PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Facts About Andrew Jackson



doublejm1
11-17-2013, 07:51 PM
Andrew Jackson ranks among the most controversial presidents of all time -- and he's surely one of my favorite to learn about. I came across this article that has a few "interesting facts" about Jackson:


Interesting Facts About Andrew Jackson (http://socyberty.com/history/interesting-facts-about-andrew-jackson-3/)


The article neglects to mention a few key issues that defined his presidency, including the South Carolina Nullification Crisis.


What else do you feel is missing?

The Sage of Main Street
11-18-2013, 05:57 PM
Andrew Jackson ranks among the most controversial presidents of all time -- and he's surely one of my favorite to learn about. I came across this article that has a few "interesting facts" about Jackson:


Interesting Facts About Andrew Jackson (http://socyberty.com/history/interesting-facts-about-andrew-jackson-3/)


The article neglects to mention a few key issues that defined his presidency, including the South Carolina Nullification Crisis.


What else do you feel is missing?

That he defied an order from the Supreme Court, a dictatorship that all of us should defy.

jillian
11-18-2013, 05:59 PM
Andrew Jackson ranks among the most controversial presidents of all time -- and he's surely one of my favorite to learn about. I came across this article that has a few "interesting facts" about Jackson:


Interesting Facts About Andrew Jackson (http://socyberty.com/history/interesting-facts-about-andrew-jackson-3/)


The article neglects to mention a few key issues that defined his presidency, including the South Carolina Nullification Crisis.


What else do you feel is missing?

it's a self-published site… there's no peer review. you don't know anything about it's accuracy.

jillian
11-18-2013, 06:01 PM
That he defied an order from the Supreme Court, a dictatorship that all of us should defy.


riiiiiiiiiiiight….

iustitia
11-27-2013, 04:53 PM
Andrew Jackson was controversial because he challenged the political establishment. He killed the bank, he threatened South Carolina, and he ignored the Supreme Court's activism. He supported slavery as a needed evil, though, and his sentiment towards Indians was never really a huge issue back then. He stood up to financial interests which makes him a hero in my book. Ironic he's on the $20.

The Sage of Main Street
11-27-2013, 04:57 PM
Andrew Jackson was controversial because he challenged the political establishment. He killed the bank, he threatened South Carolina, and he ignored the Supreme Court's activism. He supported slavery as a needed evil, though, and his sentiment towards Indians was never really a huge issue back then. He stood up to financial interests which makes him a hero in my book. Ironic he's on the $20.

He also got us Florida. If it weren't for AJ, the people in Miami would be speaking Spanish now.

Oops! Have we destroyed the legacy of the real Founding Fathers?

shaarona
11-27-2013, 05:11 PM
Andrew Jackson ranks among the most controversial presidents of all time -- and he's surely one of my favorite to learn about. I came across this article that has a few "interesting facts" about Jackson:


Interesting Facts About Andrew Jackson (http://socyberty.com/history/interesting-facts-about-andrew-jackson-3/)


The article neglects to mention a few key issues that defined his presidency, including the South Carolina Nullification Crisis.


What else do you feel is missing?

http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_020201.html

The Cherokee fought with Jackson at the (http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_020201.html) Battle of Horseshoe Bend.. Then when there were rumors of gold in NC and Georgia.. he drove them out in the Great Removal AKA the Trail of Tears.. defying the Supreme Court who ruled for the Indians.

Guerilla
11-27-2013, 05:21 PM
riiiiiiiiiiiight….

So you don't think checks and balances are important?

Wow. You are just the worst kind of statist.

Guerilla
11-27-2013, 05:24 PM
I respect Jacksons independence. His family dies when he was 14, and he made a life of his own. I admire his leadership too because even though he was tyrannical, I feel that it wasn't from corruption, but out of true concern.

Love that he defeated the bank.

He would be on my good side even with his tyranny, if it wasn't for his hate of natives.

iustitia
11-27-2013, 07:25 PM
It should be noted that there was a time in this country when defying the Supreme was an act of upholding the Constitution against the political interests that assumed judicial review powers. And not for nothing, Jackson wasn't in office during the Trail of Tears, Van Buren was. Jackson supported the Indian Removal Act because the conventional wisdom was that Indians and Whites would sooner exterminate eachother than culturally conform or coexist (despite several tribes taking on Anglo-American customs). There's also the matter of Georgia's government preparing to kill the Indians for the gold; it wasn't Jackson. And considering we didn't have a standing army of today's strength, the state militia could very well have overrun Jackson if he tried to defend Cherokee land. And that would also be ignoring that the Cherokee had agreed to an Indian Removal treaty to begin with so legally Jackson wasn't at fault anyway, or he wouldn't have been if he was in office when it happened.

Also he adopted an Indian he recovered after battle and raised him as him own. Jackson was justly cruel because of his time and place. This was a man who as a young teenager took a British sabre to the face, scarring his face and skull for life, because he refused to clean an officer's boots during the Revolution. He got the name Old Hickory because he was tough, not because he was a tyrant. And unlike today, the Democratic Party which he founded was dedicated to safeguarding the rights of the common man and expanding suffrage. Hardly a tyrant.

Peter1469
11-27-2013, 11:04 PM
http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_020201.html

The Cherokee fought with Jackson at the (http://www.allthingscherokee.com/articles_culture_events_020201.html) Battle of Horseshoe Bend.. Then when there were rumors of gold in NC and Georgia.. he drove them out in the Great Removal AKA the Trail of Tears.. defying the Supreme Court who ruled for the Indians.

Right, he said the Court has made its ruling, now let them enforce it.

shaarona
11-28-2013, 06:09 AM
Right, he said the Court has made its ruling, not let them enforce it.

As I recall, Jackson said.. The Supreme Court made the ruling, let them enforce it.



Early in the 19th century, while the rapidly-growing United States expanded into the lower South, white settlers faced what they considered an obstacle. This area was home to the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chicasaw and Seminole nations. These Indian nations, in the view of the settlers and many other white Americans, were standing in the way of progress. Eager for land to raise cotton, the settlers pressured the federal government to acquire Indian territory.

Andrew Jackson, from Tennessee, was a forceful proponent of Indian removal. In 1814 he commanded the U.S. military forces that defeated a faction of the Creek nation. In their defeat, the Creeks lost 22 million acres of land in southern Georgia and central Alabama. The U.S. acquired more land in 1818 when, spurred in part by the motivation to punish the Seminoles for their practice of harboring fugitive slaves, Jackson's troops invaded Spanish Florida.

From 1814 to 1824, Jackson was instrumental in negotiating nine out of eleven treaties which divested the southern tribes of their eastern lands in exchange for lands in the west. The tribes agreed to the treaties for strategic reasons. They wanted to appease the government in the hopes of retaining some of their land, and they wanted to protect themselves from white harassment. As a result of the treaties, the United States gained control over three-quarters of Alabama and Florida, as well as parts of Georgia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Kentucky and North Carolina. This was a period of voluntary Indian migration, however, and only a small number of Creeks, Cherokee and Choctaws actually moved to the new lands.

In 1823 the Supreme Court handed down a decision which stated that Indians could occupy lands within the United States, but could not hold title to those lands. This was because their "right of occupancy" was subordinate to the United States' "right of discovery." In response to the great threat this posed, the Creeks, Cherokee, and Chicasaw instituted policies of restricting land sales to the government. They wanted to protect what remained of their land before it was too late.

The Cherokee went to the Supreme Court again in 1831. This time they based their appeal on an 1830 Georgia law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory after March 31, 1831, without a license from the state. The state legislature had written this law to justify removing white missionaries who were helping the Indians resist removal. The court this time decided in favor of the Cherokee. It stated that the Cherokee had the right to self-government, and declared Georgia's extension of state law over them to be unconstitutional. The state of Georgia refused to abide by the Court decision, however, and President Jackson refused to enforce the law.

continued.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html

He pushed for the Removal and to give the President the power to do so.

iustitia
11-28-2013, 01:27 PM
The first part ignores that that the Creek war was actually part of the larger War of 1812. We didn't just decide out of nowhere to fight the Red Stick faction of the Creeks. Another thing they left out was Madison's authorizing Jackson to invade Florida because the British and Spanish were using the Seminoles as proxies to attack the US. Lastly I take issue with the last sentence claiming Jackson refused to enforce the law as they put it. It used to be understood that legislative bodies make laws, not courts. A court ruling is not a law. Jackson's refusal to submit to the Supreme Court was a constitutional stand against assumed powers that were created because of Marbury v Madison.

The Sage of Main Street
11-30-2013, 11:23 AM
I respect Jacksons independence. His family dies when he was 14, and he made a life of his own. I admire his leadership too because even though he was tyrannical, I feel that it wasn't from corruption, but out of true concern.

Love that he defeated the bank.

He would be on my good side even with his tyranny, if it wasn't for his hate of natives.

The Indians were a bloodthirsty, self-genocidal, and unproductive species of unevolved bandits who had come here as fugitives from their crimes in Asia.

The Sage of Main Street
11-30-2013, 11:37 AM
Lastly I take issue with the last sentence claiming Jackson refused to enforce the law as they put it. It used to be understood that legislative bodies make laws, not courts. A court ruling is not a law. Jackson's refusal to submit to the Supreme Court was a constitutional stand against assumed powers that were created because of Marbury v Madison.

Marbury v. Madison was a self-serving and illogical usurpation of legislative powers by the SCROTUS. The Court interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution.

The hater of democracy, John Marshall, was very snide about his coup. After granting the Court a veto power over legislation, the first thing he did was refuse to use that power in defense of Marbury, trying to trick the people into thinking he wasn't establishing a dictatorship. Jefferson didn't fall for that; he started impeaching and removing the Justices, which intimidated them (for awhile).

Paperback Writer
11-30-2013, 11:41 AM
The Indians were a bloodthirsty, self-genocidal, and unproductive species of unevolved bandits who had come here as fugitives from their crimes in Asia.

Ha-ha-ha you're pathetic. Fugitives from their crimes in Asia? You'll have to link for that. I'm curious to know where you got such unadulterated shite.

Codename Section
11-30-2013, 01:23 PM
I don't think the sun dance ceremony was that brutal, scalpings came from the French, and leaving the old behind is a common nomadic practice.

I'm sure 200 years from now partial birth abortion and hellfire missiles will be looked at the same way.

Mister D
11-30-2013, 04:08 PM
I don't think the sun dance ceremony was that brutal, scalpings came from the French, and leaving the old behind is a common nomadic practice.

I'm sure 200 years from now partial birth abortion and hellfire missiles will be looked at the same way.

Scalping was a native practice which long predated the arrival of Europeans. The archaeological/forensic evidence has put that debate to rest.

I agree. What will our ancestors consider a more barbaric and violent century: the 12th or the 20th?

roadmaster
11-30-2013, 09:03 PM
The Indians were a bloodthirsty, self-genocidal, and unproductive species of unevolved bandits who had come here as fugitives from their crimes in Asia. Not all tribes. If they hadn't have trusted the government the railroad would have had a hard time getting in. They were lied to with promises of land only to end up depending on the government and given smaller parts of land that they won't own.

The Sage of Main Street
12-01-2013, 05:23 PM
Not all tribes. If they hadn't have trusted the government the railroad would have had a hard time getting in. They were lied to with promises of land only to end up depending on the government and given smaller parts of land that they won't own.

Americans never broke any treaties with the Indians because all those treaties were made by the anti-majority government against the people's will. The people would sooner or later ignore the suicidal treaties, just like Old Hickory did.

roadmaster
12-01-2013, 05:55 PM
Americans never broke any treaties with the Indians because all those treaties were made by the anti-majority government against the people's will. The people would sooner or later ignore the suicidal treaties, just like Old Hickory did. The government did as I said.

Newpublius
12-01-2013, 09:26 PM
defying the Supreme Court who ruled for the Indians.

Against the State of Georgia....the actual case dealt with a Georgia statute that prohibited whites from being on Indian land. The Supreme Court said the state couldn't regulate that. Whole bunch of dicta in the case of course, but Jackson? What order did he defy exactly?

The Sage of Main Street
12-02-2013, 09:29 AM
The government did as I said.

That's the 1%'s government. It belongs to thieves and traitors, so we shouldn't give it any credibility. The rule of law is the law of the rulers.

The Sage of Main Street
12-02-2013, 09:33 AM
Against the State of Georgia....the actual case dealt with a Georgia statute that prohibited whites from being on Indian land. The Supreme Court said the state couldn't regulate that. Whole bunch of dicta in the case of course, but Jackson? What order did he defy exactly?

The SCROTUS can shove it. Quit trying to make Jackson a believer in judicial review.

Peter1469
12-02-2013, 10:16 AM
That's the 1%'s government. It belongs to thieves and traitors, so we shouldn't give it any credibility. The rule of law is the law of the rulers.

Actually that is the law of man.