Old Hickory’s Ghost

[groovedaddy]

Americans have always obsessed over their nation’s history, even when there wasn’t much to obsess over. The founding generation had barely passed on before politicians began scrambling to claim their legacy – and at no time was that more true than during the Secession Crisis. Secessionists claimed to be emulating the revolutionaries’ struggle for liberty against a tyrannical central government, while Northerners were determined not to let disloyal rebels tear down the noble republic the founders had created.

But the dynamics of secession also drew attention to a more recent historical event – the Nullification Crisis of 1833 – and brought back to the center of debate that most controversial of early Americans, Andrew Jackson. Conflicting interpretations of his legacy tell a lot about how the North and South – and Democrats and Republicans within the North – saw the crisis.

The tumult of the Jacksonian era was still fresh in America’s collective mind. He was the last president to serve two terms, and much had changed during his 13 years on the national political scene. When he first ran for president in 1824, there was only one national party, and Americans, taught by the founders to distrust parties as the tools of ambitious demagogues, relished the absence of partisan conflict. By the time Jackson left office in 1837, national politics was dominated by a thriving two-party system. The underlying reasons for this change were numerous, but the immediate catalyst was the impulsive, provocative Indian- and British-fighter from Tennessee.
To his supporters, “Old Hickory” was the quintessential Washington outsider: a tough, bold Westerner with patience for neither political maneuvering nor legalistic hairsplitting, a triumphant warrior who pursued corrupt politicians and elite bankers and industrialists with the same grim-faced resolve which had brought him victory over Indians, the Spanish and the British. To these “Democrats,” as his new party was called, Jackson was the champion of the common man, and they followed him into battle against powerful centralized government and the would-be aristocrats who sought to profit from it.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/old-hickorys-ghost/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1

[era veteran]

1. To the native Americans he was a murderer.

Trail of Tears= genocide

[groovedaddy]

3. for whites, "Injun" kill'n was pretty popular back in those days. That doesn't excuse it, manifest

destiny not withstanding. I read a biography of Jackson last year that was interesting. I did have reticence about the forced removal of the Cherokee, but there was a ton of pressure from whites in the area to do it. Jackson actually thought he was doing the Cherokee a favor though, because he felt their continued presence in NC/TN would eventually result in widespread violence. Still, the "trail of tears" was a horrible experience for the Cherokee and should never have happened.

[bluestateguy]

2. He took on the big banks

We could use some of that.