Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Andrew Jackson. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Notes during trimming

Revolutionary War Service

I deleted final sentence:: He blamed the British personally for the loss of his brothers and mothers. It'd be a good point, but it is cited to Remini 1977 p. 24–25, who seems to be meditating on the loss and hardship Jackson suffered, but not a sense of personal blame. Wtfiv (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, you forgot to sign your comment. Carlstak (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Fixed it before the bot caught it and put the correct UTC in... Wtfiv (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that section needs a good clinching sentence somewhere along the lines of "The Revolution left Jackson with a visceral hatred of British tyranny." "Visceral hatred" could be "smoldering distrust" or "deep-seated resentment," etc.

Remini wrote, "He emerged from the Revolution burdened wit sorrow, a sorrow inflicted by 'British tyranny.'"

Also see Wilentz, pp. 9-10:

"Being '[b]rought up under the tyrany [sic] of Britain' and 'losing every thing that was dear to me' in the struggle for independence . . . cost him his mother . . . and both of his siblings. The personal connot explain the political--but in Jackson's case, they reinforced each other mightily."
"From the Revolution on, Jackson's hatred of monarchy, aristocracy, and political privilege--especially of the British variety--formed a screen through which he viewed the world."
"In Jackson's mind, vindicating his personal honor and protecting the Rebolution's legacy were always entwined, two parts of the same mission." YoPienso (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

YoPienso, how's this work? Wtfiv (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been horrifically busy in real life. I see your edit's still standing, so it must be fine! :) It's definitely true and neutral. Maybe I'm not as neutral as I thought--in my mind, it made him hate the British and all things British, including the aristocracy. (The irony is that he was part of the planter aristocracy and was caricaturized as King Andrew.) Thank you for your good work. YoPienso (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Legal career and marriage

I've added Owsley (1977) as reference. This appears to be well-researched description of the details of the Jackson/Donelson affair. I removed the Kennedy and Ullman (2003) citation. Pages 97-113 are a great read on the political spin of the Jackson's marriage, but its point is different than the citation suggests. Rather, it focuses on the effort by Jackson's partisans to form a "Nashville committee" to construct an alternative narrative to preserve Jackson's reputation against JQ Adams partisans. It argues that Jackson's partisans try to exonerate Jackson by making Robards the "bad guy", though ultimately the Kentucky jury granting the divorce did so based on Robard's ex parte testimony of Rachel's infidelity. Wtfiv (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed the sentences about Jackson getting married before 1794. It seems to me the argument either way can not be veriied. The sources that look at the issue in some depth (e.g., Remini, Owsley, Howell, and Brands) seem to agree that there is no direct evidence that he was married in 1791 (although Wilentz summararily assumes they did.) Owsley, whose article focuses specifically on Rachel Jackson's marriages, argues that they did get married. But this appears to be conjecture based on indirect evidence that Rachel is called "Rachel Jackson" in 1791 estate settlement documents. Owsley also points out that it is unclear who might have performed such a ceremony. Howe points out that the story of a first marriage only arose in the face of the political mud-slinging in the election of 1848. The remainder of the paragraph is based on evidence that can be directly verified by primary sources. Wtfiv (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Early Career

Added an older source, Clifton (1952) that focuses on Overton and Jackson's relationship. For the rest of the week, non-Wikiworld has caught me. I won't be able to continue my contribution to the trimming until next Tuesday at earliest. But I think I'm done with this section for now. Wtfiv (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Had a bit of time to work on "Planting career and slavery" section, I merged it into "Early career" as it seemed a natural continuation. Wtfiv (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Military Career

In editing this section, I've added a number of studies that focus on specific events within the narrative. Most of these studies agree on the basic facts, but give slightly different perspectives. I've amplified a few areas based on these sources, but the overall section length has been reduced by about 20%.

I've also renamed the section on "Creek Campaign and Treaty" "Red Stick Campaign". This is just a suggestion and if there's no consensus, I can revert it. Many of the sources call it the Creek War, so that name is traditional. The reason I changed it is that the sources make it clear that the Red Stick War was really a Muscogee civil war between a pro-war and pro-peace faction. Jackson was not at war with the majority of the Muscogee (Creeks). They remained at peace with the US, and many served as allies and auxiliaries in the campaign. So calling it the Creek War is misleading. The Wikipedia articles on the topic make this distinction too.

I also kept the name of the Native American confederacy "Creek", as this is the name used in the older sources. My personal preference is changing the confederacy's name from "Creek" to "Muscogee" is more appropriate, since Creek is the name white settlers gave them. (And the article introduces them as Muscogee, putting Creek in parenthesis).

Any thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning for the change of "Creek Campaign and Treaty" to "Red Stick Campaign". Sensible. I also prefer "Muscogee" to "Creek" because, as you say, it is the name white settlers gave them, and with putting "Creek" in parentheses. I'm wondering whether or not we should distinguish between the Upper Creek (which is what the Red Sticks mostly were) and the Lower Creeks, as did the British. Carlstak (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I also agree with these changes for the reasons mentioned. @Carlstak makes an excellent suggestion that I believe should be done in distinguishing between the Upper and Lower Creeks. --ARose Wolf 17:29, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

For now, I'll work with the Red Stick/Muscogee allies distinction in the Red Sticks to make it clear in the article. I'm unsure how to put in the Upper/Lower Creek distinction. It doesn't appear often in the citations I'm using, but if you see a way it could work, please put it in, as I'm now at presidency for the first-pass trimming. I think Upper/Lower creek distinction may come up once we get to his legacy with Native Americans. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, you're doing a great job, nice work. Just a note: I realize this overhaul is still in progress, but since you trimmed the Election of 1824 section, the phrase "During his convalescence" seems to be a non sequitur without a reference to what he was convalescing from. Carlstak (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak, the previous sentence addresses this, "Jackson served as the governor for two months, returning to the Hermitage in ill health." He was convalescing from his illness. :-) --ARose Wolf 14:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Duh, thanks, ARoseWolf. I don't know how I missed that. I'm blaming this lapse on extreme hunger.:-) Carlstak (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Feed me, Seymour! --ARose Wolf 16:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha. My stomach is like the voracious plant "Audrey Jr." in the original film. It won't take "no" for an answer. Carlstak (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for keeping an eye open. It's good to know there's other eyes! (I just finished taking care of my voracious plant!) Wtfiv (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak, I think you've caught that it is an odd fact that I found was dropped into the middle of narrative. Its seems like one of those little tidbits that people want put in Wikipedia articles. It seems like the solution I tried is satisfactory, but it may the oddness of its context that you caught. I was thinking it might be best to delete it, but there's later events with the Anti-Mason party, and this fact gives it a bit of context. Wtfiv (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have a weakness for some little tidbits I've added to articles, including those I've created or added to substantially, and many of them I'd hate to see go. I'm not judgemental about such interesting facts,;-) and I think it's fine. Glad to see your reworking is going so smoothly—I think that's a testament to your skills. Regards, Carlstak (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

For consistency, I'm thinking its best to change Muscogee back to Creek since all the secondary and primary literature use the term "Creek", and its even part of the reference documents used in this article. The term Muscogee is still used in the first mention of the word, and I'll continue to call the Muscogee Nation the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, as per Wikipedia article (which emphasizes both terms.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Presidency

Philosophy subheading: For now, I've temporarily moved the "Philosophy" subheading to "Personal Life", following up on religion. This is just a holder. Its current location seems problematic. Much of it seems a reflection upon what Jackson accomplished as president, which places it later. I put it in "Personal Life", as "Philosophy" seemed to follow "Religion", but I think this section may be best as part of his legacy describing how he transformed perceptions of the presidency. My thought is that once the presidential narrative has been taken care of, the role and plac of this section will become more clear. Wtfiv (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Reforms and rotation in office subheading: Deleted a paragraph with interesting facts that don't quite come together in the narrative sequence or internally within the paragraph. If a place emerges where these facts can be integrated into the narrative, I'll put them back. *There's mention of Jackson's emphasis on removing the electoral college. This is important, but doesn't fit into the "beginning of presidency" timeline In addition, it was only supported by three primary sources (annual addresses). I found additional support in an article discussing Jackson's populism, but that suggest it should go into that section (e.g., philosophy or legacy)

Already has place holder in the philosophy section. Wtfiv (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

*There's mention of the Maysville Road veto. The veto was important for hemming in Clay politically, but the sources make its theoretical rationale appear post-hoc: the money could be used to pay down the national debt, federal funds shouldn't be used for local internal improvements (a technicality), and an idea that government should pay for issues that support business. This occured in Jackson's first administration, so I'll see if it can fit in, but beyond its role in party politics, it's not clear it plays a large enough role to warrant mention.

Got the Maysville Road Veto into the 1832 election subheading. Wtfiv (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is mention of two minor bills that Jackson approved, but may not even be his. They could be used to show he cared for ordinary people. Both are from his second time in office: pensions for a special category of Revolutionary War widows and a ten day work week for shipbuilders.

Remini, Vol. 3 p. 30 discusses Veteran's pensions as a complex part of the Bank War and the issue about helping veterans is not quite so clear cut. Remini mentions the second shipbuilders in Vol. 3, p. 341. Wtfiv (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, the sources don't agree on the percentage of civil servants impacted by the rotation system. Ellis (who minimizes its impact) puts the number at 20%. Latner (who also minimizes its impact) and Howe (who emphasizes its impact) put it at 10%. I chose the lower number and added "about" to reflect these numbers are just estimates. Either number makes the point that only a minority of civil service positions were impacted. Wtfiv (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Indian Removal Act subheading: This wound up being not being a trim, but a reorganization of the material. I tried to retain most of the original, but reorganized it and supplemented it with 11 new sources focused on the topic, many from peer-reviewed journals. By my count, this reorganization is two words longer than the original. My hope is the gain in thematic organization and narrative structure compensates for this subheading not contributing to reduced article size. (At least it didn't significantly increase it either!) And given the size of the discussion of the impact of the Indian Removal Act on the talk page here, the topic does demand to be addressed in this article. I've tried to discuss its origin, implementation, and impact. The impact is discussed both in terms of how it affected Native Americans, but on how it also affected his popularity among white Americans. Hopefully, this will help frame its discussion in the legacy section. Wtfiv (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak, thank you so much for going through (and continuing to go through) what I've done, I appreciate it! I was also wondering if you have a source for the total number of Native Americans who are estimated to have died as a result of the Indian Removal Act (or more than one since estimates will vary according to the author's POV)? I could find some estimates for individual tribes, but not for the overall. If so, could you add it to the article. I'm thinking it would go well near the last paragraph describing the number of people displaced, but I trust your judgement if you agree its a good thing to put in. (If you rather I put it in, post the information and sources here and I'll do it. If you give me a name and author, I'll do the citation formatting.) Wtfiv (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, Wtfiv. I'll be happy to see what I can do. I have a couple days off my IRL project, and I enjoy working in such a collegial atmosphere. Glad you're doing the heavy lifting on the article; I'll do all I can to assist with copy editing and sourcing. If I find those estimates I will add them to the article, as you say. Good thing I'm a fast reader.;-) Carlstak (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a beautiful chart on *Trail of Tears* that gives full statistics and sources for those numbers. --ARose Wolf 17:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

As far as exact figures, there are none, only estimated and that is spotty. It can be anywhere from 8,000 (lowest) to as many as 20,000, or higher, depending on the source. --ARose Wolf 17:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

These figures are only for the actual Trail of Tears, as it were, for the five nations involved. The incalculable number is when you include all of those that left *voluntarily*. No one left on their own, they were all forced to do this but some had the means to get out of the way and they chose to leave earlier rather than be rounded up and force marched. We may never know how many of those didn't make it. There is also not clear data on the slaves that were removed with the Natives, primarily the Cherokee. --ARose Wolf 17:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf. I agree that there is no reasonable way to estimate the loss and devastation. Let's not forget the second Seminole war and the Creek War of 1836, which were in part disorganized rebellions against removal. (Haveman says that the Creek War was called a "war" to justify forced relocation after the government's victory.) My purpose is actually slightly different. Reading the summary, I realized that it still seems to sterilize the Indian Removal Act. Beyond mentioning the suffering of the Chocktaw, it doesn't mention the deaths all the tribes suffered. If we had a rough estimate, it would add the sense of another "cost", in addition to the physical displacement to the "benefits" of the Act.

(The version of this article from which I edited mentioned an estimate of 4,000 deaths on the Trail of Tears in this article, but that seems to be focusing on just one group. If it is the best we can do, we could use the proportion of Cherokee deaths as an estimate, but from what I read it seems the Muscogee death rate was higher, and if we include the Seminole killed in the Second Seminole war, their proportion of deaths is higher too.)

But I think the best estimate of Native American deaths due to the policy based on a few reliable sources would be good. Based on what you've posted, we'd present a range just to get some sense of scale. If you have the sources from the numbers you cited above, could you share the sources? Then we can see what magic Carlstak can do. One of you can make the edit or we can synthesize what we find. If you feel inspired, perhaps you and Carlstak can work together to create the passage. Wtfiv (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a stimulating conversation. I've been reading parts of (and skimming) quite a few scholarly works, including "Cherokee population losses during the Trail of Tears: a new perspective and a new estimate." Ethnohistory (1984, 292) by Russell Thornton who wrote of the Cherokee:

Thousands of Cherokees are said to have died during the entire Trail of Tears ordeal; that is, during the round-up and months spent in stockades awaiting removal, the journey itself, and the first year in Indian Territory. The diseases they suffered included "colds, influenza, sore throat, pleurisy, measles, diarrhea, fevers, toothache and, among the young men, gonorrhea" (Knight 1954-55, 424); also dysentery (Howard and Allen 1976, 352-54), whooping cough, and cholera (Foreman 1932, 238-312). Others died from accidents, cold of winter, hardships of the journey, and gunshot wounds; still others from inadequate food and starvation (Foreman 1932, 238-312; Mooney 1975, 124-30). As mentioned, many deaths occurred neither before nor during the active removal, but soon after arrival in Indian Territory...

...In summary then, there is no detailed information as to exactly how many Cherokees died during the removal period; only speculations exist. However, there is high consensus on a figure... The figure of 4,000 deaths is generally accepted by most recent scholars.

Per Wtfiv's point this is about just one group, but it is still pertinent to the subject. Thornton continues:

Such estimates would place Cherokee mortality about midway in the mortality losses of the other four major southeastern tribes, as well as can now be ascertained. The Choctaws are said to have lost fifteen percent of their population, 6,000 out of 40,000 (Allen 1970, 62); and the Chickasaw removal is said to have been "a comparatively tranquil affair..." (Foreman 1932, 226), though they surely suffered severe losses as well. By contrast, the Creeks and Seminoles are said to have suffered about 50 percent mortality (Doran 1975, 499-500). For the Creeks, this came primarily in the period immediately after removal: for example, "of the 10,000 or more who were resettled in 1836-37...an incredible 3,500...died of 'bulious fevers"' (Doran 1975, 497). The high Seminole mortality seems not to have resulted primarily from post-removal disease but from "the terrible war of attrition that had been required to force them to move" (Doran 1975, 498). Still the figure of 4,000 deaths during the Cherokee Trail of Tears seems a highly speculative one. It appears only to be a suggested estimate, one without a hard factual basis, but one which subsequent scholars have cited and recited. The exact number of Cherokee lives the removal cost was surely never known, and will surely never be known. That information was never ascertained and never recorded, and is lost forever. It is possible, however, to derive empirically an estimate of Cherokee population losses, one going beyond speculation, one based on factual data; this is an estimate derived by techniques of demographic analysis.

Thornton also quotes Michael F. Doran, who wrote in Chronicles of Oklahoma 1975–76]:

"According to information taken from sources on the Five Civilized Tribes soon after their arrival, it would seem that the great majority managed to reach their new homelands. However, soon afterward they were swept by a series of epidemic diseases, and it was then that a tremendous number died." (1975)

These are older works, but they remind us of the continued suffering of the Native peoples after their removal. The excellent A Companion to the Era of Andrew Jackson, edited by Sean Patrick Adams, has a superb article by Andrew K. Frank, who writes:

Statistics defy precision in terms of the number of Native Americans who were forced off their eastern lands as a result of the federal policy of Indian removal. The United States removed approximately one hundred thousand Native Americans from their homelands on the authority of the treaties enabled by the Indian Removal Act of 1830. This number tends to focus on the demographic data compiled by those who were hired and then compensated for orchestrating the removal of Natives themselves. The count would be significantly higher, if it included those who fled their homelands, moved west prior to the arrival of armed escorts, or died before the journey began. Demographic works also tend to exclude Indians from regions outside the American South. Nor do they include those like the Florida Seminoles who moved hundreds of miles as a result of the wars that were initiated as part of the removal policy...

Nearly one in four of the seventeen thousand Cherokees and Creeks who were removed in the 1830s died as a result of removal. Seminoles suffered from comparable mortality rates and Choctaw mortality hovered around 20%. Other groups suffered similarly. Just as demographic precision eludes scholarly attempts to measure the number of Indians who were most west by removal, mortality statistics also elude scholars. Russell Thornton, in what remains the most rigorous analysis of Cherokee Indian mortality during Indian removal, hypothesizes that at least ten thousand Cherokees died (Thornton, 1984, 1991).

Sorry for the wall of text, but I feel this is important information to consider. Note: We are under evacuation orders to leave this barrier island I live on as hurricane Ian approaches; this is the Atlantic coast of Florida, and we expect flooding from the storm surge, trees downed, and possibly some structural damage, but I'm not leaving. Most people here it seems aren't either. May be offline for a while if we lose power and cell towers damaged. Carlstak (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, SandyGeorgia. We've been through this drill many times, and the local TV stations always overhype these events to maximize viewership with minute-by-minute reports of minor storms (which this isn't). If I feel seriously threatened, I will leave. Carlstak (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf and Carlstak, I think we have the information based on what you both provided. Now, how to reduce it to a sentence or two, and integrate it? But I think we can. Frank seems like a good direction to go in for a summary statement. Thornton would be good if the Cherokee are used as an example. The chart shared by privide some clues too. It may take me some time to be able to synthesize. If anyone else wishes to try, please do.

Carlstak, it sounds like you have far more serious things to consider for now. I hope you "weather the storm", or far better yet, it is something that passes over. However it goes, be safe. Wtfiv (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Wtfiv. At the moment, I'm most concerned about my vehicle, which is in a shop at a vulnerable location on the beach. I may be checking in periodically, though. Carlstak (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I've also found this interesting information in the Encyclopedia of American Indian Removal edited by Daniel F. Littlefield Jr., James W. Parins, who I assume wrote the introduction, from which I quote (please forgive my hypocrisy in posting these, since I'm always complaining about walls of text on talk pages. Google lens works wonders.;-)

The Indian Removal Act set in motion a series of events that historians have styled the "removal period," which usually refers to the 1830s and early 1840s. During this period, execution of the provisions of the Indian Removal Act was widespread. Besides the larger tribes in the Southeast, the Removal Act applied to the Apalachicolas of Florida, who had separated from the Creeks and Seminoles. It also applied to numerous tribes elsewhere, such as the Sauks, Foxes, Kaskaskias, and Peorias of Illinois; the Potawatomis, Miamis, and other tribes of Indiana; the Senecas, Wyandots, and Shawnees of Ohio; the Chippewas of Michigan, as they were then called; and the New York Indians. During the decade 1830 through 1839, the United States ratified eighty-seven treaties and agreements with tribes. Nearly half of them provided for removal, and nearly all of the remainder dealt with liquidation of residual tribal land claims in the wake of removal.

Although most removals took place in the 1830s and early 1840s, they occurred as late as 1859. Removal treaties were not confined to those tribes residing east of the Mississippi but included tribes already in the West, such as the Caddos of Louisiana, who also were removed in an attempt to make room for removing tribes or to consolidate tribes in Indian Territory west of Arkansas and Missouri. Uprooting the vast majority of tribal population east of the Mississippi River had disastrous consequences for the Indians. Cultural discontinuity resulted from the replacement of familiar environments with foreign surroundings. Populations declined because of deaths resulting from armed resistance, unsanitary conditions of forced encampment, rigors of travel, and encounters with epidemic diseases such as influenza, cholera, and smallpox. Individuals were impoverished by limitations on the transportation of private property. For the Sauks and Foxes, there was the brief but costly Black Hawk War, and for the Seminoles, there was lingering warfare from 1835 until 1858. Carlstak (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This is good walls of text. --ARose Wolf 13:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying this belongs in the article but it does add perspective. In line with the cultural degradation suffered by Native nations that were forced to relocate is the fact that they were forced to relocate to lands already occupied by other Native nations. And in turn, those Native nations were either forced to move or, at least initially, it caused friction among the various nations, those that had lived there and those that were forced to relocate. Eventually some of the smaller nations were just combined with the larger ones locally but even that further degraded each individual nations cultural distinctiveness. --ARose Wolf 13:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, ARoseWolf, I thought this information would inform our collective understanding here of what we can apprehend of this vast subject Even if the ultimate result is only a couple of sentences, they should be words that best distill what we want to convey concerning this catastrophic event that reverberates down to today. This passage by Andrew K. Frank really hit home:

Dona L. Akers has recently argued that Indian removal cannot be understood unless scholars incorporate the psychological and spiritual ramifications involved. Removal resulted in total despair, a social death that resulted from the Indians' physical removal from their ancient homelands.

Carlstak (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Lest this leave the wrong impression, I should add some more of that text:

Native Americans recognized the inhumanity of removal before the arrival of American soldiers, and the events on the Trail of Tears confirmed many of their worst fears...

The passage that most resonated for me was this:

In fact, they found members of the Native American Church performed better on some of the neuropsychological tests than other Navajos who do not regularly use peyote.

That points in the direction of my path to reconciliation with this history, which still haunts parts of my family. Carlstak (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks ARoseWolf and Carlstak. The ultimate result is very small given so much to think about, but I hope it catches in a broad stroke what has been discussed. The Parin and Littlefield is perfect by the way. It useful with this topic and I think it is helpful in helping me craft the Bank War material. Wtfiv (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Carlstak I appreciate the continued editing. Please note that I stopped after "Nullification Crisis". I plan to wrap up the bank war next, so I have touched "Foreign affairs" subheading or beyond. Your editing of these later sections will help guide me as I trim, but I hope you don't mind if some of the work you have done in "Foreign Affairs" and beyond may disappear as I do the trim. If you are concerned, please let me know and I'll try and tread carefully. Wtfiv (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No, that's fine, Wtfiv. I understand how these things go, so don't worry about that at all. This is good exercise for me.;-) Carlstak (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Put Bank Veto and Election of 1832, Removal of deposits and censure, and Panic of 1837, under one subheading, called Bank War as they form a single conceptual narrative about the politico-financial aspects of Jackson's presidency. Moved this subheading to follow Nullificiation. So now the order of the three major issues in Jackson's presidency is Indian Removal Act, Nullification, and Bank War. This makes description of what occured in the Election of 1828 easier, as issues from the Indian Removal Act and Nullification, which impacted the religion have already been given context. Wtfiv (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Bank Veto and Election of 1832 subheading: Separated the topics into two different headings. I think separation makes the two issues more clear. Both are related, but they relate to two different issues. For the Bank Veto, Biddle is Jackson's main opponent. Clay uses it to work behind the scenes for the election. The Election focuses on Clay. I think separation makes the two issues more clear. Sources addressing the issues added. Wtfiv (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

For Bank Veto subheading: added more details on the possible compromise.

For Election of 1828 subheading: Added more on Clay's strategy, the various sources of sectional loyalty to Jackson, and why Wirth is on the electoral college map.

For Removal of deposits and Censure subheading: Talked more about how the "pet banks" changed the investing landscape. Added Woodbury as final treasurer. Removed mention of pet banks having implying state banks had low reserve to loan ratios. This is an older theory. Knodell (2006), guided by the work of Temin, particularly the data and explanation on pp. 71–73, as well as Rousseau and Timberlake (cited in article and accessible via JSTOR) argues that the story is more complex. The relation of specie, loans and reserves is fascinating, illuminates Jackson's politico-financial thinking, but it feels like it is mind-boggling and could be expanded in an article. I tried to keep it simple by focusing on the critical point that proliferaton of State Banks shifted the source of investment, which made the country vulnerable to land speculation (and sets up the pull of specie to out west). I'm hoping the story sufficiently simple for a casual reader (without misrepresentative oversimplification) to understand how it sets up bubble/boom of 1834-1836, and set up the bust that follows in the wake of the Panic of 1837.

For Panic of 1837 subheading. Kept focus on Jackson's presidential acts and their role on an event that fell out as a consequence. Tried to explain that the major problem was the "perfect storm" of the Specie Circular and Deposit Act moving specie west, making it unavailable to pay of international loans called in by the faltering economy in Great Britain. (Interestingly, the Second Bank would have distributed the specie more evenly and kept money from being locked up in land equity, but thats a different issue for anyone who wants to tackle the Second Bank article.)

Mentioned the role the Indian Removal Act played in amplifying speculation. Interestingly, I could find no articles talking about the relationship between the massive spike in public land sales in 1834-1836 and the Indian Removal Act. On the surface, the relation seems transparent. But maybe most of the land went to the Southern states, and had their impact on the respective State Banks. It'd be great to find out more about this.

Removed mention of the railroad in the panic. I think this may have been a slip from citing Olson (2002), a tertiary source, but it does summarize the panic well. It may have been an artifact of including a bit of the Panic of 1857, which starts on the same page and did involve the railroads. Wtfiv (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Nullification subheading: This is a basic trim and reorganize. Added more sources that look at the issue in more detail. Most important detail added is that Jackson needed tariff money. It averaged about 90% of the federal income each year. Sources addressing the issues added. Wtfiv (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Attack and assassination attempt subheading: Renamed Physical assault and assassination attempt to match descriptions. Trimmed to a single paragraph using SandyGeorgia's suggestion in talk as the starting point. One source that describes the assassination in detail added. Wtfiv (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I realized that I took out both the "firsts" in this section (first physical assault; first assassination attempt). If I read them correctly, none of the original sources or the ones I used make this claim. If I missed it, please correct. Wtfiv (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs Focused narrative on Spoilation claims on Jackson. Removed role of Rives This is the focus of Remini, but the specialized source, Thomas (1976), which came out before Remini tells a similar tell but makes it clear that other members of Jackson's administration gave advice. (Interestingly, it seems to me most more recent sources rely on Remini, but in this case, if there is an influence, it goes the other way: Remini's wrap up on the topic in the chapter is markedly similar to Thomas's.) Also, this removes Rives's picture, whose presence is strange in the article. There are many people who had a huge influence on Jackson and were major players. Rives is important but probably in the middle of the pack, so it was a bit odd that the only one to get a picture and for an entire section. (Maybe interesting pictures of the French spoilation affair are hard to come by?)

The story of Texas was interesting, particularly breadcrumbs regarding the relationship between Houston and Jackson. Two sources imply that they were in league to pry Texas from Mexico. Avintage source, Stenberg (1934),follows a convuluted paper trail to argue for collusion. Haley (2002)'s biography of Sam Houston shows how close Houston and Jackson were. Haley argues that Houston was one of Jackson's right-hand men and may even have been [Filibuster (military)|filibustering]] when he went to Texas But Haley points out that the evidence he could find is circumstantial. (Stenberg provides a good argument Jackson covered his tracks to avoid political fallout.) Interesting topic, but too circumstantial for inclusion in the article, in my opinion. (I was tempted to add Stenberg because the article points out that Jackson's interest in Texas is as early as 1824, but I didn't want to add another vintage source.) Wtfiv (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Right after reading my comments on Stenberg, I felt my own concern for not adding it- "Why add another vintage reference, nearly a century old?"- didn't seem to be strong enough. Stenberg makes a point I couldn't find anywhere else about when Jackson's interest in Texas started, represents a source specifically focused on Jackson's interest in Texas- even if not quite correct, it gives a sense of the topic- and it cites sources. (for the point the citation backs, its from Jackson's frenemy, Thomas Hart Benton). The source seems reliable and still has enough distance from the source to avoid feeling like a primary source. And it lets the reader access an article that raises some fascinating questions.

I notice I've use a lot of vintage sources- mainly when they tackle facts, details and specialties later sources don't address. I get the impression there are four phases of 20th century Jackson research: circa 1930 around the New Deal Era, the mid-50s, and then the 60s around the time of Schlesinger's work, and another small burst in the mid-70s. Because the mining of sources seems more intensive at those times. (The same holds for Remini. My impression is that later sources rely heavily on him.) I find these sources invaluable, though their conclusions- such as the causes of the bubble/bust cycle of 1834-1837- are often superceded by later research. That's where the later material is valuable. Wtfiv (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Slavery Tracts subheading. Changed this to Slavery. The issue is bigger, and here it seemed that the article was roughly following Latner's organization, he calls the section it is addressed in Slavery as well. This was not a trim, but an increase of over 100%. I figured that instead of addressing the "too long" template, I'd address the "white bias" template instead. It seemed a full treatment of the issue needed to be addressed. The idea is to give Jackson's view, but to give a larger perspective on the role slavery played in Jackson's presidency. I added the "gag rule", which came at the very end of his presidency, and mentioned that the Nat Turner rebellion happened during his administration. Remini discussion of Jackson's solution to the anti-slavery tracts is slightly different than the one that had been mentioned, possibly shedding a different light on Jackson's style of running the country. I organized it to follow the "Foreign Affairs", as the Texas slavery issue is a good segue to slavery in general. Also, the Foreign Affairs and Slavery topics feel a little to be structured in terms of conceptual summation and their place in the presidential timeline is secondary. Wtfiv (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Judicial Appointments subheading. Trimmed this according to Rjensen's suggestions above. The focus is on Taney. The undistinguished appointments can be viewed by clicking the main article. Wtfiv (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

States Admitted subheading. Left the same except for some minor prose tweaks. Wtfiv (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This draft of the Presidency section is done for now. (Besides all the micro-putzing, of course.) Wtfiv (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, I'm impressed by your probing, thorough approach to the subject, Andrew Jackson. "Respect", as my Jamaican friends say. The way I see it, this is how great articles are constructed. I really appreciate the blow-by-blow reports of your editing; it's nice to have the insights into your thought processes as you go about your business; that transparency is reassuring to editors who are following the progress of your educational journey almost in real time.:-)

Funny how you went through the same sequence of thoughts that I did concerning the fascinating relationship between Jackson and Sam Houston, a complex, fascinating character in his own right, and the place such information might have in the article. I've always been puzzled to understand how Houston, who was taken in by Cherokee leader John Jolly, adopted Cherokee customs and traditions, and even learned to speak the Cherokee language, could be so close to the Indian fighter and ethnic cleanser Andrew Jackson. I contributed a bit to our article Sam Houston and Native American relations, so I have a heightened awareness of that subject, but I've yet to reconcile that knowledge with my understanding of a man (Houston) who had many admirable qualities. Anyway, kudos for your work. This is how it's done. Carlstak (talk) 00:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak! I'm so glad you appreciate the work! I realize how contentious this article got, so I want to make sure that everyone sees the process. I'm glad you appreciate it! I'll take a look at the Houston and Native American article. That's the beauty of Wikipedia: I didn't even know it existed, but now I've got a new horizon to look at! I think what you are saying about Houston applies to Jackson as well. People are complex and their outer behaviors rarely match the logical consistency we demand for our judgements. Wtfiv (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Credit where credit's due; CaroleHenson created and did most of the work on the Sam Houston and Native American relations article. She's a WP treasure. Carlstak (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is fantastic. I take it that it is a spin-off from the main Houston article, but if all spin-offs could be as nice as that...Wikipedia would be absolutely more amazing than it already is! Wtfiv (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Carlstak and Wtfiv:. I really enjoyed working on it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Later life and death (1837–1845) and Personal Life

These two sections are mainly straightforward trims. The biggest change is the temperament subheading, which adds a vintage, but excellent source. It adds a bit more detail that confirms and condenses many of the points made in the core biographies used here, and adds another dimension. The source may be useful in the discussion of Jacksonian democracy. The overall reduction of these two sections is about 30%.

Hi John! You had mentioned you'd be open to copy editing this article. I've just finished with the the biography sections (i.e., the sections between the lead and the legacy) and I was wondering if you have the time and energy to put your talents to work cleaning this up. I've done a first-pass trim, but there are still weeds that need plucking. You are used to my ability to torture prose, so it shouldn't be too bad on your side, and I think Joan of Arc shows we can do a pretty good job together. And who knows, maybe it'd be fun to do. Please let me know, and if you are game, please just jump in and go at it!

Removing header template

I'm removing the template from the top of this article, as per WP:WTRMT. I came to this article when it was submitted for consideration in a FAR review was requested based on the article not meeting WP:NPOV The request was made by FinnV3 Below I'll mention how I addressed the concerns and ping the editors whose opinion the issue was attributed. I've pinged FinnV3, but the account hasn't been active since August.

FloridaArmy was noted as pointing out problems with common man and the working class. This has been removed from the lead, and the history of how common man was integrated into working class in relation to Jackson has been addressed in the "Jacksonian Democracy" section of the article.
Cmguy777 was noted as pointing out that describing Jackson as an advocate for democracy is a problem. This has been addressed. The issue of Jacksonian Democracy and its problem with race is directly addressed in the last paragraph of the "Jacksonian Democracy" section. Attributions of Jackson as a defender of democracy are in the "Andrew Jackson#Historical Reputation" section but are discussed in the context of Jackson as a controversial figure and balanced by negative comments.
Deathlibrarian is noted as expressing concerns about dancing around the term "ethnic cleansing", which was discussed at length in the Talk:Andrew Jackson#RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead. I address this by:

using sources from the RfC to describe Jackson's acts in terms of "ethnic cleansing in the "Andrew Jackson#Native American Policy" in legacy. Instead of attributing it to a single quote by Zinn, It is now attributed number of authors, both one's used in the article like Howe and then others who approach it from a number of diverse perspectives.
In the "Native American Policy" section, "ethnic cleansing" is now defined using the original United Nations language. Tthis definition has expanded, but the original definition captures the core idea and clarifies whether Jackson's actions would fall under the description.
Jackson's acts are briefly mentioned in the context of genocide. Two two sources are provided, both agreeing that the Indian Removal Act was ethnic cleansing, but one arguing it was not genocide and the other arguing that it had genocidal characteristics.
The "Andrew Jackson#Indian Removal Act" section has been restructured. It attempts to describes what occurs without trying to explain Jackson's personal motivation. The section does discuss its political impact for white Americans. The final paragraph presents a summary of the cost and sets up the discussion in the legacy.
The article tries to separate the particular legislation, "Indian Removal Act" from the larger concept of "Native American Policy". The act informs the policy, but Jackson's behavior when dealing with other issues, such as the Red Stick War and the First Seminole War also informs policy.
The lead currently avoids mention of ethnic cleansing and mentions forced removal as part of Jackson's criticized actions. But ethnic cleansing is mentioned in the fourth paragraph. Here the point addresses how Jackson is seen positively (his support for the union, based on the nullification crisis; his support for ordinary Americans, which runs through huge swaths of Jackson literature and was part of his party rhetoric. The fact it only applies to whites is addressed specifically in "Jacksonian Democracy" ) and his major criticism, which is his racial policies, particularly with respect to Native Americans.
Hobomok was noted about unbalanced sources. The sources have been expanded significantly. Dozens of new sources, many of them peer-reviewed Journal articles focused on specific issues in each section have been added. Remini is still used extensively for statement of facts, but other more detailed articles tha look at primary sources have been used too.
ARoseWolf was noted as being concerned that facts were stated as opinions. This has attempted to be addressed. Facts are try to be stated as facts; opinions as opinions.
The changes also attempt to address Indy beetle's comments:

"Popular cultural depictions" has been moved to its own article to avoid this article becoming a poorly sourced and arbitrary collection of trivia.
Newer sources on Jackson and Race were added.
Sections that addressed race were kept, but expanded with more sourcing; the final section of the Lead addresses the change in Jackson's popularity.
Distinction between "Indian Removal Act" and "Native American policy" is in the article. Each have their separate section.
Ethnic cleansing issue is addressed by appeal to a definition and a scholarly discussions of why the definition is addressed. The distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide is made as well.

Though not mentioned in the FAR request, African American slavery has been more directly addressed.

The section on Jackson as planter discusses the role of slaves as property directly
The section removed the news clip and replaces it with an image of two human being who were enslaved at the Hermitage. The image also allows a link to a Wikipedia article about this slave, thus expanding the article's breadth with an in-depth treatment about one person who lived under slavery in the Hermitage. The point of the clip is still present. It is quoted in the article, and the citation has a direct link to a web resource with the news clip.
The section that used to be called "Reaction to Anti-slavery tracts" has been renamed "Slavery" and expanded to include the Jackson administrations attitude toward slavery during the presidency, including mention of Nat Turner's rebellion and the Gag rule.
The final paragraph in "Jacksonian Democracy" discusses how it explicitly excluded African Americans from participating.

SandyGeorgia made the point that the article needed substantial trimming, as it was just under 15000 words (and before that, 17000 words).

It is has now slightly under 13000 words (trimmed by 3000). This is not the 9000 goal mentioned by Sandy. But as the editor who removed the maintenance tag said, the article is now the size of most American president articles. I've tried to ensure that the huge amount of work by the original article was respected. Most of the sections were kept, though some were rearranged and renamed. And, the legacy section in particular was extensively reworked to address the concerns on the talk page.

Additional points:

There are many changes to the images, visually changing the overall look to the article. These images include political cartoons, photographs, etchings, and interactive maps. These images add more diversity to the visual aspects of this article and help readers visualize the concepts (e.g., the actual human beings impacted by slavery, Jacksonian democracy, the nullification act, the Petticoat affair) Most of the original images were kept as well, though some have been replaced by higher quality versions so that interested readers can explore them in more detail.
I'm still concerned about future citation-text integrity. As I went through the article, the sourcing was overall okay but the sources and certainly morphed from the text at times. But I did find many anomalies. Conclusions about a fact that wasn't in the citations. A point or near paraphrase by one author being attributed to another making a similar, but different points. The addition of facts that could be verified by detective work, but weren't in the citation; and some cases where the citation is making a very different point than the text.

My preferred solution remains adding page links to all the sfn's from archive.org or other free sources so any editor or reader can verify the citation with a single click. But I think the compromise of making sure the source link is available and letting readers do the extra work is worthwhile. So, I tried to make sure that if a source had an archive.org link, it is directly linked and accessible.
For books that are not available, but have accessible pages on Google books, I linked the Google Book page directly to the page number in the citation.

There are plenty of twenty-first century sources, but the article relies heavily on older articles. There are two reasons for this:

It seems to me that the work done throughout the twentieth century (1920–1980) has not been surpassed in terms of looking at primary material. So even though a source is older doesn't mean its not valid. (And as I mentioned, I suspect that almost every later biography of Jackson relies on Remini, and Remini leaned heavily on Parton's 1860 work.)

Where the older work is weakest is dealing with Jackson and the problematic aspects of his relationship to slavery, Native Americans, and (of course) more contemporary interpretations of the political relevance of his legacy. This is where the more recent sources were invaluable.

Older works are usually more accessible and useful for verification.

Yet another wall of words, but I wanted to summarize why I'm removing the templates. I also want to thank Carlstak, ARoseWolf, Jr8825 for their active support, and of course, all the watchers, who would let me know if something is amiss! More editing can certainly be done. I think we'll have other editors doing more clean up. And after a break, I'll do a second sweep to catch any prose I've unduly put through the wringer.

Do these changes address the majority of concerns? Wtfiv (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree with removal of the tags (because the size problem is now down to a dull roar, as opposed to outlandish), but nonetheless think more trimming can be done, and the article is still too large. I can see no reason for the size not to be under 10,000 words of readable prose, and 8,000 to 9,000 is even more readable. This size is routinely achieved on bios of equal import. Rjensen laid out how to trim this article, and we can still take better advantage of sub-articles.

At any rate, the FAR is on hold, and if people think we are at a stable enough place now to initiate broader discussion, this would probably be a good point to ask Nikkimaria to reinstate the FAR, where size and prose and sourcing can be thoroughly evaluated by all. Fine work so far, Wtfiv! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

We have not addressed the issues laid out in the RfC above about neutrality in the article so I don't agree with removing that tag until the issue is addressed, with regards to forced removal vs ethnic cleansing and where its placement in the lead should be. Great strides have taken place and I agree there has been movement but I disagree that all issues have been addressed. --ARose Wolf 20:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify that my comment about tag removal referred to size; I have not yet focused on (any) POV concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think while a lot of good work has been done here (thank you Wtfiv|!), I would support ARose view - the issue with removal vs ethnic cleansing still remains, so the NPOV tag should remain while that is still an issue. So the tag should go back in, until we have consensus that it has been dealt with. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I put the lead POV tag back. Hopefully, it'll encourage conversation about whether the term "ethnic cleansing" in the first paragraph. I'm fine with whatever is decided. Wtfiv (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, you have done amazing work with the article. It is far better than when we first came across it. I think the discussion here has come a long way and is headed in the correct direction no matter the outcome. I hope it does encourage discussion but I have a feeling we will just have to start that discussion ourselves. --ARose Wolf 13:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on all your hard work, Wtfiv, although I realize you're not quite done. I was in favor of drastic trimming, but I'm not a stickler who would insist on maximum wielding of the knife. As you and the editor who removed the maintenance tag said, the article is now the size of most American president articles, so I wouldn't be overly concerned about criticism of its size. I tend to favor inclusive coverage of a subject anyway, rather than a minimalist outline that directs one to a multiplicity of other articles for details. Some articles on WP read almost as a collection of links to a multitude of other "main articles". I prefer the main article of a subject to be a more comprehensive summary of the information, rather than a bare bones extended-length haiku.;-) Carlstak (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Just took the final template off as active discussion for addressing issue has been dormant since August (as per maintenance tag instructions). Both ethnic cleansing and specific mention of the Indian Removal Policy are currently used in the lead as per discussion, as per solution offered in lead. In addition, the legacy section gives a more detail on both ethnic cleansing and Jackson's policy in terms of genocide than article before discussion. The article now emphasizes the extent of Jackson's role in removing Native American from their land, including a new map. Of course, this does not mean the issue is closed, further changes can certainly be made. Wtfiv (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say that the matter is absolutely not closed. In fact, I disagree that the matter is resolved in the slightest. The lead is basically the same as it was when the RfC was spawned, in regards to the two terms, and there has been no close of the RfC. It gives preferential position to one term over the other in Wikivoice. Something I adamantly oppose as being an extremely biased position for Wikipedia to take for two terms that are unequivocally equal as shown by sources provided. The position of the terms in the lead gives the appearance to the reader that the overwhelming majority of sources refer to Jackson's policy as forced removal which does not begin to describe the detailed atrocities committed that we know about. If the reader happen to read to the next to the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead and then the very last words of said sentence they may find that his policy against Native Americans was also referred to as ethnic cleansing. To me, and I know I am not alone, it is abhorrent to relegate this term to this position in the lead as if Wikipedia gives full support to the notion that the Native Americans were simply escorted off their land so Euro-American Imperialists like Jackson and the "common men" he espoused to protect could all pat themselves on the back at a job well done. Got rid of that "Indian" problem and now everyone is happy. Except those few people that are fussing about some ethnic issue or something. I'd rather have a decision one way or the other. Either the RfC fails or not. Either it has merit or not. Either we agree that ethnic cleansing deserves as prominent a place as forced removal or it doesn't. We all know that the majority of readers will never make it to the section on his Native American policies in the article. Most never read past the lead. And a great deal of readers may not read past the first paragraph of the lead. The lead is Wikipedia's chance to say, in it's voice, a summarized description of what is in the article for the express reason that most readers don't read further. It's why we have info boxes too. I've said my piece and I'll move on but I disagree that this is resolved in any way. --ARose Wolf 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing, they are unequivocally equal in use in sources, not that the two terms have the same meaning because they most certainly do not. --ARose Wolf 18:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, Could you suggest a final sentence or two for the first paragraph that you feel covers your points and the overall sense in the RfC? Wtfiv (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf Here's a try at rewording the lead. I removed "Indian removal" and referenced the specific government policy "Indian Removal Act", then I modified it to this: "which displaced tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands and resulted in thousands of deaths." This includes both displacement and death, setting up the ingredients for the final lead paragraph, which discusses his larger Native American policy, which includes the Red Stick War and the treaties from 1814-1823 as well. If you prefer to try something else, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, my comment wasn't directed at you specifically. I appreciate your efforts to try and find a resolution. Look how the other two, claimed, major events that occurred during Jackson's Presidency are treated in the lead. They each have two concise statements and they stand on their own. I would end the sentence in the lede at "racial policies". In the third paragraph I would leave the first sentence alone ("In 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, which forcibly removed most members of the major Native American tribes in the Southeast to Indian Territory"). For the second sentence I would bring down the information in the lede and say something along the lines of "During Indian removal(wikilink), tens of thousands of Native Americans(wikilink) were displaced from their ancestral homelands which resulted in thousands of deaths and has been described as ethnic cleansing(wikilink)". Then I would end the sentence in the last paragraph at "policy". The main points are in a central location together. Both equally used terms are in the same area of the lead. And it is in the same paragraph as the other controversial events of Jackson's Presidency. The only other thing I could see that might make it even more neutral would be to somehow include ethnic cleansing just after forcibly removed or forced removal in the first sentence but it seems more appropriate to link it with the cultural death (losing their ancestral homeland) and physical death associated with removal. --ARose Wolf 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf How does this look? Paragraph three now says: " In 1830, Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act. This act, which has been described as ethnic cleansing, displaced tens of thousands of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands east of the Mississippi and resulted in thousands of deaths."

I also think this is stronger it removed focus from just the Southeastern tribes, Jackson's actions also displaced the Sauk and the Fox tribes.

In paragraph one, I left the phrase "particularly Native American policy." If you feel it is better deleted, let me know.

Paragraph 4 has been slightly changed to reduce redundancy: "He has also been criticized for his stand against abolition and his treatment of Native Americans." Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I did one further edit by swapping phrases in the first and fourth paragraphs. I think swapping phrases is stronger: I put treatment of Native Americans in the first paragraph and move Native American policies to the fourth. This keeps the first paragraph concise: pointing to the myriad of issues that is larger than just an act or official policy, and pointing toward the more general issue. What do you think? Wtfiv (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, you did a fantastic job of incorporating the parts and pieces that I thought were important. Still, many editors felt like forced removal should be there and according to the sources, both terms are equally used. The issue, as brought out by many is that ethnic cleansing and forced removal are not exactly equal terms in definition. That's why a compromise would be the use of both terms. Does that make sense? The personal and cultural side of me is more in agreeance with what you have written. But the objective editor in me says it isn't complete without some form of forced removal (forcibly removed) to be in those sentences. --ARose Wolf 17:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

ARoseWolf I think the idea that it works for you personally is a sign that the wording is okay, or at least close. Though I have no doubt I have biases, my goal is to strike a balance that captures your concern, which seems to me to reflect well one side of the August debate, but avoids taking a POV as much as possible. From my perspective, this does feel like it catches the balance you've been describing. Here's why. Since this paragraph is discussing Jackson's actions as president, think the specific act needs to be mentioned. But then, adding the term "forced removal" seems to create a repetition with "Indian Removal Act". From my view "Indian Removal Act" already implies the euphemism of removal- the issue of sounding like it was "clean". The word "forced" is missing, but I think this is implied by the act itself and "ethnic cleansing further reinforces the "forced" aspect. As it stands, "removal" is immediately followed by "ethnic cleansing", thus, both aspects are addressed. If you feel it can be better worded though, please do so. Wtfiv (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I also think your suggestion to simplify the lead paragraph elegantly solved a number of problems, and allowed the focus to be addressed more clearly in context. Wtfiv (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, the way you explained it has sold me on it. I feel a balance has been struck and the concerns from the RfC, at least in my opinion, have been addressed in the best way possible. Thank you for listening. I am biased, personally, but I try to keep that down and focus on maintaining a neutral POV in my editing. One reason I haven't edited the article and instead focused on discussion was because I don't want there to be any doubt about the neutrality of what is written and because I have been heavily involved in the dispute. I know many wanted everything in the lede but I feel this is the best location in the lead where other policy actions of Jackson are addressed. All I ever wanted in this discussion was for this to be "addressed more clearly in context." I am very thankful you came along to help streamline and focus on improving the message relayed in the article. --ARose Wolf 13:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Carlstak! I'm in agreement.

In terms of further trimming: It's always a challenge to do more, and maybe a little more can be done. But, I'm thinking that it is close to the right size now.

Of course, I'm biased as I am now close to the text, (while gaining respect for the previous work done to get this to featured article status, so I tried a method to obtain a more objective metric. I've listed all the presidents who have achieved featured article status to see where Jackson currently sits. (An aside: I was surprised how few presidents have achieved featured article status.) You'll see by this measure that Jackson fits in at an appropriate size for this category. Interestingly, there's appears to be a rough correlation between importance and controversy and prose size. Given Jackson's place on the landscape, this seems to fit just about right.

FA Articles on US Presidents
as Function of Words in Main Body (in kWords)
President	Words in main body (1000 words)
Ulysses S. Grant	19.0
Ronald Reagan	18.1
Harry S. Truman	18.3
John Adams	16.7
William Howard Taft	15.4
James K Polk	15.2
Warren G. Harding	15.1
Richard M. Nixon	14.9
Andrew Johnson	14.1
Andrew Jackson	12.6
James A. Garfield	12.3
Franklin Pierce	11.4
Grover Cleveland	10.2
Chester A. Arthur	9.5
Rutherford B. Hayes	9.4
Calvin Coolidge	8.8

I find the balance between comprehensiveness but lean prose is hard to achieve. And I may tend toward the former. But given that the narrative of a president is expansive- really two topics in one- not only a biography but a brief summary of the person's impact key issues in a country's history at the time, the longer length of these articles seems appropriate. Wtfiv (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in article.

"Polk defeated Van Buren for the nomination, and Jackson convinced Taylor not to run as an independent by bringing him back into the Democratic Party." This is wrong. "Taylor" should be "Tyler." 96.241.16.150 (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Flipped image

Yourlocallordandsavior Thanks for catching that image flip. I put the Library of Congress (LOC) information about the flip that you provided directly into both image files so readers and future users of the file will know that that "flipped" is unflipped and the "unflipped" is flipped. According to the LOC, it's not even clear Brady is the photographer. Since LOC lists him should we keep the attribution or remove it? If we remove it, I'll update the images about the attribution. Wtfiv (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. You can say that it's disputed and include Brady's name alongside all the other names.Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Figuring the mystery of the photograph gets complicated. Here's a version with the orientation that you have, but I notice most books I could look at reference the flipped version originally used- but its not the daguerreotype. The history of the the question regarding who actually took it is explained in Komroff, 1962, pp. 46-47 I think the simplest solution was just to remove the attribution of photographer in the article caption, which I did. Thanks again! Wtfiv (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Historical Rankings

Pardon me, but I'm a bit surprised why there is not a reference to the historical rankings of U.S. presidents for Jackson in the lead. Was there a discussion about this? I just want to know before I try to add it in. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello The Night Watch, there's been no discussion as of yet. When I was reworking the article addressing the concerns from editors and FAR reviewers, There was a section on rankings in the legacy, but it referenced only to the CSPAN poll and the opinion of a single scholar summarizing his legacy who didn't address polls in his article, so I removed the statement from the main text and lead.

Personally, I'm open to a simple one-sentence statement in the lead mentioning he usually scores in the top half, which is clear from the historical rankings chart. That would allow this article to match many of the other presidential articles that reference the rankings. I feel more detail would require expanding the legacy to make sure the lead reflects the main body. Wtfiv (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment Wtfiv. I’m also open to a single-sentence mention of him being in the top half. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That may be a true statement but it does not note that he has scored consistently lower since 2016 due, in large part, to views in regards to his stance on Native American policies in the current political climate. He hasn't seen the top 10 since 2015 and probably wont see it again. In 1996 he reached his highest score of 5th but has steadily fallen off to the latest score of 23rd which is the median for this year. Putting it in the lead like he has consistently scored higher isn't really telling the tale, especially, in the last six years. I think slightly altering the proposed mention to include that his scores have dropped off recently would be a more accurate statement for current readers and will reflect the current flow of the lead. --ARose Wolf 19:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. If possible, I'd prefer to say that opinions of him have declined in the 21st century. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The polls in the article show a drop from scoring in the first quartile to the second quartile in this century, so that wording works for me. Wtfiv (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The Night Watch, ARoseWolf I saw the sentence on Jackson's ratings hadn't been added yet, so I put it in at the end of the lead. Does it work? Wtfiv (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. Thank you, Wtfiv. ‡ The Night Watch ω (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fine by me. I didn't really have a particular interest either way but if it was to be included I thought it best to include both statements as fact to offer a balance to the reader. Thank you for doing that. --ARose Wolf 13:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Images changes

MrNoobNub2 I've reverted the image swap out to reflect the original image when the article became a featured article. Earl, Jackson's preferred painter, catches the sense of him in the midst of his presidency. The Sully picture is already in the article. Timewise, the placement was ideal: it matches the timeline during the 1824 election when Jackson's populist support was beginning to form. Wtfiv (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Martin Van Buren isn't linked to

This edit request to Andrew Jackson has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Link Martin Van Buren in the Vice President row ThatEpicBanana (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Not done: It's already linked right below in "Succeeded by". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Slate article

Mentions this page. FYI. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Rhododendrites. It's interesting to see the role this article is playing in cultural debates. I think the article made a reasonable point that one legacy of the Indian Removal Act is is the current discussion of its relationship to genocide. For now, I reinserted the point about the American Indian Act being discussed in the context of genocide and returned the Gilo-Whitaker citation. I had removed the citation previously because the citation didn't support the entire sentence. However, Gilo-Whitaker does address the clause it currently follows. Wtfiv (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think we've made great strides. Not only was "ethnic cleansing" given more prominence in the article's lead, as it should be, but "genocide" was added as well, a characterization I 100% agree with. However, instead of focusing on what isn't there I think we should focus on the collaborative effort that has occurred. I celebrate the changes made. The article far better reflects scholarship and cultural viewpoints than it ever has. Honest and careful change is a grueling and arduous task. It can be dark and it can be messy but the results are almost always better than when it started when you have people willing to listen and find common ground to facilitate change. Is the article everything I want? No. I am biased, I don't hide it as if it is some great evil. However, I accept that Wikipedia may never fully reflect my viewpoints anymore than I expect everyone to agree with me. We have found common ground here and affected change to bring this article closer to perfection, in my opinion. Other articles haven't found their way there yet but this one has taken another step in that direction and with more time and more sources it can continue to move that way. That's something I can celebrate as a Wikipedian and someone who identifies as American Indian. Thank you, Wtfiv and thank you Rhododendrites for sharing that article with us. I think it was beautifully written. --ARose Wolf 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

"I accept that Wikipedia may never fully reflect my viewpoints" Well, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the viewpoints of its sources, not its own editors. I often find that these sources contain bewildering value judgments, but little can be done about that. Dimadick (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The Slate article certainly contained a lot of value judgements. Overall I was not impressed with it. The author clearly has his own biases. This is perhaps a hard balancing question, "who's version of history is right". However, it appears the author wants to push a particular perspective because he feels it's under represented. Is it? With the Jackson specific content, hard to say. But claiming we need to make changes to a Wikipedia article because Native American sovereignty is being challenged in court is really quite a stretch. Are we trying to summarize what others say or "report truth"? Additionally, claiming "outright contempt for Native American peoples, history, and knowledge on Wikipedia" is another clear stretch. It suggests this is someone who wants Wikipedia editors to agree that his (the author's) opinion on WEIGHT is correct vs our attempts (sloppy and problematic as they are) to balance views and presentation based on weight in reliable sources.

Many of his claims are the sort of thing that are expected to be accepted as fact rather than shown to be through clear reasoning. Cherokee Chief John Ross certainly was not arguing about a "genocidal forced removal" in the 1830s as that term wouldn't be used for at least a century. Attacking editors for making "false and racist" claims comes off as shouting down those who don't agree rather than bothering to understand the arguments being made. How dare an editor not agree with some blowhard from Slate. Speaking of "how dare they", why shouldn't a non-Native American editor debate Native American history with others? If you aren't French should you be barred from editing the French Revolution article? What if you are a German who's family is from lands that are now part of Poland. Are you barred from writing about the Polish or German side? The author is critical of people who don't agree that native peoples who died from disease during the early colonization is colonial violence. Well it does really stretch the definition of violence. But I'm sure well meaning, informed individuals wouldn't disagree with the author.

The whole article comes off more as a screed than thoughtful commentary. I know it's not the first time an outside source has written such an article about things that they feel are wrong on Wikipedia. I'm sure it won't be the last. Springee (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well said, ARoseWolf, and the Slate article is superb. Carlstak (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)