Showing posts with label Andrew Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Jackson. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

State by State, Democratic Party Is Erasing Ties to Jefferson and Jackson

State by State, Democratic Party Is Erasing Ties to Jefferson and Jackson - The New York Times
WASHINGTON — For nearly a century, Democrats have honored two men as the founders of their party: Thomas Jefferson, for his visionary expression of the concept of equality, and Andrew Jackson, for his populist spirit and elevation of the common man.
Political candidates and activists across the country have flocked to annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, where speeches are given, money is raised, and the party celebrates its past and its future.
But these time-honored rituals are colliding with a modern Democratic Party more energized by a desire for racial and gender inclusion than reverence for history. And state by state, Democratic activists are removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, saying the two men no longer represent what it means to be a Democrat.



The Iowa Democratic Party became the latest to do so last weekend, joining Georgia, Connecticut and Missouri. At least five other states are considering the same change since the massacre in June at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C.
“The vote today confirms that our party believes it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality,” said Andy McGuire, the Iowa Democratic chairwoman.
For all the attention this summer to the fight over the Confederate battle flag, the less noticed moves by Democratic parties to remove Jefferson and Jackson from their official identity underscore one of the most consequential trends of American politics: Democrats’ shift from a union-powered party organized primarily around economic solidarity to one shaped by racial and sexual identity.
The parallel forces of class and identity, at times in tension and at times in unison, have defined the Democratic Party in recent decades. But the country’s changing demographics, the diverse nature of President Obama’s coalition and the animating energy of the Black Lives Matter movement have also thrust fundamental questions about race, gender and economic equality to the center of the Democratic presidential race.
The shift can be seen as Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a Democratic socialist whose campaign is shaped by class-oriented progressive politics, has been confronted by black activists demanding answers for how he would address inequities they believe are derived entirely from racial discrimination. Mr. Sanders, who is 73, is trying to adjust to a changing party, sometimes uncomfortably. He is now speaking more explicitly about policing, has hired an African-American spokeswoman and has added more diversity on stage at his heavily attended rallies.
The move to erase Jefferson and Jackson is not being welcomed by all Democrats. Some of them fear the party loses what has long been its unifying philosophy by removing the names of founders, whose virtues and flaws illuminated the way forward. And they worry that as the labor movement declines, cultural liberalism is beginning to eclipse a fundamental message of economic equality that brought about some of the party’s most important achievements, from the New Deal to Medicaid.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

Democrats drop Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson names from annual fundraising dinner

  • Portrait of Thomas Jefferson - CIRCA 1901 (artist unidentified).
  • A portrait of Thomas Jefferson, shown left, circa 1901 (artist unidentified) and a
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are history in Connecticut.
Under pressure from the NAACP, the state Democratic Party will scrub the names of the two presidents from its annual fundraising dinner because of their ties to slavery.
Party leaders voted unanimously Wednesday night in Hartford to rename the Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner in the aftermath of last month’s fatal shooting of nine worshipers at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C.
The decision is believed to be unprecedented and could prompt Democrats in other states with similarly named events to follow suit.
“I see it as the right thing to do,” Nick Balletto, the party’s first-year chairman, told Hearst Connecticut Media on Wednesday night.
“I wasn’t looking to be a trailblazer or set off a trend that’s going to affect the rest of the country. Hopefully, they’ll follow suit when they see it’s the right thing to do.”
Take our poll: What should the new name be?
Democrats cited Jefferson and Jackson’s ownership of slaves as a key factor in the decision, as well as Jackson’s role in the removal of Native Americans from the southeastern U.S. in what was known as the Trail of Tears.
In 2005, the school board in the city of Berkeley, Calif., considered a measure to change the name of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School for similar reasons, but the moniker remains.
Scot X. Esdaile, the head of Connecticut’s NAACP, said it was high time for Democrats to rebrand the event.
“I would applaud the current leaders in Connecticut in making the symbolic first step and striving to right the wrongs of the past,” Esdaile said.
“You can’t right all the wrongs, but I think it’s a symbolic gesture of our support for their party.”
The decision immediately drew criticism from some historians as a politically correct overstep, including Robert Turner, a law professor at the University of Virginia, which was founded by Jefferson.
“It is a sad and short-sighted decision based upon tragic ignorance,” said Turner, who has written extensively about Jefferson’s legacy.
This December will mark the 150th anniversary of the enactment of the 13th Amendment of the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
“The authors of that amendment purposely chose language drafted by Jefferson in an unsuccessful effort to outlaw slavery in the Northwest Territories as a means of honoring Jefferson’s struggle against slavery,” Turner said.
“If (Democrats) understood Jefferson’s lifelong opposition to slavery, they would have reached a different conclusion.”
A new name for the event, which marked its 67th year in June with Massachusetts Sen.Elizabeth Warren as its headliner, will be chosen in the fall.
The event’s third namesake, John Bailey, who led the state party and then the Democratic National Committee under presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, will likely be preserved.
Balletto said blacks and Native Americans are a major constituency of the Democratic Party.
“When something offends someone, it’s beyond being politically correct,” Balletto said.
“It just causes a need for change.”
Balletto said Jefferson was a great founding father, but “had some issues.”
“You can’t change history, but you don’t have to honor it,” Balletto said.
neil.vigdor@scni.com; 203-625-4436; http://twitter.com/gettinviggy

Sunday, July 5, 2015

[OPINION] Keep Andrew Jackson on our $20 bills: Ryan Vallo

twenty dollars


The front of the U.S. $20 bill, featuring a likeness of Andrew Jackson, seventh President of the United States, in Boston. (AP Photo/Bill Sikes)

Andrew Jackson was the first American icon. So famous, so powerful was he that Jackson is the only person from our nation with an era named in his honor — the Age of Jackson. In 1833, New York's mayor, Philip Hone, explained, Jackson "is the most popular man we have ever known. ...Washington was only the first Jackson."

President Harry Truman admired Jackson because he was the first president to fight for average Americans, not the wealthy 1 percent. Truman wrote, Jackson "is destined to remain a commanding figure in our national life."

Now, 70 years later, Jackson's story is obscure despite his depiction on our world's most recognized currency.

Critics want Jackson removed from the $20 bill primarily because of Indian removal, but Indian removal's complicated story is not fully understood. There was greed, betrayal and bloodshed among whites and Indians.

Jackson adopted an Indian boy, so why did he condemn entire Indian nations to move to the west of the Mississippi River?

To understand, we must see things from the 19th-century perspective.

The 1830 Indian Removal Act made it legal for the federal government to negotiate treaties for the removal of the southeastern tribes (Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole). The British and the Spaniards would give Indians weapons to attack American settlers in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia and other states. For the U.S. government, Indian attacks became a matter of national security.

The law bears Jackson's name, but Indian removal was not his idea. For that we can thank our revered Founding Father Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson believed the United States was destined to stretch across the continent, but Indians inhabited that land. Jefferson "encouraged" Indians to "abandon hunting."
"If they become farmers, they will settle, stop hunting and ... become civilized," he wrote. "This will be "better than ... their former way of living. I trust and believe we are acting for their greatest good."

In 1803, after the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson actually wrote Andrew Jackson about Indian removal, saying, "Louisiana ... will open an asylum for these unhappy people [the Indians], in a country which may suit their habits of life better than what they now occupy, which perhaps they will be willing to exchange with us." So wrote the man who penned, "all men are created equal."

Some tribes assimilated; others resisted. Jefferson came to believe assimilation futile. He believed relocating the Indians to a new territory, where their culture could be preserved, was the only realistic solution for Indians and whites to live peacefully. It was segregation, not genocide, as some have alleged.

Indians were faced with a dilemma: remain on their "fathers' lands" but become as the "white man," or move west and retain their culture. Indians could not agree, and rather than uniting against the white man, they fought among themselves.

Factions of radical Indians were furious — and justly — about treaty promises broken by the United States. "Hostile Indians" turned to violence, killing anyone who was an American. In May 1814, a Washington, D.C., newspaper, The National Intelligencer, wrote that hostile Indians were driven by "blind fanaticism" to attack innocent Americans.
Whites murdered Indians; Indians murdered whites. Revenge. Anger. The cycle continued, blood for blood.

White settlers moving into Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia squatted illegally on Indians' lands, but Jackson could not have sent U.S. troops to protect the Indians. White soldiers would have fought the Indians alongside white settlers.
The Cherokees' removal was managed dreadfully. Congress passed the bill, but failed to allocate appropriate funds. Worse, white U.S. troops' harsh treatment of the Cherokees caused horrific death. A soldier recalled: "I fought through the Civil War and have seen men shot to pieces, slaughtered ... but the Cherokee removal was the cruelest work I ever done."
Weeks before Jackson died in 1845, he asked the Rev. John Edgar, "What do you think posterity will blame me for most?" Indian removal did not surface in their conversation. 
The sad truth was that the majority of Americans wanted the Indians gone. In fact, Jackson was re-elected in 1832 — after the Indian Removal Act became law — by a larger percentage of the population than re-elected President Barack Obama after passage of the Affordable Care Act.

While grappling with our social issues today, we should not distance ourselves from our forefathers' errors, but rather learn from them. Had tolerance prevailed, whites and Indians would have shared traditions, learned from one another and grown together.
Jackson was hailed for defending the marginalized in 1830s America. Today, Native Americans are justly viewed as the marginalized.

As the first president to champion average Americans, Jackson paved the way for every civil-rights group to petition, protest and participate in our government.
Jackson should remain on our $20 bill — a reminder of the human potential for both strength and weakness.

In this country, we have risen to the occasion with honor as many times as we have fallen short with shame. Jackson's story is our story.

Ryan Vallo of Dayton is a music theatre graduate of Baldwin Wallace University and writer of a new TV drama series about President Andrew Jackson.


Popular Posts