Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Ben on April 20, 2016, 03:53:07 PM
-
On the $20 bill. Looks like they're leaving the $10 bill alone.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/20/change-for-20-treasury-to-replace-jackson-with-tubman-on-bill.html?intcmp=hpbt1
-
They're keeping that monarchist on the $10, and removing the most awesome President that the US has ever seen? :facepalm:
While I appreciate Ms Tubman's services to the US as an armed scout and spy, as well as her civilian women's suffrage and anti-slavery activism, but seriously? To be put on the $20 bill?
We've had stranger choices for US currency, but not recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_on_United_States_banknotes
As a random trivia factoid, she would not be the first woman on US currency. That was Martha Washington, 1886.
-
This is bullshit!
-
http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/1/28/freedom-fighters/
-
Hmm...
Removing the founder of what's become the most destructive force in American history, known as the Democratic Party, with a Republican who carried a gun?
I'm good with it.
Whether you agree with this literally, or you simply see it as a good way to dole out a little cog-dis and emotional anguish onto the modern PC Left, doesn't matter.
-
I don't really have a problem with this. It's obviously a pander to the usual suspects but Tubman was pretty much a bad ass.
Besides, I can point out that she personifies the idea that if I think a federal law is morally wrong, I should circumvent it. With firearms if needed.
-
I don't really have a problem with this. It's obviously a pander to the usual suspects but Tubman was pretty much a bad ass.
Besides, I can point out that she personifies the idea that if I think a federal law is morally wrong, I should circumvent it. With firearms if needed.
Exactly.
Watch for PC/Leftist whining closer to the adoption date for the new bills.
-
I don't really have a problem with this. It's obviously a pander to the usual suspects but Tubman was pretty much a bad ass.
Besides, I can point out that she personifies the idea that if I think a federal law is morally wrong, I should circumvent it. With firearms if needed.
Heh. Keep that under wraps until after they start printing, then bring it up. Many more splodey heads that way. =D
I think it's better than doing the tenner because I'm pretty sure the $20 is now the most ubiquitous bill (or maybe after the $1?), isn't it? So they get a woman on the most used bill. Can't cry discrimination there, and it's not society's fault if people don't know their history. :)
EDIT: To add to the "wait till they start printing", apparently as of right now, "Who is Harriet Tubman?" is the top Google search term.
-
They're keeping that monarchist on the $10, and removing the most awesome President that the US has ever seen? :facepalm:
While I appreciate Ms Tubman's services to the US as an armed scout and spy, as well as her civilian women's suffrage and anti-slavery activism, but seriously? To be put on the $20 bill?
We've had stranger choices for US currency, but not recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_on_United_States_banknotes
As a random trivia factoid, she would not be the first woman on US currency. That was Martha Washington, 1886.
Pretty much my thoughts.
I can see myself getting a custom stamp made to correct this problem on all $20 bills that come though my hands.
-
"They're replacing the founder of the Democratic Party with a a gun toting, law breaking, anti-government, cop killer domestic terrorist Republican that routinely threatened to shoot disobedient slaves."
All of which is entirely true. She routinely broke the Fugative Slave Act, a federal law. She kept a gun handy in case she needed to shoot local police enforcing said law, or cops objecting to someone liberating slaves. And threatened to kill any former slave that decided to change their mind. And made it clear she'd blow her own head off rather than be captured. She assisted the Harpers Ferry raid, which was a terrorist operation to seize US weapons. And obviously, she was a Republican.
"There was one of two things I had a right to – liberty, or death.
If I could not have one I would have the other; for no man should take me alive."
One, I really like Ms Tubman. Two, this is going to be hilarious. That said, I still wish they were giving Hamilton the boot instead of Jackson. Jackson was an evil and terrible person, but also epic and awe inspiring.
-
$1 bill: buck
$5 bill: fiver
$10 bill: sawbuck
$20 bill: tubbie
$50 bill: ???
$100 bill: c-note
-
$1 bill: buck
$5 bill: fiver
$10 bill: sawbuck
$20 bill: tubbie
$50 bill: ???--Fitty. fify
$100 bill: c-note
-
$50 bill: G-money
-
According to this article 20s, 10s, and 5s are all changing. Not just Harriet Tubman is getting added.
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-biz-harriet-tubman-0421-20160420-story.html
-
I hear the new $10 bill is going to feature Malcolm X. (Don't know if there's a Malcolm V or Malcolm L for the five or fifty dollar bills . . . )
-
Imagine being a stripper and get a Harriet Tubman $20 spot stuffed in your cleavage. :rofl:
-
Imagine being a stripper and get a Harriet Tubman $20 spot stuffed in your cleavage. :rofl:
The guy will have a chubbie and a tubbie.
-
Hmm...
Removing the founder of what's become the most destructive force in American history, known as the Democratic Party, with a Republican who carried a gun?
I'm good with it.
Whether you agree with this literally, or you simply see it as a good way to dole out a little cog-dis and emotional anguish onto the modern PC Left, doesn't matter.
I fully embrace this change.
However, those on the far left will quickly point out that the Republicans and Democrats switched parties about 2 generations ago.
That said, I still wish they were giving Hamilton the boot instead of Jackson. Jackson was an evil and terrible person, but also epic and awe inspiring.
That too. Hamilton was only evil of the far reaching statist sort- those are a dime a dozen these days.
-
However, those on the far left will quickly point out that the Republicans and Democrats switched parties about 2 generations ago.
I love it when they give me that opening. I will argue that there was no "switch", and starting with LBJ's "Great Society" the overt racism of the Democrats simply switched to the soft racism of low expectations, and co-opted the black vote in the process.
-
I love it when they give me that opening. I will argue that there was no "switch", and starting with LBJ's "Great Society" the overt racism of the Democrats simply switched to the soft racism of low expectations, and co-opted the black vote in the process.
As would I. I've been thinking about starting a "dialogue" with the Southern Poverty Law Center, about all the ways in which the Democratic Party meets the definition of a hate group. It's the most successful one in our history, I think.
-
As would I. I've been thinking about starting a "dialogue" with the Southern Poverty Law Center, about all the ways in which the Democratic Party meets the definition of a hate group. It's the most successful one in our history, I think.
Those are hatespeekz. You'll be put on a trrrist watch list for sure.
-
Hmm...
Removing the founder of what's become the most destructive force in American history, known as the Democratic Party, with a Republican who carried a gun?
I'm good with it.
Whether you agree with this literally, or you simply see it as a good way to dole out a little cog-dis and emotional anguish onto the modern PC Left, doesn't matter.
Does Iowahawk read APS?
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2016/04/iowahawk-is-national-treasure.html
-
Does Iowahawk read APS?
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2016/04/iowahawk-is-national-treasure.html
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv99%2Fsmallestminority%2FPolitical%2520Cartoons%2FHarriet_Tubman_Terminator.jpg%7Eoriginal&hash=c838d0d40c843c99065d1107e5fa0ead8243104a)
(Austrian accent?) COME WITH ME IF YOU WANT TO BE FREE.
-
I love it when they give me that opening. I will argue that there was no "switch", and starting with LBJ's "Great Society" the overt racism of the Democrats simply switched to the soft racism of low expectations, and co-opted the black vote in the process.
But, but, but freedom = free *expletive deleted*it!!!111
-
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/dishonoring-general-jackson/
In Samuel Eliot Morison’s “The Oxford History of the American People,” there is a single sentence about Harriet Tubman.
“An illiterate field hand, (Tubman) not only escaped herself but returned repeatedly and guided more than 300 slaves to freedom.”
Morison, however, devotes most of five chapters to the greatest soldier-statesman in American history, save Washington, that pivotal figure between the Founding Fathers and the Civil War — Andrew Jackson.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBFaAeKU.jpg&hash=cf8e772f4d56839571b6366f5e3c6649ba611518)
-
I think arguing/fighting/debating the loss of Jackson is not worthwhile. It has been a done deal that a "diversity hire" would be put on a common bill. That battle has been lost. You win the war by embracing the fact that the diversity people chose Tubman, with a large portion of them not knowing who she was or what she did. She's a black woman and that's all that matters to them. The war is won because she's not someone like Margaret Sanger.
The thumbs up to Tubman by "the wrong people" makes progressive heads explode. It's a delicious irony that progressives support the choice based on the color of her skin, while conservatives and libertarians support the choice because of the content of her character. :)
-
I believe I read/heard that Jackson was actually going to stay on the bill, just on the reverse.
-
"The thumbs up to Tubman by "the wrong people" makes progressive heads explode. It's a delicious irony that progressives support the choice based on the color of her skin, while conservatives and libertarians support the choice because of the content of her character. Smiley"
The irony rather than burning is absolutely delicious. :laugh: :laugh:
-
"The thumbs up to Tubman by "the wrong people" makes progressive heads explode."
Yep, it certainly does.
You see the kind of hate that Republican governors/politicians are getting for having the audacity to say that they like Prince's music.
Holy crap. Tolerant my ass.
-
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/dishonoring-general-jackson/
Agree on Eleanor Roosevelt; disagree on John Brown. Brown (and/or his fellows) killed a bunch of people. Did he free anybody, or actually help his own cause?
I have enjoyed reading Morison's book, but Buchanan seems to be using it as an infallible guide to Important People in American History.
-
I'd love to see Alvin York on a bill.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badassoftheweek.com%2Fyork.gif&hash=5b463eb5231415048cad3eeffbb577fce37b6724)
-
I'd love to see Alvin York on a bill.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badassoftheweek.com%2Fyork.gif&hash=5b463eb5231415048cad3eeffbb577fce37b6724)
And then we'd see an even bigger number of Google searches for "Who the &^%$ is Alvin York?"
-
Agree on Eleanor Roosevelt; disagree on John Brown. Brown (and/or his fellows) killed a bunch of people. Did he free anybody, or actually help his own cause?
He's certainly more photogenic than Tubman ;) (so is Frederick Douglass)
-
He's certainly more photogenic than Tubman ;) (so is Frederick Douglass)
He has crazy eyes... [tinfoil]
No, seriously, him and Rasputin always creep me the *expletive deleted*ck out.
-
(https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/screen-shot-2016-04-20-at-1-39-08-pm.jpg)
-
Who uses twenties at a Strip club??
-
Who uses twenties at a Strip club??
Someone with more money than sense... or someone who's just desperate...
-
Who uses twenties at a Strip club??
Hey, it's not my fault you're a cheapskate.
(actually, I have no idea what the going rate is at strip clubs)
-
Who uses twenties at a Strip club??
I thought that strip clubs were the last best place to use $2 bills. But I cannot remember the last time I saw a $ 2 bill.
-
They're keeping that monarchist on the $10, and removing the most awesome President that the US has ever seen?
Do you think that the Trail of Tears was part of his "awesomeness"?
-
Do you think that the Trail of Tears was part of his "awesomeness"?
Yes, it was.
Awesomeness, greatness, etc. is not necessarily a moral judgement.
-
Frankly, all this talk about "replacing a Democrat on the $20 with a black Republican gun-owner" is noise from the defeated trying to convince themselves they did not suffer a _resounding_ cultural defeat.
We can sperg on the issue, but in the end all the vast majority will know or care about is that a white male president they know little about (save the trail of tears) was replaced by a black woman they also know little about.
-
"Resounding"? "Cultural defeat"? Yeah, whatever. Am I supposed to consider Andrew Jackson to be part of my culture, but not Harriet Tubman? Is the face on the money supposed to be graved in stone, never to be changed? America has been through a lot of cultural defeat lately, but this? No.
-
"Resounding"? "Cultural defeat"? Yeah, whatever. Am I supposed to consider Andrew Jackson to be part of my culture, but not Harriet Tubman? Is the face on the money supposed to be graved in stone, never to be changed? America has been through a lot of cultural defeat lately, but this? No.
cambeul41's post is evidence tot he contrary.
Defeat it is, and a victory for black armband history, despite the happy-talk and rationalizations.
-
Who uses twenties at a Strip club??
Talent scouts.
-
I thought that strip clubs were the last best place to use $2 bills. But I cannot remember the last time I saw a $ 2 bill.
The last time you looked at a stripper?
-
Talent scouts.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.memes.com%2Fmeme%2F155943&hash=0c4dc57f0ed227bc645867e3292334b6aaedc2b8)
-
I thought that strip clubs were the last best place to use $2 bills. But I cannot remember the last time I saw a $ 2 bill.
You can get them at most banks. I use them to tip van drivers at hotels.
-
Defeat it is, and a victory for black armband history, despite the happy-talk and rationalizations.
Can you elaborate?
-
Can you elaborate?
I guess she endorsed Cruz.
-
If it is a "victory" for the SJW's, then it is a Pyrrhic victory, and pointing out the reasons why is to make their heads all asplodey.
While Jackson had his good points. (Great General, paid off the fed.gov debt, refused to renew the National Bank). He did have his not so good points. (Trail of Tears, founding the D party).
Tubman on the other hand was a gun-toting, Democrat shooting, federal law breaking, Republican. (Yes, she may not have been able to vote, but I can't really see her as a Democrat).
Does it really matter who's on the FRN's ?? Yes, I too, wish it would have been Hamilton (hack, spit) they would have removed, but in the end how much does it really matter, and if it does, then putting Tubman and POINTING OUT HER HISTORY and the truth about her, what she stood for, and what she did destroys some of the crap the SJW's preach.
-
Can you elaborate?
DEFEAT
The majority of folk in America do not care about some nerdy half-assed argument by a loser who just got his teeth kicked in. They see the reality of who is doing the kicking and who is getting kicked and know the score.
One of America's greatest presidents is to be replaced on the $20 with a footnote of a footnote. Tubman was unknown until a communist author wrote a hagiography of her in the 1930s with the intent of displacing some/any bit of American history as it was then being taught. Andrew Jackson: pushed aside by the literary creation of an America-hating communist.
It is a defeat for folk who identify with the founders and builders of America and a victory for those who despise America. If you don't see this, you have not been paying attention to either BHO or his allies. It is trolling by BHO and his sort, just as was his appointment of a bent Secretary of the Army. Rub the noses of Americans once more in the dog crap of the rotting culture. "Who? Whom?"
BLACK ARMBAND HISTORY
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmediad.publicbroadcasting.net%2Fp%2Fkwmu%2Ffiles%2F201303%2FMaryBethTinkerArmband%2520Wikipedia.jpg&hash=b66beea0cadba84c8f82f317de849063b41f83df)
This is John Howard, then PM of Australia, but it encapsulates the concept.
I have spoken tonight of the need to guard against the re-writing of Australian political history and, in particular, to ensure that the contribution of Robert Menzies and the Liberal tradition are accorded their proper place in it.
There is, of course, a related and broader challenge involved. And that is to ensure that our history as a nation is not written definitively by those who take the view that Australians should apologise for most of it.
This 'black arm band' view of our past reflects a belief that most Australian history since 1788 has been little more than a disgraceful story of imperialism, exploitation, racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination.
I take a very different view. I believe that the balance sheet of our history is one of heroic achievement and that we have achieved much more as a nation of which we can be proud than of which we should be ashamed.
Bill Bennet, "The Wars Over Culture In Education"
...the "Harriet Tubman effect," that is, some thing approaching 85 percent of the 17 year olds in America know who Harriet Tubman is, while only about one-third of our high school seniors can place the Civil War in the right half century.
Lynn Cheney on the history standards form 1994.
Such celebratory prose is rare when the document gets to American history itself. In the U.S. context, the kind of wealth that Mansa Musa commanded is not considered a good thing. When the subject of John D. Rockefeller comes up, students are instructed to conduct a trial in which he is accused of "knowingly and willfully participat{ing} in unethical and amoral business practices designed to undermine traditions of fair open competition for personal and private aggrandizement in direct violation of the common welfare."
African and Native American societies, like all societies, had their failings, but one would hardly know it from National Standards. Students are encouraged to consider Aztec "architecture, skills, labor systems, and agriculture." But not the practice of human sacrifice.
Counting how many times different subjects are mentioned in the document yields telling results. One of the most often mentioned subjects, with 19 references, is McCarthy and McCarthyism. The Ku Klux Klan gets its fair share, too, with 17. As for individuals, Harriet Tubman, an African-American who helped rescue slaves by way of the underground railroad, is mentioned six times. Two white males who were contemporaries of Tubman, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, get one and zero mentions, respectively. Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk and the Wright brothers make no appearance at all.
BAH is part of the cultural marxist/gramscian march through the institutions and is designed to destroy both the reality and memory of the greatness of those who built America. The response of many on the right is evidence of its success.
PATHETIC RATIONALIZATION
It is bad enough to actually be defeated in yet another battle in the cold civil war, but to have the sperg / *let's not go there* chorus yammer on about how it is actually a WIN! is pathetic. A man realizes and acknowledges his defeat. If he has grit, he resolves to fight harder/smarter in the future. It is the mark of a weenie to go on and rationalize later that the ass-kicking was really a _moral_ victory.
Such an outcome was understood by moderates and conservatives back in the 1990s as a bad thing. The rot of culture, historical understanding, and self-deception since then has resulted in large numbers of the delusional on the right claiming VICTORY! Great. They now know that there really are five fingers and will tell you, with vigor, that there are five.
And if you claim there are four you are a racist.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Falexpeak.com%2Fart%2Ffilms%2F19841984%2Fexcerpts%2Ffingers.gif&hash=3226c64a447705cfa644225a77be907f499657cb)
If it is a "victory" for the SJW's, then it is a Pyrrhic victory, and pointing out the reasons why is to make their heads all asplodey.
No lefty heads are going asplodey. Most don't give a crap and stopped listening long before you finished your reasonable--but worthless and losing--argument.
Tubman on the other hand was a gun-toting, Democrat shooting, federal law breaking, Republican. (Yes, she may not have been able to vote, but I can't really see her as a Democrat).
See, most stopped listening after "Tubman..." Don;t let that stop you. Do, please sperg on about how the Democrats are the REAL racists and how you need to roll a "natural 20" to get a critical hit.
Does it really matter who's on the FRN's ??
Yes it does. We place those we venerate on them and those of power and significance. Deposed Caesars (if they lived) did not see the newly-minted coins with their opponent's visage on them and and think VICTORY! The new caesars knew the power of placing their mug on the coinage.
-
I suppose my perspective differs in that I think Tubman is one of us. To treat her as an "opponent" is exactly what the Left expects, and what they want from us.
-
I suppose my perspective differs in that I think Tubman is one of us. To treat her as an "opponent" is exactly what the Left expects, and what they want from us.
Careful, those straw men tend to catch fire.
Pro tip: Tubman herself is incidental.
-
Well, you talked about putting an "opponent" on the currency. So where is the straw? So you have Tubman as our "opponent" and as part of "the dog crap of the rotting culture." You say BHO is trolling, and then you jump all over the troll bait. Why?
It is a defeat for folk who identify with the founders and builders of America and a victory for those who despise America. If you don't see this, you have not been paying attention to either BHO or his allies. It is trolling by BHO and his sort, just as was his appointment of a bent Secretary of the Army. Rub the noses of Americans once more in the dog crap of the rotting culture. "Who? Whom?"
Call me crazy for thinking that abolitionsts and Underground Railroad workers also "built" America.
-
Well, you talked about putting an "opponent" on the currency. So where is the straw? So you have Tubman as our "opponent" and as part of "the dog crap of the rotting culture." You say BHO is trolling, and then you jump all over the troll bait. Why?
Call me crazy for thinking that abolitionsts and Underground Railroad workers also "built" America.
Quit being an ass. That was an analogy in the context of the Roman empire and the title of emperor. That is easy enough to read and understand.
-
If Tubman's not an opponent, why'd you bring it up?
-
If Tubman's not an opponent, why'd you bring it up?
Quote from: scout26 on Today at 06:59:01
Does it really matter who's on the FRN's ??
Yes it does. We place those we venerate on them and those of power and significance. Deposed Caesars (if they lived) did not see the newly-minted coins with their opponent's visage on them and and think VICTORY! The new caesars knew the power of placing their mug on the coinage.
1. scout asked if it mattered who was on the FRN.
2. I responded yes, as it is a symbol of who we most venerate in this country.
3. I added an analogy, indicating that were a caesar to see an upstart's visage on coinage, it would not be seen by that former caesar as a WIN!
In other news, the train is fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tInDH2FeXaM
-
I have heard good and bad about Jackson. What made him a great President? (as President, not as a General)
Also, when he decided all the Natives needed to go to Oklahoma, that included just about all the tribes who helped him obtain victory as a General.
-
Yes it does. We place those we venerate on them and those of power and significance. Deposed Caesars (if they lived) did not see the newly-minted coins with their opponent's visage on them and and think VICTORY! The new caesars knew the power of placing their mug on the coinage.
1. scout asked if it mattered who was on the FRN.
2. I responded yes, as it is a symbol of who we most venerate in this country.
3. I added an analogy, indicating that were a caesar to see an upstart's visage on coinage, it would not be seen by that former caesar as a WIN!
In other news, the train is fine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tInDH2FeXaM
OK, so you threw in an analogy that you no longer find applicable. What about the dog crap remark? Is Tubman still dog crap?
-
I'm going out on a bit of a limb here, but I would say most people my age do know who Tubman is, even if the knowledge is rather more on the PC side than the whole history.
You see that whole black history month is usually barely a footnote at the middle school and high school level, but in elementary school it gets much more attention and Tubman is one of the more exciting (to the elementary age kids) black historical figures that has a historical impact that age group can more easily understand (because she actually went out and did stuff) so she tends to get more play than a lot of the others.
I can see anyone who grew up with that being good with Tubman, regardless of political leanings. *shrug*
Also, question for the more well traveled, cosmopolitan lot, don't most other countries have more variation in their money in terms of who's on it than we do? and change it up more often?
Because it seems to me that ours (at least our bills) haven't changed in god knows how long which seems a little silly since the entirety of US history and the number of US historical figures is a lot bigger than the bunch we currently have represented and it's just getting bigger...
The bunch on it now seems to represent more the particular hero's of the time it was picked than it does for the current generations. Hamilton, Jackson and Grant, despite their importance, are not, to my mind, in the same league as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin.
It seems to me that if we're going to have a set of people on our money that never changes, then we also have to throw out Lincoln and use only founding fathers (which puts back in Hamilton)
Either that or, hey, let's mix it up some. I'm good with that.
-
Also, question for the more well traveled, cosmopolitan lot, don't most other countries have more variation in their money in terms of who's on it than we do? and change it up more often?
That's also what I was thinking. That may also reflect more turbulence in some nation's history, which is not exactly a good thing. Except, of course, it screws up the bureaucracy, as previously mentioned.
-
Also, question for the more well traveled, cosmopolitan lot, don't most other countries have more variation in their money in terms of who's on it than we do? and change it up more often?
In all seriousness:
Only the ones that are secure in their power. In my travels; Europe, Japan, and Russia have a lot of history and some variation. Vietnam, Cambodia, the Mideast and Africa do not. Vietnam and Africa especially usually only have the current ruling party. The Mideast has post WWII rulers, and scenes from the 6th century, but nothing really in between. The Taliban was the same way, but I don't remember what's on current Afghan money.
Central and south America also leans heavily towards current leaders or "Hero's of the [current] revolution".
As I recall from 1993, the Soviet Ruble was all Lenin, Stalin, Marx and the Great Patriotic War.
-
The Taliban was the same way, but I don't remember what's on current Afghan money.
IIRC, random landmarks
-
I have heard good and bad about Jackson. What made him a great President? (as President, not as a General)
Also, when he decided all the Natives needed to go to Oklahoma, that included just about all the tribes who helped him obtain victory as a General.
Jackson was a jerk. Yes, he turned on Natives that helped him. Which is tactically stupid, but that's another story. On one hand, thousands died during those forced migrations. On the other hand, if they were not relocated, likely Southerners would have committed genocide. While Native Americans were generally pretty hardy, ruthless and skilled warriors (something a lot of movies close over), eventually they would have been wiped out by numbers alone. Warriors can win battles, but soldiers win wars. Expecting the South not to engage in racism or genocide in those days was not an option.
As for Jackson being a great president, very simple. The man could hate. Not the modern whiny kind of hate. He could hate with a fury of dark elder gods. He would garden his hate. Nurnish it, prune and feed it.
He started learning war at 13, in the revolutionary war. One of his brothers died in it. He and another brother were captured and tortured by the British. That brother essentially died from it. Then his mother died shortly after. War destroyed his entire family when he was 14. It taught him to hate. He mucked about with being a lawyer and then a plantation owner. He was good at it. He alternated between treating his slaves rather well, and being a complete jerk. He build his slaves much nicer homes than average. Paid them. Give them guns and fishing equipment so they could feed themselves. Giving someone you own guns and knives kinda is a sign you are either stupid, or relatively humane person. Slaves that tried to escape however were not treated well. Nor were any slaves that didn't work hard enough to make him happy.
Of course, the War of 1812 rolled around and Jackson got back to his true love, killing people. He commanded the US forces (which included Cherokee, Choctaw, and Lower Creek) against the Creek tribes in the Creek campaign. His enemies usually described him as "old and fierce". He turned on his allies and sold them down the river, because Jackson. He stole 20 million acres for the US, in Georgia and Alabam. Then came Battle of New Orleans. Outnumbered, he won a decisive victory over the British forces. Like "twenty times as many British dead" decisive victory.
Couple years later, he fought the First Seminole War. And stole Florida for the US. Honestly, the Seminole War defined what kind of a person Jackson was. The Seminoles made the mistake of attacking Jackson, so he used that mistake in classic Jackson fashion. He burned their homes and crops to the ground, then murdered a lot of people. Oh, and essentially nearly started a war without asking anyone. Spain threw in the towel instead of escalating, and Jackson occupied Florida as a military governor. Obviously later he became President, and was responsible for the deaths of 4,000 Cherokees on the "Trail of Tears". Which was either near genocide, or saving them from genocide, depending on your perspective.
Impressive stuff, right? Nope. It still misses the man. Obviously, murdering people in official capacity is one thing. But that wasn't enough for Jackson. He fought somewhere between thirty and a hundred duels, generally credited with 26 kills. There were times where he was generous enough to let the other guy go first. Here's a clue, when Andrew Jackson invites you to shoot him first, it's a trap and you're about to die. Which was exactly what happened. Charles Dickinson shot Jackson in the chest, so Jackson shot him in the throat. Which didn't phase Jackson much, but did kill Dickinson.
Ok, but that's a duel. A somewhat smarter but still pretty crazy man, Richard Lawrence, decided to assassinate him. He ran up to Jackson, pulled a pistol, yanked the trigger... And nothing. Being a smart ish but crazy type, he had a second pistol. Which also failed to fire. At which point, Andrew Jackson went full Andrew Jackson on Mr Lawrence and started beating him to death. At 67. The pistols worked fine during tests afterwards.
Jackson admitted only two regrets in life. That he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun." Calhoun was his former Vice President, Clay was former Speaker of the House.
Jackson is probably the purest example of a true American, across our entire history. He could be a relatively compassionate man. Or a murderous to genocidal man. He was skilled at war, politics, business and killing people. All equally. He owned slaves, he stabbed allies in the back and was quick to engage in genocide. At the same time, he adopted a Creek boy, Lyncoya Jackson, as a son after the Battle of Tallushatchee. A complicated, exceptional man. He could focus his hate, his rage, his anger to accomplish impossible things.
Then you have Hamilton, who was a stinking monarchist that nearly was lynched by soldiers from Lancaster, and history is worse off because the coward escaped to New Jersey. It is fitting that the man died because he tried cheating in a duel. The only crime is that it didn't happen much earlier. It is an insult to the nation that such a despicable man is on our currency. His replacement with even a picture of a gutter rat would be an improvement. A pox on that man's soul in hell.
-
Not to take away from your comments, but that method of attacking the Native Indians was pretty much par for the course throughout our Westward expansion. Their weakness was always in supply and logistics. If you want to defeat them, destroy their homes and base of support and give them no place to retreat to. It is brutal, but effective.
On the Trail of Tears thing, I have heard that a number of the Indians sent out were farming like the white settlers. I was thinking it would have been better to simply tell the Indians they own the land and would have to start paying taxes on it and participating as citizens. Not sure how well that would work.
-
Not to take away from your comments, but that method of attacking the Native Indians was pretty much par for the course throughout our Westward expansion. Their weakness was always in supply and logistics. If you want to defeat them, destroy their homes and base of support and give them no place to retreat to. It is brutal, but effective.
On the Trail of Tears thing, I have heard that a number of the Indians sent out were farming like the white settlers. I was thinking it would have been better to simply tell the Indians they own the land and would have to start paying taxes on it and participating as citizens. Not sure how well that would work.
Actually, that's how it used to work pretty much everywhere in the entire world. Romans, Mongolians, America, etc. It's wrong, but most of history isn't a pretty picture.
For the second part. It's split between "The noble Native Americans were brutalized by evil white men without any cause other than greed" and "Native Americans weren't always the friendly sort, putting them on reservations kept them from being entirely ethnically cleansed".
-
Jackson admitted only two regrets in life. That he "had been unable to shoot Henry Clay or to hang John C. Calhoun." Calhoun was his former Vice President, Clay was former Speaker of the House.
By "former Speaker of the House," don't you mean "rival candidate that (allegedly) colluded with John Q. Adams to 'steal' the election from Jackson"? As for Calhoun, was it nullification that engendered all the bad blood? Or was it the snit between their wives? Or both? Or something else?
-
Actually, that's how it used to work pretty much everywhere in the entire world. Romans, Mongolians, America, etc. It's wrong, but most of history isn't a pretty picture.
For the second part. It's split between "The noble Native Americans were brutalized by evil white men without any cause other than greed" and "Native Americans weren't always the friendly sort, putting them on reservations kept them from being entirely ethnically cleansed".
IMO, it is not right or wrong. It is war. War isn't pretty or nice, never has been.
-
Rev,
You also failed to mention his two greatest accomplishments.
1) Paying off the entire national debt.
2) Refusing to re-charter the Second National Bank (aka the Federal Reserve of the time).
He deserves to be on money for those reasons alone.