Another Weasel Apology

I wonder, does being put on the $20 and having done some things in office that others believe were positive negate the facts of everything else Jackson did? Or are we to believe that his ranking in that survey means that the academics who voted are endorsing genocide, political cronyism, and the wholesale violation of national treaties and the public trust as good things in themselves?

The facts stand as they are on Andrew Jackson. Before he was president he was a violent, war-loving scumbag bastard who killed men in duels over stupid personal bullshit. After he became president, that aspect of his character did not disappear as "youthful mistakes." Rather he used the power of the Commander in Chief to flout the Constitution and the law, commit grotesque war atrocities against allies and civilian populations, force states into compliance with his will, and accumulate more unilateral power to his office. He polarized and divided this country to an extent comparable to... well, now, as it happens. Even worse in Jackson's day because there was more ... wait for it... violence involved even up to the brink of civil war. Yippee. We can just consider ourselves lucky, I suppose, that we didn't actually tip over into civil war until after he was out of office.

And you want to talk about divisive and polarizing? Let those who might consider pointing to Andrew Jackson as proof that Americans have traditionally never minded electing violent, bullying asshats and therefore that we shouldn't hesitate about it now remember that Jackson was also a populist who set the middle and working classes against the wealthy classes of the banks and moneyed interests and who publicly blamed the banking industry for many of the nation's woes and sought to break their power. Sound familiar? Sound politically awkward yet?

Here's a nice academic overview from an online text book, courtesy of the University of Texas, et al. to add to all of Alessandra's sources. LINK.

Please, Romney supporters, please, by all means, cite the career of Andrew Jackson as an example of acceptable leadership. I beg of you.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Maybe that's true. But Andrew Jackson is a terrible counterexample. Many people consider Jackson to be the worst, or one of the worst, presidents ever.

Jackson was a wealthy slaveowner who enthusiastically embraced and expanded the spoils system of handing out government jobs to personal friends and supporters regardless of merit or competence.

Possibly his worst crime was Andrew Jackson's personal, direct responsibility for the Trail of Tears, the forced genocide and removal of the Cherokee nation, and all Native Americans, from their ancestral lands east of the Mississippi, which resulted directly in the deaths of tens of thousands of Native American men, women, and children.

This despite the fact that the Cherokee, a highly civilized people, with their own farms, towns, and newspapers, were Jackson's friends, supporters and vital allies in some of his wars.

In 1830 Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act, a vicious betrayal of his Cherokee allies and supporters, and although the Cherokee took him to court, all the way to the Supreme Court -- and won -- Jackson unconstitutionally ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court and used his army to force the Cherokee off their land anyway.

During the Seminole Wars Jackson showed particular savagery towards the Seminoles and their escaped slave allies. He was sent to restore peace, but deliberately went far beyond his orders. He seized all of Florida, and executed British subjects he said had been aiding the Seminole. Tactics included shooting a red hot cannonball into the powder magazine of a fort sheltering hundreds of fugitive slave men, women, and children, the subsequent explosion killing most of them instantly, while the rest died soon after of their injuries. Jackson deliberately flew false colors, and when some Seminoles saw his British flag and thought they were safe, he hanged them.

Part of Jackson's Indian-removal plan was the secretive and rushed Treaty of Payne's Landing with the Seminole. The Seminole refused to leave Florida, and fighting went on for years. Jackson's troops, promising peace talks and truces, instead seized and imprisoned the Seminole negotiators, including Chief Osceola, who died in prison.


So, no, that Andrew Jackson killed men in duels is no counterexample at all.

Click to expand...

But they were terrorists! Drone strikes on Wholesale slaughter of peaceful non-participants in the War on Terror was necessary to assure victory against an enemy that hid itself behind the skirts of women, and ruthlessly trained their own children to become warriors! Collateral damage, while deplorable, often occurs due to the necessities of guerrilla warfare. And it's not like these Indians were American citizens or anything.

Where's Jackson's Nobel Peace Prize?

Alessandra Kelley said:

That's true, too. And there's a reason Jackson is on the $20 bill.

But there is a sizeable minority who think Jackson was a terrible person and a bad president. Sources cited above included the Smithsonian, the Florida Department of State, and PBS.org.

Some Cherokees would still rather carry wads of singles than ever touch a twenty.

Click to expand...

Correct. I think there were two incessantly evil men who have been president: Andrew Jackson and Richard Nixon. And Andrew Jackson was the more evil of the two.

His 13 duel-killings were an accurate foreshadowing of his character.

Alessandra Kelley said:

The Cherokee, as I said, were noted for their civilization, their towns, modern architecture, farms using the latest tech, their written language and newspapers, and their friendliness to white people. And when they were backhacked, what did they do? They took it to court.

If they could be so badly, even criminally abused, clearly there was nothing Jackson would not stoop to.

Click to expand...

Gee, maybe I made the point with too-recent history. How's this one? Still too soon?

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

Click to expand...

The machinery of state regularly, ruthlessly chews up innocents in pursuit of their nebulous goals. Jackson's record is nothing compared to more recent "actions" that have not yet become historically distant enough for people to openly acknowledge them for what they were.

I'm firmly in the "Jackson was evil" camp when it comes to actions such as his. I'm also willing to judge modern-day actions just as harshly. If we're to condemn Jackson for his actions, how can we defend similar, modern-day acts? I'm sure there were those among Jackson's contemporaries who argued that the Trail of Tears was "a price worth paying."

If the Trail of Tears was Johnson's worst offense, he's a piker compared to many, many more contemporary examples. Unfortunately, it seems that having done some things in office that others believe were positive negate the facts of everything else these people did.

If that's "pushing it" with irony and sarcasm, then I'm guilty as hell.

A more apt comparison is probable Lincoln, for those that think Jackson was "evil." Southern folks despised Lincoln for the destruction he caused to be visited upon them during the War of Northern Aggression. And that was followed by Reconstruction. Not a pleasant period for the typical, non slave-owning Southern family.

Yet, Lincoln is likely viewed as heroic by the same people who view Jackson as evil.

Yeah, there's a reason why all my time travel plans begin and end with "Step 1: Kill Andrew Jackson"

Thanks for the re-rail, Alessandra. It's true, the important thing about this is how Romney deals with it now. On that score he is being negatively impressive. And the responses of the right-leaning media are positively apologist, as well as disgusting. Thus we hear from the pro-bullying chorus. Hardly surprising, really, looking at who, specifically, is talking. Is this now the second voting block Romney appeals to, aside from the .1%?

Alessandra Kelley said:

To be fair, the point on this thread is not Andrew Jackson's character.

It's not even whether Mitt Romney's youthful criminal behavior is indicative of his character.

The point of this thread is whether Mr. Romney's reaction two days ago to the revelation of his youthful bullying actions is indicative of his character.

What sort of a person laughs when reminded of an assault he committed on a defenseless kid?

Click to expand...

As you say, to be fair...

And in that regard, we don't know that any "assault" took place. Making it a matter of fact thing in that regard is not fair at all, imo.

I don't see much in the way of character or anything else being explored on this issue. Mostly, it's a woefully researched hit piece by a WaPo reporter with an exceedingly fortuitous time of release.

Those inclined to think Romney is a dirtbag of some sort will ignore all of this, of course.

Me, I think Romney is a little lacking in the empathy department. So fucking what? That's the standard? A look into JFK's past and years in the Oval Office--to take one example--will reveal things that hardly make him a paragon of virtue. In fact, his misogyny can easily be characterized as bullying by current standards. Vicious bullying.

But that's the current topic du jour; it wasn't so back in the sixties.

robeiae said:

As you say, to be fair...

And in that regard, we don't know that any "assault" took place. Making it a matter of fact thing in that regard is not fair at all, imo.

Click to expand...

We have the account of five people who were there at the time. We have Romney claiming he "doesn't remember," rather than denying that it happened. What would you need to accept it as fact? Video tape? Oh wait, nobody had video cameras back then.

From a previous post:

Robeiae said:

Personally though, there many things I wish I had never done or said when I was younger...and many things I wish had never been done or said to me. I doubt that I remember every such incident, however. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that some of the things of the latter sort--done to me--are better remembered by me than by the antagonist(s). Tis human nature. So whatever did happen here, I don't find it all that unbelievable that Romney doesn't remember the incident.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously contending that had you and your high school friends held down a fellow student while you cut off his offending hair. you might have no recollection of the incident when your friends brought it up?

If someone from my high school accused me of such an incident, I wouldn't wonder if somehow I'd forgotten. ( And I spent part of the sixties in San Francisco.) I'd say, with absolute certainty, it never happened. Period. End of story.

If you want to argue the incident has little relevance as to Romney's character today, that's one thing. But arguing that we don't really know if the incident ever even happened is stretching the bounds of credulity.

rugcat said:

We have the account of five people who were there at the time. We have Romney claiming he "doesn't remember," rather than denying that it happened. What would you need to accept it as fact? Video tape? Oh wait, nobody had video cameras back then.

Click to expand...

These days, I question pretty much everything put out there as absolute fact. We already know that the story was flawed. And again, I don't buy the one guy's lines about being haunted by it and wishing he could have apologized. They ring hollow to me; they're self-serving in the extreme. He had more than enough time to do so. And the nature and timing of the story is just too damn perfect, imo.

Are you seriously contending that had you and your high school friends held down a fellow student while you cut off his offending hair. you might have no recollection of the incident when your friends brought it up?

Click to expand...

Dunno. I'd like to think I would never forget such a thing. But people forget things. People also mis-remember things.Such mis-remembering can be absolutely striking; oral historians have recorded people talking about how they were involved in specific incidents, especially famous ones, quite certain of their participation. Yet, oftentimes it can be proven that they are completely wrong. Even today, I bet you could find a ton of people who claim and honestly believe they were at Woodstock or were a part of the Free Speech Movement who simply weren't. Others will remember horrific things--like maybe almost dying--that just didn't happen the way they remember.

If someone from my high school accused me of such an incident, I wouldn't wonder if somehow I'd forgotten. ( And I spent part of the sixties in San Francisco.) I'd say, with absolute certainty, it never happened. Period. End of story.

Click to expand...

Great.

If you want to argue the incident has little relevance as to Romney's character today, that's one thing. But arguing that we don't really know if the incident ever even happened is stretching the bounds of credulity.

Click to expand...

Really, I'm arguing that how the incident is being portrayed may be less than accurate, that labeling it "assault and battery" as a matter of fact may be a little hyperbolic.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Seems to fit this definition. We could ask one of our resident lawyers.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html

Click to expand...

Based on your unequivocal acceptance of the version of events being sold, right? But even then, "intent to cause bodily injury" is not a slam dunk. Especially not if we time travel back to 1965. Or earlier. Do you think prosecuting someone for assault because--say--they hit another with spitballs would have succeeded?

RichardGarfinkle said:

Seems to fit this definition. We could ask one of our resident lawyers.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/assault_battery.html

Click to expand...

As a lapsed lawyer who only got a B+ in criminal law, I can offer this:

(in layman's terms)

assault = threat of an attack (contact not required)

battery = touching without consent (contact required)

My favorite example in law school is that if a surgeon accidentally cuts out your gallbladder, that's battery. That amused me because I had always pictured battery as someone punching me.

Of course, tort v. criminal laws have differences, as do different jurisdictions. There are subtleties that would fill up thick textbooks.

But you get the rough idea...

I misread the title of this post as "Weasley" and thought it had something to do with Harry Potter. o_o

Teinz said:

What happened was, that the real Mitt shone through that day. I don't believe people change that much. When your teenage years have passed, all (most) people do is learn to hide or supress certain behaviour, that is perceived by others as unwanted. At their core, they stay the same, Mitt is still Mitt.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this. People do change. People have changed.

Living changes attitudes and beliefs. We don't grow up in a vacuum. The me that was a teenager is not the me here now 40 years later. I've learned, I've lived, I've been exposed to many things, experienced different cultures, attended college where I was exposed to new ideas, met people of different ethnic groups.

The mind grows, beliefs change. We aren't stagnant.

RichardGarfinkle said:

I don't think a pack of people grabbing someone holding them down and using a sharp implement on their hair is equivalent to spitballs.

Let me ask you. If a bunch of teenage gang members jumped a similarly aged person in a park, and did this to them would you call it assault and battery or youthful hijinks and pranks?

Click to expand...

I think they call it "wilding." But if all they did was cut his hair, yeah, I'd call it youthful hijinks and pranks.

robeiae said:

And that was followed by Reconstruction. Not a pleasant period for the typical, non slave-owning Southern family.

Click to expand...

/historical point not really related to the substance of the thread

That was mothereffing Andrew Johnson, not Lincoln, and Reconstruction was in some ways friggin' John Wilkes Booth's fault for provoking the North into such a rage by attempting to assassinate the entire executive branch of government.

/historical point

Yorkist said:

. You see it in *coughchoke* "men's rights" movements, who are quite upset about things like how fewer men graduate from college than women.

Click to expand...

Males in the US are still forcibly subjected to genital mutilation at birth, a problem that feminists, if actually working for sexual equality, should tackle. Do they?

If not, there's room at the very least for a movement against that, specifically. There's also room to combat the strange prejudices that follow men who want to teach very young children. The phrase "Men's Rights" does not have to be dirty or ironic.

It will often be strange, however, just because, if men were to lose a justified right in the US, women would be likely to lose it in simultaneity. The reverse doesn't like to hold true.

The exact wording varies from state to state.

In Utah, which I'm most familiar with, having studied the code, the charge of assault includes both the threat of violence and the act itself.

1) Assault is:
(a) an attempt, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another;
(b) a threat, accompanied by a show of immediate force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; or
(c) an act, committed with unlawful force or violence, that causes bodily injury to another or creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another.

Click to expand...

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_05_010200.htm

And yes, the only question involves the phrase "bodily harm." But courts have ruled that it can mean a myriad of things apart from the obvious like punching someone in the face.

The incident as described clearly has precendent qualifying it as an assault. It could also qualify as unlawful detention.

But the exact charge is nit-picking. It is a misdemeanor criminal act for which jail time could be imposed.

Robeaie said:

Based on your unequivocal acceptance of the version of events being sold, right?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could clarify.

Do you believe the incident never happened? Or that the subject was not detained? Or that his hair was never cut? Or that holding someone down and cutting their hair is just a "prank" and not actually a crime at all?

Shadow_Ferret said:

I think they call it "wilding." But if all they did was cut his hair, yeah, I'd call it youthful hijinks and pranks.

Click to expand...

The term "wilding" is familiar:

Because the public was truly outraged about the most notorious ''wilding'' incident - the rape and near murder of a jogger in Central Park -no doubt anyone convicted of that attack will get a stiff sentence. But there has been little response by the city government to the widespread concern over wilding in general.

Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/13/opinion/wilding-is-a-crime-except-in-law.html

Again, if a group of teens were out on the town, just "wilding," came across your wife walking home from work, pinned her to the ground and shaved her head, you'd have no problem with the cops shrugging and saying "Hey, just youthful hijinks. No harm no foul."

Bartholomew said:

Males in the US are still forcibly subjected to genital mutilation at birth

Click to expand...

Tangent - Sorry, but I get so excited when I see that there are some out there who see male circumcision as genital mutilation. Thank you!