HAPPY BIRTHDAY ANDREW JACKSON!
MARCH 15
N.B. It is not that I love White European Genocidal Racists (of all confessions), but THE TRUTH has to be told!
And, in general, I did not find better humans, INHUMANS and LIARS than the WHITE EUROPEANS! Enamoured by JUDAIC POWER, their racists are today calling everybody else racists, especially accusing truthers of the greatest crime of racism of all times, ANTISEMITISM, for political reasons!!! [BAFS]
 |
THE MARXIST
MYTH OF "THE TRAIL OF TEARS"
An excerpt from "Andrew
the Great"
By Mike King
|
***
We’ve all
heard that sad story about “The Trail of Tears” ™
– the one about how mean old "racist" ™ President
Andrew Jackson (terms: 1829-1837) rounded up the Indians of the Southeast (mainly Cherokees
from Georgia-Tennessee-Carolinas) and
force-marched them off to Oklahoma. The various treks, ranging between
700-1000
miles, are said to have caused the deaths of 4,000
Indians who were buried in unmarked graves along “The Trail Where
They Cried.”
There is just
one little problem with this unchallenged narrative --- it is not totally false,
but it has been grossly edited and
wildly embellished, mainly for the purpose of
besmirching the great name of the heroic American figure who paid off
the National
Debt down to zero and “killed the bank” (America’s Central Bank).
Let us examine some of the problems
with this attack against "the White Man" in general
-- and Jackson in particular -- and set the record straight
about “The Trail of Tears” once and for all.
1. Andrew Jackson slays the multi-headed monster of the 2nd Bank of the United
States in 1833. 2. Jackson
survives an assassination attempt. The Rothschild Globalists have always
hated
Jackson for paying off the National Debt and
killing the Central Bank, which was finally reborn as the "The Federal
Reserve"
in 1913. 3. The false propaganda tale of "The Trail of Tears" is just another manifestation of
that hatred towards Jackson.
10
PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICIAL STORY
1. Judging historical figures out of
the context of their times can be misleading.
We
do not believe that right and wrong are “relative”
concepts, of course. However, we should tread very
carefully when pulling any historical personage out of the context of
his
day and condemning him according to some of the
arguably more enlightened attitudes of contemporary times. After all,
back
in the day, many good and noble men saw nothing
wrong with owning slaves, provided they were well-cared for. Does that
mean
that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson himself and even
the estimated 3,700 Black slaveholders (here) were all “evil?” We don’t believe so.
Similarly, let’s not childishly
tag all men from the past with the stupid term “racist” ™
so easily just because they foresaw potential
problems arising from different races living within
close proximity of each other -- a sad historical reality of human
existence
which has afflicted mankind ever since the Cro
Magnons knocked off the Neanderthals. It was simply the way of the world
back
then.
2. Not
all Indians were exactly angels.
What modern day libtards refer to as “toxic masculinity” ™
is not unique to White males. Many innocent White
people as well as some of the more docile Indian tribes were persecuted
and slaughtered by some of the more violent Indian
elements. So let's dispense with all this "evil White Man" talk.
Over the course of the centuries of interaction in
the Americas, atrocities were committed by both sides. Notwithstanding
the many cases of Indians and Whites getting along
nicely, the proximity to each other was often problematic in some areas,
for both races.
3. The
Indian Removal Act was approved by Congress and the Senate.
Jackson was not a dictator issuing Executive Orders
to relocate the Indians. In 1830, the US Senate passed the Indian Removal Act
by a vote of 28 to 19; and
the House of Representatives passed it by a vote of
101 to 97. The Act granted the president authority to negotiate
treaties
that swapped Indian lands east of the Mississippi
River for reservations in the West, and said nothing about removal by
force.
This policy of using money and land
instead of force was later continued by President Martin Van Buren, after Jackson left office in 1837.
1. Black slaveowner
Nicolas Augustin Metoyer of Louisiana and his other family members owned 200 slaves. Was he "evil"
too? 2.
Not all Indians were peaceful. There were many cases of White women and children being slaughtered. 3. Senate and House majorities also supported Indian
relocation in exchange for western reservations.
4. Jackson
was more of a realist than a “racist.” ™
Many northerners opposed the plan. Jackson regarded these northern critics as hypocrites because
Indian tribes had become nearly extinct / assimilated in the North --
where Indian hunting grounds gave
way to family farms as state law replaced tribal
law. If the Indians of the south and their culture were to survive, it
could
only be done in separation, not integration. The wise words of America’s greatest President made perfect
sense for that time:
“Humanity
has often wept
over the fate of the aborigines of this country and
philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert
it, but its progress has never for a moment been
arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the
earth.
But
true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does
to the
extinction of one generation to make room for
another.… Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored
to the condition in which it was found by our
forefathers. 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?”
According to historian H. W. Brands,
Jackson sincerely
believed that his population transfer was a "wise
and humane policy" that would save the Indians from "utter
annihilation." Brands writes that, given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost
certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction." Jackson believed
that his paternalism and federal support were generous acts of mercy.
In his autobiography, Van Buren praised Jackson’s vision of Indian removal and thus, preservation.
“No
man ever entered upon the execution of an official duty with purer
motives,
firmer purpose or better qualifications for its
performance. We were perhaps in the beginning unjustifiable aggressors
(toward
the Indians) but we have become the guardians and,
as we hope, the benefactors.”
1. Jackson
(Image 1) and Van Buren's (Image 2) attitudes towards the Indians were
paternalistic and benevolent, not cruel or tyrannical. 3. Cherokee
leader John Ross (half White) -- negotiated the transfer deal with the US Federal government, and profited from it. He never
spoke nor wrote about any mass deaths.
6. The Indians were well-paid to relocate and received lots of new land.
Unlike,
say, the dispossessed and terrorized Palestinians
of 1948 and beyond, the Cherokees of the 1830's
actually negotiated the terms of their relocation with Washington DC. The Cherokees, though under pressure, were actually well-paid with removal costs running at about $3 million
and another $3 million by
1849. In today's money, $3
million would represent as much as $90-100 million. In essence, the
Indian
relocation was an eminent domain deal, not unlike
the transactions which clear out the residents of city blocks in order
to
make way for bridges, tunnels, skyscrapers etc.
Jackson
outlined his policy in his Second Annual
Message to Congress, in which he said nothing about
the use of force. Rather, his comments on Indian removal
began with the words:
"It gives me pleasure to announce to Congress that the benevolent policy
of the Government,
steadily pursued for nearly thirty years, in relation
to the removal of the Indians beyond the
white settlements is approaching to a happy
consummation.
Two important tribes have accepted the provision made for their removal
at the last session of Congress, and it is believed that their example will
induce the remaining tribes also to seek the same obvious advantages."
Further
contradicting the misconception of a mass forced roundup at bayonett point is the historical fact that some Cherokees insisted on staying in
North Carolina and had a Federal reservation set aside for them there in later years (here).
THIS
IS WHAT A REAL "TRAIL OF TEARS" LOOKS LIKE!
7. Only 12,783 Indians were relocated.
Most
products of the American "education" system remain
under the mistaken impression that mass numbers of Indians from
the Southeast United States was herded out to
Oklahoma. Texas historian / writer
William
R. Higginbotham claimed to have spent 20 years researching original archival data from that era. In a 1988 essay published
in The Oklahoman newspaper, he informs us:
"In
the Cherokee nation's own files, now on deposit in the Gilcrease
Institute
in Tulsa, the number of Indians departing the East
in 13 main parties is recorded at 12,623, the arrivals West at 12,783.
Some stragglers joined on the way. American
military counts are almost the same. The Cherokees were being paid per
Indian
moved."
Even establishment historians do not dispute the relatively low number
of the relocated, though their "official" number is 16,000. (here)
8. The sovereign Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma still exists and is thriving.
From PowWows.com -- sourced from
Cherokee.org:
"Citizens
of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma reside within 14 counties
in Northeastern Oklahoma,
the tribe composes of descendants of those that
were forced removed from lands in Southeastern United States during
1838-1839 time period. In addition to those
descendants the tribe also comprises of descendants of ‘Old
Settlers' which were those that had moved from
lands in the east prior to 1833 and are subject to the 1828 and 1833
treaties. Over 70,000 Cherokee reside within a 7,000 square mile geographical area, which was never
a reservation but rather a federally-recognized, truly sovereign nation
covering most of northeast Oklahoma.
Today its
jurisdictional service area encompasses eight
entire counties along with portions of six others. As one of only three
such
federally-recognized Cherokee tribes, the Cherokee
Nation has both the sovereign right and the responsibility to exercise
control and development over tribal assets,
including more than 66,000 acres of land and 96 miles of the Arkansas
Riverbed.
Tribal citizenship is granted if a lineal
descendant from the Final Roll of the Dawes Commission 1907 of the
applicant
can be proven through birth and death records." (here)
Andrew
Jackson: the benefactor of Cherokee
culture? Believe it! Whereas northern tribes have
long since gone extinct / blended out (as Jackson had said), the
racial
Cherokees of Oklahoma still exist as a sovereign nation in an area almost as
large as the stolen nation of Israel -- with a population many times greater than in 1830!
*
Cherokee Stand Watie moved out
west on "The Trail of Tears." ™
Years later, he became the leader of the Cherokee Nation
and attained a general's rank in the Confederate
Army during the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865). Watie commanded the
Confederate
Indian cavalry of the Army of the Trans-Mississippi
-- made up of Cherokee, Muskogee and
Seminole. He was the last Confederate general in
the field to cease fighting at the end of the war. -- And oh, by the
way,
Waite owned at least 800 Black slaves. (here)
9. The “Trail of Tears” term was actually
coined decades later.
Higginbotham:
“The
phrase "Trail of Tears" entered the story much later. In 1958, Gaston
Litton,
former archivist at the University of Oklahoma,
attributed it to a remark by a Choctaw Indian to a Baptist preacher
about
an Indian Territory road. It reached print for the
first time in 1908, 70 years after the exodus, when all the participants
were dead.
From then on it spread like an advertising
slogan, as if it came from the mouths of the 1830-40 Cherokee Indians who had never heard or used it.”
Noted Oklahoma scholar Gaston Litton
-- author of "Cherokee Cavaliers" -- traced the first use of the propaganda term "Trail of Tears"
to 1908 -- 70 years after the event!
10. The death toll is grossly exaggerated.
The commonly accepted and
endlessly repeated figure of "4000 dead" represents a quintessential (a $10 word for 'perfect example of)
case of a hearsay bit of data embedding itself in
the public mind to such a depth that none dare question it. (sort of
the like the "6,000,000" dead Jews of Holohoax fame, or the phony "350,000" from the mythical "Rape
of Nanking"). Such a death toll would mean that 33% of the trekkers died (Higginbotham's numbers), or 25%
(if you believe official numbers of 16,000 relocated).
Either case is impossible! How could that many people have died
on treks undertaken on established trails, in the
generally warm / mild-weathered south, with horse-drawn wagons packed
with
provisions, on journeys that should have lasted
only 2-3 months? Where are the "4,000" bodies? What documentation
is there to support such a high death total?
Higginbotham:
“The
act caused a spate of articles about how the Cherokees lost 4,000 or
more dead on a terrible trek, described as a
"forced" march, presumably indicating they were prodded by bullet and
bayonet as they moved during the hard winter of
1837-38.
Voluminous records, including those of the Cherokee
nation itself, show no loss approaching 4,000….
T.
Hartley Crawford, head of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, reported on Aug. 6, 1840, in a private communication to the
secretary
of war that the death toll among the 13 groups was 447
Other deaths, raising the total to more than
800, took place in parties outside the main groups and were carefully reported to the U.S. government.”
Cherokee
removal was investigated by Congress to an extent that can be believed
only by reading the Congressional Record. Some
reports run to hundreds of pages. The written military record exists in
detail
in U.S. archives. Nothing like an extravagant death
toll among the Cherokees exists. Butler’s (hearsay) is the sole
source for such a conclusion. No historian mentions
that.
(Cherokee leader) John Ross never made unusual claims for deaths, although he returned to Washington repeatedly after
1838 seeking more money.
The piece which William Higginbotham (no image available) wrote for
the Oklahoman (here) sums up most of the scam, but fails to identify the main motive. He wrote: "It
(The
Trail of Tears) is too good a story as it stands
and too well-fixed to disturb. That makes it all the more dishonest."
*
Not only do the lower aforementioned death totals (447, or 800 if other
groups and separate events are counted) seem much more realistic, but when you consider the fact that during those times,
about 25 people out of 1,000 would die naturally each year anyway, (here) the "Trail of Tears" ™ doesn't seem to have been so treacherous after all!
So you see, dear
reader, this
bullsh nonsense about "The Trail of Tears" ™ is nothing more than a romanticized lie, concocted
by "the usual suspects" for the devious purpose of attacking the "evil" White Man and tearing down the
reputation of Andrew the Great at
the same time. For Jackson, like Hitler, shut down the operations of the
International Jewish-Marxist banking Mafia which
controls our money and our minds to this very day. That’s the truth,
and no amount of Fake History can alter it.
Trail of Tears? Ha! Trail of Smears is more like it.
1. The "critically
acclaimed" ™ Broadway Show "Bloody
Bloody Andrew Jackson" was a historical musical that went out of its way to slander Andrew Jackson over the
"Trail of Tears." ™
2. In 2016, the Obongo administration decreed that Jackson would be removed from the $20 bill in the Year
2020, and replaced with an image of the negro Union spy Harriet Tubman. President Trump later rescinded that
order. Jackson's place is safe, for now.
* 
No comments:
Post a Comment