NationStates Jolt Archive

Your thoughts? (Poll coming in a second, btw)

Andrew Jackson liked mud. So he's okay by me. :)

He was one of the great American heros. He fought the "injuns" and the British. And he was a president. All "injun" fighters are great because they secured the rest of us a place to live.

Other.

Jackson was one of my favorite Presidents. He defeated the national bank.

Need I say more?

Too aggresive, always attacking Indians, forcing cherokee on the trail of tears.

But lowered the national debt to 38,000$, lowest ever.

Some things i like, others i don't.

I don't know. I always saw him as someone who did what he wanted, regardless if it was constitutional or not. Hero for keeping South Carolina in the Union. Scoundrel for Indian Removal (despite what the Supreme Court ruled). Six of one, half a dozen of the other. *shrug*

Too aggresive, always attacking Indians, forcing cherokee on the trail of tears.

But lowered the national debt to 38,000$, lowest ever.

Some things i like, others i don't.

Getting rid of the "injuns" was 100% needed.

Not the Cherokee, they had their own written language, a printing press, and a constitution.

They should have been assimulated to the USA, not forced to move west.

He was a good and valorious soldier, but his arrogance from his many victories on the field must have spread into the White House. He was a populist, and populist leaders are never good leaders. Strike one. Strike two was the Kitchen Cabinet, where he basically disregarded his official cabinet, and relied on a series of friends, reporters, and just average joes to advise him. Strike Three was the Trail of Tears. He caused a moral low point in our relations with Natives, and undermined the Supreme Court in the process. I could go on and on, but I basically regard him as a cocky, populist jerk that came close to wrecking democracy.

Son, the U.S. wasn't and isn't a democracy.

Getting rid of the "injuns" was 100% needed.
Because? They were there before we were. We killed them. While...if that happened today, I'd have qualms about it, nah...its just that we gave them a crappy contract that we never lived up to that I have issues with.

Not the Cherokee, they had their own written language, a printing press, and a constitution.

They should have been assimulated to the USA, not forced to move west.

But they were still indians.

Son, the U.S. wasn't and isn't a democracy.
Liberal democracy and pure democracy are two different things. Liberal democracies are the only ones that exist now, and they are essentially republics, but not oligarchial ones, like the republics of Firenze or Venezia.
About your national bank comment, btw, he did do away with that. He also diverted tax dollars to fund state banks in its place.

He did some OK things so I like some things about him, but a lot of the stuff he did was bad, particularly the part about the SC. He helped to prevent Civil War and at least delayed it for a while, which is good, though, even if he wasn't the smartest economist around :p.

But they were still indians.

And your point is???

damn you for making me have to choose between odious villain and worst president ever

He's definitely a lot better than the first Republicon President.

But they were still indians. They were civilized.

But they were still indians.

You can troll better than that, can't you?






***
Personally: Jackson = a rogue and a knave for the Trail of Tears.

Even his roots in my home country (his parents lived about 20 miles from where I now sit) can't absolve him.

I picked the option that included the wordds "bona fide" because if you switch the last letters it says "bone fida" which sounds like the kind of medical disorder you get when someone shoves a fiddle through your tibia.

Andy Jackson? Great guy. War hero, Indian fighter, president, and the thrower of the biggest party the White House ever saw (made JFK and Clinton look like nuns). And dig his crazy hairdoo!

I think Jackson's defeat of the national bank makes him one of the greatest American heroes of all time. Too bad he couldn't finish off the national bankers permanently...

Many of you call him a good and valorous soldier, but you seem to be forgetting about the smallpox laced blankets he sent to several tribes just to get at resources he thought were on their land.

Many of you call him a good and valorous soldier, but you seem to be forgetting about the smallpox laced blankets he sent to several tribes just to get at resources he thought were on their land.

Really? I never heard about that before.

bump

Many of you call him a good and valorous soldier, but you seem to be forgetting about the smallpox laced blankets he sent to several tribes just to get at resources he thought were on their land.

Yes that blanket idea was great.

Enod, that creepy little shit, seems to like him a lot. Mainly because he seems to hate indians a lot.

I personally rate him up with Enod. That is, he's also a little shit.

I labeled him an odios villian for several reasons.... most of which have been brought up in this thread already.
1) His treatment of indians, Cherokee's especialy. The cherokee nation of that time had seen that if they wanted to survive they needed assimilate themselves into the greater culture. They had bi-lingual schools where their children were taught in a manner akin to the white children of the time. Some of them even had plantations like the other richer landholders of that area in that time.
2) I call him a villian for his blatant disregard of the Supreme Court's statment on the matter of the Cherokee's holding of land in Georgia.

but thts all i'm going to say for now cause i dont want to get myself overly angry over a dead person. (i might get tempted to make a time machine ;) )

I don't agree with forcing Indians off their land, but I think that Andrew Jackson was a great hero. He was a great soldier and president.

Meh, I said he's a villian because "stupid little shit" wasn't in there.

Though I WAS tempted to go for worst president...

Meh, I said he's a villian because "stupid little shit" wasn't in there.

Though I WAS tempted to go for worst president...

He was a great soldier and he secured US a place to live when the "injuns" refused to give it to us.

Sometimes I don't get roach busters..

You said awhile back that the Sandinistas commited genocide against the indigenous Miskit indians because of a handful of isolated shootouts in which 150 people, maybe, died on both sides.. but the Trail of Tears forced relocation was perfectly okie-dokie? Seems a bit contradictory and counterintuitive..

I don't know much about the national bank thing, but however good it was it doesnt put him in the clear for that.

I don't agree with forcing Indians off their land, but I think that Andrew Jackson was a great hero. He was a great soldier and president.

Damn straight. ;)

Sometimes I don't get roach busters..

You said awhile back that the Sandinistas commited genocide against the indigenous Miskit indians because of a handful of isolated shootouts in which 150 people, maybe, died on both sides.. but the Trail of Tears forced relocation was perfectly okie-dokie? Seems a bit contradictory and counterintuitive..

I don't know much about the national bank thing, but however good it was it doesnt put him in the clear for that.

I never said the Trail of Tears was justified. And the Sandinistas killed far more than that, but of course, that's a different topic for a different thread...

And, as always, Unified West Africa, many thanks for not flaming. :)

OK, no problem, but here's something:

"Sandinista militants came to the region expecting to find enthusiastic support for the revolution among the impoverished inhabitants. Instead they found unfamiliar peoples and cultures that had remained relatively isolated from Hispanic Nacaragua for generations. The atlantic coast residents relished the freedom to live according to their own customs, even if in poverty. Although some indians were friendly to the Sandinistas, others viewed the new schools, clinics, and public works projectsas part of a plan by the central government to destroy indian and other local cultures. Disputes broke out in the early 1980's and in the violent skirmishes that folowed more than 150 local people and dozens of Sandinistas were killed. Later the revolutionary government tried and punhished many soldiers guilty of human rights violations..."

From James DeFronzo's "Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements", a fairly even handed academic text.

I'm just pointing out what seems to be an internal inconsistancy; Jackson makes positive economic moves but commits what amounts to forced relocation and genocide, and he's a hero.. but the Sandinistas revolutionize their country's economy and politics, and suddenly they're evil because of a few skirmishes that they didn't even order.

Frankly, you seem, I dunno.. knee-jerkingly hostile towards socialist forces, even progressive ones respectful of human rights for the most part, but far more willing to defend capitalist agents who have commited crimes that greatly overshadow what the other side did. We're not all evil bastards, despite what the Right wants the American people to believe.

OK, no problem, but here's something:

"Sandinista militants came to the region expecting to find enthusiastic support for the revolution among the impoverished inhabitants. Instead they found unfamiliar peoples and cultures that had remained relatively isolated from Hispanic Nacaragua for generations. The atlantic coast residents relished the freedom to live according to their own customs, even if in poverty. Although some indians were friendly to the Sandinistas, others viewed the new schools, clinics, and public works projectsas part of a plan by the central government to destroy indian and other local cultures. Disputes broke out in the early 1980's and in the violent skirmishes that folowed more than 150 local people and dozens of Sandinistas were killed. Later the revolutionary government tried and punhished many soldiers guilty of human rights violations..."

From James DeFronzo's "Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements", a fairly even handed academic text.

I'm just pointing out what seems to be an internal inconsistancy; Jackson makes positive economic moves but commits what amounts to forced relocation and genocide, and he's a hero.. but the Sandinistas revolutionize their country's economy and politics, and suddenly they're evil because of a few skirmishes that they didn't even order.

Frankly, you seem, I dunno.. knee-jerkingly hostile towards socialist forces, even progressive ones respectful of human rights for the most part, but far more willing to defend capitalist agents who have commited crimes that greatly overshadow what the other side did. We're not all evil bastards, despite what the Right wants the American people to believe.

I have nothing against democratic socialists or even peaceful communists (Letila, for example). It's mass murderering terrorists like the Sandinistas that I can't stand.