Finally...

I'll give you this, Ryan... what you lack in frequency you make up for in volume.

Since we are in agreement on the insurance and Smith topics, and since your congrats on the job are much appreciated, all that is left to address is Jackson.

Ryan writes:

"But I would urge the case be based on their effectiveness as commander-in-chief, the overall success of their tenure and whether they helped to shape this nation in a positive direction. I would have no problem in your ranking Jackson low based on such a compilation. "

Can you not see that I am arguing exactly that? When following your criteria of basing my criticisms solely on Jackson's actions as the Chief Executive of the United States of America, how can I ignore his determination as the President to make the measurable and specific choice to ignore the arguments against the Indian Removal Act, which was a base abridgement of 47,000 American citizen's rights even by the standards of the day? He did that as President... the only man in the country to have to authority vested in him to stop such legislation... not as an individual citizen conducting his life and making his choices according to his own, private determination of right and wrong.

I do not feel I am being intellectually dishonest when I say that arguing that Washington "should have done more to end slavery" or Lincoln "should have done more to secure women's suffrage" (and I know that you were only trying to give examples... not making the arguments yourself) is to argue from an intellectually dishonest position. These men did great things during their lives, and all those things were done for the benefit of all Americans, in one way or another, both then and into the future (meaning now). Washington didn't institute slavery, he simply perpetuated the status quo while working to secure the nation a degree of freedom that would, one day, allow ALL men to be truly free and equal. Lincoln didn't deny women the right to vote, he simply felt it was an issue to be determined by the States (with Wyoming becoming the first State to allow women to vote in 1869), and concentrated his efforts on maintaining the Union during its time of greatest trial.

I assert that Jackson KNEW that he was depriving 47,000 people of the rights, freedoms and property that they were entitled to by ratified US treaties, but supported the measure anyway (the reasons for his support are irrelevant, it only matters what he did). This is a course of action he took as President, and one that I feel reflects on the legacy and history of the Office of President in a negative manner... enough so that perhaps we could find better candidates for a face on our currency.

I realize that Jackson wasn't the only President to support Indian removal to west of the Mississippi... it had been the de facto policy of government since Jefferson's administration and the Louisiana Purchase. Why didn't those Presidents before Jackson make it the law of the land and aggressively pursue the policy prior to 1830? Should I hold them accountable in the same manner as I do Jackson?

I feel we measure our past leaders by their actions and efforts, and by the fruits of their policies and programs... and not by judging the "what ifs" that we can never fully understand, no matter how hard we try. That being the case, then I can always point to Jefferson, Madison, Quincy Adams, etc and say they did NOT institute Indian removal, and thus are better qualified (at least in that area of debate) for an honored place on our currency than Jackson is.

We can close this now, if you wish. Agreeing to disagree is a time honored tradition here at the Bund, and this isn't likely to be the type of debate where one of us wins and the other loses. If you feel that Jackson is among the five Greatest Presidents to have held the office (there being only five Presidents on our currency in general circulation), or that his achievements surpass those of Franklin or Hamilton, then there isn't much I can do to change your mind. I have presented my case, and am content with the evidence I have provided. I can't deny that Jackson did great things... I have always been a fan of his military career, especially... but I feel his good deeds do not outweigh his failures, few as those may be.