Talk:Andrew Jackson

Do you guys think replacing the painting of Andrew Jackson with a actual photo of him? as there have been a few photos of him looking pretty old and people can see how he really looks. Andrew Jackson is one of 2 presidents who we have a photo of themselves but we use their portrait instead. (not including William Henry Harrison as his photo is lost.) Ceawlin of Wessex (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

You might want to look at Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 16#Photograph for an earlier discussion. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

See also Portraits of Andrew Jackson#Photographs for the extant array. I don't think it should be the primary image but I have no objections to it appearing deeper in the article like in the "Legacy" section or something jengod (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

We have one of the daguerrotypes in the article already. The photographs have been an endless source of discussion. I think Bruce leverett's reference to the archive covers the discussion well. Wtfiv (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there room to explain that bribery and alcohol supplies were part of Jackson's standard negotiation technique for Indian treaties?

And/or that virtually every treaty with the Southern tribes that was concluded between 1800 and 1845 was negotiated by one or more Andrew Jackson cronies, business associates, relatives, or Creek War militia veterans? jengod (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

The article mentions and links most of the major treaties involving Jackson . The original map of land lost minimized Jackson's impact by including only the Indian Removal Act. The current map includes all the major treaties directly involving Jackson, showing that he removed Native Americans from almost all of Alabama, three-quarters of Mississippi, one-third of Tennessee, and substantial parts of Georgia (additional land in Georgia was taken from Native Americans at this time but Georgia's politicians were more independent of Jackson, though as his inaction after the Worcester v. Georgia ruling showed, he was sympathetic to their position). Though it is not included on the map, Jackson's invasion of Florida set up the Treaty of Moultrie Creek, which created a reservation system, but his influence is more indirect and it was signed after Jackson was no longer governor. Wtfiv (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Cool. jengod (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The following was recently added to the article: Jackson's conduct of the Creek War was consistent with his general approach to Indigenous America, which has been described as "singularly pernicious"[1]—eyewitnesses described American militiamen scavenging for potatoes roasted in burning cabins at Tallusahatchee, while dogs gnawed on the dead bodies of the Creeks,[2] and when passing by Talledega a year after the battle, one of Jackson's captains reported skeletons still lying in the field.[3]

The first sentence seems to be a broad claim, backed by one strong academic opinion. Before adding it, I'd like to see if there are any other opinions about it here. Wtfiv (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems fine and accurate to me. Andre🚐 04:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

We should not go out of our way to violate WP:NPOV. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

"Although Gaines and Jackson sometimes tried to protect friendly Indians from violence by whites, on the whole, they were virulent partisans of white supremacy and expansion." Watson, Samuel J. (2012). Jackson's Sword: The Army Officer Corps on the American Frontier, 1810–1821. Modern War Studies. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. p. 331 n. 1. ISBN 978-0-7006-1884-2. LCCN 2012027879. OCLC 788282695. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ jengod (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is reflective of the point made in the fourth paragraph of the legacy. The opinion about Jackson's policy has been shifting in the late 20th/early 21st century. His major biographer, Remini who published his books in the 1970s, tends to suggest that some kind of mix of manifest destiny and paternalism play major roles, as well as a sense of vengeance in the Creek War; Ostler, whose 2019 book is the source for the first sentence, argues persuasively that greed and xenophobia played a large role in Jackson's actions toward Indigenous Americans. What Jackson believed he was doing remains arguable: Even the Watson 2012 quote above states that Jackson's behavior toward native Americans depended on his perceptions of friends and enemies among the Indigenous population.

Similarly I'm not sure the descriptions of the aftermath of the war provide evidence of Jackson's overall policy toward Indigenous Americans. This eyewitness testimony, if reliable, doesn't make what happened acceptable. These images-which are similar to later Civil War anecdotes- suggests how Jackson may have waged war, possibly using a scorched earth military strategy. But this is different from illustrating an overall policy. Based on the consensus of most of the sources, Jackson was devoted to removing Indigenous Americans from East of the Mississippi and using any means to accomplish it: sometimes invasion, sometimes "treaties" and bribery, sometimes legal means such as the Indian Removal act, and sometimes executive passivity, as in Worcester v. Georgia. I think the different stratagems are covered in the article, and the debate about its interpretation is in the legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Jackson worked very hard for his entire life to frame the United States as a four-way race war between "savages" "negroes" "greasers" (all his words) and people who benefited from the terroristic subjugation of the first three groups listed. I personally think that he would be *hurt* if anyone softened the terror part 200 years after the fact. It was what he thought he was put on this earth to do, when lesser men were constrained by conscience or honor or the dignity of the state or a cowardly failure to deploy sufficiently demagogic rhetoric or by not bringing enough barrels of whiskey and bottles of claret to the treaty ground. The terror and the mayhem and the weaponized hypocrisy was what voters and political allies used him for!

Wiki wiki means fast in Hawaiian; I understand the desire for caution and responsibility but fear we are being slow slow in regard to the current scholarship and analysis of Jackson. Remini, just for one, was trained by Harriet Owsley, wife of white supremacist academic Frank Owsley, and their lifelong whitewashing of Jackson shadows his otherwise careful scholarship. If Jackson was a "man of his time" so is everyone who writes about him, and we have got to move into the 21st century in explaining "the Old Roman".

Examining him through the lenses of race and capitalism is what Jackson would have wanted, because otherwise what was the blood-and-soil lebenstraum point of proclaiming white supremacy and demanding unimpeded title to roughly a bajillion acres of North American land?!

Just between us and the Internet that lasts forever, if we genuinely value verifiability and neutrality, we are failing miserably *unless* we describe Andrew Jackson as a racist criminal demon of a man who failed upward to crash the American economy and make inevitable the American Civil War. I just work here for no money so I am just one voice and I know we need consensus so it might be a while before this article reflects that, but that's the self-evident truth according to every book and paper written about him in the last 25 years. There is no other interpretation unless we are lying.

I appreciate you all truly, but claiming the existence of a debate over Jackson's legacy or character is truly silly. He was a self-interested homicidal genocidal sociopathic incredibly duplicitous yet none-too-bright monster—he says so in his own handwriting over and over again—and we need to internalize that reality so we can put it in gentle "encyclopedic language" and begin to analyze and understand how he bent the arc of history to his will. And with that I'm off to do my chores and read about the filibuster-infested U.S. Army officer corps of the 1810s.

Gratefully (for everyone else's volunteer work and collaboration on this and other articles), respectfully, and resignedly, jengod (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it goes too far to call Jacksonianism blood-and-soil lebensraum. Let's reserve that for the real Nazis, please. But Jackson was certainly a racist who had a lot of resentment and vengeful anger toward the Native Americans, which he carried out in a scorched-earth campaign. I do not think a "criminal demon" is the right tone, either, though. He certainly had an imperial disregard for the process of legal wrangling. He was a man of action. But I'm not sure that I would describe that as criminal per se. I think imperial, and unbounded by precedent, and on an crusade, yes. Racially tinged, and prejudiced, even beyond the time, yes. Homicidal, even possibly genocidal, yes. However, I don't agree that there is no debate over his character. There are certainly historians who consider him noble or a man of the people. Our article does need to be neutral and represent all POVs fairly. That being said, I'm not sure the original edit didn't do this. But, your current message can't be used verbatim. Andre🚐 19:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

He did business with the Chickasaw for decades, won the Battle of Tohopeka because of the Cherokee, and brought the Choctaw to the Battle of New Orleans. His virulent racism fell aside and he was perfectly capable of playing nicely with Indigenous people when it suited him. As a "frontiersman" (colonizer) he opportunistically dealt with Native Americans for most of his life! But when their rights and personhood and culture and instinct for self-preservation conflicted with his profit motive or his interests in collecting land, slaves, and horses, suddenly they stopped being "pets" or drinking buddies and started being mortal threats (to white hegemony) and then he rallied troops along racial lines for mass murder. If he wasn't a criminal, it's because his white cousins and slave-trading partners wrote the laws, but he was certainly a two-faced lying crook. But whatever. Imperial myth dies hard. We have almost 200 years of enabling and rationalization and coverup to scrape off the hallowed old pirate so I'm not going to hold my breath that it will happen anytime soon. jengod (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree with that, Jengod. He rallied troops around racial lines for mass murder - this seems pretty much an established historical fact. But let's make sure to not impose a modern lens on historical events. Absolutely, manifest destiny was imperial and colonial, and absolutely, it was based on white supremacy. But yes, like you said, he wasn't a criminal because the laws were also white supremacist at the time. Was he a two-faced lying crook? That is more of a subjective moral judgment. We should avoid that and focus on what historians say. I think most historians wouldn't use that language per se. Andre🚐 20:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Nor would we say it on the encyclopedia!

But boy oh boy was he involved in a lot of bribery and "irregular" treaty language and special set-asides and insider land trading and "have you considered placing the southern armory in this town my best friends own it's the best thing for the nation truly"—it starts to be a clear pattern and if we wander through the histories ignoring the blatant self-interest and acting like the "Tennessee opposition" was thoughtfully political and not because he eventually stabbed everyone but the most dedicated grovelers in the back, well, we are the suckers now.

jengod (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually I am aware I sound insane so just archive this all but Jackson's "personal banker" built his house on what had been a special treaty set-aside for Doublehead that eventually got Doublehead killed because it was in his interests not the tribe's and then Jackson used the Army to drive people off the other set aside that he illegally bought out of Indian title for himself and then the personal banker enslaved people that were ancestors of Alex Haley so Queenie is based on their lives and the criminal corrupt unnecessary evil fuckery and polite lies that protect it to this day have driven me utterly mad. Edit proposal retracted. After all, we are not here to right great wrongs. jengod (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You don't "sound insane", Jengod—you sound knowledgeable and very passionate. The statements that really made me pause are those above by another editor that seem to imply that even genocide is possibly not criminal in the context of the time. I don't mean to be flip, but I seriously think you, Jengod, should write a book or at least a long chapter and publish it in a venue where original research is permitted, maybe use a host platform. I think it would be good to express yourself as you want, tempered a bit for the sensibilities of the informed segment of the audience who would care. Carlstak (talk) 22:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Um, let's review, my first statement in this section where I said the original edit is fine and accurate. And under what legal regime is genocide a crime in 1845? The concept of genocide and the Geneva Conventions are a 20th century thing. Jackson was not a criminal. He was fined at one point in 1815 for contempt of court, but congress later passed a law in the 1840s refunding the fine with interest. He certainly operated outside the normal bounds of law and congressional authorization, relied on coercion, fraud, and the violation of treaties, perpetrated a humanitarian catastrophe, circumvented or ignored the constitution, let alone international laws. But all of that didn't make him a criminal in 1845, and I don't think you can find a historian who says that. The original edit though isn't necessarily a problem, so I don't see why we're jumping to that. Andre🚐 01:51, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Read what I said again. You are reading things into it that aren't there. I said your statements really made me pause as they seem "to imply that even genocide is possibly not criminal in the context of the time". Notice that I didn't draw a conclusion from that, and I never said said the article should include such a statement. I didn't pass judgement, mainly because I have zero interest in arguing the point, especially in this thread. Carlstak (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, genocide wasn't a crime at the time. It wasn't even a word. At any rate, Jengod's original edit doesn't say it is, and her original edit is probably fine? Don't you agree, Carlstak? Since, you, and I, and Jengod all agree her original edit is fine, and only Wtfiv, disagrees, I am going to restore it. Andre🚐 04:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Because that's obviously what you wanted to do. You asked, "...her original edit is probably fine? "Don't you agree, Carlstak?", but you didn't wait for my reply and "jumped" to proclaim that I "agree her original edit is fine". WTH? I said no such thing, and it's beyond presumptuous to say I did. Don't put words in my mouth. I said I'm not going to argue the point—that's not the same thing at all. Carlstak (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No Carlstak, you said you didn't want to argue the point about genocide. I remarked once more on it I changed the topic, and I'm talking about jengod's original edit. I was judging from your response to jengod that you were supportive of the content of that edit. If you want, I'll revert myself, but maybe look at what the change was. Andre🚐 04:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I have no problem with that *original* edit. It looks fine to me. I was mostly concerned with responding to Jengod's expression of extreme frustration regarding her deeply-held feelings of disgust and anger at the behavior of Jackson, which I share as a person with some Cherokee ancestry. I curse him. Carlstak (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)