[fruser1]

Jackson is on the 20 because he was a great president.

Those who have bad things to say about him only speak of the politically correct indian situation.

Ignoring that, there’s nothing wrong w/him. He was a no-nonsense man of the people and probably would’ve been a TEA party candidate were he alive today.

He got on the bill, I think, because he did a lot to expand the territory.

If you have a problem w/the U.S. existing because the indians were “here first”, I can see why you wouldn’t like him.

I, however, was never the sap for such propaganda.

[catfish1957]

Wow!!!! I am no Indian apologist, but I”d read up a little about the forced Trail of Tears march of the Cherokees before making comments like that.

[OftheOhio]

That isn’t the only reason. President Andrew Jackson released General Santa Anna back to Mexico the very next year after the Alamo. Eleven years after the Alamo, Americans once again had to fight Santa Anna at the battle of Chapultepec. In his later years Santa Anna lived on Staten island in New York. Does this traitorous act by a president sound familiar. This man had hundreds of prisoners executed and is given a free pass to wage war on Americans once again. Sounds like current events to me, John Boehner and his master comes to mind. Millions of us without jobs and amnesty is the priority.

[Meet the New Boss]

I wonder whether we would have had a civil war if Jackson (or someone just like him) had been president instead of Lincoln during those years.

There was a secession movement during Jackson’s presidency and he basically told the hotheads in South Carolina to shut up and sit down - and they did.

[verga]

would’ve been a TEA party candidate were he alive today

The libtards know this and in their minds that is reason enough.

[Sherman Logan]

He was a no-nonsense man of the people

True, with "the people" defined as white Americans. The objections to him arise now because our definition has expanded.

The objectors are IMO somewhat myopic, as they can't recognize that the definition of who constituted "the people" had to expand gradually.

In the days of Magna Carta it was essentially limited to the nobility. By the time USA was founded, in most states it meant reasonably well-off white men.

We had to go through a state of "all white men" to get to "all adults."

[DManA]

The Supreme Court sided with the Indians. Jackson acted illegally in expelling them. He broke his oath to defend the Constitution.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It would be quite wrong to defend Jackson on the Indian expulsions of the 1830's on any grounds.

Jackson is the "model"

• for Obama's selective enforcement of law;

• for Obama's coercing, bribing and suborning of legislators;

• for Obama's contempt for private property;

• for Obama's forced redistribution of wealth;

• for Obama's punishment of the productive

• for Obama's unearned subsidies to the shiftless,

• for Obama's destruction of farmers

• for Obama's "stroke of the pen" style of autocracy: law, states, and the U.S. Supreme Court be damned, and

• for Obama's massive import of immigrants to create constituencies for himself.

These people were not enemies of, or belligerents against, the United States. They weren't even so culturally different from their Euro-American neighbors. They held legal title to their lands, farmed, used plows, harrows and wagons pulled by horses and mules, ran sawmills, grain mills and printing presses, sang Christian hymns in their Christian churches. They were lawful, hard-working, sober and productive.

George W. Harkins, Choctaw

Cherokee Principal Chief John Ross

Betsy Stephens, Cherokee

Marcia Pascal, Cherokee

This was an ethnic cleansing Holder and Obama can only dream of.

[Rebelbase]

“Those who have bad things to say about him only speak of the politically correct indian situation.”

It’s not politically correct, it was a damn tragedy resulting from US government ratifying an unsigned treaty.