... 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.
What's inactive genocide? Genocide seems to be a pretty active endeavour
Genocide through neglect and lack of public services as opposed to bullets and gas chambers.
For instance, failing to provide food and shelter for a population in your jurisdiction, especially if you're providing food and shelter to other populations in your jurisdiction. You didn't KILL them per se, but you definitely contributed to their deaths.
Or, in the case Frumple is talking about, standing by and doing nothing while mobs do the dirty work for you. Some in Turkey have argued that the Armenian genocide was was like this -- local mob violence against the Armenian population rather than an organized campaign. But the Ottomans didn't exactly jump to intervene either.