If there was ever a badass among our founding fathers it would be Andrew Jackson. Why? Keep reading. Jackson was a man’s man – something not exactly promoted or prominent in today’s climate. He refused to back down from a fight, but had a gentle side, too. He loved children and was said to be tender with women (interpret that as you will). Granted, he had a reputation as a bit of a jerk (Can you be a badass without also being a jerk? Food for thought.).
Many blame Jackson for the Trail of Tears and he was indeed a slaveholder. But despite those things he remained the kind of man you’d want to share a beer with. When he became president he opened the White House doors to the general public, drawing a crowd that grew so raucous staff members ended up luring them back outside by putting tubs of spiked punch on the lawn.
While he signed the Indian Removal Act, he was the deeply devoted adoptive father of an orphaned Indian child. Contradiction much? Yes, he possessed some less-than-stellar qualities, but he was inarguably a brave and valiant founding father with a patriotic heart.
Perhaps most noteworthy was his military service which started with his enlistment at the ripe old age of 13. Jackson got started serving as a courier during the Revolutionary War, but it wasn’t as easy as it sounds. During those early years of service he was captured, making him our only president to date to have been a prisoner of war.
Due to his age, he was promptly forced into servitude by a British general. Legend has it the general ordered the young courier to spit-shine his boots and Jackson’s response to the order was along the line of the era’s version of “when hell freezes over.”
As punishment for refusing, the general severely cut Jackson’s face and hands, leaving him with scars he bore for the rest of his life. When Jackson was eventually liberated from the British, he simply returned to service as if nothing had happened.
In addition, Jackson was an integral and badass part of the War of 1812. When he was charged with defending the crucial port we now know as New Orleans he immediately knew his men would be sorely outnumbered by the coming British assault.
Not one to back down, he gathered every military man he could find, pulling them from every branch. Next, he requested assistance from free blacks and then, suspecting he’d need still more men, he went to Barataria Bay and recruited an infamous band of pirates.
When the British finally attacked on January 8, 1815, they outnumbered Jackson’s motley forces by more than 2:1, but it didn’t matter. His men fought ferociously and, probably using “dirty” tactics. When the dust settled and the bodies were dragged off, the British were down 2,037 men. The Americans had lost 13.
He was also the first president to have an assassination attempt made on his life and, of course, he handled it as only Old Hickory could. The assailant’s name was Richard Lawrence, and let’s just say he ended up having a lousy day.
Lawrence came after Jackson with a pair of loaded pistols, both of which misfired. Jackson, seeing his would-be killer without a functioning weapon, used the best weapon at hand: his cane. That’s right, Jackson beat the crap out of his attacker with his cane until his aides decided Lawrence had had enough and dragged Jackson away from him.
Don’t think his cane was his only defense, though, (although I kind of want my own defensive cane now). Jackson kept a pair of beautifully-maintained dueling pistols at the ready for 37 years, lest anyone should ever refer to his wife in anything but the most respectful tones (yes, really). No really.
On May 30, 1806, rival horse breeder Charles Dickinson first insulted Jackson’s horses and then his wife. The dueling pistols were then put to good use. Historians say Dickinson referred to Jackson as “a coward and an equivocator” and called his beloved wife Rachel a “bigamist.” Furious, our American Badass immediately challenged Dickinson to a duel. At the time, Dickinson was known as “the best pistol shot in all of Tennessee.”
As Jackson said, “I was born for the storm and a calm does not suit me.”
Jackson believed his best chance for winning the duel was to take his time aiming, so he decided to let the Tennessee sharpshooter go ahead and drill him with a musket ball. On the day in question Dickinson proved his reputation was well-deserved by aiming right at Jackson’s heart.
But when the musket ball struck his chest, Jackson barely flinched. Instead, he focused on steadying his shooting hand to take his shot. At first his gun misfired but with a second pull of the trigger, the ball found its way, striking Dickinson in the abdomen. The duel ended there.
The ball in Jackson’s chest ended up situated mere inches from his heart and remained in his chest until the day he died. It caused him chronic pain – no surprise there – and a rattling cough but, as a badass, he carried on.
Dickinson, however, bled to death later that same night from the gut shot from the apparently invincible future president. Jackson participated in more than 100 duels in his lifetime because nobody — and he meant nobody — dissed his wife. Or his horses.
Say what you will about Old Hickory, but he was an undeniably cool founding father. As the proverbial icing on the cake, he was unflinchingly loyal.
During the winter bridging 1812 and 1813, just as the War of 1812 got underway, then-Major General Jackson mustered an impressive 2,000 volunteers to battle. He and his men departed Tennessee intending to reach New Orleans and marched 500 miles in the bitter cold only to be disbanded by the Secretary of War when they reached Mississippi. Jackson, however, refused to make his men find their own way home and swore to keep them together and do whatever it took – including spending his own money – to get them home.
To further complicate things, 150 of the men had fallen ill during the march and there were only 11 wagons to transport those unable to walk. When regimental doctor Samuel Hogg approached Jackson asking what he should do with the remaining sick men, Jackson lost it.
Outraged, he is said to have yelled the following: “To do, sir? You are not to leave a man on the ground!” Hogg argued the wagons were already full to overflowing and half the men still needed transportation. Jackson’s retort? He ordered his officers to give up their horses to the sick men. And he dismounting his own horse so it could be used, too. He then walked all the way back home to Tennessee alongside his men. “Not a man, sir, must be left behind,” he’d told Hogg, and he meant it.
Andrew Jackson was a man’s man, and a badass’s badass, and he made sure no one ever forgot it.
There is, of course, much more. There’s always more to history than textbooks bother to mention and our nation’s history is rife with badasses, a little detail most kids today don’t know. Maybe if the badassery of our forefathers was better known we wouldn’t be in the current mess we are.
Or maybe not. Who knows? All I know is it’s our job to make sure these little details aren’t lost to re-writes and deletion, so here I am, spreading the badassery. Who’s your favorite American badass?
He also had open contempt for the US constitution, the separation of powers, and was responsible for genocide. Don’t forget that.
Have you any source for that “open contempt for the Constitution” remark? Jackson said these:
“It was settled by the Constitution, the laws, and the whole practice of the government that the entire executive power is vested in the President of the United States.”
and
“All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary.”
Doesn’t sound like contempt to me. Perhaps you’ve been misled?
sources:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/andrew_jackson_110371
I believe the story is that when the SCOTUS ruled against the Indian Removal Act his response was ‘Let them raise an army to stop me then’.
… I’m not gonna lie, that is a very badass response…
The view was “supreme among the courts.”
Fuckin’ A. American Badass, Tennessee Badass.
And the Indian Removal Act was basically a land grab scam where Jackson enriched his friends (and himself) by giving them the inside info on the sale of the Indian land so they could grab it up on the cheap and get rich selling it for the real market value.
a man ahead of his time! that goes on daily in DC now.
Well, there are perks to the job.
The red savages had to be removed for the good of the American nation. At least he removed them instead of exterminated them like the Indians would have done.
They weren’t savages. At least not according to the standards of the time. They were called the five civilized tribes for a reason. I’m not one to apologize for America’s history. I don’t think slavery was some great American sin. I don’t have a problem with how Washington got his nickname from the Iroquois.
I judge historical figures by the standards of their day. It’s hard enough to live up to those, so I don’t think it’s fair to judge them by current standards. With all that said, I’ve said the only difference between Andrew Jackson and Hitler was that the Indians weren’t the bankers* (Jackson hated the banks). I’ve recently found out that Hitler actually came up with a lot of his goals for Germany by studying Jackson. Jackson was a monster, largely due to the trail of tears. He did some other monstrous things (like killing a man for accurately accusing his “wife” of bigamy), but if it had only been those other things, he would have just been flawed.
I call Jackson “America’s only super villain president.” We’ve had plenty of villainous presidents, but none of them have been “super.” Jackson was indeed a badass.
*I know not all bankers are Jewish and not all Jews are bankers, but if you can’t follow my point without accusing me of antisemitism, you’re a moron who isn’t worth talking to.
It’s true. When fighting Indians, it was said you should save the last bullet for yourself. You don’t want to know what the Indians did to those they captured. It was seriously messed up. Indians weren’t the innocent natives everyone makes them out to be. Some were peaceful, but the majority were raiders and pillaged each other long before the white man arrived. We weren’t angels either, however. Tldr, nobody has clean hands.
They probably were no worse than we would be/we were if we were being invaded, our lands stolen and being killed off like animals by an alien invading force. But the fact is 90% of the indigenous population of the North American and South American continents were wiped out by disease. It was our good luck as the country was pretty well populated up at the time and we would never have gotten a foothold if the infectious army had not cleared the way.
Wrong. The FACTS about ‘indians’ and their removal would make your head spin off your little sloped shoulders, and as I dont wish to be responsible for that mess, I’ll leave it for you to research if you really care.
Fact is, if the indians werent constantly stealing murdering and raping, there would have been no ‘relocation’ necessary. They were some of the most barbarous creatures on earth, from the time they moved in on this continent from the south and/or over across the Bering Straits until forced to behave somewhat civilised. Many groups still just left the old and nonproductive up on a hill alone in the winter until the 20th century…
Long the idol of the demtard party. And a SOB.
And the progressive tyrant who founded the Republicans is any better? Lincoln should have been smothered in the crib.
You deserve an ass-kicking for that level of ignorance.
Amen Mr Mallory. The worst war criminal this country has ever produced and the father of 90% of our current problems. [fdr runs a close second tho…]
Imposing contemporary values on historical events and people always tells us nothing about either the events being discussed or what the people who lived them were actually like. Removing the essential historical context from Jackson’s period and from Jackson himself is politics and not history. That said, Andrew Jackson was Scots-Irish, a fact that can explain a lot about the man and his times. There are plenty of people like him still around.
Really? Tell that to the “Supreme Court”….He told them to fuck off and fuck off they did, we need more Jackson in the GOP>
I didn’t make it all the way through the posts, but almost. Here’s a much better badass post.
www(dot)badassoftheweek.com/jackson.html
A walking stick is still a very good weapon. Not every problem is solved with a gun.
Favorite American bad ass? I see him in the mirror every morning.
http://www.coldsteel.com/irish-blackthorn-walking-stick-949.html
My EDC.
I never leave the house without it and I get nothing but admiring questions – despite two fully functional legs.
“It’s been dropped, kicked, rolled over by forklifts, chewed on by horses and floated down the Guadalupe.”
If I wasn’t already set to be cremated, I’d insist it be buried with me.
It’ll burn.
My favorite President! Eliminated the national debt and the Federal Reserve Bank. Go Jackson! A close friend of friend mine reinacts the Seminole Indian Wars. We need another like him! Tomorrow!
This. Destroyed the central bank, and he was the last to do so. He kept America free for a bit longer than if he hadn’t. Good man.
Kept Americans free while enslaving others. The very definition of a “good man”.
If only someone had a time machine to go teach Jackson modern intersectional feminism so that he could check his white, male, cis-gender privilege… Oh… wait… history doesn’t work like that.
A man’s actions can only be judged by the standards of his time. That’s why what Hitler and FDR did was monstrous while what Lincoln and Sherman did was far less so.
Slavery was accepted and a way of life throughout most of the world. Judging the men of that age by today’s standards is ridiculous.
Except even then there was a large portion of American and European society speaking out against slavery and the treatment of indigenous tribes. Slavery was abolished in Great Britain in 1833, around the same time as the Trail of Tears. People should be judged by their actions.
Yes, a very good man.
Who exactly do you think ‘enslaved’ those others? It wasnt us…the africans were captured by other africans and sold to arab slave traders. Had they not been, they would have been slaves to the stronger africans and / or eaten. The arab slave traders sold them to jewish traders, who transported them. Some 90% of slave ships were owned and operated by jews ; this is easily verified should you want to step out from in front of your television. So at least the ‘slave’ was given food and shelter, as well as attempts at education and civilisation.
And we see how we are repaid…
George Washington, in service to the British Crown during the French and Indian War, was temporarily taken prisoner by the French at Fort Necessity, Virginia (now West Virginia), after an ill-fated assault towards Pittsburgh. After a hasty retreat from a well-prepared French force, Washington’s men hastily built a white oak sapling stockade about 15′ in diameter with a shallow moat outside the wall, in anticipation of a French attack the next morning. When the first French fusillade of musketry easily penetrated the wall, the French commander called on Washington to surrender which, in the exercise of good judgment, he did.
And they are replacing him on the 20 dollar bill.
He should be on the 50 instead of Grant.
Frankly, Andrew Jackson has no business being on the $20 bill. Say what you will about him, but he was a staunch opponent of paper currency. To put his face on what is arguably the most important bill in circulation is like selling Catholic themed condoms.
foolish consistency bedevils the small mind.
“When he was charged with defending the crucial port we now know as New Orleans…”
Ahem. It was known as New Orleans from 1718 on.
And Jackson had a great tactical advantage. For one, his troops were stationed inside a drainage ditch that led down to the river, providing excellent cover. Second, the pirates, under Captain Jean Lafitte, provided muskets, flints, and cannon. Third, the field east of Jackson’s position was flat, and Jackson (or Lafitte, depending on whose story you believe) had had the field ranged at specified yardages the day before the battle, and sentries were posted who fired flares when the British came to those ranges, allowing massed accurate fire and artillery barrages. Finally, the morning of the battle was very foggy, so although neither side could see the other throughout most of the battle, the sentries allowed the American forces to accurately fire on the British, who were unable to return sustained fire.
Because of their assistance to the American forces the Barataria pirates were supposed to receive pardons. Jackson stiffed them.
Pick the spot and win the log battle and you’re home free. Not an accident or luck.
I’m partial to Theodore Roosevelt.
A man who believes you can become anything you want, and who believed that a man should develop toughness through perseverance and challenging yourself…. handy with a rifle, too
Seriously? Slavery and genocide are kind of a big deal…I miss Liberte.
Oh please… “genocide”? Really? Want to keep your land? Don’t lose wars. Vae Victis
As for slavery…
I would remind you that it was the Anglo-sphere that fought to abolish slavery in the entirety of the civilized world. An institution that existed for millennia was ended at literal gunpoint. (and only exists in one very specific part of the world that the SJWs always fawn over.)
Retroactive morality is pants on head retarded and is the worst form of historical revisionism.
On the other hand, Jackson was the founder of the Demoncrat Party which started a bloody civil war for the preservation and expansion of slavery.
Something tells me that Jackson would not have been very big on secession. As for slavery… let’s not forget that the last states in the Union to have legal slavery were in the North.
North/south is irrelevant, the Demoncrat Party was the pro-slavery party from it’s inception as the Republican Party was abolitionist from it’s.
In 1800, being a “pro slavery” party is hardly a mark against anyone. Again with the retroactive morality. Do I need to remind you that US vs The Amistad wasn’t even settled law until half a decade AFTER Jackson left office?
In Jackson’s era, slavery was very much a debated question. There was no settled moral consensus one way or the other. Condemning Jackson for being pro-slavery makes about as much sense as condemning Plato or Socrates.
But I’m sure you live with the popular American delusion that Lincoln started the Civil War in order to abolish slavery.
The states the seceded started the Civil War when they fired on supply ships at Ft. Sumter before Lincoln ever took office.
Yes there was a lively debate over slavery from the time of the Revolution. And Andrew Jackson was squarely on the wrong side of that debate and is held to this day as an icon of the Demoncratic Party. The same one that wants to take your guns.
Ft. Sumpter was an illegal occupation of foreign territory without a declaration of war under international law. The failure of federal troops to evacuate the fort when ordered to do so by the new government of the territory was an act of war. People always gloss over the fact that, under international law (even as it existed in the 1860s), the Union had no legal claim to Ft. Sumpter.
Hey, serge. The south fought a war and lost. Ain’t that the standard you use to judge these things? So they got no complaint coming.
That’s not relevant to basic historical facts. The fact is, the Union committed the first act of war.
Serge. Vae Victis means never having to say you’re sorry.
You miss my point. It’s not about who’s right or who’s wrong. It’s about the historical fact of who committed the first act of war.
No, the war was started by the North in order to keep collecting the taxes paid by the Southern States. Lincoln started the war with his invasion of the South.
Seriously serge it’s retarded to whine about coming from the old Soviet Union. My (ethnic German)grandparents came from Transylvania right before WWI. They went through hell…but they wanted to escape and excepted it-and never mentioned it. Are you telling me there weren’t a bunch of anti-slavery folks both here and in Britain? He basically stole the Cherokee nation for their land… weren’t you naming FDR a criminal for sending Japanese to internment camps? Both democrats…
Blah, blah. This is that 21st century moralizing and whining. Holding people who died nearly 200 years ago accountable to our modern-day standards. The fact of the matter is, all of our Founders and Heroes of the early Republic had some sort of “shortcoming” that don’t jive with 2018. You sound like the libtards of today. If it weren’t for men like AJ, our country would never have become what it became, and still is to this day: a global superpower. Does it suck that it came at the expense of people of nearly every demographic? Absolutely. But it doesn’t change the fact that it happened and helped to strengthen our country. I don’t see the Brits or Germans virtue signaling for the Anglo-Saxons, nor the Chinese for Han hegemony. Civilizations fall, peoples are conquered. As Serge said, if you don’t want that to happen, then don’t lose wars.
Basically stole is not the same thing as stole. They fought a war, they lost. As I said, Vae Victis.
But I’m sure you’d love to tell me how the poor Eastern European Tatar states were horribly oppressed when the Moscovites “stole” their land. Or how the franks in what would later be known as Normandy were horribly oppressed. Heck, we should probably give the entirety of the Middle East back to the copts? Right?
Applying 21st century morals to 18th and 19th century actions is the height of arrogance.
Better Americans had the land than the red savages that inhabited it.
Yes, they murdered people to steal land that wasn’t theirs and claimed to be Christians when they did so. They couldn’t live amongst the people of North America, they wanted to own all of the land. They hated the idea that one man can’t own more land than he can work. They made legal promises, then broke those laws to continue to steal and murder. Whenever they found resources on someone else’s land they used government to steal, murder, kidnap and pillage.
Why would any good human being blame the victims for losing a “war?” It wasn’t a war in the sense that a lot of white people would think. Murdering women and children in mass isn’t war. Deliberately destroying the food and water supply isn’t war. Leveling towns when the men weren’t around isn’t war. These things are now considered major human rights violations even between two waring nation States. But back then it was okay because white Christian people said it was, just like they said it was okay to not allow black people their human rights.
The United States government did commit genocide/ethnic cleansing. They did it because they wanted the entire continent for white Christians only and they wanted their form of white governance. They would only put up with non whites if those people were slaves/serfs. They made sure to limit the populations of non whites by various methods, including law. Their intentions from the very beginning was never to live in harmony with the native populace and progress from European concepts. They simply wanted control of their own space they couldn’t have back in their homeland. Even today “Americans” claim North America is a land by whites for whites.
If the indigenous people of the Americas weren’t so trusting and were properly armed, they wouldn’t have been so victimized by the European imperialists/globalists. They thought those white people were good people who they could trust and live amongst in peace. Things were okay until there was enough of them with guns to take over. Hence the need to be well armed regardless of who you are and who is in power. Because if you are murdered while unarmed, people will say it was your fault you lost that “war.”
Sure, everything you have mentioned is true. But it changes absolutely nothing. Be it different civilizations, races, ethnicity or whatever, when one group decides they want the land or resources of another group and attacks them, morals really don’t come into play, especially when we are talking 100+ years ago. This is a plain and simple truth. Western Europe is not simply a land of Celts and Goths anymore. See how that works? And by the way, yea it sucked what happened to the Native Americans, I think most of us can agree. I live in Southwest North Carolina…guess what, not signing my house over to the Catawba or Cherokees…I doubt you would sign your property over either. So why moralize on it? Sure it sucked, but it happened. Condemning all of that generation of Americans is silly and is nothing short of an exercise in virtue signalling. I knew as soon as I saw the title of this article, there would be comments against AJ. But he was a hard man needed during a hard time. Thanks to men like him, we can be keyboard commandos and sleep snug in bed and get lunch at Wendy’s tomorrow.
You’ve never studied military history, have you? Every tactic you described was common in war going back to Hammurabi. Go read up on the 30 years war if you want a taste of what was considered common practice at the beginning of this period in history.
Let’s not forget that the natives weren’t exactly the “noble savages” that historical revisionists would like you to believe. They did to each other far worse things than anything the Europeans did to them. The only difference between them and the Europeans is that the Europeans stopped doing it voluntarily. The Natives were forced to do so at European gunpoint.
not familiar with the wars the Indians waged against each other I see. Creek vs Shawnee, Shawnee vs Cherokee , Iroquois vs everybody who didn’t submit. Lakota vs Pawnee, Navajo vs Apache.
and how were settler women and children treated on the frontier? how did the Comanche treat women an children in taxes ?
I hate to play devils advocate on a serious subject, isn’t that kind of Darwinism though
CZ Jay. Sorry, but the reality is that we were doing what the indigenous people had been doing to each other for thousands of years before the Europeans ever got to the americas, just better.
The cultures back then was a generally retributive culture. They would raid each other for pillage, plunder and slaves, with rape and torture along the way. And they would count on their tribes reputation as severe and terrifying bad asses to keep other tribes from attacking them as a general deterrence. A modern corralary would be how the Hells Angels, the Banditos, the Mexican Mafia and MS 13 fight over control of drug territory along with gambling, the sex trade and extortion, and depend on their reps of badassery to keep control of their territories and protect against being attacked.
This is why the name for other tribes translated as the “enemy”. They were so busy fighting each other with long standing blood feuds, we would simply Ally with one tribe against another tribe, conquer the one tribe, then conquer the other tribes, after the main enemy was no longer a threat. Divide and conquer was the method. That was the norm for those times by European and indian alike. We just had better technology and over all unity than the “multi-cultural”, Indians. They were the perfect example of being diverse , and it made them too weak because they couldn’t unite against what in the end, was their common enemy.
In the end, it is like getting Misty eyed over the rampaging of Ghengis Khan’s Golden Horde or of Atila the Hun. Most of these various tribes would have tortured and killed you if you were an adult and had been captured during a raid, raped your wife and kept your young children as one of their own, or traded them as slaves.
What war did the Cherokee lose that lead to the confiscation of their lands in Georgia? At the time of the Act, the Cherokee were agrarian, wealthy, and farming some of the best soil in the state. They had a constitutional form of government based on the US constitution, and had adopted Christianity. Southern bigots wanted their land, and lobbied to have the Cherokee removed. Allegedly Jackson went along with the plan to protect the Cherokee from being killed off. And thousands of them died on the Trail of Tears when they were forcibly marched to Oklahoma without adequate food, transport, or protection from the elements.
I agree. That’s why I said most tribes. There were exceptions, the Cherokee were one of those. It is also why the Cherokee were called one of the civilized tribes. What happened to them was horrendous.
This is also why having the second amendment is so important. The corruption of those with power is endemic. I don’t know the details of whether the Cherokee were well armed or not, but if the redress of grievances weren’t going well, they might have got some more consideration if they had put up an armed resistance, or not. But I would have preferred dying putting up a good fight, rather than dying from hunger and cold on a forced death march.
Where has she gone? Maybe she’ll be back with the Sunday hunting pieces when the season comes around?
I sure don’t (miss Mis Liberty). Minimal knowledge of hunting and could never contribute a piece this good.
Why do we have a picture of Aaron Burr shooting Alexander Hamilton?
And yes, Jackson was among the worst excuses for a human being ever elected president.
Sez you. Opinions ain’t facts.
“Sez you. Opinions ain’t facts.”
Nope, that really is a picture of Aaron Burr shooting Alexander Hamilton. Not that it wasn’t a good idea but what is it doing in an article about Jackson.
Looks like a head shot, too.
He was a man living on two extremes: The Good, busting up the Central Bank. The Bad, Indian Removal Act, Trail of Tears, Slavery Advocate, etc.. The Ugly, his hair.
Now Teddy (the *good* Roosevelt), while not perfect, was much more of a man’s man (integrity and all that).
Yeah, he destroyed the central bank (which I agree is a mixed bag at best) and ushered in the first great depression that lasted at least 15 years. But hey, let them eat cake!
I understand that the use of cannon was very important in the battle of New Orleans. One of the ammunitions used was a pair of cannon balls joined by a length of chain. It would cut a swathe through marching troops. As the author said, more than 2,000 dead Brits compared to 13 U.S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL7XS_8qgXM
I absolutely hate that song. I worked in a nursing home in college, and that damn song came on the oldies station several times per night.
You have the wrong version. Lost the video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=3xt1kqW6sz4
You really cannot judge an 18th century man on 21st century morals. This behavior is why we see so much leftist SJW bullshit these days. These same antifa SJW will rail against the American military for its bombers for killing “innocent” Germans during WW2. Mother F*cker, That war had no innocents. Anyway, some of you need to check your 21st century privilege.
The civilian population is always innocent. It’s very easy to say such things when the US hasn’t faced a threat on its own soil in 200 years. 5 people died in Boston and we called it a massacre. 22-25k civilians were killed in Dresden and you just call it war.
That’s a very 20th century concept. The laws and customs of war as we know them weren’t really commonplace until well into the late 1800s. Go look up the Sack of Magdeburg for an interesting historical reference. Hell, look at Sherman’s March for a nearly contemporary example.
As for Boston. It was a massacre because it was committed by the government against its own people. The outrage was not in the number of dead, but in the fact that the subjects of the King were killed by the soldiers of the King.
Incorrect. Perhaps it was before you’re time, but in 2001, 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered on our home soil by barbaric Muslim savages. Which was done in the 21st century, by the way. I know, it’s been sssoooo long since then though, right?
The idea of leaving the civilian population alone is a very new concept in the history of warfare. Interestingly, it is partially derived from the concept of the individual right to self-defense, i.e. that just how if someone attacks you, you don’t then go and kill the attacker’s whole family in addition to the attacker themself, similarly, if two nations are engaged in war with one another, you do not go and start raping and pillaging the innocent civilian population.
But these concepts came about only in the last few hundred years.
Far less than that, actually. Attacks on civilian targets with no strategic value were common less than a century ago.
The SS killed a lot more than 25K innocent people. If Dresden is considered by he same standards 6 million would need to be dead.
Wow, way to minimize the atrocities of America’s first dictator. He openly shat on the separation of powers and rule of law, two critical pillars of the American Experiment, and he did so to commit a horrific series of forced marches against men, women, and children, during which thousands perished
The world’s smallest violin right here. Nothing against Native Americans (I feel obligated to say), but lest we forget that typically war crimes are a two way street. Where one side is committing them, so is the other. Plenty of examples of NA massacres of non-combatants, killing of prisoners etc.
Not that I know much about who my family actually is and their history… Far as I can tell, my grandmother was taken from her people by a man of European descent when she was very young. That was after they were forced to march to a so called “reservation.” I assume her name was changed, she was forced to be “white” and to practice one of the European religions.
My mother grew up in one of the leftist’s strongholds thinking she was white like them. She didn’t get the benefits that they did because she isn’t like them. Her outcome is like the many other unfortunate people like her. She gets taken advantage of by both political parties, she has been taught to be anti gun, she doesn’t know anything but European languages, she went to Church for some time, etc. Even though she tried to be “American” she didn’t get that American Dream, rather her life has been like some of those who live on the rez. It might be better if she reunites with her people because at least she would be around people who are more like family and she will have that identity before she dies (something my grandmother didn’t get).
I can’t celebrate America the same way as European Americans do. I can’t sit around the table and give thanks for what previous generations done… Sure, my ancestors probably helped defeat the Germans and Japanese, yet that didn’t change how indigenous peoples were treated then and how they are treated now.
I can’t live a prosperous and free life on a government reservation. I can’t support gun control… I can’t partake in the Democrat/Republican paradigm. I can’t worship previous badass government workers. One of the things I can do is hold white America to a higher standard than they hold themselves. Not to allow them to easily regress to old world European concepts. Fascism, Socialism, Communism — ultimately Statism — are not things I want Mexicans, Canadians and Americans to foster. I am more invested in liberty than white and black America.
Sure you can celebrate being an American of today. We are still the greatest country in the world, we still have the greatest freedoms in the world, we still have the ability to keep and bear arms that is denied over six billion other people making them slaves and us one of the few that is closer to being actually Free as a people at any time in history. Not perfectly, but still better than any time in history. I personally know a first-generation Vietnamese family that came here as refugees. They are now middle to upper middle class with three of their kids with Bachelors, two with Masters, having initially arrived with mostly just the clothes on their back. There’s nobody in history that has not been treated brutally and many have been taken as slaves. Many of my Western European ancestors had been taken as slaves by Muslim slave traders just a few hundred years ago.
So in the end, quit holding on to the past and accept the fact that bad things happen because we are inherently sinful people and that America has overcome much of that sinfulness to become one of the most truly free countries in the world. We have done this with an understanding of individual liberty regardless of one’s skin color, religion or ethnicity that is unique in history. Again, not perfectly, but still better than any place in the world. Which the progressives are rapidly trying to deconstruct and return us back to a time of tribalism and internecine warfare with the usual atrocities and massacres that will be its result.
>I can’t celebrate America the same way as European Americans do. I can’t sit around the table and give thanks for what previous generations done… Sure, my ancestors probably helped defeat the Germans and Japanese, yet that didn’t change how indigenous peoples were treated then and how they are treated now.”
And you think bring in more groups who think as you do will make anything better?
You can celebrate the fact you have the same rights you do now?
You can celebrate the fact it was White Anglo Saxon Protestnets who found you and not the muzzies or the Hans.
“I can’t live a prosperous and free life on a government reservation. I can’t support gun control… I can’t partake in the Democrat/Republican paradigm. I can’t worship previous badass government workers. One of the things I can do is hold white America to a higher standard than they hold themselves. Not to allow them to easily regress to old world European concepts. Fascism, Socialism, Communism — ultimately Statism — are not things I want Mexicans, Canadians and Americans to foster. I am more invested in liberty than white and black America.”
No you cant, so maybe work to change things, fight against gun control.
Well as a white America, let me say the following…I Do Not Give a Fuck…OK? My side won, and it that requires using force to keep that victory, so be it…Do not care if you hate it, hate me, hate my people, etc. I would rather be free, prosperous, and secure in my nation, its culture, and its and be hated by the outsides (kept outside) then try and do the impossible and pretend human nature is anything but…
Sure YOU might value Liberty, but guess what? Other groups do not, their voting record proves this. And for that reason they must be kept out of the nation as to prevent them from ruining our nation, our culture, our future as they are rightfully ours and the hard work of countless generation.
They value Freedom? Great, no reason why they can not replicate the U.S Constitution back home in their home nations, they did so in Liberia , how did that work out?
America is not the dumpster of the Human Race.
Oh I love amateur armchair historians applying retroactive morality to actions carried out decades before the moral concepts they espouse even existed.
What is Christianity?
Wow… generalize much? Would it be fair for me to generalize all native tribes as spear chucking, human sacrificing, cannibals because it happened to be true for a few of them?
Kat’s got it right. He was, in many ways, a horrible person, who encouraged atrocities that would have made the Nazis blush.
He’s also a bona fide American Hero, and pretty friggin badass.
People are complex.
Yes… because the 1800s and the 1900s totally had the same moral standards as well as the same laws and customs of war….
Made the Nazis blush? Wow. Pure. Ignorance.
NOT a founding father. It takes more than being in the War of Independence. Otherwise you’d have hundreds of thousands of Founding Fathers.
The genocide, the slavery, and the contempt for the Supreme Court also disqualify Jackson from being a good President.
I’m not sure how you feel about Lincoln, however he was also guilty of some of the same crimes. He only issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a political expedient, not out of any higher purpose; in addition to his oft quoted statement regarding if he could save the Union by keeping slavery he would. Furthermore he violated many citizens’ rights during the Civil War, with suspension of habeas corpus being the most cited example. Again, I don’t know your feelings on Lincoln, but he is a nearly universally revered president across the county, and he was not without his own sins. Jackson, also was not without sin, but he was not all bad either.
I think little of most Presidents. Grover Cleveland, Calvin Coolidge, best of a sorry bunch. I cut Washington a lot of slack because he didn’t want to be President. Worst of the bunch is a tie among Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ. I’d put Nixon in with them except he was just an incompetent hack more than actual intentionally evil.
As far as I know, the suspension of habeus corpus was used only against the arrested secesh Maryland legislators arrested by Union troops to keep them from voting in favor of Maryland leaving the Union. So it was indeed “political expediency” to assure that D. C. was not in the middle of enemy territory.
There was more to the Emancipation Proclamation than simply political expedience, it was a strategic decision, issued after a Union victory, to make war on the southern economy by encouraging southern slaves to flee. At the time, a broader proclamation freeing all slaves would have resulted in massive outrage in the states west of the Ohio and in the border states that would have assured the Democrats the leverage needed to sue for peace. I believe that Lincoln was anti-slavery at all relevant times, but it would have been political suicide to run on such a platform, as it was not supported by the weak alliances among the new Republican Party, many of whom were German immigrants in southern Illinois and Indiana and even further west who hated blacks. Lincoln wa a master politician who was able to knit the north eastern abolitionists to the Know Nothings and other non-Democratic Party alliances by taking a very calculated middle ground, moving the field as he could as the war progressed, and ultimately more favorably to the union. This was a major reason that he was able to run for re-election successfully against McClellan, who was a Democrat and an avid defender of southern culture and slavery.
I want to know why this article is here, the other day it was brought up that there was no coverage of the Canadian van massacre and the answer was…. “this is a firearms blog”. So I ask again, why is this here?
That, also, was one of my first thoughts while reading the article.
Don’t care why it’s here, I enjoyed it and appreciate Ol’ Hickory.
Is this “The Truth About History” now? Please focus on the mission (ie, guns).
” Maybe if the badassery of our forefathers was better known we wouldn’t be in the current mess we are.”,what with all the Leftist,snow flake wussies.
Amen.
How soft America has become. We need to be reminded of our forebears throughout our existence, but particularly from our early history. Many of the commentators on this article prove the point; instead of reading an article about an early American hero, they’re on here being exceptionalism apologists. We ain’t right all the time; but dammit we’re the closest to it.
What’s worse… they degrade the centuries of human moral development by expecting truths people agonized over for their entire lives to be self-evident to people prior to their very existence. What next? Are we going to decry Socrates or Plato for not being “intersectional” enough?
Mean while, these same leftists that decry the in humane treatment of one group of people against another because people in the past didn’t really see the “others” as human; today, these same leftists celebrate the “right” to murder unborn children, because, after all, they not really a human being, they are only a fetus.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. And people in the future will look back on this “civilized” time as a time of savagery and mass murder because of the hundreds of millions of the unborn murdered by progressives because of the “right” of choice.
This!
I am convinced that half the commenters here HATE every person alive. Every person has done something objectionable in their lives, but instead of looking on the bright side, they focus on what looks bad 200 years later. Well, news flash to those people: you suck too! Every one of your exes thinks you suck, your wife doesn’t like you leaving the toilet seat up, you could have been a better son to your parents, and you could have been a better father to your kids.
Its easier to point out others shortcomings than to excel yourself.
Favorite American badass? My uncle who fought in the first Air Cav in Vietnam. He saw a ton of action and rarely talks about it. He lost a lot of good friends and came home to literally get spit on. That didn’t go well for the fool who did the spitting.
Disrespecting Jackson because he was pro-slavery and anti-Indian conveniently overlooks the fact that Indians kept slaves — thousands of them. And for the record, free blacks also owned slaves — thousands of them.
Other than Lincoln I think Chester Arthur was one of the first non slave holding presidents. As a black gun owner I don’t care about Jackson. But he was a badass.
The founders were racists. And so was everyone else. So what. Because I use reason I don’t hold that against them. I dont apply 20th century morals to 18th and 19th century.
Anyone who thinks a nation is created without blood is an ignorant fool. Czechoslovakia is your only example. When they split into two countries, they didn’t kill each other doing it. Everybody else had to kill and in slave people to get to where they are now.
Do they have liberty in the following
India????
France????
Australia????
Anywhere in Africa????
For those that don’t know slavery is alive and well all over the world. In fact the first black president who murdered the Libyan government caused the black slave markets to reopen there.
I’m proud to say I never voted for that scum traitor. I’ve seen black politician like Obama in California before. But plenty of white self hating liberals voted for him.
Because America got liberty correct we live in the best nation on earth.
Yep, in spite of the fact that human beings are inherently sinful and inherently are brutal and murderous to those who are not of their own particular tribe, America has got freedom right and we are the greatest nation in the world because of it.
you got paid for this….?
As Pwrserge has said in a few places in the comments.
Lose the war, lose your land….
This is one of my strongest arguments against disarming the American people and why we “the militia” which is our countries last line of defense should our military fail, should be armed with and have access to the same level of equipment as our standing armies.
If 2 million of our finest equipped men and women cannot hold the lines, we certainly do not want to fall back on 200 million very poorly trained and equipped citizens as the body count will be high.
I would prefer to fall back on 200 million well equipped and mildly trained personnel and keep my land.
Is Kat Ainsworth just a blithering idiot or vile human filth? We’ll find out when she writes her next profile: “Dolph Hitler: No retreat! No surrender!”
Andrew Jackson stole the tiny slivers of bad land that his fellow White terrorists had not already stolen from the Indians. Then, he forced them to march for a thousand miles on theri bloody stumps until they dropped dead.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Indian.html
Andrew Jackson ripped children out of their mothers’ arms and shipped them off to be whipped and starved and dressed in tattered rags and eat from garbage bins and be raped by his fellow white terrorists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/04/11/hunting-down-runaway-slaves-the-cruel-ads-of-andrew-jackson-and-the-master-class/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.20ce8140a0e6
You want to bring in more female writers to get more readers? Fine. But don’t bring in evil female writers. Bring back “Breanne R.”. She’s terrrific:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/10/daniel-zimmerman/gun-review-hk-vp40/
TTAG obviously believed that more people would read if it said something to stir the pot. The problem with that thinking it that it doesn’t work on a wide audience, just a sliver of the populace. Keep this crap up, and TTAG may wind up in the dustbin of history.
‘White terrorist’, that’s racist.
Not when they’re White and they’re terrorists. In the years before 9/11, I used to read arguments that said, “Oh, what is a terrorist, really? That’s just one opinion.” Well, that’s just stupid. It’s so obvious: A terrorist is a scumbag who makes innocent civilians do what he wants by terrorizing them. He makes them feel terror.
So yep. This country was built on terrorism: invasion, followed by mass murder, torture, terrorism,and evil.
It’s no surprise. Remember all those history book fairy tales about the Puritans humbly seeking religious freedom in a new land and founding America?
Those Puritans who founded America had just invaded Ireland and murdered 40% of all the people, in the country, especially babies, children, women, the sick and the old, just because they were Catholics.
Whatever you say commie. In the real world, no empire was ever built on being a worthless hippie scumbag like you.
“pwserge”, you’re un-American and you’re anti-American. You don’t even know that the founding fathers wanted America to make sure it never did become an empire. If you had read, you’d know that. If you were a real American, you’d know about America, like this guy named George Washington:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=washington+foreign+entanglements&ia=web
You’re also lazy. That’s the reason failures like you just sit on your fat bottoms all alone and in front of that screen and call people names. Are you hiding behind a fake name on TTAG because you’re not good enough to have a decent job?
Scotty Crawford – No, He uses an anonymous username here because he’s not a f***ing retard and has some idea of the concept of information security. Using your real name on the internet anywhere its not absolutely required is so completely idiotic only a moron would even think to do it. Especially if they’re the kind of person to throw personal insults at others on a regular basis (like calling someone a lazy, fat, un-employed un-american asshole, for example).
Here’s an example. You know that idiot you got into an internet argument with yesterday, the one who said you were subhuman scum and your entire family deserved to die? Do you want that guy to know your address, your phone number, what school your kids attend, etc etc etc? Because you can find all that out pretty easily given someone’s name and even the tiniest bit of background info. If you can’t dig up that info yourself, there are literally hundreds of sites out there that will do it for you for a nominal fee. For example, I think its pretty likely that you’re the Scotty Crawford (5X years old) that owns Crawford Txxxs and makes Hxxd prxxxxs, that you have property at:
1XX6 Dxxxxx Bxxxxx Road (nice deck in the back yard, is that new?)
Lxxxxxxxg, XX 3XXX1
and
616 Cedar St (your warehouse presumably?)
Lxxxxxxxg, XX 3XXX1
And your phone numbers are 9XX-6XX-8175 (business?) and 9XX-3XX-0460 (personal?).
I know about your relatives Jerry, Jaqueline, John, Mary, Angie, Rosie, Hobert, Sally, Shana, Steven, Shaun, Samuel (you guys really liked the ‘S’ names huh) Donetta, Doreen, Thomas, Tracy… I could list more but you get the point.
I anonymized your personal info because even if you’re comfortable doxxing yourself to the world, I’m not.
All the info above I was able to learn in literally under 30 seconds just googling your username and adding the word “gun” (I assumed by the fact that you post here that you have some interest in them). I addition to the personal info above I found a half-dozen or so web forums that you post on. With 5-10 minutes scrolling through your posts there I’m sure I could dig up additional little tidbits on you and your family. It was that simple. Do you want EVERY SINGLE PERSON that ever comes across ANYTHING you’ve EVER written on the internet able to learn all the above info about you in less than a minute? I don’t. Most people don’t. Only people I can think that would be OK with that are total morons, or those who don’t care about the safety of their family. So Scotty, which are you? A total moron? Or a man who doesn’t care about the safety of their own family?
And THATS why you don;t use your actual name on the internet.
Rocket Scientist schooled Little Scotty, an insufferable little pissant, beyond measure.
A pox on your hero Presidents. When it comes to early American badasses, Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys were the epitome of badass. They also had slight inclinations to, shall we say, less than legal acts, but they were the terror of the British and the rich New York land speculators.
Favorite American badass? 1st: Ulysses S. Grant – “Sir, Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.” “The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.” “In every battle there comes a time when both sides consider themselves beaten, then he who continues the attack wins.”
2nd: William Tecumseh Sherman – “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”
3rd: George S. Patton – “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”
And if you don’t care for the lack of political correctness expressed herein, let me quote an old Army (1st Cav) buddy from Mississippi, “You can kiss my ass and bark at the hole.”
Sherman committed atrocities against innocent civilians. He can rot in hell
Comments are closed.