But that would mean they can't pretend he was a totally evil, horrible nasty sort with no redeeming value! And how can they oppose him without that? It's what the left does!
No problem with Harriet Tubman. Changing who's on the bills for the sake of 'inclusion' or- the main cause- 'Get those white men off!'- is dumb. And I'd guess a lot of the people putting out their hate on Jackson know little or nothing about him, and the little they do know is, let us say, slanted.
Ref the deportation of the tribes: Flint put it pretty well in this book(crap, the Kindle for $.99?), that it wasn't fair or nice or right, but it was probably the best that was going to happen. There were too many people in Ireland, Scotland, Britain, some of Europe, willing to come; their only chance to be something more, to build something for their family or the family they might have, to not spend their life bowing to the local lord, was to come here. And if that meant pushing some Indians out, "Well, I'm sorry about this, you people, but it's the only chance I've got. So I'm gonna move you or die trying."
And there's New Orleans; had the British won, they could've strangled trade on the Mississippi for who knows how long(yes, the battle was actually after the treaty was signed; think that'd have kept them from holding onto it as long as possible?).
Man of his times; like others, trashing him based on current sensitivities not a good idea.