I knew we couldn't have this kind of discussion here...

Ryan, I never said I thought Jackson was a "war criminal" or put him on par with Karadzic, or Saddam, or Hitler or any other genocidal maniac you care to list.

I never mentioned Washington at all, for a very specific reason... he never apologized for his position and opinion concerning race. He made it abundantly clear that, both before his Presidency and after, that there was no "equality" in his eyes between a black man and a white man. I am forced to assume he felt the same about Indians. I do not say this is pardonable behavior based on today's moral standards, but he was basing his opinion, actions and stated position on a cultural and personal standard that offered him no moral dilema.

I mentioned Jefferson because he openly admitted the incongruity of his advocating abolition while keeping a plantation full of slaves. This tells me that he knew and understood the immorality of keeping slaves, even in a society where the importing, selling, buying and employing slave labor was the status quo.

That is the fundamental difference between the two examples from our past. One understood the institution of slavery and society's open racism as WRONG, while the other saw it as the natural order of things, as he understood them to be.

Now, to make sure there are no more misunderstandings, I will say (again) that I feel Jackson was also aware of the contradiction inherent in his position on both slavery AND Indian removal. Jackson owned slaves, and owned them outright at his death, so he could have freed them on his deathbed... but he didn't. However, witnesses to his last words all agree that he apologized for the "state of servility" that he kept them in. We do not apologize for things we feel are not "wrong" do we? His adopted son, Linkoya, was a Creek Indian. How could he raise the child from infancy to adulthood and NOT recognize the humanity inherent in the person? Of course he recognized it, and that is why the boys death as a young man affected Jackson so deeply. The boy died just a few years before the Indian Removal Act was signed into law.

Now that I have said all this (again), I am forced to repeat that I DID NOT ADVOCATE his removal from the $20 bill... I simply asked if his place on our national currency was questionable if we agreed there was a degree of culpability in his actions and policies regarding Indian removal. It would seem that both Ryan and Jambo agree that his actions as President were morally questionable (at least), and that the responsibility for any injury or loss resulting from his actions and policies are his to bear. He can't answer in person, but I do feel his "legacy" should reflect his actions. I was simply putting forth the question of how that "reflection" should be achieved.

Now, were I to be a complete ass, I could extrapolate Ryan's sentiments and his misreading of my post and go so far as to suggest that, were some future Secretary of the Treasury suggest William J. Clinton as a good candidate for a spot on our currency, he couldn't be condemned for the suggestion lest any cloud of doubt be cast on contemporary views of America's past Presidents. Perhaps that is why Richard M. Nixon isn't gracing our currency, even though I am utterly convinced that the man truly did have what he considered "America's best interests" at heart (as misguided as that may sound), and even I can look at some of his White House policies and applaud them as 100% "right".

And lastly, even if I HAD said I thought he should be taken off the $20, I could easily (EASILY) give you reason why without ever mentioning slavery OR the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Say what you will, but I do not place Jackson in the same catagory of "great" Presidents as Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson... or even among "great" Americans as Franklin or Hamilton. Have we forgotten that he fought, tooth and nail... even going so far as to refute the Supreme Court... to DESTROY the national bank and keep American currency a State matter? Does anyone here actually think he would have SUPPORTTED the Federal Reserve's ability to print money on demand?

Please...

So, Ryan thinks Titus is a whacko, liberal, politically-correct idiot (AGAIN) simply because I raise a question about moral and ethical relativism... not because I accuse anyone of doing it, or that there is any evidence of my doing it. I was simply trying to get everyone elses point of view on a topic I thought interesting.

Won't happen again.