U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2020, 04:08 PM
 
Location: Northern Appalachia
5,466 posts, read 6,717,321 times
Reputation: 6608

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
I wouldn't buy into this as it's a very simplistic, uneducated way to view people from the past. It also puts you into a very hypocritical position, fawning over Abraham Lincoln who, in modern eyes, would definitely be considered a racist, and hating others who don't meet the modern standard of someone who is "woke", such as Jackson.

I have recently read several books on Abraham Lincoln and I don't understand that comment. Who would be the first president that you consider least racist than Lincoln?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2020, 05:23 PM
 
Location: New York Area
18,145 posts, read 7,119,563 times
Reputation: 13892
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I have recently read several books on Abraham Lincoln and I don't understand that comment. Who would be the first president that you consider least racist than Lincoln?
Well Jefferson.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2020, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Northern Appalachia
5,466 posts, read 6,717,321 times
Reputation: 6608
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Well Jefferson.

Jefferson had slaves; Lincoln hated slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2020, 07:22 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,649 posts, read 10,196,402 times
Reputation: 9401
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I have recently read several books on Abraham Lincoln and I don't understand that comment. Who would be the first president that you consider least racist than Lincoln?
Probably John Quincy Adams, though to be fair, much of his anti-slavery work came after his presidency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Well Jefferson.
I'm just going to go ahead and assume this was a joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2020, 09:25 PM
 
Location: VA, IL, FL, SD, TN, NC, SC
883 posts, read 231,844 times
Reputation: 1777
Jackson's Presidency is one matter, his service to this nation before then is another matter entirely. This nation came to be what it was, due to Jackson's performance in the war of 1812. That really was when the U.S. became more than an errant experiment that many world powers thought would end in disaster.

But the two era of his life are of course intertwined in one man, making for one very complex individual.

Jackson, the man behind the Presidency, remains among my favorite Presidents.

I am a descendant of one of his slaves. As a person of color when I walk the grounds of the Hermitage I am oddly at peace with all of it. He was a great man, and great President. Once again, to me, it all goes back to his childhood and abuse at the hands of the British and how that abuse steeled him against the British during the War of 1812 which put the United States on the world stage.

As I said, he was complicated man. The way he formed alliances in the War of 1812 demonstrated he could charm the aristocracy and gentry while rallying the common man in a way few could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I have recently read several books on Abraham Lincoln and I don't understand that comment. Who would be the first president that you consider least racist than Lincoln?
John Adams. He was adamantly anti-slavery. He had many opportunities to better his station in life via slavery and was under considerable pressure to do so but never succumbed while those around him profited by the institution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2020, 11:06 PM
 
959 posts, read 1,515,888 times
Reputation: 2139
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1 View Post
I have recently read several books on Abraham Lincoln and I don't understand that comment. Who would be the first president that you consider least racist than Lincoln?
I haven't read a single book on Abraham Lincoln. I read many pages of his speeches, especially the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I was essentially quoting Abraham Lincoln during one of his debates where he said that by advocating against slavery he wasn't saying that blacks were equal to whites. He went on to say that, when he looks at a black man personally, he certainly didn't consider a black equal to him, mentally or physically. I got this from his actual speeches. The left likes to ignore this in their campaign to vilify the founding fathers.

The first president that I consider less racist than Lincoln is probably Bill Clinton, maybe Theodore Roosevelt or F.D.R., but most certainly Barack Obama.

Don't get me wrong, I do admire Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, F.D.R., and Kennedy, but I also admire Washington, Jefferson, James Madison, Jackson, Nixon, and John Adams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2020, 11:23 PM
 
959 posts, read 1,515,888 times
Reputation: 2139
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
You don't mention either Jackson's rejection of the Supreme Court as a check on the executive branch nor of his culpability in economic problems. I'm having a hard time understanding how disregarding one of the three co-equal pillars of American government is somehow mitigated because of the context of the times. I also fail to see how a botched fiscal policy that causes a contemporary crisis must be viewed in the context of the times.

While it is certainly necessary to judge actions to some extent by historical standards, it is also clear that a lot of people just use this as a handy excuse to reject criticism of historical figures they like.

Anyway, from your gripes it seems that what particularly riles you is criticism of Jackson's racism. You drag Lincoln into the conversation, as though there is some widespread historical understanding of the 16th President as a paragon of egalitarianism. There's not. He was a racist by modern standards...See, the flip side of the notion that every historical figure must be held to the standards of the 21st century is this aversion to any critical assessment of national heroes that is unflattering. This reactionary take is every bit as politically correct as those it seeks to counter.

However, more to the point is the difference between Lincoln and Jackson relative to their times. Lincoln, on the issue of race, was progressive. He sought change.
I don't agree some of your post, but it is a good one.

There's nothing that is outright, factually wrong. It's mostly a matter of interpretation.

I admit Jackson was a flawed figure, but lean towards admiration, and admitting his impact on American history. You lean towards vilification, but also admit, to some extent, the flaws of judging figures from the past in a modern context.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:34 AM
 
Location: New York Area
18,145 posts, read 7,119,563 times
Reputation: 13892
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostOfAndrewJackson View Post
But the two era of his life are of course intertwined in one man, making for one very complex individual.
Extremely good summary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostOfAndrewJackson View Post
As I said, he was complicated man. The way he formed alliances in the War of 1812 demonstrated he could charm the aristocracy and gentry while rallying the common man in a way few could.
I think he saw the way things were headed and that the gentry wouldn't rule exclusively of the more common folk forever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostOfAndrewJackson View Post
John Adams. He was adamantly anti-slavery. He had many opportunities to better his station in life via slavery and was under considerable pressure to do so but never succumbed while those around him profited by the institution.
A very underestimated man. And he sponsored state legislation that didn't pass in his lifetime to give Massachusetts Jews equal rights. It passed a few years after he died.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
I haven't read a single book on Abraham Lincoln. I read many pages of his speeches, especially the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I was essentially quoting Abraham Lincoln during one of his debates where he said that by advocating against slavery he wasn't saying that blacks were equal to whites. He went on to say that, when he looks at a black man personally, he certainly didn't consider a black equal to him, mentally or physically. I got this from his actual speeches. The left likes to ignore this in their campaign to vilify the founding fathers.
I think he needed to parrot the views of his times. He may have been less racist than his speeched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
The first president that I consider less racist than Lincoln is probably Bill Clinton, maybe Theodore Roosevelt or F.D.R., but most certainly Barack Obama.
FDR? He was a wretched man and a racist. One of the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
Don't get me wrong, I do admire Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, F.D.R., and Kennedy, but I also admire Washington, Jefferson, James Madison, Jackson, Nixon, and John Adams.
Of those I admire Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Washington, and John Adams. Slightly less admiration for Jackson, Jefferson and Madison, but still quite a bit. All of those had important and meritorious non-presidential roles. Hopefully FDR is roasting somewhere below. A horrible human being. No beliefs except for what was good for him.

Last edited by mensaguy; Yesterday at 07:30 AM.. Reason: Spelling counts in quote tags. :)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Midwest
4,577 posts, read 7,422,324 times
Reputation: 8164
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Andy Jackson is one of those presidents I've always felt was vastly overrated.

When I ask people what he accomplished in office, I'll usually get some some answer like: "He stood up for the common man?" I've never understood exactly what that is supposed to mean.

He had many faults as President.

1. He disdained a real role for the federal government in his administration. For example, he vetoed something called the "Maysville Road Bill". This bill was designed to make it easier for people to move westward and settle western territories.

2. He ignored the U.S. Supreme Court and forcibly moved the Cherokee Indians from lands they owned and forced them to the move the Indian Territory in present day Oklahoma.

3. As you point out, he abolished the Bank of the United States and helped the lay the foundation for the Panic of 1837 which was a major economic depression.

4. He issued the Specie Circular just before he left office in 1837 and placed more pressure on the economy. Again, this was an act that helped lead to the Panic of 1837.

5. He was censored by Congress for his high-handed and unconstitutional actions.

IMO, he was not admirable. I'd support replacing him on the twenty dollar bill with someone else.
From what I've read, Jackson had great sympathy for the Indians. He adopted an orphaned Indian.

The move was to save them. They would have been cheated or slaughtered off their lands in the east, that was clear. Moving them was the lesser of two evils. The better of two bad options.

It's censured. Just because congress doesn't like you it doesn't mean you're bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:42 AM
 
9,765 posts, read 9,742,398 times
Reputation: 30778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwatted Wabbit View Post
From what I've read, Jackson had great sympathy for the Indians. He adopted an orphaned Indian.

The move was to save them. They would have been cheated or slaughtered off their lands in the east, that was clear. Moving them was the lesser of two evils. The better of two bad options.

It's censured. Just because congress doesn't like you it doesn't mean you're bad.
I read this as saying that its all right to ignore Supreme Court decisions if you, as president, disagree with them.

Some people have pointed out positive things Jackson did before he became President. I'm focused on his actual presidency. So far, the only positive thing I've really seen pointed out is that he stood up to secessionists in South Carolina over the Tariff of Abominations. If there are other accomplishments I'm ignoring than please clue me in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top