Tubman knocks off Jackson
- Thread starter Joe Fan
- Start date
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Good grief
Anyways, here is the proper way to honor Tubman
Also, I would prefer she knock Wilson off the big bill
Jackson vigorously fought the idea of a Central Bank (the Fed) until his dying breath. He should be rewarded for that, not punished. Plus, he supported Texas (v. Mexico), and earlier won the Battle of New Orleans. That's enough. Wilson, moreover, was something of an idiot (statist, elitist, imperialist, war mongerist, racist, sexist - all ths -ists).
Jackson>Wilson
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
At best Jackson's record is mixed. I don't have any issue with Tubman replacing him. In addition to the underground railroad, she was very vocal in pushing women's suffrage too. She's an easy choice.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Last edited:
Do you mean Houston? I am ignorant as to what AJ had to do with Texas winning independence from Mexico. Please enlighten me.
Jackson tried to buy Texas from Mexico, but his predecessor and political opposite, John Q. Adams, had also wanted to buy Texas. There was a US army stationed in Louisiana (Gainesville, place I grew up is named after the general commanding it) that was purportedly willing to intercede on Texas' behalf if Houston hadn't stopped Santa Anna.
OK but I hardly see how that adds up to "Without Jackson there would likely be no Texas".
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Jackson and Sam Houston were close. They served together and Jackson was his political mentor. For awhile, many Americans saw Houston as the heir apparent to Jackson.
As president, Jackson craved having Texas part of the US and tried to buy Texas, or parts of it, from Mexico, several times. After this effort failed, Jackson had Houston go to Texas. The allegation is that Houston went to Texas with Jackson's agreement for the purpose of inciting a revolution. Whether precise or not, it is clear that US citizens were recruited from other parts of the US at this time for this purpose. After news of the Alamo and Goliad massacre reached the US, the recruits piled in.
At the time hostilities had begun, the US Army had actually moved inside Texas (at Nacagdoches), using the excuse of keeping peace with the Native Americans. Later, that US Army force, led by General Gaines, moved to the western border of Louisiana. From here, Gaines (who was also very pro-Texas) was able to secretly aid the Texans. Another important point is that Texas made an offer of land the US Army members who joined the fight. Many did leave their posts to join and Jackson did not have Gaines pursue them or treat them as deserters. This was a key point as the Texans needed the regular army soldiers to pull off what came later.
There is a theory that Houston was leading Santa Ana's army east into a trap. Since the actual border was in dispute (was it the Sabine or one of the other western rivers? - Jackson even thought Texas was part of the Louisiana Purchase), if Houston could get them close enough, the regular US Army could rescue the Texans saying Mexico had entered US territory. But it never came to that as Houston saw his chance and took it at San Jacinto.
Afterwards, Jackson continued to secretly support Houston and Texas. This mattered as Mexico rejected Santa Ana's surrender and concession of independence. They made continual threats to mount an army and retake Texas (never actually getting around to it, of course). Before leaving office, Jackson recognized Texas as an independent country (followed by France). Houston was urgently on his way to Jackson when Jackson passed away.
Boy, I guess it depends on who you listen to. What I read was that AJ did *not* want Texas as a state because he believed it would come in as a slave state and would tip the balance of power towards the slave states. Go figure.
Jackson was a very brave man and a huge nationalist. He wanted the US to go to the Pacific and worked hard behind the scenes in addition to upfront to get Texas.
He had his bad sides by our current mores but so have all the good presidents.
Look at Rushmore: Washington was a slave owner big time who led a revolt against the mother country after being denied a commission he applied for with the British army.
Jefferson was a slave owner who some believe had children with one of his slaves.
Lincoln was a waffler on slavery (his wife owned some), pushed through the northern route transcontinental railroad for his legal clients as soon as he could (benefiting himself---he had speculated on lots in Council Bluffs), and the war lasted much longer than it should have as a result of his incompetence as a military leader.
Teddy Roosevelt shot everything that came up through his sights, including fleeing Spanish soldiers.
But does anybody doubt their greatness as presidents? I think not.
Jackson expanded democracy and put in motion efforts that led, under his proteges Houston and Polk, to the biggest expansion of the country in its history and the conquest of the Pacific Coast.
Some of our modern heroes had their warts. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a serial adulterer and plagiarized part of his thesis at Boston. I would not object to putting his portrait on any denomination.
He had his bad sides by our current mores but so have all the good presidents.
Look at Rushmore: Washington was a slave owner big time who led a revolt against the mother country after being denied a commission he applied for with the British army.
Jefferson was a slave owner who some believe had children with one of his slaves.
Lincoln was a waffler on slavery (his wife owned some), pushed through the northern route transcontinental railroad for his legal clients as soon as he could (benefiting himself---he had speculated on lots in Council Bluffs), and the war lasted much longer than it should have as a result of his incompetence as a military leader.
Teddy Roosevelt shot everything that came up through his sights, including fleeing Spanish soldiers.
But does anybody doubt their greatness as presidents? I think not.
Jackson expanded democracy and put in motion efforts that led, under his proteges Houston and Polk, to the biggest expansion of the country in its history and the conquest of the Pacific Coast.
Some of our modern heroes had their warts. The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a serial adulterer and plagiarized part of his thesis at Boston. I would not object to putting his portrait on any denomination.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ed7958dc_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_opinions
First off, it was the policy of the United State to kill Indians well before Jackson and well after Jackson. There were plenty of Indian massacres that Lincoln had time for despite an ongoing revolution in the South. The recorded use of smallpox blankets was in 1767, well before Jackson was president. I do not understand why we suddenly are declaring random presidents in the middle to be the great villains of something they did not start. Jackson is now blamed for ALL the Indian genocide. I assume this is because what he did had a catchier name than what everyone else did? Woodrow Wilson is blamed for state segregation despite running the FEDERAL government years after Plessy v. Ferguson. This whole interpretation of history is odd. If this keeps up, future generations will blame Obama for invading Iraq!
Also, I am suprised at the love for Hamilton and the hate for Jackson. Jackson was all about expanding democracy to the common man (white men at the time, but still a huge step forward that led to all the other steps forward). Hamilton supported an American aristocracy and rule by the elite. Hamilton believed only the rich should vote. Hamilton also was okay with prosecuting Americans just for using their free speech to speak out against federal policy under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Now, Jackson is the villain and Hamilton is the hero because of one broadway play. What a time to be alive!
For the record, I do not think Jackson, Hamilton or Wilson are villains. They were all great americans with different faults that helped build this country into what it is today. I do not agree with many of their views or actions, but I understand that they did not live in 21st century... though, most importantly, all these men made it possible for us to live the way we do in the 21st century.
First off, it was the policy of the United State to kill Indians well before Jackson and well after Jackson. There were plenty of Indian massacres that Lincoln had time for despite an ongoing revolution in the South. The recorded use of smallpox blankets was in 1767, well before Jackson was president. I do not understand why we suddenly are declaring random presidents in the middle to be the great villains of something they did not start. Jackson is now blamed for ALL the Indian genocide. I assume this is because what he did had a catchier name than what everyone else did? Woodrow Wilson is blamed for state segregation despite running the FEDERAL government years after Plessy v. Ferguson. This whole interpretation of history is odd. If this keeps up, future generations will blame Obama for invading Iraq!
Also, I am suprised at the love for Hamilton and the hate for Jackson. Jackson was all about expanding democracy to the common man (white men at the time, but still a huge step forward that led to all the other steps forward). Hamilton supported an American aristocracy and rule by the elite. Hamilton believed only the rich should vote. Hamilton also was okay with prosecuting Americans just for using their free speech to speak out against federal policy under the Alien and Sedition Acts. Now, Jackson is the villain and Hamilton is the hero because of one broadway play. What a time to be alive!
For the record, I do not think Jackson, Hamilton or Wilson are villains. They were all great americans with different faults that helped build this country into what it is today. I do not agree with many of their views or actions, but I understand that they did not live in 21st century... though, most importantly, all these men made it possible for us to live the way we do in the 21st century.
Htown77 makes good points. Of course, you could have only listed positive things about Hamilton (founder of financial system, now viewed as an abolitionist) and negatives about Jackson. The correct answer is they were all great Americans with different faults. Every great person has faults.
Jackson guided the country and prevented a secession war over nullification which would seem to out perform Lincoln. Perhaps Tubman should replace Lincoln.
Also, just a thought about Tubman. Everyone today (including myself) abhors slavery.
However that was not the case in 1860, north or south. Slavery was legal and slaves were legally considered property. So, in fact, Tubman was breaking the law and was criminally engaged in the theft of legal property. So in this case we have placed a criminal on our currency.
I would have much preferred Susan B. Anthony who helped successfully and legally gain half of our population the right to vote.
Also, just a thought about Tubman. Everyone today (including myself) abhors slavery.
However that was not the case in 1860, north or south. Slavery was legal and slaves were legally considered property. So, in fact, Tubman was breaking the law and was criminally engaged in the theft of legal property. So in this case we have placed a criminal on our currency.
I would have much preferred Susan B. Anthony who helped successfully and legally gain half of our population the right to vote.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Yeah, I was surprised to see somebody go there.
My take on Jackson is different because he expelled Native Americans that had basically adopted European methods and were participating in the economic growth of the country. The Cherokees, Choctaws, etc. had learned English, built houses, followed the law, owned property, etc. They were not "in the way" of orderly settlement and economic advancement like the Comanches in Texas or the Seminoles in Florida. However, because of their ethnicity, they became vulnerable to great injustice.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
