H. W. Brands treated Jackson gently but not without contradiction. His ‘involvement with slavery began almost inadvertently’, Jackson receiving his first slave by virtue of a legal client’s inability to pay his fee. The ‘relatively modest number’ of his slave transactions in the 1790s made him ‘a slaveholder rather than a slave trader’. Later, however, Brands argued that Jackson ‘bought and sold slaves as his business required’, but as the Tennessean’s stature grew, he withdrew from ‘the traffic in slaves’ to protect his reputation. This contention ignored the reality that Jackson continued to buy and sell slaves as president and up until at least February 1844. Recalcitrant slaves received ‘brutally severe’ punishment; obedient slaves were treated ‘as humanely as his need to profit by their labor allowed’.
[source : Mark R. Cheathem, Andrew Jackson, Slavery, and Historians, History Compass 9/4 (2011): 326–338]
What a scumbag!!
No wonder Infowhores idolise him!!
And that's because Alex Jones' ancestors were colonels and generals in The Confederate Army. That kind of strong feeling for 'the cause' gets passed down within families from generation to generation. Battle flags and swords will be stored somewhere safe and brought out once a year for their children to be inspired and to be told great tales of bravery and sacrifice (when in reality they were just a bunch of dickhead thugs who, outnumbered 4 to 1 and with no industrial economy, went to war to protect their right to keep and beat and rape slaves!!)
No comments:
Post a Comment