Talk:Andrew Jackson

Minor correction

The redlink to Gallatin, Sumner County could be separated and linked to Gallatin, Tennessee and Sumner County, Tennessee as Gallatin, Sumner County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.141.68.2 (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I fixed it. --Orlady (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But you introduced a new error. Now the link to Sumner County points to the entry for Davidson County. Argh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.139.149 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change that part at all. That's the way it was when I edited the paragraph. I think probably the situation is that Sumner County did not exist at the time. I'd like for someone with knowledge of the history to look at the passage. --Orlady (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

" Ross was not a recognized leader of the Cherokee Nation, and this document was rejected by most Cherokees as illegitimate."

Ross who? His first name doesn't appear anywhere in this article. Also, I'm not fully sure of the significance of his name after visiting the Treaty_of_New_Echota link...secondly, perhaps his name should be hyper linked, like John Ross.

Incorrect description of Jackson's acquaintance with Rachel Donelson

"Jackson met Rachel Donelson Robards after her divorce from her first husband, Colonel Lewis Robards; Jackson and Mrs. Robards quickly married."

Although I can't remember all the details off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure this description of events is not accurate, as one of the reasons that Robards decided to divorce Rachel was that he suspected she had a relationship with Jackson. Thus it wouldn't make sense if Rachel didn't meet Jackson until after the "divorce". Also, I'm pretty sure that Jackson and Rachel knew each other for a good while before they were married, so I don't think saying "Jackson and Mrs. Robards quickly married" is accurate either. Kaldari 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to be more historically accurate. Kaldari 22:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jefferson's Blessings from Beyond the Grave

The article stated that Jefferson joined the Jacksonians and gave his blessing in 1830. That would be impossible, as everyone knows, Jefferson died on 4 July 1826. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.200.9.166 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A founder of the modern Democratic Party

Wikipedia:Common knowledge states that well-known historical facts do not require citations. It seems to me that "Andrew Jackson was a founder of the modern Democratic Party" is a well-known historical fact, or at least that's what they taught us all in U.S. History classes. Indeed, don't most people condsider him the founder of the modern democratic party? Who claims that he is not at least a founder? Kaldari 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We editors have to go by reliable source or "book-say" and not "hearsay." A review of published works on Google Books shows no consensus as to the founder of the Democratic Party (some start Jefferson (such as Schlesinger, Rutland, Witcover, the Democratic Party itself, some other encyclopedias), some start in the age of Jackson (Remini, Wilentz, often times dictionaries)). There's been past talk page discussions in other articles as to where to start. So I'm presently gathering as many citations as possible for article improvement as to accord with both Wikipedia Neutral POV and Verifiability. As for the citation I requested, I added one myself. Settler 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the quote was "Jackson was a founder of the Democratic Party" I would understand the hesitation, but it says "the modern Democratic party" which clarifies that we are talking about the 2nd incarnation (begun by Jackson). Kaldari 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Although a common platitude, referring to Jackson as the founder of the modern Democratic Party" is at best inaccurate and in the worse case, demonstratively absurd. Apart from some esoteric semantics, there are in fact no similarities between the Jacksonian agenda, and the “modern” democratic party. The Jacksonian fold was born with Jackson and died with Andrew Johnson, and was an entity that transended "party" with no clear link to any "party", least of all the modern democratic party History has always been revisionist as to be far too kind to Jackson, I suspect out of respect for the “office”. But even if we choose to ignore his incompetence, twisted values, skewed vision and genocidal tendencies, we can at least either quantify the faux platitudes, or better yet, ignore them all together. At very least, the article should strongly point out, that this statement is disputed Cosand (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Federal Debt

There was still federal Debt under Jackson. I point to the treasurey departments historical data. Should this section be removed.

reference: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo1.htm --AxeSwinger 15:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• I've added new material which portrays Jackson's effect on the national debt more accurately. AlphaEta 03:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Do you think mentioning that the depression was caused in part by Jackson's monetary policies is worth mentioning? AxeSwinger (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a tough call. There were multiple factors that led to the 1837 depression, and I'm not sure whether Jackson's policies, issuance of the specie circular in particular, were primarily responsible. I'm don't know enough about the subject to guarantee that I could compose a NPOV analysis of his role. Maybe someone with a better historical understanding of the situation could take a crack at it. Regards, AlphaEta 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

He got rid of the second national bank. Who was left to lay claim America's debt? The currency was no longer debt-based; twas a clean slate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.110.205 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

CALL FOR SOURCE: Final Solution (disambiguation)

This sentence was added: He want to election with what he described as "Final Solution" to the Indian issue. After his election he signed if Jackson used the term Final Solution then it will be a fine edit but the only source is a non-English non corroborated secondary source from an extreme left scholar. I have searched for hours to find another source without luck. If someone can find the exact quote or letter or page from his diary with Final Solution in context that would be great. See the debate on the Talk:Final Solution (disambiguation) talk page. Alatari (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We have been over this several times already. We have a reliable source for the claim. That some perople worship Andrew Jackson doesn't make the source go away. What you are asking is that I do original research instead of using reliable sources. // Liftarn (talk)

You do not understand Wikipedia guidelines. I have asked for a primary source, and English source and other sources stating the same thing. We English speakers have only your translation to rely upon and I don't trust it. Alatari (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are free to ask for translation help from someone you trust more or use an automated translation[1], but they usually produce something unreadable. // Liftarn (talk)

Yeah...

very klassificeringssystem must manipulate the as contradiction the egna logic. So also the lagstadgade American racism. Abscission stayed military. Second Jack , countries president among 1829-1837, was going to whale on one program innefattande the " eventual abscission the Final Solution ) on indianfrågan me veterligen first gangway in western political stories as term applies as euphemism for crowd and folkfördrivning. antog congress Indian Removal Act varefter countries military besiege intog ors destroy all Indian byar and chamber maid in sydöstra United States. IN whatever call tårarnas train " cheated all survival Cherokee Muskogee Chickasaw , Shock , and Seminole off unionen , out to the territory as today call Oklahoma.

Alatari (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think my translation was better, ut if you want a second opinion you could ask at Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/sv. // Liftarn (talk)

I'm no fan of Andrew Jackson's genocide (a Native American comedian once said, "Imagine if you went to the ATM and all the $20s had Hitler on them") but this seems likely to be a paraphrase, rather than words from Jackson. It seems silly for a Wikipedia entry on a U.S. president to be so strongly swayed by a Swedish comparative religion professor. With all respect to him, he's not exactly Arthur Schlesinger or Fawn Brodie. It seems more likely that the professor took this from the Encyclopedia Britannica's Guide to the Presidents, which states that Andrew Jackson sought a "final solution"--Britannica's words. But that doesn't mean Jackson said these words. Which would mean we're going in circles translating a paraphrasing back and forth from English. 66.245.216.221 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Researching Robert V. Remini. “The Life of Andrew Jackson .” Google Book Search, 1988. (accessed January 12, 2008). attributes the words final solution to Jackson. I looked up the primary source for Remini's book. The first one is in see AJ to Leroy Pope, Oct. 31 1813, in Jackson correspondence, Vol. 1 p. 339. and actually reads "...for a final blow and then strike at the root of the disseas(sic) Pensicola" in a discussion over his combat plans in the Creek War. The second footnote is see AJ to John Coffee, Sept. 29 1813, de Coppet collection, Princeton U. Library. and the rare books collections at Princeton won't be open till Monday so I'm waiting. I've read through every speech to the nation without success. They are very informative. Alatari (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think you're gonna find it. The important context here is that the Wiki article claims Jackson said this "during his campaign." This implies that Jackson (according to the Swedish religion professor's original research) used it in a stump speech or as a slogan. This is like saying Hitler was copying his language from Jackson. Jackson may be guilty of genocide, but this quote just doesn't seem to hold up. The above Britannica theory is much more likely. Can't we replace this with an authentic quote about his Indian eradication? Johngorenfeld (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSTS provides that, “To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge.”

The source in question alleges that there is a primary source somewhere alleging that Jackson used the words “Final Solution.” By failing to refer to a specific document, speech, or date that this occurred, it makes it impossible for anyone to verify other than by going through the “Complete Works of Andrew Jackson” page by page. A scholarly article would have provided appropriate information to track this down. As I’ve said elsewhere, there is a case to be made against Jackson’s Indian policy, but the section that you deleted (correctly) was simply a backhand manner of comparing Jackson and Hitler -- a case very difficult to make using reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation Request

Requested translation for submission to Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/sv: Stockholms Fria Tidning: Svart vildavästernhistoria, by Mattias Gardell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alatari (talk • contribs) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the text as it is copyrighted by Stockholms Fria Tidningar. Is there any particular part you want translated (or at least something you want me to look for), as a quote? Mail me if you want to ask something or clarify. Where next Columbus? (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

For this particular snippet, which seems to be the object of controversy above:

Varje klassificeringssystem måste hantera det som motsäger den egna logiken. Så också den lagstadgade amerikanska rasismen. Lösningen blev militär. Andrew Jackson, landets president mellan 1829-1837, gick till val på ett program innefattande den "slutgiltiga lösningen" (the Final Solution) på indianfrågan - mig veterligen första gången i västerländsk politisk historia som termen användes som eufemism för folkmord och folkfördrivning. 1830 antog kongressen Indian Removal Act varefter landets militär belägrade, intog eller förintade samtliga indianska byar och städer i sydöstra Förenta staterna. I vad som kallas "tårarnas tåg" fördrevs alla överlevande Cherokee, Muskogee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, och Seminole bort från unionen, ut till det territorium som i dag kallas Oklahoma.

...I'd give the translation as this (alternative or complementary words in curly braces):

Every classification system has to cope with that which contradicts its own logic. The by law mandated American racism, too. The solution was military. Andrew Jackson, the country's president between 1829-1837, campaigned with a program including the ”final solution” (the Final Solution) of the Indian question {problem} – as far as I know the first time in Western political history that the term was used as an euphemism for genocide and {forcible} deportation. In 1830 the Congress approved the Indian Removal Act, and after that the country's military besieged, occupied, or destroyed all Indian villages and towns in the southeastern United States. In what is called ”march of the tears” all surviving Cherokee, Muskogee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole were deported away from the union, out to the territory that today is called Oklahoma.

I have translated the whole article. If you have further questions, please put a message on here or on my talk page. Where next Columbus? (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work on this. This is why I want to see primary sources. "March of the Tears" is quite incorrect. It is only known as the Trail of Tears so heavily as to be a proper noun. The "final solution" is in English in the article but was it a translation error? Were ”final solution” of the Indian question Jacksons exact words while campaigning? Did Hitler and Himmler read some of Jackson's campaign speeches or did Hitler only read Sherman and later public figures? I wish Mattias Gardell had listed his sources. Alatari (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. It is very possible that "march of the tears" should be "Trail of Tears", however, as I am a Swede I am unfortunately not entirely familiar with the subject. Thank you for pointing that out, will read up on it. As I translated what would be a translation of a quote, it is entirely possible that I chose different words when compared with what Jackson himself said. "Final solution", also quoted in English in the article, was translated to "slutgiltig lösning" (final solution) so I believe those two very specific words are indeed correct. As Gardell wrote for a newspaper I believe he essentially wrote a commentary for the public. Unfortunately, it isn't necessarily customary for newspapers to include sources. I'll try to write to the newspaper, perhaps they have any sources or the like. Where next Columbus? (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Trail of Tears will most likely be translated to something quite like "march (or path) of the tears" in Swedish. An English noun usually doesn't survive a translation, unless it is a proper name, which this is on the borderline to being. I have asked SFT for sources, or to forward my question to Gardell if necessary. Where next Columbus? (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be easiest to contect Gardell directly[2]. // Liftarn (talk)

Done. Thanks, Where next Columbus? (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That was my thought a couple days ago. It would be interesting to correspnd with him. Alatari (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I received a message from Gardell, stating that he is in Bogotá, rather far away from his archive. He wrote that Jackson had said the exact words "final solution" in a speech, and with that information he thought it would be rather easy to find a source. If I couldn't find it, I was welcome to contact Gardell again in February. I have made a search before I mailed Gardell on Google, where I did manage to find what I think (IIRC) was his second speech to the government (?) but I haven't yet found the quote. If someone makes a search, or knows about books re: Jackson(can't search these on Google ;), I am happy. Where next Columbus? (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a college history professor who has read extensively on Jackson, I must say that I have never come across the phrase "final solution" in any of Jackson's speeches or quotations. Additionally, "final solution" is a loaded phrase which always refers, at least in any context I have ever seen it, to Hitler's genocide of the Jews. While Jackson's treatment of the Indians was arguably on par with Hitler's treatment of the Jews, using such a loaded phrases that invariably refers to the Nazi genocide of Jews is simply wrong, especially when one considers the only source to be a non-American (and non-English language) article. Maybe Jackson stated that the only thing he felt he could do to the Indians was evict them from their lands but this could be stated in a better fashion than "final solution". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I searched for hours and found the term used my Sherman in his diaries about Total War ideas and Jefferson talking about intermarriage with Natives but not Jackson. However, my access to print sources is limited. I'll try and link all my successful hits later. Alatari (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't really blame Jackson for being oblivious to Hitler's usage of the term (however I have seen some say that Hitler wasn't oblivious to earlier usage of the term). // Liftarn (talk)

I think that's the point here. Historians are trying to attribute Hitler's ideas to some reading of American history. There's a stronger case for Hitler reading Sherman's Total War and seeing his usage of Final Solution. Alatari (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Request: Place of Birth?

In the sidebar, the place of birth is listed as Lancaster County, South Carolina. However the first sentence states specifically that Jackson was born in Waxhaw, North Carolina. Although the follow-up sentences explain the various opinions about Jackson's birthplace, I think it would be good to use the generally known historical opinion that he was born in South Carolina in both areas of the article while still explaining that a dispute exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.240.179 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Class A article

What does this article need to be Class A? I went through and reformatted the page placing the pictures in the proper places and reformatting the Presidency section. Alatari (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC) The POV of the article doesn't present his detractors very well. His nickname of Sharp Knife from the Indians is missing and there are plenty of people in this decade equating him to an American Hitler. I've read about him quite a bit the last week and gathered many sources. Will try to add some detractors views and balance the POV of the controversial figure in American history. Any hlp is appreciate. Otherwise this article will linger at Class-B forever. Alatari (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be "plenty of people" comparing Jackson to Hitler, but how many of them are actual historians who have published scholarly articles or books on Jackson or the Jackson era? In fact, there is much to criticize Jackson on from these types of sources without resorting to these extreme types of comparisons. The current reference to the "Final Solution" is by a professor of comparative religion who, as far as I have been able to tell, is not a recognzed Jackson scholar. Has he published anything in a scholarly journal on Jackson? A good way to move toward a Class A article would be to remove that ridiculous reference and replace it with, for example, the information from the Alfred Cave Journal article referrenced in a footnote and the bibliography (it's a journal article and not a book as the bibliography suggests). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC).

Actually his biographer Remini uses Final Solution in his book about how Jackson talked about the final assault on Pensicola in 1813 this maybe a possible misrepresentation of Jackson and his usage of 'Final Solution'. The references to Hitler basing his ideas on Final Solution come from some of Hitler's biographies. The heavily referenced and wide spread perceptions of the people and non-Americans, even though unflattering to Jackson, are WP:N and not representing them can be violation of WP:NPOV. The largest obstacle to Class-A distinction maybe the controversy itself. The Holocaust will never get Class-A status because of the controversy surrounding that subject and because of the refusal of editors to ever place a section on the less-than-common but ever-present deniers POV. Alatari (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The sheer number of vandal edits and lack of stability is enough to deny Class-A status.... Alatari (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I requested permanent Semi-protection for this page. Alatari (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, what Remini did was use "final solution" in its normal context -- in no way does Remini accuse Jackson of genocide. He did not capitalize it or put it in quotes which would have indicated he was referring to Hitler's "Final Solution". Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler based his "Final Solution" on his study of Andrew Jackson? In the last year or so I've read Kershaw's two volume biography of Hitler and Evan's first two volumes on the history of the Third Reich -- no reference to Andrew Jackson. What specific sources do you claim link Hitler and Andrew Jackson?

I did find references attributing Hitler's Final Solution ideas to Jackson. Some were mentioned in the Adolph Hitler talk section. Here's that source: Michael Fitzgerald. “Manifest Destiny: American Imperial Myth, Then & Now.” with his source cited as footnote 21 Alatari (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Providing reliable, scholarly criticism of Jackson is fair game. As I've said, the Cave article is a perfect place to start as far as Indian removal is concerned. You reference "The heavily referenced and wide spread perceptions of the people and non-Americans", yet the only documentation provided to date on the "Final Solution" is a reference in a newspaper by an historian with no credentials as an expert on Andrew Jackson or antebellum American history. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Usage is a hard thing to discuss and prove on WP but after 16 hours of source searches I found many references to a hate for Andrew Jackson in common views. Many sources are whether he should be removed from the $20 bill. See: Carrie McLachlan. “Should Andrew Jackson Be Removed from the $20 Bill?” American Indian Nations. I have days of backlog in my watchlist and will post moresources in a list when I can. Here is one: Theresa R. Richardson, and Erwin V. Johanningmeir. Race, Ethnicity, and Education: What Is Taught in School. IAP, 2003. Alatari (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will comment specifically on your Hitler source: Here is what Michael Fitzgerald wrote:

"Indian removal"--what today would be called ethnic cleansing--was unofficial federal policy during the Monroe presidency. Upon his election, General Andrew Jackson, having earned fame as an Indian fighter, made it official. Jackson’s policies became the model for Hitler’s "final solution."

He footnotes it to page 702 of John Toland’s biography of Hitler. So I would suspect to see Jackson’ name there. Instead, what we get is the following:

“Hitler’s concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild West; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America’s extermination -- by starvation and uneven combat -- of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.”

So the actual “reliable source” here on the analysis of Andrew Jackson is none other than Adolf Hitler (Toland does not indicate that he agrees with Hitler’s self-assessment). And, as far as we can tell, he didn’t single out Jackson, as Fitzgerald dishonestly suggests, but places the “credit” with America in general. So the issue is whether Hitler’s analysis of American Indian policy in general is a reliable source for an article on Andrew Jackson.

You did not respond to my rebuttal on Remini -- are we in agreement?

Your other two sources appear to be similar. The authors (and in the first one I refer to Ward Churchill, the actual source within the source) seem to be part of a trend to classify virtually all American and European dealings with Native Americans using a genocide model -- ignoring the fact that genocide as a concept did not come into being until the 20th Century to describe situations very different from the near universal results when a more powerful civilization confronts a less powerful civilization.

I think it would be a serious mistake to inject this type of analysis into this biography. It is a clear violation of NPOV to use these sources to condemn Jackson without also pointing out that the same sources find that this is simply part of a genocidal policy that has allegedly been carried on for centuries. Churchill carries the charges forward to at least the 1950s.

If you cannot envision an adequate critical analysis of Jackson’s often violent and always prejudicial attitudes and policies towards Native Americans without references to genocide, Hitler, or the “Final Solution”, then I don’t think we will ever have any common ground. If this is not your position, then I will be glad to cooperate with you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sharp Knife

There are reputable sources stating he was called Sharp Knife amongst the Indians. Any suggestions which section to include this nickname? Alatari (talk) 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Close Duel with Winfield Scott

I believe that Jackson almost fought a duel with Winfield Scott. I am going to get the references, sources, etc., but would like to get a survey on if anyone else would think this deserves a mention. peace Nathraq (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jackson did engage in a 1806 duel with Charles Dickinson (historical figure)
• Jackson did engage in a 1813 brawl with Thomas Hart Benton (senator) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.115 (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

overlapping of display

This site is locked and so cannot be changed, but the comic/photo near the top has dropped into the text and needs to be place differently. Danielchi (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Search for Consensus -- Jackson and the "Final Solution

One editor has included this sentence:

"Swedish scholar Mattias Gardell says Jackson called Indian removal the "Final Solution" to the Indian issue during his election campaign."

While criticism of Jacksons warranted, this seems like an inflamatory way to do it. It makes an emotional point without any effort to provide specific information to support it. The issue has been discussed in several sections above. Please indicate whether you Support Deletion or Oppose Deletion of the sentence.

Support Deletion Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

comment: I have sent a new request to Gardell for his sources today, as he stated he could provide it in February (ie., now). Where next Columbus? (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This will solve a small part of the problem (i.e. whether there is a reliable published source that shows Jackson uttered the words). The bigger problem is whether a comparison to the Holocaust and and all that implies is warranted based strictly on this single source. Since the specific use of "final solution" had absolutely no genocidal implications in the 1830s to Jackson or anybody else, even if he did say the words it does not seem appropriate to capitalize it and link it directly to Final Solution as the article currently does. Do you have an opinion on this aspect of the issue? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion in this matter, I was merely called in to translate (see above), and have since remembered I was going to ask MG about the source. Since I do not know anything about the source, I can't say what (if any) implication it will have on the article - a work which I will gladly leave to you who seem more knowledgeable. Where next Columbus? (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In what wai is it "inflamatory"? It's sourced with a reliable source as well. // Liftarn (talk)

Support Deletion Jackson did not call Indian removal the "Final Solution"; the Swedish author did, obviously editorializing the implication that Indian removal was akin to the Holocaust, which is made even more patent here when linked to the Final Solution. Regardless of whether that moral observation is valid, the fact remains that a Swedish scholar's moral judgment of Jackson in the opinion column of a Swedish newspaper hardly warrants inclusion here. This reeks of an NPOV violation. What's more, I would not call an opinion column a reliable source -- it's personal opinion. Delete away, the sooner the better. Jhw57 (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I support deletion. It is absurd to cite the unsupported opinion of some Swedish religious history professor as verification for the ludicrous claim that the term "Final Solution" made infamous by Hitler was actually coined by Jackson. Pure anti-American rubbish. Get rid of it. 72.144.169.95 (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Support deletion with qualification. I'm an American and still find the article to be too lenient on Jackson. Remini's biography has Jackson calling the Seminoles a 'diseas' to be eradicated. Ethnic cleansing is a modern term but still accurately describes what happened with Indian removal and Manifest destiny as it describes much of human behavior possible all the way back to Homosapien versus Neanderthals. Ultimately a large number of ethnic groups were cleansed from the territory and placed in enclaves and Jackson was responsible; albeit along with a majority of Americans support. The POV that much of the world sees Jackson as major villain will not be easily suppressed. Alatari (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Support deletion I agree with Alatari. Insert more information about Jackson's atrocities against native American peoples. Remove this "final solution" line for good. It is clearly a bad translation of an Encyclopedia Britannica synopsis. It trivializes Jackson's crimes with bad information. Are we to believe that this Swedish religious studies professor knows something about Jackson's stump speeches that other historians don't? This is like claiming that Cortés was heard muttering about the "eternal Jew," or that Genghis Khan talked about a Mongol "master race." 66.245.216.226 (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Sourced by a scolar who have studied the subject. It's difficult to get a more reliable soucre than that. // Liftarn (talk)

Actually, it is virtually impossible to come up with a less reliable source. Rather than being "a scholar who has studied the subject", Gardell is a professor of comparative religion who, as far as I have been unable to tell, has never written a scholarly article on Andrew Jackson. Can you back up your claim that he has "studied the subject" or is a recognized historian in the area of Jacksonian America? As far as the actual document quoted, it is a foreign language newspaper rather than a peer reviewed professional journal. No date or context is provided for the alleged quote and obviously no footnotes.

Do you really believe that it is difficult to find "a more reliable source" that this newspaper article and this author? What is difficult is finding any actual reliable sources (i.e. historians of the Jacksonian era or biographers of Jackson) who feel it is useful and valid to compare Jackson and Hitler.

At this point it seems to be you against everybody else. I have made an appropriate tag on the dubious quote and clarified Gardell's "credentials". I'm not sure if it is possible at this point to declare a consensus and eliminate the sentence completely -- hopefully folks who are more frequent editors will weigh in. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

PS Note: Based on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Turn to others for help I have invited folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennessee, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents to participate here in order to form a more clear consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering he specializes in the study of racism in the USA it's bang in the middle of his field of study. // Liftarn (talk)

Sounds like you're guessing. How about the titles of actual journal articles and books written by this expert that demonstrates he has ANY famiiarity with primary and secondary sources relating to Andrew Jackson. How about reviews of his work in scholarly journals that refer to his research on Andrew Jackson. I'll even settle for any actual historian of the era or biographer of Jackson that actually refers to Gardell's work. In fact, am I correct in assuming that you have nothing to back your case except the newspaper article?

As far as Jackson being a racist by today's standards, there is no question. It does not logically follow, however, that because a professor of comparative religion has written on RELIGIOUS racism in the US, therefore he is an expert on every public figure in US history who was a racist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing other figures. The statement is well sourced (as it was written by Gardell himself). Considering Wikipedia accept any newpaper article as a reliable source I don't see what the big fuzz is about anyway. // Liftarn (talk)

The issue is whether Gardell himself is a reliable source and is accepted, within the historical profession, as an expert qualified to make a professional historical analysis of the policies of Andrew Jackson and Adolph Hitler. Based on his publications in English as listed at Amazon, he hasn’t written anything that even remotely would have required him to study Andrew Jackson in any detail. Anybody being interviewed (or writing) in a newspaper can say anything they want about any topic they want. The standard used by newspapers for publication is significantly different from the standards used in scholarly works. The “big fuzz” is not whether Jackson used the phrase “final solution”, but whether he intended it in the same context as the Nazi’s did. By capitalizing it and linking it, you are making the claim that they are he same.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As it is we are using the article as a source to what Gardell himself claims so it certainly is reliable enough for that. If we instead would write it as a fact it may require more solid sources. Gardell certainly made the claim they were used in the same way, i.e. as an euphimism for genocide. // Liftarn (talk)

Delete. This is not even a close call: citing an extraordinary claim from an unreferenced newspaper column is piss-poor article writing. It's unnecessary too: modern scholars writing in peer-reviewed published works have leveled plenty of harsh criticism at Jackson's record regarding American Indians. Stick with reliable sources and you won't go wrong. —Kevin Myers 07:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Gardell material (7-9-2008)

The source has been discussed in detail and only one editor (User:Liftarn) has supported it as reliable. Despite this, Liftarn has chosen to expand the section relying on this source. I had been conservative in declaring that a consensus had been reached in order to remove the material in total, but Liftarn has decided not to leave well enough alone and is now engaged in edit warring to expand on his agenda to compare Jackson with Hitler. Since this is everyone versus a single editor, I have removed the entire section.

To summarize the issue, Liftarn’s source is a non-peer reviewed, non-sourced Swedish newspaper article by a scholar with no credentials as a scholar in the area of 19th Century American history. The Swedish source (Gardell) claims, without substantiation (i.e. reference by footnote to a specific speech on a specific date), that Jackson (1) used the expression the “Final Solution and (2) used it in a manner to suggest his plan was genocide. Neither of these claims have been verified by reliable, peer-reviewed secondary sources written by scholars of the actual era -- many of whom have some quite harsh things to say about Jackson’s removal policy.

I have replaced the Gardell information with reliable information from a major historian and Jackson biographer who covers the same ground -- Jackson’s position prior to assuming the presidency.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to read up on WP:V. The article is in itself a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. That Gardell also is a scolar in the subject (racism in the USA) is an added bonus. // Liftarn (talk)

Good idea -- why don’t we examine WP:V? Let’s start with:

“Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.”

There is certainly a wealth of “academic and peer-reviewed publications” available on the life and presidency of Andrew Jackson, isn’t there? Why is it that nobody can find in these sources information that shows that Jackson (1) used the expression “Final Solution” and, more importantly, (2) used it in the same context (genocide) that the Nazis did. “Stockholm’s Fria Tidning” is not an “academic and peer-reviewed publication”, is it?

Then let’s look at:

“Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.”

There is no question, is there, that there are English sources of “equal quality” to this Swedish newspaper. In fact, the article relies on sources (i.e. “Academic and peer-reviewed publications”) that are far superior to “Stockholm’s Fria Tidning”. The fact is that readers CANNOT “verify that the source material has been used correctly” by Gardell. He uses no footnotes and he provides no context. He only quotes a total of TWO WORDS alleged to have been spoken or written by Jackson and fails to tell us where we can read those two words.

Then let’s go to the following:

“Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; ... Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.”

The exceptional claim is that Jackson’s intent was to commit genocide and that he announced this intent. Of course, if this claim was actually covered in “mainstream sources” then we would be quoting from those sources, wouldn’t we? In addition the bar for inclusion based on reliability is raised by this section -- exceptional claims require “ high-quality reliable sources”. How exactly can a non-footnoted article by a scholar outside his field of expertise with no bibliography that was not peer-reviewed that quotes only two words be considered “high-quality”? Failing to meet this standard, “ the material should not be included.”

Finally, you produce the following non-sequitur:

“That Gardell also is a scolar in the subject (racism in the USA) is an added bonus.”

So you believe that because Gardell has written on late Twentieth Century racism in the US, this makes him an expert on every public figure in US history who was a racist? In fact, we don’t even know if Gardell has ever even read a biographical journal article about Andrew Jackson, do we? We don’t know whether he has ever read a letter or a speech made by Jackson, do we? We would know what sources Gardell was familiar with if he had ever written a scholarly, peer-reviewed article or book about Jackson, but he hasn’t done that, has he? For all we know, his source for the TWO WORD quote is not a primary source but some secondary or tertiary source that may or may not be reliable.

Scholars often have both academic interests and political agendas. The peer-review process determines whether a scholar confuses the two -- no such checks and balances are in place for opinion pieces published in popular newspapers. You have said of the Gardell piece, “It's difficult to get a more reliable soucre than that” -- this claim, if sincere and not simply a rhetorical excess, shows a total unfamiliarity with the importance and significance of academic research and publication. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Keep: While I am not to familiar with the subject in detail, although I do recall during the mid 1990s flipping through an art history book (pertaining to Nazi propaganda art) within the East Tennessee State University Library collection that featured a Nazi German propaganda poster graphically featuring an Native American. I am thinking that the article reference should remain as to avoid what may be viewed as whitewashing the historical background and later influence of U.S. President Andrew Jackson.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jackson and Calhoun

The competitive toasting between Jackson and Calhoun seemed, as written, to be a bit too dramatic and flowery, and that the capitalized yelling was entirely awkward and incorrect. I rephrased it a bit, added some information from Nullification Crisis, and de-capitalized the quotes. Chaparral2J (talk) 04:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture

{{editprotected}} The main picture was not there for some reason. I replaced it with a different one until someone can put up a better one. It looks a bit odd, though, because it's a bit too large, and I'm not sure how to make it smaller. Cadwaladr (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better one Image:Andrew Jackson Sully.jpg.

Hi

Can some one please undo or correct the vandalism done to the info box on Andrew Jackson. Referring to were he died, i can't seem to find how to undo it myself.(Butters x (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

Indian Removal NPOV

I researched the Remini book into the citations and one quotes andrew Jackson as referring to the Seminoles as a "diseas to be cut out" in a letter to Sherman. This shows a clear hatred for the Natives of Florida. Also on a History channel special on Jackson an history professor doctorate of one of the western states of Native American descent refers to Jackson as America's Hitler and discusses how a many Native Americans today will not accept $20 bills. After seeing that special it is clear to me that to maintain a NPOV the Andrew Jackson article section on Indian removal has to include some harsher language. I will find the professors name and a transcript of her comment for inclusion in the article. Alatari (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What will show a "clear hatred for the Natives of Florida", for purposes of this article, would be the full quote from the Remini book (which book and what page?) and Remini's interpretation of the quote. This would certainly be relevant in the Seminole War section of the article. BTW, who is this "Sherman" that Jackson wrote to?

As for the second part, I think it would be difficult to argue that the script of a History Channel is a very good source. Who exactly is this scholar? Has she written books or peer reviewed journal articles on Jackson or Indian Removal -- if she has these would certainly be better sources.

I am not exactly sure what the POV issue is in this article. Is there some specific sentence that actually says something POSITIVE about Jackson's Indian removal policy? Is there something inaccurate in the article? Something you would like to see a source for? Some details that you feel should be added?

The facts pretty much speak for themselves, and these certainly can be expanded. What specific deeds by Jackson need to be described in "harsher language"? Why is it so important to throw in a Hitler reference when so much reliable, professional, peer reviewed history is available that is already highly critical of Jackson without throwing in gratuitous references to Hitler.? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rachel Jackson cause of death

Rachel Jackson states she died of a heart attack , while this article says it's unknown causes. Neither is cited. Someone who has a source should rectify this inconsistency. thanks. --Rajah (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In Rachel Jackson, two of the external links (the White House bio, and find-a-grave) state that it was a heart attack. Tedickey (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

African-American father?

I was just reading Obama Wouldn't Be First Black President which made some pretty startling allegations about Andrew Jackson's parentage:

President Andrew Jackson, the nation's seventh president, was in office between 1829 and 1837. Vaughn cites an article written in The Virginia Magazine of History that Jackson was the son of an Irish woman who married a black man. The magazine also stated that Jackson's oldest brother had been sold as a slave.

Is this worth addressing in the article itself? Any other sources for this kind of info about Jackson? --ESP (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. Absolutely not. This Leroy Vaughn character is so obscure he hasn't even got a WP article about him; do you really think we should go about inserting his unsourced theories into WP? One must keep an open mind, but not so open that ones brains fall out. This is way into brains-falling-out territory. -- Zsero (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We do, however, have an article about the Virginia Historical Society, which publishes the Virginia Magazine of History. --ESP (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Which says nothing about the reliability of the magazine. If we actually knew this claim to have been made in that magazine, we'd want to know the context in which the claim was made, who made it, and their sources. But we have no basis for believing that this even appeared in that magazine. By the way, here's what appears to be this Leroy Brown's web site. Total nutbar. Claims the ancient Egyptians were black, and so were the Carthaginians, repeats the Dogon-Sirius myth, thinks Tertullian and the three African popes were all black, and that's about as far as I browsed. Not only not a reliable source, not even an unreliable source! -- Zsero (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland

The comment as given is nonfactual, since there was no Northern Ireland at that time. Suggest rephrasing to note that the location is in modern Northern Ireland. Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Page locked?!?!?

The Andrew Jackson page is locked? Why? This has to be the most esoteric lock in Wikipedia history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.5.75 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

War of 1812

Major point: When listing Andrew Jackson's accomplishments in the Battle of New Orleans, it is very important to note that this battle was fought after the Treaty of Ghent was signed. The Treaty officially ended the war between the US and the UK. Due to the length of time it used to take for such information to cross the ocean, the battle was fought when the war was technically already over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikingkyle393 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hikingkyle393, that may be so, but in his History of the American People, Paul Johnson has the following to say: "The fact that Jackson's victory at New Orleans came too late to influence the treaty does not mean it was of no consequence. Quite the reverse. It too was decisive in its way for, though the treaty made no mention of the fact, it involved major strategic, indeed historic, concessions on both sides. Castlereagh was the first British statesman of consequence who accepted the existence of the United States not just in theory but in practice as a legitimate national entity to be treated as a fellow-player in the world game. This acceptance was marked by the element of unspoken trust which lay behind the treaty's provisions. America, for its part, likewise accepted the existence of Canada as a permanent, legitimate entity, not just an unresolved problem left over from the War of Independence, to be absorbed by the United States in due course. Henceforth the road to expansion for both the United States and Canada lay not in depredations at each other's expense but in pushing simultaneously and in friendly rivalry towards the Pacific. …

"Britain, along with most other nations, had not recognized the Louisiana Purchase, and acknowledged no American right to be in New Orleans, Mobile, or anywhere else on the Gulf of Mexico. Britain would have been at liberty to hand any of those territories back to Spain if it had been in possession of them, even under the terms of the Treaty of Ghent. And that, Monroe told Madison, was exactly what it would have done, had not Jackson not won the battle. The effect of the victory was to legitimize the whole of the Louisiana Purchase in the eyes of the international community." Asteriks (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for removal of fourth external link for NPOV

The fourth external link is to a blog post titled "Andrew Jackson, the national bank and censure" from "The Right Side of the Road." The post is about the censure of Andrew Jackson, is apologetically an ideological rant, and contributes very little information. MissLeighding (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Illustration for infobox

While a portrait is less "authentic", choosing a photograph of the dying Andrew Jackson brings into play needless POV-issues. The photo might be suitable later in the topic - in context. Tedickey (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

New Primary Sources Available

Robert Meachum's book "American Lion" has brought forth interesting new primary resources. Most notably, information regarding the Petticoat Affair and Jackson's opposition to the National Bank. I suggest looking into possible information that could come out of this source to be added to our current article. I'm surprised to see no mention of Nicholas Biddle and Andrew Jackson's relationship - their constant feuding about the corruption of the banking system is relatively important. David G. (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of New Orleans - # of Casualties

In the Battle of New Orleans on January 8, 1815, Jackson's 5,000 soldiers won a victory over 7,500 British. The British had more than 8,000 casualties to Jackson's 13 killed and 58 wounded or missing.

In the article about the Battle of New Orleans the number of British casualities is indicated as 2,055 which seems more accurate (especially if there where only 7,500 soldiers involved)

Matto.regiert (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This section doesn't make much sense and is unclear. If there were 7,500 British, how is it possible that they took 8,000 casualties. I think this is a serious error.

Beaudoin.regiert (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)