Jackson vs Lincoln

[Greywolf2375]

Apart from the whole genocide thing, the other big problem with Jackson is economics. He's responsible for one of the worst Depressions in US history, though like Coolidge later, he left the mess to his successor.

If we're talking economics, Jackson is 4x the president of Lincoln.

[Hot Meat Pie]

Does nikola tesla even have a picture in Serbian dinar

[IheartIheartTesla]

I dont think he was ever President of Serbia, but yes. And the Yugoslavian one too.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Value seems to have nothing to do with who is on what bill. But note that Lincoln's face also graces TWO pieces of American money, both the humble penny and the five dollar bill. This is similar to Washington (quarter and dollar bill). Jefferson also has the semi-legendary $2 bill and the nickel. So, I might argue that greatness should also be measured by the number of times commemorated on currency.

[Fez]

There's also the question of volume. How many $20 bills are in circulation vs. $5 bills, and what is the velocity of each?

[Bronn Stone]

Unless they are actually going to wrestle, who cares?

[IheartIheartTesla]

Linky:

This week, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire introduced the Women on the Twenty Act, legislation aimed at putting an American woman on the $20 bill. Shaheen's efforts nod to an initiative by Women on 20s, a group that is lobbying to change the $20 by 2020.

......

So why does Andrew Jackson get the boot, and not, say, Ulysses Grant ($50) or Benjamin Franklin ($100)? Women on 20s contends that while Jackson may have had the common touch and impressive skills as a military leader, his record is far from wholly admirable

But the penny is also (slowly) on the way out, so I guess the relative greatness of Jackson and Lincoln will remain intact.

[The Fallen]

Speaking of pennies. Line up all of our coins, left to right, from quarter to penny, and you'll notice that not only does Lincoln have the brown (colored) coin, but that all the other presidents have turned their back on Lincoln.

It ain't right.

[Hot Meat Pie]

Who was a better person, who was a better president?

First Democrat or first Republican? Old Hickory or The Great Emancipator? One doubled the size of the union, the other preserved it. The racist or the tyrant?

You should be more specific on the names don't just put Lincoln vs Jackson there are a lot of Lincoln's out there. I thought you were talking about Lincoln Rockwell at first.

Lincoln was a racist, he was the founder of the American Nazi Party.

[jarl the climber]

Right I think his presidency was from 1829-37. However he is generally considered responsible for the act,

this is from his Wiki page-

Also, he supported, signed, and enforced the Indian Removal Act, which relocated a number of native tribes to Indian Territory (now Oklahoma).

The aboriginal natives have been slaughtered universally through history, usually for their land or resources.

Unfortunately I don't think the U.S. history is unique in this respect.

Still it was really the American people as a whole who gave the Indians the shaft. Saying that it Jackson or any other single man is nonsense. Indian policy was never really one of those things that was controlled by the federal government. Your right in pointing out that Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act but it was also passed by both branches of Congress. My recollection is that the Southern Indians adapted better to European culture, they had farms and settlements. That the state governments were looking the other way while they were killed and their lands seized and that the Removal Act was a reaction to this.

[mcbigski]

It just a shame that Hayes ended Reconstruction. The Southern states should've remained crushed under the Federal boot-heel until Radical Republicanism was firmly entrenched.

Wasn't that partly Tilden's fault? The way I understand it, Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction if the contested electoral votes (due to democrat fraud, it seems) went his way. Probably not the official explanation, but it makes sense to me.

It's really all John Wilkes Booth's fault.

[The Iceman of the North]

I think it was on it's way out and was going to end eventually anyways though.

I mean it pretty much withered out world wide.

Reutters- Chronology of who banned slavery when?

In this context I just think slavery was going to end pretty soon with or without Lincoln.

He's still not a favorite president for me. I would have preferred for the

Mason-Dixie borders to be made permanent. It was a squandered opportunity.

You seem to misunderstand what true leadership is. Leadership is not looking at a trend, deciding that something is going to happen anyway, and then do nothing about it.

LBJ could have looked at the civil rights movement, decided that they would eventually reach most of their goals in the 80'ies or 90'ies, and done nothing, History would not have considered this the correct action.

[DireWolfSpirit]

You seem to misunderstand what true leadership is. Leadership is not looking at a trend, deciding that something is going to happen anyway, and then do nothing about it.

LBJ could have looked at the civil rights movement, decided that they would eventually reach most of their goals in the 80'ies or 90'ies, and done nothing, History would not have considered this the correct action.

I don't know,

I choose to concentrate on peoples history. Lincoln was a Commander in Chief.

I consider Ghandi a leader, Mary Lou Harris (Mother Jones), Ralph Nader, Noam Chomsky,

Arundhati Roy and other selfless truth tellers to be my leaders.

U.S. C.I.C's. ? Not so much.

I think our difference in opinion probably stems from you viewing figures like Lincoln or LBJ as

The Emancipator or proponent of the Great Society. I see them as 2 Commander in Chiefs,

a title that pauses any admiration I might have for their other actions.

Lincoln was no abolitionist in my view.

This is copied from a article called-

Rethinkin' Lincoln on the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation by Bill Bigelow of Rethinking Schools.

According to historian Eric Foner in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on Lincoln and slavery, The Fiery Trial, Lincoln:

sent that pro-slavery 13th Amendment to the states for ratification;

agreed to admit New Mexico to the Union as a slave state;

continued with schemes to deportcolonize in the jargon of the dayAfrican Americans, proposing they be sent to Guatemala, Chiriqui (Colombia), and Haiti;

and in just the first three months after the Civil War began, returned more escaped slaves to their supposed owners than had been returned in the entire presidency of his immediate predecessor, James Buchanan.

As the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the The Liberator, commented in late 1861, Abraham Lincoln has evidently not a drop of anti-slavery blood in his veins.

Lincoln may be remembered today as the Great Emancipator, but Lincoln was no abolitionist. His aim throughout his presidency was to keep the Union together, a task fraught with contradictions, as large swaths of the country embraced both the Union and slaveryfor example, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky. As Lincoln himself said famously in August 1862, My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Lincolns stance on slavery as the war progressed was based on military rather than moral considerations.

And thats the necessary context for students to approach the Emancipation Proclamation, which took effect 150 years ago, on January 1, 1863. Interestingly, despite the fact that the proclamation is mentioned in virtually every textbook, it is never printed in its entirety. Perhaps thats because despite its lofty-sounding title, this is no stirring document of liberty and equality; in fact, it does not even criticize slavery. Emancipation is presented purely as a measure of military necessity. Lincoln offered freedom to enslaved people in those areas only in rebellion against the United States. It reads like a document written by a lawyerone who happened to be a Commander in Chiefnot an abolitionist. It even goes county by county listing areas where slavery would remain in force, precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. According to Eric Foner, the proclamation left more than 20 percent of enslaved people still in slavery800,000 out of 3.9 million.

Furthermore I'm unconvinced Lincolns great goal to preserve the

Union, at any cost, was the best course.

As a northerner, and I think many southerners feel similarly, a two state solution

may have made better sense.

It certainly would've been interesting, but we will never know now.

Either way,

I'll take a pass on that alter of Lincoln worship.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DWS,

Lincoln was not a Saint, nor was he a devil. He was, in my view, a pragmatist who did what he believed he had to in order to preserve the US. I may disagree with his interpretation of the Constitution but I don't think that makes him terrible.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I've read The Fiery Trial- Foner argues that Lincoln was certainly personally opposed to slavery, and once the Civil War had begun in earnest Lincoln (and most observers) understood the centrality of slavery to the war and that a Union victory must also mean its end, with Lincoln set upon both. He also suggests that Lincoln was prepared to support equal citizenship/voting rights for freed slaves (as the Radical Republicans later would) but was of course assassinated before reconstruction began. All in all it's a very positive assessement of Lincoln, though it doesn't ignore his faults or context. I recommend the book.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Right Scott,

the same can be said for most U.S. Presidents.

I don't view any of them as extraordinary,

opportunists comes to mind more quickly when I think

of politicians.

[DireWolfSpirit]

While searching on this topic I found another interesting page-

This is on Lincolns view of

Wage Slavery, or Chattel Slavery.

It's not a critical piece.

I find it interesting for the historical context of views on labor.

During Abraham Lincoln's time, most people did not have jobs nor did they expect to be stuck in jobs, unlike our present time in which we assume jobs are necessary and that we are stuck keeping one and must get one and have one. This necessity to rent yourself to someone who has the capital and owns the company is called wage slavery. Certainly, most people would be doing something else other than going to the job and giving up their time and energy, their lives, except that they can't do anything else due to the fact they feel they must, for the sake of survival, be tied to the job. That's slavery. In chattel slavery, you would be bought and sold and work for no pay, except the food and board, such as it was, to keep you alive to work. In wage slavery, you are paid whatever it is that will give you the money to keep you alive to work. So, the only difference is in the pittance.

Consider what Noam Chomsky, brilliant linguist and academician and activist, said about wage slavery, chattel slavery and Abraham Lincoln.

Noam Chomsky, Abraham Lincoln, Wage Slavery and Chattel Slavery

http://youtu.be/oztdRo9GLLk

[Zorral]

Jackson ran the nation into the worst and longest economic depression it ever had until the 1930's, with his destruction of the Bank of the United States. He was a financial idiot. He was good enough to make money as a small tradesman and slave trader but when it came to a national economy he was a disaster. But he was a terrific politician, including getting the hell outta dodge (D.C.) just before the economy crashed, leaving it all to Mattie Van to deal with.

Not to mention the enormity of corruption in his administration. They didn't call what he did the Spoils System for no reason.

There is no way to compare Lincoln or Jackson in any meaningful way. The stages which they inhabited were entirely different and so was the play. The only thing they had in common is they both were towering figures. But Jackson was a totally mean and ugly sob, while Lincoln was a kind, gentle man -- and brilliant intellect and highly educated though self-educated. Self-educated himself Jackson wasn't by any means the brilliant lawyer and thinker that Lincoln was. One of Jackson's first duels was with a man who pointed out in court that Jackson's grasp of the law, though he was practicing it, was, shall we say, feeble. No one ever said anything like that about Lincoln.

Among other things Lincoln took the opportunity to create the country's first national money, the greenback -- which could not be done because southerners wouldn't allow it, for it would compete with their own closed economic system that depended on the domestic slave trade and the price of slave going ever up -- like the ponzie scheme it was.

[The King in Black]

Hmm,... this is tough. Without Jackson, we wouldn't have had Thriller , Bad and Dangerous. On the other hand, Lincoln did hunt vampires.

And married Mary Elizabeth Winstead ! Why is this debate even going on ?

Seriously though, why is this debate still going on ? Shouldn't we move on to George Washington vs George Washington Carver ?

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think it was on it's way out and was going to end eventually anyways though.

I mean it pretty much withered out world wide.

Rather overlooks that slavery was the reason for the Confederacy's existence. It was in their constitution, for goodness sake.

The end of slavery means the end of the Confederacy.