Top 5 U.S. Presidents

[Thanatos 2,847]

Ok that would be acceptable if A.) People understood the Indian Removal Act was a negotiation with the Indians. Throughout the duration of his presidency it was debated and made it to the supreme court.

 

 

And B.) realized the timeline. It was not until after he left office (he left in 1837) in 1838 when Van Buren sent troops down to remove them forcibly.

 

Wrong again. The Seminoles resisted being moved starting in 1835. Jackson sent troops down to force them to leave. The War lasted seven years before they finally removed the vast majority of the Seminole nation.

 

In the whole scene there was an air of ruin and destruction, something which betrayed a final and irrevocable adieu; one couldn't watch without feeling one's heart wrung. The Indians were tranquil, but sombre and taciturn. There was one who could speak English and of whom I asked why the Chactas were leaving their country. "To be free," he answered, could never get any other reason out of him. We ... watch the expulsion ... of one of the most celebrated and ancient American peoples. ”

—- Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

 

The Choctaws left peaceably, but make no mistake, it was not because they liked it.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Also, asking the nations to be subject to the laws of the states, which they had zero input in forming, doesn't exactly strike me as being a "fair guy."

 

There's also a reason why Abraham Lincoln vehemently opposed the Act. It is one of the single worst Acts signed into law by a US president in our nation's history

 

So can I assume you hate the US the way it currently set up ? If it were not for Andrew Jackson there would be no U.S as we know it. We would have to drive through Indian territories to go to the grocery store. That would be a pain in the ass keeping up with every single tribes law everywhere you went.

 

It is just the way that most countries were formed and there was no better way. You can oppose something all you want, but until you have a better way to do it then you are not doing any good.

 

Nobody stepped up.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Wrong again. The Seminoles resisted being moved starting in 1835. Jackson sent troops down to force them to leave. The War lasted seven years before they finally removed the vast majority of the Seminole nation.

 

No sir I am not wrong. you said the trail of tears. I am correct that it happened in 1838.

[OSUViking 505]

Ok that would be acceptable if A the Indian Removal Act was a negotiation with the Indians. Throughout the duration of his presidency it was debated and made it to the supreme court.

 

The Supreme Court supported the Indians' right to their land. Jackson just flat out ignored them.

 

http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/indian-removal/

 

 

The Cherokees were not happy with the relocation plan and resisted being forced to move. In 1831, the Cherokees turned to the courts for defense against the Indian Removal Act and against the Georgia Legislature’s nullification of Cherokee laws. Three times their cases went to the Supreme Court. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the Cherokee had “an unquestionable right” to their lands, but that they were "not a foreign state, in the sense of the Constitution" but rather a “domestic, dependent nation” and so could not sue in a United States court over Georgia’s voiding their right to self-rule. Although this was a blow to the Cherokee case against Georgia, it cast doubt on the constitutionality of the Indian Removal Act.

 

 

 

In Worcester v. Georgia in 1832, the Court reversed itself and ruled that the State of Georgia could not control the Cherokee within their territory.

 

 

 

In a third case, the Court agreed that crimes committed in Cherokee Territory were beyond the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia. This case involved a Cherokee named Corn Tassel who had been convicted in a Georgia court of murdering another Indian. Corn Tassel’s attorney appealed the conviction on the grounds that the killing had taken place in Cherokee territory, so Georgia had no right to try him. The Supreme Court sided with the Cherokees and found that the Georgia ruling was unconstitutional. President Jackson, however, made it clear that he would tolerate no independent nation within the borders of the United States. When he publicly backed Georgia, Corn Tassel was hanged. The Cherokees then understood that even the Supreme Court could not save their cause.

 

 

Emphasis mine.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Each Indian nation that was removed refers to their removal as the trail of tears. It is only the American history books that refer solely to the Cherokee's removal as the trail of tears. The Choctaw nation, when it was removed, sent a letter to the US congress that stated it was a "trail of tears and death" which is where the phrase originated.

 

A better way to do it? Oh I don't know, how about the plans of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, who were going to set up a system so that the tribes remained free if they wished, but given incentives to be slowly assimilated into the federal system. It's not like "no one else stepped up" as you claimed, but Jackson never felt that Washington's policy of negotiating with the Native Americans was one which he should follow, and always hated how we treated them. He wanted them out.

 

People had stepped up. We had a plan in place. One that would take awhile, but there was one in place. Jackson didn't do this in a vacuum because no one else would. He did it because he didn't want Washington's plan to work.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The Supreme Court supported the Indians' right to their land. Jackson just flat out ignored them.

 

http://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/indian-removal/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emphasis mine.

 

As to the 3rd one, it was ruled March 14th 1831 that since it happened within the geographical boundaries of Georgia that the case for the for the Cherokee nation lacked merit.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Did you read his entire post? In 1832 they reversed themselves and said the state of Georgia could not control the Cherokee within the Cherokee territory.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Each Indian nation that was removed refers to their removal as the trail of tears. It is only the American history books that refer solely to the Cherokee's removal as the trail of tears. The Choctaw nation, when it was removed, sent a letter to the US congress that stated it was a "trail of tears and death" which is where the phrase originated.

 

A better way to do it? Oh I don't know, how about the plans of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, who were going to set up a system so that the tribes remained free if they wished, but given incentives to be slowly assimilated into the federal system. It's not like "no one else stepped up" as you claimed, but Jackson never felt that Washington's policy of negotiating with the Native Americans was one which he should follow, and always hated how we treated them. He wanted them out.

 

People had stepped up. We had a plan in place. One that would take awhile, but there was one in place. Jackson didn't do this in a vacuum because no one else would. He did it because he didn't want Washington's plan to work.

 

Ok so the fact that they were attacking settlements in Florida starting in December of 1835 gave them zero reason to retaliate in what was the second of the seminole wars. Do not act as if the indians were people who were innocent and had never wronged us who were just herded. They did not like that we were here either and were attacking men, women, and children and at one time wiped out over 400 Americans in a single raid. Nobody seems to cry about that.

 

Or them attacking local militias and their supply lines. Had this been anyone but the indians that is an act of war and still is today. Would you stand for someone doing that today ?

 

And If Washington and the government wanted this done, during Washington's tenure he definitely had the chutzpah to get it done 30 years before this was a problem.....Oh wait Washington had his run ins with the Indians as well. It is not as if he is some hero of the Indian people he did his fair share of foot to ass in the French and Indian War. And Abraham Lincoln ? At the age of 20 the president of the united states was supposed to take domestic policy from a 20 year old.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Did you read his entire post? In 1832 they reversed themselves and said the state of Georgia could not control the Cherokee within the Cherokee territory.

 

Yes I am arguing two arguments here, gots to give me time lol. Corn Tassel if I recall correctly was long dead before the 1832 ruling would have done him any good.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Ngata_Chance

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Side note. This is actually a pretty fun debate.

[OSUViking 505]

Ok so the fact that they were attacking settlements in Florida starting in December of 1835 gave them zero reason to retaliate in what was the second of the seminole wars. Do not act as if the indians were people who were innocent and had never wronged us who were just herded. They did not like that we were here either and were attacking men, women, and children and at one time wiped out over 400 Americans in a single raid. Nobody seems to cry about that.

 

Nobody seems to "cry about that" because these attacks against colonial and American settlers are largely tuned out by the genocide of, if I recall correctly, over 90% of their population (both by European/American guns and diseases). I'm sorry if I can't demonize the entirety of Native Americans because they reacted violently to a genocide that lasted close to 400 years.

 

EDIT:

 

And If Washington and the government wanted this done, during Washington's tenure he definitely had the chutzpah to get it done 30 years before this was a problem.....Oh wait Washington had his run ins with the Indians as well. It is not as if he is some hero of the Indian people he did his fair share of foot to ass in the French and Indian War. And Abraham Lincoln ? At the age of 20 the president of the united states was supposed to take domestic policy from a 20 year old.

 

While he also had his run-ins with Indians during the Revolution, the George Washington that we all known isn't comparable personality wise to the George Washington of the Seven Years War.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Vikingfan465

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Nobody seems to "cry about that" because these attacks against colonial and American settlers are largely tuned out by the genocide of, if I recall correctly, over 90% of their population (both by European/American guns and diseases). I'm sorry if I can't demonize the entirety of Native Americans because they reacted violently to a genocide that lasted close to 400 years.

 

Ok their lack of immune system's should not constitute genocide, especially since Spain had already done a good job of that. Since it was on our land though it is all on us. We did not kill as many from actual combat as people like to think. The diseases were what did the most damage.

 

And the 400 was in one raid. That does not include any of the others by just the Seminoles themselves.

 

The point here was that this got a huge shove in a violent direction when that happened. It was going along at a ho hum sort of pace until that raid happened and then all hell broke loose and Jackson took the reigns being an already accomplished military general.

[OSUViking 505]

Ok their lack of immune system's should not constitute genocide, especially since Spain had already done a good job of that. Since it was on our land though it is all on us. We did not kill as many from actual combat as people like to think. The diseases were what did the most damage.

 

So, it's not the Spaniards' fault that they released a devastating disease onto an unprepared population?

 

And the 400 was in one raid. That does not include any of the others by just the Seminoles themselves.

 

I still fail to see how this portrays the Indians as worse than the settlers. They reacted to genocide and the destruction of their nations. Diplomacy was so rarely an option I'm not surprised Indians turned to violence.

 

The point here was that this got a huge shove in a violent direction when that happened. It was going along at a ho hum sort of pace until that raid happened and then all hell broke loose and Jackson took the reigns being an already accomplished military general.

 

I don't think his being an accomplished general or how violent things got during the Indian Removal affect how bad of a president he was.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

While he also had his run-ins with Indians during the Revolution, the George Washington that we all known isn't comparable personality wise to the George Washington of the Seven Years War.

 

That has been a matter of debate. Some say he was a young ambitious, impetuous, wild eyed kid who wanted a British commission. Other say he was well mature past his years.

 

It is too hard to tell from the way he led because at no point in his career did he actually command more than 1000 men.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

So, it's not the Spaniards' fault that they released a devastating disease onto an unprepared population?

 

 

 

I still fail to see how this portrays the Indians as worse than the settlers. They reacted to genocide and the destruction of their nations. Diplomacy was so rarely an option I'm not surprised Indians turned to violence.

 

 

 

I don't think his being an accomplished general or how violent things got during the Indian Removal affect how bad of a president he was.

 

No it isnt their fault imo. At least not back then when the common cold could kill someone. If you were standing next to me in a train station and you have the common cold and I catch it, I am not going to be real mad about it. I will probably call you an asshole. Now if you did it with ebola I would probably think about killing you lol.

 

Back then though how is it the spaniards were supposed to know that their common cold could kill people. They all caught it and thought it was harmless. I somehow can not blame a people who the average education did not include a doctorate in microbiology. They were just as unaware as the indians.

 

As to the diplomacy thing. It goes both ways because the Indians can not say that the animosity was completely undue. They did side with the French in the French and Indian war and were expert in lighting raids that killed many US settlers. People did not forget that so it is no wonder diplomacy failed. Had they decided to take arms with us against the French I see us being more malleable to their request. I am not saying it is handled perfect by us either but to deny their role in this is ridiculous and even more insulting to the history of our country.

 

I think it directly effected his presidency. Had he not been a proponent of the Indian removal act he would not have been as polarizing as he was in his day. He was either loved or hated and it made some of his plans fall through and it made some pass just because of his stance as both.

 

Had it not been for a brilliant Victory at New Orleans he would not have commanded the respect of people as quickly as he did. It is much like Grant and his total war and what it did for his career.

[OSUViking 505]

No it isnt their fault imo. At least not back then when the common cold could kill someone. If you were standing next to me in a train station and you have the common cold and I catch it, I am not going to be real mad about it. I will probably call you an asshole. Now if you did it with ebola I would probably think about killing you lol.

 

Back then though how is it the spaniards were supposed to know that their common cold could kill people. They all caught it and thought it was harmless. I somehow can not blame a people who the average education did not include a doctorate in microbiology. They were just as unaware as the indians.

 

Then this is just something that we differ on. We can drop this.

 

As to the diplomacy thing. It goes both ways because the Indians can not say that the animosity was completely undue. They did side with the French in the French and Indian war and were expert in lighting raids that killed many US settlers. People did not forget that so it is no wonder diplomacy failed. Had they decided to take arms with us against the French I see us being more malleable to their request. I am not saying it is handled perfect by us either but to deny their role in this is ridiculous and even more insulting to the history of our country.

 

They allied with the French because the French made an effort to work with the Indians. I'm sure they didn't have a perfect record with Indians, but the French were probably the best nation in terms of Indian relations. The British, on the other hand, were very violent to the natives from the start. This was partly because British colonists viewed this as inferior and that they had more right to the land than the Indians did. Hell... that's a big reason why diplomacy with them was never an option.

 

I think it directly effected his presidency. Had he not been a proponent of the Indian removal act he would not have been as polarizing as he was in his day. He was either loved or hated and it made some of his plans fall through and it made some pass just because of his stance as both.

 

He still shut down the Federal Bank based on the "fact" that it was unconstitutional, something that the Supreme Court had already disagreed with. He threatened to raze South Carolina to the ground because they wanted to enact their own tariffs. He constantly contradicted the Supreme Court's rulings, established a corrupt system that wouldn't be fixed until the later years of the century, and damn near pushed us over the edge over a fucking tariff. I can't say that he would even be a decent president without the Indian Removal Act.

 

Had it not been for a brilliant Victory at New Orleans he would not have commanded the respect of people as quickly as he did. It is much like Grant and his total war and what it did for his career.

 

While it was a brilliant victory in that I believe they were the underdogs, the victory meant nothing in the grand scheme of the war. He was a war hero, but also an awful president.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Ok so the fact that they were attacking settlements in Florida starting in December of 1835 gave them zero reason to retaliate in what was the second of the seminole wars. Do not act as if the indians were people who were innocent and had never wronged us who were just herded. They did not like that we were here either and were attacking men, women, and children and at one time wiped out over 400 Americans in a single raid. Nobody seems to cry about that.

 

They were attacking settlements in Florida in 1835 because the Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830 and now the US, having failed to get the Seminole to relocate peaceably, were coming down to remove them by force. The Seminole figured they had nothing left to lose. Two of the Nations had already been taken, and the Seminole figured if they opened outright military action, then maybe the Cherokee would join in. It was their only shot.

 

Or them attacking local militias and their supply lines. Had this been anyone but the indians that is an act of war and still is today. Would you stand for someone doing that today ?

 

In their eyes, Jackson had already initiated the war, by beginning to remove the Indian Nations despite their wishes to the contrary. The Seminole attacks were a response, not a first strike.

 

And If Washington and the government wanted this done, during Washington's tenure he definitely had the chutzpah to get it done 30 years before this was a problem.....Oh wait Washington had his run ins with the Indians as well. It is not as if he is some hero of the Indian people he did his fair share of foot to ass in the French and Indian War. And Abraham Lincoln ? At the age of 20 the president of the united states was supposed to take domestic policy from a 20 year old.

 

As I said, it was a long-term plan. Not something that could be done in eight years. It was working. The Indian Nations were slowly being assimilated- many of whom did not like that, by the way. I'm not at all saying Washingon's plan was "Indian friendly"- he was, after all, trying to absorb them and their culture into the US. But it was far far better than Jackson's plan, which was essentially, "You can either leave while we guard you along the way like you're prisoners of war, or we can throw you out. Your choice."

 

I wasn't suggesting that Jackson should take domestic policy advice from Lincoln. I am merely pointing out that many of the people we hold up as heroes were completely opposed to Jackson's policies and that there are very good reasons why.

 

The Indian Removal Act and what followed stands as a blot upon US history. America has done many great things, but to ignore the evil things we have done as well is unbecoming of someone who truly wishes to study history and learn from its mistakes as well as its successes.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Thanatos19

[SteVo+ 3,702]

[Thanatos 2,847]

We haven't even gone into the Cherokee's removal.

 

It was the worst of the four, in a sense, although the Seminole losing several thousand men was also awful, obviously. However, the Seminole at least engaged in open warfare, even if they were provoked. The Cherokee did not, and to the last, were attempting to get the act overturned legally. John Ross, one of their principal chiefs, took a petition to Washington personally to try to get Congress to overturn the act. He got 16,000 signatures on his petition- there were only 18,000 Cherokee in that particular area. Despite the fact that 90% of the Cherokee people- at least- did not agree to leave, the US congress ratified a deal made with the other 10% and then eventually forcibly removed those who did not comply.

 

Yes, it was Van Buren who actually ordered it, but it was Jackson's act that led to it.

 

The Treaty of New Echota was a treaty signed on December 29, 1835, in New Echota, Georgia by officials of the United States government and representatives of a minority Cherokee political faction, known as the Treaty Party. The treaty was amended and ratified by the US Senate in March 1836, despite protests from the Cherokee National Council and its lacking the signature of the Principal Chief John Ross.

 

The treaty established terms under which the entire Cherokee Nation was expected to cede its territory in the Southeast and move west to the Indian Territory. Although the treaty was not approved by the Cherokee National Council, it was ratified by the U.S. Senate and became the legal basis for the forcible removal known as the Trail of Tears.

 

The equivalent of this would be the Green Party ceding Louisiana back to the French or something. Still doesn't entirely fit, but its a good analogy. It was backdoor politics by the Americans, dealing with a small faction of Cherokee.

 

Even the "Treaty Party" weren't doing this because they wanted to, but because they felt that removal was inevitable and would come by force anyway, so they were trying to secure the best terms possible for the Cherokee people.

 

The final treaty that ended up removing the Cherokee initially had a clause that would allow some of them to stay, but this was taken out by order of Andrew Jackson.

 

The treaty, as unanimously approved by the contingent at New Echota then signed by the negotiating committee of twenty, included a clause to allow all Cherokee who so desired to remain and become citizens of the states in which they resided, on individual allotments of 160 acres of land, but that was stricken out by President Jackson.

 

This was a despicable move by Jackson and his administration. I honestly cannot understand how anyone could actually defend the act that led to the trail of tears.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Thanatos19

[Bucman 891]

I'm not convinced Washington even liked being president, he had to be begged to run for a 2nd term. He didn't really indulge himself in too much political stuff once becoming president either. He was a great war hero though.

 

I think Franklin D. Roosevelt deserves a lot of credit, he took over during the Great Depression and played a pretty big role in helping end it. He worked closely with guys like Winston Churchill during WW2.

 

I don't think any president dealt with more travesty during a tenure then him.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Bucman

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Here's my list...will provide reasoning later if I can find the time.

 

1) Abraham Lincoln

2) FDR

3) George Washington

4) Thomas Jefferson

5) Teddy Roosevelt

 

Honorable mentions (these guys would make the top 10 but couldn't quite crack the top 5): James K Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman.

[oochymp 2,393]

Man we should make this some sort of elimination thing where you have to argue for candidates if you voted for them lol.

 

Or at least criteria lol. I hate Clinton (Who is mystically beloved), and I like Jimmy Carter (who is almost unanimously hated). And looking at these lists I just think it would be fun to state your points for dissection.

a lot of them don't really need justification, do we really need everyone explaining why they like Washington? or Lincoln? the system we've got going is pretty good, somebody lists someone questionable, then someone else questions them on it, and it's really turning into one of the better threads

 

I'm not convinced Washington even liked being president, he had to be begged to run for a 2nd term. He didn't really indulge himself in too much political stuff once becoming president either. He was a great war hero though.

Washington had to be convinced to take on leadership every step of the way, doesn't mean he wasn't good at it, and a big part of the reason he didn't want to run for a second term (and refused to run for a third even though he would have won easily) was to avoid setting the precedent of holding the office for life

 

 

I think Franklin D. Roosevelt deserves a lot of credit, he took over during the Great Depression and played a pretty big role in helping end it. He worked closely with guys like Winston Churchill during WW2.

 

I don't think any president dealt with more travesty during a tenure then him.

he also served twice as long as anyone else, so yeah, he faced a lot more that aside, someone said this already but I'll say it again, FDR didn't end the depression, WWII did, and whoopty fucking doo he worked closely with our allies during a war, that was kinda his job, I give Eisenhower much more of the credit for leadership during WWII

[OSUViking 505]

he also served twice as long as anyone else, so yeah, he faced a lot more that aside, someone said this already but I'll say it again, FDR didn't end the depression, WWII did, and whoopty fucking doo he worked closely with our allies during a war, that was kinda his job, I give Eisenhower much more of the credit for leadership during WWII

 

World War 2 was definitely the catalyst that lifted us out of the depression; however, FDR's policies prior to 1939 had stopped the economic downturn, stabilized the banks, risen industrial production to 1929 levels by 1937, and lowered unemployment rates from 25% to just above 10%. It was not until he balanced the budget in 1938 that the economy started to slip down a hill once more. With that in mind, I won't deny that the War lifted us out of the Depression - I just think people too quickly jump to the conclusion that WW2 did it all and the New Deal didn't do anything.

 

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothysiegel/2011/04/01/the-truth-about-keynesian-economics-it-works/

 

And emphasis mine...

 

 

Finally, in 1932 Hoover ran an economically significant deficit, and that was the turn‑around year of the Great Depression. The stock market stopped going down and started going up. The economic contraction, which had been so destructive, began to grind to a halt and the stage was set for economic growth. Roosevelt continued the policy of deficit spending and by 1937 industrial production had regained its 1929 level. Unemployment, although still high, fell dramatically from 25% to just over 10%. The deficit spending from 1932 to 1937 stopped the horrific downward spiral that took place from October 1929 to July 1932. If that spiral had continued, as Mitchell’s ideas would have ensured, God only knows what the terrible consequences would have been. Thank goodness Hoover changed his mind and that Roosevelt continued the deficit spending policy. Sadly, Roosevelt decided to balance the budget in 1938, leading to a sharp economic decline. He had corrected this policy in 1939, but soon the huge fiscal event known as World War II swamped out all other effects. That deficit spending, on an enormous scale, definitively ended the Great Depression. It left us with a national debt proportionately larger than our current debt, and larger than the GDP, but we managed to work our way out of it without too much trouble.

 

 

EDIT: Had to fix a year.

Edited January 30, 2013 by Vikingfan465