LogFAQs > #940770888

HylianFox posted...

also, did you SERIOUSLY just use the "sure Jackson committed genocide, but he treated his own slaves well enough" argument?

I never affirmed that Jackson committed genocide anywhere in my post. In fact, that idea is also more mythical than true. When you actually read Jackson's defenses of his Native American removal policy, it is quite clear that he never intended their death and execution, in the way that a real genocidal maniac like Hitler did for supposed inferiors. Jackson justifies his policy by pointing to the mistreatment of Native Americans under state governments like Georgia, and argues that the Native Americans will be more able to flourish if they can have federal territories to themselves where whites will no longer be able disturb them. His view of the Native Americans is paternalistic, not genocidal. He calls not for their death and destruction, but for their support from a benevolent, white federal government.

The clearest expression of Jackson's views on the Native American Removal Policy are in his Second Annual Message to Congress, where he explains why his policy should be seen as good for every party involved.

"[Native American Removal] will separate the Indians from immediate contact with settlements of whites; free them from the power of the states; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way and under their own rude institutions; will [deter] the progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the government and through the influence of good counsels, to cast off their savage habits and become an interesting, civilized, and Christian community... And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the general government toward the red man is not only liberal but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the states and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the general government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement.

While his views on Native American Removal deserve enormous criticism, it is a misrepresentation to say that he simply supported "genocide." He never calls for their mass execution in any document that I'm aware of, and I've read all of his major addresses and speeches.

ThyCorndog posted...

killing native americans isn't very christian of you, mister luther

You must not be aware that the Trail of Tears actually happened under Jackson's presidential successor, Martin Van Buren, and that it is quite possible that Jackson would have conducted the policy in a more humane way had he been in office. While I think the whole policy was wrong and believe that Jackson still deserves blame for pressing for it (with, by the way, a huge majority of the American populace), I want to understand these people as they understood themselves. We cannot impute to Jackson the responsibility for the deaths that occurred during the Trail of Tears, which took place after he had left office. Van Buren's heinous and irresponsible execution of the Removal policy does not, by itself, mean that Jackson's intentions with the Removal policy were simply "genocidal." Rather, they were paternalistic and racialist in a way that is, while lamentable from a modern perspective, entirely unextraordinary given the context of his own day.

---

The men doing the vital things of life are those who read the Bible and are Christians and not ashamed to let the world know it.
-Booker T. Washington