Hey Veeky Forums

Did you even read what you posted?

>modern historians
Why are you pretending this is a group that all shares one opinion?
There are varying perspectives on Jackson, just like anyone else.

...

I guess I should have said popular culture instead.

because he was a mean man to native americans, this shouldn't be hard to figure out

Didn't he have a native American son. Weren't his motives for moving the native Americans largely altruistic?

Well, clay is always good, I guess.

Yes, but most "educated people" in the US never go past the grade-school fairytale version of anything connected to race.

just a reminder, the cherokee "genocide" is a hoax. There is literally no evidence of mass death.

the second bank was pretty shit. It partially caused the panic of 1819. Historians who pretend the Panic of 1837 was caused by a lack of a National Bank are just playing guessing games in order to shit on Jackson.

the first google search results for best presidents has jackson at 10 and 12

>a panic caused by a lack of currency stability has nothing to do with the removal of the entity in charge of ensuring currency stability

Whatever you say man.

>he increased the powers of the presidency by ignoring the Supreme Courts and Congress

If that was true he would be beloved by historians. As a rule, they always admire the Presidents who expanded the power of federal government, and hate the ones who didn't.

That's why it is guaranteed that after partisan hatred boils down, Richard Nixon will garner respect from historians as one of the great Presidents.

Wow, that's a load. Nice generalization with little support from reality.

Because modern academics will get fired for not appeasing the SJWs.

He is not hated by ALL modern historians. Not a fan of his, but neither do I think he was a bust. My advice is don't read novels or popularizations, read the primary and contemporary sources and make up your own mind.

he's a great hero of the republic

but the indian wars are evul so he's evul now, also he owned slaves, that means he's worse than hitler and he should be removed from everything in history

actually historians love the shit out of him

They just get a bit of the cold feet when they get to the "trail of tears" part, but he and Polk was just trying to move forward with Jefferson's "every citizen gets their own land" vision.

That's a reductive way to look at it.

Jackson was representative of a shift in American politics from being something of a high-minded republic with men of letters & high-standing being seen as the only ones fit for high-office to something more of a low-brow democracy where the leader should be a reflection of the plebians. His conduct as executive solidified that change with aspects such as the spoils systems.

He's an interesting guy but arguably a poisonous influence for the republic.

spoils system was pretty shit. Also the trail of tears is the Armenian genocide of the west; they were both forced marches

they even loved the whole Bank episode even though it may or may not have caused a financial crisis later on because "he was the only president that paid his denbts"

Even the slave portions are romanticized
>slave insults his wife
>instead of hanging or flogging like a normal slave owner he challenges that punk to a duel

It's only the ToT that is his only black mark with historians (that and the fact that, let's face it, he's a dick).

>he was the only president that paid his denbts

Are there many historians who treat this as a great achievement? I thought most see it as a reflection of Jackson's peculiar prejudices.

It's not as if it was a rigorous feat. The government's expenditures were small (except for Indian removal) and revenues from land sales and tariffs were more than enough to cover expenses. The only difference between Jackson and the whigs is that the whigs agreed with Hamilton that a perpetual, but manageable national debt was driver for growth and mark of good credit. So it's not as if other presidents tried and failed. It's that other presidents simply didn't see paying off the national debt as particularly beneficial as opposed to spending on internal improvements like roads and canals.

It's like Washington's unanimous vote achievement despite really small voter turnout and states to appease. It's an achievement because it never happened before or since. Even if the later president's excuse was "bigger country; bigger difficulties" what was the earlier president's excuse? Debt from bonds and loans are well and all but then there's the war debt that was never fully paid off by any except Jackson.

too bad the destruction of the bank probably caused more financial burden afterwards.

...

He's so despised because he spear-headed genocide, after ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling otherwise. Also, as this user said, he played a huge role in causing the Panic of 1837.

As for a good American history book, I really like Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." It's by no means a be all-end all American history book, but it is very well written, and relies heavily on original sources.

>a central bank ensures currency stability
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

This is bait.
3/10 for making me respond.

Howard Zinn is a left wing ideologue and any reading of his work must take that into account.

see this is why it's safer to just answer "trail of tears" than "destroyed the bank" and "expand the presidency"

latter two the jury is still out both in micro and macro level but at least pop cultures knows genocide is wrong.

The trail of tears was a good thing from the point of view of pretty much all non-native Americans. Removing them from the land allowed it to be used towards development that materially benefited pretty much everyone in the country to at least some degree. Sure, sucks if you were an injun when it happened, but if you're anyone else, or even one of the naives' descendants in the present day that gets free college provided by the industrial machine only possible through the reclamation and repurposing of the land, you should be celebrating that Jackson helped pave the way for the population removal necessary to the systems that provide the very wealth and productivity we are sustained on.

Sucks for the traditionalists though.

You have a misconception of the indian nations removed as being some primitive backwards people who weren't 'developing' the land. The people removed were not the nomadic bandits of the plains. They were Christianized & firmly settled. They worked the land the same as the whites who settled there after their removal. They were comparably literate to southern whites as well.

Jackson's Indian Removal was ethnic cleansing plain and simple. It wasn't taking land from less developed people and giving it to more developed people. It was removing an ethnic group from their (legally owned) land and selling it to whites (many of whom were speculators and not settlers).

The process of removing them was also particularly shameful. Many agents of the government tasked with buying the land from the indians took little care in searching out the rightful claims. There were numerous cases of indians selling the land of their neighbors which the government would enforce regardless. Many more cases of agents fleecing the indians and pocketing large sums for themselves.

As I said, it was to the benefit of pretty much everyone who wasn't a native American. So rather than non-natives taking less developed native land and developing it, they took developed native land and put its fruits of production under their own ownership. Of course to take these resources under their ownership the natives had to be removed one way or another. It's a shame it was crueler than it had to be in its execution, but its benefit is not affected by that. My point that if you're a non-native American, especially if you're a white American, you should be glad that Jackson took actions that were for your material benefit.

>pop cultures knows