“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bends the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinction in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth cannot be produced by human institutions... When laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages... to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society – the farmers, mechanics, and laborers – who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustices of their Government.” – Andrew Jackson, 1832
Stuff like that is why I am obsessed with this guy.
Writing a short story set in the post-Revolution and then flows through the War of 1812. It's exploring the hypocrisy of the era, particularly with regards to race and class. As such, I've been doing a whole lot of reading on early Abolition (if anyone knows how to get the essays of John Laurens please link me). The Federalists, like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, were generally afraid to discuss abolition as they didn't want to scare the slave states (which at that point was mostly everything south of Connecticut), and when they did they were quite mild. The quotes with true conviction against slavery were often written by those propagating it.
“It is due to justice; due to humanity; due to truth; to the sympathies of our nature; in fine, to our character as a people, both abroad and at home, that they should be considered, as much as possible, in the light of human beings, and not as mere property. As such, they are acted upon by our laws, and have an interest in our laws.” – James Madison, owner of 100 slaves, December 2, 1829
"[T]here is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery].” – George Washington, owner of 150 slaves, April 12 1786
“Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils” – Ben Franklin, owner of two slaves, November 9, 1789
“Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects—we deplore it with all the pity of humanity.” – Patrick Henry, owner of 65 slaves, unknown date (Patrick Henry also constantly referred to British rule as "slavery" with no recognition of domestic policy...)
“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passion, the most unremitting despotism one the one part, and degrading submissions on the other” – Thomas Jefferson, owner of 600 slaves, 1781
The Constitution does not dictate that the Vice President becomes President in the case of the President's death. The exact phrasing does say that the VP gets his powers and responsibilities, but does not specify what position he holds or how long he maintains those powers and responsibilities. It was established as a de facto tradition to appoint the VP as President beginning with William Henry Harrison's infamous death in 1841, but the de jura ambiguity continued until Congress passed the 25th Amendment in 1967.
The Republicans probably should've tried to use this loophole to wrangle Johnson out of the Presidency. Someone write an alternate history about THAT.
The second most prominent commander of the Indian Red Sticks that fought for preservation of Indian society in the War of 1812 was a man named Red Eagle. He assumed command after Tecumseh's death and lead a massacre against white civilians at Fort Mims. Red Eagle's given name, however, was William Weatherford, and he was %75 white. Just some food for thought about how we perceive race.
Jackson never violated a Supreme Court ruling. John Marshall issued no rulings that would have effected Jackson's policy. Worcester v Georgia pertained in no way to the Federal Executive branch. John Marshall had a long string of rulings affirming that the Federal government alone had the rights to negotiate Indian lands and regulate transport from and to them. First, in 1823 during the Monroe administration, he asserted that American citizens had no right to purchase Tribal land. Only the Federal Government had the ability to purchase foreign lands, including those of Natives. Seven years later, the Indian Removal Act was in compliance with the ruling, because the acquisition of the land was a Federal action.
The case where people claim he said "John Marshall has made his ruling now may he enforce it" (which is apocryphal in the first place) was Worcester v. Georgia, which had absolutely nothing to do with removal, or anything else Jackson had control over. What happened was that Georgia had passed a law that would jail any US citizen who settled Tribal land without a permit -- a pretty good idea. Marshall said the law was not Constitutional, because only the Federal government has the ability to regulate acts on Tribal lands. Governor Lumpkin (which sounds like the placeholder name they had for Mel Brooks' Gov. LePetome in Blazing Saddles) pardoned the two men who had filed the suite. There was no enforcing to be done.
Removal was completely legal. I don't mean that as a support for it. I mean it as to highlight that our crimes against Natives, from Horseshoe Bend to Standing Rock, have been permitted by our system.
Jackson never violated a Supreme Court ruling. John Marshall issued no rulings that would have effected Jackson's policy. Worcester v Georgia pertained in no way to the Federal Executive branch. John Marshall had a long string of rulings affirming that the Federal government alone had the rights to negotiate Indian lands and regulate transport from and to them. First, in 1823 during the Monroe administration, he asserted that American citizens had no right to purchase Tribal land. Only the Federal Government had the ability to purchase foreign lands, including those of Natives. Seven years later, the Indian Removal Act was in compliance with the ruling, because the acquisition of the land was a Federal action.
The case where people claim he said "John Marshall has made his ruling now may he enforce it" (which is apocryphal in the first place) was Worcester v. Georgia, which had absolutely nothing to do with removal, or anything else Jackson had control over. What happened was that Georgia had passed a law that would jail any US citizen who settled Tribal land without a permit -- a pretty good idea. Marshall said the law was not Constitutional, because only the Federal government has the ability to regulate acts on Tribal lands. Governor Lumpkin (which sounds like the placeholder name they had for Mel Brooks' Gov. LePetome in Blazing Saddles) pardoned the two men who had filed the suite. There was no enforcing to be done.
Removal was completely legal. I don't mean that as a support for it. I mean it as to highlight that our crimes against Natives, from Horseshoe Bend to Standing Rock, have been permitted by our system.
I always suspected that this was true. I appreciate you doing the legwork. Perhaps we need an ad campaign, just to let people know that they live in a nakedly and legally colonialist country.
I always suspected that this was true. I appreciate you doing the legwork. Perhaps we need an ad campaign, just to let people know that they live in a nakedly and legally colonialist country.
If you're interested, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown and Voices of the Trail of Tears by Vicki Rozenma are amazing books on the subject of US conflict with Native Americans. The former is a good overview of the post-Civil War conflicts with an emphasis on the different tribes of Sioux. The latter is a collection of primary sources (edicts, op eds from contemporary news papers, private communications between relevant individuals, etc) with enough commentary for you to understand the significance of them even if you know nothing going when you start reading it.
It's also important to note that there was just under 300 years of white-Indian conflict before our country was even founded that laid the groundwork for our conquest. I'm reading a book on the French and Indian War right now but this goes back (as far as this nation's land goes) to Metacom's War in the early 1600s.
Jackson armed his slaves so that they could hunt. Whether Jackson thought that his slaves were loyal and wouldn't rebel (which they somehow didn't) or if he already knew he was invulnerable to bullets isn't known.
Comments
Stuff like that is why I am obsessed with this guy.
“It is due to justice; due to humanity; due to truth; to the sympathies of our nature; in fine, to our character as a people, both abroad and at home, that they should be considered, as much as possible, in the light of human beings, and not as mere property. As such, they are acted upon by our laws, and have an interest in our laws.” – James Madison, owner of 100 slaves, December 2, 1829
"[T]here is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery].” – George Washington, owner of 150 slaves, April 12 1786
“Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature, that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils” – Ben Franklin, owner of two slaves, November 9, 1789
“Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects—we deplore it with all the pity of humanity.” – Patrick Henry, owner of 65 slaves, unknown date (Patrick Henry also constantly referred to British rule as "slavery" with no recognition of domestic policy...)
“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passion, the most unremitting despotism one the one part, and degrading submissions on the other” – Thomas Jefferson, owner of 600 slaves, 1781
did you see that Khan Academy posted these?
The Republicans probably should've tried to use this loophole to wrangle Johnson out of the Presidency. Someone write an alternate history about THAT.
EDIT: Andrew Johnson, to clarify.
The case where people claim he said "John Marshall has made his ruling now may he enforce it" (which is apocryphal in the first place) was Worcester v. Georgia, which had absolutely nothing to do with removal, or anything else Jackson had control over. What happened was that Georgia had passed a law that would jail any US citizen who settled Tribal land without a permit -- a pretty good idea. Marshall said the law was not Constitutional, because only the Federal government has the ability to regulate acts on Tribal lands. Governor Lumpkin (which sounds like the placeholder name they had for Mel Brooks' Gov. LePetome in Blazing Saddles) pardoned the two men who had filed the suite. There was no enforcing to be done.
Removal was completely legal. I don't mean that as a support for it. I mean it as to highlight that our crimes against Natives, from Horseshoe Bend to Standing Rock, have been permitted by our system.
It's also important to note that there was just under 300 years of white-Indian conflict before our country was even founded that laid the groundwork for our conquest. I'm reading a book on the French and Indian War right now but this goes back (as far as this nation's land goes) to Metacom's War in the early 1600s.
As I said last page