Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Minor correction

The redlink to Gallatin, Sumner County could be separated and linked to Gallatin, Tennessee and Sumner County, Tennessee as Gallatin, Sumner County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.141.68.2 (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I fixed it. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But you introduced a new error. Now the link to Sumner County points to the entry for Davidson County. Argh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.139.149 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change that part at all. That's the way it was when I edited the paragraph. I think probably the situation is that Sumner County did not exist at the time. I'd like for someone with knowledge of the history to look at the passage. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jefferson's Blessings from Beyond the Grave

The article stated that Jefferson joined the Jacksonians and gave his blessing in 1830. That would be impossible, as everyone knows, Jefferson died on 4 July 1826. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.9.166 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A founder of the modern Democratic Party

Wikipedia:Common knowledge states that well-known historical facts do not require citations. It seems to me that "Andrew Jackson was a founder of the modern Democratic Party" is a well-known historical fact, or at least that's what they taught us all in U.S. History classes. Indeed, don't most people condsider him the founder of the modern democratic party? Who claims that he is not at least a founder? Kaldari 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We editors have to go by reliable source or "book-say" and not "hearsay." A review of published works on Google Books shows no consensus as to the founder of the Democratic Party (some start Jefferson (such as Schlesinger, Rutland, Witcover, the Democratic Party itself, some other encyclopedias), some start in the age of Jackson (Remini, Wilentz, often times dictionaries)). There's been past talk page discussions in other articles as to where to start. So I'm presently gathering as many citations as possible for article improvement as to accord with both Wikipedia Neutral POV and Verifiability. As for the citation I requested, I added one myself. Settler 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the quote was "Jackson was a founder of the Democratic Party" I would understand the hesitation, but it says "the modern Democratic party" which clarifies that we are talking about the 2nd incarnation (begun by Jackson). Kaldari 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Although a common platitude, referring to Jackson as the founder of the modern Democratic Party" is at best inaccurate and in the worse case, demonstratively absurd. Apart from some esoteric semantics, there are in fact no similarities between the Jacksonian agenda, and the “modern” democratic party. The Jacksonian fold was born with Jackson and died with Andrew Johnson, and was an entity that transended "party" with no clear link to any "party", least of all the modern democratic party History has always been revisionist as to be far too kind to Jackson, I suspect out of respect for the “office”. But even if we choose to ignore his incompetence, twisted values, skewed vision and genocidal tendencies, we can at least either quantify the faux platitudes, or better yet, ignore them all together. At very least, the article should strongly point out, that this statement is disputed Cosand (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Federal Debt

There was still federal Debt under Jackson. I point to the treasurey departments historical data. Should this section be removed.

reference: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm --AxeSwinger 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added new material which portrays Jackson's effect on the national debt more accurately. AlphaEta 03:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Do you think mentioning that the depression was caused in part by Jackson's monetary policies is worth mentioning? AxeSwinger (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a tough call. There were multiple factors that led to the 1837 depression, and I'm not sure whether Jackson's policies, issuance of the specie circular in particular, were primarily responsible. I'm don't know enough about the subject to guarantee that I could compose a NPOV analysis of his role. Maybe someone with a better historical understanding of the situation could take a crack at it. Regards, AlphaEta 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He got rid of the second national bank. Who was left to lay claim America's debt? The currency was no longer debt-based; twas a clean slate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.110.205 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CALL FOR SOURCE: Final Solution (disambiguation)

This sentence was added: He want to election with what he described as "Final Solution" to the Indian issue. After his election he signed if Jackson used the term Final Solution then it will be a fine edit but the only source is a non-English non corroborated secondary source from an extreme left scholar. I have searched for hours to find another source without luck. If someone can find the exact quote or letter or page from his diary with Final Solution in context that would be great. See the debate on the Talk:Final Solution (disambiguation) talk page. Alatari (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We have been over this several times already. We have a reliable source for the claim. That some perople worship Andrew Jackson doesn't make the source go away. What you are asking is that I do original research instead of using reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

You do not understand Wikipedia guidelines. I have asked for a primary source, and English source and other sources stating the same thing. We English speakers have only your translation to rely upon and I don't trust it. Alatari (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are free to ask for translation help from someone you trust more or use an automated translation[1], but they usually produce something unreadable. // Liftarn (talk)

Yeah...

very klassificeringssystem must manipulate the as contradiction the egna logic. So also the lagstadgade American racism. Abscission stayed military. Second Jack , countries president among 1829-1837, was going to whale on one program innefattande the " eventual abscission the Final Solution ) on indianfrågan me veterligen first gangway in western political stories as term applies as euphemism for crowd and folkfördrivning. antog congress Indian Removal Act varefter countries military besiege intog ors destroy all Indian byar and chamber maid in sydöstra United States. IN whatever call tårarnas train " cheated all survival Cherokee Muskogee Chickasaw , Shock , and Seminole off unionen , out to the territory as today call Oklahoma.

Alatari (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think my translation was better, ut if you want a second opinion you could ask at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/sv. // Liftarn (talk)

I'm no fan of Andrew Jackson's genocide (a Native American comedian once said, "Imagine if you went to the ATM and all the $20s had Hitler on them") but this seems likely to be a paraphrase, rather than words from Jackson. It seems silly for a Wikipedia entry on a U.S. president to be so strongly swayed by a Swedish comparative religion professor. With all respect to him, he's not exactly Arthur Schlesinger or Fawn Brodie. It seems more likely that the professor took this from the Encyclopedia Britannica's Guide to the Presidents, which states that Andrew Jackson sought a "final solution"--Britannica's words. But that doesn't mean Jackson said these words. Which would mean we're going in circles translating a paraphrasing back and forth from English. 66.245.216.221 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Researching Robert V. Remini. “The Life of Andrew Jackson .” Google Book Search, 1988. (accessed January 12, 2008). attributes the words final solution to Jackson. I looked up the primary source for Remini's book. The first one is in see AJ to Leroy Pope, Oct. 31 1813, in Jackson correspondence, Vol. 1 p. 339. and actually reads "...for a final blow and then strike at the root of the disseas(sic) Pensicola" in a discussion over his combat plans in the Creek War. The second footnote is see AJ to John Coffee, Sept. 29 1813, de Coppet collection, Princeton U. Library. and the rare books collections at Princeton won't be open till Monday so I'm waiting. I've read through every speech to the nation without success. They are very informative. Alatari (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think you're gonna find it. The important context here is that the Wiki article claims Jackson said this "during his campaign." This implies that Jackson (according to the Swedish religion professor's original research) used it in a stump speech or as a slogan. This is like saying Hitler was copying his language from Jackson. Jackson may be guilty of genocide, but this quote just doesn't seem to hold up. The above Britannica theory is much more likely. Can't we replace this with an authentic quote about his Indian eradication? Johngorenfeld (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS provides that, “To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.”

The source in question alleges that there is a primary source somewhere alleging that Jackson used the words “Final Solution.” By failing to refer to a specific document, speech, or date that this occurred, it makes it impossible for anyone to verify other than by going through the “Complete Works of Andrew Jackson” page by page. A scholarly article would have provided appropriate information to track this down. As I’ve said elsewhere, there is a case to be made against Jackson’s Indian policy, but the section that you deleted (correctly) was simply a backhand manner of comparing Jackson and Hitler -- a case very difficult to make using reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation Request

Requested translation for submission to Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/sv: Stockholms Fria Tidning: Svart vildavästernhistoria, by Mattias Gardell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alatari (talk • contribs) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text as it is copyrighted by Stockholms Fria Tidningar. Is there any particular part you want translated (or at least something you want me to look for), as a quote? Mail me if you want to ask something or clarify. Where next Columbus? (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For this particular snippet, which seems to be the object of controversy above:

Varje klassificeringssystem måste hantera det som motsäger den egna logiken. Så också den lagstadgade amerikanska rasismen. Lösningen blev militär. Andrew Jackson, landets president mellan 1829-1837, gick till val på ett program innefattande den "slutgiltiga lösningen" (the Final Solution) på indianfrågan - mig veterligen första gången i västerländsk politisk historia som termen användes som eufemism för folkmord och folkfördrivning. 1830 antog kongressen Indian Removal Act varefter landets militär belägrade, intog eller förintade samtliga indianska byar och städer i sydöstra Förenta staterna. I vad som kallas "tårarnas tåg" fördrevs alla överlevande Cherokee, Muskogee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, och Seminole bort från unionen, ut till det territorium som i dag kallas Oklahoma.

...I'd give the translation as this (alternative or complementary words in curly braces):

Every classification system has to cope with that which contradicts its own logic. The by law mandated American racism, too. The solution was military. Andrew Jackson, the country's president between 1829-1837, campaigned with a program including the ”final solution” (the Final Solution) of the Indian question {problem} – as far as I know the first time in Western political history that the term was used as an euphemism for genocide and {forcible} deportation. In 1830 the Congress approved the Indian Removal Act, and after that the country's military besieged, occupied, or destroyed all Indian villages and towns in the southeastern United States. In what is called ”march of the tears” all surviving Cherokee, Muskogee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole were deported away from the union, out to the territory that today is called Oklahoma.

I have translated the whole article. If you have further questions, please put a message on here or on my talk page. Where next Columbus? (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work on this. This is why I want to see primary sources. "March of the Tears" is quite incorrect. It is only known as the Trail of Tears so heavily as to be a proper noun. The "final solution" is in English in the article but was it a translation error? Were ”final solution” of the Indian question Jacksons exact words while campaigning? Did Hitler and Himmler read some of Jackson's campaign speeches or did Hitler only read Sherman and later public figures? I wish Mattias Gardell had listed his sources. Alatari (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. It is very possible that "march of the tears" should be "Trail of Tears", however, as I am a Swede I am unfortunately not entirely familiar with the subject. Thank you for pointing that out, will read up on it. As I translated what would be a translation of a quote, it is entirely possible that I chose different words when compared with what Jackson himself said. "Final solution", also quoted in English in the article, was translated to "slutgiltig lösning" (final solution) so I believe those two very specific words are indeed correct. As Gardell wrote for a newspaper I believe he essentially wrote a commentary for the public. Unfortunately, it isn't necessarily customary for newspapers to include sources. I'll try to write to the newspaper, perhaps they have any sources or the like. Where next Columbus? (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Trail of Tears will most likely be translated to something quite like "march (or path) of the tears" in Swedish. An English noun usually doesn't survive a translation, unless it is a proper name, which this is on the borderline to being. I have asked SFT for sources, or to forward my question to Gardell if necessary. Where next Columbus? (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be easiest to contect Gardell directly[2]. // Liftarn (talk)

Done. Thanks, Where next Columbus? (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my thought a couple days ago. It would be interesting to correspnd with him. Alatari (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I received a message from Gardell, stating that he is in Bogotá, rather far away from his archive. He wrote that Jackson had said the exact words "final solution" in a speech, and with that information he thought it would be rather easy to find a source. If I couldn't find it, I was welcome to contact Gardell again in February. I have made a search before I mailed Gardell on Google, where I did manage to find what I think (IIRC) was his second speech to the government (?) but I haven't yet found the quote. If someone makes a search, or knows about books re: Jackson(can't search these on Google ;), I am happy. Where next Columbus? (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a college history professor who has read extensively on Jackson, I must say that I have never come across the phrase "final solution" in any of Jackson's speeches or quotations. Additionally, "final solution" is a loaded phrase which always refers, at least in any context I have ever seen it, to Hitler's genocide of the Jews. While Jackson's treatment of the Indians was arguably on par with Hitler's treatment of the Jews, using such a loaded phrases that invariably refers to the Nazi genocide of Jews is simply wrong, especially when one considers the only source to be a non-American (and non-English language) article. Maybe Jackson stated that the only thing he felt he could do to the Indians was evict them from their lands but this could be stated in a better fashion than "final solution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched for hours and found the term used my Sherman in his diaries about Total War ideas and Jefferson talking about intermarriage with Natives but not Jackson. However, my access to print sources is limited. I'll try and link all my successful hits later. Alatari (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't really blame Jackson for being oblivious to Hitler's usage of the term (however I have seen some say that Hitler wasn't oblivious to earlier usage of the term). // Liftarn (talk)

I think that's the point here. Historians are trying to attribute Hitler's ideas to some reading of American history. There's a stronger case for Hitler reading Sherman's Total War and seeing his usage of Final Solution. Alatari (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Request: Place of Birth?

In the sidebar, the place of birth is listed as Lancaster County, South Carolina. However the first sentence states specifically that Jackson was born in Waxhaw, North Carolina. Although the follow-up sentences explain the various opinions about Jackson's birthplace, I think it would be good to use the generally known historical opinion that he was born in South Carolina in both areas of the article while still explaining that a dispute exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.240.179 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Class A article

What does this article need to be Class A? I went through and reformatted the page placing the pictures in the proper places and reformatting the Presidency section. Alatari (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The POV of the article doesn't present his detractors very well. His nickname of Sharp Knife from the Indians is missing and there are plenty of people in this decade equating him to an American Hitler. I've read about him quite a bit the last week and gathered many sources. Will try to add some detractors views and balance the POV of the controversial figure in American history. Any hlp is appreciate. Otherwise this article will linger at Class-B forever. Alatari (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be "plenty of people" comparing Jackson to Hitler, but how many of them are actual historians who have published scholarly articles or books on Jackson or the Jackson era? In fact, there is much to criticize Jackson on from these types of sources without resorting to these extreme types of comparisons. The current reference to the "Final Solution" is by a professor of comparative religion who, as far as I have been able to tell, is not a recognzed Jackson scholar. Has he published anything in a scholarly journal on Jackson? A good way to move toward a Class A article would be to remove that ridiculous reference and replace it with, for example, the information from the Alfred Cave Journal article referrenced in a footnote and the bibliography (it's a journal article and not a book as the bibliography suggests). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Actually his biographer Remini uses Final Solution in his book about how Jackson talked about the final assault on Pensicola in 1813 this maybe a possible misrepresentation of Jackson and his usage of 'Final Solution'. The references to Hitler basing his ideas on Final Solution come from some of Hitler's biographies. The heavily referenced and wide spread perceptions of the people and non-Americans, even though unflattering to Jackson, are WP:N and not representing them can be violation of WP:NPOV. The largest obstacle to Class-A distinction maybe the controversy itself. The Holocaust will never get Class-A status because of the controversy surrounding that subject and because of the refusal of editors to ever place a section on the less-than-common but ever-present deniers POV. Alatari (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The sheer number of vandal edits and lack of stability is enough to deny Class-A status.... Alatari (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I requested permanent Semi-protection for this page. Alatari (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, what Remini did was use "final solution" in its normal context -- in no way does Remini accuse Jackson of genocide. He did not capitalize it or put it in quotes which would have indicated he was referring to Hitler's "Final Solution". Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler based his "Final Solution" on his study of Andrew Jackson? In the last year or so I've read Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler and Evan's first two volumes on the history of the Third Reich -- no reference to Andrew Jackson. What specific sources do you claim link Hitler and Andrew Jackson?

I did find references attributing Hitler's Final Solution ideas to Jackson. Some were mentioned in the Adolph Hitler talk section. Here's that source: Michael Fitzgerald. “Manifest Destiny: American Imperial Myth, Then & Now.” with his source cited as footnote 21 Alatari (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Providing reliable, scholarly criticism of Jackson is fair game. As I've said, the Cave article is a perfect place to start as far as Indian removal is concerned. You reference "The heavily referenced and wide spread perceptions of the people and non-Americans", yet the only documentation provided to date on the "Final Solution" is a reference in a newspaper by an historian with no credentials as an expert on Andrew Jackson or antebellum American history. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage is a hard thing to discuss and prove on WP but after 16 hours of source searches I found many references to a hate for Andrew Jackson in common views. Many sources are whether he should be removed from the $20 bill. See: Carrie McLachlan. “Should Andrew Jackson Be Removed from the $20 Bill?” American Indian Nations. I have days of backlog in my watchlist and will post moresources in a list when I can. Here is one: Theresa R. Richardson, and Erwin V. Johanningmeir. Race, Ethnicity, and Education: What Is Taught in School. IAP, 2003. Alatari (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will comment specifically on your Hitler source: Here is what Michael Fitzgerald wrote:

"Indian removal"--what today would be called ethnic cleansing--was unofficial federal policy during the Monroe presidency. Upon his election, General Andrew Jackson, having earned fame as an Indian fighter, made it official. Jackson’s policies became the model for Hitler’s "final solution."

He footnotes it to page 702 of John Toland’s biography of Hitler. So I would suspect to see Jackson’ name there. Instead, what we get is the following:

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination -- by starvation and uneven combat -- of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

So the actual “reliable source” here on the analysis of Andrew Jackson is none other than Adolf Hitler (Toland does not indicate that he agrees with Hitler’s self-assessment). And, as far as we can tell, he didn’t single out Jackson, as Fitzgerald dishonestly suggests, but places the “credit” with America in general. So the issue is whether Hitler’s analysis of American Indian policy in general is a reliable source for an article on Andrew Jackson.

You did not respond to my rebuttal on Remini -- are we in agreement?

Your other two sources appear to be similar. The authors (and in the first one I refer to Ward Churchill, the actual source within the source) seem to be part of a trend to classify virtually all American and European dealings with Native Americans using a genocide model -- ignoring the fact that genocide as a concept did not come into being until the 20th Century to describe situations very different from the near universal results when a more powerful civilization confronts a less powerful civilization.

I think it would be a serious mistake to inject this type of analysis into this biography. It is a clear violation of NPOV to use these sources to condemn Jackson without also pointing out that the same sources find that this is simply part of a genocidal policy that has allegedly been carried on for centuries. Churchill carries the charges forward to at least the 1950s.

If you cannot envision an adequate critical analysis of Jackson’s often violent and always prejudicial attitudes and policies towards Native Americans without references to genocide, Hitler, or the “Final Solution”, then I don’t think we will ever have any common ground. If this is not your position, then I will be glad to cooperate with you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharp Knife

There are reputable sources stating he was called Sharp Knife amongst the Indians. Any suggestions which section to include this nickname? Alatari (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Close Duel with Winfield Scott

I believe that Jackson almost fought a duel with Winfield Scott. I am going to get the references, sources, etc., but would like to get a survey on if anyone else would think this deserves a mention. peace Nathraq (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jackson did engage in a 1806 duel with Charles Dickinson (historical figure)
• Jackson did engage in a 1813 brawl with Thomas Hart Benton (senator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.115 (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

overlapping of display

This site is locked and so cannot be changed, but the comic/photo near the top has dropped into the text and needs to be place differently. Danielchi (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Search for Consensus -- Jackson and the "Final Solution

One editor has included this sentence:

"Swedish scholar Mattias Gardell says Jackson called Indian removal the "Final Solution" to the Indian issue during his election campaign."

While criticism of Jacksons warranted, this seems like an inflamatory way to do it. It makes an emotional point without any effort to provide specific information to support it. The issue has been discussed in several sections above. Please indicate whether you Support Deletion or Oppose Deletion of the sentence.

Support Deletion Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

comment: I have sent a new request to Gardell for his sources today, as he stated he could provide it in February (ie., now). Where next Columbus? (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This will solve a small part of the problem (i.e. whether there is a reliable published source that shows Jackson uttered the words). The bigger problem is whether a comparison to the Holocaust and and all that implies is warranted based strictly on this single source. Since the specific use of "final solution" had absolutely no genocidal implications in the 1830s to Jackson or anybody else, even if he did say the words it does not seem appropriate to capitalize it and link it directly to Final Solution as the article currently does. Do you have an opinion on this aspect of the issue? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion in this matter, I was merely called in to translate (see above), and have since remembered I was going to ask MG about the source. Since I do not know anything about the source, I can't say what (if any) implication it will have on the article - a work which I will gladly leave to you who seem more knowledgeable. Where next Columbus? (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In what wai is it "inflamatory"? It's sourced with a reliable source as well. // Liftarn (talk)

Support Deletion Jackson did not call Indian removal the "Final Solution"; the Swedish author did, obviously editorializing the implication that Indian removal was akin to the Holocaust, which is made even more patent here when linked to the Final Solution. Regardless of whether that moral observation is valid, the fact remains that a Swedish scholar's moral judgment of Jackson in the opinion column of a Swedish newspaper hardly warrants inclusion here. This reeks of an NPOV violation. What's more, I would not call an opinion column a reliable source -- it's personal opinion. Delete away, the sooner the better. Jhw57 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I support deletion. It is absurd to cite the unsupported opinion of some Swedish religious history professor as verification for the ludicrous claim that the term "Final Solution" made infamous by Hitler was actually coined by Jackson. Pure anti-American rubbish. Get rid of it. 72.144.169.95 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Support deletion with qualification. I'm an American and still find the article to be too lenient on Jackson. Remini's biography has Jackson calling the Seminoles a 'diseas' to be eradicated. Ethnic cleansing is a modern term but still accurately describes what happened with Indian removal and Manifest destiny as it describes much of human behavior possible all the way back to Homosapien versus Neanderthals. Ultimately a large number of ethnic groups were cleansed from the territory and placed in enclaves and Jackson was responsible; albeit along with a majority of Americans support. The POV that much of the world sees Jackson as major villain will not be easily suppressed. Alatari (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support deletion I agree with Alatari. Insert more information about Jackson's atrocities against native American peoples. Remove this "final solution" line for good. It is clearly a bad translation of an Encyclopedia Britannica synopsis. It trivializes Jackson's crimes with bad information. Are we to believe that this Swedish religious studies professor knows something about Jackson's stump speeches that other historians don't? This is like claiming that Cortés was heard muttering about the "eternal Jew," or that Genghis Khan talked about a Mongol "master race." 66.245.216.226 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Sourced by a scolar who have studied the subject. It's difficult to get a more reliable soucre than that. // Liftarn (talk)

Actually, it is virtually impossible to come up with a less reliable source. Rather than being "a scholar who has studied the subject", Gardell is a professor of comparative religion who, as far as I have been unable to tell, has never written a scholarly article on Andrew Jackson. Can you back up your claim that he has "studied the subject" or is a recognized historian in the area of Jacksonian America? As far as the actual document quoted, it is a foreign language newspaper rather than a peer reviewed professional journal. No date or context is provided for the alleged quote and obviously no footnotes.

Do you really believe that it is difficult to find "a more reliable source" that this newspaper article and this author? What is difficult is finding any actual reliable sources (i.e. historians of the Jacksonian era or biographers of Jackson) who feel it is useful and valid to compare Jackson and Hitler.

At this point it seems to be you against everybody else. I have made an appropriate tag on the dubious quote and clarified Gardell's "credentials". I'm not sure if it is possible at this point to declare a consensus and eliminate the sentence completely -- hopefully folks who are more frequent editors will weigh in. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Note: Based on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Turn to others for help I have invited folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents to participate here in order to form a more clear consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering he specializes in the study of racism in the USA it's bang in the middle of his field of study. // Liftarn (talk)

Sounds like you're guessing. How about the titles of actual journal articles and books written by this expert that demonstrates he has ANY famiiarity with primary and secondary sources relating to Andrew Jackson. How about reviews of his work in scholarly journals that refer to his research on Andrew Jackson. I'll even settle for any actual historian of the era or biographer of Jackson that actually refers to Gardell's work. In fact, am I correct in assuming that you have nothing to back your case except the newspaper article?

As far as Jackson being a racist by today's standards, there is no question. It does not logically follow, however, that because a professor of comparative religion has written on RELIGIOUS racism in the US, therefore he is an expert on every public figure in US history who was a racist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing other figures. The statement is well sourced (as it was written by Gardell himself). Considering Wikipedia accept any newpaper article as a reliable source I don't see what the big fuzz is about anyway. // Liftarn (talk)

The issue is whether Gardell himself is a reliable source and is accepted, within the historical profession, as an expert qualified to make a professional historical analysis of the policies of Andrew Jackson and Adolph Hitler. Based on his publications in English as listed at Amazon, he hasn’t written anything that even remotely would have required him to study Andrew Jackson in any detail. Anybody being interviewed (or writing) in a newspaper can say anything they want about any topic they want. The standard used by newspapers for publication is significantly different from the standards used in scholarly works. The “big fuzz” is not whether Jackson used the phrase “final solution”, but whether he intended it in the same context as the Nazi’s did. By capitalizing it and linking it, you are making the claim that they are he same.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As it is we are using the article as a source to what Gardell himself claims so it certainly is reliable enough for that. If we instead would write it as a fact it may require more solid sources. Gardell certainly made the claim they were used in the same way, i.e. as an euphimism for genocide. // Liftarn (talk)

Delete. This is not even a close call: citing an extraordinary claim from an unreferenced newspaper column is piss-poor article writing. It's unnecessary too: modern scholars writing in peer-reviewed published works have leveled plenty of harsh criticism at Jackson's record regarding American Indians. Stick with reliable sources and you won't go wrong. —Kevin Myers 07:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Gardell material (7-9-2008)

The source has been discussed in detail and only one editor (User:Liftarn) has supported it as reliable. Despite this, Liftarn has chosen to expand the section relying on this source. I had been conservative in declaring that a consensus had been reached in order to remove the material in total, but Liftarn has decided not to leave well enough alone and is now engaged in edit warring to expand on his agenda to compare Jackson with Hitler. Since this is everyone versus a single editor, I have removed the entire section.

To summarize the issue, Liftarn’s source is a non-peer reviewed, non-sourced Swedish newspaper article by a scholar with no credentials as a scholar in the area of 19th Century American history. The Swedish source (Gardell) claims, without substantiation (i.e. reference by footnote to a specific speech on a specific date), that Jackson (1) used the expression the “Final Solution and (2) used it in a manner to suggest his plan was genocide. Neither of these claims have been verified by reliable, peer-reviewed secondary sources written by scholars of the actual era -- many of whom have some quite harsh things to say about Jackson’s removal policy.

I have replaced the Gardell information with reliable information from a major historian and Jackson biographer who covers the same ground -- Jackson’s position prior to assuming the presidency.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on WP:V. The article is in itself a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. That Gardell also is a scolar in the subject (racism in the USA) is an added bonus. // Liftarn (talk)

Good idea -- why don’t we examine WP:V? Let’s start with:

“Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.”

There is certainly a wealth of “academic and peer-reviewed publications” available on the life and presidency of Andrew Jackson, isn’t there? Why is it that nobody can find in these sources information that shows that Jackson (1) used the expression “Final Solution” and, more importantly, (2) used it in the same context (genocide) that the Nazis did. “Stockholm’s Fria Tidning” is not an “academic and peer-reviewed publication”, is it?

Then let’s look at:

“Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.”

There is no question, is there, that there are English sources of “equal quality” to this Swedish newspaper. In fact, the article relies on sources (i.e. “Academic and peer-reviewed publications”) that are far superior to “Stockholm’s Fria Tidning”. The fact is that readers CANNOT “verify that the source material has been used correctly” by Gardell. He uses no footnotes and he provides no context. He only quotes a total of TWO WORDS alleged to have been spoken or written by Jackson and fails to tell us where we can read those two words.

Then let’s go to the following:

“Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; ... Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.”

The exceptional claim is that Jackson’s intent was to commit genocide and that he announced this intent. Of course, if this claim was actually covered in “mainstream sources” then we would be quoting from those sources, wouldn’t we? In addition the bar for inclusion based on reliability is raised by this section -- exceptional claims require “ high-quality reliable sources”. How exactly can a non-footnoted article by a scholar outside his field of expertise with no bibliography that was not peer-reviewed that quotes only two words be considered “high-quality”? Failing to meet this standard, “ the material should not be included.”

Finally, you produce the following non-sequitur:

“That Gardell also is a scolar in the subject (racism in the USA) is an added bonus.”

So you believe that because Gardell has written on late Twentieth Century racism in the US, this makes him an expert on every public figure in US history who was a racist? In fact, we don’t even know if Gardell has ever even read a biographical journal article about Andrew Jackson, do we? We don’t know whether he has ever read a letter or a speech made by Jackson, do we? We would know what sources Gardell was familiar with if he had ever written a scholarly, peer-reviewed article or book about Jackson, but he hasn’t done that, has he? For all we know, his source for the TWO WORD quote is not a primary source but some secondary or tertiary source that may or may not be reliable.

Scholars often have both academic interests and political agendas. The peer-review process determines whether a scholar confuses the two -- no such checks and balances are in place for opinion pieces published in popular newspapers. You have said of the Gardell piece, “It's difficult to get a more reliable soucre than that” -- this claim, if sincere and not simply a rhetorical excess, shows a total unfamiliarity with the importance and significance of academic research and publication. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Keep: While I am not to familiar with the subject in detail, although I do recall during the mid 1990s flipping through an art history book (pertaining to Nazi propaganda art) within the East Tennessee State University Library collection that featured a Nazi German propaganda poster graphically featuring an Native American. I am thinking that the article reference should remain as to avoid what may be viewed as whitewashing the historical background and later influence of U.S. President Andrew Jackson.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jackson and Calhoun

The competitive toasting between Jackson and Calhoun seemed, as written, to be a bit too dramatic and flowery, and that the capitalized yelling was entirely awkward and incorrect. I rephrased it a bit, added some information from Nullification Crisis, and de-capitalized the quotes. Chaparral2J (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

{{editprotected}} The main picture was not there for some reason. I replaced it with a different one until someone can put up a better one. It looks a bit odd, though, because it's a bit too large, and I'm not sure how to make it smaller. Cadwaladr (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better one Image:Andrew Jackson Sully.jpg.

Hi

Can some one please undo or correct the vandalism done to the info box on Andrew Jackson. Referring to were he died, i can't seem to find how to undo it myself.(Butters x (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Rachel Jackson cause of death

Rachel Jackson states she died of a heart attack , while this article says it's unknown causes. Neither is cited. Someone who has a source should rectify this inconsistency. thanks. --Rajah (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In Rachel Jackson, two of the external links (the White House bio, and find-a-grave) state that it was a heart attack. Tedickey (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Page locked?!?!?

The Andrew Jackson page is locked? Why? This has to be the most esoteric lock in Wikipedia history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.5.75 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812

Major point: When listing Andrew Jackson's accomplishments in the Battle of New Orleans, it is very important to note that this battle was fought after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. The Treaty officially ended the war between the US and the UK. Due to the length of time it used to take for such information to cross the ocean, the battle was fought when the war was technically already over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikingkyle393 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hikingkyle393, that may be so, but in his History of the American People, Paul Johnson has the following to say: "The fact that Jackson's victory at New Orleans came too late to influence the treaty does not mean it was of no consequence. Quite the reverse. It too was decisive in its way for, though the treaty made no mention of the fact, it involved major strategic, indeed historic, concessions on both sides. Castlereagh was the first British statesman of consequence who accepted the existence of the United States not just in theory but in practice as a legitimate national entity to be treated as a fellow-player in the world game. This acceptance was marked by the element of unspoken trust which lay behind the treaty's provisions. America, for its part, likewise accepted the existence of Canada as a permanent, legitimate entity, not just an unresolved problem left over from the War of Independence, to be absorbed by the United States in due course. Henceforth the road to expansion for both the United States and Canada lay not in depredations at each other's expense but in pushing simultaneously and in friendly rivalry towards the Pacific. …

"Britain, along with most other nations, had not recognized the Louisiana Purchase, and acknowledged no American right to be in New Orleans, Mobile, or anywhere else on the Gulf of Mexico. Britain would have been at liberty to hand any of those territories back to Spain if it had been in possession of them, even under the terms of the Treaty of Ghent. And that, Monroe told Madison, was exactly what it would have done, had not Jackson not won the battle. The effect of the victory was to legitimize the whole of the Louisiana Purchase in the eyes of the international community." Asteriks (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for removal of fourth external link for NPOV

The fourth external link is to a blog post titled "Andrew Jackson, the national bank and censure" from "The Right Side of the Road." The post is about the censure of Andrew Jackson, is apologetically an ideological rant, and contributes very little information. MissLeighding (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Illustration for infobox

While a portrait is less "authentic", choosing a photograph of the dying Andrew Jackson brings into play needless POV-issues. The photo might be suitable later in the topic - in context. Tedickey (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

New Primary Sources Available

Robert Meachum's book "American Lion" has brought forth interesting new primary resources. Most notably, information regarding the Petticoat Affair and Jackson's opposition to the National Bank. I suggest looking into possible information that could come out of this source to be added to our current article. I'm surprised to see no mention of Nicholas Biddle and Andrew Jackson's relationship - their constant feuding about the corruption of the banking system is relatively important. David G. (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of New Orleans - # of Casualties

In the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815, Jackson's 5,000 soldiers won a victory over 7,500 British. The British had more than 8,000 casualties to Jackson's 13 killed and 58 wounded or missing.

In the article about the Battle of New Orleans the number of British casualities is indicated as 2,055 which seems more accurate (especially if there where only 7,500 soldiers involved)

Matto.regiert (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This section doesn't make much sense and is unclear. If there were 7,500 British, how is it possible that they took 8,000 casualties. I think this is a serious error.

Beaudoin.regiert (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaudoin (talk • contribs)

Monroe intentionally gave ambiguous orders unreferenced

The line "Monroe gave Jackson orders that were purposely ambiguous, sufficient for international denials" appears without citation in the section First Seminole War. Isn't this potentially harmful material appearing in a biography? Under Wikipedia guidelines, this sort of thing has to be removed immediately until a reference can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.21.229 (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be a 'Present day controveries' section

This needs to happen. I'm surprised there isn't already a section like this. There's even been a grass roots movement to have him taken off the $20 bill and replaced with someone else. Come on, people. --98.232.180.37 (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

" Ross was not a recognized leader of the Cherokee Nation, and this document was rejected by most Cherokees as illegitimate."

Ross who? His first name doesn't appear anywhere in this article. Also, I'm not fully sure of the significance of his name after visiting the Treaty_of_New_Echota link...secondly, perhaps his name should be hyper linked, like John Ross.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.173.200 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Big block of cheese

There's no reference to his big block of cheese - as per West Wing stories.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.30.81 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect description of Jackson's acquaintance with Rachel Donelson

"Jackson met Rachel Donelson Robards after her divorce from her first husband, Colonel Lewis Robards; Jackson and Mrs. Robards quickly married."

Although I can't remember all the details off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure this description of events is not accurate, as one of the reasons that Robards decided to divorce Rachel was that he suspected she had a relationship with Jackson. Thus it wouldn't make sense if Rachel didn't meet Jackson until after the "divorce". Also, I'm pretty sure that Jackson and Rachel knew each other for a good while before they were married, so I don't think saying "Jackson and Mrs. Robards quickly married" is accurate either. Kaldari 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to be more historically accurate. Kaldari 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

in truth, rachel did not divorce yet, they met, got married, and she had thought lewis robards ad forgotten about her, which he hadnt and filed a complaint for divorce, they divorced and jackson and rachel re-married —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.203.247 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian Removal NPOV

I researched the Remini book into the citations and one quotes andrew Jackson as referring to the Seminoles as a "diseas to be cut out" in a letter to Sherman. This shows a clear hatred for the Natives of Florida. Also on a History channel special on Jackson an history professor doctorate of one of the western states of Native American descent refers to Jackson as America's Hitler and discusses how a many Native Americans today will not accept $20 bills. After seeing that special it is clear to me that to maintain a NPOV the Andrew Jackson article section on Indian removal has to include some harsher language. I will find the professors name and a transcript of her comment for inclusion in the article. Alatari (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What will show a "clear hatred for the Natives of Florida", for purposes of this article, would be the full quote from the Remini book (which book and what page?) and Remini's interpretation of the quote. This would certainly be relevant in the Seminole War section of the article. BTW, who is this "Sherman" that Jackson wrote to?

See William Tecumseh Sherman Alatari (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the second part, I think it would be difficult to argue that the script of a History Channel is a very good source. Who exactly is this scholar? Has she written books or peer reviewed journal articles on Jackson or Indian Removal -- if she has these would certainly be better sources.

I tracked down the producers of the show and wrote them but never got a response so I just blew this off. Why is it so hard to get transcripts and sources out of TV documenters? Alatari (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure what the POV issue is in this article. Is there some specific sentence that actually says something POSITIVE about Jackson's Indian removal policy? Is there something inaccurate in the article? Something you would like to see a source for? Some details that you feel should be added?

The facts pretty much speak for themselves, and these certainly can be expanded. What specific deeds by Jackson need to be described in "harsher language"? Why is it so important to throw in a Hitler reference when so much reliable, professional, peer reviewed history is available that is already highly critical of Jackson without throwing in gratuitous references to Hitler.? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing 'checkered by his...' is harsher enough for me. Much appreciated. Alatari (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland

The comment as given is nonfactual, since there was no Northern Ireland at that time. Suggest rephrasing to note that the location is in modern Northern Ireland. Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Jackson described himself in his own words as Irish. Where is this Scotch-Irish nonsense in this page coming from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.44.171 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackson was so upset he wore black, in mourn of his loss for the rest of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.119.190 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nickname

Wasn't his nickname also "Stone Wall" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.211.44.231 (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Stone Wall" is easily referenced the "Sharp Knife" name by the Indians is harder. I'd retired from Wikipedia so here's hoping someone more bold than I finds these. Alatari (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Stonewall Jackson was a Confederate Civil War general. That's a common mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.23.225 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Add link to Pleasent M. Miller and Murfreesboro, TN

Article mentions Jackson being nominated for President by the Tennessee legislature in 1822. I would suggest adding additional information. He was nominated specifically by Pleasant M. Miller and it took place in Murfreesboro, the capitol of Tennessee at that time. A national historic register marker now marks the site where the Tennessee legislature met in downtown Murfreesboro, and information on Pleasent Miller (rather gifted orator and Congressman) can be found at the following link: http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=M098

I would do this myself, but I do not have privileges to change this semi-protected article. Thanks. Han.d.man.2 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

History Channel transcript

During the Bank War with Biddle the newspapers dubbed him King Andrew I, Cherokee called him 'Jackson Old and Fierce' from History Channel. Indian removal: Donna Akers (Choctaw, Professor at Purdue University, now University of Nebraska Lincoln, Specialist in the Removal Era and great, great ancestor of Trail of Tears survivors) article 1 her book another article sourced by Greg O'Brian in Pre-removal Choctaw history more articles listed suggests he hated Indians from his Mothers influence. She calls the camps 'concentration camps' that Cherokee were held in. She knows ppl who refuse to take $20's but ask for $10's instead. To most native ppl is equivalent to Hitler, the great devil, the black heart. Andrew Berstein; H.W. Brands, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times 'I'm dying as fast as I can but they all keep swarming...' Final words: 'I hope to meet you all in heaven, black and white.' 'If general jackson wants to goto heaven who is going to stop him?' Judge Patrick Moore suggests he is a criminal and shouldn't be on the $20. Alatari (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorate

Jackson received an honorary doctorate from Harvard in 1833. Should this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.141.104.17 (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.125.54 (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

He was Scots-Irish and a Protestant. I don't disagree with the addition. He is in List of Scots-Irish Americans but sadly it is all unsourced. Here is a source and another Alatari (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

During his election campaign his Irish ancestry was pushed. Scots-irish is a later 'Americanism'. Alatari (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the it's already in so nevermind... Alatari (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing

I removed a reference to this terminology. While the occassional non-specialist may use this type of terminology referring to Indian Removal, historians focusing on Jackson and/or this time period generally do not. In this case, the use was referenced to Simon Schama, a fine historian but not noted as an authority on the Jacksonian era. The book quoted ("The American Future") is less a work of history than a commentary on current events that makes use of the past -- there is very little in it about Jackson and the work is not even fotnoted. My problem is the use of the term without qualifying that it is in fact a minority view and passing it off as if it were a widely accepted opinion. The section of the wikipedia article on Jackson and Indian Removal reflects badly (and accurately) on Jackson as it exists -- it is not necessary to throw in terminology that developed over a century after the events that is not generally used by scholars studying that era. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ANDREW JACKSON

Northern Ireland did not exist in Andrew jacksons time so how could his parents have left Northern Ireland?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.168.231 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Jackson Square

The photo of Jackson square (near the bottom of the article) is tilted and "unprofessional". It would be nice if someone replaced it. --Germpolice (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Germpolice

Typos

I don't have the authority to directly edit the page, but I found a typo in the "Early Life" section. It says "(His eldest brother, Hugh, died from heat and exhaustion during the Battle of Stono Ferry in 1789.)", when the battle actually happened in 1779.74.74.220.48 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Zsero (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was reading through the Election of 1824, and I stumbled across this: "Jackson received the most popular votes (but not a majority, and four states had no popular ballot)." I find it a little confusing. How can Jackson receive the most popular votes but not the majority of the popular votes? This is nitpicking, I know, but I felt it should be addressed.71.174.110.119 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's called a "plurality;" having the highest number of votes without having an overall "majority" (one vote more than 50%).

if there were more than 2 candidates, Jackson could have got 49%(or less) and still rec'd "the most" votes but not "a majority" of the votes(?)....is a "majority" 51% or greater? not sure on this...

also you may want to check on the troop levels for Battle of New Orleans, as i've seen others mention 10,000 British troops and i think Jackson had Indian allies...--173.151.226.108 (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In the "8. Memorials" section, the second bullet has an error. It should read "many other postage stamps." instead of "many other postage stamp." KatsuuTenko (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Colonists vs Immigrants

As Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial times, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Wikipediaphile (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson sworn in to practice law

Andrew Jackson Esquire produced a License to practice as an Attorney at law and took his Attorney's oath in Davidson County, North Carolina's [now Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee] Court of Common Pleas and Quarter Sessions on Monday, January 5, 1789 (North Carolina. Davidson County Court of Common Pleas & Quarter Sessions Clerk, 1791: 259).

 transcript:

[Left Margin Note]: "Jackson Sworn as An Attor^y" [Entry Text]: "Andrew Jackson Esquire produced a license to practice as an Attorney at law in the Severall [sic] County Courts in this State: And now in this court has taken the Oath of an Attorney"

 citation:  

North Carolina. Davidson County Court of Common Pleas & Quarter Session Clerk, 1791. Minutes of the Court of Common Pleas & Quarter Sessions, Vol. A [Oct 1783 - Jul 1791]. Nashboro/Nashville, North Carolina [ceded to U.S. Territory South of the River Ohio in 1790]: unpublished county records manuscript; 448 pp.; see p. 259.

Kelly L Conrad Klconrad (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I believe that the cover-photo is actually a computer "enhanced" engraving. The so called "daguerreotype of Jackson late in his presidency" (just above the 'Assasination' portion of this article) is actually a painting that was also PC enhanced. Photographic technology was not completely developed during Jackson's presidency. The only TRUE photograph of Jackson ever taken is the daguerreotype at the 'Family & Personal Life' section. (Glenn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennjohnson1976 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Also http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:78yo_Andrew_Jackson.jpg ? Harami2000 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 . The first authenticated photographic image of a human came in 1838, after the end of the Jackson administration. I recommend changing either the word "daguerreotype" to "image" or "picture", or else change the word "presidency" to "life" if it turns out that this is really a daguerrotype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.9.2 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Same here, Jackson's presidency ended in 1937, but the first photographic portrait was made by Robert Cornelius in late 1939, so it can't be a daguerreotype, it must be a painting. 77.127.108.129 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jmirch, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Andrew Jackson was the first of his family to be born in american.

Jmirch (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 20:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see... According to the current article, he had two brothers, who were born in 1763 and 1764, then his parents emigrated from Ireland in 1765 and Andrew was born here in 1767. Not much of a stretch to say he was the first of his family to be born here; the question is, why would we want to and what does it add? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Senior but no Junior?

My edit to include "Jr." in Jackson's birth name was reverted by Rjensen with the comment "no RS supports this claim". OK, I can understand this if, in fact, no source calls him a "Jr.", but then how can the source "Gullan, Harold I. (c2004)" (currently 6th in the References) be used to call his father "Andrew Jackson, Sr."? How can there be a "Sr." without a "Jr." (or "II")? (Note: According to the article, Andrew's brothers were named Hugh and Robert.) - dcljr (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Jackson's first marriage (moving comment from Wikiproject Tennessee)

I'm noticing on Emily Donelson's page that it mentions that it was unknown to either Andrew Jackson that his wife Rachel had been married before. Yet in Jon Meacham's "American Lion", he notes that Jackson was well aware of Rachel's first marriage (pg 21-22). 108.2.24.244 (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC) KingFolderol 108.2.24.244 (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bobbyjohn23, 27 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Jackson's service in the War of 1812 against the United Kingdom was conspicuous for bravery and success. This sentence needs to read "Jackson's service in the War of 1812 against England was conspicuous for bravery and success." There was no United Kingdom in 1812.

Bobbyjohn23 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the History of the United Kingdom article the United Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707. The Acts of Union 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. So there was a Untited Kingdom in 1812. ~~ GB fan ~~ 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Jackson's ancestry and heritage

Jackson was of "Scots-Irish" descent but his father's family were Scots-Irish, by which I mean Ulster Scots, of English extraction, with the surname making it's way to Ulster (Northern Ireland) from Cumbria, England. Shouldn't that be mentioned where it's mentioned he's Scots-irish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it should be mentioned since they've already mentioned his ancestry, the article ought to be complete. 146.57.249.81 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: The 146.xxx.xxx.xxx ip from University of Minnesota has been showing up and participating in several articles reverting to bolster Thesouthernhistorian45's single-purpose editing. As such, the IP may be considered a meatpuppet and discounted from the consensus. Every single edit since November 11 has been to this effect.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding in Universal Suffrage (for White Men)

I was a little surprised to find out that this article did not contain a section on the most important issue of Jackson's administration--universal suffrage for white males. Before Jackson, a number of states had rules banning those who did not own sufficient property from voting--effectively denying democracy to the poor. This issue was not only the most important element of "Jacksonian Democracy" and the main reason the Democratic Party is called the Democratic Party, but it is also one of the most important developments in American democracy. I would like to add in a section on this issue, but (as this page is semiprotected) I thought I'd post this on the talk page first to see if there are any objections.Rppeabody (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

the topic is covered in the article on Jacksonian Democracy. This article is a biography of Jackson himself, and he had very little to do with suffrage or voting issues.Rjensen (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Rjensen, I think that this issue is very important, and given it's one of the man's greatest accomplishments, it ought to be on his biography page.Thesouthernhistorian45 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Benjamin Harrison

An opinion is needed on the Benjamin Harrison talk page. Two editors are in disagreement about whether or not the last section to the page is appropriate. One editor wants to included an image of the 1st Harrison stamp along with some history associated with it. An other editor feels the information too tangential and does not belong on the Harrison page. Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request for Introductory Paragraph

There are NUMEROUS typos in the introductory paragraph. (i.e. "9as") Decoy256 (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson as master genocider

The treatment of Amerindians by Andrew Jackson is not described properly in this Wikipedia page, which tends to use soothing words which skew and misrepresent the historical reality.

I, Dr Gabriel Bittar, propose a new entry:

Andrew Jackson as master genocider

In 1814, under the command of general Andrew Jackson, the United States violated all peace treaties that they had signed with five Indian nations: the Cherokees, the Chickasaws, the Choctaws, the Creeks and the Seminoles. They were attacked by surprise and treachery, and were largely massacred in the following years. This extermination was welcome by most white settlers and made Jackson a popular figure among them. As soon as he was elected President in 1829, he went on a platform of "finishing the job" and cleaning the USA east of the Mississippi of any remaining "red skins". He had the "Indian Removal Act" voted by Congress in 1830, according to which any Amerindians having survived the previous wars of extermination shall be deported west of the Mississippi. The remaining Creeks in Alabama and remaining Seminoles in Florida who resisted deportation were exterminated to the last by 1837, the last year of Jackson's presidency. The last of the Cherokees were killed by 1838.

Andrew Jackson can be considered as a key master of the genocide of Amerindians east of the Mississippi. He became the epitomy of the strong man who could have the job done on the "red vermin", and contributed to the following tendency of the white settlers electorate to favour for the presidency brutish generals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.7.164 (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"largely massacred"--well no, that did not happen. perhaps a date and RS would be useful. it would help to read some history. Look at Andrew Jackson (2006) by Sean Wilentz, excerpt online. Rjensen (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Response by G. Bittar: Thank you for the suggestion. I do happen to "read some history", not necessarily the same texts as you. My interest here is in the Amerindians, as victims of Jackson, not in Jackson himself. In the same way that I have no particular interest in Staline or Hitler, but am interested in the peoples that suffered in their hands.

My main reference, inter alia, is the most complete study ever written on the history of the Amerindians in North American: "L'épopée des peaux-rouges" (1988), written by Dr Jean Pictet, a Swiss jurist, expert in international humanitarian law and senior staff member and Vice President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. He was the main architect of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I and Protocol II. He also proposed the Red Cross Movement’s seven Fundamental Principles, which were adopted at Vienna in 1965. You can check his entry "Jean_Pictet" in Wikipedia. This monumental work (826 pp) has never been translated to English, only in Italian... I presume the main reason is that what he established was VERY unpalatable to the US white settlers mythology. If you can read French, I advise you this book. Considering the amount of misinformation hanging around on the matter of the genocide of the Amerindians in North America, someone should translate it to English. It would be a great contribution to historical truth.

What is it exactly you disagree with: the adverb "largely", the verb "massacred", or both ? And can you really disagree when there is so much evidence of this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phorein (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

IP statement

"regardless of the cost of inefficiency and bias." That ending on the "spoils system" Jackson created is bullshit. Where's the proof his appointments were less efficient than their predecessors? Every president appointed men he trusted. The 6th presidency rightfully belonged to Jackson but was stolen from him by the corrupt bargain. Should he keep traitors like Clay in his cabinet?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.170.36 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

American mass murderer category

Doesn't this article belong in Category:American mass murderers due to the Trail of Tears incident among other things? I would have done this already if I did not believe that such an action would get me eventually sent to an arbitration case or make someone believe that my account was hijacked. Jesse Viviano (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

the mass murderer charge was levied against Jackson in 1828 election (before the Trail of Tears), but no RS has agreed. Rjensen (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

what about this?

Andrew Jackson quotes: The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it. Andrew Jackson quotes: I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country. Andrew Jackson quotes: Every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add… artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society -- the farmers, mechanics, and laborers -- who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their

ref government.http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/andrew+jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.56.252 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 170.141.177.43, 14 July 2011

Edits for Andrew Jackson page in Wikipedia

This request is being made by Dan Perusich, Museum Program Assistant for the Tennessee State Museum. The edits have been made by Paulette Fox, Director of Public Programs and Dan Pomeroy, Director of Collections - both employees of the Tennessee State Museum and experts on this particular subject.

>>Strongly against the national bank, he vetoed the renewal of its charter and ensured its collapse. Whigs and moralists denounced his aggressive enforcement of the Indian Removal Act, which resulted in the forced relocation of Native American tribes to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma).<<

The Indian Removal Act was passed while Jackson was president, but didn’t go into effect until after he left office so there was no opportunity for his “aggressive enforcement”. Maybe use “his support”.

Someone has changed the duel section, but it still has inaccuracies. This is what it says now: >>The controversy surrounding their marriage remained a sore point for Jackson, who deeply resented attacks on his wife's honor. Jackson fought 13 duels, many nominally over his wife's honor.[citation needed] Charles Dickinson, the only man Jackson ever killed in a duel, had been goaded into angering Jackson by Jackson's political opponents. In the duel, fought over a horse-racing debt and an insult to his wife on May 30, 1806, Dickinson shot Jackson in the ribs before Jackson returned the fatal shot; Jackson allowed Dickinson to shoot first, knowing him to be an excellent shot, and as his opponent reloaded, Jackson shot, even as the bullet lodged itself in his chest. The bullet that struck Jackson was so close to his heart that it could never be safely removed. Jackson had been wounded so frequently in duels that it was said he "rattled like a bag of marbles."[55] At times he coughed up blood, and he experienced considerable pain from his wounds for the rest of his life.[citation needed]<<

New changes: The controversy surrounding their marriage remained a sore point for Jackson, who deeply resented attacks on his wife’s honor. With his anger over attacks about Rachel, and his participation in violent confrontations, Jackson gained a reputation as a quarrelsome and vengeful man. A political battle between Tennessee’s first Governor John Sevier and Jackson resulted in a challenge in 1803 after Sevier made a sarcastic reference to Rachel. The two men met, drew weapons, and cursed each other, but a duel was never held.

A more infamous encounter did end in a duel and the death of one of the participants, a young man named Charles Dickinson. Jackson had confronted Dickinson over a report that he had insulted Rachel. Dickinson said if he had, he was drunk at the time and apologized. But events re-kindled the disagreement when Jackson and Dickinson’s father-in-law, Joseph Ervin, scheduled a horserace in 1805. The stakes specified a winning pot of $2,000 paid by the loser, with an $800 forfeit if a horse couldn’t run. Ervin’s horse went lame, and after a minor disagreement about the forfeit payment, Ervin paid.

Later, one of Jackson’s friends, while visiting at a store, gossiped about Ervin’s disputed payment. When Dickinson heard, he sent a friend to act as a go between to inquire about what Jackson said about his father-in-law. Whether the friend misinterpreted or even misrepresented what was said by the two men, this minor misunderstanding soon flamed into full controversy. By May 1806, Dickinson had published an attack on Jackson in the local newspaper, and it resulted in a written challenge from Jackson to a duel.

Because dueling was outlawed in Tennessee, the two men met in Kentucky on May 30, 1806. Since Dickinson was considered an expert shot, Jackson and his friend, Thomas Overton, determined it would be best to let Dickinson turn and fire first, hoping that his aim might be spoiled in his quickness. Jackson would wait and, if he was still standing, take careful aim at Dickinson. Dickinson did fire first, hitting Jackson in the chest. Under the rules of dueling, Dickinson had to remain still as Jackson took aim. Jackson’s pistol stopped at half cock, so he drew back the hammer and aimed again, this time hitting Dickinson in the chest. Dickinson bled to death. Doctors determined that the bullet in Jackson was too close to his heart to operate, so Jackson carried it for the rest of his life, and suffered much pain from the wound. Locals were outraged that Dickinson had to stand defenseless while Jackson re-cocked and shot him, even though it was acceptable behavior in a duel. Jackson’s reputation suffered greatly from the duel.

170.141.177.43 (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I changed the paragraph about the dual using the material you gave but I cut it down some in order to not put undue weight on that incident. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)