[LS]

I've written extensively on AJ. I've debated his lapdog biographer, Robert Remini, in various forums.

Jackson had some good points. He clearly loved America; he was decisive; and he didn't take crap.

But he was the first president to preside over a truly "big government." He wielded executive power far more ruthlessly than all previous presidents combined; he vetoed more bills than all previous presidents combined---a sharp departure from the English "whig" notion that the legislature was the house of the people, which ALL of the Founders accepted; and I think the myth that he opposed the BUS because it was a "government" bank is just that---hogwash.

I found a document in AJ's papers in Nashville that showed he had instructed Levi Woodbury, his TreasSec to develop his own "national bank," and it was not, as some apologists say, a "subtreasury," but a regular old national bank . . . except one run by his guys. He tried to ban all small notes (paper money under a certain denomination), which is anti-free market. He screwed the Cherokee, even after the USSC ruled in their favor. He implied he would hang John C. Calhoun for opposing the Tariff of Abominations (Calhoun was wrong, but hanging was a bit severe).

He's one of those guys who should have stayed a general.

[Meet the New Boss]

He's one of those guys who should have stayed a general.

Well put. Like U.S. Grant.

[Siena Dreaming]

he opposed the BUS because it was a "government" bank is just that---hogwash

Yes, he was very anti-Hamilton and his policies ending up causing depression.

[Liberty Valance]

bttt

[cripplecreek]

Too many folks think everyone should be all good or all bad but that’s seldom the case on the best of days.

[aposiopetic]

I found a document in AJ's papers in Nashville that showed he had instructed Levi Woodbury, his TreasSec to develop his own "national bank," and it was not, as some apologists say, a "subtreasury," but a regular old national bank . . . except one run by his guys.

Goldman Sachs?

[I cannot think of a name]

“He's one of those guys who should have stayed a general.”

He could have - and lead one of the armies of one of the three nations America would have divided its self into if he HAD NOT been President. There was no one else on the national scene at the time, that as president, could have stopped the “nullification” acts being proposed. Had they succeeded, undoubtedly the South, New England, and the middle states would have gone there separate ways.

Sometimes only a madman can stop mad ideas. Since I like the country better in one piece, I'm glad we had him. If John Quincy Adams had been reelected, America as we know it would not exist.

[ngat]

There is so much that is contradictory and just plain wrong in your post, it is difficult to know where to begin.