# Jackson and Grant on U.S. Money. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2006, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439 "2006-02-01T00:19:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/61 "2006-02-07T21:41:44Z")
I disagree. IMHO, without Jackson and jacksonian belief in popular democracy, we wouldn’t have had the same push for mass democracy, women’s vote, and black rights we have today. Jackson embodied the principle that every man was equal, on a scale that even the founding fathers hadn’t admitted. And if it was only white men at the time, so what? I think that had he been able to see America all through, he would not be wholly displeased at our course. It is true that Jackson pressured the Cherokee into accepting land exchage, but it was out of no hatred or racism on his part. Indeed, Jackson’s Indian removal policies were founded on a hatred of Britain! And persistent (and not wholly unjustified) fears that they were using Indians to hinder America. And of course, it was _Van Buren_ who forcibly removed them. Jackson seems to have made no moves to do so. Other issues positive and negative exist but are minor: Accusations that he put in place the spoils system are partly true, but I wouldn’t over-exaggerate them. Patronage is and was a common form of political assembly, and Jackson most cerainly did not create it. On the bank issue he was probably right on the law. Though it slowed the rate of American growth, killing the bank in that form was probably a good thing in the long term. His defense of Federalism was extremely important: while often overlooked, it gave notice to the South that it could not flout the federal government’s laws without repercussions. Indeed, the various compromises afterward only increased tensions; had future Presidents followed his example, the Civil War might have been averted. Although often overlooked by historians, I think contemporary Presidents would do well to emulate his veto of the Maysville Road bill. Although his most famous battle was New Orleans, after the War of 1812 ended, his valorous and expert command was probably a major factor in preventing a true British victory. He did engage in a campaign against the Seminole Indians, but as they were acting as pawns of the Spanish and British, we can hardly blame him or President Monroe (who was also important in this period, but not quite as great). His methods, harsh though they were, were neither unusually harsh nor considered evil in his day. We would still be using them if we had to; our greater concern for human life is a product of our ability. Moreover, Jackson can hardly be called unfair. He captured and executed two British agents for their role in the guerrilla war. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/62 "2006-02-07T21:52:05Z")
> [@](#): > > by **wikipedia** > Broadly, Jacksonian democracy, in contrast to the Jeffersonian era, promoted the strength of the executive branch and the Presidency at the expense of Congressional power I would argue this is rather biased. Jackson was certainly no shrinking violent, but he was not a blind grabber of power. He avoided or weakened government authority even at his own expense. I also agree with the jacksonian “patronage.” It is not excessive, and included primarily administrative posts, which I would argue naturally shoudl be held by political appointees. It is true that the tempo swung too far back the other way, hence the Pendleton Act 50 years later. > [@](#): > > In national terms the Jacksonians favored geographical expansion, sometimes justifying it in terms of Manifest Destiny. Good thing. It should have been handled more by assimilation and more peacefully, but I think that expanding America was a very good thing, both for America and for the world. > [@](#): > > There was usually a consensus among both Jacksonians and Whigs that battles over slavery should be avoided. The Jacksonian Era lasted roughly from Jackson’s election until the slavery issue became dominant after 1850 and the American Civil War dramatically reshaped 19th Century American politics. Many people are probably going to take this the wrong way, but I agree with the Jacksonians here. At that time, slavery was not seen as the “positive good” as proslavery activists later proclaimed. It was, in fact, somewhat \*embarrassing \* for many Southerners, and at that time the North can hardly be said to have cared much either way. Thus, those who opposed slavery had no reason to worry overmuch about it; many thought it would slowly vanish (ironically, the cotton economy was just then exploding and giving slavery a new lease on life). Thus, though they were wrong because of what happened later, it was not immmoral of them to avoid internal tensions in the interest of maintaining the security and unity of a fragile new nation. They had every reason to believe the very question was irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/63 "2006-02-07T21:55:45Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > He did engage in a campaign against the Seminole Indians, but as they were acting as pawns of the Spanish and British, we can hardly blame him or President Monroe (who was also important in this period, but not quite as great). His methods, harsh though they were, were neither unusually harsh nor considered evil in his day. We would still be using them if we had to; our greater concern for human life is a product of our ability. Moreover, Jackson can hardly be called unfair. He captured and executed two British agents for their role in the guerrilla war. :dubious: Yes, I’m familiar with that story. The British agents might have been arming the Seminoles – but they were not Americans and not on American soil, and the Americans were there illegally. You are praising Jackson for a war crime. He should have been shot. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/64 "2006-02-07T22:06:37Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: Yes, I’m familiar with that story. The British agents might have been arming the Seminoles – but they were not Americans and not on American soil, and the Americans were there illegally. You are praising Jackson for a war crime. He should have been shot. “War crime” is kind of a dubious concept at that point, it being before modern rules of war. And it’s not like we didn’t have a casus belli for attacking the Seminoles…they were attacking American citizens, and sheltering escaped slaves. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/65 "2006-02-07T22:12:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Good question. The notes are issued by the Federal Reserve ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_Reserve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve)), which is technically at least quasi-independent of the government. Nevertheless, as far as design goes, an act of Congress probably would trump any decision of the Fed Board of Governors. Actually, the Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for the [design](http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/118), so the Act of Congress would have to trump him, not the Fed BoG. > [@](#): > > Selection of Portraits and Designs Appearing on Paper Currency > > The Secretary of the Treasury is responsible for the selection of the designs, including the portraits, which appear on paper currency. The July 11, 1862 Act of Congress provided: > > “That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby authorized, in case he shall think it expedient to procure said notes, or any part thereof, to be engraved, printed, and executed, in such form as he shall prescribe, at the Treasury Department in Washington, and under his direction; and he is hereby empowered to purchase and provide all machinery and materials, and to employ such persons and appoint such officers as may be necessary for this purpose.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/66 "2006-02-07T22:44:24Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > First of all, while Jackson wasn’t the most attractive president in the world, his face wasn’t “horrible”. It was horrible not because it was not comely, but because it was his. His face was horrible. His name was horrible. His legacy was horrible. His existence was horrible. His essence is horrible. > [@](#): > > Second, he wasn’t a monster. All terrorists are monsters, and he is no exception. > [@](#): > > Third, his palls weren’t “tycoons”. Then you were mistaken when you said, “Bankers and economists at the time thought Jackson was good for American banking.” > [@](#): > > Fourth, he wasn’t placed on the federal currency until about 20 years after his death. And so? > [@](#): > > Fifth, if you’re going to condemn every American president who fucked with the Indians or whose administrations took their land, then you’re basically condemning every president of the 18th and 19th century, and not only Jackson needs to be taken off our currency, but Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Grant too. And Jackson doesn’t even have the worst attitude of the presidents about Indians. His original plan was to grant the Cherokee citizenship. Holy cow. Fucked with the Indians? He fucked with the Indians like Hitler fucked with the Jews. Like Stalin fucked with the peasants. Like Mao fucked with the artists. Like the Ku Klux Klan fucked with the targets of its lynchings. Your summary dismissal of his crimes against humanity along with your ignorance of his motives with respect to the Cherokee are simply astonishing in their sheer cavalierness and naivity. Chief Ross specifically asked for recognition of citizenship for Cherokee people by the State of Georgia and the United States, and was turned down. As was his request for fair payment for the land being seized. He asked for $4.34 an acre while nearby land sold for $18.00 an acre and more. See [Our Georgia History](http://www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/indians/cherokee/trail_of_tears.html), by Randy Golden. > [@](#): > > Sixth, Jackson isn’t the only one responsible for the Trail of Tears. Blame Van Buren too…it was his administration that actually removed the Cherokee. Blame the governor of Georgia…it was the Georgians pushing for Cherokee removal that made it happen. Blame Major Ridge and the Treaty Party…they were the ones who actually signed the treaty. Blame John Ross. He was the one who didn’t do anything in the two years between the signature of the treaty and the removal to prepare for the removal he knew was coming. If you’re going to be assigning blame for the events of the Trail of Tears, there’s plenty to go around, without blowing Jackson out of proportion as some sort of supervillian who singlehandedly, out of pure hatred, killed every Cherokee he saw. The volume of ignorance in your last paragraph is astounding. The Treaty Party supplied 79 signatures. Seventy-fucking-nine signatures. The Indian Hater chose to recognize them precisely because the Cherokee nation disowned them and stayed away from the vote en masse in protest. Meanwhile, thousands of signatures were affixed to prostest petitions which he ignored. Van Buren was his lap dog who merely acted out his vision. Ross’s activities during the two years (and well before) were non-stop in their effort to slow down the juggernaut of eventual mass murder that Jackson pushed forward. As Remini (op. cit.) wrote: > [@](#): > > Although it has been pointed out many times that he was no longer President of the United States when the Trail of Tears occurred and had never intended such a monstrous result of his policy, that hardly excuses him. It was his insistence on the speedy removal of the Cherokees, even after he had left office, that brought about this horror. From his home outside Nashville he regularly badgered Van Buren about enforcing the treaty. He had become obsessed about removal. He warned that Ross would exert every effort and means available to him to get the treaty rescinded or delayed and that, he said, must be blocked. But the new President assured him that nothing would interfere with the exodus of the Cherokees and that no extension of the two-year grace period would be tolerated under any circumstance. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2006, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/67 "2006-02-07T23:26:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Then you were mistaken when you said, “Bankers and economists at the time thought Jackson was good for American banking.” “At the time” means at the time Jackson was put on the currency, not at the time Jackson made his policies. > [@](#): > > And so? See above. > [@](#): > > Holy cow. Fucked with the Indians? He fucked with the Indians like Hitler fucked with the Jews. Like Stalin fucked with the peasants. Like Mao fucked with the artists. Like the Ku Klux Klan fucked with the targets of its lynchings. Your summary dismissal of his crimes against humanity along with your ignorance of his motives with respect to the Cherokee are simply astonishing in their sheer cavalierness and naivity. Chief Ross specifically asked for recognition of citizenship for Cherokee people by the State of Georgia and the United States, and was turned down. As was his request for fair payment for the land being seized. He asked for $4.34 an acre while nearby land sold for $18.00 an acre and more. See [Our Georgia History](http://www.ourgeorgiahistory.com/indians/cherokee/trail_of_tears.html), by Randy Golden. Then blame Congress and the state of Georgia for not agreeing to Ross’s plan. > [@](#): > > The volume of ignorance in your last paragraph is astounding. The Treaty Party supplied 79 signatures. Seventy-fucking-nine signatures. The Indian Hater chose to recognize them precisely because the Cherokee nation disowned them and stayed away from the vote en masse in protest. Meanwhile, thousands of signatures were affixed to prostest petitions which he ignored. Van Buren was his lap dog who merely acted out his vision. Ross’s activities during the two years (and well before) were non-stop in their effort to slow down the juggernaut of eventual mass murder that Jackson pushed forward. Then criticize those 79 people (I believe it was actually around 200 who attended the meating). And for that matter, criticize all the Cherokee who stayed away from the vote in protest. And if Van Buren was Jackson’s “lap dog”, that was Van Buren’s choice, wasn’t it? You can’t say “Oh, he’s blameless because he was just doing what Jackson wanted.” He made the choice to do that. Ross’s activities in the two years helped create the “juggernaut of eventual mass murder.” Once the treaty was signed, and probably before it, the removal of the Cherokee was pretty much inevitable. But instead of getting ready for the removal…instead of organizing the safe migration of the Cherokee to the West, he tried to stop the removal by appealing to US public opinion. But that was futile, because US public opinion by and large supported Cherokee removal. I’m not saying his stance wasn’t justifiable, but it was ultimately the wrong choice. Most of the deaths happened from illness when the Cherokee were in military confinement, and the military confinement happened because the Cherokee leadership didn’t organize the beginnings of the removal itself. The parties that had started for Oklahoma during the two year gap, like the Ridge party, had much lower casualties. I’m not defending the Trail of Tears here, and I’m not even defending Jackson’s actions, but to call it “mass murder” is unfair. Jackson didn’t want to exterminate the Cherokee…don’t you think he would have if he had wanted to? The deaths that took place during the relocation were due to neglect and poor planning, not deliberate murder. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/68 "2006-02-08T13:07:03Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > “War crime” is kind of a dubious concept at that point, it being before modern rules of war. I’m fairly certain there were “rules of war” even in 1817-18. ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/69 "2006-02-08T15:16:57Z")
What a twisted web propganda is… The trail of tears was one of the worst episodes in US/Native interaction… there are a few others of the same level, but they are not as familiar to us… BUT… It did NOT occur under Jackson’s watch… and even under Van Buren, he said to remove them… to move them… or to relocate them… not kill them Comparing the trail of tears to ANYTHING would be more fair to the Batan Death March… NOT Hitler, nor Stallin, nor Mao… 4,000 is a LARGE number, and a terrible loss… but does not come to the level of the Millions that each of those are responsible for… it was also more about moving them, than killing them (just as the Batan Death March was)… Those who then argue about how terrible Jackson was, then comparing him to Regan… WTF? If you want to color history with your own political agenda… go for it… but if you are speaking historically… let’s keep things seperate… shall we? Jackson wanted to REMOVE the electorial colleage (something I’ve been hearing a lot of people want these days as well)… Jackson believe the people should rule the nation, not a select few… Jackson was NOT beholden to ANYONE… that is one of the most amazing things about him… he worked hard at his OWN agendas… that is for sure… but his ‘buddies’ were certainly NOT Tycoons… that is simply modern propganda… HE DID have a TERRIBLE policy when it came to the ‘indian issue’ (as it was called at the time), but most of the WORST aspects came after him… was he a friend to the ‘red man’ … no… was he as bad as some people here would like to make him? No… As far as … ‘lap dogs’ go… ALL presidents attempt to pick their sucessors… and they try to pick those with similiar views (or at very least the same party lines)… that does NOT make one President the lap dog of another… Van Buren had his OWN issues… and you will notice… he did NOT make it to a bill ---
**Author:** ![EEMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a6a055/32.png) [@EEMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EEMan)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/70 "2006-02-08T15:19:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I’m fairly certain there were “rules of war” even in 1817-18. Nope… there were the traditions of war… 1864 was the first Geneva convention… and the first internationally recognized set of laws for war ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/71 "2006-02-08T21:47:22Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > HE DID have a TERRIBLE policy when it came to the ‘indian issue’ (as it was called at the time), but most of the WORST aspects came after him… was he a friend to the ‘red man’ … no… was he as bad as some people here would like to make him? No… Just how friggin’ bad does somebody have to be to tilt your meter? It was the Indian Hater’s obsession and his Indian Removal Act that were responsible for the Trail of Tears. You can’t start a landslide, and then wander off whistling Dixie as though you had nothing to do with the lost lives at the foot of the mountain. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/72 "2006-02-08T21:52:12Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > Nope… there were the traditions of war… 1864 was the first Geneva convention… and the first internationally recognized set of laws for war “Rules of war” is a perfectly apt phrase to apply to conventions as ancient as the fourth century BC. [See this source.](http://books.google.com/books?id=KNQtB_VHoYEC&dq=ancient+rules+of+war&oi=print&pg=PA24&sig=AltwA8H1U1_dyCSD0wpq-HdpnME&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dancient%2Brules%2Bof%2Bwar) ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/73 "2006-02-08T22:11:57Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > I disagree. IMHO, without Jackson and jacksonian belief in popular democracy, we wouldn’t have had the same push for mass democracy, women’s vote, and black rights we have today. Are you actually giving Jackson credit for women’s and blacks’ suffrage? Wow. I’m sure he had no idea things were going to go that way and wouldn’t have supported it if he did… he wanted white men to have the vote regardless of their economic status. I’ll give you that. The rest is an unintended consequence whose connection to Jackson is dubious. > [@](#): > > Jackson embodied the principle that every man was equal, on a scale that even the founding fathers hadn’t admitted. And if it was only white men at the time, so what? I think that had he been able to see America all through, he would not be wholly displeased at our course. So what? All men are created equal if they’re _white_. The Cherokee nation, despite treaties and SCOTUS backing, were not treated as equals whose rights and lives were protected by law. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) that the Cherokees were a “domestic dependent nation” under the protection of the United States. [In Worcester v. Georgia,](http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2722) the Supreme Court declared that Georgia had violated the Cherokee Nation’s sovereign status and wrongfully intruded into its special treaty relationship with the United States. Jackson refused to enforce the decision (“John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can” was Jackson’s response, and a more revolting attitude towards the separation of powers and the role of the executive branch couldn’t be formulated IMO) and continued to pressure the Cherokees to move west. > [@](#): > > it was _Van Buren_ who forcibly removed them. Jackson seems to have made no moves to do so. Van Buren isn’t on my $20. If he were, I’d be saying something about that too. Let’s not be disingenuous here. Indian removal was one of Jackson’s big goals for his presidency. He wanted them gone. No, he was not the first or only American president who coveted that land for white folks, but he definitely got the lead out on this policy. Also, I consider the illegal signing and ratification of the Treaty of New Echota in 1834 to be a “move towards” Indian removal during the Jackson administration. The fact that the Army didn’t go in until 2 years later doesn’t exhonerate Jackson from his role in it. > [@](#): > > Although his most famous battle was New Orleans, after the War of 1812 ended, his valorous and expert command was probably a major factor in preventing a true British victory. His fantastic military exploits are neither here nor there in defending Jackson against charges of monstrous misconduct WRT Indian removal. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/74 "2006-02-09T15:19:40Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > BUT… It did NOT occur under Jackson’s watch… and even under Van Buren, he said to remove them… to move them… or to relocate them… not kill them For an arsonist that sets fire to a house–an act that leads to the death of whomever is inside–would you pardon him for manslaughter? Afterall, the arsonist only wanted to burn down the house…not kill anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/75 "2006-02-09T16:48:45Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Are you actually giving Jackson credit for women’s and blacks’ suffrage? Wow. I’m sure he had no idea things were going to go that way and wouldn’t have supported it if he did… he wanted white men to have the vote regardless of their economic status. And Indian men, potentially. Cherokee families had the option of accepting citizenship and 160 acres of land per household in the east in lieu of removing to the west. Admittedly a paltry amount of land considering what they were giving up, but they did have the option of citizenship. > [@](#): > > Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) that the Cherokees were a “domestic dependent nation” under the protection of the United States. [In Worcester v. Georgia,](http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2722) the Supreme Court declared that Georgia had violated the Cherokee Nation’s sovereign status and wrongfully intruded into its special treaty relationship with the United States. Jackson refused to enforce the decision (“John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can” was Jackson’s response, and a more revolting attitude towards the separation of powers and the role of the executive branch couldn’t be formulated IMO) and continued to pressure the Cherokees to move west. I think Jackson’s quote is taken out of context. In my view it was made out of frustration at the naivete of Marshall’s decision. Marshall expected the US to “protect” the Cherokee. Sounds good, but the Cherokee were some 18,000 souls attempting to occupy a territory the size of New Jersey. Their sparsely-populated lands were being overrun with white squatters and the US simply did not have the large standing army that would have been required to keep them out. Jackson had tried that before, back in 1820. As general, he had posted this notice along the Cherokee frontier: > [@](#): > > Intruders on the cherokee lands beware, I am required to remove all whitemen found tresspassing on the cherokee land not having a written permit from the agent Colo R J Meigs, this duty I am about to perform – The Regulars & Indian lighthorse will be employed in performing service, and any opposition will be promptly punished. All whitemen with their stock found tresspassing on the Indian land will be arrested, and handed over to the civil authority of the United States to be dealt with as the law directs, their familieds removed to United States land, there crops, houses and fences destroyed…Andrew Jackson, Mjor Genl comdg Division of the South He followed up on this by actually undertaking eviction of squatters: > [@](#): > > When white intruders squatted on Indian land, they frequently made “large improvements” and sometimes banded together to defend “their property” when troops appeared. Or they fled only to reappear and reclaim “their property” when the troops departed. It was a difficult job, but Jackson was determined to honor the commitments he had made, even though several officers complained of the burden that had been placed on them. “I fear General,” wrote General Richard Keith Call, “it will be extremely inconvenient for the regular Troops under my command to march in to the Creek Country after performing their duties in the Cherokee Nation. Their services will be required at all points.” It was virtually an impossible job, he said. > > Robert V. Remini [Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars](http://www.ashbrook.org/books/0670910252.html) Jackson expressed his own frustration at the difficulty of the task in correspondence with Secretary of War John Calhoun: > [@](#): > > “Three times I had the stock of intruders driven from the Cherokee land,” he said, “their houses and improvements destroyed. But this availed nothing; the troops would no sooner leave the country, than the intruders would return.” By this time Jackson had become convinced that using force and threats to keep intruders out permanently was a hopeless task. It was like trying to rid a house of termites or other destructive pests, he said. The only answer, as far as he was concerned, was removal of the tribes. > > (as reported by Remini in his book cited above) I think Jackson’s experience in this regard gave him a practical view of the problem that Marshall lacked. Marshall’s decision may have been morally and legally correct, but he might as well have been ordering Jackson to post troops on the moon. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/76 "2006-02-09T18:46:31Z")
I’m no fan of Jackson but his crimes against Native Americans are no worse than those of George Washington. Washington also bears responsiblity for a genocidal war against Indian tribes though he didn’t personally command the Sullivan Expidition of 1779. He also, as president, advocated a policy of white expansion and Indian removal. I’ll see if I can dig up his advice to Congress on the matter. It’s quite chilling. The main differences between the 2 here would seem to be that Jackson was by far the superior general. Washington’s violent encounters with Indian warriors tended to reveal him as embarassingly inept. Which is why you don’t hear about them. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/77 "2006-02-09T20:05:35Z")
Upon further review, I’m afraid I was wrong about Washington’s Indian policy as president. I read over his annual addresses to Congress and his references to Native Americans do not espouse dispossessing them but rather with “civilizing” them and preventing border disturbances by discouraging attacks on them by whites. I’m not sure where I read that he recommended to Congress a policy for taking over Indian land on the cheap by avoiding war. I’m guessing it was when he was still General Washington. I’ll keep looking but in the meantime, given what I have learned about his overt presidential policy, I must withdraw my assertion that he was as guilty as Jackson. As for the idea that Jackson should be credited for expanding the franchise I find it difficult to credit. In my view, history most often bubbles up from the masses rather than trickles down from the elites. Though there are plenty of exceptions I don’t believe this is one. The expansion of the franchise is more likely a result of the hardening of the color line. Citizenship became more identified with “whiteness” throughout the early nineteenth century. Voting became one more difference between equal men ( whites ) and their inferiors ( blacks both free and slave ). This explains why universal white manhood sufferage was easier to acheive in the South with South Carolina, the state with the highest percentage of population in chains, being the first. For that reason I am doubtful that individual Cherokee would have been permitted to vote had they tried to remain behind when the tribe was removed. In the North blacks and Indians were losing the franchise even if they were freeholders. I suspect that the fate of Native individuals attempting to remain landowners in the Southeast would have been the same as “uppity” blacks could expect in the same area over the next century and a half no matter what the law said. The whip, the torch, and the noose. ---
**Author:** ![SmackFu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/53a042/32.png) [@SmackFu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmackFu)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/78 "2006-02-09T20:50:58Z")
> [@elmwood](#): > > I noticed that many countries put scientists, authors, poets, composers and artists on their currency, changing them every so often. Is a concept like that too wimpy for the United States? Einstein is on the $1000 Series I Savings Bond, which is sorta like money. The other ones in that series are [a carefully selected spectrum of minorities](http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sav/sbiwho.htm). ---
**Author:** ![\_Ava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/43a26b/32.png) [@\_Ava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Ava)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/79 "2006-02-10T05:35:52Z")
Um, maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t it the policy of every single early white prominent american to “remove” the indians? Yes, it’s horrible, but it happened, and no one’s hands were clean, so to disqualify an early american politician on that basis would leave who exactly? I’m weak on that particular period, but it seems that Jackson was wildly popular when he died and shortly thereafter. And weren’t the problems in Grant’s administration more because he had corrupt people working for him (or who married his beloved sister) than that he was personally corrupt? So he was basically an incredible war hero who wasn’t so good at the politics part of the job? I’ve read a lot about Grant and that’s the impression I got. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2006, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/80 "2006-02-10T07:05:57Z")
> [@\*Ava\*](#): > > Um, maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t it the policy of every single early white prominent american to “remove” the indians? Yes, it’s horrible, but it happened, and no one’s hands were clean, so to disqualify an early american politician on that basis would leave who exactly? Um, everyone who wasn’t an early American politician? Is this a trick question? There’s no derth of people without Indian blood on their hands. ## Your first question is interesting though. I am trying to think of a prominent early American who didn’t favor expansion into Indian territory. If I had to guess I would go with George Logan despite the deeds of his grandfather. Just my 2sense [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439.md?page=5)