This morning, President and Bigly Popular Vote Loser Donald Trump continued to talk up how his campaign and his presidency compare to Andrew Jackson. Praising Jackson’s presidency, he highlighted the similarities in a nasty campaign, and then noted maybe there wouldn’t have been a civil war. Maybe, in fact, a compromise was possible.
Trump, who said that Andrew Jackson was unhappy with the civil war — something that occured 15 years after his death — never really provided a standard by which he and Andrew Jackson should really be judged, except the fact that Andrew Jackson and described himself as “a fan”
thehill.com/...
Trump said his visit to The Hermitage was "inspirational" and that he is "a fan."
We sometimes build up our own heroes based on past perceptions. Trump embracing Andrew Jackson though does have a creepy parallel — Jackson’s 1830 Indian Removal Act, and Trump’s intent to create a Muslim ban.
Jeremiah Evarts, a Christian Minster and fierce opponent of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, argued that the American “soul” was at stake, that the treatment aimed at Native Americans was unfit and immoral. He argued that such efforts were harmful for the native population and would result in no good outcome.
President Jackson argued differently: (Jackson to John Pitchlynn, 1830)
“I beg of you to say to them, that their interest happiness peace & prosperity depends upon their removal beyond the jurisdiction of the laws of the State of Mississippi. These things have been [often times] explained to them fully and I forbear to repeat them; but request that you make known to them that Congress to enable them to remove & comfortably to arrange themselves at their new homes has made liberal appropriations. It was a measure I had much at heart & sought to effect because I was satisfied that the Indians could not possibly live under the laws of the States. If now they shall refuse to accept the liberal terms offered, they only must be liable for whatever evils & dificulties may arise. I feel conscious of having done my duty to my red children and if any failure of my good intention arises, it will be attributable to their want of duty to themselves, not to me."
Sound at all familiar?
To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.
There are false reports, both contend; President Jackson argued with Evart and others who had argued that the journey would be difficult and costly. Trump argues that despite others, it is not a ban on Muslims. Both, in the end, blame the group in question for not accepting the terms that protect America and supposedly themselves.
How, exactly did it work out for Andrew Jackson?
Trump’s continued comparisons to Andrew Jackson are designed to align him with Jackson’s status as the only president to pay off the debt — forgetting the result that followed wasn’t so good. Instead, the best comparisons may be Jackson’s commitment to expanding the presidency through patronage and commitment to view others in racist means.
I guess it’s OK. From Trump’s position, I suppose there are things you can accomplish from the grave.