Monday, April 25, 2016

We can celebrate Harriet Tubman without disparaging Andrew Jackson

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.


Publicola said...

I don't care much for changing the currency. I'd much rather they backed it with something instead of fretting about what's on the face of it.

But Jackson - He had some admirable qualities and did some admirable things. But does that merit neglecting the horrible things he did? Masterminded the defense of New Orleans? That was cool. Declared martial law in New Orleans after the battle, and threw judges in jail for writing habeas corpus writs about a legislator he put in jail? Not cool. Adopting an orphaned Indian child? Cool as can be. Telling SC that if it seceded he'd invade? Real damn uncool.

In the end, I judge any public servant first and foremost by his adherence to the constitution (for instance I'm not a fan of J. Adams solely because he signed the Alien & Sedition Act. If not for that he'd have been one of the coolest fellows from back then). Jackson misunderstood that document, both as a soldier and as a president. I don't think he was necessarily racist, nor do I think he meant to kill a lot of the Cherokee. But he evicted an otherwise free people from their land for the benefit of others. At best that makes him an ass by any standards.

There were better options that he had at the time, he was just too full of himself to pursue them. Some of the grief he's getting now is misplaced (I'm just waiting for progressives to bitch that he didn't come up with any sort of socialized health care plan) but not all of it, and that whole forced removal of the Cherokee is something he should be legitimately demonized for.

Windy Wilson said...

A treaty didn't keep the British from holding onto Detroit for 30 years after Cornwallis surrendered. Only the victories in Canada after General Hull was replaced got THAT part of the treaty of 1783 enforced.
And had the Brits held onto New Orleans, would they have been willing to sell the Panhandle portion of today's Florida? Would the Spanish have ceded Spanish Florida? How long would the coastal portions of Alabama and Mississippi have continued as American territory?
Talk about changing history.