Will Trump Be An Andrew Jackson In The 21st Century?
Posted by freedomforall 4 days, 20 hours ago to Politics
Excerpt:
"For an illuminating comparison, let’s return to the year 1824. Andrew Jackson ran for president and won a plurality of the popular and electoral votes. But he did not get the majority. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which produced a surprising result: John Quincy Adams became president thanks to the support of Henry Clay who was promised the position of Secretary of State.
That sense of being robbed of the presidency festered deeply among Jackson’s fan base and he came back four years later, more fired up than ever. The election of 1828 was utterly sweeping. He ran an unapologetic populist campaign against the national bank and corrupt insiders in Washington. The turnout broke all records, and so did the results. Jackson won by a landslide, securing 178 electoral votes against John Adams’ 83.
With this mandate, Jackson and his followers utterly destabilized Washington, firing vast numbers of executive bureaucrats who were considered disloyal, and fought the national bank while pushing for gold and silver as money. His hiring of loyalists to top positions was decried as the “spoils system” that was ended fully by the Progressive Era, which amounted to a revenge of the professional bureaucrats.
The policies he pursued–keeping the government mostly constrained by the Constitution, keeping the peoples’ interests front and center, and devolving power to the states–prepared the ground for the United States to rise from a small post-colonial outpost to the world’s greatest economic and military power by century’s end."
"For an illuminating comparison, let’s return to the year 1824. Andrew Jackson ran for president and won a plurality of the popular and electoral votes. But he did not get the majority. The election was thrown to the House of Representatives, which produced a surprising result: John Quincy Adams became president thanks to the support of Henry Clay who was promised the position of Secretary of State.
That sense of being robbed of the presidency festered deeply among Jackson’s fan base and he came back four years later, more fired up than ever. The election of 1828 was utterly sweeping. He ran an unapologetic populist campaign against the national bank and corrupt insiders in Washington. The turnout broke all records, and so did the results. Jackson won by a landslide, securing 178 electoral votes against John Adams’ 83.
With this mandate, Jackson and his followers utterly destabilized Washington, firing vast numbers of executive bureaucrats who were considered disloyal, and fought the national bank while pushing for gold and silver as money. His hiring of loyalists to top positions was decried as the “spoils system” that was ended fully by the Progressive Era, which amounted to a revenge of the professional bureaucrats.
The policies he pursued–keeping the government mostly constrained by the Constitution, keeping the peoples’ interests front and center, and devolving power to the states–prepared the ground for the United States to rise from a small post-colonial outpost to the world’s greatest economic and military power by century’s end."
(I have ancestors related to both Chief McGillivray and Chief LeFlore, thus my interest and edification!)
It is a fact that Andrew Jackson was steadfastly against the idea of paper money.
So I speculated that those who put his image on the twenty dollar bill were laughing their butts off.
It's the law, enshrined in our Constitution.
Andrew Jackson was also adamant against a Central Bank!
For that, he was targeted for assassination.
Abraham Lincoln printed our our coin and was assassinated for it.
John Kennedy printed silver certificates circumventing the FED, for that he was assassinated for it.
Notice a pattern here?
A Central Bank, run by foreigners, creating money out of nothing, is bleeding our nation to death by inflation.
Anyone and everyone who has tried to stop them is targeted for death.
End The FED Our very existence as a sovereign nation is at stake
"may remain recognizable for half a million years."
Probably also true of the monument on Stone Mountain GA (which is much larger than Rushmore.)
That assumes the black-racists who protest history as white-racist don't destroy the monument first.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
"...the final treaty of peace had left Spain in possession of the two Floridas and the Creek towns within the territory of the United States. Thereupon he composed his well known letter30 of January 1, 1784, to Governor O'Neill, protesting against the treaty on the ground that the Creek were a free people," and that the king of England had no right to cede their territory to the United States or any other power. In the name of the Creek nation he asked the protection of His Catholic Majesty for the protection of their persons and lands: "We have the right to choose our protector, and we do not see anyone who answers our purposes better than the Sovereign of the two Floridas." He next proceeded to demonstrate the necessity of Spain's attaching the Southern Indians to her interests. This he did by warning O'Neill that many Americans were crossing the mountains and settling on the Mississippi, where "they propose establishing what they call the Western Independence. ... If they once form settlements on the Mississippi, it will require much time, trouble and expense to dislodge them."
From "Alexander McGillivray: 1783 to 1789" academic article in the journal "The North Carolina Historical Review, by Arthur Preston Whitaker, April 1928.
Another good academic article is "Alexander McGillivray, The Creek Chief", by A. W. Putnam, in The American Historical Magazine, October, 1899.
Chief McGillivray was known to the colonists and early Americans as "the Talleyrand of North America"; he fought with the British against the patriots in the War of Revolution, and many early Americans who wanted to move West were in touch with him.
Later I will explain the Trail of Tears, and Chief Greenwood LeFlore's contribution. He asked that the removal take place later than originally planned, and was in touch quite often with this agency of the U.S. government, which I believe was set up to make sure funds allocated for the removal were used correctly and appropriately.
"United States Congress, Senate, Document No.512, Twenty-third Congress, first session, 1833. Five-volumes. ' These five volumes contain the ·correspondence between the members of the Five Civilized Tribes and the United States government from November 30, 1831, and December 27, 1833. This is a valuable source for information concerning removal. Most of the material concerning the Choctaws is contained in Volume III.
I found the above in a Master's Thesis submitted to the University of Oklahoma in 1967, by Nora Jeanne Shackleford.
(Talleyrand: known for crafty and cynical diplomacy.)
Interesting side note: The Choctaws pride themselves on having never taken up arms against the United States.
Let me tell you something, though. I have never liked the idea of even dual citizenship, though my youngest daughter wanted me to apply (there was a lot to it, and expensive too), as my Dad's parents were immigrants from Italy. She wanted to be able to work in Europe, but after working in London for awhile, she changed her mind. I didn't want to in the first place, and then spent all that money (about $2,000) and she decided she didn't need it!
Some men in power with dual citizenship can find themselves in quite a quandary should 'dark forces' be liberated.
LOL