Yes I understand you believe that, but you are completely incorrect on that point. Thats like saying Hitler had nothing to do with Auschwitz because he didn’t run the camp personally. It’s silly, and you have had it explained to you enough times that you should have gotten it by now.
No, it’s like saying Bismark had nothing to do with Auschwitz. I have given proofs and cites that Jackson had nothing at all to do with the Trail of Tears. see post 121, unrefuted.
"
Got a cite that Jackson planned that the Trail would cause so many deaths?
And, although Jackson certainly supported the “Indian Removal Act” note tht last word “Act”. The Act passed both houses of Congress.
Note that Jackson’s policy allowed Indians to remain, if they so chose. It was Van Buren and Scott who changed Jackson’s policy to force all the natives to leave their homes.“The petition was ignored by President Martin Van Buren, who soon thereafter directed General Winfield Scott to forcibly move all those Cherokee who had not yet complied with the treaty and moved west, even though the treaty allowed those who wished to remain in the east to do so.”
And, while Jackson was at the helm, there were no horrors like the Trail of Tears, the removals were more or less peaceful (although certainly unfair):" In all, more than 45,000 American Indians were relocated to the West during Jackson’s administration. During this time, the administration purchased about 100 million acres (400,000 km²) of Indian land for about $68 million and 32 million acres (130,000 km²) of western land."
So, Jackson moved 45,000 Native American’s with no noted fatalities ( I am sure there were some, of course). Van Buren moved 17,000 Cherokee and caused 4000 deaths. Mostly in the infamous Concentration camps “Nevertheless, the treaty was enforced by President Martin Van Buren, who sent federal troops to round up about 17,000 Cherokees in concentration camps before being sent to the West. Most of the deaths occurred from disease in these camps.” which were not part of Jackson’s plan.
Jackson certainly wanted to move the Indians. But there is no evidence he wanted to do so, planned to do so, or did do so in any but a “humane” manner, without Concentration camps and the resultant thousands of deaths.
Blame Jackson for being a racist, fine. But he shares that blame with a majority of both Houses of Congress, and likely with a majority of Americans at that time. However, the direct blame for the deaths on the Trail of Tears lies upon Van Buren and Scott, not Jackson."
This is why we find Liberal’s hatred of Jackson so damn silly. Hate Van Buren or Scott, sure. But blame Jackson for the whole mess? :rolleyes:
If only Van Buren didn’t report to Jackson…
He didn’t.* Van Buren* was the fucking President, not Jackson.
nonsense.
Liberal has pretty compleatly rebutted your position on this in this and other threads. No point in repeating it. You’re wrong.
My sarcasm has passed by, unobserved…
History is not linear. It is not the case that Jackson left office and there emerged a new policy conceived by Van Buren. Rather, Van Buren was Jackson’s hand-picked successor, having been rewarded for his loyalty by being appointed Secretary of State, and then selected as a running mate. He promised to “follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor”. The Trail of Tears was the culmination of Jacksonian policy that began with the Indian Removal Act and included defiance of the Supreme Court. As PBS has documented, the Trail of Tears was a direct consequence of the act, and of Jackson’s trust in Van Buren to carry out his policies.
As in all else, Van Buren’s relations with Native American nations were not much more than an extension of the policies of his predecessor. Enforcing the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Van Buren’s administration removed Cherokee and other native peoples from their homes to be relocated west of the Mississippi, an event known as the “Trail of Tears” that resulted in the death of one quarter of the Cherokee nation.To say that the Cherokee had the choice of staying is to render the term “choice” meaningless. It had already been demonstrated that the US administration and Congress, as well as the state of Georgia, were completely untrustworthy, their promises empty, and their treaties worthless.
In Cherokee Sunset: A nation betrayed, Samuel Carter wrote:
Then… there came the reign of terror. From the jagged-walled stockades the troops fanned out across the Nation, invading every hamlet, every cabin, rooting out the inhabitants at bayonet point. The Cherokees hardly had time to realize what was happening as they were prodded like so many sheep toward the concentration camps, threatened with knives and pistols, beaten with rifle butts if they resisted.600 Cherokee were helped by a white man named William Holland Thomas to get North Carolina citizenship, which allowed them to stay and disperse in the remotest parts of the North Carolina mountains. They were joined by 400 who escaped federal troops sent to remove them from their homes. Today, the progeny of these form the Eastern Band, from whom I am descended. There was never a choice to simply stay put and live out their lives in peace. They still lost their homes, their dignity, and their families.
And that’s just about as dispassionate as I can possibly be about it.
Maybe just on principle we should exercise emotional restraint when analyzing historical events, no matter how atrocious those events were.
(yes - I’ve been guilty of this here myself. It’s not my place to point any fingers at any other posters)
An analogy: would you want the trauma team to get all weepy and dramatic when you’re brought to the ER, or would you want them to act methodically and without passion?
Examples:
(1993)
“Did you go see Schindler’s List yet?”
“Oh God - it was so sad! Did you get the part with the little girl in red hiding under the bed? I bet I lost ten pounds I cried so much. But when I left the theater the air was so fresh, and I went home and hugged my kid so hard!”
“Did you read in the paper about Bosnia?”
“Oh no - that stuff just depresses me.”
(2003)
“Saddam Hussein is a villain straight out of central casting. He rapes women off the street then runs over them with his jeep, and he has that big black mustache.”
It’s not so far off from the ironic disparity between what we expect from a historian and how history is commonly abused:
(Professor Terguson): You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn’t cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China? [rips a desk apart] Then take the fucking wall apart brick by brick and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever? Tell me why! How come? Say it! Say it!
(Thornton Melon): All right. I’ll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a pussy wimp to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those Commie bastards!
(Professor Terguson): Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I’m gonna be watching you.
Liberal, I’m sure you already know this, but William Holland Thomas was the man that spearheaded the effort to get the Cherokees who remained in the East the money that the government had allotted for their removal. It was over fifty dollars per person. Thomas used it to buy land in the mountains for the Cherokee. For a while it was in his name. Now it is known as the Cherokee Reservation in North Carolina.
I have lived in Nashville for forty-three years. And for forty-three years I have not set foot on Andrew Jackson’s land or visited the Hermitage. I even had a chance to buy a beautiful small table made by Nashville cabinet makers from trees taken down on his property by a tornado. The cabinet makers are reputable and I knew that the trees had come down. The table was a good price and would have been a good investment. I just couldn’t.
Here in Nashville Andrew Jackson’s heritage is everywhere. A community and a lake are both called “Old HIckory.” A restaurant is “Rachel’s Kitchen.” Another suburb is “Hermitage.” A highway that goes all the way around the city is “Old Hickory.” On and on.
There is still a lot of educating to be done.
Zoe: Yes, Nashville was the town that Jackson took over when he moved there. It’s also where he met his future wife. Problem was, she was already married. He killed one man in a duel because he thought she’d been insulted. And he said when he retired that his only regret was not shooting Calhoun (his first vice-president), whom he also perceived as dissing her. His wife’s husband (god, that sounds weird) had been granted Tennesee’s first divorce (for adultery).
The only thing I still don’t understand, and I hope you can explain, is why did Nashville welcome him back so openly after all the scandal he brought down on them? In those days, such things were a big deal I thought.
I can try to answer that. It’s because the Jacksons were generally considered the wronged party. Rachel’s first husband had gotten a law passed allowing them to get a divorce, and had told her they were divorced, when in reality, they weren’t. And, certainly the duel wouldn’t have been seen as scandalous. On the contrary, it would have been seen as an admirable thing to defend his wife’s honor.
And Jackson didn’t say that his regret was in not shooting Calhoun. He said he regretted not having Calhoun hanged (for treason, because of Calhoun’s support of Nullification).
Lib, how about this:
Basically, all I ask is that you stop being so melodramatic about the whole event and Jackson, and quit excusing attrocities committed by Native Americans? Two wrongs don’t make a right.
As for the currency, I say we put this chick on the twenty. Dammit, we need some WOMEN on our money. (And not just on dollar coins and such.
Oops, sorry. That’s right. He regretted not hanging Calhoun, and he regretted not shooting Henry Clay.
Never mind your facts about who did or did not execute the policy, or who was or was not the president at the time. Andrew Jackson is Hitler, pure and simple, and he also poisoned the well and probably spraypainted my garage.
You do know that Cromwell’s actions in Drogheda were largely in response to earlier massacres of Irish Protestants by Irish Catholics?
I’m glad to read historical debates from several viewpoints. And I’m not offended when someone waxes passionate. But I’ve just missed all those other threads in which Liberal offended you by off-topic Jackson-bashing.
Never said the Irish were innocent, just that they were shit on by the British. And I’m not calling Cromwell Hitler-just comparing him to Jackson.
Let’s face it-humanity sucks. Everywhere, always, someone is oppressing some one else. We’re all just a bunch of assholes. Study history long enough, and you just become jaded-we’ve been doing it since time began.
Lib, I do, however, think you should read those books-if only because they’re great books. In fact, everyone interested in history should read them.
Oh and by the way, Andrew Jackson hangs the toilet paper the wrong way. And he never tips.
“Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts.”
Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams
I regret to inform you sir, that you have been whooshed.
I knew I should have worn my pointy hat.
And it’s all Jackson’s fault!