Talk:Andrew Jackson

Opposition to the National Bank

I suggest the last word "damage" in this section be changed to "paper banknote speculation", or just speculation. Maybe the last sentence is an editorial, but I think it is pertinent, hence just changing "damage" would be adequate. "Speculation" appears more neutral and fits the context of paragraph, whereas now it implies Jackson's action of requiring specie for government land sales caused the depression's slow(2) recovery.

Text as it is now: The bank's money-lending functions were taken over by the legions of local and state banks that sprang up. This fed an expansion of credit and speculation. At first, as Jackson withdrew money from the Bank to invest it in other banks, land sales, canal construction, cotton production, and manufacturing boomed.[27] However, due to the practice of banks issuing paper banknotes that were not backed by gold or silver reserves, there was soon rapid inflation and mounting state debts.[28] Then, in 1836, Jackson issued the Specie Circular, which required buyers of government lands to pay in "specie" (gold or silver coins). The result was a great demand for specie, which many banks did not have enough of to exchange for their notes. These banks collapsed.[27] This was a direct cause of the Panic of 1837, which threw the national economy into a deep depression. It took years for the economy to recover from the damage.

Item (2): The links are always helpful in articles. Perhaps one here could be added because, depending on what is considered recovery, this depression was very short lived compared to now and the Great Depression caused by the then new Federal Reserve System "management" of economy. A link to other U.S. depressions would help researchers. Thanks, Sellersw (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackson was an over-rated, over-zealous bigot. He ran away from home to join the Revolution and then got caught... then proceeded to gamble on horses and got ... Read Morein 2 duels before his 20th bday.. thenn..... he made his early fortune as a lawyer after taking a 2 month apprentinceship... bought a farm, married another man's woman (his wife was never fully divorced from her previous husband. then went on the war path against the Creeks and Cherokees, killing both women and children in his raids. although he did adopt an orphaned child he found on the battlefield..(some speculate he did this only to curry favor with the public) That child died at 15 of tuberculosis. Jackson then wound up in New Orleans, where he violated habius corpus (illegally declaring martial law), and defeated a British force only due to the fact that he had lines of cannon and heavy artillery pummel the Redcoats as they marched in line formation against his palisade. After defying orders from his governor general and the President, he marched upon the Seminole/Spanish nation that had been supporting the British armadas in Florida. By now, Jackson was a ... Read Morepublic hero due to his military achievements and went to Washington as a legislator. When he first ran for President in 1824, he received plurality with John Quincy Adams. And in a "gentlemans deal" Henry Clay traded his supporters to JQA for political favor. The only really good thing that Jackson ever did was to oppose the National Bank. And Paige, it's not due to Jackson that we have a 2-party system but rather the pre-Civil War divisions that separated the rich, slavepowers and the working man. Jackson is similar to George Washington in the regard that they both sought to be "gentleman" and only ever achieved popularity through war and death. Also, as a result of his numerous duels, Jackson habitually suffered from the effects of lead poisoning (he had two musket balls lodged near his ribs from a duel.) thus, he constantly was plagued by diarrhea and headaches. His wife, Mary (if i remember correctly), preceded him in death and left him in a state of despair. It was said that ... Read Morealthough Jackson's love for Mary was unmatched, it was his political ambitions and the public attacks against her due to her shady marital past, that weakened her and killed her. If i do remember correctly, she died in her early fifties. Jackson was a proud, unruly man, who defied national conduct and presidential order to make a name for himself. and his ruthless treatment of his political enemies, such as John C. Calhoun, prove the Roman adage that generals should not be emperors. Jackson lacked any sense of compromise. In an interesting note, Jackson had a vertical scar on his left hand and also on his head that he received at the age of 13 when shielding himself from the saber of a British lieutenant. He and his brother had fled the scene of the battle and were tracked back to their home by the British forces. And his lack of respect and defiant nature caused him to receive those wounds as chastisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.218.181.150 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro gives undue weight to slavery and Indians

These were not big issues during his life. His views on slavery were not important to his day, or vastly different from majority opinion in his day. Mentioning them in the intro uses 21st Century atittudes in an article about a 19th century president, which is poor historical work. Can the reference be removed?--MartinUK (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Slavery was certainly controversial in his period. It was at least controversial enough for Jacksonians to declare a "gag rule" that banned any congressional debate on the matter of slavery and it's abolition. Furthermore, suggesting that the matter of Indian removal isn't controversial seems ethnocentric. To whom wasn't it controversial? ebr (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The Native Americans whom Jackson was murdering and forcibly relocating certainly didn't think of it as inconsequential at the time. Historical analysis (at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned) is not about looking at things from "the perspective that people had at the time". It's about looking at things objectively, and stating factually what happened, without letting your personal view (or the personal views of the people that lived during that time) get in the way of factual accuracy. The fact is that Jackson was responsible for the murder of more Native Americans than just about any other figure in U.S. history (closely followed by Jefferson). I think it's quite fitting that this be mentioned in the introduction. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The Tar of Political Correctness

His legacy is now seen as mixed, as a protector of popular democracy and individual liberty, checkered by his support for Indian removal and slavery.[2][3]

Mixed in whose opinion? Is this comment made for every pre-Civil War president? Is the writer casting 21st century judgement on our 19th century President, Andrew Jackson? Rminms (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I belieive they say "now" meaning current standards. Also legacy isn't some set-in-stone evaluated service, it's up for debate.

First Irish-American president

Since the page for Barack Obama states, quite arbitrarily, that he is the first African-American president, it makes no sense to omit the fact that Jackson was the first Irish-American president, as his parents were from Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.250.92 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)