Why Andrew Jackson’s Legacy Is So Controversial.

Mindful

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2014
Messages
59,054
Reaction score
39,456
Points
2,635
Location
Here, there, and everywhere.
The seventh president has a particularly harsh record when it comes to enslaved people and Native Americans.

Should Andrew Jackson be revered or reviled? The question of how to grapple with the seventh president’s tarnished reputation has persisted since Old Hickory’s lifetime.

Known as a strong-willed, argumentative and combative personality, Jackson, who served as president from 1829 to 1837, inspires conflicting reactions. Admirers cite him as a populist hero who challenged the political establishment and ushered in a key era of American exploration and westward expansion. Critics say it's wrong to valorize him since he owned enslaved people, treated them harshly and forced Native Americans to be removed from their ancestral lands, causing thousands of deaths. Once so revered that his face was chosen for the $20 bill, Jackson has more recently inspired a tussle between consecutive Treasury secretaries over whether to keep him there. And in 2018, news that Jackson’s grave was vandalized at The Hermitage, his plantation in Nashville, Tennessee, breathed new life into the debate. Here’s why so many have questioned his legacy:

 
Davy Crockett was a fierce critic of President Andrew Jackson. Crockett strongly opposed Jackson's Indian Removal Act of 1830 which led to the Trail of Tears and the terrible deaths of so many Native Americans.

He opposed Jackson's actions to return to the gold standard. In a letter to John Drurey1, Crockett wrote:

“Jackson hated all banks...the only sound currency was gold and silver...[He] launched a crusade to replace all bank notes with hard money."

Davy Crockett attacked the withdrawal of government funds from the Bank of the United States by President Jackson.

 
I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "grapple with'.

It is history. Learn what he did, what he was and apply any lessons necessary. I don't see a need to grapple with anything from history. After all, it cannot harm us.
 
On the positive, he was their when my ancestors kicked wholesale British ass! Vive Le Empe..errr...vive America!!!
 
On the positive, he was their when my ancestors kicked wholesale British ass! Vive Le Empe..errr...vive America!!!

Not on their own they didn’t.

And I’ve been learning much more about those events over the last few days, than I thought l knew previously.
 
The evil that all associated with the government have done should be taught.
Don't include republicans in on your evil schemes of genocide and slavery. Those are all yours, pal.
 
Andrew Jackson was a man of his times
Those were times when slaves and Native American were considered subhuman and any actions taken against them was acceptable.
Was Jackson better than his contemporaries in his treatment? No, he wasn’t
Was he worse? Probably

But few of his contemporaries raised objections
 
Davy Crockett did. And nearly lost his life because of it.

Davy Crockett is more of a mythical hero today than he was at the time.
Most Americans supported moving Native Americans out of populated areas
 
I grew up in the South west part of the country around American Indians.
The older Indian's refused to have a $20 dollar bill in their wallet because Jackson's picture was on it.
The younger Indians could care less.
They liked having money, and had no problem with carrying $20's
 
It's ironic that someone who so hated the National Bank, and opposed it at every turn, would get his picture on the twenty dollar bill.

The Treasury Secretary who decided to put Jackson on the twenty did so without consulting anyone, and has never explained his reasons.
 
Back
Top Bottom