History vs. Andrew Jackson - James Fester

View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/history-vs-andrew-jackson-james-fester

Andrew Jackson was both beloved and loathed during his presidency. In this imaginary courtroom, you get to be the jury, considering and weighing Jackson's part in the spoils system, economic depression, and the Indian Removal Act, as well as his patriotism and the pressures of the presidency. James Fester explores how time shapes our relationship to controversial historical figures.

Lesson by James Fester, animation by Brett Underhill.

A national hero? Or public enemy number one?

Historical figures are often controversial,

but few were as deified or vilified

in their lifetime

as the seventh president of the United States.

This is History vs. Andrew Jackson.

"Order, order, hm, what were we -- yes, Mr. Jackson!

You stand accused of degrading the office of the presidency,

causing financial collapse

and wanton cruelty against American Indians.

How do you plead?"

"Now, your Honor, I am not a big city lawyer,

but I do know a few things.

And I know President Jackson was

a self-made frontiersman,

a great general,

a real man of the people."

"Your Honor, this 'man of the people' was a gambler,

a drunk, and a brawler.

Why, I've heard it said that

he would fight at the drop of the hat,

and then drop the hat himself.

Now, I ask you,

was such a man fit for the most distinguished office in the nation?

Can we forget the debacle of his inauguration?

Whoever heard of inviting a drunken mob

into the WHite House?

It took ages to get the apolstery clean."

"That drunken mob, sir, was the American people,

and they deserve to celebrate their victory."

"Order, order! Now, did this celebration have pie?"

"Very well. Mr. Jackson, is it not the case

that immediately upon assuming office

you introduced the spoils system,

replacing hundreds of perfectly good Federal employees

with incompetetant party loyalists?"

"Your Honor, the President did no such thing.

He tried to institute rotation in office,

to avoid any profiteering or funny business.

It was the rest of the party

who insisted on giving posts to their lackeys."

"But Mr. Jackson complied, did he not?"

"Now, uh, see here."

"Moving on.

Mr. Jackson, did you not help to cause

the Financial Panic of 1837?

And the ensuing economic depression

with your obsessive war

against the Bank of the United States?

Was not vetoing its reauthorization,

as you did in 1832,

an act of irresponsible populace pandering

that made no economic sense?"

"Your Honor, the gentleman has quite the imagination.

That bank was just a way for rich Yanks

to get richer.

And all that money panic was caused

when British banks raised interest rates

and cut lending.

To blame it on the President is prosposterous, I say."

"But if Mr. Jackson had not destroyed the National Bank,

it would have been able to lend to farmers,

and businesses when other credit dried up,

would it not?"

"Hm, this is all highly speculative.

Can we move on?"

"Certainly, your Honor.

We now come to Mr. Jackson's

most terrible offense:

forcing entire tribes out of their native lands

via the Indian Removal Act."

"I resent that accusation, sir.

The U.S. of A. bought that land from the Indians

fair and square."

"Do you call coercian and threats

from a nation with a far more powerful army

fair and square?

Or signing a treaty from removing the Cherokee

with a small group that didn't include

their actual leaders?

They didn't have time to properly

supply themselves before the army came

and forced them to march the Trail of Tears."

"Now, hold on a minute.

This was all Van Buren's doing

after President Jackson left office."

"But Mr. Jackson laid the groundwork

and made sure the treaty was ratified.

All President Van Buren had to do afterwards

was enforce it."

"Look here, your Honor.

Our government's been purchasing

Indian Land since the beginning.

And my client was negotiating these deals

even before he was President.

President Jackson truly believed

it was best for the Indians

to get compensated for their land

and move out West,

where there was plenty of land

to keep them living

the way they were accostumed,

rather than stick around

and keep butting heads with the white settlers.

Some of whom, I remind our court,

wanted to exterminate them outright,

It was a different time."

"And yet, even in this different time,

there were many in Congress

and even the Supreme Court

who saw how wrong the Removal Act was

and loudly opposed it,

were there not?"

"My client was under a great deal of pressure.

I say, do you think it's easy

governing such a big country

and keeping the union together,

when states are fixing to nullify

federal laws?

President Jackson barely got South Carolina

to back down over those import tariffs,

and then Georgia had to go discover gold

and start grabbing up Cherokee land?

It was either get the Indians to move

or get in another fight with the state government."

"So, you admit that Mr. Jackson

sacrified moral principles to achieve

some political goals?"

"I do declare, show me one leader who hasn't."

As societies change and morals evolve,

yesterday's hero may become

tomorrow's villain, or visa versa.

History may be past,

but our understanding of it is always on trial.