Andrew Jackson, Black American Slavery, and the Trail of Tears

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-138
Author(s):  
Earnest N. Bracey ◽  

Many revisionist historians today try to make the late President Andrew Jackson out to be something that he was not—that is, a man of all the people. In our uninhibited, polarized culture, the truth should mean something. Therefore, studying the character of someone like Andrew Jackson should be fully investigated, and researched, as this work attempts to do. Indeed, this article tells us that we should not accept lies and conspiracy theories as the truth. Such revisionist history comes into sharp focus in Bradley J. Birzer’s latest book, In Defense of Andrew Jackson. Indeed, his (selective) efforts are surprisingly wrong, as he tries to give alternative explanations for Jackson’s corrupt life and political malfeasance. Hence, the lawlessness of Andrew Jackson cannot be ignored or “white washed” from American history. More important, discrediting the objective truth about Andrew Jackson, and his blatant misuse of executive power as the U.S. President should never be dismissed, like his awful treatment of Blacks and other minorities in the United States. It should have been important to Birzer to get his story right about Andrew Jackson, with a more balanced approach in regards to the man. Finally, Jackson should have tried to eliminate Black slavery in his life time, not embrace it, based on the ideas of human dignity and our common humanity. To be brutally honest, it is one thing to disagree with Andrew Jackson; but it is quite another to feel that he, as President of the United States, was on the side of all the American people during his time, because it was not true. Perhaps the biggest question is: Could Andrew Jackson have made a positive difference for every American, even Black slaves and Native Americans?

2021 ◽  
Vol VI (III) ◽  
pp. 59-71
Author(s):  
Muhammad Nadeem Mirza ◽  
Lubna Abid Ali ◽  
Irfan Hasnain Qaisrani

This study intends to explore the rise of Donald Trump to the White House. Why was Donald Trump considered a populist leader, and how did his populist rhetoric and actions impact the contours of American domestic and foreign policies? The study adopted qualitative exploratory and explanatory research techniques. Specific methods utilised to conduct the study remained political personality profiling. It finds that the populist leaders construct the binaries in the society by dividing the nation into two groups: �us� the people, against �them� the corrupt elite or other groups presented as a threat to the lives and livelihood of the nation. Though populism as a unique brand of politics remained active through most of the US history, yet these were only two occasions that populists were successful in winning the American presidential elections � Andrew Jackson in 1828 and Donald Trump in 2016. Structural and historical reasons became the biggest cause behind the election of Donald Trump, who successfully brought a revolution in American domestic and foreign policies. And if structural issues in the United States are not addressed, there is a clear chance that Trump � who is not withering away � will come back to contest and challenge any competitors in the 2024 presidential elections.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1952 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 348-354
Author(s):  
PAUL B. MAGNUSON

When I received your kind invitation to give the annual Trimble lecture, I wrote Dr. Compton that I had several pretty sound medical papers worked up on the causes of pain in the lower back—I've been working in that field for more than 40 years—but that the ladies might be much more interested in some information on the President's Commission on the Health Needs of the Nation. So, in deference to the ladies, I am going to talk about the latter topic. Last November, without a word of warning I got a call from the White House that the President of the United States wanted to see me. I took the train from Chicago that night, and the next morning met with the President. The President laid the cards right on the table. He said he was deeply concerned with the health of the American people in these trying days of all-out-mobilization. He said he had made certain proposals to bring more and better medical care to the people, but these proposals had precipitated an emotional argument which clouded the issue. The President said he was not necessarily committed to any one plan—if any group could come up with a better series of proposals than the ones he advocated, he would be the first to support them if they would insure better health for all the people. For that reason, he said, he had decided after long deliberation to set up a Presidential Commission to get at the facts. He offered me the chairmanship, and promised me an absolutely free hand in choosing the members of the Commission.


2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Opal

This essay examines the development of Andrew Jackson's ideas about nationalism, citizenship, and sovereignty within the southern borderlands of the post-Revolutionary United States. It argues that he was in many respects a conventional borderlands leader—that is, someone with little sense of attachment to any particular polity, who speculated in Indian lands while pursuing commercial ventures through American, Spanish, and Native jurisdictions. But an especially devastating war between the settlers of Middle Tennessee and some Cherokee warriors during the 1790s forced Jackson and others to articulate their attachment to the United States in new ways. Bitterly rejecting a Federalist model of citizenship that assumed clear territorial limits, they invented a new “protection covenant,” whereby the people themselves, imagined within a brutal state of nature, retained full sovereignty to deploy violence. In addition to a fresh look at Jackson, the article demonstrates the importance of international as well as Constitutional law in the formation of early American nationalism.


Author(s):  
Neni Nurkhamidah ◽  
Raihana Ziani Fahira ◽  
Ayu Ratna Ningtyas

The inaugural speeches mark the beginning of a new term in office for a community or government leader, such as the president. This reaction must persuade the people to believe in the government and the programs will be enacted. This research aims at finding the rhetorical appeals of President Joe Biden's inaugural address on his inauguration as the 46th President of the United States. The research is based on Aristotle's theory called a rhetorical theory. The resercher employs descriptive qualitative as a methodology to analyze the data from the spoken utterances of the speech. The result shows that Joe Biden uses all of the Aristotelian rhetoric strategies in his inaugural address, which are: ethos, pathos, and logos. The data shows that Joe Biden uses pathos as 55% of his speech, followed by ethos 37%, and logos 8%.. Joe Biden skillfully used and implied Aristotle's rhetorical theory in his inauguration address to engage and build trust with the American people. From the analysis, the researcher has concluded that a good speaker can use all of the three elements of the rhetorical theory and imply them in the speech or writing.


1998 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. vii-xvi ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Dobles ◽  
Jose Antonio Segarra

When the writers and producers of the NBC television series Seinfeld, including Jerry Seinfeld himself, decided to burn the Puerto Rican flag on national television, they performed a great service for the Puerto Rican people. Albeit unwittingly, this singular event reminded Puerto Ricans of how poorly we are regarded in the American psyche. Puerto Ricans everywhere were forced to ask themselves, would the people of Seinfeld and NBC dare burn any flag other than the Puerto Rican flag? That act, committed presumably in the interest of humor, only poured salt on a hundred-year-old wound. Since October 18, 1898, the day the United States raised its flag on the island of Puerto Rico, Puerto Ricans and their flag have been little more than a joke and an occasional nuisance to the American people.


1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 24-24

The House Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education is considering S. 1781, the Native American Language Act. Introduced in the Senate by Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, the legislation would establish a policy for the United States to preserve, protect and promote the rights of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages. The legislation was developed from a resolution adopted by the Native American Languages Issues Institute and builds on the principle that initiative for developing and implementing native language come from the people who speak their native language.


2007 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Paulet

In a Brule Sioux legend, Iktome, the trickster, warns the various Plains tribes of the coming of the white man: “You are the Ikche-Wichasha—the plain, wild, untamed people,” he tells the Lakota, “but this man will misname you and call you by all kinds of false names. He will try to tame you, try to remake you after himself.” Iktome, in essence, describes the conflict that occurred when American Indians encountered Euro-Americans, who judged the Indians in relation to themselves and found the Indians lacking. Having already misnamed the people “Indians,” Euro-Americans proceeded to label them, among other things, “savages.” By the latter half of the nineteenth-century, such terms carried scientific meaning and seemed to propose to Americans that Native Americans, having “failed to measure up” to the standards of white society, were doomed to extinction unless they changed their ways, unless they were “remade.” And that was, indeed, the aim of American endeavors at Native American education, to remake or, in the words of Carlisle president Richard H. Pratt, “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.” These educational efforts at restructuring Native American lifestyles were more than the culmination of the battle over definitional control; they were precedents for future American imperial expansion as the United States discovered, at the turn of the century, that “Indians” also lived overseas and that, just like those at home, they needed to be properly educated in the American way of life. The United States' experience with American Indians thus provided both justification for overseas expansion, particularly into the Philippine Islands, and an educational precedent that would enable Americans to claim that their expansion was different from European imperialism based on the American use of education to transform the cultures of their subjects and prepare them for self-government rather than continued colonial control.


Author(s):  
Takis S. Pappas

Based on an original definition of modern populism as “democratic illiberalism” and many years of meticulous research, Takis Pappas marshals extraordinary empirical evidence from Argentina, Greece, Peru, Italy, Venezuela, Ecuador, Hungary, the United States, Spain, and Brazil to develop a comprehensive theory about populism. He addresses all key issues in the debate about populism and answers significant questions of great relevance for today’s liberal democracy, including: • What is modern populism and how can it be differentiated from comparable phenomena like nativism and autocracy? • Where in Latin America has populism become most successful? Where in Europe did it emerge first? Why did its rise to power in the United States come so late? • Is Trump a populist and, if so, could he be compared best with Venezuela’s Chávez, France’s Le Pens, or Turkey’s Erdoğan? • Why has populism thrived in post-authoritarian Greece but not in Spain? And why in Argentina and not in Brazil? • Can populism ever succeed without a charismatic leader? If not, what does leadership tell us about how to challenge populism? • Who are “the people” who vote for populist parties, how are these “made” into a group, and what is in their minds? • Is there a “populist blueprint” that all populists use when in power? And what are the long-term consequences of populist rule? • What does the expansion, and possibly solidification, of populism mean for the very nature and future of contemporary democracy? Populism and Liberal Democracy will change the ways the reader understands populism and imagines the prospects of liberal democracy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document