And last but not least, a rebuttal concerning Jackson the person.
” Certainly, Jackson had little respect for the rights of lesser people, and the Trail of Tears is an example of it. He also demonstrated his complete disregard for our constitution when the Supreme Court found against his decision for genocide.”
Certainly, what we have here is a gross lack of knowledge concerning history. Similar to Europeans not knowing about American history, we have Americans not knowing about American history past the 100 year limit.
As we know in today’s world, the Supreme Court never was the arbiter of the “Constitution”, and any plans to make it so, is more “elitist” than “American”.
Lincoln told people over and over, don’t put court cases concerning social matters of slavery to the courts. A judge can only render a just verdict over one particular scenario, a specific case. He does not have the Constitutional power nor the information to make a ruling that affects all cases, for all eternity. So unless you want to be ruled by judges instead of ruling yourselves through voting in representatives, don’t bring court cases of national importance to a bunch of judges. Cause they can neither enforce it, nor can they create something worthy of enforcement.
The problem in today’s world, is that so many people believe the courts are the absolute word of God, that they end up enforcing their rulings in their stead. It’s improving now that we know the true face of the courts.
Back to the main point, You’d be surprised at how many people don’t understand Jackson. Makes you very sympathetic to those like Andrew’s Daily Dish.
Here’s a couple of facts for the Jackson haters. Jackson was a very strong believer in civil rights for Native Americans.
Jackson knew that if the Indians stayed in Georgia, the natives would have killed them off eventually. You don’t believe me? Just go back and read about all those “Indian raiding parties”. Scalp collections. Stealing cattle and horses. You remember that stealing a man’s horse was a hanging offense, right?
So guess what happens when American frontiersman back in an age where the rule of law equaled the rule of whoever had the biggest gun, the sheriff or the bandit, met up with a bunch of indians and a foreign culture and couldn’t differentiate between the indians that killed off the settlers and the indians that were honorable?
Like the Marine in WWII, after a point when you don’t speak their language or know anything about their culture, one person of that culture is about the same as another. They all get lumped together.
So Jackson gave the Cherokees a choice. Either stay in Georgia and get killed by the Georgians who outnumbered them, or go to somewhere else.
Here’s another fact. Sure, lots of Cherokees and whatever died on the Trail of Tears. Anybody know how many slaves died on the march, slaves of the Cherokees? And you know why we don’t have the number? It’s cause slaves are property, and are not as important as “real” people.
Jackson, like LIncoln, was a pragmatist. If he could save America and end slavery, he would, but if he could only save America by saving slavery, he would do that too. Jackson couldn’t save the Cherokee, so he sent them to somewhere else. He couldn’t make the world into his image, which was an image of “equal rights”, but he could do the next best thing.
Anyone that knows about the real Jackson and the Jacksonian tradition want to guess what that was?
For those not in the know, I’ll tell ya.
Jackson was the one that reformed the democratic system in America to be like the pluralist system we have today. He eliminated all property restrictions on the right to vote. What this meant was that he started the trend towards a “true” pluralist system. He started the trend that would eventually end slavery. Because so long as those with property held all the voting rights, you would never get rid of slavery.
Like any pragmatist, he did what he could when he could. Unlike “Revolutionary Idealists”, i.e. French and Bolshevist Revolutions, he didn’t spout off a bunch of empty slogans and left a trail of bodies in his wake. By his actions, he left a trail of bodies in his wake and saved many more in the future. You really can’t say that for anyone else, except for possibly Lincoln.
You don’t have to like Jackson, cause from all accounts he was a cold hearted son of a bitch, but he is indeed a true fire red blooded American to be respected by patriots and despised by his enemies.
The reason American has survived and prospered for this long, through thick and thin, through upheavels big and small, is because we are a pragmatic nation. As LIncoln said, the Constitution is not the same document in wartime as it is in peace time. We will modify it ever so slightly, so that we may continue to reap its benefits in peace. Therefore that is why we are the only country that can strip the civil rights of Japanese-Americans and then give them back to them, with apologies.
To us, “slippery slope” is only a warning to those who aren’t good at pragmatism, and are too ideologically chained. To many, GitMo is a “slippery slope”. To me, and all such jackosnians, it just makes good sense. It would make even more sense to demolish GitMo and send those guys back to Afghanistan and Iraq, where their “compatriots” would treat them far more fairly than we could ever accomplish. But I am pragmatic, and realize that that probably won’t happen.
Our sense of the world is therefore, different from other people’s sense of the world.
The honor code isn’t a fire fights fire kind of code, btw. I don’t have the space to go into it extensively, but suffice it to say that any honor code is based upon a set of survival standards. Things that help survival make it into the honor code. Therefore it is causally illogical to say that just by following an honor code, that you are sacrificing some of your survival chances against an enemy.