Current Events > Andrew Jackson was the last great president.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Gonna be an unpopular opinion. And I can already see "b-b-b-b-but trail of tears!" because that's all that many people care about.

The fact of the matter is he fought against a national bank. He knew it what it would lead to. Banks control everything these days. They own you. They literally own you. They have your money, they own your house, they own your car, they can't give everyone your money. They fucking own you. They want you to refinance your shit for longer, even though it'll be cheaper monthly. They want to legally own everything you "own" for your entire life, until you're dead, then some younger guy will get a hold of it and then the process repeats itself. Then when that bubble finally bursts, all the shit is legally theirs.

I honestly think the Federal Reserve put Jackson's face on the twenty just to spite him. They had talks about replacing him on the bill and I say good. He's probably been rolling in his grave since they did. He was probably the last president before this government became irreparably corrupt.
---

Seriously though

that whole "genocide" thing
---

*yawn*
---

Last great? Really? I'm not even sure he's top ten, but to say last great is one hell of an exaggeration. Just sounds like you're intentionally being contrarian.

Now one of the best Presidents who was heavily underrated was Polk, but even considering his contributions, to say last great is pretty silly.
---

Is this an unreleased Trump speech?
---

He was a terrible human and I hope he's enjoying hell
---

He was not only the last great president, he was the greatest president we ever had
---

... Lincoln?
---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

... Lincoln?

According to TC why free the slaves when you can be pro slavery and genocide?
---

Doom_Art posted...

Seriously though

that whole "genocide" thing

First response, and trail of tears. Why am I surprised.

Citizens said get these Indians out of here or we're going to kill them all. If he hadn't done what he did, a real genocide would have occurred. So he moved them, and some died along the way. Its unfortunate, but he wasn't fucking Hitler trying to exterminate a race. He saw the conflict and tried to solve it as nonviolently as he could. He shoulders the blame for it, but it was the correct decision.
---

Irony posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

... Lincoln?

According to TC why free the slaves when you can be pro slavery and genocide?

You do realize the appointees of Jackson sided with the Union in the Civil War and he directly prevented South Carolina from seceding from the Union during his time in office right?
---

I'm being dead serious here. You support Andrew Jackson, then it's "lol you support slavery and genocide". That's all you dumbfucks care about. You don't care that you're being repeatedly fucked in the ass by banks and the media keeps pushing race relations on the populous so we can all be divided. Same reason there's a two party system these days, because it pits one side against the other and keeps the public yelling at each other while the higher ups do their own thing unnoticed because we're too preoccupied.

The last thing the government wants is the public to be united. They'll do anything to keep us divided. They control the media, and the media keeps pushing divisive shit.

Am I saying race relations isn't important? No. But I am saying that isn't the only thing we should be worried about. And while we completely focus our sole attention to that shit like the higher ups want us to, they're making the gap wider and wider. They know this isn't sustainable, and when that bubble they've been making finally does fucking pop after hundreds of years, we're not gonna be able to do anything.
---

I mean, it's not even a bad opinion. It's just blatant false information
---

"But think of what Hitler did for Germany's economy."

Let's not get carried away with the "last" thing, but I certainly don't think he deserves his current reputation with the public.

Historian H. W. Brands observes that Jackson's reputation declined after the mid-20th century as his actions towards to Indians and African Americans received new attention. After the Civil Rights movement, Brand writes, "his unrepentant ownership of slaves marked him as one to be censured rather than praised."[183] Further, "By the turn of the present [21st] century, it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that the one thing American schoolchildren learned about Jackson was that he was the author of the Trail of Tears."[183]
---

This site resembles stormfront more and more all the time.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Let's not get carried away with the "last" thing, but I certainly don't think he deserves his current reputation with the public.

Historian H. W. Brands observes that Jackson's reputation declined after the mid-20th century as his actions towards to Indians and African Americans received new attention. After the Civil Rights movement, Brand writes, "his unrepentant ownership of slaves marked him as one to be censured rather than praised."[183] Further, "By the turn of the present [21st] century, it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that the one thing American schoolchildren learned about Jackson was that he was the author of the Trail of Tears."[183]

What part of that seems unfair to you?
---

Sanktu_Vyvorant posted...

I mean, it's not even a bad opinion. It's just blatant false information

Please point out the false information I've provided specifically. Like seriously. I want to open up the floor to debate. I'm not trying to be uncivil here, but all anyone can say is "lol you support ___ so you support ___". Like what is that to work with? If I've provided false information, I want to know about it. That's how people learn.
---

scoobydoobydont posted...

What part of that seems unfair to you?

Read my previous posts explaining the reason behind the trail of tears. And also, not one person has brought up his stance on banking and what has become of it since we went against his stance. Which was my original argument by the way that no one wants to address
---

scoobydoobydont posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

Let's not get carried away with the "last" thing, but I certainly don't think he deserves his current reputation with the public.

Historian H. W. Brands observes that Jackson's reputation declined after the mid-20th century as his actions towards to Indians and African Americans received new attention. After the Civil Rights movement, Brand writes, "his unrepentant ownership of slaves marked him as one to be censured rather than praised."[183] Further, "By the turn of the present [21st] century, it was scarcely an exaggeration to say that the one thing American schoolchildren learned about Jackson was that he was the author of the Trail of Tears."[183]

What part of that seems unfair to you?

It's accentuation of the negatives. Jackson was responsible for emphasis on the common man vote rather than wealthy property owners and formed the modern Democrat party. He also didn't let his affection for slavery distract him from things that mattered at the time, such as the annexation of Texas despite the stir it would give for abolitionists.

It would be like me saying Clinton was bad overall solely because there were more black people incarcerated during his presidency than any other time.
---

He was a great president. One of the best. But certainly not the last greatest
---

WaterLink posted...

"b-b-b-b-but trail of tears!"

WaterLink posted...

Banks control everything these days. They own you. They literally own you.

WaterLink posted...

If he hadn't done what he did, a real genocide would have occurred. So he moved them, and some died along the way. Its unfortunate, but he wasn't fucking Hitler trying to exterminate a race.

---

glitteringfairy posted...

He was a great president. One of the best. But certainly not the last greatest

*shrug* there's been some good characters, and some people that have had good character. But the presidency doesn't run things anymore. He's just a figurehead. If you want my .02 Trump isn't even acting on his own will, I don't think he really knew what he was getting into. This government is controlled by a group of individuals and the truly wealthy. And Trump is definitely wealthy, don't get me wrong. But he didn't really make it himself. He's just this charismatic shit talker that could always talk shit because he was born into his wealthy family. Should have just stayed in his lane.
---

Freddie_Mercury posted...

WaterLink posted...

"b-b-b-b-but trail of tears!"

WaterLink posted...

Banks control everything these days. They own you. They literally own you.

WaterLink posted...

If he hadn't done what he did, a real genocide would have occurred. So he moved them, and some died along the way. Its unfortunate, but he wasn't fucking Hitler trying to exterminate a race.

Excellent retort. Give me an actual reasoning behind why you disagree and I'll give it thought. Until someone actually gives me reasoning, because I've given many, I can't understand why I'm wrong, like so many of you proclaim.
---

WaterLink posted...

glitteringfairy posted...

He was a great president. One of the best. But certainly not the last greatest

*shrug* there's been some good characters, and some people that have had good character. But the presidency doesn't run things anymore. He's just a figurehead. If you want my .02 Trump isn't even acting on his own will, I don't think he really knew what he was getting into. This government is controlled by a group of individuals and the truly wealthy. And Trump is definitely wealthy, don't get me wrong. But he didn't really make it himself. He's just this charismatic shit talker that could always talk shit because he was born into his wealthy family. Should have just stayed in his lane.

Well I wasn't really talking about Trump. I was thinking FDR. That boy got stuff done. You can't say he wasn't a great president
---

I don't have anything against Jackson specifically, but if we're cherrypicking the good and ignoring the bad we could say almost any president was great.
---

WaterLink posted...

Irony posted...

Blue_Dream87 posted...

... Lincoln?

According to TC why free the slaves when you can be pro slavery and genocide?

You do realize the appointees of Jackson sided with the Union in the Civil War and he directly prevented South Carolina from seceding from the Union during his time in office right?

Appointees =/= Jackson. Jackson owned slaves and didn't seem to be the kind of guy to be against the act of slavery in any way. I definitely don't see him as a Union leader.
---

glitteringfairy posted...

Well I wasn't really talking about Trump. I was thinking FDR. That boy got stuff done. You can't say he wasn't a great president

He was a good one not gonna lie. Social Security was good for the time being and he dealt with the Depression in the right way. Although I do think the war helped his reputation (as morbid as that sounds). But he did kind of start the whole thing where the president is basically a celebrity now.

Speaking of him, Social Security needs to just end now or really be revamped. It's gonna happen sometime
---

I would say JFK tbh
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

Appointees =/= Jackson. Jackson owned slaves and didn't seem to be the kind of guy to be against the act of slavery in any way. I definitely don't see him as a Union leader.

He pointed the Union military at South Carolina (a slave state) for threatening to secede when he was in office. Like, are you fucking kidding me? George Washington owned slaves too. So did Jefferson. Stop projecting modern social views on the past and associating one thing with another thing.

Just because he did own slaves doesn't mean he thinks that that particular stance meant the country should divide. That's what you people don't fucking get. Just because one person has a certain view in one area doesn't mean they hold the same views in other categories that other people that hold that same view do.
---

Yeah, Jackson said he always intended to die in the Union. As mentioned, he didn't let his ownership of slaves get in the way of things that mattered at the time.
---

Over 30 posts in. Still no one talking about my point about banking. Like, not one. That is seriously the problem here and what started once he left office. Its just so telling that absolutely no one wants to discuss that and only wants to say "lol trail of tears lol slavery". Man, the higher ups really did a great job. No wonder that's the only thing anyone remembers Jackson for these days. They don't want anyone liking a president that was explicitly against a national bank and how corrupt they could become because that's literally what has happened. It's just easier to look at the negative like slavery and trail of tears, even though the latter was actually the right decision.

Then they put him on the twenty so they can laugh at his face for his futile efforts to prevent what happened. It's poetic justice to them I swear to god
---

I'm surprised you haven't started ranting about DA JOOOWZ yet
---

WaterLink posted...

Still no one talking about my point about banking.

That's because you're listing a financial crisis as a positive for his presidency.

You're clueless.

LethalAffinity posted...

I'm surprised you haven't started ranting about DA JOOOWZ yet

The hell are you talking about?

Broseph_Stalin posted...

WaterLink posted...

Still no one talking about my point about banking.

That's because you're listing a financial crisis as a positive for his presidency.

You're clueless.

Please give me specifics. If you want to educate me, then educate me. Just telling me "you're wrong" doesn't tell me anything. I'm begging you. Tell me why I'm wrong. Otherwise I'm going to assume you can't tell me exactly why because you don't know exactly why and just hate that I'm bringing up points that go against what you learned in school or that you can't get over "trail of tears and slaves" while I've addressed those issues head on.

The banks still fucking own you and everything you "own". And he tried to protect us against that. No one else since then has.
---

Shutting down the national bank created a financial panic. It was populist nonsense, Jackson had no idea what he was doing like you have no idea what you're saying. This is basic stuff if you ever care to actually read anything about Jackson.

WaterLink posted...

And I can already see "b-b-b-b-but trail of tears!" because that's all that many people care about.

Because, you know, genocide is just not as big of a deal as people make it out to be, right?

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Shutting down the national bank created a financial panic. It was populist nonsense, Jackson had no idea what he was doing like you have no idea what you're saying. This is basic stuff if you ever care to actually read anything about Jackson.

So let the banks technically own everything you own is a good idea? When you're halfway through with a mortgage they try to get everyone to extend because "OMG it lowers your monthly bill" but you're still sending them a check every month but for longer, and then when you finally croak the next guy they repeat the same process over again?

Banks want to own everything these days. They don't want people to own their own shit, because when shit finally breaks down, they're the legal owners of everything and they have legal right to take what you're leasing to them.

Sure what he was doing caused a financial panic. But I hear "the public has to be protected from themselves" rhetoric all the fucking time. Why doesn't it apply here? Because the bankers want to be relied upon. Plain and simple. They don't give a fuck about anyone. They want to have a stake in any major thing you own until you die and the next person comes along so they can do it again until that time comes.

Dash_Harber posted...

WaterLink posted...

And I can already see "b-b-b-b-but trail of tears!" because that's all that many people care about.

Because, you know, genocide is just not as big of a deal as people make it out to be, right?

First of all what he did wasn't genocide. I don't know why you guys keep calling it that. If he didn't do what he did a real genocide would have occurred and we'd be reading a different history book. I've already addressed this. He relocated them to get them away from the shit that was going down and from the people that wanted them dead if they weren't off their property.

He had the choice to let them be slaughtered or move them somewhere remote where they could live amongst themselves. So he chose the latter.
---

Terra-enforcer posted...

Appointees =/= Jackson. Jackson owned slaves and didn't seem to be the kind of guy to be against the act of slavery in any way.

Andrew Jackson literally paid his slaves. He was one of the only people who did. He was much more benevolent with his treatment of slaves than damn near anyone else during that time, including Jefferson / Washington. Historically relative, he was super progressive at the time.

Broseph_Stalin posted...

Shutting down the national bank created a financial panic. It was populist nonsense, Jackson had no idea what he was doing like you have no idea what you're saying. This is basic stuff if you ever care to actually read anything about Jackson.

Such panic that they never bothered to replace it for 70 years, sure. Such Financial Crisis that Andrew Jackson literally paid off the National Debt and is the only president to have ever done so.

Dash_Harber posted...

Because, you know, genocide is just not as big of a deal as people make it out to be, right?

Andrew Jackson didn't really have a choice. Protecting the Cherokee nation from genocide would mean having the military turn guns on US Citizens instead, in which case we'd be having a very different discussion about Andrew Jackson and I assure you it wouldn't be in the context of how he was some hero who saved the natives.
---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-18/its-time-get-painfully-honest-banks-are-evil

Just reality. Yet people are too blind to see it. At the end of the day they're the ones that hold claim to everything. You think they care if you've never said the n-word or the f-word for gay people? No.

That's not the real issue here folks. Racism is an issue yes. Because the races need to unite, and fight against the fucking classism. Because the uppers know what they've built while maintaining those below them as their subjects. It's no different than monarchism, they're just kind of more behind the scenes than being so upfront about it.

But make no mistake, there are those that are really running this country, and it's not the fucking president. The presidency is just to make the public think they have the power and a voice. News flash, we don't. But it's a great way to keep the public occupied I'll tell you that.
---

WaterLink posted...

First of all what he did wasn't genocide. I don't know why you guys keep calling it that. If he didn't do what he did a real genocide would have occurred and we'd be reading a different history book. I've already addressed this.

Fair enough. However, 4,000 deaths and clear negligence should not be glossed over. Nor should forced relocation. It was an absolute travesty brought on by a very hierarchical view of race relations.

WaterLink posted...

He had the choice to let them be slaughtered or move them somewhere remote where they could live amongst themselves. So he chose the latter.

Except, those are not the only two options. He could have protected them and their right to their land. Instead, he chose to forcibly relocate an entire people resulting in thousands of death and the complete uprooting of an entire culture for his own monetary gain. That is pretty shitty no matter what way you cut it. You can't honesty argue with me that his motive was altrusitic and not based on the possible monetary boon from having that land under his control.

Dash_Harber posted...

Except, those are not the only two options. He could have protected them and their right to their land.

If he did that, he'd be going against the interest of his country. You see the catch 22 here? There was no winning in this situation. You either support the natives and fuck the people you were elected to represent or you let a group of people be slaughtered. He found a compromise.

You think Christopher Columbus gave a shit about the natives? He took some to be his and his sailors sex slaves. Yet we still have Columbus Day.

Some horrific shit happened back then. It was a different culture and different values and we were still trying to establish ourselves as a nation, and he did way more to protect the integrity of our nation than anyone between him and the civil war ever did. The civil war would have started under his term had he not intervened do you realize that?

Like he literally had to threaten military force to prevent a slave state from seceding. And people act like he'd side with the Confederacy simply because he had slaves.

Also, you realize he adopted a native American child because his family abandoned him? Yeah, you don't read that in the history books. But he fucking did. Took him in, educated him, and got him a job. But hey, he hates natives is an easier narrative to write. The things he had to go through are too complex to really write about it because we prefer broad strokes
---

Also, since somebody brought up Lincoln and since people are apparently so supportive of native americans, you do realize the biggest mass execution in U.S. history occurred under Lincoln's orders to execute a bunch of natives trying to take back their land right?

I'm just saying. Lincoln had to do what he had to do in that situation too. But he's given a pass for that, no one ever talks about it. But we accentuate the positives with him and accentuate the negatives with Jackson. Why is that?
---

What books do you read, TC?
---

HesOurYou posted...

What books do you read, TC?

Aldous Huxley is probably my favorite author. I read BNW and Island at least once a year.

Bradbury is another favorite of mine
---

WaterLink posted...

Gonna be an unpopular opinion.

Yes, because it implies that no presidents after him were great. Don't have to be greater than Jackson, but simply great.

Teddy, FDR, hell, even Eisenhower, Lincoln. And that's being hesitant on a couple of others like Pierce and anyone in the last 50 years.
---

WaterLink posted...

You either support the natives and fuck the people you were elected to represent or you let a group of people be slaughtered. He found a compromise.

This is ridiculous. It's like saying "our people want oil, there is oil in the country, so we either respect the other country's autonomy or we invade them and take what we want. It's still a bad choice.

WaterLink posted...

You think Christopher Columbus gave a shit about the natives? He took some to be his and his sailors sex slaves. Yet we still have Columbus Day.

No, I know he didn't He was a raping, slaving, asshole and I don't particularly believe anyone should be celebrating the miserable failure that killed and enslaved tons of indigenous people.

WaterLink posted...

Some horrific shit happened back then. It was a different culture and different values and we were still trying to establish ourselves as a nation, and he did way more to protect the integrity of our nation than anyone between him and the civil war ever did. The civil war would have started under his term had he not intervened do you realize that?

That doesn't really justify killing 4,000, displacing countless others from their homeland, not compensating them, and not actually taking any sort of proper precautions to make sure they arrive safely, all for your own personal profit.

WaterLink posted...

Like he literally had to threaten military force to prevent a slave state from seceding. And people act like he'd side with the Confederacy simply because he had slaves.

I never claimed that.

WaterLink posted...

Also, you realize he adopted a native American child because his family abandoned him? Yeah, you don't read that in the history books. But he fucking did. Took him in, educated him, and got him a job. But hey, he hates natives is an easier narrative to write. The things he had to go through are too complex to really write about it because we prefer broad strokes

Don't be condescending. I literally have a useless university degree in History that basically only exists for moments like these.

Anyway, taking in one person and raising them in your culture doesn't really change the death and suffering caused by his decision. Not to mention the damage to the culture, or the morality of forcibly moving someone across the country and leaving them in a completely foreing territory.

I also never said he hated the Native Americans. You are wrong there. I said he signed off on an immoral force relocation that resulted in 4,000 deaths. That's a pretty big blemish on his record.

WaterLink posted...

Also, since somebody brought up Lincoln and since people are apparently so supportive of native americans, you do realize the biggest mass execution in U.S. history occurred under Lincoln's orders to execute a bunch of natives trying to take back their land right?

I'm just saying. Lincoln had to do what he had to do in that situation too. But he's given a pass for that, no one ever talks about it. But we accentuate the positives with him and accentuate the negatives with Jackson. Why is that?

its because he beat the banks
---

Not a fan of him, but then I'm not a fan of any US President we've ever had, and hold no real respect or regard for the position in general.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Except, those are not the only two options.

They are because the third option was to turn the military against his own citizens.
---