Talk:Andrew Jackson

Jackson, Native Americans and smallpox

A fairly substantial paragraph was added to the section on the Indian Removal Act about a vaccinations law passed by Congress and signed by Jackson. This is an interesting topic. The topic does seem appropriate for the article on the presidency of Jackson, as he did have to address the issue. The policy of smallpox vaccination of Native Americans could be an article in its own right. However, my own feeling is this topic is not appropriate here, this section is about Jackson's active role in moving the tribes west, mainly the Southeastern tribes west of the Mississipi. Here's my concerns:

• This article is put at the end of a section on the Indian Removal Act, which was a policy that was championed by Jackson even before he was president. The paragraph does not imply this is something championed by Jackson, but something passed by Congress that he approved. It seems only tangentially related to the point of this section. Sounds appropriate for a discussion of Jackson's presidency, not the policies he actively advocated.
• The paragraph discusses issues not directly related to Jackson: Discussion of medicine men obstruction and beliefs about cures, reasons why it doesn't work, and discussion of another outbreak that killed 100,000 of Native Americans. This is all important, but does it belong in a section discussion Jackson's intention to move native tribes west of the Mississippi?
• I could only get access to two of the works cited. For both, it was difficult to determine whether they made their point, as the references don't point to particular page numbers for verification and both articles are not focused on the 1832 vaccination. Neither clearly support the points stated for them.
  • Kelton's (2004) "Avoiding the Smallpox Spirits" focuses almost entirely on the Cherokee in the 1700s and contrary to the point in the paragraph, argues that the Cherokee had strategies for managing the disease.
  • Stern and Stern (1943) "Smallpox Immunizations of the Amerindians" addresses the overall Colonial policies of vaccinating Native Americans in the Americas. It discusses Jefferson's advocacy for using vaccinations on Native American peoples, but not Jackson's. Additionally, the point cited in the article is about Jefferson's personal thoughts on the issue. (The topic of Native American smallpox vaccinations is clearly controversial. Another article makes the claim vaccinations were partly because whites feared getting Smallpox from native Americans.)
    • Sole mention in Stern and Stern (1943) of Jackson is he was in office during an appropriation: "The expenses for vaccinating the Indians was first met by an appropriation made by the twenty-second congress during the presidency of Andrew Jackson." This doesn't sound like it makes Jackson an advocate. Again, this could be an issue to discuss in the article on the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which addresses the issues he handled while president. Better yet, it could be part of an article on United States policy regarding Native Americans and smallpox.

This brief NIH NML entry states that vaccinations were partly driven by settler fears of getting the disease from Native Americans, suggesting that the motivations for this bill are more complicated than the paragraph here suggests. A balanced approach would require a detailed discussion elsewhere, perhaps an article on United States policy. Wtfiv (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that the verbatim of the added paragraph is already in the Presidency of Andrew Jackson article. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

"Genocide" wording

Wording was recently added implying that Jackson was responsible for genocide. This is sourced to p.35-36 in As Long as Grass Grows: The Indigenous Fight for Environmental Justice, from Colonization to Standing Rock. This is a poor source to make such a broad, sweeping claim about the historiography of Jackson. Nor is it historically accurate. Jackson's policies on Native Americans were horrific, but did not call for their extermination, and are more complex than what the article implies. HickTheStick (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed in an RFC and subsequent discussions a year ago. Consensus was clear then and I doubt you will find its changed much since. Feel free to dig through the archives.--ARoseWolf 14:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Replying to the OP, As Long as Grass Grows was published in 2019 by Beacon Press, a reputed publisher of nonfiction books; the book is probably therefore a good example of current, reliable academic scholarship. The eliminationist bend of Jackson's policy toward American Indians is documented in current reliable secondary sources (see list below). If anything, this article probably soft pedals it. The only wording in the body text is that The act has been discussed in the context of genocide, which is a rather roundabout case of citing a source to say that a source says things instead of more straightforwardly summarizing what reliable sources say.

*List of sources and quotations to support my statement that the "eliminationist bend of Jackson's policy toward American Indians is documented in current reliable secondary sources":

• Gary Clayton Anderson, Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian: The Crime That Should Haunt America (University of Oklahoma Press, 2014), 157–158: the manner in which the federal government had forced the Choctaws to leave Mississippi constituted ethnic cleansing under almost any definition (in a chapter titled "Unscabbarding the Bayonet: Andrew Jackson and the Policy of Forced Ethnic Cleansing").
• Akis Kalaitzidis and Gregory W. Streich, U.S. Foreign Policy: A Documentary and Reference Guide (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2011), 33: it is arguable that this era witnessed a genocide perpetrated by the U.S. government against Native Americans. Andrew Jackson himself was involved in a brutal campaign for the total destruction of the Creeks and Seminoles.
• Alfred A. Cave, Sharp Knife: Andrew Jackson and the American Indians (ABC-CLIO, 2017), 191–192: proponents of genocide always characterized their victims as people of little use, unworthy of protection. Jackson, in his most candid moments, so characterized the American Indian and Jackson embraced genocide’s foundation belief that, because of certain perceived racial, moral, intellectual, cultural, or religious deficiencies or tendencies, a targeted group within a given territory is not only unworthy of inclusion in the community or of its protection, but on occasion must be dealt with as an existential threat to its well-being.
• Sheneese Thompson and Franco Barchiesi, "Harriet Tubman and Andrew Jackson on the Twenty-dollar Bill: A Monstrous Intimacy", Open Cultural Studies 2 (De Gruyter, 2018): 417–429, here 425: Andrew Jackson, a quintessential keystone for the convergence of slavery, genocide, and empire.
• Jacquelyn C.A. Meshelemiah and Raven E. Lynch, "Genocide", in Encyclopedia of Social Work, ed. Cynthia Franklin, via Oxford Research Encyclopedias (National Association of Social Workers Press and Oxford University Press, pub. online August 27, 2020): Acts of genocide committed against Indigenous populations have a long history in the United States and Jackson was known as the "Indian Killer" because of his personal killings of hundreds of Natives while serving in the military. His administration as president is known for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 that led to the displacement of several tribal nations, violation of standing treaties, and the confiscation of their lands.

Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 19:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Webster dictionary calls genocide the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. By this definition destruction does not necessarily mean death. displacement is certainly a form of cultural destruction, thus it is considered genocide. Birdacorn (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me just say that I agree with you, personally, that Andrew Jackson's Indian policy constituted genocide but consensus on WP said something different so the need for compromise brought about a better article, by far not perfect and not completely what I wanted. Still, it is better. As I stated above, anyone can feel free to to look in the archives and, if so desire, anyone can start a new RFC if you disagree with that outcome. --ARoseWolf 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Revolutionary War Service in Lede

Should a mention of Jackson’s Revolutionary War Service be included in the lede of this article? It’s significant. Henry Berghoff (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is the lead focuses on what is notable about Jackson. The narratives describing Jackson's Revolutonary War Service should be told in main text. They are now a standard part of the "Jackson biography" in the secondary literature. But the primary sources supporting this secondary literature are very thin. The verifiable details are very few. For example, look at the discussions we've had about the lack of information in the "officer and the sword" story, or Jackson's actual status and roles in the military or militia. Wtfiv (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s a good point. I’d like to note that I found a record on family search of Andrew Jackson listed in the South Carolina Militia in 1779, a year earlier than he claimed. Henry Berghoff (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Henry, See this earlier conversation on this topic. Wtfiv (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that. I'm just mentioning the fact that there is hard evidence that Jackson served in the Rev. War. Henry Berghoff (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

In the previous conversation, it was mentioned that in WP:RSP familysource.org is listed as a "generally unreliable" source. Wtfiv (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I found this record on family search, however, while the host site itself could be considered unreliable, the record itself is reliable. A microfilm of it was provided. The record dates from 1779/80, and Jackson’s name is written on it as a soldier who served. Henry Berghoff (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 § Oh, do not cry. Be good children and we will all meet in Heaven. until a consensus is reached. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)