mims, Alabama, by the "Red Stick" Creeks, the word of the Creek uprising spreads. In Nashville, Tennessee, Governor William Blount calls on the State Legislature to "teach these barbarous sons of the woods their inferiority." The cry for vengeance rings throughout the area. In a few weeks, Andrew Jackson begins his campaign against the Creek.

March 27, 1814: East of modern Alexander City, Alabama, Andrew Jackson, and 2000 whites, Cherokees, Choctaws and "White Stick" Creeks, discover a fort built at the village of Tohopeka on a Horseshoe Bend in the Tallapoosa River, by " Red Stick" Creeks. The Red Stick Creeks are anti-white, the White Stick Creeks are pro-white. Jackson attacks the 800 to 1,000 Red Stick Creeks, led by Chief Menewa. The Creek village and defenses covered approximately 100 acres on the peninsula made by the bend in the river. To cross the river, Jackson's Cherokee allies, led by Chief Junaluska, swim the river to steal Creek canoes. Jackson's forces eventually set fire to the Red Stick Creeks' wooden barricade. In the end, only about fifty of the Red Stick Creeks survive the battle. Jackson's forces lose forty-nine soldiers and twenty-three warriors killed, and 157 soldiers and forty-seven warriors wounded. Jackson's forces capture approximately 300 women and children. The Red Stick Creek leader William Weatherford is not at the battle. Weatherford will turn himself in later. This defeat leads to the Treaty of Horseshoe Bend signed on August 9, 1814, whereby the Creeks gave up twenty-three million acres of land to the United States.

August 9, 1814: The Treaty of Fort Jackson (7 stat.120) officially ends the Creek War. The Creeks, including those who fought with Andrew Jackson, are forced to cede 22,000,000 acres, almost half their lands, to the United States. Timpoochee Barnard, one of the Yuchi Indian allies of the Americans, is one of the signatories to the treaty of Fort Jackson. Fort Jackson, formerly Fort Toulouse, is in modern Wetumpka, Alabama.
 October 18, 1820: Today, a treaty will be negotiated between Andrew Jackson and the CHOCTAWs. The CHOCTAWs will give up lands in Mississippi for land in western Arkansas. Part of the lands that Jackson promised to the Indians belonged to Spain, or were already settled by Europeans. This would be called the Treaty of Doak's Stand. Chief Pushmataha will be one of the signers.

May 28, 1830: Andrew Jackson, called "Sharp Knife" by the Indians, has long fought the Indians of the southeast. He believes that the Indians and white settlers will not be able to peacefully live together. His solution to this is to renege on all of the previous treaties, which granted the Indians their lands forever, and to move all Indians west of the Mississippi River. Jackson makes this proposal to Congress during his First Congressional speech on December 8, 1829. Congress makes the proposal into a law on this date.

Book info:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306811 707/ref=ase_onthisdateinn-20/104-8798979 -8870303?s=books&v=glance&n=2831 55&tagActionCode=onthisdateinn-20
http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/b io/public/jackson.htm
 http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappl er/vol2/treaties/che0439.htm
Jackson's record regarding Native Americans was not good. He led troops against them in both the Creek War and the First Seminole War and during his first administration the Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830. The act offered the Indians land west of the Mississippi in return for evacuation of their tribal homes in the east. About 100 million acres of traditional Indian lands were cleared under this law.

Two years later Jackson did nothing to make Georgia abide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester vs. Georgia in which the Court found that the State of Georgia did not have any jurisdiction over the Cherokees. Georgia ignored the Court's decision and so did Andrew Jackson. In 1838-1839 Georgia evicted the Cherokees and forced them to march west. About twenty-five percent of the Indians were dead before they reached their new lands in Oklahoma. The Indians refer to this march as the "Trail of Tears" and even though it took place after Jackson's presidency, the roots of the march can be found in Jackson's failure to uphold the legal rights of Native Americans during his administration.


by Philosophe Forum on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:06:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you look at anything I've said? (none / 0)

"Jackson's answer: "Justice Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it.""

Jackson never spoke those words.

"He led troops against them in both the Creek War and the First Seminole War"

That makes him comparable to Hitler? He fought against enemies of the Republic, Indians that your own source admits were allied with Great Britain and Spain against the United States.

"Two years later Jackson did nothing to make Georgia abide by the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester vs. Georgia in which the Court found that the State of Georgia did not have any jurisdiction over the Cherokees. Georgia ignored the Court's decision and so did Andrew Jackson."

Jackson had no clear legal right to intervene.

"the roots of the march can be found in Jackson's failure to uphold the legal rights of Native Americans during his administration."

So his failure to uphold the legal rights of Native Americans, which I again stress was due to his not having any clear legal right to intervene, makes him comparable to HITLER? Jesus. Just admit the comparison was wrong already. Jackson was a man of the people, and a skilled and courageous military leader. I'm really disturbed that on one hand you all are models of political correctness, deploring Jackson's bigotry, but on the other hand, you all feel fully justified in comparing him to Hitler. That smacks of pure hypocrisy.


by JRyan on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:07:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you look at anything I've said? (none / 0)

Not hypocrisy.  Rule of law.  Apparently neither men felt it applied to them.

It doesn't matter if you disagree with the historical citing I provided on the Marshall quote.  His 1829 speech put genocide of the Civilized Tribes into motion, & GA continued the practice after he left office:

" His solution to this is to renege on all of the previous treaties, which granted the Indians their lands forever, and to move all Indians west of the Mississippi River. Jackson makes this proposal to Congress during his First Congressional speech on December 8, 1829. Congress makes the proposal into a law on this date."


by Philosophe Forum on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 11:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you look at anything I've said? (none / 0)

Once again, genocide is a harsh exaggeration.

Bush has violated the law when it comes to wiretapping. Is anyone seriously thinking of comparing him to Hitler. Reagan and Nixon both violated the law; I suppose both of them can be compared to Hitler as well?


by JRyan on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 12:09:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Manifest Destiny = Indian Removal = Genocide (none / 0)

Jackson was a big fan of Indian Removal.  Just because there was a legal loophole in Cherokee Nations vs. Georgia allowing him to do nothing doesn't make him any less responsible.  As president, he could have found a way around the loophole -- IF  he wanted to.  To quote Jackson:  "the decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."  Obviously, he had no intentions of doing anything for Indians, every intention of reneging on any negotiated treaty (even pressuring Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty), & made it clear that Indians had to move west in his 1829 Congressional Speech.

Ross knew Jackson supported the right of Georgia to extend her laws over the Cherokee Nation & that he wouldn't get anywhere with Jackson.  That's why he pleaded the Cherokee case directly to Congress & found support in the Rep Party.   Obviously Jackson had more Dem Party friends in Congress.  They proved that in May 1830 when Congress endorsed Jackson's policy of removal by passing the Indian Removal Act & authorizing him to set aside lands west of the Mississippi to exchange for the lands of the Indian nations in the east.

Just because (1) Martin van Buren was the one who truly & strictly enforced the terms of the treaty is a fact & (2) Jackson adopted Lyncoya, a Creek Indian orphan,  after the Creek War, the realities IN NO WAY absolve Jackson of his culpability.  The underpinnings of forced relocation (i.e., genocide) are the Jackson Legacy.  All we do is add it to the 500 years of justifying living in the denial this country's noted for in it's Indian policies:

Genocide Convention of the United Nations (1948):

   ...Article II- In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group, (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The United States failed to sign on to the Genocide Convention for forty years. This, in itself, makes a very definite statement.

Nixon & Reagan definitely violated the Rule of Law.  #43 openly violates it so proudly & blatantly that he's in an evil incarnate class all by himself.  Although, the 1833 Force Bill makes Jackson look like a 19th Century "W".

As for the rest of the Jackson Administration (e.g., patronage, his staunch support of federalism, the 2nd Bank of the US, & The Era of the Common Man), I'll defer to Thomas Jefferson's 1824 comment:


    "I feel much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws or constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. His passions are terrible. When I was President of the Senate he was a Senator; and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage. His passions are no doubt cooler now; he has been much tried since I knew him, but he is a dangerous man."

EVERY single US president has screwed over the Native people in one way or another legalizing fraud & justifying it.  Some have been worse than others.  Jacksonian Democracy's geographical expansion policy is Manifest Destiny.  Indian Removal aided that goal & genocide did result.  Therefore,  Jackson is unequivocally  in the "worse" category & definitely should be replaced on the masthead.


by Philosophe Forum on Fri Feb 03, 2006 at 06:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can't agree (none / 0)

I'm not disagreeing with your historical analysis, but taking the Geneva Convention and using it to judge what happened a century before is ridiculous. Jackson's actions were calculated to benefit the United States, not to result in the physical destruction of the Cherokees.

The republican party didn't exist, you are talking about the Whigs, I think.

Thomas Jefferson? He was a poor president who weakened us so that his successor could bring us into a war we could not win. I'd say he's a poor judge of character, especially since Jackson proved himself more than fit for the office. By the way, Jackson and Jefferson personally disliked each other. Do you think that may have perhaps had something to do with his pronouncement?

"EVERY single US president has screwed over the Native people in one way or another legalizing fraud & justifying it."

Including Jefferson.

"Jacksonian Democracy's geographical expansion policy is Manifest Destiny."

Which should end any arguement that Polk was a better president than Jackson, at least here.

"Indian Removal aided that goal & genocide did result."

No. (d) and (e) were not in evidence. (a) and (b) were also not in evidence during the Trail of Tears, since after the initial round-up, the Cherokee nation itself took charge of the emigration, and the 4,000 deaths were due only to disease. (c) might be hardest to argue against, but get real: the US wanted Cherokeee territory, but didn't want the Cherokees wiped out. Their relocation wasn't designed to wipe them out. Thus, the treaty and the trail of tears was wrong, and you will get no arguement from me there, but genocide IT WAS NOT. So, not only is Jackson NOT comparable to Hitler, but he also shouldn't be removed.


by JRyan on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Definitely Can't agree (none / 0)

Indian Country disagrees with your analysis as do I.  Regardless of the language of legislation, any Indian policy had one purpose that started with the Jackson Administration, eliminating Native people.  Prior to Jacksonian Democrats taking over the US, the intent .  Jefferson advocated expanding  government by "consent of the governed" (Declaration of Independence).  

Jefferson was an Enlightenment Era philosophe.  Maybe it made him a "poor" president in your eyes.  I see him as an intense & introverted left-brained thinker.  It made him a great believer in US uniqueness &  potential.  He's the father of American exceptionalism for a reason.  To him, Jackson was a poor president.  That's my conclusion as well.

Jackson set the stage for the Trail of Tears, & van Buren followed thru.  For me, he's just as culpable as if he would have lead the removal himself.   While his administration was prior to the coined phrase "Manifest Destiny", it was his political philosophy, & many Indians died as a direct result.  

Jackson truly could have avoided the chain of events because, in my view, he had the authority based on the 1833 Force Act allowing him to use of whatever force necessary to execute laws.  He expanded the authority of the presidency when it suited his purpose.  He conciously CHOSE to do nothing to save human lives -- those of Native people.  He promised to renege on all of the previous treaties designed to grant Indians their lands in perpetuity.  He completely objected to sovereign Indian nations within the US boundaries.  His justification:  He was afraid they'd ally with Spain or England (& his hatred for the British is well known) (His obsession with national security is also the difference between him & Jefferson & the similarity between him & "W".).  The white settlers' gold fever was just another excuse for him.  Senate ratification of the Ridge (a close Jackson friend) Treaty of New Echota passed in May 1836 by one vote as a direct result of Jackson's support.  

Due to the above events, intent is implied based on his conscious INACTION.  (a), (b), & (c) are certainly evidenced. --> Deaths "due only to disease"?  Not quite:  men, women, and children were taken from their land, herded into makeshift forts with minimal facilities and food, then forced to march a 1,000 miles (Some made part of the trip by overcrowded unsanitary boats) -- under the generally indifferent army commanders.  The land convoy had little supplies for the winter.  Many walked barefoot in the snow & ice.  There was little help of any kind from non-Indians.   By December 1838, 5,000 Cherokees were trapped east of the Mississippi R. by the harsh winter, & many died.  By March 1839, More than 3,000 Cherokee died on Trail of Tears, 1,600 in stockades, & about the same number en route. 800 more died in 1839 in OK.  

I'm not a fan of Polk either.  Like van Buren (who proudly announced his intention "to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor"), he followed thru with the Jackson philosophy after his friend, Jackson, set the stage.   Jacksonian Democrats all to the bitter end.

Consequently, the UN definition of genocide absolutely applies.  The US proved it when it waited 40 yrs. to sign on.  It wouldn't surprise me if Hitler got his idea from the Trail of Tears.  Jackson was the catalyst for one of the most regrettable events in US history.  It's his legacy.  It's the conclusion of Indian Country's historical analysis.  It's my conclusion as well, & I'll continue to agree with it based on the factual chain of events.


by Philosophe Forum on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:35:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (none / 0)

Surfing with images turned off, I'm clearly missing a vital element here!

I wasn't around when the daily masthead iconic image was under discussion, so I'm not sure what the agreed qualification for inclusion was.

Clearly, there are Democratic icons - John Calhoun, for instance - who are certainly not progressive on any plausible definition. And progressive icons - the LaFollettes, say - who weren't Democrats, or were not notably partisan at all (like most of those in the poll above!).

I suspect that too rigid a litmus test - in particular raising anachronistic standards of action or belief - would be pointlessly exclusive.

Still, US political history is endlessly fascinating, so the arguments should be fun in any case.

(Jackson was also a slaveholder, of course: should that rule him out? What about Jefferson?)


by skeptic06 on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:13:02 PM EST

Ms. Truth (none / 0)

This is Blk history month and we should honor blks in honor of this month and in honor of Coretta and MLK.  Ms. Truth was very vocal in her opposition to slavery.  She was one of the greatest blks in our history. She is talked about next to Harriet Tubman the most in our history books, and we should honor this website in favor of this.


by mleflo2 on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 06:38:00 PM EST

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (From the MYDD (none / 0)

He's staying in rotation, do you also tell the Democratic Party that Jefferson-Jackson Dinners have got to go?

But those are some good suggestions. A couple of them are already in.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:06:57 PM EST

Andrew Jackson (none / 0)


Jerome,

Thanks for the quick response! As a matter of fact, I do think that Jefferson-Jackson dinners are questionable names for events for modern progressives. As I said above, Jefferson was kind of a run-of-the-mill slave owner (bad enough!) but Jackson was the mastermind and main mover of Indian expulsion and genocide. I would appreciate it if you could respond to that. Thanks! -- Joel


In a mountain half-way between Reno and Rome We have a machine in a plexiglass dome Which listens and looks into everyone's home. -- Theodore Seuss Geisel
by joelspolls on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson (3.00 / 1)

He's there for being the forefather of participatory politics in this country at the Presidential level. Yea, he was wrong on a lot of other things.


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (3.00 / 1)

Personally, I think that Jackson should be taken down. As mentioned before, he was the author of Native American genocide. The Trail of Tears was his handiwork. But furthermore, he was a major regressive when it came to slavery. At least Jefferson expressed concern over slavery; Jackson was a Southern poster boy.

In short, embracing Jackson as our forefather is dangerously close to endorsement of genocide and racism. If we want a populist to represent us, how about Eugene V. Debs?

In the poll, I voted for Thurgood Marshall. He was  a sensible, smart progressive. Still, I think Debs may be the best choice.


by Liberal404 on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 08:42:26 PM EST

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (none / 0)

If we want a populist to represent us, how about Eugene V. Debs?

A socialist?  That sounds like about the worst idea for a replacement.  What about great Democrats: FDR, John F Kennedy, Paul Wellstone or Bill Clinton?  Those might be good replacements (though I'm not sure we should actually take Jackson off; he's part of the party's past, and for all the bad stuff he did, he did a lot of good too)


by LaX WI on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (none / 0)

wow I am so surprised everyone voted for thurgood. I did too. You seem to say it best. good fellow, Thurgood.

But who has a problem with Tippecanoe, and Tyler too?


by turnerbroadcasting on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 11:27:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (none / 0)

Yup, Tippecanoe sure liked killing Indians too.  A gruesome, beloved pastime of many of our early leaders, I'm afraid.

I'd vote for James K. Polk, because TMBG had a cool song about him.  Of course, he had it in for the Mexicans.


by arenwin on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:05:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (none / 0)

How can the deeds and persona of one man or woman adequately represent the progressive movement?

Why not ask MYDD-ers for their suggestions on a non-human icon?


by Thuja on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 09:27:06 PM EST

Re: Andrew Jackson Has Got to Go!! (none / 0)

Great idea!

I'd nominate FDR's dog Fala - well, he was an icon in his time.

Unfortunately, he was also a Scottish Terrier...


by skeptic06 on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 08:32:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A Toast! (none / 0)

Jackson and MyDD, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable.


by SLinVA on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 10:34:57 PM EST

Andrew Jackson (none / 0)

Known to some as the "Butcher of New Orleans." Not exactly my favorite president.


by DavidNYC on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 12:49:36 AM EST

No (none / 0)

Umm thats is Ben Franklin


by SensibleDemocrat on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 05:49:20 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

Andrew Jackson was a Hitler. Make no mistake. Sugar-coat him anyway you like, deny Native American genoice...

Not just that, he was also a corrupt politician who totally messed up the central banking system.


by saurabhgupta on Thu Feb 02, 2006 at 07:35:19 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.