Was Andrew Jackson considered racist in his time or is he just another case of people judging events of 200+ years ago...

Jackson wasn't motivated by antipathy to the red man if thats what you're asking. On the contrary he had a kind of quaint admiration for them and their hard way of life. The Indian Removal Act was, from his perspective, a way to protect the indians from simply being exterminated by local militia and settlers that coveted prime real estate.

Andrew Jackson was considered racist even for his time. Do you think it was the Indians of the civilized tribes that he exiled who propagandized that exile as the trail of tears? It was during Jackson's presidency that liberals in the USA enter their role as the romantic enlightened protector of the noble savages.

you gave away the fact you don't know what you're talking about by using 'liberal' as a political descriptor 19th century american politics

Actually, he does. He's very obviously referring to Whigs and later Republicans, both liberal parties, something you would know if you studied 19th century American politics.

THATS ENOUGH INCATARD. You literally been shitposting for the last 6 hours.

Neither the Whigs, Republican or Democrat party were 'liberal' by the modern colloquial understanding and all three of the Whig, Republican and Democrats were liberal by the classic definition. By either definition you won't find any historical nonfiction that describes a particular 19th century American party as the "liberal" party.

The whigs were for higher tariffs to benefit industry and federal revenues spent on internal improvements. The Democrats were for lower tarriffs and the expansion of slavery. The Republicans were an abolitionist party. I can't imagine what book you've ''studied'' that gave you the impression The Whigs were the "liberal party"

>everyone is racist but us!
>hmm... actually yo-
>YOU HAVE BEEN X!!!!
Hmm?

Don't know who you're quoting, it's my first post in this thread and I guarantee I have more native blood than you. But you've been making the same posts about the same topic since like 10 AM and it's know 4:34 PM. You're apparently unemployed.

>you have been posting
Not everyone you don't like is the same person, you know?

But only one person is an Incatard who uses the same phrases in every post, and that person is you.

You got me, I'll stop.

>you are just
I sometimes post the "simple" copypastas and answer shitposters. Most of the time there is other guy that continue my chain posts. Like this guy .

Chill. You have spent too much time on this website.

I just made an observation about Amerindian superiority. How am I wrong?

I have an exam on Jackson’s administration tomorrow.

Help me, Veeky Forums.

Probably because it's the academic and historical liberal and not colloquial liberal you fucking brainlet

It's useless to ask if Jackson was considered "racist" because that label didn't even exist during his lifetime, however his treatment of Native Americans was certainly controversial during his presidency. Jackson was a veteran of the Indian Wars so he had seen the Indians at their most savage and therefore had little sympathy for them and this negative attitude would not have been uncommon among other frontiersmen or soldiers. In fact, as this poster points out some would have said Jackson was too lenient towards the tribes. However Jackson's Indian policy was also heavily criticized by the Washington elite and other politicos who used it as evidence that Jackson was barbaric hillbilly who should have stayed in the military and out of politics. It is worth noting that this type of criticism was an ongoing theme in Jackson's presidency because he was born of humble origins in the frontier country and was written off as a bumpkin by the D.C. blue-bloods as a result. So it is likely that their criticism was motivated at least as much by personal animosity and political maneuvering as it was by genuine sympathy for the Native Americans.

There were definitely critics of Indian Removal at the time, but there were also those much more radical than Jackson. It's likely that if not for the Trail of Tears, the state of Georgia would have just killed all the Cherokee

some things I remember off the top of my head:

>he and his vice president john c calhoun did not get along
>he was bros with martin van buren and helped get him elected president
>he killed the bank
>he killed indians
>he greatly expanded presidential powers
>the american people loved him

I already addressed that in my post you dense twat. ALL the 19th century American parties were classically liberal. There was no 'liberal party' because all the parties were liberal by the classic definition. Calling the whigs "liberal" carries a corollary that its opponents were the "illiberal" or "conservative" party and the Democrats were neither unless you're so daffy as to consider 'liberalism' entirely contingent on the slave question. The political situation of ante-bellum America is not encompassed in terms of 'liberal' and 'conservative' and I challenge you to produce a nonfiction source that characterizes the parties in this way and I'll eat my words.

We didn't?

We have to cut every Mexican in half. Half of their body stays in Mexico half goes back to Spain

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Republican_Party_(United_States)

Just send all the mongrels back to Spain, the pure natives hate those mutts anyway.
>1/3 native ancestry
>WE WUZ AZTECS N SHEEEEEEIT

>1872
>antebellum america
Do you know what "ante-bellum" means?

I neglected to specifically mention 'antebellum-america' in that post even when that's the period I was referring, to but I explicitly say it in my next post ()--I should have been more clear on that bit but my point stands.

Naw, mate.
Newest human ancestors are in the Balkans. We migrated TO Africa, not out of it.

False. They just discovered another fossil hominid. This doesn't change the fact that all current h. sapiens are from an African population 40k years ago, well after h. sapiens had emerged

every 40k years we chimp out and replace everyone

I think i’ve pretty much got it down.

Also, Calhoun wrote a protest against an import tariff for SC anonymously protesting AJ.

Jackson only moved the natives because southern farmers were going to start shit to get the land.

>implying that was me
dumb eurangatan

>Racism one of the only reasons that Jackson isn't widely believed to be among the greatest U.S. presidents

He also tanked the economy so hard it almost created a great depression.

Who cares. He was right, and we should have listened.
Still shit though for giving plebians the vote

Homo sapiens is actually over 300,000 years ago. The San people can be traced back to at least half that time period, so I guess that's when Homo sapiens sapiens developed.

>Jackson's sentiments towards Native Americans were often seen as not harsh enough in his time period.
It's amazing how more people don't know this. I've tried discussing Jackson with some redditscum and they just blew it off with their contemporary moralism.

...

>Jackson's Indian policy was also heavily criticized by the Washington elite and other politicos who used it as evidence that Jackson was barbaric hillbilly who should have stayed in the military and out of politics.

Even fellow hillbilly Davy "blasting Mexicans like daddy blasted British" Crockett opposed the Indian Removal Act.

That's a nice riffle