Andrew Jackson: The First Imperial President

[CODScumBags]

Some good points. However owning slaves, being against women's rights and wanting to duel is not that big of a deal, when you consider the time in history. Nearly every civilization in history has owned slaves, it's not a big deal, stop trying to make it sound so evil.

[BogartWestern]

@CODScumBags the point is that everyone who looks to jackson as a champion of modern liberty needs to reevaluate why they actually like him. just because he broke the national bank doesn't mean he was about liberty. obviously, slavery and preventing people from having rights isn't championing liberty. it is a big deal. that's why paul is considered a racist for his newsletters, and why everyone who likes ron paul is going to end up voting for romney or whoever the gop thinks can be obama.

[BogartWestern]

@CODScumBags probably one of the dumbest comments that is actually trying to sound smart i've ever read. and this is 2012, and you say that shit. you, sir, are an asshole.

[CODScumBags]

@BogartWestern Native American's enslaved people, African tribes enslaved people. Like I said, nearly every society on earth practiced slavery. Do you damn all other people and cultures? Just calm down idiot.

[TruthKnowledgeDOTcom]

He killed the central bank!

[TruthKnowledgeDOTcom]

that makes him a great president, end of discussion, this video is 10 minutes too long.

[TruthKnowledgeDOTcom]

good lord, get to your point, and he didn't kill a national bank, he killed a PRIVATE bank!

[TruthKnowledgeDOTcom]

yes he was passionate but very in control, i love how everyone likes to plant the seed that being passionate= being bad. and then she says, "before bill clinton" as if he was great president, not! what a waste of my time

[TruthKnowledgeDOTcom]

he's only dangerous from the mindset of CRIMINALS! i love how criminals love to flip everything upside down to suit their crimes.

[Lentenlands]

Jackson is two thumbs up in my book,

I wish he were alive today to throw the Rothschilds and their Federal Reserve criminal banking scam off our soil.

Jackson was a human being like me - he was an American. I wonder how many of his policies were influenced by the cowardly imperialist egg-heads around him.

[Shonenut213]

We need one of these for Teddy Roosevelt.

[Shonenut213]

Andrew Jackson sucks! He was a fucking RACIST!!!! He wanted to exterminate the entire Native American race.

[SuzeraintyNow]

Extremely interesting video. Please make this a regular series. I would love to see equally thorough analyses of other figures in US history.

[TheAznsenzation]

I hope you people realize that we don't actually have a national bank. The closest thing to the national bank is the Federal Reserve

[kkingcombo12345]

Jackson killed the second central bank. We need someone to do that today.

[farooqmm1987]

@kkingcombo12345 ron paul?

[CODScumBags]

@kkingcombo12345 That someone is Dr. Ron Paul!

[christmt3]

@kkingcombo12345 Ron Paul is the man trying to do that my friend.

[hybridmcgee]

Can't any of these clowns ever put down a conservative? There's always some lengthy, analytical dialogue they have for their dumb-ass revisionism. Lastly, she looks as though she's going to bite someone's ear off.

[eggory]

I didn't know anything about Jackson when I started this video, and I don't know anything about him after finishing it.

[JackMcBama]

Andrew Jackson. The first imperial hipster.

[CalamityCarlos]

I love this channel!

[quidnick]

A hero of the common man, or a supresser of the success of the common??

[magister343]

Andrew Jackson is great much in the same way that Alexander the Great was great. This does not mean that he was even remotely close to being a good person.

[SparklingCider101]

wow all good videos then i see the piece of junk who cares what his reasons were only that he did what he did.....and i live in florida so ty jackson for not letting me be a spanish slave.

[lord0thief]

@mersk100

except didn't that and his specie circular destroy the American economy?

[RKAddict101]

I thought Adams was the first imperial president because of the Alien and Sedition Acts. But I guess 99% of the presidents are probably imperial.

[magister343]

@RKAddict101 You guess that less than half of one president was not imperial?

[RKAddict101]

@magister343 Yup

[SickBritKid]

@RKAddict101

A&S was enacted during Jefferson's administration...

[RKAddict101]

@SickBritKid It was signed into law by Adams. Not arguing that Jefferson himself wasn't somewhat imperial once he got into office though.

[mikeoli]

@RKAddict101 I read your reply to my comment and then went to your page. I do not know you but telling me I have no clue is childish response from what appears to be a child. You can offer no concrete proof for your assertion therfore it was a waste of both of our time

[RKAddict101]

@mikeoli Are you responding to the right person? What the hell are you talking about?

[makeshiftbattlefield]

@RKAddict101 it looks like he meant to send that to SickBritKid, not you.

[RKAddict101]

@makeshiftbattlefield Lmao, thank you, I was so confused.

[makeshiftbattlefield]

@mikeoli hey dude, you wrote your message to the wrong person, the guy who said 'then you clearly have no clue....' is SickBritKid, not RKAddict101.

[wildernessoutpost]

We need to bring "dueling" back.

Although I still think its practiced in the inner city's ..

[gnomechomskylives]

@wildernessoutpost ho-ho-ho! Aren't you clever! "Inner cities" - I guess that's your passive-aggressive way of suggesting city-dwellers are savage? Why don't you just use the n-word while you're at it? Once again the so-called "Libertarian Right" demonstrates its elitist and racist underpinnings. It must suck to be an impotent two-bit cowardly misanthrope that desperately cleaves to this joke of an ideology to justify your views. Crash and burn flyboy.

[wildernessoutpost]

@gnomechomskylives As I look back , that may have been a little tasteless.

But unfortunately this is a reality - the only ideologue appears to be you.

[doobersmanster]

Coming from a PolSci person..I thought your analysis was excellent and I learned sooooo much..thank you:)

[TheFederalistVoice]

I would like to remind this historian who has a grudge against Jackson that her (I assume) favorite president, Thomas Jefferson, should be the first imperial president. During the Embargo Act of 1807, Jefferson used martial law to arrest citizens suspected of doing business in foreign markets or purchasing foreign goods without due process. He also increased the power of the Natl Bank to buy Louisiana without Congressional approval. Jefferson was the first imperial president!!!!!!!

[doobersmanster]

@TheFederalistVoice Wow that seems to fly in the face of traditional thought of Jefferson...you know that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was drafted, and I would assert that the Constitution/minus/The Bill of Rights, is a federalist document. I thought your comments were very insightful.

[cyberpolice9000]

Do one of these on Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR. All 3 of them are so wrongly admired by people.

[doobersmanster]

@cyberpolice9000 Yep.

[cyberpolice9000]

This is a well-done and accurate evaluation of Jackson, he was an Indian-slaughterer and tyrant.

[SeanMauer]

Jackson gets an A+ for kicking out the New World Order Bankers.

Jackson gets an F- for being a unionist.

If you are not a secessionist you are not a free man.

Death to the Federal Government.

[doobersmanster]

@SeanMauer Why seceed when you can correct?

[slumberingsam]

And where would we be today if he didn't kill the bank? Think about that one.

[NoMorThanMost]

As for the Indians moving… yes a lot died. But this was not from some secret plot by the US government. Transport back then was not easy. You couldn’t load them up on a train or take them to the local airport. Travel was dangerous. Jackson knew it and the Indians knew it. It is obtuse for us to think that the Indians where to stupid understand this or for us think that the government had some kind of magic transport to safely get the Indians from point A to point B.

[doobersmanster]

@NoMorThanMost What happened to the Indians is the Normal thing man has done to each other from the beginning. I mean how many examples of oppression and death does there need to be to see that these acts are less value oriented than staement of nature. You cannot fix human nature, if the Indians had the tech and culture the Euros had then they would have done the same or worse. The only answer is to always de-centralize Government and Embrace Justice and Mercy under God.

[NoMorThanMost]

During that time Indians and settlers where occupying the same lands and disputes broke out. There was mistreatment on both sides. Jackson wanted to expand but wanted to keep the peace at the same time. He offered the Indians to stay and become part of the US… they wanted to remain separate. The US didn’t have the resources to keep the peace so he offered to buy the land and help them move to a new home. Which the Indians AGREED too.

[doobersmanster]

@NoMorThanMost I did not know that:)  Thanks Sure gives a different light to the Oppressed Indian narrative.

[NoMorThanMost]

She also has a huge personal interest in propagating the idea that American Indians where all victims. This is also false. Jackson did not commit “genocide” with the Indians. He negotiated a peaceful treaty with the Indians and bought the land from them. She tries to make it sound like he took it by force with intent to wipe them out.

[NoMorThanMost]

I find odd that they use Amy Sturgis as their sources for historical "inaccuracy". She’s a science fiction writer with a doctorate in “Intellectual history”. Don’t confuse that with actual historians, they are not. Their do histological theory, not historical fact.

[Imperiused]

And we marched with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans, and we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans!

[Somespatanwarrior]

I still liked Andrew Jackson for him being so ornery and not taking no shit.

[mersk100]

One good thing about Jackson, he killed the second central bank. Hope Ron gets the chance to kill the third one.

[37butterflyprincess]

@mersk100 the ironic thing is he is now on a central bank note

[mersk100]

@37butterflyprincess True. I am sure the bankers did it for spite.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

No. We NEED the Federal Reserve as a central means of managing our country's finances in this international era.

What we NEED to do is REGULATE and OVERSEE the Fed, and make their goings-on known to the public, not eradicate it.

[mikeoli]

@SickBritKid I disagree with your statement, you do not need a central bank

[SickBritKid]

@mikeoli

Then you clearly have no clue how a global system works and the requirements needed to compete across the planet.

I don't like the Reserve, but I'm thoroughly AGAINST ending it. It needs REGULATION, not ending...

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid No, we do not need a central bank. The market place can determine what is best used as money and what the associated interest rates and exchange rates would be.

No central authority can or should be trusted to manage what we the people can do for our selves.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

You do realize that the disparate and incredibly divided nature of the American system would lead to us being stomped in the international scene if not for the Reserve, right?

Once again, I don't like the Fed, but to abolish it would fuck us over on the international stage.

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid Pure speculation on your part

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

A decentralized economy has been shown to be preyed upon time and time again.

We need at least SOME element of centralization to compete on the international scale. That's how international economics work.

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid No, we do not. And no, that's not how it works.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

Of course we don't. After all, Ron Paul is GOD and can say and believe no wrong, mirite!?

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid LOL, get off your little happy horse. There's plenty of people that feel the same about the Fed and Central banking regardless of RP. He gets a lot of support because people agree with him, not because of him as some sort of GOD.

Sorry but your most recent comment exposes you as something far less than serious with your cart before the horse foolishness.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

No. I was simply pointing out that you're busy saying that a decentralized and disparate system will somehow fare well in a predatory international economy...

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid Please, you've not said anything except that we need the Fed. You've presented your thesis position but not backed it up with anything.

You wander off into some banal remarks about a politician and do so in such a way that is clearly intended as an ad hominem. Present an argument or be quiet, stomping your feet does you no favors.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

No. What I've said is that the Fed is a necessary evil, as a heavily decentralized economy with no central concentration of monetary management would fare disastrously on the worldwide scale.

But, of course, you focused on me mentioning Ron Paul as you knew your arguments held as much water as the hull of the Titanic held out after it struck the iceberg.

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid It's too bad for you that the facts do not support you. You say the Fed is a  necessary evil in the current environment, yet you never provide any supporting arguments. It is YOU that decided to wander off into YOUR Ron Paul tangent, and it is I that pointed out YOUR tangent.

Don't blame ME for YOU changing the subject and don't blame ME for YOUR lack of supporting YOUR argument.

Support your pro-fed argument or be quiet

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

And it's YOU who decided to FOCUS on that argument and completely ignoring all other points.

I gave support: decentralized financial systems are easy and exploitable prey for focused and centralized markets the world over. The Fed does NOT need to be ended, but regulated/audited in order to ensure they're not being dodgy with our country's finances. Then it would be far more beneficial than it is now.

The facts DO support me. Just look at Africa, India, and China.

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid You made no other points, and you still make none. There are other reasons India and China have had their particular histories. and Africa isn't a country, Miss South Carolina.

You still refuse to say the WHY and instead keep repeating your claim, as yet you've not supported it. It is YOU that went off on the tangent, not me. Now you're a liar too. Congrats, you're making it quite clear you have nothing to say.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

*facepalm*

Mind telling me at what point I said Africa is a country?

I pointed out that the decentralized nature of basically EVERY African country's economies during the Colonial Era was one of MANY reasons that European powers were able to conquer it!

But hey, if you wanna go and insult my intelligence for DARING to dissent against you, go on ahead, you self-righteous isolationist fucktard.

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid You pointed to two countries and then a continent with out any context, don't blame me for your lack of precision.

And your colonial reference is a joke, again you give nothing to support your claim. A similar claim made by social structure, political structures and military hardware. You have no argument still!

And now you have to call me names and one is a projection of your political views, too damn funny. ROFL what a sore looser you are.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

I DO have something to support my claim. It's called HISTORY, which you've obviously not read up on, otherwise you'd have realized what I was talking about and you'd realize the need for some measure of centralized authority upon an economy.

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid You must be quite daft to think you can claim all of history as the evidence to support assertion we need a central bank. Now you are not only making claim upon all of history, you're moving the goal posts to a "centralized authority upon an economy".

So far you've made unsubstantiated claims, used personal insults and now are moving the goal posts. Keep squirming.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

You're quite daft to assume I was claiming all of history. I pointed out several instances where economic decentralization and disparate economies were one means of vulnerability which were exploited by foreign powers during the colonial era, nothing more nothing less.

Also, THE FED IS ALREADY A CENTRALIZED AUTHORITY UPON THE ECONOMY! So I didn't move any goal posts. Sorry that you're too damn thick to correlate the two.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

Also, you're one to bitch about personal insults considering that you were the one who insulted me, first. So your pretentious claim of moral superiority is laughable.

[mersk100]

@SickBritKid ROFL, now you're a liar on two counts. The thread is there to see.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

Yeah, and you're the one who threw the first punch by calling me "Miss South Carolina" and making implications at my supposed lack of intelligence by snidely saying "Africa's a continents, LOLZ!"

So yeah, the whole thread's here for everyone to see.

[SickBritKid]

@mersk100

During the Colonial Era.

[DarthKrattus]

@mersk100 He actually didn't kill the second central bank, but he tried very hard to do so. The second central bank closed down due to bankruptcy.

[gnomechomskylives]

@mersk100 Ron Paul can't even reform his own party and its excesses. It seems doubtful he'll be able to kill anything beyond his own campaign now that he's come in fourth in SC.

[mersk100]

@gnomechomskylives Considering SC booed the golden rule, makes one wonder why they bothered in 1860.

[TheFederalistVoice]

And I bet the LearnLiberty crowd loves Jefferson, even though Jefferson said America should be "An Empire of Liberty," and believed Canada should become part of the Union, and supported military intervention in favor of the French, and bypassed the Constitution for the Louisiana Land purchase...all things that liberty loving libertarian types eschew, even though their idol has been mythologized into a liberty fighter! laughable! lol!

[WintersAscension]

I'm not going to take the time to see if what you say is true but this is what I have to say:

Sure, Jefferson had his flaws and was not really "libertarian enough" as many would argue but he is infinitely more praise worthy; intellectually and based on his actions; than your hero Hamilton, the founder of American corporatism and central banking.

[TheFederalistVoice]

@WintersAscension You should, everything I said was true. And Jefferson, if you study his presidency and what transpired (instead of his beautiful rhetoric and writings before being President), is arguably the worst president in Early America. Jefferson empowered the national bank thru the Louisiana Land Purchase, destroyed the American economy with the Embargo Act of 1807, supported the DeWolf Family slave trade, and set America on the path for war with England, ergo, the War of 1812.

[doobersmanster]

@TheFederalistVoice Maybe that's why he only served one term and hated the presidency and did not wish it upon his worst enemy. I think why he is still loved is because of what he represented, IE. The Enlightened Man (The Übermensch) to the Voltairianoidal Thomas paineskyites of then and now. He is a dream an Icon. Nevertheless, I encourage your Iconoclastic spirit..:) How was the Louisiana purchase a bad thing for the country? More for France I would think it Bad. Gov Banks Bad, Yes I agree.

[NoMorThanMost]

I hate when people try twisting history. What exactly is her political goal in doing that?

[Imperiused]

@NoMorThanMost I'm going to be rude and crass here: Its called revisionist history, stupid. People learn new things and adjust their historical narrative. Now please complain about why people keep twisting science, technology, language, or whatever else so I can just copy pasta this post and save myself some time.

[NoMorThanMost]

@Imperiused

Revising history is fine as long as you have new FACTS to revise it with. What Amy does here is take already known facts, give the viewer just a small portion of the whole story and then twist the rest of the info to give a distorted view of what we KNOW happened. That is not “Revisionist History”, its propaganda and it’s lying. Why would you support that?

[gnomechomskylives]

@NoMorThanMost Twisting history? or simply questioning the assumptions and mythologies created by those with their own agenda? Perhaps you should stop believing in fairy tales. And judging from your profile / favorites you are very much into the self-delusion.

[NoMorThanMost]

@gnomechomskylives

Really? Did you ever read the history of the Indian Removal Act or just go with the grade school wiki version? Where was anything I wrote a “fairy tale”? Holy fuck go back to school kid. You have a lot to learn.

[PsionicX1]

Very interesting video.

[anyonefindAMERICA1]

His-story cracks me up.

[wendyspear]

I always wondered why he is on the $20 bill while he massacred Indians.

[ShamanMcLamie]

I agree with most of what she talked about, but at the beginning I was disappointed by her omission of New Orleans the greatest military defeat in British history.

[gnomechomskylives]

@ShamanMcLamie That is irrelevant since this video is about Andrew Jackson the President, not Andrew Jackson the military leader.

[ShamanMcLamie]

@gnomechomskylives Then why did she mention Jackson as a child being attacked by a British soldier during the revolution, or the Seminole wars that happened after the war of 1812? If she hadn't mentioned those I'd be inclined to agree with you. New Orleans was why he became President. I find no reason why those two were mentioned especially the first one, but not the Battle of New Orleans. She could have at least made a quick mention with no greater detail.

[gnomechomskylives]

@ShamanMcLamie She is making a distinction between Jackson the man and Jackson the President, perception versus fact. While she recognizes his bravery she also makes it clear his reputation is overstated by those who benefited from his actions. Moreover, while his victory at New Orleans was a personal achievement, owing as much to the incompetence of the British as his leadership, it had little impact on the war itself; the Treaty of Ghent had been signed unbeknownst to the combatants.

[ShamanMcLamie]

@gnomechomskylives I wasn't talking about New Orleans impact on the war, I know how pointless a battle it was, but if it weren't for New Orleans there probably wouldn't have been a President Andrew Jackson, I just think it was a important fact to at least note. More so than the sword incident with the British soldier.

[gnomechomskylives]

@ShamanMcLamie Just because it got him elected doesn't mean that makes for a great president, which is inferred by her position. If that still doesn't answer your question, I suggest you look her up and email he; I would think Lenoir-Rhyne University has a profile page for where she can be reached.

[ShamanMcLamie]

@gnomechomskylives If you read my first comment where this all started, you'd know I wasn't calling him a great president, or praising Jackson, or making any statement about his policies. All I'm saying is New Orleans is one of the more important Jackson moments and probably warranted a mention especially if she's going to mention his military career. Nothing in-depth just a simple mention. I'm quite tired of arguing about this. There just isn't much else to talk about on this

[Imperiused]

@ShamanMcLamie She did mention New Orleans. But here the mention was implicit. "He was a war hero...He was a great general". You live under a rock if you don't know what she was referring to. She doesn't need to spell out historical trivia. Especially when it isn't relevant to the point.

[MandragGanon]

Now we need one of these for Lincoln.

[kbr7171]

@MandragGanon and JFK

[xanos4225]

@MandragGanon Very true. They are many misconceptions about Lincoln. He wasn't really as benevolent as we portray him.

[Joester41]

@MandragGanon and one for FDR...

[steelflame1]

@MandragGanon Lincoln is now what we call a marxist.

[StateExempt]

@MandragGanon - I doubt LearnLiberty has the cojones to take that subject on directly.

But in the meantime, "The Real Lincoln" will have to do.

[ProjectFreeSelf]

@MandragGanon I recommend the Thomas DiLorenzo book, "The Real Lincoln"

[MandragGanon]

Fighting the bank = good. Indian relations = bad.

[migkillertwo]

He ended the central bank and forced the removal of indians. Why the fuck would he be listed in anyone's Top-10 rankings of US presidents?

[Metuzalem66]

@migkillertwo Because of things you just mentioned? oO

[gnomechomskylives]

@Metuzalem66 So I guess you're in favor of a president who exceeds his Constitutional bounds *and* genocide? You may want to rethink your stance.

[LibertyMike1]

@migkillertwo Because he ended the central bank.. But yes, for those who know of the Indian removal, he deserves to be taken off such lists.

[migkillertwo]

The effects of the end of the central bank demonstrate the need for a central bank. The US entered its worst economic depression after he ended the bank of the united states.

[Hashishin13]

@migkillertwo What are you talking about? The great depression was really bad and happened just after the third central bank. The first one printed itself into oblivion in under 20 years.

[grady1610]

Thankyou -