Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

There's also a proposal to put Rosa on the 10 and then replace Jackson with Hamilton on the 20.  I see that one as a win-win-win.

They should put Obama on all the money to encourage Republicans to spend more and grow the economy.

No, then it'd just be nonstop "blah blah Mark of the Beast blah blah End Times blah blah Obama=Antichrist".

I've got to say if Trump gets elected and turns out to be Antichrist, I'd probably be able to endure Armageddon on the value of maximum irony alone.

[mainiac]

And now a joke for the political scientists:
Federal Reserve announces Hillary Clinton to be elected in 2016.

[Playergamer]

I'm sad that the genocide argument against Jackson is so widely accepted. Plans to move the Cherokee and other tribes west existed since Washington was president, and the problem was basically dropped into Jackson's lap as soon as he was elected. Tensions were beginning to escalate between settlers and Indians, and he was the president who finally decided to solve it. If Jackson had done nothing, the Georgians would've eventually divided up all the Cherokee lands and kicked them out. That kind of policy would be genocide by inaction. He could've also taken action to protect them, but that would've involved a large, peacetime army marching into Georgia and causing trouble with the Georgian government. This was the era of the Nullification Crisis, after all, and the union wasn't very stable.

Plus, the British had a history of paying Indian tribes to cause trouble, and leaving a tribe sitting in the middle of a highly populated state would be a terrible idea. Jackson's only reasonable choice, from his point of view, was relocation to the west of the Mississippi. Most of the Trail of Tears was carried out under Van Buren's administration, and it wasn't a failure on Jackson's fault to secure funding, it was a failure on Van Buren's fault to get the money to the Indians. Jackson certainly caused quite a bit of suffering on his own, but it wasn't because he was genocidal. It was because of the single-minded stubbornness we all know and love about Andrew Jackson.

Jackson may have caused much of the suffering of the Trail of Tears, but it was not out of racism. If you believe Jackson hated Indians, read about the Seminole War. You'll see.

[Playergamer]

No, my hatred of Jackson comes from the fact that he violated the entire point of the Constitution by disobeying the Supreme Court.

When did he do this?

[mainiac]

If Jackson had done nothing, the Georgians would've eventually divided up all the Cherokee lands and kicked them out.

That's a pretty big assumption considering that most of the country was against Georgia doing that and the Supreme Court had ruled that the Cherokee had the right to the land.  The Cherokee weren't some stereotypical nomads who could be tricked out of their land for beads and firewater.  They had emulated American customs, built towns, practiced contemporary farming practices, had written laws and contracts and even lawyers.  The only way that Georgia could have done it was the way the federal army did, at the point of a bayonet.  The resources of the Federal government could cow the Cherokee into submission but Georgia did not have those resources and it would have been very illegal for them to try in the first place.

Plus, the British had a history of paying Indian tribes to cause trouble, and leaving a tribe sitting in the middle of a highly populated state would be a terrible idea.

Well it's a good thing that the troubles with the British were long since settled at that point and the Cherokee were in the most isolated corner of the state, separated by rivers and mountains.

No, my hatred of Jackson comes from the fact that he violated the entire point of the Constitution by disobeying the Supreme Court.

When did he do this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

The strange thing about it is that this is one of the most shameful acts in American history, cited as why the US shouldn't claim the moral highground.  But the US didn't do it, Jackson did it in clear violation of American law, while bragging about the fact that American law couldn't stop him.

[Playergamer]

Oh. Worcester.

Yeah. You realize that page you linked literally says, quote:

Worcester imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.

[penguinofhonor]

This page I found has a section called "Scapegoating Jackson" that seems eerily relevant:

Many point the finger at President Andrew Jackson. After Marshall read the Court's ruling, Jackson is reputed to have said, "Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."20 Some question the authenticity of the remark—but for many the comment seems consistent with Jackson's persona and his Indian policies. Throughout this legal battle, Jackson supported Georgia's attempts to assert state authority over the Cherokee people. And over the course of his presidency, Jackson's administration oversaw the removal of more than 45,000 Indians living in the southeastern United States. Apparently Jackson was no friend of the Indian; it is believable that he would dismiss Marshall's decision.

But pointing the finger at Jackson alone serves American storytellers in other ways. His alleged disregard for a court ruling provides us with a scapegoat for the failure of American justice. According to this version, the law did its part, as did the court system responsible for preserving its impartial defense and application. But an Indian-hating, law-disrespecting president did not; he thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court, and he showed contempt for the law. The law did not fail—more broadly, America did not fail—but instead the nation's high-minded principles were subverted by a tyrannical president.

Of course, the reality was more complex; history rarely follows the black and white plotlines of a simple story. The fact of the matter is that the president had a great deal of law on his side—more than could be overcome by one single court decision. And when the time came to take additional legal action, the Cherokees' supporters had other priorities. In many ways, Andrew Jackson was an enemy of the Cherokees, but in the final analysis, they were condemned to the Trail of Tears by their friends, not by their enemies.

Even if his involvement is exaggerated, he sided with the people doing the genociding.

[mainiac]

The court ruled that the states were sovereign, which implicitly made the Indian Removal Act unconstitutional.  Jackson then proceeded to order Federal troops in despite lacking any authorization.  That was clearly constitutional.  The modern practice of courts ordering the enforcement of their decisions and issuing arrest warrants for people found in contempt wasn't established yet.  The court just established the law and expected it to be obeyed.  That didn't make Jackson's actions legal, it just meant that the US didn't have enforcement mechanisms for public officials ignoring the law yet.

[Frumple]

... PG, did you really just say that active genocide was the better course of action than either inactive genocide or, y'know, stopping it from happening? It would have pissed off georgia and maybe distabilized the union, so killing thousands, overseeing one of the greater atrocities in american history was... okay? Somehow excusable? 'Cause it kinda' read like that, and if that wasn't the intent, maybe make it a little more clear that nothing you were saying in any way paints jackson in a better light.

Regardless, the cause for it is pretty irrelevant. Jackson being a racist or not is a complete non-issue. The fact of the matter is that he aided in what he aided, and that is pretty impeccably abhorrent.

[Sheb]

What? No the Court rules the federal government was the only government that could deal with indians tribes.

[Frumple]

... the only what? As... as near as I can tell, abilitated isn't english. So... not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

[scriver]

Ability - abilitate - abilitated

Like in debilitate.

[Frumple]

... except abilitate either doesn't work or isn't used. It's... not a word. Seriously, go definition hunting, the thing's not showing up. Conceptually it should follow like that, but it doesn't. Maybe it's archaic as all hell? I'unno.

[Playergamer]

here you go

[Frumple]

I guess? That doesn't even follow from ability, though... nor does anyone actually use the word. Sheb changed it anyway, so whatev'.