M. Porcius Cato Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 A popular and victorious general, charged with illegal behavior for his war activities and opposed by a Senate united against him... sound familiar? It should--it's Andrew Jackson, the second founder of the American Democratic Party. Great article here. To think this bastard worked for a (diminuitive) titan like James Madison... unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 I have to say how much I enjoyed that article . I put it all down to bad digestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 AJ's birthplace was about 20 minutes from my childhood home. It's off of US 521 right outside Waxhaw, N.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Yes, a harbinger of today's government's extra-legal and extra-constitutional actions. All children of perfidy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Thanks for that article, Cato. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't like saying this, and all other things aside, the Guantanamo prisoners are not U.S. 'persons', and thus not entitled to any Constitutional protection. Their leaders declared war on the entire non-Moslem world. I don't think that the Geneva conventions apply to them either, as they were not in uniform and could have been executed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus of Seleucia Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 I don't like saying this, and all other things aside, the Guantanamo prisoners are not U.S. 'persons', and thus not entitled to any Constitutional protection. Their leaders declared war on the entire non-Moslem world. I don't think that the Geneva conventions apply to them either, as they were not in uniform and could have been executed. Took the words right out of my mouth- sentiments dittoed exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus of Seleucia Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Yes, a harbinger of today's government's extra-legal and extra-constitutional actions. All children of perfidy. If I understand what you're saying, I must object that he is the sole perpatrator. Take for instance Mr. Polk and his little Mexican expansionist war. His actions involving use of presidential powers to go to war before congress even declared it can be proven with something such as Mr. Bush's little Iraq war. You could even say Mr. Monroe started presidential lazyness. He didn't even write the Monroe Doctrine! [/sarcasm] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 Yes, a harbinger of today's government's extra-legal and extra-constitutional actions. If I understand what you're saying, I must object that he is the sole perpatrator. Take for instance Mr. Polk and his little Mexican expansionist war. I don't think you've understood GO correctly. He claimed that Jackson was a "harbinger"--i.e., a forerunner, not a 'sole perpetrator'. Also, so far as I know, nothing that Bush has done comes even close to declaring martial law in the US, arresting American legislators and judges, and threatening judges with mob violence. Jackson did all those--and was popular for it. Bush's behavior has been of merely questionable legality (e.g., with respect to Jose Padilla)--and the man is politically toxic. To me, it looks like the country has grown more sophisticated about these sorts of things, not less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 AoS, when was the last time the U.S. Congress exercised or defended it's Constitutional obligation to declare war? Who was the last president to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution'? But, Pres. Clinton was impeached because he obfuscated about an affair that was neither illegal nor any of that garbage's business. Questions that no one had a right to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted January 27, 2007 Report Share Posted January 27, 2007 I think this thread is quickly evolving out of the realm of historical debate and into the realm of polemics on current events. If it continues it will have to be moved to the AfterHours forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia C Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Jackson was a scumbag on the edge of treason. He was foul-tempered and allowed personal grudges to enter into his presidential decisions. His entire ill-advised crusade against the Bank of the United States was based on a hatred he had conceived for Henry Clay. His racist dislike of the native Americans was what prompted him to ignore a ruling by the Supreme Court and perpetrate the genocidal deed known as the Indian Removal Act. He ignored John Marshall's order to cease the deportation of the Cherokee because he had conceived a dislike of the Federalists, and Marshall was the last remaining Federalist. Jackson is a thoroughly dispicable character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.