# 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:** 11\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/101 "2006-02-11T05:48:37Z")
> [@EEMan](#): > > You do know that they both had their issues as well? I know that one was a socialist and the other an adulterer, if that is what you are talking about. Those “sins” don’t put one beyond the pale. Bernie Sanders and Bill Clinton remain popular figures. ---
**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 11, 2006, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/102 "2006-02-11T13:47:56Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > People can see history differently. The Watie clan (including Buck) favored removal because they had already moved themselves and their slaves. They did not die for any just cause; they were executed for treason (or betrayal, as the tribe would have said). They were seen as such traitors that their assassination was ordered. Only Stand Watie survived. And even he could not resist one last act of treason, siding against the eastern Cherokee in the War of Northern Aggression. That’s not true. The treaty of New Echota was signed in December of 1835. The Waties moved west in 1837. So, at the time the Waties backed removal and signed the treaty, they were still in Georgia. And I don’t know how Stand Watie sided against the eastern Cherokee in the Civil War. Watie commanded, first the Cherokee Mounted Rifles and then the First Indian Cavalry Brigade (and was the only Indian to become a Confederate General). Meanwhile, the Cherokee in the east were also pro-Confederate, and fought in the 69th North Carolina (Thomas’ Legion of Cherokee and Highlanders). So, I can’t see how Watie “sided against the eastern Cherokee”. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/103 "2006-02-11T16:12:13Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > That’s not true. The treaty of New Echota was signed in December of 1835. The Waties moved west in 1837. So, at the time the Waties backed removal and signed the treaty, they were still in Georgia. > > And I don’t know how Stand Watie sided against the eastern Cherokee in the Civil War. Watie commanded, first the Cherokee Mounted Rifles and then the First Indian Cavalry Brigade (and was the only Indian to become a Confederate General). > > Meanwhile, the Cherokee in the east were also pro-Confederate, and fought in the 69th North Carolina (Thomas’ Legion of Cherokee and Highlanders). So, I can’t see how Watie “sided against the eastern Cherokee”. I didn’t say they moved before signing. We’ve all been talking about the two-year period of tension between the Indian Hater’s desecration of the Supreme Court and the movement of troops by his puppet president. The Waties favored removal _even when they understood the hardship that it would bring to the dislocated families_. He didn’t escape execution until 1839. With respect to his being a Confederate general, Benedict Arnold was an American general. Even from reading only white history, you should be suspicious of how an Indian became a general in the first place. It certainly wasn’t by standing up for Indian rights to hold land with gold on it. He did the same thing with the Confederates that he did with the Union — played both sides against the middle for purposes of his own gain. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/104 "2006-02-11T17:15:35Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > [Stand Watie] did the same thing with the Confederates that he did with the Union — played both sides against the middle for purposes of his own gain. And John Ross wasn’t playing for _his_ own gain? He had grown rich on treaty payments. Whom do you suppose he envisioned as bursar for the federal money he wanted for Cherokee lands? In my view, Ross sacrificed his people to his own greed and pride. He knew Jackson was intransigent on the removal issue. He should have known removal was an inevitability. Instead of shepherding his people through the process once this became apparent, he led them into a collective state of denial. Ross has to bear some responsibility for the lack of preparation and the resulting horrors. (That is not to excuse Jackson for the removal or Van Buren and his underlings for the bureaucratic bungling of the job.) ---
**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 11, 2006, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/105 "2006-02-11T20:26:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I didn’t say they moved before signing. We’ve all been talking about the two-year period of tension between the Indian Hater’s desecration of the Supreme Court and the movement of troops by his puppet president. The Waties favored removal _even when they understood the hardship that it would bring to the dislocated families_. He didn’t escape execution until 1839. The Waties favored removal, (before and after the signing of the treaty) at least in part, because they figured that if the Cherokee stayed, the US Government would wipe them out. > [@](#): > > With respect to his being a Confederate general, Benedict Arnold was an American general. Even from reading only white history, you should be suspicious of how an Indian became a general in the first place. It certainly wasn’t by standing up for Indian rights to hold land with gold on it. He did the same thing with the Confederates that he did with the Union — played both sides against the middle for purposes of his own gain. Do you have any evidence that Watie wasn’t sincere about his loyalty to the Confederacy? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/106 "2006-02-11T21:20:54Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > And John Ross wasn’t playing for _his_ own gain? He had grown rich on treaty payments. Whom do you suppose he envisioned as bursar for the federal money he wanted for Cherokee lands? > > In my view, Ross sacrificed his people to his own greed and pride. He knew Jackson was intransigent on the removal issue. He should have known removal was an inevitability. Instead of shepherding his people through the process once this became apparent, he led them into a collective state of denial. Ross has to bear some responsibility for the lack of preparation and the resulting horrors. You’re entitled to your view. Mine was formed as I already explained from the sources I enumerated. I don’t know what history you’ve read, but if you have not read the Indian side, then I submit that your view is one-sided. Ross went to Washington to negotiate with the Indian Hater. He went in good faith. He was treated like a throw rug while he was there. I’ve given references. Feel free to read them. > [@](#): > > (That is not to excuse Jackson for the removal or Van Buren and his underlings for the bureaucratic bungling of the job.) I appreciate your saying that, and I do understand that no reasonable human being could possibly excuse or trivialize what they did. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/107 "2006-02-11T21:22:34Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > The Waties favored removal, (before and after the signing of the treaty) at least in part, because they figured that if the Cherokee stayed, the US Government would wipe them out. Cowardice was just another form of treason for the people he betrayed. To understand how the Indians thought, you must think like an Indian. > [@](#): > > Do you have any evidence that Watie wasn’t sincere about his loyalty to the Confederacy? Loyalty to the _Confederacy_? I will gladly stipulate loyalty to the Confederacy. It is, after all, the point I’ve been making. He was to be executed because his loyalty was misplaced. ---
**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 12, 2006, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/108 "2006-02-12T01:21:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Cowardice was just another form of treason for the people he betrayed. To understand how the Indians thought, you must think like an Indian. Well, you know, I can’t. I can’t think like a Cherokee born 200 years ago, so I have to conceed the argument. Andrew Jackson was the worst man who ever lived. Really. And there was no man ever who hated Indians more than him. Everyone else in the US loved the Cherokee, except for Andrew Jackson, who singlehandedly moved them to Oklahoma. And nothing else he ever did, or said, or thought, was any good or motivated by anything other than base and simple hatred. As for the Cherokee, every single one of them were wonderful people motivated by nothing other than the greater good, except for the members of the Treaty Party. Every member of the Treaty Party was a coward who never did anything good for the Cherokee or cared for the Cherokee at all. ---
**Author:** ![\_Ava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/43a26b/32.png) [@\_Ava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_Ava)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/109 "2006-02-12T04:08:04Z")
I’ve decided that we should wipe out references to all male historical figures who failed to support equal rights for women. I admit that I’ll be sorry to lose my beloved Churchill, but it will be a relief to expunge all my history books. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2006, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/110 "2006-02-12T13:21:01Z")
> [@Captain Amazing](#): > > Well, you know, I can’t. I can’t think like a Cherokee born 200 years ago, so I have to conceed the argument. Andrew Jackson was the worst man who ever lived. Really. And there was no man ever who hated Indians more than him. Everyone else in the US loved the Cherokee, except for Andrew Jackson, who singlehandedly moved them to Oklahoma. And nothing else he ever did, or said, or thought, was any good or motivated by anything other than base and simple hatred. > > As for the Cherokee, every single one of them were wonderful people motivated by nothing other than the greater good, except for the members of the Treaty Party. Every member of the Treaty Party was a coward who never did anything good for the Cherokee or cared for the Cherokee at all. Very good, then. See that you keep your wits about you in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439/111 "2006-02-16T19:08:07Z")
Wow! Quite a discussion. I think the OP has been answered - at the time the design of those bills was approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, Jackson and Grant were both popular and admired late statesmen. I tend to think it was for their military achievements and not their impact on U.S. banking, but that’s just me. There are certainly others who might now be so honored: my own nominees would be Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman. MLK, FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt could also be good on currency. I’m with **Bup** and **Martin Hyde** in their defense of George Washington. Far more than Jefferson (sorry, **RickJay** ), Washington was responsible for the establishment of the nation we have today: as commanding general through eight years of hard war; as president of the Constitutional Convention; and as the first president, holding the country when both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed that only he could do it. **2sense** , I’m glad you reconsidered your view of Washington’s policy towards Indians. Washington was relatively liberal for his day in his view of Indians, with whom he’d lived and traveled as a young man. He did wage war against some tribes during the Revolution, of course, if they supported the British cause. See Joseph J. Ellis’s _His Excellency_ for some good insights into Washington’s progressive policies with regards to Indians, esp. as President. Washington wasn’t perfect; no one is. I suggest that we ought to seek a clear-eyed view of heroes of the past, acknowledging their faults while also celebrating their achievements. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jackson-and-grant-on-u-s-money/342439.md?page=5)