Talk:Andrew Jackson

The quote about religion in this article seems pretty irrelevant and out of place. In a short article about a president, items relevant to his policies and actions as president should be more prominent than an obscure and irrelevant quotation about Christianity. He was a warrior and a politician, not a theologian. --Zerba 13:18, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

!

Part of this article was copied from Citizendium but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen) and may include minor contributions made by others that are not copyright by Citizendium.

RJJensen 01:01, 22 November 2009 (EST)

1867 copyright

• John Stevens Cabot Abbott, "Lives of the Presidents of the United States of America," (Boston: B.B. Russell & Co., 1867

Sounds like a bunch of KKK propaganda. Not sure we can retain it without more context. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 16:59, 3 February 2019 (EST)

What are you saying? Looking at his WP biography, he's a Northerner (born in Maine, died in Connecticut) who had absolutely no connection to the South or the KKK. For the record, though, being a Southerner or someone who served in the CSA army (as opposed to the KKK) shouldn't automatically disqualify someone either. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2019 (EST)

Quoting an 1867 manuscript that seeks to rehabilitate the reputation of the Democratic party in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War is an attempt to link the Presbyterian Church and Christianity with racism and the Klan. Especially since this cite is the exact opposite of the one the same editor replaced. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 18:08, 3 February 2019 (EST)

I didn't look closely at the edits -- if he removed a reference, he should re-add it. I think it's best to cite both references, not one or the other. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2019 (EST)

I still think the 1867 cite needs more context; it was an effort to rehab Jackson and the Democrats using the cover of Christianity and the church as a cover for racism. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 19:06, 3 February 2019 (EST)

"My Sovereign, the People"

This is a good starting point. A generation later the Democrat notion of popular sovereignty was the core issue of the Civil War. It was the subject of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It is the basis of Jim Crow when popular sovereignty was restored after Reconstruction. It is the defining difference between Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democrat party, and Abraham Lincoln, founder of the Republican party.

Jackson and the Democrats interpret popular sovereignty to mean a majority can agree to enslave blacks, exterminate Indians, keep women in the kitchen, pass Obamacare, and make homosexuality and gay marriage legal. Lincoln said no. Lincoln said there are certain immutable truths which are not subject to popular sovereignty such as all men are created equal. To defend Jackson today is to corroborate the Democrat notion that the parties flipped, and the GOP is the party of the KKK.

True, Trump identifies with Jackson. But this more on a personal leave, as this article says, "as a man of action not of words." Politically, it was Jackson's willingness to take on the Central Bank of his day and the powerful old corrupt aristocracy (heirs of the greedy rich, privileged class of the Founding Fathers} who taxed the poor, the oppressed, the downtrodden, while holding on to their Slave power. RobS^{Deep Six the Deep State!} 00:21, 21 February 2019 (EST)