Protestors Try to Topple Andrew Jackson Statue

Time to get the tear gas ready.

Sparagmos said:

I think this stuff belongs in the conspiracy theory forum. This stuff is so far fetched.

Click to expand...

Yup, you can lay down and roll over if you like.

Brightmoon said:

Frankly as awful as Jackson was I’m not sure I disagree with the protesters. The statue belongs in a history museum not on public spaces . I don’t agree with vandalism of art

Click to expand...

Let's put it on a referendum. I vote to leave Jackson where he is.

If everything that offended me were removed there wouldn't be much left.

Silmarien said:

Eh, there's no need to demonize American history. It's pretty ugly as it is. I'm okay with honoring foundational figures who were problematic in some way, like the Founding Fathers, but with Andrew Jackson, you've got both a genocide and abuse of constitutional power in that he refused to adhere to a Supreme Court decision.

Click to expand...

He refused to adhere to a Supreme Court decision. If only we had a President today who showed that kind of backbone...

SoldierOfTheKing said:

He refused to adhere to a Supreme Court decision. If only we had a President today who showed that kind of backbone...

Click to expand...

You want a dictator? I hear parts of the Middle East are nice.

Out of all of the presidents, Andrew Jackson is my favorite. He didn't care one bit and he was there to stick to what he had in mind and he got it done. You don't get an entire era named after you unless you're a really impactful person. Ever heard of the Jacksonian era? That's all about Andrew Jackson. Jackson also had the name "old Hickory" because he was solid as an oak tree and he was a good General. I don't judge people based upon party but effectiveness and he was a really good president, Democrat or not. I usually entertain Republican politicians but Jackson is one Democrat that I will raise my glass to any day.

God bless you Andrew Jackson. I'm sure if the same Americans in your time were alive today then they would have my back.

Silmarien said:

I mostly think this statue craze is ridiculous, but toppling Andrew Jackson is something I can get behind. The Cherokee took him to the Supreme Court, won, and then he ignored the ruling, illegally took their land and forced them to relocate to the other side of the country, killing several thousand of them along the way. The Trail of Tears is a really big deal.

Should probably also be mentioned that the Cherokee had formerly been his allies--if I recall correctly, one had even saved his life at one point, and he'd basically promised them eternal friendship and then did that instead. This man is no hero.

Click to expand...

Regardless, he was the POTUS. The statue should stay and the criminals that defaced it should be jailed.

I Love History & Archaeology said:

Out of all of the presidents, Andrew Jackson is my favorite. He didn't care one bit and he was there to stick to what he had in mind and he got it done. You don't get an entire era named after you unless you're a really impactful person. Ever heard of the Jacksonian era? That's all about Andrew Jackson. Jackson also had the name "old Hickory" because he was solid as an oak tree and he was a good General. I don't judge people based upon party but effectiveness and he was a really good president, Democrat or not. I usually entertain Republican politicians but Jackson is one Democrat that I will raise my glass to any day.

God bless you Andrew Jackson. I'm sure if the same Americans in your time were alive today then they would have my back.

Click to expand...

What made him a particularly important President in his time, aside from founding a major political party, was his shutting down the Bank of the United States.

I Love History & Archaeology said:

Out of all of the presidents, Andrew Jackson is my favorite. He didn't care one bit and he was there to stick to what he had in mind and he got it done.

Click to expand...

He didn't care one bit about the Cherokee, that's for sure. When what you have in mind ends up killing thousands of people, maybe getting it done isn't such a great thing.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

What made him a particularly important President in his time, aside from founding a major political party, was his shutting down the Bank of the United States.

Click to expand...

Which was one of the causes of the Panic of 1837.

There's something about all statutes where a leader is elevated literally high up, heroic, lauded....

As saviors.

All such statues of such aboveness...are oppressive in some way. You can feel it.

I mean every one of them. Even someone widely respected like Lincoln can be made oppressive, if the statute is that way.

It doesn't have to be so. He can be put in a human scale....in a human level. That is fine.

Only one Who is truly Good, Christ, is rightfully worthy of such elevation above.

Silmarien said:

He didn't care one bit about the Cherokee, that's for sure. When what you have in mind ends up killing thousands of people, maybe getting it done isn't such a great thing.

Click to expand...

Even the better leaders' statues seem to have an oppressive quality, and I think I figured it out just above. (Post just above this one).

Maybe.

What do you think?

Silmarien said:

He didn't care one bit about the Cherokee, that's for sure. When what you have in mind ends up killing thousands of people, maybe getting it done isn't such a great thing.

Click to expand...

I was going to mention the Cherokee but if I found fault in him for that then I might as well find fault in all of the presidents that have ever existed. You have to consider the good things over the bad things and if we only look at the bad things then there will be no point in even remembering anyone because everyone has done something bad. For Jackson, he saw the Cherokee as savages that needed to die because they were hindering America and the westward expansion and the predestination notion which stated that America is the greatest nation on Earth. Nobody could stop America, not even some native peoples. We cannot fault in Jackson for how he was taught to think about Indians and I won't either. It was the mindset of the day and if Jackson were around then he might have changed how he thought but he's dead so I'm going to defend him because it was the 1830's that we are talking about. I will defend any American hero at that. We cannot compare apples and oranges. Mindsets changes, attitude change, people grow sensitive over this, stop caring about that, etc. etc. Your mindset is indeed a 21st century mindset because you care. Most of everyone really didn't give a hoot about native peoples in the 1830's because the white man and the natives were still fighting like crazy so nobody liked them. It was just how it was. Everyone saw indians as needing to be gone because they were causing trouble.

Just to give you a little information on the social order of the 1830's, if you had some land, a business, and you were well known then you were accepted by society. Most of the time you were a plantation owner (in the south that is like in South Carolina or maybe Louisiana) and you made your money by buying slaves from negro auctions as they were called from town and they would pick tobacco, cotton, indigo, rice, etc. and you [the slaves] then processed all of that and sold it. You'd go to the docks, load it on a ship [the slaves would], and it would go to other parts of the world where it was needed. If you were in the northern states then you made your money mostly by manufacturing. Colt firearms for example started out this way by making firearms. They built a big brick factory and had women, children, and men doing the work and keeping the machines up (Yes, slaves did this too in northern America.) Children were used to get into small places and women were used because they paid attention to detail. Slaves did a majority of the work though and poor white families.

Women had no right to vote, men could only vote, black men could not vote, and it was an aristocratic society. If you had no land then you were nothing and you had to be someone's indentured servant for 5 years I believe until you got land or you would be a sharecropper. That or you would have a small business as a man of course with your wife being beside you. You could not do anything if you were a woman in society.

This was the reality of the 1830's. Jackson was a great man given how society was. As I said before, you don't get a whole era named after you unless you do something grand and wonderful and everyone liked Jackson. I do too. If I was alive back then I would have voted for him. Why? Because I too would think that natives were savages (like everyone else thought) I'd probably own a business like a newspaper company or something or what have you, and I'd see slavery first hand because I'd see people going in and out of town with many of them to work on a plantation. It was just how it was. I'd probably also read his inauguration speech in the paper and agree with it because it reflected society and how it was. And since I would have been apart of that society then I would have thought like they did. I'd vote for Andrew Jackson.

-57 said:

Yup, you can lay down and roll over if you like.

Click to expand...

What do you mean exactly?

Sparagmos said:

What do you mean exactly?

Click to expand...

he's talking about being a dog I think since the words 'far fetched" were mentioned.

Halbhh said:

Even the better leaders' statues seem to have an oppressive quality, and I think I figured it out just above. (Post just above this one).

Maybe.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think you may have a point. It actually reminded me a little bit of the Islamic hostility towards graven images, though I suppose the theory behind that is a bit different.

I saw something a little bit similar earlier, though from a secular perspective... the idea that because all historical figures have their problematic side, we should reconsider honoring heroes altogether. The idea of the article was ultimately that we should honor groups like BLM instead, which as far as I'm concerned just leads to the same problem, since groups are made up of people and also have a problematic side, but I think you might be right. You could argue that we're just turning history into a new religion with the focus on heroes.

On the other hand, there are some historical figures who have a quasi-mythical status--I'm thinking of Joan of Arc or Vercingetorix in France. Granted, France has got its problems and I'm not sure that holding people like this up as national heroes does them justice, given that one is medieval and the other classical and neither has anything to do with modern France.

The Indians were deadly enemies of the United States and dished out bloodshed as well as they took it, to other Indians as well as whites. Even the Declaration of Independence made note of this fact.

-57 said:

Tearing down statues is a deliberate act aimed at destroying the history of the USA.

Click to expand...

USA is founded through violent conquest of the Native Americans and through slavery.

That history is nothing to be proud of.

LaBèlla said:

WASHINGTON — Protesters defaced a statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Square outside the White House on Monday night as they tried to topple it, according to the Interior Department and media reports.

Click to expand...

Andrew Jackson committed crimes against humanity through enslavement of Blacks and don't deserve a statue.

I agree having that statue removed (peacefully and orderly)

SoldierOfTheKing said:

The Indians were deadly enemies of the United States and dished out bloodshed as well as they took it, to other Indians as well as whites. Even the Declaration of Independence made note of this fact.

Click to expand...

Whites stole North American lands.... They came to claim a land that doesn't have their names on it....

So whatever the Native Americans did to them is justified. The Native Americans are simply getting rid of thieves and robbers who are trying to steal their lands.