History vs. Andrew Jackson - James Fester
2014 ж. 20 Қаң.
3 068 092 Рет қаралды
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/history-vs-...
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.
Interestingly enough, Andrew Jackson HATED paper money. So, he probably wouldn't have wanted his face in the $20 bill.
He would want it on a coin (get it cause it's not paper money)
Kiandyrino Kripperino He wantes to be on the 20 dollar coin.
Nothing more ironic than Andrew Jackson on a central bank note
That's why they're replacing it with Harriet Tubman though it won't be printed after a year or 2 I believe.
NAVEMAN3 trump will stop that!!
"That drunken mob was the American people!" Lololol
zerosysko he's not wrong
imaferretmaster Even if is true doesn't mean is right
Martin Leonardo Rocha Mercado who said it was?
But it was. Even on its dead beds I think any reasonably sane person would trust a drunkard to be more truthfully himself/herself rather than a lawyer is due to the nature of his/her profession of manipulating arguments for profit.
No it was you
"That drunken mob, sir, was the American people." This should be written on money.
Funny this was before the Irish really got to America as well. Not pretending we didn't probably make it worse lol.
this... aged
@@_Pangloss ....terribly....
the same party trump invited to congress after loss
Good.
"I do declare show me a leader who hasn't" Can we just talk about how perfect this line is?
Yes.
Of course, every leader that lost their grip on their state!
Honestly, there are good leaders, in history that were morally upright, but then the guys below them were greddy and created situations were this rare group of leaders in history couldn't keep most of their morals upheld. Honestly similar things are happening today we just dont know about it.
@@VenemousHaze very true
4:24 who hasn't, actually
"He would fight at the drop of a hat, then drop the hat himself." My sides arw in orbit.
Thug life
@@johnlocke4695 yeah lol
I don’t see anything wrong whit that 🤷🏻♂️ hot headed ole boy. It got me laughing too
TED-Ed didn't come up with that quote, if you were wondering.
@@finnlewis6207 who did then
"I killed the bank" - Andrew Jackson
Weren't those his last words
"I am the bank" - Also, Andrew Jackson
@@sunnyboi2371 not, his last words were that he regretted that he didn't killed the vice-president.
@@sunnyboi2371 The last thing he said would be about how he wished he killed Henry Clay and John C Calhoun
@@ethancooper8106 Fake made up quotes
"That drunken mob, sir, was the American people." Now that's an understatement.
Not all of the American people
The ones that matter.
@@christopherhook2141💀
1:18 "order! order! now, did this celebration have pie?" this judge is asking the real questions. I give this man a noble peace prize
i would charge not guilty at that time because they had pie.
Nobel. Nobel peace prize
I agree 😁😁
One thing I'd like to point out is that the Supreme Court did not just, "loudly oppose" the Indian Removal act, they openly declared it unconstitutional. In the case of Worcester v. Georgia, the court ruled that the Cherokee nation was a Sovereign nation and that as such the Indian Removal Act was invalid, illegal, unconstitutional and against treaties previously made between it and the United States. I'd also like to highlight that the Court's ability to interpret the Constitution and declare Executive Actions unconstitutional is one of the most important of the Checks and Balances inherent to our government. That Jackson was willing to ignore the political opposition to the Indian Removal act is one thing (he's the President and he has that right), but the fact that he was willing to openly show that he would not abide by the laws of the United States as interpreted by the Supreme Court can only be attributed to his personal arrogance. That is indefensible.
Matthew Hirsch Andrew Jackson said "Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it"
hi
Hey
Count Hiram That tale is thought to be apocryphal, but it certainly encapsulates his arrogant, Napoleonic mentality.
+Matthew Hirsch And yet the idiots who defend him only care that he is a badass.
"I do declare, show me one leader who hasn't." Caligula. XD
And I oop-
Yazuka Vleston Caligula was a roman emperor
@@griffin__sutek4958 And what did he (not) do?
Caliga did though.
little boots go brrr
Don't blame me I voted for Henry Clay
A.K.A. Hilary Clinton of 1828.
SMH MY HEAD
I voted for Crawford in 1824 then Clay in '28
My vote goes to spaghetti monster...
@@oscargillette9855 I voted for Weaver in 1892, TR in 1912, La Follette in 1924 and Perot in 1992. Don't blame me.
History v. Alexander Hamilton. Especially fitting considering some of the arguments would be swapped from prosecution to defense and vice-versa since Hamilton did a majority of the work in establishing the national bank. I also would be curious to see if the Reynolds Pamphlet would be brought up.
DucksUnlimited Lol Jacksfilms will be proud
“Alexander Hamilton had a torrid affair, and he wrote it down right there!”
@@akish302 _HIGHLIGHTS!_
Other than his affair, however, what bad did he do?
The prosecution has it hard enough against many of these accused, arguing Alexander Hamilton was bad is a lost cause.
History vs Ronald Reagan History vs John F Kennedy History vs Otto von Bismarck History vs Napoleon Bonaparte History vs Winston Churchill
Lyndon Johnson's more polarizing than Reagan and Kennedy combined.
@Alek Mitev Even today, people positively remember both Reagan and Kennedy, while LBJ is still divisive.
What did Churchhill do wrong? Gallipoli is the only thing that comes to mind.
@@paulsoroka621 churchill had multiple things going especially regarding the colonies
@@deadfly122 Like the misinformation about how he declined supplies from the allies to help with the famine in India? When put into context it makes complete sense why he would do that.
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
nanana nanana You got that from Batman didn't you?
@caller347 its a great line, now its a good place and time so shut up
Mysterious Stranger he was a hero as a general who saved New Orleans from the British, and later became a president who enforced a genocide even though the court declared this action unconstitutional.
Either die a villain or be dead long enough to become one.
He is a genius
wait for 2050. History Vs Donald Trump
Can’t wait for that one
@@kadoodledo That'll be interesting.
but they won't be able to defend him
YES
He's kinda the same like Andrew Jacksom
history vs Che Guevara Teddy Roosevelt Ronald Reagan John Brown Leon Trotsky I feel like these would be interesting
What's there against Teddy?
If you're Hispanic, you probably don't like him, or his "gunboat diplomacy." Given that list, I can't imagine Teddy and Che ever being drinking buddies.
+The Gerballs Didn't he stay in office too long or something?
Kyle Netherwood I think you're thinking of his cousin Franklin, Theodore die try to become President again but lost.
man, I can feel all the asshurt conservatives already if they make one about Reagan. Unfortunately they probably never will since its "unamerican" to say any shit about him,
Just wanted to thank everyone for leaving their comments on this video. It was great to work with Brett and the rest of the TED-Ed team on this project, and looking over the great discussion below has literally made my day! Really enjoy hearing that people approve of the final product and I also appreciate the very constructive and astute criticisms. Thanks again for watching! - James Fester
“So you admit that Mr. Jackson sacrificed moral principles to achieve some political goals?” “I do declare: show me one leader who hasn’t.” A great point. Sometimes the greatest leaders in history were ones who were willing to sacrifice their morales to achieve a political goal. Not calling Jackson a great leader, he was certainly a “person of his time” and did a lot of things, some great, some terrible.
When you look at Jackson's life its clear that the universe wanted him dead, and by sheer force of will he carved his place in history. Good or bad its a captivating tale.
His biggest W was removing the Federal Bank. I don't understand why you let the government money be governed by a private institute crazy
Father was killed by indians
Washington: first president Lincoln: Ended slavery Jackson: very angry man
Jackson: Destroyed the Bank
Washington: Broke Oaths to Sovereign, and caused the French and Indian War DIRECTLY which led to the paths taken by Soldiers to be used by settlers. Which to be fair was prohibited by the King, but rich people and their money. Lincoln: Was a Dictator who imprisoned a Journalist who was complaining about how Lincoln imprisoned Journalists. Jackson: Alright yeah I hate him too.
Jackson: second George washington
@@Bramo2003 Pretty sure Washington's only regret wasn't that he didn't kill his VP
Jackson: Killed the bank
The "highly speculative" pun was excellent
"Yesterday's hero might be tomorrows villain" is probably the best sentence I've heard in a while.....
"So you admit he sacrificed moral principles to achieve some political goal." That's pretty much the entire summation of politics. A state has the imperative to act in the best interests of its people, without paying undo attention to others. Leaders are chosen (elected or not) because of their ability to get results. The people of a country do not care for the ultimate results of their government when it inconveniences another country so long as their lives are improved. Again, that is the purpose of the state. See: Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes
he pioneered these ethics. Its exactly why putin has a military background.....so did netanyahu....and over here in teh states...ppl cry about the boogie man the deep state....as our last military background pres was H.W.....and look at the iran contra-cold war era to thank those "YIELDS". VS how putin even benji ran their respective ships and benji as a spook too just like bush senior. To reach a high rank these days you have to be complicit with so much BS theres hardily any merit or potential for that person to actually be a viable political leader.....the level of corruption at play and ppl you have to get in bedwith(new faces etc) vs the circles ppl like putin and even benji were able to retain and properly utilize to their advantage vs the american political/military system....its as basic as being in a 20 year soft target war thats seemingly fruitless...whos gonna step up and take responsibility for a costly soft target war where millions are spent on superior air or paying back civilians for damages. NO military leader wants to be attached to the helm/shot calling and eventual failure of this war....look at how many high ranking officials have stepped away from their post as well as ppl on deployment ranking up purely bc ppl didnt want to go back period from leadership roles down like the very top and down. Not to mention having any dis-agreement with the commander in chief.....given "their" illustrious hisotry of military experience/optics from clinton to trump....imagine being the "expert" on war and pres/congress just wants to kick the can and cash cow as youre losing men and quality soldiers year by year with seemingly no viable way of replacing them or the men that lead them. Its pure BS its fine its not like ppl like jackson led to a 2 way party system either leaving ppl like Lincoln to claim a different party even though his idealisms are WHIG by nature. We can also thank jackson for that. While lincoln had to beg his competition for their delegates and coerce them with cabinet positions etc. LIKE A TRUE politician. VS insurmountable leverage like jackson....as if it didnt lead to the narrative/plot that led to the civil war.
The difference is that he obliged an entire tribe to get off a property by force on short notice, something that isn't done nowadays in developed countries
To those watching for the first time: If you watch these again after a few months have passed, especially if you only watch a few at a time (rather than all in one sitting,) you will get even more out of them the second time. I am on round 2 for some of these, & round 3 for others, and having done so, I most highly recommend returning to this series periodically to view it another way, in a different mood with different stresses, pressures, & experiences influencing your mind. It's great!
History vs. Woodrow Wilson!
@Rebel Jackson Yeah....wonder why......
Didn't he screen Birth of the Nation in The White House?
There is no defense
@@dissmo706 During his time as president, Wilson brought back the tradition of the State of the Nation Address, which had been abandoned since 1801. He passed progressive laws that preceded the New Deal, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Anti-Monopoly Act, and the Farmers' Loan Act
If I'm remembering this correctly, there was a court case in which the American Indians won the right to stay on their land. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, but Jackson said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" And disobeyed the ruling.
You know, this guy may not be the best person for the role of president, but damn what a badass
nah, we needed at least one badass to be president
+MURICA ! We got that with Teddy Roosevelt tho...
He's not a bad person.
Teddy Roosevelt is a Gentelman Badass.
Also committed systematic genocide
1:11-1:14 Pretty accurate.
Terra Titanius i think 4:18 is very accurate
Very nicely done, great way to show both sides of an argument. I'd gladly pay you guys to do one of these for all other major leaders in history, but I'm broke... Do it anyway?
That was pretty good.
Skating Commentator Get over it
Skating Commentator Sorry but this was a time constrained video where some details are more important than others, it's pointless to include every minuscule detail. Your claim is baseless and purely out of bias against Andrew Jackson.
Jonh And Cj Hoi what are you trying to say?
It’s really good that they are getting multiple perspectives on these historical figures. Historical figures must be viewed in their historical context.
Like Columbus, who was so cruel, he was arrested and deported to Spain.
The defendant lawyer: they had a party The judge: I don’t care, but did they have 🥧 PIE??
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie
Blaming economic upheaval on not having a National Bank is questionable as even though we have the Federal Reserve today such depressions still occur.
I wish more people understood that.
+augmenautus rex that laywer sounds like he owned a bank that needed bailed out, and the tax suckers will pay his bonuses.
+augmenautus rex Well, at the time, there was nothing wrong with the National Bank and it would have been capable of supplying money when the British banks refused. During depressions, there were things wrong with the Federal Reserve that made it unable to supply money. It is still a major part of the economy, and the issue is far more complicated that just the National Bank, but the National Bank was still very important to the issue.
+GoldenKingStudio Things wrong with the fed that made it unable to supply money? OMG Central banks are communism, as per Karl Hiendrich Marx 1845 Manifesto "das Capital" you are therefore a communist supporter, knowingly or otherwise, that seeks to slander capitalism, if our economy crashes from communism, taxation,centralized control of communication, transportation, currency, confiscation of property, etc, all Communism that we call capitalism, The solution is education and the ability to refuse propaganda and lies.
CaptainZuluGamma ... You understand what the United States Federal Reserve essentially is, right? I find it hilarious how ridiculous that rant was. Your "response" was nothing but incoherent slander against my character, calling me a Communist for no reason, and having the rest of your statement be a Grammatical mess. I am not even going to respond further, so have fun with that Cold War era Communist-paranoia that you have for some reason...
Jackson was such a badass. He fought in over 100 duels, defended New Orleans from Redcoats with the help of fucking pirates, and his parrot had to be removed from his funeral because it swore too much.
+Mark Nutt After a truce had already been declared...
+Drew Gaughan Both sides had no knowledge that a truce had been declared...
ReverendDoctorBobert Doesn't change the fact that the battle was useless.
+Drew Gaughan actually, If the Brits had taken the city do you think they'd give them back the city?
wakawooka Yes, because the status-quo treaty was already agreed.
I’m surprised that they didn’t talk about the numerous duels Jackson was said to have been in, even while in office
It’s Ironic that Andrew ended up on the 20 dollar bill.
This video is presented different in comparison to the other ones that I used to listen to and watch and I have to say that I like it. Keep up the good work. Good luck
This is a great concept. Great job guys, please keep these videos rolling.
"Did this celebration have pie?" No but it had 1,400 pounds of cheese!!
this history series is amazing! Really makes learning entertaining.
Andrew Jackson was one tough man, former generals are like that, though him supporting slavery and indian relocation was bad, i just like the fact that he was able to pay of the federal debt, gives us hope that it's possible hope we can pay it off soon
Don't be silly. With the Fed the US broke its own neck. The US creates more debth per month than any other state. Maybe there was a time when it was possible to do so (JFK for example did a very good job in fixing that shit - pitty he couldn't complete his work) but the US went far beyond the point of no return. It is either hyper-inflation via printing of horrendous amounts of money - or financial collapse of the US government. You saw what happened last autumn.
Paying off debt?? lol, bro how do you pay off debt when there is more liability in american than the money maket?
Well you simply don't have idea how this works. Maybe you are not to blame, but the educational system and the mass-media. Paying off the entire debt will result in no money in the money supply since money is created as debt via the fractional reserve baking system. No debt no money. Do your own research, you will find your answers.
last I checked, Jackson's refusal of renewing the natl.bank resulted in a depression
***** That's great that you made your research. Now it would be even better if you make the distinction between correlation and causation. Cheers!
I think TEDEd should do History v Caesar. A leader for the people, or just another Roman dictator, killing innocent people? Or would that be too much like History v Lenin?
Caesar would be a close one, I think. Now, if they did Nero? No contest. EVERYBODY hated Nero.
Ceasar gave us the calendar we use today.
@@BirdRaiserE Did Nero hate Nero?
This was so good! Pls make more vids like this!
this was a good video, i always enjoy the ted ed videos- keep doing what your doing
I love this series, thanks for posting!
interesting how they always leave off with their own bias at the end
+Zindai x so true
+Zindai x If they make their own video they are free to do as they please
Brad Merkley However educational videos shouldn't be biased under any circumstance. That is where it is turned into propaganda.
Zindai x I do notice that about form's of education for instance a few of my teachers have said some thing disapproving communism or socialism or some thing else, but I usually form my own political stand point others seem to have no idea what they are even saying.
+Zindai x I see where you lie on the issue and I agree that it would be great if all educational material was free of bias. But completely unbiased views are impossible in reality. There has been no time in human history where education has not been biased towards any sort of system For example, current teaching of lower level economics is heavily biased towards mathematical models to explain and predict trends. Contrarily, the whole subject matter it self could be taught through qualitative measures, more logic and "cause and effect" then using mathematical models. Who decided that was the best way to teach? The same could be used to distinguish a sociologist from a history major. Both could be taught the "unbiased" views of their disciplines, looking at both sides equally, but HOW those subjects are taught will lead the majors to come to completely different conclusions to the same question. What information you are exposed to will bias that opinion I think you are missing the point of how important opinion can be as well in teachings. The whole field of theoretical physics would not be able to exist if we did not conform to some of the "whims" that experts had on a particular phenomenon. I think instead of getting angry at bias that results from educational material, we need to learn how to educate how to detect these biases much better. It does not fit in the "box" of first world education systems by subject. IMO, the best way to do this currently is through discussion of peers to see from different points of view
I love how the judge puts it. "You mangled the American economy! Oh, and on a side note, massacred and exiled natives, but the economy!
0:22 Andrew Jackson went Super Saiyan against the Judge XD
Nathan. 😂👌
History vs Che Guevara pleaseeee
A man with good intentions, but probably wrong ways. Not a communist but a humanitarian, that realize that capitalism and communism was the same shit at the end of his life.
Not bad at all sir
Sergio Obando I know he wasn't bad, but he think the only solution was violent revolution. He was a really great man.
No I'm saying. Your statement. Not bad at all
Sergio Obando You have the best name ever. And Che? Yup, communist figures are the best to do trial videos on.
If you address these overwhelmingly partisan debate, you'll find that in retrospect, historical figures are portrayed in dichotomous good or bad instead of a real person with accomplishments and mistakes. In some sense, it is unfortunate that we ultimately have to pick a side.
Please make more of these!
Didn’t mr Jackson just ignore a court ruling that said the Cherokee could stay on their land
They never told him if there was pie
Smh 😔
Sad
This is a really interesting video. I love that it makes me think for myself, and doesn't try to push one point of view or the other. It kind of reminds me of that movie "The Story of Mankind" with Vincent Price. I think all to often, we look back at what historical figures SHOULD have done, without considering what they COULD have done. Also, it is important to keep in mind that we're looking at history with 20/20 hindsight. Maybe someday in the future, we'll be seeing similar videos about George W. Bush or Barrack Obama.
What do you mean by "20/20 hindsight" ? I do not know this term and I would like to.
I refer to the 20/20 part, i know what hindsight means
Murphy Jones 20/20 is perfect vision. So you see the past perfectly.
Murphy Jones 20/20 is another way of referring to "normal" good vision.
LynneSkysong Oh, I get it, thank you
3:24 did Jackson just blink in his frame? And earlier he turned his head in his frame.
I always appreciate hearing various viewpoints, even about otherwise reprehensible people, but moral relativism seems to be the first tool in the toolbox for this series.
"As societies evolve..." Excuse me??
What moral relativism?
He was an honorable president. Your clearly bias since he wanted to drop a nuke on the Jewish bankers.
He was actually wanting to preserve America's tenants and not be subdued by the leaches from Europe.
@@jsm530 "jewish bankers"
“Lol you declared war on the banks” *YES*
Man tried to tear down the federal bank, thats a plus on my book
Yeah he also slaughtered thousands of native Americans in the trail of tears
"...Cohesion and threats by a far more powerful army...." Literally most of Europe and the Ottoman Empire: *Sweating nervously*
He's whispering so soft it's like I'm in an ASMR video
"That drunken mob was the people!" And that drunken mob is still the people. We're just a bit further along.
"Now your honor I'm not a big city Lawyer..." Me: "I don't know about that."
"do you call cohertion or threat by a nation with a far more powerful army fair and square " describing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
I agree, Israel was very outnumbered, it's amazing it survived against Syrian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Egyptian, and 'Palestinian' forces. Israel won it's powerful army of 2016 by winning with an under powered army in 1948. I have no sympathy for murderers and instigators, if 'Palestine' and the 'Palestinian' people would stop murdering Israelis, attacking Israel with rockets, and electing terrorist to government the Israel wouldn't have to use it's powerful military. G-d bless Israel and the United States of America.
+USA-ISRAEL!!! NCR-ENCLAVE!!! if israel hadn't invaded their land and killed their families , they wouldn't have attacked them ,having won doesn't make them right
Karim What land? It was the Jewish homeland centuries ago, then it was Roman, then it was transfered from empire to empire, until the Ottomans had control of it, then the British. That specific area was a swamp and underdevoloped, until Jews started to move in, buy land, and fix it up. Almost nobody lived there before 1860, it wasn't until the Jews had started moving back and getting it started did the Arabs from neighboring areas start to move in. They moved in and life went on, except then the Holocaust happened and more and more Jews came to Judea, and the British finally gave it to the United Nation who voted to establish two independent nations, Israel and Palestine. There would have been two equal nations land wise in that area, except the Jews accepted it but the 'Palestinians' and other Muslim nations rejected it and attacked the nation. The Jews lived there too, and they didn't attack until they themselves were attacked in their homes and their families were killed. Who were the real invaders, the Jews who had lived there for decades longer and started those communities or the Muslims who only went their after the Jews had been their for decades. They should be most angry at Egypt and Jordan, who took Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem and kept it until the Jews took over and gave 'Palestine' a provinsional government and control.
+USA-ISRAEL!!! NCR-ENCLAVE!!! it was the jews' , centuries ago, and usa belonged to the red indians , and half asia europe and africa belonged to the turks, that doesn't give them right to take it? no it doesn't. It was a swamp? well even before the Ottoman period there were palestinians who lived there , the british gave it to the united nations , it wasn't even theirs to give , it was the palestinians, the UN voted to take away a part of a nation's land and they rejected , they're not obliged to share their home . Imagine if i come to your home , tell you i have been attacked and that, because of my book, your house is rightfully mine , and then i get my friends to vote for us to divide the house and then if you try to claim it , i call you a terrorist , how does that sound ?
+Karim There has never been a nation called 'Palestine', the name 'Palestine' came from the Roman occupation of Judea. The Jews kept revolting against the Romans, so the Romans chose the Jews worst historic enemy, the Philistines, and called that area Philistine from then on. That eventually became 'Palestine', but there has never been a nation called 'Palestine' or a people called 'Palestinians' until the 20th century. You don't know how wars, diplomacy, or colonialism works, because that land was conquered by the Turks, then the Turks were defeated by the British, who then gave all powers over the land to the United Nations. 'Palestine' wasn't a sovereign, independent nation and the people of this area couldn't agree on a solution, so the British were well within' their rights to surrender the Palestinian Mandate to the UN without infringing upon sovereignty. To sum it up, Palestinians have only existed as long as the Jewish state has, while 'Israelis' have existed in exhile for centuries. You seem to forget that jews back then were also called 'Palestinians', and they couldn't decide on a resolution to the situation so they wanted the UN to help. Also in your theretical house, you forgot to mention that the Jews built the house, then the Muslims moved in, and they lived in violence for decades before the British came in saw the choas and turned to the UN for help, who then divided the house up evenly. However then the Muslim 'Palestinians' went crying to the neighbors and they come over with tanks and guns and plane, while the Jews are left to fend for themselves by the British and UN. Then the Neighbors lose and take the Muslim 'Palestinian' parts of the house for themselves.
"to protect the indians" good one.
Kinda like how the government currently is now violating us citizens for our own good from covid.
I despise Jackson in terms of his policy against native Americans, but I do have to admit, that he was the only president brave enough to take on the banks and the elites, and the only president who advocated for class warfare. Probably the best economic policy of any president.
Well mate we can agree that the native Americans would have otherwise been exterminated had he not acted quickly .
I don’t like Andrew Jackson, but they missed the fact that he expanded voting rights to include the working class and not just landowners
And that he adopted an infant Indian whose tribe refused to care for. He and his wife raised Lyncoya Jackson as their own and General Jackson even secured an appointment for him at West Point. Sadly, his life was cut tragically short from illness. Kiiiiiiiiiinda worth mentioning in a piece about Jackson and his relationship with the “merciless Indian savages” (as the Declaration of Independence calls them).
Jackson did not expand voting rights. Voting rights expanded during the Jacksonian Era and he was a beneficiary of that change. Voting rights was a reserved power at that time and was the concern of state governments. Many states did expand voting after the election of 1824--- in which Adams defeated Jackson in the House of Representatives.
@@czupryn98 i mean he killed a lot more natives than the one he kinda liked and it’s good he died early. It should of happened even earlier
I love these videos. Really gets you thinking.
Such an interesting pattern for a ted ed video. And the three voices by addison anderson are really good.
"Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!"
Did he say this for real?
"you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" -The Dark Knight
This series is amazing and thought provocating...
they didn't mention that Andrew Jackson killed a bunch of people in duels for entertainment
I don't think duels are done for entertainment purposes.
normally theyre not done for entertainment, which is why Andrew Jackson's duels are noteworthy.
definetely not for entertainment you dumbass. and it wasnt just killing. many times jackson got shot himself but didnt die. you act like he lined people up and shot them for fun.
***** you forgot to mention 1 of those times Jackson got shot, it was because he let his opponent get the first shot. Jackson summarily executed that opponent. comes across as a bit of entertainment to me.
Emperor Krell Andrew Jackson only killed one person while dueling (but he did duel quite often)
"I killed the bank" his last words
I love how they leave it open for you to come to your own verdict.
Andrew Jackson: disestablishes the national bank, oversees a depression, and dislikes paper money America: yeah, that's the guy we should put on money
To be fair... *ALL* of the Founding Fathers were AGAINST *Paper Money.* In fact, the explicitly worded the constitution to only grant Congress the power to _MINT_ coinage. Mint coinage = Coin-based currency made from *precious metal* (silver). They all knew Paper Money was a scam. Read about Thomas Jefferson. He actually died broke & penniless.... because he was forced to accept paper currency from his land-tenants (but the currency became defunct as Fast as it was paid to him). I can shoot you some links if you want ❤❤
3:20 makes a strong argument and finishing point had me thinking, "Daaaamn!"
Of COURSE I watch this video after the test...
Welcome to United States, where Andrew Jackson is a villain, and Che Guevara gets a T-shirt.
well both were equally terrible, but i get your point
+goldielocksetx Yeah, because you never see Andrew Jackson anywhere in the U.S.
GuruJudge21 the 20 dollar bill is one place
Iznikroc That was the point I was making ;).
YOU ARE MY HERO. I HATE THIS P.C. CRAP.
I loved the episode it was great!!!
I hope you people make more of this History Va
Very good. In my opinion the basic lesson to be learned from these videos is stated at the end. Basically it is how to acquire historical empathy as the specific skill of understanding the context in which events happened and why people behaved the way they behaved. It leaves open questions for us to judge.
I must admit that Jackson had some pluses but I live just a few miles from the Cherokee capital, New Echota, and will never forget what he did to the natives that lived here.
Amazing presentation. Thank you very much
I want this series back 😭😭😭
For anyone who despises Jackson: I offer to duel with you for his honor with impunity from legal consequence.
I accept, I choose Dueling sabers, when and where?
That's for your seconds to decide
Good god have I missed him?
History vs Edison
kratos23235 vs Tesla!
kratos23235 Edison electrocuted puppies 😭
JTA Mallari yes, he even electrocuted a elephant.
One was a misogynist, the other an animal murderer. Who will win? Who will die?
I LOVE HOW ITS ALL ONE VOICE, VOICE ACTING ON POINT
I am writing an SAQ tomorrow and this is EXACTLY what I needed thank you
i would read in defense of andrew jackson
2:54 "we bought them fair and square" yeh with a figin gun to there head
Bravo, this is a far more balanced portrayal of President Jackson than most I have seen before. Thank you.
There are so many great lines in this.
I thoroughly enjoyed that. very well written.
"i kill the bank" andrew jackson last word
Wtf did the picture blink at 0:40???
History vs. Jose Rizal please!
DO A HAMILTON ONE
Grace Janku YASSSS :D
Please do :)
I remember in 6th Grade, we learned about Jackson, and we were told to draw a political cartoon of what we thought of him, and the pics would get displayed in the hallway. I drew his face on a donkey who was pooping. I remembered our teacher said to me, "Wow, you must have really not liked him, huh?". That moment stuck with me, despite me forgetting why I didn't like Andrew Jackson. Glad I finally remember now, though! :p
Great video.
Wonderfully good video! It's not biased and let's us choose. Good job!
this is some history i shoud know and keed doing good work pals