Dishonoring Jackson for Affirmative Action Absurdity

In Samuel Eliot Morison’s “The Oxford History of the American People,” there is a single sentence about Harriet Tubman.

“An illiterate field hand, (Tubman) not only escaped herself but returned repeatedly and guided more than 300 slaves to freedom.”

Morison, however, devotes most of five chapters to the greatest soldier-statesman in American history, save Washington, that pivotal figure between the Founding Fathers and the Civil War – Andrew Jackson.

Slashed by a British officer in the Revolution, and a POW at 14, the orphaned Jackson went west, rose to head up the Tennessee militia, crushed an Indian uprising at Horseshoe Bend, Alabama, in the War of 1812, then was ordered to New Orleans to defend the threatened city.

In one of the greatest victories in American history, memorialized in song, Jackson routed a British army and aborted a British scheme to seize New Orleans, close the Mississippi and split the Union.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/dishonoring-jackson-for-affirmative-action-absurdity/#8R5DhTL8CVFo0T4B.99

Let’s see:

There are only 55 years between 1775 and 1830.

“I also found what you left out of the apocryphal narrative of the beautiful survivor of the so called “tribal massacre””

“apocryphal”?? “so-called massacre”?

How did you go from complete ignorance of the massacre to full, expert knowledge?

Back then, Indians had only one gear, and that was to massacre. I believe the Cherokees were a bit different in that respect.

You don’t have to dig very deep in Indian history to find many example of Indian pogroms against enemy tribes of this type. They would kill the women, children, and their dogs.

Government leaders in Washington at that time were extremely conscious of these type occurrences, had ample examples that the Indians could be whipped into a fury, and did not want to take the chance of tribal wars and just cleared all them out.

I know, I know, evil white man greed played a part.

In my research, I was surprised to find that even in 1830, the government was making attempts at what we call affirmative action today.

Wikipedia is okay, but hardly authoritarian of some matters, obviously this one. I don’t guess Chief Cole ever read Wikipedia. A number of Indian tribes at that time had Scot and Irish chiefs.

One summer when I was going to college, I worked in plant and my working partner was half Cherokee and half Choctaw. He said that he was rejected by both tribes. After working with him for a few weeks, I informed him that he had completely shattered my idea of the noble red man. He laughed.

Again, from Wiki: "Trail of Tears"...

The U S federal government had been pressured to remove the Native Americans from the Southeast by many white settlers, some of whom encroached on Indian lands while others wanted more land made available to white settlers. Although the effort was vehemently opposed by many, including U.S. Congressman Davy Crockett of Tennessee, President Andrew Jackson was able to gain Congressional passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the government to extinguish Native American title to lands in the Southeast.

I appreciate your time.

I was essentially just lamenting what seems like a sad legacy of the times, as a few years had passed twixt 1775 & 1830. Long enough for so many Indians to have assimilated into the farming and planting mind and lifestyle set of the oncoming pioneers from the north and east.

That it's history makes it no less lamentable. But it is history nonetheless.

Thanks again for your time and effort.

All Good to You and Yours.

There are only 55 years between 1775 and 1830.

In about 1739 the Chakchiuma were involved in hostilities, primarily with the Chickasaw, that led to their destruction...

In 1838 and 1839, as part of Andrew Jackson's Indian removal policy, the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands...

1739 to 1838 is 99 years. Your family history provided the date of the Chakchiuma destruction as 1775 when Jackson was 8 years old. This event would not have been known to Andrew Jackson even with the date you accept. The actual documented date was 1739, 28 years before Jackson was born.

“I also found what you left out of the apocryphal narrative of the beautiful survivor of the so called “tribal massacre””

“apocryphal”?? “so-called massacre”?

As stated in your accepted account, "some alluring fragments of her history are preserved." Nothing was written by this illiterate native beauty, yet her story appears as accepted fact. The account also says:

In 1838, the startling declaration is made by Coleman Cole, her grandson, in his famous deposition, that she had attained the age of 120 years with eye sight and other faculties unimpaired.

That is the definition of an apocryphal narrative.

How did you go from complete ignorance of the massacre to full, expert knowledge?

Because what you had described was one hundred years before "The Trail of Tears."

The tiny Chakchiuma clan were allied with the French during the hostilities that led up to The French and Indian Wars. Guess which side won? As you should be able to see, in the War of 1812, as in 1739, Indians fought on both sides of far reaching European Wars. Your original post is ludicrous when you indicated:

The “trail of tears” was provoked when the Cherokee and allied tribes annihilated another tribe down to the last Indian, save one female, who they thought was too pretty to kill. Jackson stated such behavior should not occur in the United States.

You have yet to provide the link that Jackson made that claim.

Back then, Indians had only one gear, and that was to massacre.

I have provided you several links to Cherokee that at the time of the "The Trail of Tears" were wealthy landowners with hundreds of acres, yet you still appear to think they were more savage than Jackson obviously was. You seem to believe The Cherokee people were savage enough to bravely fight in battle with our US Military yet were to uncivilized to live peacefully as farmers among American settlers.

“This event would not have been known to Andrew Jackson even with the date you accept.”

This is becoming unreal. What I wrote about has nothing to do when Jackson was born. Nothing. He happened to be president when the Indians were removed.

Thomas Jefferson was the first president to suggest Indian removal. Jackson only implemented what most of the leaders wanted.

What I mentioned does not depend at all on when Jackson was born. Can you get that in your mind. Indian atrocities had been, were being committed the whole time since before Europeans arrived.

For crying out loud, get off your ass and read some history books regarding American Indians and their wars. I only mentioned one account. That does not mean there were no other events. I don’t have time to ransack history and report back to you or try to convince you of anything.

Again, when Jackson was born had nothing to do with what I posted. Jackson and when he was born never entered my mind. When Jackson was born has nothing to do the Indians fighting each other.

Your obfuscation is unreal. I did not dream this. Here is your post:

The “trail of tears” was provoked when the Cherokee and allied tribes annihilated another tribe down to the last Indian, save one female, who they thought was too pretty to kill. Jackson stated such behavior should not occur in the United States.

What you typed is not true. Name one reference that contemporaneously connects the event you described, and then doubled down on, or even similar events as you now propose, to Andrew Jackson advocating the Indian Removal. You cannot because it is not true. You should take it back and admit you were mistaken.

I find if it very telling that you say Jackson was against tribal wars that destroyed clans, yet see nothing wrong with Jackson killing 900 Red Stick Creeks and destroying their clan.

Just to let you know how I feel about this. For the past twenty years, every time I gave a twenty dollar bill at a store or venue, I told the clerk or cashier and anyone else behind me in line that that Evil Indian Killer Andy Jackson did not belong on our currency for his role in murdering Native Americans. I like to think that my personal guerrilla action had some part in finally seeing this happen in my lifetime.

I doubt it, but it certainly convinced hundreds of store clerks that they were dealing with a certifiable lunatic.

What's your next big PC crusade? Complaining to store clerks that there's an "evil racist slave owner" on $1 bills?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.