It’s time for Democrats to ditch Andrew Jackson

Salon ^ | May 3, 2013 | STEVE YODER

[fieldmarshaldj]

"In Arkansas, party representative Candace Martin acknowledges that “If you look at the overall values of the Democratic Party, then Andrew Jackson probably would not be representative"

So Jackson stood for disregard of the law, for slavery, oppression, murder ? Well, that's pretty much the hallmark of the values of today's Democrat Party.

[Theoria]

' His states’ rights, small-federal-government philosophy led him to veto much-needed federal money for transportation improvements like one extending the National Road in 1830.'

Lol. A small crumb isn't a whole pie.

The Dems will come to love Jackson again once understand that some States today are passing laws with the idea of disregarding Federal Guns laws and Obamacare. The age of Nullification will hid the papers again.

[drew]

P.J. O’Rourke refers to Jackson as an “ignorant backwoods thug who perpetrated genocide upon the Indians, created the spoils system in Washington, and fathered that bastard political party of rum, rebellion, and Hillary Rodham.”

[Sherman Logan]

Battle of New Orleans, baby.

[Sherman Logan]

From 1830 to 1842, 85 percent of opposition Whig Party congressional votes on removal were cast in opposition to Jackson’s policy, according to a 1993 journal article by historian Fred Rolater.

Since the Whig Party was founded by those opposed to Jackson, it shouldn't be surprising that its members opposed his policies.

[smokingfrog]

As democrat presidents go, I’d say A.J. was probably one of the better ones. So I can see how they might want to disown him.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks neverdem. In 1819, with its power waning, Spain traded the territory to the United States as part of the Adams-Onís Treaty. Florida historian Canter Brown documents(PDF) how Jackson, appointed Florida’s provisional governor in 1821, proceeded in short order to violate the treaty’s terms guaranteeing the rights and privileges of Florida’s free blacks. He had Native American allies launch a raid into western Florida to destroy the village of Angola, where black and mixed-race people lived, some of them descendants of escaped slaves. After razing the town, the allies seized 300 prisoners. No one knows exactly what happened to those captured, but Brown’s evidence indicates Jackson and the raid’s commander well may have profited personally by selling them back into slavery. Seven years later, as president, Jackson would make way for the slave-based cotton empire in the South by forcing native tribes off their land. That he did so by violating the terms of his own Indian Removal Act Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[piasa]

With Republicans also raising money with Lincoln-Reagan dinners this spring, Democrats have to take a harder look at what the past means for their future. If so, they’ll find it’s not hard to do better. Roosevelt-Kennedy has a nice ring to it.

Roosevelt-Stalin would be more accurate. Kennedy's likely been rolling in his grave since the communists took over the rat party.

[dr_lew]

But he was a GREAT thug. He blew off the SCOTUS, man! Anybody could relate to that.

[piasa]

Seven years later, as president, Jackson would make way for the slave-based cotton empire in the South by forcing native tribes off their land. That he did so by violating the terms of his own Indian Removal Act, the precursor to the Trail of Tears, should matter at least a little. Indian tribes actually had the right under that law to voluntarily choose to give up their land in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia, as University of Toledo history professor Alfred Cave demonstrated(PDF) in a 2003 article in the journal the Historian. What the law didn’t authorize Jackson to do was precisely what he did — allow the Indians to be removed from their land at bayonet point.

Maybe it was just subject to interpretation- like Obamacare's fines/fees/taxes and its reviewboard/deathpanel.

[JimSEA]

Jackson was an out and out populist demagogue. A good fit for today’s Democrats.

[Gene Eric]

To Hell with the premise that Jackson was a slave/indigen killer unlike today’s angelic Democrat.

The form of today’s Democrat fealty is soviet style submission.

[Liberty Valance]

'Normandy Invasion' for the win.

[beaware]

and I quote from the article “And they’re bringing in the big guns: Vice President Joe Biden will keynote the South Carolina Democrats’ dinner tonight.”

That’s just too sweet in light of recent gun control debate! I’d like to see them try firing their “Big Gun” 3 times into the air to see if it will scare off the bad guys! haha! and he is a big gun??!!

[txrefugee]

What about the Republicans’ dumping their Lincoln Day dinners because he would be charged with war crimes today for his systematic destruction of civilian homes in the South during the War Between the States?

[3Fingas]

Yes. The democrats should ditch Jackson. They no longer have anything in common with him. Jackson was a patriot and a fighter. Dems today have neither of those qualities.

Dems should just admit that they follow this guy instead.

[Teacher317]

Allman says. “His main contribution was expanding slavery.”

Considering that the Democrat Party fought for slavery, created and passed all the Jim Crow laws, and have treated blacks as second-class citizens since their creation (treating them differently by statute, including Affirmative Action and hiring quotas), they should toss out their entire party, past and present.

[popdonnelly]

Jackson, not Jefferson, was the true founder of the Democratic Party.

[cotton1706]

If democrats are beginning to get uncomfortable with the history of their party, wait till they get to the segregation and the lynchings!