Andrew Jackson vs. Hitler.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Optimus_Prime_

Superhero
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
5,667
Reaction score
1
Points
31
Because the last thread was closed, but Matt said he was looking forward to having a discussion on the trail of tears, and this'll at least be a far different discussion from the last one. Also, Jackson is a President for whom I've read several biographies, and I find him fascinating.

So are they're similarities.

Yes there are.

First, during the time period in which Andrew Jackson was alive he was known as "King Andrew" amongst both his opponents and supporters. The first 'popularly elected President' that many saw as the first steps towards, at best, a gregarious monarchy ruled by the tyranny of the majority, and at worst, a fascist overlord who only ever read the Bible, and saw the world through a religious prism where he was the hero and the Indians and others were the enemy.

Sound familiar?

Hitler and Jackson share some other similarities as well. To some Hitler and Jackson were charming, tough and noble men, and to others they were bloodthirsty a**holes. The old story is Jackson walked with a cane, not because he needed it for walking but because he needed it for beating people.

Hitler is caught in that similar back and forth. Military genius or raving lunatic? Depends on who you ask.

But perhaps the eeriest similarity of all is Hitler studied Jackson. He studied the trail of tears, how the American military lied to Indians, rounded them up, moved them from temporary shelter to temporary shelter until all the old and infirm died off, then sent them poison supplies, blankets laced with smallpox. They forced them onto reservations were they would labor, mostly for the soldiers, who would take anything they would grow, horde their rations, starve them, rape them and beat them. Hitler studied all of this, apparently, and eventually Himmler, Goebbels and even Dr. Mengele put into practice things that had they read about into the annihilation of the Jews and other individuals.

Some might say Jackson was simply a mindless bureaucrat, who had some personal feelings of guilt and sympathy to those he hurt. Afterall, he adopted a Native. And perhaps from his desk in the [modern] White House he couldn't put into perspective what he was doing. But, perhaps the same could be said of Hitler, who made sure a Jewish doctor friend was safely out of the country by the time the holocaust was in full swing. Also, I'm sure, if asked both would claim those people were "one of the good ones", perhaps an exception in their minds, not the rule.

Perhaps the biggest difference is how they died. Jackson died comfortably, of old age, in a beautiful home, surrounded by his living family (whichever ones he didn't drive away with his constant drama). On his deathbed Jackson supposedly uttered "I wish to see all of you, yes all of you, white and black in Heaven". A very odd phrase to end the life of a supposedly racist and indignant man. Hitler died a coward. Committing suicide in a bunker, with no supposed deathbed conversion. In fact most statements from Hitler seem unapologetic, although Jackson too was once this way as well. However, at the end of the day, there is no gentle, loving confession of guilt surrounding the story of Hitler, none.

So both,


  • Engaged in mass extinction/emigration from their own homes and cities (Natives were not 'primitive' by the way, none of the 5 great tribes were).
  • Reached the highest office in the land by what many considered illegitimate means (at the time).
  • Both were rumored to be very "angry" people growing up. Both were rumored to be racist, and yet both had conflicted feelings towards certain individuals in those groups they were racist towards.
  • Hitler ripped off Jackson's strategy.
Some areas where they differ...



  • There's no real equivalent of the Nazi party with Jackson, at least not as well organized it doesn't seem. As well, there's no burning of the Reichstag (at least nothing comes to mind, someone may feel otherwise)
  • The story about Jackson's wife does make him seem more sympathetic.
  • I'm not sure I'd compare the economy under Hitler to the "economy" of Jackson. The country got out of debt under Jackson, the only time it ever has been, because they were stealing land. Yet it wasn't like the common American at the time had some awesome life. Certainly this has much to do with the technology of the era, but Jackson wasn't the domestic leader Hitler was, he also wasn't ambitious like Hitler was. He had no known plans to try to take over other sovereign nations other than those in his own country but maybe you'd say trying to conquer the west and kill off many sovereign Indian nations is not much different than Hitler's megalomania.
So how would you compare to two.


Absolutely the same?


A little different?


A lot different?


Both misunderstood? Or evil? Or both? and is one worse than the other?
 
I'm not sure why the other thread was closed....but this one doesn't exactly look much different.
 
Andrew Jackson, he was like the original Tea Party Candidate
 
I'm not sure why the other thread was closed....but this one doesn't exactly look much different.

Well Matt said he wanted a Trail of Tears discussion. I don't feel this is much of an unfair comparison, do you?

I really don't think we should feel afraid to discuss these topics and I don't feel anyone here advocates genocide or would kill people willingly, or advocate that, so this discussion seems like a legitimate discussion of comparative politics.
 
Elaborate on that. I can certainly understand where you're going though, he was definitely a creationist as well.

He hated the banking establishment and wanted to cut national debt at all costs(and actually did something about it in both cases)
 
He hated the banking establishment and wanted to cut national debt at all costs(and actually did something about it in both cases)
That's true, he did.

Which I guess is not similar to Hitler, because, if I am not mistaken, didn't Hitler basically establish a central bank?
 
I suppose if I had to pick one as being "less evil" it would be Jackson, only because I feel he was stupider than Hitler. Then again Hitler was a poor student who never applied himself in school, and some felt he was sort of a dipsh**. Jackson, however, was one of the few Presidents whose education was almost exclusively religious in nature. The Presidents before him; Madison, Monroe, Adams, Adams, Jefferson and Washington were all men of culture. People who had read the Quran, legal texts from other nations, had travelled the world better than 99.99999% of people back then. Jefferson even had, by all accounts, a somewhat working knowledge of evolution from examining rock formations in Asia. He would ask his guides why this sentiment layer was greater than that one, and began even some writings of geology.

So you went from very learned scholars, to basically some slack jawed yokel raised in the Church.

Also Jackson's wife died during his campaign. That probably made him really, really bitter. Had that not happened, maybe he would've stayed more 'cuddly' overall.
 
They were both pretty evil but I think Jackson killed far fewer people in his particular part of the Native American genocides, an ongoing process that extended through multiple presidencies and is a national travesty extended over far more years than the Third Reich, which killed literally millions in around a decade. Of course, percentage-wise, the numbers are much closer I'd think. For example, of the 15,000 Cherokee forced to move west 4,000 died, which is almost a third.
 
They were both pretty evil but I think Jackson killed far fewer people in his particular part of the Native American genocides, an ongoing process that extended through multiple presidencies and is a national travesty extended over far more years than the Third Reich, which killed literally millions in around a decade. Of course, percentage-wise, the numbers are much closer I'd think. For example, of the 15,000 Cherokee forced to move west 4,000 died, which is almost a third.
Truth. Jackson was not nearly as efficient, and as you say, the blame for the massacre of the Natives is spread out over several Presidents from many parties. I'm not sure that makes it less evil though. I guess they're all evil up until Eisenhower and Kennedy, which is when they started granting most Natives citizenship and basically all reservations became open.

One day I'd like to visit some of these reservations. I've visited many in the North when I was very small. Some still report, that at least on certain reservations, that situations are dire and the inhabitants still consider themselves at war to this day. Can't say I blame them.
 
Last edited:
Unless they are lucky enough to have a casino or oil rights (a tiny minority of the Native American population, despite what people seem to think/say whenever the subject is brought up), they are basically living in abject poverty right now on the reservations.
 
Unless they are lucky enough to have a casino or oil rights (a tiny minority of the Native American population, despite what people seem to think/say whenever the subject is brought up), they are basically living in abject poverty right now on the reservations.
The oil thing came later of course because oil wasn't as big of a deal back when they were placed on those reservations.

You're right though, they live in sh**, still. At least it's no longer at gunpoint...kind of.
 
If Andrew Jackson kills thousands of people in horrific ways...then sure...we can consider him on the level of Hitler. But until then...........
 
He wasn't the only one...we can go back farther than that.
So what?

Hitler was the only Nazi?

Hardly.

If you want to get technical Hitler never killed anyone [after World War I] personally. Yet Jackson actually killed Indians in person, just not while President.
 
They were both terrible people. But Hitler killed more people in a week than Jackson did in his lifetime.

To be fair, the Indians were trying to kill Jackson in the Indian Wars. I don't fault Hitler for shooting at French soldiers who shot at him.

But that doesn't excuse the stuff he did post-military to the Indians.
 
Jackson killed thousands. Hitler killed millions. As someone who is no fan of Jackson, they are on two completely different scales. It is like comparing a trip to the mall to a trip to the Moon.

Also, as bad as forced relocation is and as bad as the suffering that the Indians endured during the Trail of Tears was, it isn't the same as rounding them up into death camps and executing them all.
 
Last edited:
I think you can say is Germany is better at confronting the negative aspects of their history then a lot of other countries.

America, Russia, Japan, Turkey and many other countries seem more willing to gloss over the negative aspects of their history then Germany is.
 
Japan and Turkey take the cake.

At least America admits it did all the horrible things to the Indians. Americans just don't really care. But they'll at least admit it.

But every country has those moments. Look at how Australians treated their aborigines. And nobody seems to bring up Belgium anymore, which did things so bad to the Africans that European lodged complaints.
 
There are more than a few historians who will argue that the trail of tears was Jackson's attempt to be humane. Many historians believe that had Jackson not forced relocation, the death toll would've been even higher as it would've resulted in clashes between the settlers and the Native Americans which ultimately would've resulted in full on war and likely genocide of the Native American people (and that Jackson was very aware of this possibility).

I'm not saying that Jackson was a great guy, but it pisses me off that so many people are willing to give the likes of Jefferson a free pass for raping his slaves because he was a "product of his time," but Jackson is a monster to these same people.
 
Elaborate on that. I can certainly understand where you're going though, he was definitely a creationist as well.
I'd like you to please explain what the hell the bolded part means. Please.
 
Last edited:
There are more than a few historians who will argue that the trail of tears was Jackson's attempt to be humane. Many historians believe that had Jackson not forced relocation, the death toll would've been even higher as it would've resulted in clashes between the settlers and the Native Americans which ultimately would've resulted in full on war and likely genocide of the Native American people (and that Jackson was very aware of this possibility).

I'm not saying that Jackson was a great guy, but it pisses me off that so many people are willing to give the likes of Jefferson a free pass for raping his slaves because he was a "product of his time," but Jackson is a monster to these same people.

I doubt "full-out" war would break out in any greater amount than it already had, something the Cherokee apparently weathered if they were still around to be forcefully relocated. It was ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. If the solution to clashes with southern settlers was to send an entire people hundreds of miles to another place they had no idea about to make reservations that were on land that was considered worthless at the time and kill almost a third of them on this trip, then I'd say they would have been better off having a war.

If reservations work then they should have had reservations right where they were at and enforced the laws about people staying out of them. Jackson wanted that land for the rich white people who supported him.

And who is giving Jefferson a pass for raping his slaves? I have yet to see anyone giving him a pass on slave rape. If you want to discuss the positive aspects of Jackson as amelioration for the Trail of Tears go ahead, no one is stopping you from making that argument.

Kahran Ramsus said:
Jackson killed thousands. Hitler killed millions. As someone who is no fan of Jackson, they are on two completely different scales. It is like comparing a trip to the mall to a trip to the Moon.

Also, as bad as forced relocation is and as bad as the suffering that the Indians endured during the Trail of Tears was, it isn't the same as rounding them up into death camps and executing them all.

This is true but if you look at it percentage wise it was pretty bad. Ethnic cleansing is slightly better than genocide but it's still terrible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
200,432
Messages
21,724,268
Members
45,549
Latest member
misterkocher
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"