Read Online Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party by Dinesh D'Souza - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Dinesh D'Souza
Ads: Link
president, Jefferson openly coveted Indian land for settlement by whites moving west. But Jefferson too sought to obtain this land through treaty and trade. He said, in effect, that they have land and we have merchandise and so both sides can benefit from the other. In one of his public messages, Jefferson commended “the wisdom of exchanging what they can spare and we want for what we can spare and they want.” So, concluded Jefferson, let’s make deals with the Indians to buy their land in exchange for food, medicine, clothing, and cash.
Jefferson knew, of course, that his administration had the power to seize the land. Treaties can be made; treaties can be broken. But Jefferson was unwilling to do that. His mindset in this respect is not pure. Jefferson in private correspondence admitted that Indians were reckless with money, and they had little estimation of the real value of their land. They were susceptible to going into debt, which might then compel them to sell land to settle their obligations. If he was unwilling to openlycontravene existing treaties, Jefferson was not above obtaining land by exploiting the ignorance and profligacy of Native Americans. 21
BARGAINER VS. THIEF
Still, Jefferson appears as an angel when we set him beside Andrew Jackson. The difference is one between a hard bargainer and an outright thief. Jefferson was a wheeler-dealer but he was not a murderer. Jackson seems to have had little aversion to killing Indians, especially when they stood in the way of his acquisitions. Finally Jefferson didn’t enrich himself through his policies; Jackson used them to become one of the wealthiest men in the country.
Jackson’s net worth when he died is estimated at $100 million in today’s dollars. Since Jackson always stole in large quantities, it would be more fitting to have him on the $100 bill rather than the $20 bill. Jackson must be counted as one of America’s richest presidents, almost as rich as the Clintons. Democrats today host an annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner, but if they were doing truth in advertising they would drop Jefferson and stick with Jackson.
In order to understand Jackson’s founding shenanigans, it’s best to begin with his inauguration day in March 1829. Thanks to the rhapsodic portraits of progressive historians, from Arthur Schlesinger to Sean Wilentz, this event has gone down in American history as the “people’s day.” For Wilentz, the symbolism of the day was Jackson’s placing himself “on the side of egalitarianism and against privilege.” Wilentz argues that “therein lies his claim to historical greatness.” 22
While previous inaugurations were sober, dignified affairs, this one was pure chaos. People broke down barriers and roamed the White House lawn, they swarmed into the ceremonial rooms of the White House, they soiled the couches and broke china, people were climbing in and out of windows, things got so out of hand that the newly-elected president had to leave and spend the night at the National Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue.
This seems like pure plebian crassness, and it could never happen today. Today’s Democrats may claim to be the party of the people but this does not extend to having them show up en masse to black-tie events. I cannot see Hillary at her inauguration putting up with random hordes swarming through the Blue Room, the Red Room, and the Oval Office. If you haven’t made a big donation to the campaign, you can probably forget about getting your inaugural invitation. But in Jackson’s time it was different, and some progressive historians treat his inauguration as a special democratic moment in which Jackson showed himself truly a man of the people.
But what was it about Jackson that made the people love him so much and feel comfortable enough to treat his new house as their house? Part of the answer is that Jackson was a frontiersman who had proved himself a military hero. Even though he was barely a teenager, Jackson fought
Jefferson knew, of course, that his administration had the power to seize the land. Treaties can be made; treaties can be broken. But Jefferson was unwilling to do that. His mindset in this respect is not pure. Jefferson in private correspondence admitted that Indians were reckless with money, and they had little estimation of the real value of their land. They were susceptible to going into debt, which might then compel them to sell land to settle their obligations. If he was unwilling to openlycontravene existing treaties, Jefferson was not above obtaining land by exploiting the ignorance and profligacy of Native Americans. 21
BARGAINER VS. THIEF
Still, Jefferson appears as an angel when we set him beside Andrew Jackson. The difference is one between a hard bargainer and an outright thief. Jefferson was a wheeler-dealer but he was not a murderer. Jackson seems to have had little aversion to killing Indians, especially when they stood in the way of his acquisitions. Finally Jefferson didn’t enrich himself through his policies; Jackson used them to become one of the wealthiest men in the country.
Jackson’s net worth when he died is estimated at $100 million in today’s dollars. Since Jackson always stole in large quantities, it would be more fitting to have him on the $100 bill rather than the $20 bill. Jackson must be counted as one of America’s richest presidents, almost as rich as the Clintons. Democrats today host an annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner, but if they were doing truth in advertising they would drop Jefferson and stick with Jackson.
In order to understand Jackson’s founding shenanigans, it’s best to begin with his inauguration day in March 1829. Thanks to the rhapsodic portraits of progressive historians, from Arthur Schlesinger to Sean Wilentz, this event has gone down in American history as the “people’s day.” For Wilentz, the symbolism of the day was Jackson’s placing himself “on the side of egalitarianism and against privilege.” Wilentz argues that “therein lies his claim to historical greatness.” 22
While previous inaugurations were sober, dignified affairs, this one was pure chaos. People broke down barriers and roamed the White House lawn, they swarmed into the ceremonial rooms of the White House, they soiled the couches and broke china, people were climbing in and out of windows, things got so out of hand that the newly-elected president had to leave and spend the night at the National Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue.
This seems like pure plebian crassness, and it could never happen today. Today’s Democrats may claim to be the party of the people but this does not extend to having them show up en masse to black-tie events. I cannot see Hillary at her inauguration putting up with random hordes swarming through the Blue Room, the Red Room, and the Oval Office. If you haven’t made a big donation to the campaign, you can probably forget about getting your inaugural invitation. But in Jackson’s time it was different, and some progressive historians treat his inauguration as a special democratic moment in which Jackson showed himself truly a man of the people.
But what was it about Jackson that made the people love him so much and feel comfortable enough to treat his new house as their house? Part of the answer is that Jackson was a frontiersman who had proved himself a military hero. Even though he was barely a teenager, Jackson fought
Similar Books
