Hall of Presidents Previews Today

[EpcotServo]

This thread makes me want to watch some Drunk History.

Doing so now.

*click*

 

[RSoxNo1]

Right, but looking back on Jackson, and you will still find the controversy.
Oh, just because he shot Hamilton in the face, and wanted a Kingdom in the West USA does NOT make him cool...:ROFLOL:

He wanted to start his own country and inspired similar nations like Peteoria.

 

[yankspy]

Most historians don't. I don't get it.:lol:

No, most of us don't. I personally have not decided yet.

Um, a Presidency should not be judged by "approval ratings". Presidents have to do unpopular things sometimes. That really is a narrow way to view a Presidency. And I hope Doris is not your only source for history. But I think you know much more history than me. Your type are very rare these days. History is a great subject, too bad not enough people realize it.

Indeed it is.

First off, of course not...But not wanting to delve into all my books, a quick internet search on approval ratings can be pretty accurate, seeing I took the ones from when the president left office. And yes, there are ton of ways to judge one, this just gave me the emperical info I needed.

2. Heck no!:ROFLOL: I'm too big of a nerd to just choose one...:lol:

3. Thank you.

Remember though that Lincoln was probably the lowest rated President of all time.

Not exactly true. Harry Truman's approval ratings were in the tank being only a little higher than George Bush's when he left office, but now he's considered one of our greatest presidents.

On the subject of Andrew Jackson, I don't think very highly of him either. And its not just WHAT he did with the trail of tears, but HOW he did it. Everyone in Washington said no to the relocation but Jackson managed to override them in a very dictator-like way.

His dealings with the Supreme Court do not make him popular either.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

http://www.badgeplanet.co.uk/badges_large/champion--1.jpg

 

[KingStefan]

...On the subject of Andrew Jackson, I don't think very highly of him either. And its not just WHAT he did with the trail of tears, but HOW he did it. Everyone in Washington said no to the relocation but Jackson managed to override them in a very dictator-like way.

I'm not taking sides on the Jackson issue one way or the other. He was a very controversial figure, that's for sure.

However, regarding Indian Removal, as it was called, I do not believe it is true that everyone in Washington said no. The southern states were very much supportive of Indian Removal.

Furthermore, he wanted the emigration to be voluntary. His main concern, if I remember correctly, was that there should not be indian tribal lands within the borders of what was then the Union. He was happy to have the native people stay, just not on tribal lands. Presumably because the idea that the states could not impose laws on tribal lands made the indians not subject to the law as individuals, and he thought that that was bad.

Granted that Treaty of New Echota was a really really sleazy deal, and in retrospect was probably not legal. So that is to his bad. But also recall that even though Jackson is often blamed for the Trail of Tears, and, yes, perhaps it was ultimately because of his sleazy treaty, it was Van Buren NOT Jackson who ordered the removal by armed troops of the Indians.

Another possible reason for emphasis in HoP is that Jackson singlehandedly did more to form what is now the modern Democratic party that anyone else. Before his campaign, there was ostensibly one party with nobody to challenge them. In fact, I believe that the present symbol of the party comes from his opponents calling him a Jackass. He decided to turn a negative into a positive, and said that he liked the nickname and adopted it.

Also, remember where WDW is. Florida owes a lot to Jackson, even though the way he went about annexing Florida is often subject to criticism, Jackson County and Jacksonville bear witness to the affection that Floridians have for Jackson. That may have been an influence to including him so prominently (according to reports at least - I haven't seen it yet).

 

[rhythmlife07]

just wanted to say that I saw the show today and it was GREAT...the digital projection makes it look so much better

Thank you!! I'm so glad to actually see a post about the attraction within pages of political posts! WE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT HOP, NOT HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT OBAMA! (caps lock makes my point better right?) :ROFLOL:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

*LOVES this thread*:sohappy:

He wanted to start his own country and inspired similar nations like Peteoria.

Right.:lol:

No, most of us don't. I personally have not decided yet.

Indeed it is.

Remember though that Lincoln was probably the lowest rated President of all time.

His dealings with the Supreme Court do not make him popular either.

Then, though....I wonder what makes people finally wake up and change their views by looking at the history.

http://www.badgeplanet.co.uk/badges_large/champion--1.jpg

:lookaroun

I'm not taking sides on the Jackson issue one way or the other. He was a very controversial figure, that's for sure.

However, regarding Indian Removal, as it was called, I do not believe it is true that everyone in Washington said no. The southern states were very much supportive of Indian Removal.

Furthermore, he wanted the emigration to be voluntary. His main concern, if I remember correctly, was that there should not be indian tribal lands within the borders of what was then the Union. He was happy to have the native people stay, just not on tribal lands. Presumably because the idea that the states could not impose laws on tribal lands made the indians not subject to the law as individuals, and he thought that that was bad.

Granted that Treaty of New Echota was a really really sleazy deal, and in retrospect was probably not legal. So that is to his bad. But also recall that even though Jackson is often blamed for the Trail of Tears, and, yes, perhaps it was ultimately because of his sleazy treaty, it was Van Buren NOT Jackson who ordered the removal by armed troops of the Indians.

Another possible reason for emphasis in HoP is that Jackson singlehandedly did more to form what is now the modern Democratic party that anyone else. Before his campaign, there was ostensibly one party with nobody to challenge them. In fact, I believe that the present symbol of the party comes from his opponents calling him a Jackass. He decided to turn a negative into a positive, and said that he liked the nickname and adopted it.

Also, remember where WDW is. Florida owes a lot to Jackson, even though the way he went about annexing Florida is often subject to criticism, Jackson County and Jacksonville bear witness to the affection that Floridians have for Jackson. That may have been an influence to including him so prominently (according to reports at least - I haven't seen it yet).

That's true. I had forgotten about the whole Campaign in Florida!:dazzle::lol:


Very interesting...

 

[Eeyore]

They add each new president when ellected, sorry you don't agree. That's enough political discussion please.

 

[yankspy]

*LOVES this thread*:sohappy:

Right.:lol:


Then, though....I wonder what makes people finally wake up and change their views by looking at the history.
:lookaroun


That's true. I had forgotten about the whole Campaign in Florida!:dazzle::lol:


Very interesting...

Hind sight and martyrdom come to mind. To somewhat quote the man, the passage of time allows for people to appeal to the "better angels of their nature".

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

They add each new president when ellected, sorry you don't agree. That's enough political discussion please.

Can you just delete the post?:lol:

Hind sight and martyrdom come to mind. To somewhat quote the man, the passage of time allows for people to appeal to the "better angels of their nature".

Very true.

 

[HMF]

They add each new president when ellected, sorry you don't agree. That's enough political discussion please.

This is actually a relatively tame thread. I do not see anyone arguing.