Why did he hate banks and indians so much?

The belief that natives were inferior wasn't unique at the time. He wanted them out of the way so white settlers could have land to farm (people would have pushed them with or without the help of the government). He gave them money to purchase supplies during the move, but the officers in charge spent it on booze or some shit.

>Why did hate human garbage so much?

Scary how accurate this is 180 years later

that quote is bogus by the way. The first two sentences are totally fabricated and the rest is taken from his book (written before he was president so before the Federal Reserve act) which is pretty clear if you read it in context he's referring to the big industrialists.

Try buying a house nowadays without a loan

Because he was a great president who operated in the interests of the people and has only recently been vilified by the (((left)))

All those redskins didn't deport themselves though.

Indians weren't considered fully human by most people at the time and many groups were actively at war with the US government. You can't judge historical figures by modern values, if you lived back then you would have thought the same thing, don't be naive.

Do you absolute retards really not understand why banks exist or are you just LARPing as early medieval aristocracy?

It's not about understanding why or how banks exist, it's a question of their power in society and who gets to regulate them. The system we have today is by no means the best, people just assume it is, because the (((banking establishment))) has conned the layman into believing that economics and financial markets are these incredibly complex systems that are too difficult for "regular" people to understand (they really aren't).

Jackson recognized this problem starting to develop all the way back then and tried to stop it.

It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Henry Ford

The trail of tears was a compromise for the most hawkish members of Congress who wanted Jackson to just send in the military and exterminate the Indians outright.

>Indians weren't considered fully human by most people at the time and many groups were actively at war with the US government. You can't judge historical figures by modern values, if you lived back then you would have thought the same thing, don't be naive.

How come Veeky Forums does an about-face and accepts cultural relativism whenever it's white people who do something shitty?

No they were considered human though.

>The settlers would have killed the natives anyway

Why didn't Jackson grow some balls and use the military to enforce Congresses decisions and the law like he is supposed to do?

Veeky Forums reeeees about white crime (especially colonial) every day in multiple threads, what are you on about? If anything non-whites get a free pass, look at the meso american threads (aztecs literally sacrificing women and children to "sun god", "hurr that was just their culture")

Literally thousands of primary sources of correspondence from settlers and government officials dispute this but I'm sure you know how they really felt user.

How is that an argument against usury? Seems like more of an argument against the state of the housing market (which has much higher demand than supply in coveted areas). I'm sure it's not hard to buy a house without a loan in shitty rural areas where most people don't want to live.

>and tried to stop it
He did stop it. Then Woodrow Wilson brought it back.

Cont...
High interest rates make perfect sense if you're lending to people of questionable ability to repay. In any case, interest rates for loans have to respond to market pressures. If a bunch of lenders tried to conspire together to set high interest rates, some other lender could do great business by offering lower ones.

>Veeky Forums reeeees about white crime (especially colonial) every day in multiple threads, what are you on about?
Dumblrinas are so used to shitting on European culture and history that they become blind to it.

The system we have today is by no means the best, people just assume it is, because the (((banking establishment))) has conned the layman into believing that economics and financial markets are these incredibly complex systems that are too difficult for "regular" people to understand (they really aren't).

I dunno, have you talked to regular people about economics? They are pretty dumb.

You do realise that that would mean the vast majority of the south under a police state right?
And also pointless destruction of american lives?
And also no real gain for america?
And also divide the south even more?

>Literally thousands of primary sources of correspondence from settlers and government officials dispute this
I'm highly suspicious of this claim. Why would so many efforts be made at 'civilizing' the red man if they weren't considered to be human? Inter-marriage with indians was also not terribly uncommon, John Rolfe being a famous example (and one of the first settlers too).

I've asked probably dozens of people on Veeky Forums who think that usury is bad why exactly they think that it is bad (the subject tends to come up frequently in discussions of the Jews). So far I haven't seen anyone actually make a sound case against usury.

>Evil
End this meme

He thought a banking system that allowed the private defacto printing of money through lines of credit would trap the nation in an ever expanding debt bubble (LOL as if, amirite?) and Indians being left with anything resembling independent power would cause inevitable ethnic issues throughout US history in perpetuity.

>banks are evil
t. performance artist Jones

>He thought a banking system that allowed the private defacto printing of money through lines of credit
You know that happened with or without the national bank right? Independent banks printed their own promissory notes which was often used as money. The removal of the National Bank didn't curb the practice at all and even aggravated it by spreading government deposits to a number of different banks expanding the amount of decentralized notes in circulation.

>You can't judge historical figures by modern values
Sure you can. Evil is evil. You can forgive the evil of some historical figures to some extent because they didn't know any better and often had to operate in harsher conditions than we do nowadays. But you can certainly judge their actions as right or wrong. Keep in mind that even hundreds of years ago, some people were nicer than others. So you can certainly, at the least, meaningfully judge people of the time compared with other people of the time.

Not a meme...

>Why would so many efforts be made at 'civilizing' the red man if they weren't considered to be human?

To make them more "human".

>Inter-marriage with indians was also not terribly uncommon, John Rolfe being a famous example (and one of the first settlers too).

Most men will fuck literally anything with a pulse so it's not surprising that horny single males would shack up with natives on the frontier, but that doesn't mean they considered themselves to be equals (white slave owners regularly bred black females). If they considered natives to be equal then you would see an equal amount of indian men marrying white women, but you don't. Even to this day minority men marrying/fucking white women is still considered to be taboo enough to warrant a significant amount of specifically marketed fetish porn (interracial/race play etc).

>Sure you can. Evil is evil. But you can certainly judge their actions as right or wrong. Keep in mind that even hundreds of years ago, some people were nicer than others.
>So you can certainly, at the least, meaningfully judge people of the time compared with other people of the time.

Have fun finding any person in the 19th century who fits your modern values enough to not be "evil" then. A couple centuries in the future when we only eat lab grown meat, will people like you look back and wonder how those "evil" monsters could kill animals? It's the same shit, you have to judge people by the times and circumstances they existed in. Lot's of the famous Greek philosophers molested young boys yet you won't find a university in the country that doesn't have their works being taught in the philosophy departments. Everything is relative and that's not the same as white washing/or giving a free pass.

You've just shifted your position from "not considering natives human" to "not seeing them as equals". Maybe it was just an ambiguous choice of words, but these two positions seem to me to distinct.

An 1840s Californian might consider a Chinese man to not be he's equal, but they were still seen as humans. Racial prejudice is one thing, and it's obvious there was plenty between whites and natives, but considering them to not be human at all is another.

Thats not what he thought at all retard, he just didn't like the idea of the state profiting. Under his administration the US was debt-free for the first time due and he squandered it, he didn't like that the state was in the green so he spent all the money and blew up the national banking and currency system

Ok so you have no real argument other than semantics.

except the part where people are taking the surplus. The people who run those things are paid a salary, not commission

The Cherokee literally did nothing wrong.
Jackson is a traitor. He should have been hung.
The State of Georgia is a traitor. Georgia needs to be reinstated as a penal colony.

>Lot's of the famous Greek philosophers molested young boys yet you won't find a university in the country that doesn't have their works being taught in the philosophy departments.
Well, I'm not saying their ideas shouldn't be taught or respected. I'm a big fan of the intellectual work of all sorts of shady characters.
>A couple centuries in the future when we only eat lab grown meat, will people like you look back and wonder how those "evil" monsters could kill animals?
I'm a vegetarian. Even if I wasn't, I'd be fine with people in the future judging my actions according to a moral standard, if that standard was logical (in the sense of being based on some principle such as avoiding doing harm to sentient beings, for example, rather than being based on arbitrary schizophrenic rantings like the Bible).
>Everything is relative and that's not the same as white washing/or giving a free pass.
Agreed. I already addressed that, though, when I said "You can forgive the evil of some historical figures to some extent because they didn't know any better and often had to operate in harsher conditions than we do nowadays." I've just seen too many people on Veeky Forums excuse their own lack of a moral sense by promoting an extreme version of the "do not judge past figures morally" concept.

You're one to talk, your argument is basically "some people back then were overtly racist so its totally okay XD"

If we're going to have an argument I have to know where you stand.

Saying "Whites didn't consider natives human" and "whites didn't consider natives equals" are two different positions.

morality is subjective and is a human construct
what some people consider to be wholly immoral other people would be fine with

imagine for example that 200,000 Muslim immigrants were heading for Britain and the people of Britain were offered a choice
A : take them into your land and try to assimilate/care for them
B : let them drown in the ocean

I guarantee a large percentage would check B... because they feel comfortable putting their peoples quality of life and their countries future success ahead of these peoples lives even though many who picked A would think that is immoral and evil.
Are they wrong? Who gets to decide these things?

I never said the Cherokee did anything wrong, or any of the other indians? And Jackson is arguably one of the most important "heroes" (whatever that means) of the United States to have ever lived in a strictly military sense. His nickname was literally the "Hero of New Orleans" (War of 1812).

Except it's not? All I am saying is that you can dislike Jackson's politics all you want, but judging him on his views on race is retarded, because he existed in a completely different time frame were people held widely different views of the world. And I'm not some white supremacist for thinking that either (I'm actually not even white at all lol) I just understand that history is relative and we exist in the framework of the world and society we are born into.

I don't care enough about either ("Whites didn't consider natives human" and "whites didn't consider natives equals") to hold a position, because arguing over semantics isn't worthwhile. I'd imagine the viewpoint of "whites" fell on a spectrum from animal to negro-equivalent, which by the standards of those times allowed for the near indiscriminate murder or displacement of either.

>You do realise that that would mean the vast majority of the south under a police state right?
>And also pointless destruction of american lives?
>And also no real gain for america?
>And also divide the south even more?

Seems like Lincoln didn't learn much from Jackson.

Lincoln was a globalist/elitist/federalist aka scumbag.
And he didn't careless about black people who were to him only useful pawns to accomplish what he wanted.

>I'd imagine the viewpoint of "whites" fell on a spectrum from animal to negro-equivalent,

It didn't Natives were above Blacks but placed in the "savage" catergory

He was one tough son of a bitch. One of the most fascinating characters in US history. Clint Eastwood should play him in a movie before he croaks. However his economic policies were bad for the country and led to the panic of 1837. He was a bit of a tyrant as well.

I think he would be honored to be on the Bill but horrified that it is a federal note backed by debt and owned by a private bank. I think he would definitely not be happy to know he will soon be sharing space on the $20 bill with Harriet "the Engineer" Tubman.

All the meme hate for Wilson by the internet mob since Zeitgiest the movie attacked him. Most historians rank him in the top 10 best presidents.

Lend me money for free! You shouldn't be compensated for the risk of lending money to a complete stranger! If I don't pay you back, just be a good Christian and forgive me!

Inb4 spotted (((you)))

This is what happens when troll meets troll.

He really couldn't grasp the economics of the time. He had an opportunity to be the President to build an infrastructure that would link the states together to foster trade and economic growth.
Most Americans felt that it was impossible to coexist peacefully with the natives so he took it upon himself to deal with the Indian question swiftly. He didn't hate Indians but spent a good deal of his life fighting them, so it shouldn't be very difficult to understand how he could harbor resentment toward a people whom he considered to be an enemy.

Loans should only be made to people with the collateral to pay it back and banks shouldn't be able to gamble with other peoples money.
If Bankers want to make risky loans based on potential or other things they can use their own money, not the tax payers.

There are much more important things then economic growth and he fought hard for those things.
The only President in history to temporarily kill off the central banking squid.
A true working man hero.

>Veeky Forums reeeees about white crime (especially colonial) every day in multiple threads, what are you on about?
Really only in the context of responding to edgy faggots going on about how "whites was good boys who dindu nuffin".

Tbh Wilson saved us. The Republicans wanted to make a private National Bank in the hands of Wall Street. At least with the fed, there is some government oversight.

Considering where we ended up and all that has happened I don't think we got off that lightly.
It was still perhaps the greatest single mistake made by any US President.

>Federal reserve is created
>America becomes literally the most powerful nation in human history
>Somehow this is a negative result

Worked out pretty well all things considered.

A temporary economic boom fueled by unique war-time conditions combined with the relics of our former culture did indeed create a uniquely nice country.
Fed had nothing to do with it and it was still the first step in destroying American freedom and transferring power to a new big Government led aristocracy.

The Federal Reserve has three central duties, all of which are vital for the economy. These three objectives are maximizing employment, stabilizing prices, and moderating long-term interest rates. They do this by directing the country's monetary policy. Without the Fed's guiding hand, we'd have a much more chaotic economy, with recessions and depressions occurring with much greater frequency due to lack of oversight.

The republicans were literally meeting with private banksters to give them the keys to the nation's finances.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jekyll_Island_Club#Role_in_the_history_of_the_Federal_Reserve

Wilson and the democrats were voted in before they could pass it. Wilson made sure the Federal Reserve be split up into branches throughout the country and put the Federal Reserve Board under public control. Jackson probably would've liked these changes. Contrary to popular belief he didn't actually hate banks, he loved his pet banks, he hated the idea of having one massive private bank centered in the northeast given complete control of the nation's finances.

muslims get loans with a fixed amount of money to pay back in addition to the principal. instead of getting loans with interest. which would be usury.

> maximizing employment

Should not be the job of a bank, nor a direct goal of any government power. Maximum employment should be an emergent property of the economic/governmental system, no intervention required.

> stabilizing prices

Why and how? Something, something free market.

> moderating long-term interest rates

Alright fine.

> Without the Fed's guiding hand, we'd have a much more chaotic economy, with recessions and depressions occurring with much greater frequency due to lack of oversight.

What proof of that claim do you have? I think central banks are a useful tool, but I don't buy this particular line of argument.

Post proof of this.
I am sure Andrew Jackson hated Indians and probably would of been for a genocide of them. I doubt it was any type of compromise.

He was a straightforward man.

All you have to do is look that what actually happened after Jackson successfully eliminated the national bank during his time and all the economic confusion it caused. It culminated in the Panic of 1837, where massive numbers of banks collapsed.

>The Fed's guiding hand

Or crushing fist if you piss off the Chair and the board.

>government oversight

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

youtu.be/GYNVNhB-m0o

>Youtube conspiracy video

I certainly hope you don't expect me to actually click that.

>that Jew who leans over and tells her what to say at 1:50

I'm sorry but you must have clicked something else, all I posted was an unedited Senate hearing regarding the Federal Reserve's money handling, no conspiracy video there friend, just pure CSPAN coverage.

Booker T Washington or Calvin Coolidge would have been better choices. For a woman choice, Eleanor Roosevelt.

>Video literally starts sperging out about Masons less than a minute into the runtime

>the video sperged out
>not the commentary regarding her pin

I can find many more videos of this exact dialogue minus the "sperging" user.

Why don't you?

>There is a timeline that if Jackson didn't remove the indians that they could of been slaughtered even further and could have been close to genocide

Granted its a big what if but its possible.