I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Not to sound pedantic, but cite? This sounds plausible, but is it true?
Not to sound pedantic, but cite? This sounds plausible, but is it true?
Fair request, but that’s over 100 years ago and not exactly a global headline event. Best I can do is give you an article I found on google about it:
From above:
This criticism of the statue is not new; these questions have been swirling since the statue’s debut. Historian and Douglass scholar Dr. Erik Chaput said on the subject, “I think it did shock people in the 1870s, how it showed a dismissive quality of slaves hobbling at Lincoln’s feet. It didn’t show the glory of slaves who had fought for their freedom, escaped like Frederick Douglass had and risked everything. That anger was there at the time. But Douglass looks past that.”
Also:
The statue has not been met with universal acclaim. For many people, including Frederick Douglass, the monument perpetuated negative stereotypes about African Americans.
Yes, Jackson wanted the Cherokee moved. He got a treaty. The Georgia Militia was attacking the tribe, due to the tribes raids. There was constant friction and of course massacres and atrocities- on both sides. Jackson- and most of Congress- decided that the only way to stop this constant warfare was to move the Tribe. The process for removal started under J.Q. Adams, note.
Was that the right decision? We will never know. He did it both to protect the Tribe and the white man. By no means was this “genocidal”.
Other tribes were peacefully moved without a “trail of tears”. It was due to the corruption and incompetence of Van Buren that the Cherokee move resulted in a “trail of tears”.
Or–you know–move the settlers.
Sure= but that idea would be ludicrous back then.
Just because Jackson is hailed as a hero, this is blamed 100% on him- a policy that started under Adams and went forward under Van Buren.
So, how sufficiently bad does someone have to be to get his statues, things removed or renamed? Where’s the line?
I don’t know if there are FDR statues around, but the guy presided over the internment of many Japanese-Americans.
George W. Bush…got America into a war in Iraq on very specious premises that indirectly killed 700,000 Iraqis, several thousand Americans troops of course, etc. Should his presidential library be renamed?
Yes- none are safe, all have flaws.
If by “got a treaty” you mean that he negotiated a treaty with a group of Cherokee and Creek who were not the legitimate representatives of the tribes, as a way to reach his predetermined conclusion. This was a common tactic employed by the United States in its Indian relations: find a few Native Americans who could be persuaded, through threats or promises or bribery, that it was better to sell their land, and sign a treaty with them. Then, wave the treaty in the face of the rest of their tribe, and tell them to get off the land, even though the Indians who signed the treaty had no authority to represent the tribe in the negotiations in the first place.
Chief John Ross discussed this dishonesty in his 1836 letter to Congress:
Ross also noted that many Cherokee had done everything that earlier presidents like Washington and Jefferson had asked of them, including adopting private property and European-style farming, embracing American values, and even converting to the Christian religion.
Or, we could just as honestly say that the tribes raided the Georgia settlers because the settlers refused to abide by the terms of prior treaties, and refused to respect Indian land, and simply moved onto it in violation of promises made by the United States government.
One interesting aspect of American history is that national policy, in the early years of the republic, was quite respectful of Indian land rights. Washington was clear that land should be purchased, not taken; so was Jefferson. The big problem was often the settlers themselves. Secretary of War Henry Knox, reporting from the western frontier, often complained in the late 1780s that white settlers “frequently committed the most unprovoked and direct outrages against the Cherokee indians,” undermining the good faith efforts of the American government.
LOL. OK. Very convenient that the best way to “protect” everyone was to take the Indians’ land and relocate them to a completely different region, with a completely different climate, where other Indian tribes already claimed the land. Jackson even compared relocation to immigration:
“Hey, we migrated here, so you guys shouldn’t have any problems migrating either.” What a guy!
Yeah, so who was authorized to sign a treaty for the Tribe?
In October 1835, the General Council rejected the proposed treaty, but appointed a committee to go to Washington to negotiate a better treaty. The committee included John Ross, and also treaty advocates John Ridge, Charles Vann, and Elias Boudinot (later replaced by Stand Watie). They were authorized to make a removal treaty, with the stipulation that the Cherokees would receive more than $5,000,000 in compensation and assistance. Schermerhorn, who was present at the meeting, advocated a meeting at New Echota, the Cherokee capital. The National Council approved a delegation to meet there.[4] Both delegations (U.S. and Cherokee) were specifically charged with negotiating a removal treaty.
*100 to 500 men converged on the Cherokee capital in December 1835, almost exclusively from the Upper and Lower Towns. (Heavy snow in the western North Carolina mountains made it nearly impossible for those from the Hill and Valley Towns to travel.) After a week of negotiations, Schermerhorn proposed that in exchange for all Cherokee land east of the Mississippi River, the Cherokees would receive $5,000,000 from the U.S. (to be distributed per capita to all members of the tribe), an additional $500,000 for educational funds, title in perpetuity to land in Indian Territory equal to that given up, and full compensation for all property left behind… …The treaty included a clause to allow all Cherokees who so desired to remain and become citizens of the states in which they resided, on individual allotments of 160 acres (0.65 km2) of land. …
The committee reported the results to the full Council gathered at New Echota, which approved the treaty unanimously. In a lengthy preamble, the Ridge party laid out its claims to legitimacy, based on its willingness to negotiate in good faith the sort of removal terms for which Ross had expressed support. The treaty was signed by Major Ridge, Elias Boudinot, James Foster, Testaesky, Charles Moore, George Chambers, Tahyeske, Archilla Smith, Andrew Ross, William Lassley, Caetehee, Tegaheske, Robert Rogers, John Gunter, John A. Bell, Charles Foreman, William Rogers, George W. Adair, James Starr, and Jesse Halfbreed. After Schermerhorn returned to Washington with the signed treaty, John Ridge and Stand Watie added their names.[4]
The treaty was concluded at New Echota, Georgia on the 29th of December, 1835 and signed on the 1st of March, 1836"
So sounds like they were authorized.
Sure, both sides were at fault.
Yeah, today, we look back upon this as a bad idea. But they werent working with 2020 knowledge and backsight.
I notice that you conveniently left out the Ratification section, which points out (correctly) that Ross and the opponents of the treaty had the support of the vast numerical majority of the Cherokee. But hey, whatever, right?
It was not just a “bad idea”; it was an abrogation of America’s own ideas about natural rights, upon which the country had been founded, and upon which it was (at least in principle) supposed to base its dealing with the native peoples. It was precisely the point of my previous post that you don’t need any stupid claim to “2020 knowledge and backsight” (whatever backsight is) to recognize the wrongness and unfairness of removal; it was wrong and unfair even by the (professed) standards of the time.
Yeah, even the most famous supposed quote on the situation draws attention to the Supreme Court not agreeing with the particulars of the removal.
Yes, because there is a character limit, you know. And who knows who had the most support? It wasnt as if the Tribe had a central government. They sent reps, chosen by the tribe and the Feds negotiated with them in good faith.
and it wouldnt matter anyway if they tribe had sent other reps- because the tribe was gonna be moved. Period. The reps that came to Washington got a reasonable deal. If the tribe had refused to deal, had refused to move- they wouldn’t have gotten any of the money, and would have been forced out anyway, at gunpoint. The Tribe was going to get moved. The only question is how much could they get out of it.
Nice for us to think that now, but our families arent being scalped and raided on a daily basis. It is all well and nice to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but they made the best of a bad deal.
You may say it was wrong then- but few thought so, A small but vocal minority in Congress was the opposition.
Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment: Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia.
If the over simplistic view of the Civil War was correct, the South could have rejoined the Union and ratified this amendment and Lincoln, far from being the Great Emancipator would have been charged with advocating slavery enrishined the Constitution with it being permanent and unamendable in the states where it currently existed.
Does he get a pass because he changed course when the luck of history could have made his change of heart meaningless? And although the Civil War was indeed largely about slavery, that’s the one line version. The South could have secured that with the Corwin Amendment, but it wanted to chart its own course.
I think there’s room for us both to be right. We can agree that black Americans had it terribly until relatively recently. But we can also agree that things are much better now than they were in the 60s.
That said, we can probably also agree there’s still a long way to go, and black people in the present day can still find certain aspects of American life (ie. dealing with the police, navigating the education system which punishes blacks harder than whites etc…) stressful, depressing and exhausting. And we can agree that, over the course of a lifetime this can take a heavy toll, especially if you have to see your kids putting up with the same stuff. We may differ over whether ‘Traumatic’ is the right word to use, but that’s more of a semantic thing, IMO. What do you reckon?
Modern liberalism is a movement to provide economic and social protections via government interventions. Classical liberalism, as espoused by Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke and Thomas Paine, was a movement for liberty from government, or at least a desire for a balance between the natural rights of individuals and protections from the harms non-enlightened individuals could inflict on each other. The political philosophy of the Enlightenment was essentially for less government. It was a struggle to find an ideal that would maximise personal liberty and reject authoritarian government, while at the same time avoid both mob rule and rule by might. The expansion of government sought by modern liberalism would be rejected by proponents of classical liberalism. Modern liberal philosophy is instead based on the principles of social liberalism. John Stuart Mills and John Hobson were proponents of this philosophy in that they believed that freedom was dependent on the ability to make independent choices, and that that ability could not exist in a state of privation. However neither of these philosophers were in favour of mob rule. Nonetheless, the rule of the proletariat was certainly espoused by other liberal thinkers, and can undoubtedly be found in aspects of modern liberalism.
So what does the above paragraph have to do with tearing down statues? I suppose I primarily wanted to make two points: mob rule is not a principle of classical liberalism, and modern liberalism resembles classical liberalism about as much as the 2020 Republican Party resembles the 1860 Republican Party. I suppose you’re saying that modern liberalism doesn’t have a single overriding philosophy. I agree that’s true and made that point myself in post #121. (I think I’ve got the right number.) Nevertheless, there is a leftist element of modern liberalism that seems determined to shout the loudest, de-platform those they disagree with, and override the will of the majority. These self-selected crusaders believe the righteousness of their cause justifies them stifling those who disagree with them via intimidation, and ignoring laws and other democratic structures put in place to protect property and provide public safety. That’s the very essence of authoritarianism. You’re saying vigilantes can’t be authoritarians because they aren’t in government. I disagree with that. Do you think that corporate leaders don’t have authority? The people tearing statues of Washington Jefferson and Grant have designated themselves as authorities on who should or should not be honoured by public memorials, and self-authorised themselves to tear those statues down. I have no qualms about calling such people leftist, nor the far-left sympathisers who are silently backing them.
Grant married into a family of slave owners. He supervised the family slaves for some of his time living there. He even owned one for a brief period before the Civil War before freeing him.
I agree, but it was not the word “traumatic” that I disagreed with earlier. It was the italicized words, as noted, which to me painted a far bleaker picture than I think American history, particularly recent American history, warrants.

and it wouldnt matter anyway if they tribe had sent other reps- because the tribe was gonna be moved. Period. The reps that came to Washington got a reasonable deal. If the tribe had refused to deal, had refused to move- they wouldn’t have gotten any of the money, and would have been forced out anyway, at gunpoint. The Tribe was going to get moved. The only question is how much could they get out of it.
[snip]
You may say it was wrong then- but few thought so, A small but vocal minority in Congress was the opposition.
LOL. Kudos for completely missing the point.
I was not criticizing the Native Americans regarding the treaty, even the ones who signed the treaty. It is completely understandable that some Cherokee recognized that they were going to be moved either way, and decided to make the best of the situation.
I’m criticizing the United States government for basically forcing the Indians to sign a treaty at gunpoint. Even you acknowledge that this is essentially what happened, and yet you still blithely wave away any effort to argue that this behavior on the part of the US government was immoral or wrong, even by the standards of the time. What the US government did was similar to, say, marching thousands of armed Americans into Saskatchewan and then telling the Canadians that they can either sign a treaty handing over the land, or face the consequences of military action.
A fundamental principle of republican government was non-aggression and anti-imperialism. Another fundamental principle of republican government was respect for property rights. These reasons, among others, are precisely why early leaders like Jefferson insisted, at least in principle, on good-faith negotiations and non-violence. Americans of all political persuasions constantly and forcefully claimed to respect republican ideals during the early republic, which is precisely why it’s correct to say that removal was wrong even by the standards of the time. The fact that many Americans were willing to ignore their own standards doesn’t mean the standards didn’t exist; it just makes them hypocrites. It was the same thing when they went to war with Mexico in order to take a whole bunch of Mexican territory.
Also, it wasn’t just a “small but vocal minority in Congress” who opposed removal. The moral reform spirit that produced the abolitionist, women’s rights, temperance, and other reform movements in the 1830s and after also produced a small but significant missionary movement arguing for the rights of the Cherokee, and arguing that America was violating both its republican ideals and its Christian values in its treatment of Native Americans.
Stupid 3,500-character post limit.

Nice for us to think that now, but our families arent being scalped and raided on a daily basis. It is all well and nice to look back with 20/20 hindsight, but they made the best of a bad deal.
First, as I suggested previously, this is a less-than-accurate characterization of what happened. If the Cherokee were raiding settler farms—and I agree that they did (although much earlier - see below)—it was largely in response to unauthorized incursions onto Cherokee land. To return to my Canadian analogy, it would be like accusing the Saskatchewan farmers of “raids” when they were defending their own territory against invasion by a hostile force. You don’t get to invade another person’s property and then complain when he fights to keep it.
Perhaps even more importantly, families were not “being scalped and raided on a daily basis” during the period of debate over removal. You’re conflating two very different historical periods. The raids on settler farms, and associated violence, basically ended in the 1790s. In the early decades of the 19th century, the vast majority of the Cherokee (and Creek, Choctaw, etc.) lived peacefully and pursued many of the habits and practices of white Americans, like farming and Christianity. They weren’t raiding settler farms in the 1820s, and they weren’t called “the civilized tribes” for nothing.
If anything, your performance in this thread suggests that maybe America should focus less attention on removing statues, and more attention on teaching people about historical analysis and understanding.