Skip to main content

Jackson, in his message vetoing legislation to create a national bank, had this, among other things, to say:

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of goverrnment to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exis under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is entitled to equal protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing."


July 10, 1830
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I would whole heartily agree with

" but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers--who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves"

I certainly did not have the time or means the Unions had in securing their members exclusion from the new FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS in NEW TAXES (that effect people that make under 250k).
quote:
Originally posted by interventor12:
"I fought through the War Between the States and have seen many men shot, but the Cherokee Removal was the cruelest work I ever knew.”
—- Georgia soldier who participated in the removal


Agreed. Jackson's actions toward the Indians was abominable. But that does not change the import of what he said about advantages given to the rich and powerful.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by yellowdogdemocrat:
Let's not forget states rights. Andrew Jackson DA MAN I'd vote for him today!


What about "county rights"? What about city, town, or municipality "rights"? The "states rights" argument is flawed. Individuals have rights, not groups, governments, or any organizations.

No, the constitution is not flawed.

Would you kindly read the 10th ammendment for us?:

quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Do you see the words, "reserved to the states, or to the people"? The people are county, city, town or municipality. The founders wanted us to take care of ourselves. What's so hard to understand about that?
quote:
Originally posted by reservation:
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
quote:
Originally posted by yellowdogdemocrat:
Let's not forget states rights. Andrew Jackson DA MAN I'd vote for him today!


What about "county rights"? What about city, town, or municipality "rights"? The "states rights" argument is flawed. Individuals have rights, not groups, governments, or any organizations.

No, the constitution is not flawed.

Would you kindly read the 10th ammendment for us?:

quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Do you see the words, "reserved to the states, or to the people"? The people are county, city, town or municipality. The founders wanted us to take care of ourselves. What's so hard to understand about that?



"or to the people" hmm... the individuals?

My point here is that certain things like basic rights, are not applicable to groups, or organizations. Does a city have the right to free speech? Or would it be more appropriate to ascribe the right to the individuals in that city? I think so.

Semantics? Maybe, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent to ascribe human rights to any kind of aggregation. I'm just saying that human and civil rights are individual oriented, as is the responsibility that must go along with these rights. Otherwise, I would be willing to bet we agree.
quote:
Semantics? Maybe, but I think it sets a dangerous precedent to ascribe human rights to any kind of aggregation. I'm just saying that human and civil rights are individual oriented, as is the responsibility that must go along with these rights.


I agree with this. While I believe states' rights are superior to letting the federal government decide everything for us, I sometimes feel like "conservative" politicians use "states' rights" as a cop out. It allows them to support big, intrusive government, and still maintain their small government rhetoric. There was a thread in the news forum recently regarding gambling in Alabama, accompanied with the usual "let the voters decide" rhetoric. I personally don't see how I should have any say in whether or not there is a casino in Mobile. For that matter, I don't see how people here in the Shoals should be able to democratically decide I could be legally punished for wagering my own money.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×