Quote Originally Posted by Jack Tarlin View Post
Passing moral judgment on how people acted or behaved hundreds of years ago can be a risky undertaking. I do NOT want to get into a political discussion here, which is frowned upon, but the simple fact remains that in the 1830's, most American did not live in cities. They lived on farms, in many cases out in the middle of nowhere, and on the far frontiers, the threat from Indian attacks was very real. In some places, it was constant. It's all well and good for us to be smug about this subject today and tut-tut about Jackson and the Cherokee removals, but the plain and simple truth is that in the 1830's, the overwhelming number of Americans felt that this action was not only proper and deserved, but was long overdue. To them, Jackson was a hero.
Quote Originally Posted by rickb View Post
This is a good post, and worth remembering.

But it's also worth remembering that many of the Cherokee that were displaced near the southern end of the AT were not "on the war path" but rather successful farmers themselves-- having adapted rather well to the changes that they faced. They paid a price for the stereotype that Jack makes note of-- a sterotype that was used to further very ignoble and selfish ends.

Its also worth remembering that while many of his contemporaries supported the Cherokee Removal, the Supreme court did not. There is a cautionary tale that remains valid today, I think.

What better place to think of these things, than the places they happened.
Thank you Rick. I also said something to the same effect but using language that was deemed unsuitable hence it was deleted.

The Cherokee as whole were not removed as Jack grossly mistakenly implies because they were raiding farms in the middle of nowhere.

I'm on the same page with Jack 90% of the time. I thought he missed the fairness mark with his post. It came from a much biased perspective. It gets back to who's historical perspective, often biased, and language one is going to heed. I'd like a larger perspective encompassing different viewpoints examining different sides before reaching judgments.

BTW Jack, moral judgments are made on people's past behavior 50, 150, 1000 or more yrs ago with regularity. You're playing a one sided game when you don't bring into question your side or your perspective passes moral judgement yet calls foul when moral judgement is passed on you. Uhh, Andrew Jackson was definitely passing moral judgment on the Indian so were some others who could gain from it through conquest. This is passing a whole lot of moral judgment: "What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic studded with cities, towns and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?" Andrew Jackson in 1829.

No less alarming it is coming from the then President of the United States.

Here's why this is important. It relates to what history can be learned when a hike is approached embracing more than hiking. One of the greatest opportunities to embrace history on a hike is the AT. GREAT trail for historical lessons.