18th and 19th US history is replete with atrocities committed against natives, many with public/government support. Jackson may have been considered brutal by some, but his Indian policies were a precursor to what happened later, in terms of forcing natives off their land onto reservations. Jackson was but one of many important players in the US's shameful treatment of its native populations, including other 'great men' who we continue to revere, or hold in high esteem, today.
Jackson is known for a lot more than Indian removal, or his Indian policies. I'm not sure I'd personally call him a great President, but he was a significant and highly influential leader who had significant influence during his time.
Neither Grant or Hamilton have Declaration of Independence on their Resume, in fact, neither does Washington. There are many reasons why we might revere a historical figure.
Most great men are morally conflicted. Jefferson, while mouthing condemnation of slavery, was, for example, an ardent slaver who whipped his slaves, sold them, and had sex with them (I'm guessing not all of it was totally consensual). Although Washington freed his slaves on his wife's death, he still owned slaves. While policies leading to the deaths of thousands of Indians is a moral atrocity, so is slavery, and enslaving human beings is not THAT far behind. If we can't celebrate historical figures who were morally conflicted (even if only by our modern standards), then we'll be hard pressed to find that many great men and women (mostly men, sadly) who we can celebrate.
Personally, I have no love for Jackson and am happy to see him jettisoned from the $20 bill, although I still do think all the 'genocide' language is a tad bit hyperbolic and fails to sufficiently consider historical context.
There is a trend among "liberals" as I perceive them to impose their values on everyone else, and their judgments. I call this intolerance of the highest rank... . . morally despicable, in fact, and very hypocritical because their current batch of fav persons is held beyond reproach no matter what they do. It's "the cause" that matters, like Marxist prattle generally, anything useful to the cause is to be trotted out as the "raison du jour" and mark of intelligence and worth. I totally reject that presumed "moral superiority" because the truth does not matter to these people.
Bill Clinton has identified the racist J. William Fulbright as his mentor early on, and Hillary claims actual KKK leaders as her "mentors" and has not responded to an actual endorsement for her campaign by a California Klan leader, who donated, reportedly, according to the KKK leader's own boast $20000 to her campaign.
I think it is a slur on Jefferson to say he was indiscriminate in his sexual relations, or mistreated his slaves by standards of common decency consistent with a bible believer. comparable to some biblical characters like Abraham. Jefferson had several children by the same black woman who was legally his slave. I think the descendents of that black woman are not the source of a lot of hate on Jefferson. The most I can make of facts I trust is that he realized slavery must be ended to achieve equal status under the law for blacks, and I don't have any actual quotes from him that defended the practice. He couldn't do the work on the farm without the help, and I equate "slavery" in the hands of some of the better owners, with contemporary wage slavery by people like Warren Buffet who holds stakes in many minimum wage businesses while whispering to potential movers and shakers of public policy that the EIC is a smarter way to achieve the socialist utopia than a minimum wage hike. There are the corporatists who also want the government to become the single payer health care provider, and who don't give a damn about the actual quality of health care, or the right of people to control their own health care choices. Eononomic elites locked into some system who participated in some common practices for competitive survival at the time.
So, as I see it, of course, I think this argument fails totally on every level of analysis, but I don't think you are willing to actually review the issue in any way.
Oh, btw, I did a little reading on some things. The NRA was founded by folks from the North, after the civil war, who wanted to arm the blacks and teach them the use of those arms, in the south to enable them to resist the KKK types of atrocities, and guess what, there was a black woman who was a gun-toting Republican who took a strong stand on that side as well. Anybody care to identify her by name?
I'd love to see that damn democrat, racist taken off the $20 bill, and her face on it. Even if he did the right thing about the banker problem.
umpingchest:
