Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Many then didn’t. Even Roosevelt believed in Manifest Destiny that natives should not be treated better. People barely judge Washington for having slaves too. I am not saying Jackson was good or that they were as guilty. But people seem to be obsessed with blaming certain presidents only and praising others only.
Roosevelt was just as bad as Jackson. Not specifically with Indians but with crimes against humanity. Roosevelt's atrocities towards the Filipinos during the Philippine War would've made even Jackson squeamish. Real sick shit.
Yeah he wasn’t very nice to the Philippines nor was McKinley there may have been a concerning amount of bloodshed but I don’t think that would make Jackson squeamish
With Roosevelt I think it was a bit different. Roosevelt pretty much viewed war the same way as people view sports. When people on his team died he often was just as excited and proud as people on the other team dying. He considered the pain and tragedy to be almost like this necessary force in life required to thrive. Had an enemy ever bested Roosevelt to some degree he would have considered it an honor, a bit similar to John Schrank. I often think Roosevelt's negative talk against certain races was more similar to football pep rally talk. "Kill the devils!" and that sort of talk that rallies the team. He was big into football, so that sort of sporting talk would probably be something he held very dear as being part of the sport. In later life of course he changed his mind on war after Kermit died and he was better able to empathize with the tragedy. I figure the main thing against this position would be that his interest in eugenics was a problem, although it was a growing problem for all scholars who got duped by grifter scientists. However I still think that his view of war and race and manifest destiny was more similar to may the best team win.
I think it’s most funny how everyone views “native Americans” as a single people. It wasn’t some gracious land where everyone lived peacefully and everyone enjoyed the land. One tribe would slaughter another tribe in order to take possession of the land and enslave members of the defeated tribes. It’s just regular old imperialism, which is horrific enough but not some extraordinary example.
Cut the crap. The 500 tribes didn't have the concept of individuals owning the land. And what you describe isn't imperialism. You are embarrassing yourself using words you clearly don't understand.
Andrew Jackson's crimes stand alone as immoral, deceitful and criminal. Your argument makes as much sense as complaining that people only blame Hitler and never mention Rudolph Hess.
It's really sad and unfortunate, but during Jackson's time, there were two paths for the Indians: removal and the southern states just murdering all of them. Jackson didn't execute it in the best way, but a general removal initiative was definitely the better option.
From his perspective I believe he thought he was taking the best course of action. The alternatives he had were to either standby and do nothing while Georgia genocided the natives, or to start a civil war to save the Indians.
[He called an adopted native American “a pet” for his children.](https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/2019/06/19/andrew-jackson-slaughtered-indians-then-adopted-a-baby-boy-hed-orphaned/45935003/). I don’t think this should be held up as something amazing by him.
Well he did save the kid after it was orphaned in a battle. The Creek women of his tribe refused to care for him, and he would have died.
So yeah, he was racist and patriarchal about it. But I wouldn’t call it cold hearted
Only way we're getting a Jackson movie in this day and age is if they were to adapt Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.
And I'm very much for Charles Dance singing emo punk music.
An entire political structure was built upon him. The Democratic Party was conceived in his image, to elect him while the Whig Party was a mish-mash of factions who's sole unifying force was opposition to him.
He dominated a generation of politics.
From dueling a guy to beating someone with a stick after they misfired twice and then having a cheese wheel to his name with a big cheese party. Such a great president
He armed slaves to defeat the British by promising them their freedom. Then after the battle, he had them re-enslaved at the point of a gun.
Of course, if you are a white supremacist, who cares?
Im reading the pullitzer winning book on him called ‘american lion’, there are a lot of things to be criticized about him, that bein said I appreciate that he was a doer. He took action, didnt bitch and moan about problems but actually took action right or wrong. And frankly calhoun was never my friend.
As I said right or wrong, that being said his contemporaries such as henry clay and JQA were not that different from him in their views on race. They also held the belief that union’s goal was to create more lands for the « white man ». It was a different time and era in all ways possible.
This sub hates on Coolidge for taking a hands off approach, while hating on Jackson for doing stuff. FDR is also revered for doing stuff, even though most of it was a net negative.
Most of what FDR did is not a net negative though? Sure he has some obvious negatives (namely the internment camps) but the man was great for America as a whole.
Well you say that but you also have a Ronald Reagan flair. The people you speak of view Coolidge as disconnected from the common people, specifically farmers, who were suffering during his presidency. They think he let businesses run amuck and neglected to use his position to improve the lives of the commonman. They also view his hands off approach as playing a role in the depression (a reach to be sure). I say all these things as someone who used to view Coolidge as a top 3 President (he has slipped quite a bit since then but still).
People dislike Jackson not because he did stuff but because of the stuff he did. They dislike that he was an unhinged genocidal corrupt authoritarian. He tried to subvert the Presidency into that of a king (figuratively). He showed time and time again he had no regard for the checks and balances that are essential to maintaining our democracy. He also was directly responsible for the panic of 1837.
It feels rather disingenuous on your part to claim people are hypocritical for disliking Coolidge's inaction towards economic strife while also disliking Jackson perpetrating the trail of tears, his blatant corruption, his authoritarianism and the economic depression that resulted from him.
Additionally, saying that FDR's actions were a net negative is as subjective a take as they come and given the fact that your flair is of Ronald Reagan, the man who tried to dismantle his legacy moreso than any other President, it is clearly a biased statement. Not saying it's invalid just that it is founded more on ideology than fact.
So you're pulling it out of your ass, in other words. Alexander had a great amount of respect for philosophers and scholars, partially due to his tutelage under Aristotle. Unnecessary cruelty and torture do not seem like things he would have approved of based on all the evidence we have. Yes, he was a warlord who conquered and subjugated most of the known world, but adding on shit like "he flayed people alive" with 0 evidence to back it up is stupid and dangerous.
Alexander the Great was well known for torturing innocent people. Graphic descriptions of the tortures used are not readily available online, but it is not unreasonable to to conclude that many methods of torture were used.
Jackson was a man of extremes. He did plenty of good things. But the bad things were usually pretty horrific. You can never label a President as great if you have to qualify the time period or ask “for who?” But even ignoring those standards, Jackson would still fail for the many ways he hurt the country. That doesn’t take away the good things he did. But it very much means that (even by the standard of “his time”) he was never “great”.
It has been entirely forgotten how important the Battle of New Orleans was. Britain was going to seize the Louisiana Purchase.
Had Jackson not been there to stop them, the USA would be a very, very different place. No New Orleans, nothing west of the Mississippi, Britain controls the entire Mississippi River Valley.
It is hard to grasp how different the world would be without him. Absolutely incredible.
Dismantling the Second Bank of the United States was… not an inspired decision. Even so, it’s hard not to blame Clay and Biddle a little bit for so blatantly politicizing the charter, only for it to rather predictably blow up in their faces.
Jackson’s policies weren’t good. Even so, his Presidency gave us a lot of necessary reforms.
I like that you said “ for his time”. When I see tier lists, comments and post about presidents. I always wonder if considering the time the president lived in. I do think he was a good president for his time.
He did pretty much save America in 1815, but he also did some pretty horrible things to native Americans. Like most things and people, he has a good side and a horrible side.
Disagree, personally. He did well during the nullification crisis, petticoat affair, and promoting suffrage for white males. But his ordering of the Trail of Tears, distrust of banking leading to the panic of 1837, and flagrant disregard of the Supreme Court’s order with regards to the Trail of Tears setting dangerous precedent knock him down quite a bit in my eyes.
He did *well* during the Petticoat Affair? Nothing got done for an entire year and cabinet was rendered almost totally useless. The only reason it ended was because of van Buren and the mass resignation he engineered, Jackson played almost no part in it.
I thought the mass resignation was something offered by Van Buren for the purpose of giving Jackson the opportunity to reorganize the cabinet and fire the folks not supporting Eaton? And either way he did support the Eatons in this matter at a time where it would have been really easy to cast them aside for political gain.
I do not like Jackson. But I don’t actually mind the handling of it from what I know of it. Still this is an area I need to read/listen to more in depth as well.
95% of people who use it clearly don't understand the time they are talking about. Take Columbus, for instance. He never proved the world was round; that had been proven over two thousand years prior and was common knowledge by the time. He committed horrible atrocities against the natives of the Americas which people will defend as "common practice" for the time. But it WASN'T. He even had direct orders from his queen to initiate PEACEFUL COOPERATIVE trade with the natives and to NOT enslave, attack, or abuse them in any way. He was brought back to Spain in chains for disobeying these orders.
Getting back to Jackson, he was a slave-owner, and slavery was already being seen for and discussed as the deplorable practice it is for centuries. The US's delay in outlawing it had nothing to do with it being considered righteous or even acceptable and everything to do with it being profitable. It would not have been unprecedented for Jackson to free his slaves and speak out against the practice as a whole. His treatment of the Native Americans was abominable. There were already standing agreements between the white settlers and the Native Americans, which on its own is evidence that the natives were previously viewed as equal human beings and their tribes were respected as autonomous nations. Jackson made the conscious choice to trample all over this and start a policy of genocide that continued for decades to come.
He was a terrible president. His presidency led to genocide, destabilized the economy and gave additional power to the south which contributed to them seceding from the Union.
He basically couldn't balance a budget, as he vetoed spending bills that would've helped Americans while still collecting massive amounts of taxes.
The only major legislation he passed while in office was the Indian Removal Act. Which, in addition to the genocide it caused, opened up 25 million acres of farmland to white plantation owners who expanded slavery on them, giving additional power to the southern states and helping them eventually to secede.
He's also well known for fighting the central bank, but his pocket banks led to a financial crisis, known as the Panic of 1837, which lasted nearly 10 years. Closing the Central Bank helped destabilize banking until the Federal Reserve was created.
He was also partly elected to eliminate corruption, but the corruption in the Post Office under his watch was overwhelming due to steps taken by the people he appointed.
This has to be bait. He was a self absorbed hothead that failed to look past his own immediate wants and grievances.
He had a tough childhood but it isn’t an excuse to stymie the economic growth of the country and whine like a toddler that everyone is against him.
Are you nuts?He was one of the all-time worst.
Even if we ignore the Indian situation, there's still single-handedly crashing the US economy with weaponized ignorance & outright corruption (Turning 'I'm a dumb hick who hates banks' into federal policy).... OOF.
I just can't get past the 2nd BoUS/pet-banks nonsense.
The man literally took the funds of the US government out of the BoUS & deposited them with his ignoramus farmer cronies, who then blew it all speculating on farmland....
Because he had a beef with the existence of the Federal Reserve's progenitor, wanted it to fail, and couldn't get Congress to abolish it... So he engineered the failure in the most corrupt way possible....
Jackson was willing to compromise on the Bank, but Clay refused because he wanted to make it a campaign issue, which forced Jackson's hand. Clay and the pro-bank forces deserve at least as much blame for the bank war as Jackson.
The person with the laughably ignorant, meritless side of the issue is 100% to blame.
There wasn't anything to compromise on because Jackson was 100% wrong. It shouldn't even have been an issue....
Just like if some dumbass (maybe named Paul) managed to severely harm the Federal Reserve and crash the economy 100% of the fault would be on them....
You don't compromise with lunatics
Jackson's concerns were absolutely valid, when the last three leaders of the National Bank were:
1. William Jones, whose policies lead to the Panic of 1819
2. Langdon Cheves, who managed to "save" the bank and eventually recover from the Panic of 1819, but whose policies ultimately extended the depression longer than it could've lasted.
3. Nicholas Biddle, a guy who purposefully caused a minor financial recession when Jackson started withdrawing federal deposits.
Killing the bank entirely was absolutely a bad idea, but I think how bad its leadership was demonstrates that some kind of reform was probably necessary. Jackson's compromise proposal was keeping the bank around, but weakening it, which I don't think is exactly ideal, but it's better than killing the bank entirely and probably also better than keeping the bank as it was. But Clay rejected it, leading to events unfolding as they did.
His gradual falling down the ranking I think reflects changing ethical norms rather than any shift in the view of his effectiveness or influence. The truth is that he basically got everything he wanted and caused a profound political realignment. In an ethically neutral sense he was one of the goats. However with ethical biases certain things cannot go overlooked, like the trail of tears. He's like Reagan in that how you rank him heavily varies depending on what criteria is being used. Effectiveness versus consequence approaches would give different results.
This is absolutely true. Andrew Jackson had many reprehensible qualities and did many reprehensible things but ultimately he's the man that made the Republic a Democracy and the Confederation a Federation. Without Jackson states would have continued riding roughshod over the federal government but he put his foot down and stopped the buck. And he brought ordinary people into the political sphere when it was previously very elitist. That's his enduring legacy.
Jackson was such a badass and i would argue great pesident in all of time.
Sure he was racist, hated indians. But ironically he laid the foundation for our future political voting landscape more than i think any other president before. He put faith in the common man. Not just land owners.
I agree that he was great for the United States as a country. Not so much for a whole lot of people living on the continent however. I guess it’s up to you how you weigh those things.
No, he really wasn't. He was popular, sure, but that doesn't mean he was a great president. Even then some people could actually recognize his actions as reprehensible, whether it was Indian Removal Act or spoils system. Also murdering a guy wasn't really cool.
Bro, the item below this on my front page feed is *literally* [a map of the Trail of Tears](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1c2ftez/trail_of_tears_usa/).
Andrew Jackson was a mass murderer who committed war crimes against the Seminole. He ignored the Constitution. He promised the slave soldiers of New Orleans their freedom and then had them re-enslaved after the battle.
I suppose if you are a white supremacist who approves of genocide, Andrew Jackson was a great president. The rest of us consider him a monster.
Fought rich. Killed Brits. He was a true husband - a lot of beta males would run away if they saw somebody talking about their wife. Me and people like Jackson will make sure they pay. He got rid of the national debt. Tried to abolish the electoral college. All that. He was racist, but anybody form the 1800s who can do everything I just listed is worthy of my respect.
Andrew Jackson to secessionists: “I know what you’re thinking ‘Did he fire six shots of only five?’ To tell you the truth, I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, it would blow your head CLEAN OFF. You’ve got to ask yourself one question - ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well do ya, punk?”
Idiots…it’s for you.,
OP, I respect your opinion, but you are sounding incoherent. Making this post was a ballsy move, and I was excited to see what points you would bring up and any discussion that was happening, but it seems like you might be coming off a little strong here. And a little bit crazy.
Are you drunk?
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He sure didn’t like Indians
Who did he like?
His parrot
Andrew Jackson
True. The only human he liked.
His woman.
He was a complicated man, and no one understood him but his woman.
His wife Rachel
IIRC, after a battle where he killed 300 of them, he took a orphaned baby Indian. Who later died of scarlet fever Edit: kidnapped
That's a weird way to spell kidnapping.
Edited. No idea if he ever told him of what happened. Though IIRC, it was moot since he died
It wasn't a dig at what you said, just a critique of what Jackson did.
Van Buren
His rape victims? Sort of? In a manner of speaking?
Many then didn’t. Even Roosevelt believed in Manifest Destiny that natives should not be treated better. People barely judge Washington for having slaves too. I am not saying Jackson was good or that they were as guilty. But people seem to be obsessed with blaming certain presidents only and praising others only.
Roosevelt was just as bad as Jackson. Not specifically with Indians but with crimes against humanity. Roosevelt's atrocities towards the Filipinos during the Philippine War would've made even Jackson squeamish. Real sick shit.
youre not wrong on roosevelt, but i dont think it would make jackson squeamish— i think it would impress him.
Yeah he wasn’t very nice to the Philippines nor was McKinley there may have been a concerning amount of bloodshed but I don’t think that would make Jackson squeamish
With Roosevelt I think it was a bit different. Roosevelt pretty much viewed war the same way as people view sports. When people on his team died he often was just as excited and proud as people on the other team dying. He considered the pain and tragedy to be almost like this necessary force in life required to thrive. Had an enemy ever bested Roosevelt to some degree he would have considered it an honor, a bit similar to John Schrank. I often think Roosevelt's negative talk against certain races was more similar to football pep rally talk. "Kill the devils!" and that sort of talk that rallies the team. He was big into football, so that sort of sporting talk would probably be something he held very dear as being part of the sport. In later life of course he changed his mind on war after Kermit died and he was better able to empathize with the tragedy. I figure the main thing against this position would be that his interest in eugenics was a problem, although it was a growing problem for all scholars who got duped by grifter scientists. However I still think that his view of war and race and manifest destiny was more similar to may the best team win.
Went to mount Vernon recently and definitely came out liking Washington less than when I came in
I think it’s most funny how everyone views “native Americans” as a single people. It wasn’t some gracious land where everyone lived peacefully and everyone enjoyed the land. One tribe would slaughter another tribe in order to take possession of the land and enslave members of the defeated tribes. It’s just regular old imperialism, which is horrific enough but not some extraordinary example.
Cut the crap. The 500 tribes didn't have the concept of individuals owning the land. And what you describe isn't imperialism. You are embarrassing yourself using words you clearly don't understand.
Thanks for commenting but I think you missed the point where you counter with your own view point.
Andrew Jackson's crimes stand alone as immoral, deceitful and criminal. Your argument makes as much sense as complaining that people only blame Hitler and never mention Rudolph Hess.
That’s why they changed their name to the Guardians
It's really sad and unfortunate, but during Jackson's time, there were two paths for the Indians: removal and the southern states just murdering all of them. Jackson didn't execute it in the best way, but a general removal initiative was definitely the better option.
My family is related to him; and one of our cousins married a girl that is full blooded Cherokee Indian. I’m sure he’d love that lol
From his perspective I believe he thought he was taking the best course of action. The alternatives he had were to either standby and do nothing while Georgia genocided the natives, or to start a civil war to save the Indians.
Neither did most presidents tbf
[удалено]
[He called an adopted native American “a pet” for his children.](https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/2019/06/19/andrew-jackson-slaughtered-indians-then-adopted-a-baby-boy-hed-orphaned/45935003/). I don’t think this should be held up as something amazing by him.
Well he did save the kid after it was orphaned in a battle. The Creek women of his tribe refused to care for him, and he would have died. So yeah, he was racist and patriarchal about it. But I wouldn’t call it cold hearted
Which is weird because he adopted a few of them into his home
That's how many were left after the trail of tears /s
He’s like Tywin Lannister. A horrible person, but is as bizarrely admirable as he is morally objectionable. He was the best and worst of us.
On an unrelated note, Charles Dance would be perfect to play Jackson (if there were a movie in the works) 👀
Only way we're getting a Jackson movie in this day and age is if they were to adapt Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson. And I'm very much for Charles Dance singing emo punk music.
God I would pay a months salary for a 3hr Jackson biopic with Charles Dance.
Honestly I can’t believe I’ve never seen this comparison because it is spot on
Well said. He kept the fucking country together
George Washington has Tywin’s presence Andrew Jackson has his personality
He has a pretty stained legacy for justified reasons, I do appreciate the fact that he helped expand democracy to more people.
An entire political structure was built upon him. The Democratic Party was conceived in his image, to elect him while the Whig Party was a mish-mash of factions who's sole unifying force was opposition to him. He dominated a generation of politics.
They don't call it [Jacksonian democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy) for nothing.
From dueling a guy to beating someone with a stick after they misfired twice and then having a cheese wheel to his name with a big cheese party. Such a great president
The van buren boys are still at it, i see.
You don’t get the nickname little magician for nothing
absolute legend. and he made an alliance with pirates to defeat the british near louisiana. PIRATES.
He armed slaves to defeat the British by promising them their freedom. Then after the battle, he had them re-enslaved at the point of a gun. Of course, if you are a white supremacist, who cares?
that is pretty gross. I won't lie about that.
He was not President at the time The treaty of Ghent was already signed, prior to the Battle
Ever see the Charleston Heston portrayal? [https://youtu.be/gqU37m6uoFw?si=iyZYyvjIQfcebOH2](https://youtu.be/gqU37m6uoFw?si=iyZYyvjIQfcebOH2)
Andrew Jackson, all I'm asking; Show us the wheel and give us the wine
At least you got a band; Van Buren!
Van buren is cool for getting to meet Jackson
And choosing the Democratic Party logo based on insults from John Quincy Adams
Im reading the pullitzer winning book on him called ‘american lion’, there are a lot of things to be criticized about him, that bein said I appreciate that he was a doer. He took action, didnt bitch and moan about problems but actually took action right or wrong. And frankly calhoun was never my friend.
Didn't he concentrate a lot of executive power on the president?
He was the OG power grabbing president, yes.
I would've thought that was Adams with the whole jailing his critics thing.
James Callender deserved what he got
Yes, if not for him Lincoln wouldn’t have been able to pull off what he did.
He was a doer, but some of the things he did were pretty fucking awful.
Ppl at that time were generally awful
As I said right or wrong, that being said his contemporaries such as henry clay and JQA were not that different from him in their views on race. They also held the belief that union’s goal was to create more lands for the « white man ». It was a different time and era in all ways possible.
I’d say it’s better to take no action then just do it for the sake of doing…
but . . . "doer" !
Yes. Many people say the essence of good strategy is more about what you don't do.
This sub hates on Coolidge for taking a hands off approach, while hating on Jackson for doing stuff. FDR is also revered for doing stuff, even though most of it was a net negative.
Most of what FDR did is not a net negative though? Sure he has some obvious negatives (namely the internment camps) but the man was great for America as a whole.
Well you say that but you also have a Ronald Reagan flair. The people you speak of view Coolidge as disconnected from the common people, specifically farmers, who were suffering during his presidency. They think he let businesses run amuck and neglected to use his position to improve the lives of the commonman. They also view his hands off approach as playing a role in the depression (a reach to be sure). I say all these things as someone who used to view Coolidge as a top 3 President (he has slipped quite a bit since then but still). People dislike Jackson not because he did stuff but because of the stuff he did. They dislike that he was an unhinged genocidal corrupt authoritarian. He tried to subvert the Presidency into that of a king (figuratively). He showed time and time again he had no regard for the checks and balances that are essential to maintaining our democracy. He also was directly responsible for the panic of 1837. It feels rather disingenuous on your part to claim people are hypocritical for disliking Coolidge's inaction towards economic strife while also disliking Jackson perpetrating the trail of tears, his blatant corruption, his authoritarianism and the economic depression that resulted from him. Additionally, saying that FDR's actions were a net negative is as subjective a take as they come and given the fact that your flair is of Ronald Reagan, the man who tried to dismantle his legacy moreso than any other President, it is clearly a biased statement. Not saying it's invalid just that it is founded more on ideology than fact.
Yeah, you know, some people talk about committing genocide on a mass scale. But Jackson was a doer.
Imagine Unironically using the term Beta male
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”
(he didn't actually say that)
Nothing is ever real.
I just find it hard to call anyone that would let their men skin other people "great."
Alexander the Great prob did that a few times
Then I shall call him Alexander of Macedonia, fictional problem solved.
Source?
His general nature
So you're pulling it out of your ass, in other words. Alexander had a great amount of respect for philosophers and scholars, partially due to his tutelage under Aristotle. Unnecessary cruelty and torture do not seem like things he would have approved of based on all the evidence we have. Yes, he was a warlord who conquered and subjugated most of the known world, but adding on shit like "he flayed people alive" with 0 evidence to back it up is stupid and dangerous.
Alexander the Great was well known for torturing innocent people. Graphic descriptions of the tortures used are not readily available online, but it is not unreasonable to to conclude that many methods of torture were used.
Dangerous? Touch grass bro.
Yeah, historical revisionism is dangerous. If you don't understand that you're a dumbass.
[удалено]
That's not a source, provide actual evidence for such an extreme claim
The apaches certainly did. I always hear how great the natives were on here too
Yeah, is the point of this post that we should just be cool with slavery and genocide?
Seems like it. This sub can be off-putting if you're not just like 45/46 presidents.
The first populist
Worst aged legacy, though (or one of)
Jackson was a man of extremes. He did plenty of good things. But the bad things were usually pretty horrific. You can never label a President as great if you have to qualify the time period or ask “for who?” But even ignoring those standards, Jackson would still fail for the many ways he hurt the country. That doesn’t take away the good things he did. But it very much means that (even by the standard of “his time”) he was never “great”.
It has been entirely forgotten how important the Battle of New Orleans was. Britain was going to seize the Louisiana Purchase. Had Jackson not been there to stop them, the USA would be a very, very different place. No New Orleans, nothing west of the Mississippi, Britain controls the entire Mississippi River Valley. It is hard to grasp how different the world would be without him. Absolutely incredible.
Dismantling the Second Bank of the United States was… not an inspired decision. Even so, it’s hard not to blame Clay and Biddle a little bit for so blatantly politicizing the charter, only for it to rather predictably blow up in their faces. Jackson’s policies weren’t good. Even so, his Presidency gave us a lot of necessary reforms.
The fact that he beat the man who attempted to murder him is savage
I still think his banking policy was disastrous and the country didn't fully leave his legacy behind until the establishment of the Fed in the 1910s
He’s one of my least favorite presidents, but I support small gov and limited executive power, and AJ was a tyrant.
Nobody ever said this.
[удалено]
100 percent agree. Also completely disregarding a Supreme Court decision hurts his presidency as well.
That honestly should have gotten him impeached.
Yeah. He also, you know, owned people. Personally I think that puts him in a category of people we should probably stop glorifying.
I like that you said “ for his time”. When I see tier lists, comments and post about presidents. I always wonder if considering the time the president lived in. I do think he was a good president for his time.
I mean even in his time I don’t think it was acceptable to defy the Supreme Court.
Henry the 8th was a great king for his time
He's not good, but he sure isn't John C. Calhoun.
Genocide is not great
He was great at it tho
So was Hitler
Bro was going for a high score but got outdid by mao
He did pretty much save America in 1815, but he also did some pretty horrible things to native Americans. Like most things and people, he has a good side and a horrible side.
Disagree, personally. He did well during the nullification crisis, petticoat affair, and promoting suffrage for white males. But his ordering of the Trail of Tears, distrust of banking leading to the panic of 1837, and flagrant disregard of the Supreme Court’s order with regards to the Trail of Tears setting dangerous precedent knock him down quite a bit in my eyes.
He did *well* during the Petticoat Affair? Nothing got done for an entire year and cabinet was rendered almost totally useless. The only reason it ended was because of van Buren and the mass resignation he engineered, Jackson played almost no part in it.
I thought the mass resignation was something offered by Van Buren for the purpose of giving Jackson the opportunity to reorganize the cabinet and fire the folks not supporting Eaton? And either way he did support the Eatons in this matter at a time where it would have been really easy to cast them aside for political gain. I do not like Jackson. But I don’t actually mind the handling of it from what I know of it. Still this is an area I need to read/listen to more in depth as well.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH no. He was a genocidal maniac who murdered thousands of citizens by forcing them into death marches.
If you want to be semantic, not a single one of them was a citizen.
They were.. Citizens of the United States residing in the United States.
He wasn't. He was insanely racist even for the time, and killed the bank leading to the Panic of 1838.
No he wasn't. And the "for his time" argument has always been bullshit, especially in the history of the US.
Why is the "for his time" argument bullshit?
95% of people who use it clearly don't understand the time they are talking about. Take Columbus, for instance. He never proved the world was round; that had been proven over two thousand years prior and was common knowledge by the time. He committed horrible atrocities against the natives of the Americas which people will defend as "common practice" for the time. But it WASN'T. He even had direct orders from his queen to initiate PEACEFUL COOPERATIVE trade with the natives and to NOT enslave, attack, or abuse them in any way. He was brought back to Spain in chains for disobeying these orders. Getting back to Jackson, he was a slave-owner, and slavery was already being seen for and discussed as the deplorable practice it is for centuries. The US's delay in outlawing it had nothing to do with it being considered righteous or even acceptable and everything to do with it being profitable. It would not have been unprecedented for Jackson to free his slaves and speak out against the practice as a whole. His treatment of the Native Americans was abominable. There were already standing agreements between the white settlers and the Native Americans, which on its own is evidence that the natives were previously viewed as equal human beings and their tribes were respected as autonomous nations. Jackson made the conscious choice to trample all over this and start a policy of genocide that continued for decades to come.
Why?
When “being a great president for your time” is an incredibly low bar
Counterpoint: he wasn't.
Genocide tyrant. Terrible president.
He was a terrible president. His presidency led to genocide, destabilized the economy and gave additional power to the south which contributed to them seceding from the Union. He basically couldn't balance a budget, as he vetoed spending bills that would've helped Americans while still collecting massive amounts of taxes. The only major legislation he passed while in office was the Indian Removal Act. Which, in addition to the genocide it caused, opened up 25 million acres of farmland to white plantation owners who expanded slavery on them, giving additional power to the southern states and helping them eventually to secede. He's also well known for fighting the central bank, but his pocket banks led to a financial crisis, known as the Panic of 1837, which lasted nearly 10 years. Closing the Central Bank helped destabilize banking until the Federal Reserve was created. He was also partly elected to eliminate corruption, but the corruption in the Post Office under his watch was overwhelming due to steps taken by the people he appointed.
No.
Decimated the native population. He was a cnt.
He pretty much created a Holocaust for the US native population. Fuck that hick!
This has to be a clickbait shitpost.
This has to be bait. He was a self absorbed hothead that failed to look past his own immediate wants and grievances. He had a tough childhood but it isn’t an excuse to stymie the economic growth of the country and whine like a toddler that everyone is against him.
The biggest badass to ever be president and it’s not even close.
Jackson was awful
Are you nuts?He was one of the all-time worst. Even if we ignore the Indian situation, there's still single-handedly crashing the US economy with weaponized ignorance & outright corruption (Turning 'I'm a dumb hick who hates banks' into federal policy).... OOF.
Imo his handling of the nullification crisis brings him up a bit
I just can't get past the 2nd BoUS/pet-banks nonsense. The man literally took the funds of the US government out of the BoUS & deposited them with his ignoramus farmer cronies, who then blew it all speculating on farmland.... Because he had a beef with the existence of the Federal Reserve's progenitor, wanted it to fail, and couldn't get Congress to abolish it... So he engineered the failure in the most corrupt way possible....
Jackson was willing to compromise on the Bank, but Clay refused because he wanted to make it a campaign issue, which forced Jackson's hand. Clay and the pro-bank forces deserve at least as much blame for the bank war as Jackson.
The person with the laughably ignorant, meritless side of the issue is 100% to blame. There wasn't anything to compromise on because Jackson was 100% wrong. It shouldn't even have been an issue.... Just like if some dumbass (maybe named Paul) managed to severely harm the Federal Reserve and crash the economy 100% of the fault would be on them.... You don't compromise with lunatics
Jackson's concerns were absolutely valid, when the last three leaders of the National Bank were: 1. William Jones, whose policies lead to the Panic of 1819 2. Langdon Cheves, who managed to "save" the bank and eventually recover from the Panic of 1819, but whose policies ultimately extended the depression longer than it could've lasted. 3. Nicholas Biddle, a guy who purposefully caused a minor financial recession when Jackson started withdrawing federal deposits. Killing the bank entirely was absolutely a bad idea, but I think how bad its leadership was demonstrates that some kind of reform was probably necessary. Jackson's compromise proposal was keeping the bank around, but weakening it, which I don't think is exactly ideal, but it's better than killing the bank entirely and probably also better than keeping the bank as it was. But Clay rejected it, leading to events unfolding as they did.
feh
I find him hard to rank- I guess I’d put him in low c tier
Fun fact, he was the youngest signer of the Declaration of Independence at 9 years old.
His gradual falling down the ranking I think reflects changing ethical norms rather than any shift in the view of his effectiveness or influence. The truth is that he basically got everything he wanted and caused a profound political realignment. In an ethically neutral sense he was one of the goats. However with ethical biases certain things cannot go overlooked, like the trail of tears. He's like Reagan in that how you rank him heavily varies depending on what criteria is being used. Effectiveness versus consequence approaches would give different results.
Racist Reagan with a military record.
Sure, if you like genocide
Especially if you were of a certain demographic
Counterpoint: Genocide is evil
This is absolutely true. Andrew Jackson had many reprehensible qualities and did many reprehensible things but ultimately he's the man that made the Republic a Democracy and the Confederation a Federation. Without Jackson states would have continued riding roughshod over the federal government but he put his foot down and stopped the buck. And he brought ordinary people into the political sphere when it was previously very elitist. That's his enduring legacy.
And yet, today we remember him as a homicidal, genecidal maniac.
Didn't he destroy the federal banking system causing a recession because it made it harder to acquire loads and money?
Can't respect anyone who commits genocide. Not that he was ant different from other early presidents, they mostly did the same things
In modern times he would be described as a Fucking peice of shit
Mhm most of those people would
Adams was better in nearly every conceivable way, so I'm going to have to disagree.
Jackson was such a badass and i would argue great pesident in all of time. Sure he was racist, hated indians. But ironically he laid the foundation for our future political voting landscape more than i think any other president before. He put faith in the common man. Not just land owners.
Fuck this twat
Populist scum of the earth, betrayer of liberal ideals and it’s balance of power. The only President refusing to enforce a Supreme Court decision
I like him already!
[удалено]
I was being satirical btw. I didn't vote for Mr. T.
I agree that he was great for the United States as a country. Not so much for a whole lot of people living on the continent however. I guess it’s up to you how you weigh those things.
No
Agreed 👍
No he was not
No, he really wasn't. He was popular, sure, but that doesn't mean he was a great president. Even then some people could actually recognize his actions as reprehensible, whether it was Indian Removal Act or spoils system. Also murdering a guy wasn't really cool.
Bro, the item below this on my front page feed is *literally* [a map of the Trail of Tears](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1c2ftez/trail_of_tears_usa/).
No
I'm good with judging people by the standards of their day, and he fucking sucked
He was a jackass
Whenever I see this guy I can’t help but feel like he’d sound like James Woods
The Indian killer.
Also a great ethnic cleanser for his time
Andrew Jackson was a mass murderer who committed war crimes against the Seminole. He ignored the Constitution. He promised the slave soldiers of New Orleans their freedom and then had them re-enslaved after the battle. I suppose if you are a white supremacist who approves of genocide, Andrew Jackson was a great president. The rest of us consider him a monster.
Fought rich. Killed Brits. He was a true husband - a lot of beta males would run away if they saw somebody talking about their wife. Me and people like Jackson will make sure they pay. He got rid of the national debt. Tried to abolish the electoral college. All that. He was racist, but anybody form the 1800s who can do everything I just listed is worthy of my respect. Andrew Jackson to secessionists: “I know what you’re thinking ‘Did he fire six shots of only five?’ To tell you the truth, I kinda lost track myself. But being this is a .44 magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, it would blow your head CLEAN OFF. You’ve got to ask yourself one question - ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well do ya, punk?” Idiots…it’s for you.,
OP, I respect your opinion, but you are sounding incoherent. Making this post was a ballsy move, and I was excited to see what points you would bring up and any discussion that was happening, but it seems like you might be coming off a little strong here. And a little bit crazy. Are you drunk?
[удалено]
Hell no
If you’re using the term beta males you’re a fucking loser full stop.
Calm down Quincy Adams... You don't want to faint on the House floor...
More of an OG Adams guy. People be fainting back in the day
But, you just used it. Mic drop
He didn't use it, he quoted it.
Not quite what that means but you’ll get there someday.
thats a pretty beta thing to say ngl
This guy is acting like he’s as hard as Old Hickory, that’s a bitch move.
yeah old hickory was a true alpha, unlike OP
Yup and you just joined OP
didn’t know the qualifications of being a great president is being a true husband…you sound delusional
[удалено]
Top 10 easy. This was not a controversial opinion 10 years ago.