Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 1

message: The article states:
:In 1838, 1,600 Cherokee remained on their lands. The terms of the treaty were then enforced by Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren, who ordered 7,000 armed troops to remove them.[23] This resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Cherokee on the "Trail of Tears."
If there were only 1,600 Cherokee remaining, how could 4,000 of them be killed during the deportation? Maybe I'm missing something here.
Ariah 22:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent Contradiction

message: I am by no means implying that Jackson was the primary cause of the genocide that took place in this country in the 19th century. Certainly, his actions merely reflected the racism common among whites at the time. However, this article seems to paint a rosy picture of Jackson. I cannot agree with the below statement by Robert Remini that Indian removal saved the 5 Civilized Tribes from probable extinction. The Eastern Cherokees who resisted removal have preserved much more of their culture than have those of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. Moreover, the land given in Oklahoma was later mostly taken away by the Dawes Severalty Act. Although descendants of those who moved west are numerous they are usually mostly white and almost completely if not completely assimilated into the dominant culture.Only preident to be a p.o.w
Although Jackson may not have actually disobeyed the Supreme Court ruling, he acted as if he would if the Cherokees refused to sign the Treaty of New Echota.  To say "the popular story that Jackson defied the Supreme Court in carrying out Indian Removal is untrue" is just splitting hairs.  Jackson used deciept and coercion frequently to achieve his political goals.  Jackson described the lands in Indian Territory as lush and bountiful again and again although the land is much less productive than the lands ceded.  He also promised treaty land in the East "as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow"... and then came back after some years to renegotiate under threat of military action.
The argument that Indian removal was necessary for national safety is laughable.  Had the US government not bred resentment among Indians with its greedy and fork-tongued policies, Indians would not have been tempted to take up arms.  In fact, the Cherokees, who fought with Jackson against the red sticks in 1814 fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War - a product of their resentment towards the United States that was created by removal.  
I don't know how to change the article - that ought to be reached by consensus.  However, if nothing is changed, this article really ought to have a bias warning.
Btw, I do know people who boycott 20s and although I do not because they are handy, I do write messages on them to raise awareness.  What advertising reaches more peopel than money?
Eco jake 23:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Removal

message: I read in several places that Andrew Jackson was a slave trader in his youth.
: "Jackson hated banks, all banks. But he especially hated the Second Bank of the United States, chartered by Congress in 1816. The root of his hatred probably stemmed from his near ruin as a young businessman (land speculator, slave trader, and merchant)." 
: "Many presidents who owned slaves found it abhorrent to sell one, even if they needed the money.  Lincoln observed that many slaveowners would not shake the hand of a slave-trader  -- a man who bought and sold slaves for profit.  But for some years  Jackson made part of his living doing just that." 
IMO, if that's true, it should be written in his "early years" part. Bogdan | Talk 12:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I added slave trade to the article, using Zinn as a reference. Qwertyus 16:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zinn is not an expert on Jackson--please use the many reliable books listed in the bibliography. Rjensen 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't think Zinn is a valid opinion, why did you restore the edit? Kade 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Oooh, ooh, can I use Rush Limbaugh? Kade 02:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remini says Jackson engaged in buying and selling many items, probably including slaves. (1:55, 133) The "slave trader" tag was a political campaign attack on him in 1828. I added Remini's very solid overall evaluation. Rjensen 04:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no probably to it. The Papers of Andrew Jackson, edited by Sam Smith, Harold Moser, and, now Dan Feller, are filled with instances of Jackson buying and selling slaves. Even during his presidency, he asked his nephew, Andrew Jackson Donelson, to find slaves for him. If one is questioning whether the slave trade was his main vocation or source of income, then the answer is no. But Jackson was a slave trader according to its basic definition of buying and selling slaves as property/merchandise. 63.138.247.2 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slave trader 

message: Actually JACKSONVILLE Florida (Home of the NFL's Jaguars) was named after the state's first governor, Andrew Jackson.  The town's name changed from Talla Palatka, to its English translation, Cowford, to its cuttern name of JACKSONVILLE.  The city crest sports the General on a rearing charger.
:There is, incidentally, still a town in Florida named Palatka.  It has a paper mill and a smell which is difficult to describe without becoming profane.  Koyaanis Qatsi
Actually Andrew Jackson, the man who would become President was the 1st governor of Florida.  He abhorred the state (I disagree, although he did not have air conditioning) and left as soon as he could.
From : "In 1817, President Monroe ordered Jackson to try to stop Seminole Indians attacks on settlers in Georgia. Jackson was instructed not to invade Florida unless he was in hot pursuit of the Seminoles. Jackson exceeded his instructions and invaded Florida. He overthrew the governor and executed two British citizens, allegedly for inciting the Seminole tribe to violence. An unsuccessful attempt was made to censure Jackson for exceeding his authority."
I think we should include some of that information in this article; not nessasarily from that source, but it's an important bit about him. Disavian 20:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacksonville, FL 

message: Go to Talk:George Washington and look towards the bottom. Is Jackson #4?? If you don't know, then you may try to find out yourself using whatever Internet sites might be helpful. 66.245.68.140 23:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackson's Honor Rank 

message: Andrew Jackson fought in the American Revolution at the age of 13.
I don't know how to do what I want to do here...but what I want to do is to correct misinformation presented in this entry. President Andrew Jackson was never called "Stonewall." "Stonewall" Jackson was a Confederate general who fought in the U.S. Civil War and who was famously killed by friendly fire. The president's nickname, as stated elsewhere in the article, was "Old Hickory." My name is Toni Vitanza, you can contact me at tonivitanza@hotmail.com
::THANKS for spotting that howler. I fixed it. Rjensen 12:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Jackson 

message: I've just reverted two incidences of vandalism - actually about five incidences, but two people - from US schools in the last half-hour or so. Any idea why this article seems to attract so much of it? It seems to be one of the worst offenders, not counting the "politically active" pages... Shimgray 18:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be acceptable. Disavian 20:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's really a shame that American student would vandalize something about a former leader of their country. It's truly a disgrace. Americans... 24.88.85.195 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, Jackson isn't a great guy, and as an American myself I see no reason to praise him or continue to have him on the 20$ bill. Anyway, I am not justifying vandalism by any means. Gautam Discuss 06:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  A lot of anger and bitterness remains about the things Jackson did. American presidents don't have the advantage of unquestioning respect from American citizens. A lot of people are still hurt by the Trail of Tears.nut-meg 04:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As an American student, I agree that the ignorance of my peers is disrespectful and hope that my generation 'wises up' "when the time of action arrises"(wikiquote-A.J.).
It is helpful to give an example of what the "vandalism" was (for archival purposes). As of November, 2006, I cannot see what was removed. Could it have been an ideological critique or could it have been profane name calling?
 
Someone changed his name to Herr Platts, presbyterian to nazi, and President of the United States to Hitler of the United States, in november of 2006.
Ya know, I can't exactly grasp how it would be expected of a highschool student to respect someone like Andrew Jackson, just because he was at one point our president. As I think it has been proven recently, just because someone was "elected" does not mean they are worthy of respect. I also find a certain irony in the vandal calling Jackson the "Hitler of the United States," considering that Hitler was very literaly the Jackson of Germany. Anti-emily 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's safe to say that plenty of people in this country, Native Americans, namely, see him that way. I can't say that I blame them. Still, the vandalism isn't helpful.nut-meg 04:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vandalism isn't good, but I don't think that an ideological conflict can be considered vandalism. So the Hitler thing is bad...for sure...but the intentions may NOT have been. It may behoove us to look into a more balanced outlook on Jackson. Gautam Discuss 08:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism magnet 

message: This line was in the article when I encountered it:
Jackson became the symbol of an era in American history — sometimes called the Age of Jackson or the Jacksonian Era — an era seen as dominating the years between the American Revolution and the Civil War.
This suggests that the Jacksonian Era overshadowed the presidencies of Washington and Jefferson!  I changed "American Revolution" to "War of 1812," which makes more sense. Funnyhat 20:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jacksonian Era 

message: Was there really a big block of cheese in Jackson's Whitehouse as per the West Wing Narrative? --BozMo|talk 15:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Block of Cheese

message: Edited details of this section based on Remini's biography. Jul 21, 2005.
:I read somewhere (in a book, and I don't remember the title) that the chance of two guns misfiring in that situation was 1 out of 100,000. Is this true? --71.117.36.250 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1:125,000 according to this website. Jeremy Bright 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, there was an attempt at assassination. The guns misfired and Jackson used his cane to beat the man down. They had to hold him back to keep him from beating Mr. Lawrence anymore. 24.88.85.195 00:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination attempt 

message: Added Henry Adams, History of the United States during the Administration of James Madison
Changed William Weatherford to Peter McQueen. McQueen led at Ft. Mims — Adams, p.780
:Vern Reisenleiter 16:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New reference 

message: Some thoughts on changes
*Jackson was a Maj Gen at the start of the war
*Aborted move on Spanish territory in 1813
*He got his nickname Old Hickory on the march back from Natchez
*Wounded in a duel with the Benton brothers. Still recuperating at start of Creek War
:Vern Reisenleiter 16:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: War of 1812

message: "Lastly, the election of Andrew Jackson to the presidency ended the one party system in the U.S. and led to the two-party system, Whigs vs. Democrats."  How can this be true? What about the Federalists vs Republicans? It seems the two party system sprang up almost immediately with the first administration of George Washington.
::"one-party system" is not well-phrased. We use that term to describe say Chicago where one party is very dominant and the party leaders choose the candidates. That system had disappeared by 1824. Rjensen 14:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Party System

message: Jackson was a lean figure standing at 6 feet, 1 inch (1.85 m) tall, and weighing between 130 and 140 pounds (64 kg) on average. Jackson also had an unruly shock of red hair, which had completely grayed by the time he became president at age 61, in 1829. He had a pair of penetrating deep blue eyes. Jackson was one of the more sickly presidents, suffering from chronic headaches, abdominal pains, and a hacking cough that often brought up blood and sometimes even made his whole body shake. Also, Jackson caught many colds and fevers that made his aches and pains and hacking cough even worse. Jackson was also very nearsighted and wore glasses for most of his presidency. Many people thought that Jackson would die in office because his health was so bad. By the time he left office in 1837, Jackson's health had grown much worse, and many people and even his doctors thought that Jackson would undoubtedly not be able to survive the trip back home to Nashville. Amazingly, he survived the grueling trip home and enjoyed eight more happy and joyful years of retirement before he finally passed away at 6:00 p.m. on Sunday June 8, 1845 at the ripe old age of 78 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, and 3 days.
That whole section needs to be rewritten.  Far too confusing and colloquial.  I also have to question whether any of this is correct at all, since Jackson clearly doesn't have red hair or blue eyes in the portrait on the page.  -DMurphy 20:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Characteristics 

message: This is a great article, and I almost confirmed it for good article status, but couldn't.  The biggest failure of this article is that is contains precious few (2) inline references, which are mandatory, especially for quotes and really specific tidbits of info.  If someone could address this issue, I think it would be worthy of GA status.--Esprit15d 19:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have recently reviewed this article & found that it easily meets the criterion for being a good article. So I have promoted it to GA status. My congratulations to all the contributors for doing a fine job. Cheers. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 04:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for accepting my nomination guys.  Next stop is FA!  --  Wikipedical 02:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination 

message: According to both "The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster" and "The Works of Thomas Jefferson by Paul Leicester Ford, Daniel Webster is the source of the Jefferson quote:
"I feel much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws or constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. His passions are terrible. When I was President of the Senate he was a Senator; and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage. His passions are no doubt cooler now; he has been much tried since I knew him, but he is a dangerous man."
Justifying my edit. Settler 17:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Webster had a very friendly visit with Jefferson at Montecello stretching over several days. They talked political history. Webster made detailed notes of his interviews every night and the handwritten notes are preserved. Webster never published this attack on Jackson--it was discovered in his papers after his death. Note that Jeferson's views were about the same as his close friend Gallatin, and Jefferson's own letters indicate he strongly distrusted Jackson. See Remini bio of Webster. Rjensen 18:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gallatin and Van Buren were partisans of Crawford's election, and Jefferson seemed to think the election would come down to Adams versus Crawford.  I know Jefferson's friend William Short went for Andrew Jackson that year but seemed to think that there were issues with all the candidates.  Margaret Bayard seemed to think Jefferson was favoring Crawford at the time in that election.  It's not inconsistent; it's just worth noting that the quote isn't directly from Jefferson's own hand. Settler 18:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel Webster source of Jefferson quote 

message: Article tells that there were 100 duels but someone was killed in only one of them. How is this possible? How so many duels can fail? The idea of duel is to kill either one, is it? Did they use rubber bullets or wooden swords? Or were they not fighting seriously? Article needs to explain this enigma a bit. 193.65.112.51 11:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read duel.  Duels did not always end in death.  Here is a section from the article:
At the choice of the offended party, the duel could be:
* at first blood, in which case the first man to bleed would lose;
* till one man was heavily wounded and unable to physically continue the duel;
* to the death, in which case there would be no satisfaction until the other party was mortally wounded;
* or, in the case of pistol duels, each party would agree to fire one shot each, after which the duel would be declared over.
Under the latter conditions, one or both parties could intentionally miss in order to fulfil the conditions of the duel, without loss of either life or honor.
PrometheusX303 12:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of a duel was not to kill, but to restore one's own honor by risking death. Rjensen 13:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why so many duels failed?

message: The original person who failed this article, Esprit15d, noted some problems concerning the citation of sources. Unfortunately, the proper failed template was not placed and someone came by and simply promoted the article. This article should have passed through the nomination process rather than having another editor just simply promoting it. Looking at the article as is, it is clear that only small efforts has been done concerning Esprit15d's original comments. For an article of this size and for a controversial president such as Andrew Jackson, it is absolutely mandatory to cite sources for verifiability. There are several fact tags as well as a section verification template which clearly shows that this article needs work. In addition, the lead section should be expanded and provide a better summary of the article. Once these issues are addressed, this article can be nominated again. RelHistBuff 11:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisting

message: I suggest deleting the paragraph describing him physically, as it is rather superfulous and finding a source for the statement that he grew his own marijuana.--71.100.131.159 01:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Appearance and Cannabis 

message: The expulsion of Native Americans from the eastern half of the continent to the Indian Territory beyond the Mississippi River remains one of the most notorious events in U.S. history, and the man most responsible and most widely blamed for their removal is Andrew Jackson.
Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act
Andrew Jackson had been an Indian fighter, and he continued the struggle as president. His new weapon was the Indian Removal Act, which would force Eastern tribes to relocate west of the Mississippi. 
By Robert V. Remini
The great Cherokee Nation that had fought the young Andrew Jackson back in 1788 now faced an even more powerful and determined man who was intent on taking their land. But where in the past they had resorted to guns, tomahawks, and scalping knives, now they chose to challenge him in a court of law. They were not called a "civilized nation" for nothing. Many of their leaders were well educated; many more could read and write; they had their own written language, thanks to Sequoyah, a constitution, schools, and their own newspaper. And they had adopted many skills of the white man to improve their living conditions. Why should they be expelled from their lands when they no longer threatened white settlements and could compete with them on many levels? They intended to fight their ouster, and they figured they had many ways to do it. As a last resort they planned to bring suit before the Supreme Court. 
Prior to that action, they sent a delegation to Washington to plead their cause. They petitioned Congress to protect them against the unjust laws of Georgia that had decreed that they were subject to its sovereignty and under its complete jurisdiction. They even approached the President, but he curtly informed them that there was nothing he could do in their quarrel with the state, a statement that shocked and amazed them. 
So the Cherokees hired William Wirt to take their case to the Supreme Court. In the celebrated Cherokee Nation v. Georgia he instituted suit for an injunction that would permit the Cherokees to remain in Georgia without interference by the state. He argued that they constituted an independent nation and had been so regarded by the United States in its many treaties with them. 
Speaking for the majority of the court, Chief Justice John Marshall handed down his decision on March 18, 1831. Not surprisingly, as a great American nationalist, he rejected Wirt's argument that the Cherokees were a sovereign nation, but he also rejected Jackson's claim that they were subject to state law. The Indians were "domestic dependent nations," he ruled, subject to the United States as a ward to a guardian. Indian territory was part of the United States but not subject to action by individual states. 
When the Cherokees read Marshall's decision they honestly believed that the Nation had won the case, that Georgia lacked authority to control their lives and property, and that the courts would protect them. The Supreme Court, the Principal Chief told his people, decided "in our favor." So they stayed right where they were, and missionaries encouraged them to stand fast. 
But they figured without Andrew Jackson -- the man the Cherokees called Sharp Knife -- and the authorities of Georgia. In late December 1830, the state passed another law prohibiting white men from entering Indian country after March 1, 1831, without a license from the state. This move was obviously intended to keep interfering clergymen from inciting the Indians to disobey Georgia law. Eleven such missionaries were arrested for violating the recent statute, nine of whom accepted pardons from the governor in return for a promise that they would cease violating Georgia law. But Samuel A. Worcester and Dr. Elizur Butler refused the pardon, and Judge Augustin S.J. Clayton sentenced them to the state penitentiary, "there to endure hard labor for the term of four years." They appealed the verdict and their case came before the Supreme Court. 
On March 3, 1832, Marshall again ruled in Worcester v. Georgia, declaring all the laws of Georgia dealing with the Cherokees unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect. In addition he issued a formal mandate two days later ordering the state's superior court to reverse its decision and free the two men. 
Jackson was presently involved in a confrontation with South Carolina over the passage of the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. The state had nullified the acts and threatened to secede from the Union if force were used to make her comply with them. The last thing Jackson needed was a confrontation with another state, so he quietly nudged Georgia into obeying the court order and freeing Butler and Worcester. A number of well-placed officials in both the state and national governments lent a hand and the governor, Wilson Lumpkin, released the two men on January 14, 1833. 
With the annoying problem of the two missionaries out of the way, both Georgia and Jackson continued to lean on the Cherokees to get them to remove. "Some of the most vicious and base characters that the adjoining states can produce" squatted on their land and stole "horses and other property" and formed a link with as many "bad citizens" of the Cherokee Nation "as they can associate into their club." Missionaries decried what was happening to the Cherokees. If only "whites would not molest them," wrote Dr. Elizur Butler in The Missionary Herald. They have made remarkable progress in the last dozen years and if left alone they can and will complete the process toward a "civilized life." 
But allowing eastern Indians full control of their eastern lands was virtually impossible in the 1830s. There was not army enough or will enough by the American people to bring it about. As Jackson constantly warned, squatters would continue to invade and occupy the land they wanted; then, if they were attacked, they would turn to the state government for protection that usually ended in violence. All this under the guise of bringing "civilization" to the wilderness. 
Even so, the Cherokees had a strong leader who had not yet given up the fight. They were led by the wily, tough, and determined John Ross, a blue-eyed, brown-haired mixed-blood who was only one-eighth Cherokee. Nonetheless he was the Principal Chief, and a most powerful force within the Nation. He was rich, lived in a fine house attended by black slaves, and had influence over the annuities the United States paid to the tribal government for former land cessions. His appearance and life-style were distinctly white; in all other respects he was Indian. 
From the beginning of Jackson's administration Ross urged his people to stand their ground and remain united. "Friends," he told his people, "I have great hopes in your firmness and that you will hold fast to the place where you were raised. Friends if you all unite together and be of one mind there is no danger." And the Cherokees cheered his determination. They approved wholeheartedly of his leadership and they took comfort in what he said. So, with the Nation solidly behind him, Ross resolutely resisted any thought of leading his people from their ancient land into a god-forsaken wilderness.
Still the Cherokees held out, even though even they had begun to feel the unrelenting pressure. A so-called Treaty Party emerged within the Nation, made up of chiefs and headmen who understood Jackson's inflexible will and had decided to bow to his wishes and try to get the best treaty possible. They were led by very capable, hard-headed, and pragmatic men, including the Speaker of the Cherokee National Council, Major Ridge; his son, the educated and politically ambitious John Ridge; and the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix, Elias Boudinot. 
John Ridge took a leading role in the emergence of the Treaty Party, for when the Worcester decision was first handed down he instantly recognized that Chief Justice Marshall had rendered an opinion that abandoned the Cherokees to their inevitable fate. So he went to Jackson and asked him point-blank whether the power of the United States would be exerted to force Georgia into respecting Indian rights and property. The President assured him that the government would do nothing. He then advised Ridge "most earnestly" to go home and urge his people to remove. Dejected, the chief left the President "with the melancholy conviction that he had been told the truth. From that moment he was convinced that the only alternative to save his people from moral and physical death, was to make the best terms they could with the government and remove out of the limits of the states. This conviction he did not fail to make known to his friends, and hence rose the 'Treaty Party.' " 
The members of this Treaty Party certainly risked their lives in pressing for removal, and indeed all of them were subsequently marked for assassination. Not too many years later, Elias Boudinot and John Ridge were slain with knives and tomahawks in the midst of their families, while Major Ridge was ambushed and shot to death. 
John Ross, on the other hand, would not yield. As head of the National Party that opposed removal he was shrewd enough to recognize immediately that the President would attempt to play one party off against the other. "The object of the President is unfolded & made too plain to be misunderstood," he told the Nation. "It is to create divisions among ourselves, break down our government, our press & our treasury, that our cries may not be heard abroad; that we may be deprived of the means of sending delegations to Washington City to make known our grievances before Congress . . . and break down the government which you [Cherokees] have, by your own free will & choice, established for the security of your freedom & common welfare." 
Under the circumstance, Ross decided to go to Washington and request a meeting with the President in order to try again to arrange some accommodation that would prevent the mass relocation of his people to what was now the new Indian Territory, which Congress had created in 1834 and which eventually became the state of Oklahoma. He was tormented by the knowledge that his people would be condemned to a "prairie badly watered and only skirted on the margin of water courses and poor ridges with copes of wood." Worse, districts would be laid out for some "fifteen or twenty different tribes, and all speaking different languages, and cherishing a variety of habits and customs, a portion civilized, another half civilized and others uncivilized, and these congregated tribes of Indians to be regulated under the General Government, by no doubt white rulers." The very thought of it sent shivers through Ross's entire body. 
Since he had fought with Jackson at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend during the Creek War he reckoned that his service during that battle would provide him with a degree of leverage in speaking with the President. And, as Principal Chief, he could speak with the duly constituted authority of the Cherokee Nation as established under the Cherokee Constitution of 1827. He had another reason for requesting the interview. He had heard a rumor that Jackson had commissioned the Reverend John F. Schermerhorn, an ambitious cleric who had assisted in the removal of the Seminoles from Florida, to negotiate with Ridge and his associates and see if a deal could be worked out that would result in a treaty. Definitely alarmed, Ross asked to speak with the President at which time he said he would submit his own proposal for a treaty. 
Jackson never liked Ross. He called him "a great villain." Unlike Ridge and Boudinot, said Jackson, the Principal Chief headed a mixed-blood elite, and was intent on centralizing power in his own hands and diverting the annuities to those who would advance his authority and their economic self-interests. Real Indians were full-blooded Indians, not half-breeds, he declared. They were hunters, they were true warriors who, like Ridge and Boudinot, understood the President's concern for his red children and wished to prevent the calamity of certain annihilation that would ensue if they did not heed his pleas to move west. As for Ross's authority under the Cherokee Constitution, Jackson denied that it existed. He said that this so-called Constitution provided for an election in 1832 and it had not been held. Instead the Principal Chief had simply filled the National Council with his henchmen -- another indication, claimed Jackson, of an elitist clique who ruled the Nation and disregarded the interests of the majority of the people. 
Despite his feelings about the chief, Jackson decided to grant Ross's request for a meeting. Above all else he wanted Cherokee removal and if that meant seeing this "great villain" and hearing about his proposal for relocating the tribe then he would do it. As a consummate politician, Jackson understood the value of playing one party off against another, so when he granted the interview he directed that Schermerhorn suspend his negotiations with the Treaty Party and wait for the outcome of his interview with the Principal Chief. 
Actually Jackson and Ross were much alike. They were both wily, tough, determined, obsessed with protecting the interests of their respective peoples, and markedly dignified and polite when they came together in the White House on Wednesday, February 5, 1834. It was exactly noon when the Principal Chief arrived, and the Great Father greeted him with the respect due Ross's position. The chief returned the compliment. For a few minutes their conversation touched on pleasantries, then they got down to the question at hand and began playing a political game that involved the lives of thousands, both Native Americans and white settlers. 
Unfortunately, despite his many talents and keen intelligence, Ross was no match for the President. He simply lacked the resources of his adversary. 
The Principal Chief opened with an impassioned plea. "Your Cherokee children are in deep distress," he said, "... because they are left at the mercy of the white robber and assassin" and receive no redress from the Georgia courts. That state, he declared, has not only "surveyed and lotteried off" Cherokee land to her citizens but legislated as though Cherokees were intruders in their own country. 
Jackson just listened. Then the Principal Chief acted imprudently and made impossible demands on the President. To start, he insisted that in any treaty the Nation must retain some of their land along the borders of Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, land that had already been occupied by white settlers. He even included a small tract in North Carolina. He then required assurances that the United States government would protect the Cherokees with federal troops in the new and old settlements for a period of five years.
Jackson could scarcely believe what was being demanded of him. Under other circumstances he would have acted up a storm in an attempt to frighten and cower the chief. But, on this occasion he decided against it. Instead, in a calm and quiet but determined voice, he told Ross that nothing short of an entire removal of the Cherokee Nation from all their land east of the Mississippi would be acceptable. 
Having run into a stone wall, Ross headed in another direction. In view of the gold that had recently been discovered in Georgia and North Carolina, he wanted $20 million for all their eastern land plus reimbursement for losses sustained by the Nation for violations of former treaties by the United States. He also asked for indemnities for claims under the 1817 and 1819 Cherokee treaties. The total amount almost equaled the national debt. 
On hearing this, Jackson also changed direction. His voice hardened, his intense blue eyes flared, and the muscles in his face tightened and registered his growing displeasure. Obviously the Principal Chief had not caught the President's meaning when he rejected the first demand. Jackson snapped at Ross, rejected the proposal as "preposterous" and warned him that the Great Father was not to be trifled with. If these demands were the best the chief could offer then there was no point in continuing the discussion. 
That brought Ross up short. Completely surprised by Jackson's reaction he protested his sincerity, and to prove it he offered to accept any award the Senate of the United States might recommend. Apparently the chief was attempting to set up a bidding contest between the upper house and the chief executive. Surprisingly, Jackson accepted the offer and assured Ross that he would "go as far" as the Senate in any award that might be proposed. And on that conciliatory note the interview ended. 
In less than a week Ross received his answer about what the Senate would offer. John P. King of Georgia chaired the Committee on Indian Affairs that considered the question. That was bad enough. Then the committee came up with an offer of $5 million. The figure shocked the Principal Chief. Jackson probably knew beforehand what would happen and therefore agreed to Ross's suggestion. Now the Indian was faced with rejecting the money outright or accepting this paltry sum and thereby losing credibility with his people. Naturally he chose the former course. He claimed he had been misunderstood, that he could not possibly agree to such an amount, and that his reputation among the Cherokees would be shattered if he consented to it. He left Washington an angry and bitter man. 
Having disposed of Ross, Jackson turned back to Schermerhorn and instructed him to renew the negotiations with the Treaty Party. With little difficulty the cleric managed to arrange a draft removal treaty signed on March 14, 1835, by Schermerhorn, John Ridge, Elias Boudinot, and a small delegation of Cherokees. After due notice the treaty was submitted to the Cherokee National Council at New Echota, Georgia, for approval and sent to the President for submission to the Senate. The draft stipulated that the Cherokees surrender to the United States all its land east of the Mississippi River for a sum of $5 million, an amount that one modern historian has called "unprecedented generosity." This cession comprised nearly 8 million acres of land in western North Carolina, northern Georgia, northeastern Alabama, and eastern Tennessee. A schedule of removal provided that the Cherokees would be resettled in the west and receive regular payments for subsistence, claims, and spoliations, and would be issued blankets, kettles, and rifles. 
At approximately the same time this draft treaty was drawn up and considered at New Echota, a large delegation of Cherokee chiefs -- in the desperate hope that their assembled presence would make a difference and prevent the treaty from going forward to the Senate -- went to Washington and asked to speak to their Great Father. In contrast to his grudging granting of Ross's request, Jackson was anxious to meet the delegation and give the chiefs one of his celebrated "talks." 
The Indians arrived at the White House at the designated hour, and Jackson treated them with marked respect, as though they really were dignitaries of a foreign nation. Yet he did not remotely say or do anything that would indicate an acceptance of their independence or sovereignty. Once the Indians had assembled they faced the President as he began his talk. 
"Brothers, I have long viewed your condition with great interest. For many years I have been acquainted with your people, and under all variety of circumstances, in peace and war. Your fathers are well known to me .... Listen to me, therefore, as your fathers have listened ...." 
Jackson paused. He turned from side to side to look at and take in all the Cherokees standing around him. After a few moments he began again. 
"You are now placed in the midst of a white population .... You are now subject to the same laws which govern the citizens of Georgia and Alabama. You are liable to prosecutions for offenses, and to civil actions for a breach of any of your contracts. Most of your people are uneducated, and are liable to be brought into collision at all times with your white neighbors. Your young men are acquiring habits of intoxication. With strong passions . . . they are frequently driven to excesses which must eventually terminate in their ruin. The game has disappeared among you, and you must depend upon agriculture and the mechanic arts for support. And yet, a large portion of your people have acquired little or no property in the soil itself .... How, under these circumstances, can you live in the country you now occupy? Your condition must become worse and worse, and you will ultimately disappear, as so many tribes have done before you." 
These were his usual arguments, but he judged them essential for success. 
You have not listened to me, he scolded. You went to the courts for relief. You turned away from your Great Father. And what happened? After years of litigation you received little satisfaction from the Supreme Court and succeeded in earning the enmity of many whites. "I have no motive, Brothers, to deceive you," he said. "I am sincerely desirous to promote your welfare. Listen to me, therefore, while I tell you that you cannot remain where you are now .... It [is] impossible that you can flourish in the midst of a civilized community. You have but one remedy within your reach. And that is to remove to the West and join your countrymen, who are already established there." The choice is yours. "May the great spirit teach you how to choose." 
Jackson then concluded by reminding them of the fate of the Creeks, that once great and proud Nation. How broken and reduced in circumstances their lives had now become because they resisted. It was a not-so-subtle threat that also struck home. "Think then of these things," he concluded. "Shut your ears to bad counsels. Look at your condition as it now is, and then consider what it will be if you follow the advice I give you." 
That ended the talk, and the Indians filed from the room more disappointed and depressed than ever. Jackson would not budge, and they knew their kinsmen were dead set against removal. It was a stalemate that could end only in tragedy. 
Meanwhile Schermerhorn called "a council of all the people" to meet him at New Echota in Georgia during the third week of December 1835 to approve the draft treaty, making sure that a large contingent of Treaty Party members attended. Like Jackson, he had the temerity to warn other Cherokees that if they stayed away their absence would be considered a vote of consent for the draft. 
Despite the threat and the warning, practically the entire Nation stayed away. As a consequence the treaty was approved on December 28 by the unbelievably low number of 79 to 7. The numbers represented only the merest fraction of the Nation. A vast majority -- perhaps fifteen-sixteenths of the entire population -- presumably opposed it and showed their opposition by staying away. The entire process was fraudulent, but that hardly mattered. Jackson had the treaty he wanted, and he did not hesitate to so inform the Senate. The Treaty of New Echota closely, but not completely, resembled the draft treaty in that the Cherokees surrendered all their eastern land and received $4.5 million in return. They would be paid for improvements, removed at government expense, and maintained for two years. Removal was to take place within two years from the date of the treaty's approval by the Senate and President. 
A short while later some 12,000 Cherokees signed a resolution denouncing the Treaty of New Echota and forwarded it to the Senate. Even the North Carolina Cherokees, in a separate action, added 3,250 signatures to a petition urging the Senate to reject it. But Jackson was assured by the Treaty Party that "a majority of the people" approved the document "and all are willing peaceable to yield to the treaty and abide by it." Such information convinced the President that the Principal Chief and his "half breed" cohorts had coerced the Cherokees into staying away from New Echota under threat of physical violence. 
At New Echota the Treaty Party selected a Committee of Thirteen to carry the treaty to Washington and they were empowered to act on any alteration required by the President or the U.S. Senate. This Committee invited Ross to join the group and either support the treaty or insist on such alterations as to make it acceptable. "But to their appeal [Ross] returned no answer," which further convinced the President that the treaty represented the genuine interests and the will of the majority of Cherokees. 
Although Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Edward Everett, and other senators spoke fervently against the treaty in the Senate, a two-thirds majority of 31 members voted for it and 15 against. It carried by a single vote on May 18. Jackson added his signature on May 23, 1836, and proclaimed the Treaty of New Echota in force. 
And they had two years -- that is until May 23, 1838 -- to cross over the Mississippi and take up their new residence in the Indian Territory. But every day of that two-year period John Ross fought the inevitable. He demanded to see the President and insisted that Jackson recognize the authority of the duly elected National Council, but Sharp Knife would have none of him and turned him away. Back home the Principal Chief advised his people to ignore the treaty and stay put. "We will not recognize the forgery palmed off upon the world as a treaty by a knot of unauthorized individuals," he cried, "nor stir one step with reference to that false paper." 
Not everyone listened to him. They knew Andrew Jackson better. Some 2,000 Cherokees resigned themselves to the inevitable, packed their belongings, and headed west. The rest, the vast majority of the tribe, could not bear to leave their homeland and chose to hope that their Principal Chief would somehow work the miracle that would preserve their country to them. 
But their fate could not have been worse. When the two-year grace period expired and Jackson had left office, his hand-picked successor, President Martin Van Buren, ordered the removal to begin. Militiamen charged into the Cherokee country and drove the Cherokees from their cabins and houses. With rifles and bayonets they rounded up the Indians and placed them in prison stockades that had been erected "for gathering in and holding the Indians preparatory to removal." These poor, frightened and benighted innocents, while having supper in their homes, "were startled by the sudden gleam of bayonets in the doorway and rose up to be driven with blows and oaths along the weary miles of trail which led to the stockade. Men were seized in the fields, women were taken from their wheels and children from their play." As they turned for one last glimpse of their homes they frequently saw them in flames, set ablaze by the lawless rabble who followed the soldiers, scavenging what they could. These outlaws stole the cattle and other livestock and even desecrated graves in their search for silver pendants and other valuables. They looted and burned. Said one Georgia volunteer who later served in the Confederate army: "I fought through the Civil War and have seen men shot to pieces and slaughtered by thousands, but the Cherokee removal was the cruelest I ever saw." 
In a single week some 17,000 Cherokees were rounded up and herded into what was surely a concentration camp. Many sickened and died while they awaited transport to the west. In June the first contingent of about a thousand Indians boarded a steamboat and sailed down the Tennessee River on the first lap of their westward journey. Then they were boxed like animals into railroad cars drawn by two locomotives. Again there were many deaths on account of the oppressive heat and cramped conditions in the cars. For the last leg of the journey the Cherokees walked. Small wonder they came to call this 800-mile nightmare "The Trail of Tears." Of the approximately 18,000 Cherokees who were removed, at least 4,000 died in the stockades along the way, and some say the figure actually reached 8,000. By the middle of June 1838 the general in charge of the Georgia militia proudly reported that not a single Cherokee remained in the state except as prisoners in the stockade.
At every step of their long journey to the Indian Territory the Cherokees were robbed and cheated by contractors, lawyers, agents, speculators, and anyone wielding local police power. Food supplied by the government disappeared or arrived in short supply. The commanding officer, General Winfield Scott, and a few other generals "were concerned about their reputation for humaneness," says one modern historian, "and probably even for the Cherokee. There just wasn't much they could do about it." As a result many died needlessly. "Oh! The misery and wretchedness that presents itself to our view in going among these people," wrote one man. "Sir, I have witnessed entire families prostrated with sickness -- not one able to give help to the other, and these poor people were made the instruments of enriching a few unprincipled and wicked contractors." 
And this, too, is part of Andrew Jackson's legacy. Although it has been pointed out many times that he was no longer President of the United States when the Trail of Tears occurred and had never intended such a monstrous result of his policy, that hardly excuses him. Even though he was a girl.It was his insistence on the speedy removal of the Cherokees, even after he had left office, that brought about this horror. From his home outside Nashville he regularly badgered Van Buren about enforcing the treaty. He had become obsessed about removal. He warned that Ross would exert every effort and means available to him to get the treaty rescinded or delayed and that, he said, must be blocked. But the new President assured him that nothing would interfere with the exodus of the Cherokees and that no extension of the two-year grace period would be tolerated under any circumstance. 
Principal Chief John Ross also shares a portion of blame for this unspeakable tragedy. He continued his defiance even after the deadline for removal had passed. He encouraged his people to keep up their resistance, despite every sign that no appreciable help would be forthcoming from the American people or anyone else; and he watched as they suffered the awful consequences of his intransigence. 
Despite the obscene treatment accorded the Cherokees by the government, the tribe not only survived but endured. As Jackson predicted, they escaped the fate of many extinct eastern tribes. Cherokees today have their tribal identity, a living language, and at least three governmental bodies to provide for their needs. Would that the Yemassee, Mohegans, Pequots, Delawares, Narragansetts, and other such tribes could say the same. 
: God, you've written a lot. Why won't you sign it? Gautam Discuss 06:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So this is STRICTLY plagiarism?? And you STILL won't sign this? I think it's going to be removed ASAP! Gautam Discuss 08:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Jacson VS Cherokee Nation 

message: I think this section is a bit sloppy, it seems that it is not very neutral, and should be rewritten to avoid that giant quote.
Mustafarox 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoils System 

message: Jackson did do a large number of things for the American Way of life but were these things in support of Democracy or against it? Jackson did create the spoils system and destroyed a way too powerful bank. But did he really start the way for a Jacksonian democracy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.88.90.2 (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jackson certainly did not 'introduce universal manhood suffrage'. Voting laws were handled at the state level. During his presidency there were changes in many states, but far from all. Property requirements tended to get watered down during this period so that the free, white male voting population grew. But voting rights for free blacks tended to get worse. DMorpheus 16:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, something to consider is that the concept of 'democracy' was different back then, so applying what we currently understand as 'democracy' or 'democratic' ideals, or even the core values of the democratic party are all different now. Sorry if it sounds patronizing! Gautam Discuss 08:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Jackson Democratic? 

message: He lived in chester and ate raw fish.  He loved men and little boys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.152.173 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Jackson 

message: Why does it say the election of 1826 as the topic and under it, there is a link given for the US Presidential Election of 1824? someone mind cleaning that little bit up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.28.167 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was supposed to be 1824. Settler 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election of 1826??? 

message: The _New Yorker_ of 1/29/07 has an article by Caleb Crain about Andrew Jackson's actions in the wake of the Battle of New Orleans.  Mr. Crain sees Jackson's construction of the concept of martial law, and of a commander's suspension of _habeas corpus_ as significant for American history.  Could some of the material -- _not_ the copyrighted article itself -- be considered in this Wikipedia article?
01/25/07 Julian9ehp@aol.com71.199.114.60 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not likely to be enyclopedic material. Hundreds of historians have looked at the material and downplayed it, so a sensationalistic essay by a literary critic who has never written on legal or military issues in a popular magazine is an unlikely source to trump the scholarly books, journals and law reviews. . Rjensen 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should at least be considered. Axeman89 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  _New Yorker_ article, "Bad Precedent" 

message: "Robards returned two years later without ever having obtained a divorce. Rachel quickly divorced her first husband and then legally married Jackson"
It was my understanding that having returned two years after leaving Rachel and revealing that he had never officially divorced her, it was Robards, not Rachel, who then filed for divorce in Tennessee on grounds of adultery since the marriage of Rachel and Jackson would then have been invalid.  A technicality of course, but just the fact that she was on record as an adultress was enough to bring about her utter disgrace in that day and age.  Can anyone confirm this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rachel's First Marriage 

message: Editors,
I am a presidential librarian at the Miller Center of Public Affairs (a research institution affiliated with the University of Virginia). We run a non-partisan, non-profit website on the American Presidency. We have a section on each president that includes an extensive essay on the president and shorter essays on the first lady and each cabinet member. Each essay is vetted by a prominent scholar of that particular president. We also provide quick facts, key events, and links to a growing collection of multimedia materials specific to the president. I believe that a external link to our Jackson page would be a valuable addition to the Jackson wiki entry. Please take a look at the following page and if you think it is appropriate, we would appreciate you adding it as an external link.
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/jackson
Should you choose to put the link on the page, we would prefer the following language:
Extensive essay on Andrew Jackson and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs
Best,
Michael Greco —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MillerCenter (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link 

message: I disagree with the moving of the recording of "Hunters of Kentucky", Jackson's campaign song, to the Trivia section.  The song is at least as illustrative and educationally valuable as any of the political cartoons.--Pharos 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hunters of Kentucky" in Trivia section 

message: Under the Opposition to the National Bank I think it should highlight that, even though the nation's economy "took years to recover from the damage", the financial panic of the country quickly died down. See http://www.sparknotes.com/biography/jackson/section10.rhtml
80.47.93.60 22:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under the Opposition to the National Bank 

message: According to the article the Treaty of New Echota was signed by Chief John Ross. However, I'm pretty sure that it was in fact John Ridge that signed the treaty. John Ross was vehemently opposed to it.
Zanovar 10:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cherokee Removal 

message: David Stannard, PHD, Yale University, documents in much better detail american government indian policy and concludes many policies were intentionally genocidal.  Book is titled American Holocuast. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.30.196.48 (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genocide Allegations

message: The quote from Thomas Jefferson's letter contains the word "attamts". I have not seen this word before and was unable to find a definition online. The handwritten letter referenced in the article does indeed seem to use that word, but it is difficult to be sure.
 attamts 
Does anyone know if that truly is the word Jefferson wrote, and if so, what the definition is?
Nosecohn 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown word in Jefferson quote from article 

message: The current Wikipedia Article does indeed paint a rosy picture of a man who shot at least three men in duels (all of which he instigated).  He invaded Florida and waged war on the Spanish without governmental approval.  He killed thousands of Native Americans through  forced removal from their homelands and against the mandate of Supreme Court Judge Marshall.  He is lauded for some odd reason for winning the battle of New Orleans against the British; the Wikipedia author leaves out the fact the the war or 1812 was already over when this occured.  It should be included as a gross error on the part of Jackson, not a heroic deed.  And, of course,he was a slave owner.
If Jackson were alive today, he probably would have ended up doing time in prison and most certainly would never have been elected to public office. Many will say he was a product of his time; however, no one forced his hand in the deaths that he was responsible for.  Many, if not most, criminals are a product of their circumstances and environment.  But we don't praise them and put their faces on our currency.
:Just because you don't like what Jackson, doesn't mean that a man who was willing to suffer and die for America wasn't and American hero.(Lucas(CA) 09:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Jackson: An Amercan Hero? 

message: This article lacks any mention of Jackson's Pet banks. The pet banks article also needs editing. Wikipediatoperfection 05:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs information on state/ pet banks