Is the modern backlash against Andrew Jackson's legacy justified? Was he overzealous and bloodthirsty, or was he just damn good at what he did?
>>740735
He was just Damn good at what he did.
No, they just finished destroying the confederacy so left wing historians need another American figure to destroy. The real question is who next? My guess is TR or Jefferson.
>>740735
Just that damn good
>>741266
Teddy is already not hugely liked, he's such an easy target that I can totally see it
>>741266
Good.
>TR or Jefferson.
Why Roosevelt?
>>741266
>A high level of discourse
>>741331
He's a boys' hero president, classically masculine and the face of American imperialism
>>741380
>He's a boys' hero president, classically masculine
So?
>the face of American imperialism
Maybe, but the trust-busting and general Progressive platform would make it a hard sell.
>>740735
>muh banks
>>741392
Classical masculinity is frowned upon in this day and age because muh gender roles, and the imperialism means he wuz a big bad wacist
>>741421
>Classical masculinity is frowned upon in this day and age because muh gender roles
How so?
>the imperialism means he wuz a big bad wacist
Lots of popular leftist figures were some sort of imperialist or racist.
Che Guevara didn't like black people.
Marx & Engels thought Germany, Hungary and Poland needed to conquer Eastern Europe to advance communism.
>>741266
This basically
Apparently just having history on the confederacy and it's leaders is so offensive and racist, so they have to remove anything retaining to it. Now they sink their teeth into other historical figures.
Do you guys think that in the future, parts of our history will literally be omitted because it will hurt people's feefees?
>>741482
>just having history on the confederacy and it's leaders is so offensive and racist, so they have to remove anything retaining to it
[citation needed]
>>741445
Yeah but Che wasn't white and Marx & Engels hated white people so who cares
>>740735
>Is the modern backlash
He was hated when he was alive.
>>741488
http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/rockville/2015/07/20/rockville-confederate-statue-taken-down/30448711/
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-confederate-monuments-20160114-story.html
http://time.com/4017022/jefferson-davis-statue-removed/
Just to name a few
My state (WA) is going to rename one of the state routes (named after Lee for some reason) to the first black union soldier from the Oregon territory
>>741504
I think they're doing that because black people are upset to have monuments glorifying people who fought for the right of rich men to own them, 2bh.
Not really the same thing as
>just having history on the confederacy and it's leaders
>>741509
That's fine
But there is no need to remove cultural/historical artifacts because you are against what that individual did/stood for
If nothing else, it can serve as a message that it should not be repeated
>>741523
Fair enough.
>>741509
>I think they're doing that because black people are upset to have monuments glorifying people who fought for the right of rich men to own them, 2bh.
That's the same argument being used to get Jackson off the $20 and replaced with a Literally Who
Hope you like slippery slopes
>>741504
>named after Lee
Wasn't he notably not interested in slave rhetoric?
>>741533
He owned slaves but he wasn't politically motivated.
He was slated to command union troops but felt he owed loyalty to Virginia first.
Really it was his love for his state more than a desire to have an independent south
>>741523
>there is no need to remove cultural/historical artifacts because you are against what that individual did/stood for
v.s.
>just having history on the confederacy and it's leaders is so offensive and racist, so they have to remove anything retaining to it. Now they sink their teeth into other historical figures.
Now which of these is a better argument?
>>741567
Ya got me, my first post was shit
5 Worst presidents:
1. Woodrow Wilshit
2. FDR
3. LBJ
4. Truman
5. Regan
Jackson was a really complex dude and it would be hard to describe it all to you so I'll just recommend H.W Brand's biography.
What is important to note about Jackson was that the thing he is now hated for, indian removal, was popular in his time. A great majority of people wanted the indians gone or were indifferent. Most likely the people would have tried to push them out anyway and would have been a shit show. The only other thing Jackson really could have done to resolve the situation was to protect the Cherokee with the army and as a populist he wouldnt have suppressed the will of the people with armed force. Well exect the secession threat but thats different.
As for bucking the supreme court, Marshall pretty much just made that judicial review shit up so why would he listen?
>>741751
Bizarre list. Care to explain?
>>741751
Only Reagan was shit.
Truman is based
>>741751
No Hoover?
>>741751
Am I the only person who thinks all the cold war presidents were pretty based?
He was always hated by natives.
>>740735
It's really a shame that the backlash comes mostly from bleeding heart progressives and A BLOO BLOO MUH NATIVES shit since his contributions to the actual political and economic workings of the country did far more to negatively impact the country than relocating some injuns ever did.
>>741445
>Che Guevara didn't like black people.
source?
>>741380
>the face of American imperialism
It's kind of good McKinley died when he did. Brought the country empire and economic prosperity,died at just the right time to remain obscure enough to mostly escape liberal wrath.
>>742135
He wrote in his diaries and shit that blacks and Europeans in latin america were both slaves but Europeans actually worked hard while blacks were (to go /pol/ fpr a second) lazy niggers.
The same people who want to perform a cadaver synod on Jackson for being a "racist" excuse Che's opinions on blacks as "well see you have to look at the context of the time and the way Argentinians viewed everyone else" or "but he was young and less evolved in his opinions".
>>742162
Source for all this?
>>742162
>or "but he was young and less evolved in his opinions".
is this not a legitimate argument? Should we not acknowledge that he changed his views? Should we hold him to something he thought when he was young?
http://anti-imperialism.com/2014/02/05/debunking-the-che-guevara-was-racist-lie/
>>740735
>intentionally kills national credit be eliminating national bank
>doesn't see why that's retarded
>causes largest economic collapse in american history up till that point
>lets van buren take the fall
>200 years later buttmad retards call him great on a cherokee cuckold porn message board
>>742201
According to modern American liberalism, no.
Any strain of racism on a person's soul is worth damnation for eternity. Unless they're your problematic fave ofc.
>>741567
This something worth copypastsing
Kek if you unironically think Jackson was a good president then you need to refocus on shit that actually matters like the spoils system and the national bank (or lack thereof). The only people who think he was good are high school jerk offs who hear about >>741113
This place is mostly filled with high schoolers, isn't it?
>>742542
Credit where credit is due, he was a remarkable politician who was the father of the modern democratic party. His name was invoked among Democrats for decades after his presidency like Reagen is among Republicans today.
>>741489
>Che Wasn't white
He was Literally a Spanish you dipshit
Based, did nothing wrong
>>742329
fucking this. as usual fools on shitty other unnamed boards make it about politics when it had nothing to do with it.
>>742654
>Argentine
>white
>>741846
It could have been worse if he he had not execute the Indian Removal Act. That was his rationale. People can't stomach that it was a popular decision, and then his "fault" was basically the general will, which means that almost everyone back then was at fault.
>>741331
>invaded Philippines
>hated native americans
>massive confederaboo
>believed in Imperialism
>believed in the superiority of the Anglo-saxon race
>>742542
Kind of a strawman because the people who hate Jackson don't care about his presidential term either, they're even more focused on his military career than his fans
>>740735
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx5IyumKmDI
>>741751
>2. FDR
lel
>>741421
>implying he wasn't a racist who slaughtered Natives at any chance
>>744102
>slaughtered Natives
In Cuba, fighting Spain?
>>740735
Andrew Jackson is the reason Americans have the luxury of hating Andrew Jackson.
>>741751
1. Andrew Johnson
2. LBJ
3. FDR
4. Reagan
5. Obama (not even trolling)
>>744527
Well, the common denominator between the five seems to be presidents who vastly overextended their reach within their branch of government
>>744527
He forever tied capitalism in America to existing assets, ending the libertarian dream state that was horrendously crippled by the Civil War. It isn't so much that he did it, the war going on and all, but that he was so willing to fabricate a moral mandate for what he did. That glib, incestuous trust fund fratboy ruined this country, whether it was intrinsically his fault or no.
>>744531
I posted that and your assessment doesn't apply. If it weren't for Andrew Johnson being a racist, corrupt southern Democrat, the dream of giving slaves land and shipping off the rest held by Thaddeus Stevens and Lincoln may well have existed and the petulant former underclass of uneducated, useless blacks would not exist.
Imagine if black people had economic freedom, how indistinguishable they would be from anyone of any other color. We could have had civil rights and property rights and leftism as we know it would have reached deaf ears in America.
Fuck Andrew Johnson.
>>740735
I have a hard time naming anything good that happened during his presidency. Most just memes for edgy alt right wingers
>>744552
Ask an Australian how he feels about banks and aboriginals and then compare the societal feats of Australia compared to America.
You can more or less attribute the difference to Andrew Jackson.
>>744597
America still has a centralized banking system and natives
And Australia has basically the same quality of life
>>744609
Two of three leading candidates for the American presidency advocate a top to bottom audit of the banking industry and no, we're down to people who say they're 1/16 Cherokee for a racial pity fuck.
Pure American Indians number about 2000 in the USA and they're mostly in New Mexico, not reproducing.
>>744552
>Most just memes for edgy alt right wingers
Double standard much?
John Green on Genghis Khan (direct quote)
>Also, people were terrified of the Mongols. Often, cities would surrender the moment the Mongols arrived just to escape slaughter. But of course that only happened because there were occassions when the Mongols did, you know, slaughter entire towns. So with all that background let us return to the question of MONGOL AWESOMENESS. First, five arguments for awesome.
He goes on to say that the Mongols brought rice to Persia, and that he likes Persian food.
John Green on Andrew Jackson (direct quote)
>And then we have the Native Americans. Much of Jackson's reputation there was based on killing them, so it's no surprise that he supported Southern States' efforts to appropriate Indian lands and make the Indians move.
He concludes this video by saying that Jackson is "the worst American president to end up on currency"
>>741751
>5. Regan
Only good one
>>741482
>parts
They want all of it sandblasted and destroyed ISIS style, and to have complete control over what's taught
See:
Maoism, destroying the 4 olds
>>740735
Shame his adopted indian son didn't grow up to become president of the us or the united indian territories west of the usa
>>744547
>Imagine if black people had economic freedom, how indistinguishable they would be from anyone of any other color.
They'd still be the underclass, man. There's less of them and they're dumber than other people.
>>744547
"Colonization" of blacks was a pipedream.
It was entirely unworkable. A vast majority of American blacks didn't even want to go back to Africa. A good deal of whites still wanted blacks in the south for the purpose of cheap labor. Attempting to ship the several million blacks that existed in the US at that time to Liberia would have been an expensive and bloody failure.
The only support it had was among a minority of northerner abolitionists who preached it as a kind of panacea for race relations.
>>744537
America would've gone bankrupt during The Great Depression without his reforms though.
>>741751
1. Pierce
2. Buchanan
3. Harding
4. Johnson
5. Jackson
Depending on how the next presidency or two goes I think there's a good chance Obama goes down as among the worst as well.
>>744643
Like I said, I wish people would criticize Jackson for something other than his policies towards natives considering how he destroyed the American economy for a decade and inadvertantly or not set up a patronage system that led to massive corruption through the latter half of the 1800s.
>>740735
BEST PRESIDENTS LIST
1. THEODORE ROOSEVELT
2. ANDREW JACKSON
3. THEODORE ROOSEVELT AGAIN
3 1/2. THOMAS JEFFERSON
4. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
5. ABRAHAM LINCOLN
6. GEORGE WASHINGTON
7. MARTIN VAN BURREN
8. JAMES MONROE
9. FRANKLIN PIERCE
10. WILLIAM MCKINLEY
Could someone post a list of presidential biographies for people who just want to read one book per president?
Also worst two presidents Buchanan and Johnson
Best two presidents Washington and Lincoln
>>745004
The problem is that some of the presidents are boring or only really have one comprehensive biography; and then you have the odd ones like a three volume Benjamin Harrison biography (why?).
I'm reading Peskin's biography on Garfield and it's really goddamn good though. I'd say it has the problem of focusing on Garfield almost to the point that a little bit of everything else can be lost i.e. his family life isn't given near as much attention as his actual Congressional career but then I find the political stuff way more interesting. I'm currently on the chapter regarding the 1880 convention and his nomination and it's a damn good read.
>>744957
I forgot that Pierce even existed
>>741266
The Confederacy ruined its own legacy by being the manifestation of a giant temper-tantrum collectively thrown by the south over losing a democratic election fair and square that ended up killing several hundred thousand people.
>>744957
>TR
>A.K.A. US Imperialism
Don't believe all the hype, Anon. America was better off when she kept to herself.
>>744694
I don't see what's wrong with removing monuments to traitorous slavers.
>>744552
I don't know why alt right wingers even like the early US. It was a Leftist experiment that presaged Jacobinism and ultimately Communism.
The epitome of muh slippery slope.
>>741530
Jackson hated central banks, so I doubt he would mind.
>>741751
Interesting, are you very conservative or classically liberal, everything makes sense but Reagan.
>>742329
pray explain
>>745479
They look at pictures of Thomas Jefferson and his >muh agrarians and Jack off probably
In my experience most are rather unintelligent, but draw their conclusions from things most people don't know about so they don't get corrected
>>745734
More like:
>muh poor man owning land and having rights.
Oh god its so terrible.
>>745466
>killing 360,000 yankees
sounds like a nice legacy to me
>>745431
Pierce was a horrible president but in all fairness the guy saw his son's crushed and nearly decapitated body right before his inauguration so even if he did have the ability to be a good leader during the period he certainly was in no mindset for it.
He's probably the most tragic president.
>>745479
>early US
>founded by slave owners
>leftist experiment
WEW
>>746209
It was the 1770s.
Regardless of all the slaves, Republicanism was a radical ideology (even though to be fair the "right and left" distinction didn't exist yet).
>>744957
>Pierce
>no Polk
>JQA
>>745004
How is Johnson a bad president? He literally tried to continue Lincoln's reconstruction plans before Grant stabbed him in the back. Congress hated him because he was a southern democrat and was never going to work with him.
>>746213
just because it was radical doesn't mean you can tie it to fucking communism. Especially when the founding fathers were more obsessed with private property over personal freedoms.
>>741751
awful list
>>741504
>implying statues teach history
You don't need roads or statues named after these people to remember them. I learned about various disputes/compromises leading up to the civil war in detail, and which senators/states supported which sides.
Then the civil war itself was also taught in great detail. We learned how brilliant Lee was as a military strategist and how bad the generals before Grant were. The North wasn't portrayed as saviors of the slaves. My class emphasized that Lincoln didn't make the Emancipation Proclamation until a few years into the war when it needed a morale boost. We also learned about how Sherman burned everything he saw.
You don't need to idolize something to remember it.
>>746420
yeah but they're nice statues. They should just build their own MLK or slave revolt statues, they don't need to tear down others because of their feelings.
>>743144
TR only believed white people were superior at present, and that other people's were just behind. The principle of his progressive brand of white mans burden was to elevate those people to the point that they were his equal. Which is of course racist but at least its with good intention.
>>741504
>(named after Lee for some reason)
There's more than one US historical figure named Lee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Lee_III
>>741482
>implying conservative nuts in Texas haven't been doing this with school textbooks for decades
Anon, please.
>>741482
Either omitted or rewritten to fit the SJW narrative. Our media has already done quite a job on the 1950s. No one even mentions that decade anymore except to make another tired "back to the kitchen" joke.
