Is there some book where every wrong premise with regard to American history has been compiled? And, if so, how many copies does Donald Trump own? I ask this question with at least a measure of sincere interest, as it is impossible for those of us who have been paying attention to understand how anyone so deliberately and consistently ignorant could serve as the president of the United States.
Trump Continues to be Ignorant!
WEATHER FORECAST FOR TONIGHT : Dark, followed by Widely Scattered Light in the morning!
Now, what else is new in the world...?
Stupid or ignorant? That is the question. A little of both? Or a lot of both?
The division of powers in the US Constitution provides that the Congress makes the laws, The Supreme Court decides on the fairness of the laws, and the Executive branch enforces the laws.
During Andrew Jackson's Presidency a case regarding the right of the Cherokee people to own and keep their ancestral lands made its way to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall and the majority decided the matter in favor of the Cherokees. Although the exact wording used by Andrew Jackson is not known, he is said to have replied, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Thus in a treasonous spirit, Jackson refused to do his duty as President and enforce the Law of the USA.
Perhaps this is the heart of why Trump admires Jackson.
"...so it’s fair to say that Jackson made things messy. And he did so with populist appeals that divided people against one another, attacked the free press, disregarded sound economic and scientific ideas, undermined the courts, and diminished rather than strengthened democratic progress."
is Nichols paraphrasing the presidency of Trump so far.
To his credit, Jackson DID:
1) prevent the British from destroying New Orleans in January 1815, during an era when New Orleans was a strategic venue in sustaining the economy and expansion of the US, and
2) Jackson pushed back on Wall Street, more than most POTUS of that era..
Manifest destiny's conflict with the EXPANSION of slavery was the key issue that spawned the Civil War. California and Oregon had recently become states and were strategic components of sustaining manifest destiny, the concept that has driven the Murkin sepshunalism myth for two centuries. Both new states, but especially California, were leaning toward slavery, threatening manifest destiny's future..
The only way to prevent the Civil War would have been to break the US into two nations with California being negotiated away to one side or the other. Nobody, including Jackson, could have pulled that off.
Just to add--making deals over slavery, was in fact the long-standing policy of the Republic, beginning with the formation of the constitution, the "three-fifths" provision for example--Later "compromises"--The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850--These were the "deals" being made over slavery, to limit its expansion into newly acquired territories, first the Louisiana Purchase and later the territory taken from Mexico.
The Supreme Court can strike down a law on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and no other. Fairness has nothing to do with it - at least if those on the bench do the job they way they are supposed to.
There's nothing in the Constitution that says laws have to be fair in order to be valid. If there were, it could strike down at least half of the tax code.
Well, I live smack dab in the middle of the area that was partially cleared of Cherokees ( many still live around here) due to the treaty of New Echota, a historical marker is within 3 miles of my house. I'm afraid the author himself doesn't seem to know very much about it, probably read through Wikipedia before he wrote this article. History IS messy, and cannot be fairly judged by our values a couple of centuries later. The clearances were a travesty of justice, and should be condemned. It's not remembered though that the actual removal with soldiers was not ordered by Jackson, but by his native New Yorker, non slave owning successor Martin Van Buren. It is not all nice and tidy though. In the early 18th century this was Creek land, until the Cherokees moved southwest and , after a series of bloody battles and a massacre of Creek chiefs at what was supposed to be a peace conference, drove them south and west of here. The Cherokees and other tribes also owned many black slaves and brought many of them on the Trail of Tears with them, that is one reason there are black members of the indian tribes out in Oklahoma to this day. Doesn't make them wrong or evil, it was just normal in those times. As far as Jackson is concerned, he was neither good or bad...just a product of his times. He did what he thought was right by fighting against the moneyed interests in the east on behalf of the common citizens. I'm sure he could also be an asshole. He was also the founder of the modern Democratic Party, something that all these articles on Trump and Jackson somehow manage to overlook.
The Treaty of Ghent ending the War of 1812 was signed on Dec. 24, 1814. Because news traveled from Europe to the US by boat, the Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war was over.
In 1832, Congress proposed a tariff on European imported goods. Because the south realized that the European powers would slap a tariff on cotton that the pro-slave states exported to Europe, the pro-slave states did not want the tariff. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina proposed the notion of nullification: states can nullify any federal law they do not like.
This so enraged President Jackson (Old Hickory) that he was ready to lead the troops to South Carolina and hang Calhoun. Henry Clay brokered a compromise in Congress (back in the good old days, people in government compromised for the good of the country) and Old Hickory did not have to hang Calhoun.
Had there been no compromise, the Civil War would have started in 1832 when Old Hickory and Union troops invaded South Carolina to hang Calhoun. However, Old Hickory did say on his deathbed that his two greatest regrets in life were that he didn't shoot Clay and hang Calhoun.
The reason the Civil War began in 1861 was that Lincoln was elected in 1860. The pro-slave states did not bother with nullification; they seceded from the Union so that the hated federal government would not tell them what to do.
Nonsense. The Democrat Party of Jackson was pro-slave and pro-states' rights. The modern Democrat Party (the party of FDR and LBJ) seeks to use federal power to establish justice. The modern Democrat Party is more like the Social Democratic parties in Europe, while the Democrat Party of Jackson was more like the populist parties of Le Pen in France and The Donald in the US.
When LBJ enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the solid south was forever lost to the modern Democrat Party. Ironically, it was the southern Democrats that wanted to secede from the Union and the Republican Party of Lincoln that fought a war to make sure the Union was intact.
The Constitution is clear that government (not just the Supreme Court) must establish justice. John Rawls defines justice as fairness (see "A Theory of Justice"). It is not unreasonable to argue that the Supreme Court must strike down unfair laws to establish justice.
The Marshall Court gave itself the power of judicial review (there is nothing in the Constitution giving the court this power). So, the Court can simply decide on what basis it will strike down laws.
By the way, the whole point of a progressive income tax is to establish justice by transferring wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Wealth inequality is unjust. Teddy Roosevelt proposed steeply graduated income and inheritance taxes to redistribute the wealth in the country making our society more just.
Just because you want something to be true does not mean that it is true. The party changed with the times, like every one else. The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world, and no, it wasn't founded in 1964.. The United States used to allow slavery and not allow women to vote. It is the same country though, it just changed with the times.