The term is "devil's advocate"...

Ryan writes: "I think Jambo described Jackson accurately: "A giant in American history and politics." Only our giants get on the currency."

As I said, I (personally) don't feel that Jackson is on the same level of "greatness" as Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Green, Knox, or many other of our "founders", and there are many other Presidents that I feel did more as CIC than Jackson did... and I'll even include Reagan among them.

(On a side note, there is a bill before Congress now to replace Grant with Reagan as the face that graces the $50 bill... and Grant's record with Indians is part of the reasoning. Seems the GOP Reps and Senators who authored the bill feel that Grant wasn't "great" enough as President, even if he was as a General of the Army)

However, the quote you made of my previous post was simply my way of asking a "devil's advocate" question. Yes, I know there are Indian and indigenous groups that decry any celebration of Columbus... and Columbus did some bad things, I'm sure... but because he brought a contagion with him (smallpox) that eventually resulted in the deaths of millions of natives, I'm not sure you can compare him with Hitler or other criminals. The bringing of smallpox was unintentional... just like the bringing of 8 pigs within the holds of the Santa Maria also resulted in the current plague of wild boar that is breaking out across much of the country. Is Columbus responsible for that crime as well?

You can take such silly assumptions too far no matter what the discussion. When I speak of the "crime" of the Indian Removal Act, I do not speak of it as if it is something that can be corrected. Sometimes things happen that can't be changed... and when innocents die, nothing can bring them back, no matter how much someone wants it to be so. The land won't be returned, the dead won't be brought back, and no more money than has already been awarded will be given to the descendants of those who suffered. I speak of the "crime" as something that has a degree of culpability that hasn't been addressed by American history to date (again, as "devil's advocate") with ay real seriousness.

Jambo pointed out that the Jacksonian Era is the only "period" of American history named after a President, and that era is represented by a concerted effort to keep Federal authority within a limited scope and a focus on the rights and freedoms of the individual citizen as the "true" and ultimate authority in America. Perhaps at no other time, before or since, has the Government maintained such a focus, and that is a worthy characteristic of Jackson's legacy. But did his efforts as President change or develop the nation in some fundamental way that would compare with the Presidencies of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln or Adams? Did he fight to preserve our nation in the same manner as Lincoln, Roosevelt or Truman? (Actually, a good argument can be made that he did, indeed, preserve the Union for another 20 odd years...)

Where I agree that Jackson was "great" is in the fact that he wasn't simply maintaining the status quo. He fought to change what he felt wasn't working, and defended what he felt was vital and necessary. His contributions outside of his time as President are also important, and as a Major General of the Militia, he truly does rank as a giant. His ability to organize, lead and inspire men to achieve great things sets him well apart from most other leaders, both in his day and across the years.

I guess my point is that I feel Carl Sagan was right when he said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and I feel that Jackson's claim to greatness must include a real and rational defense of his participation and support for something as questionable and controversial as the Indian Removal Act, even when measured by the standards of the 1830's.

Washington was a "great" leader, both before, during and after his Presidency, without having any particularly questionable actions to have to defend because they were outside of the norms dictated by society (then rather than now... something we both agree on I think). He defined the office of President and the Executive Branch, he almost single-handedly led the revolution to victory, and he proved to be a model statesman by remaining completely anti-partisan his entire political and post-political career.

Lincoln did what perhaps no other man (let alone politician) could have done when he managed to preserve the Union though 4 years of the bloodiest warfare that the country had seen, before or since, and provided the groundwork for the reconciliation between the States (I do not blame him for Reconstruction's failings). Add to this the fact that he gave his very life in the effort, and I think you see why I feel Lincoln ranks as #2 on my Great Presidents list.

Neither of these examples has anything remotely close to the "stain" on their reputation that Jackson has, and I feel there are other Presidents and political figures in our history that also did great things in extraordinary times under difficult circumstances that don't have the same "stain" that Jackson has... that is my point in "questioning" the placement of Jackson amongst the greatest of Presidents.

Am I wrong? Am I suddenly a revisionist for saying this? Am I being morally ambiguous? Or am I being too particular in my criteria for greatness?