Indian genocide was certainly a very freedom thing.
Though in the end it made little difference since a peace treaty was signed, would you have preferred the U.S. lose the Battle of New Orleans? Battle of N.O. outweighs nearly everything else.
Battle of New Orleans has no real effect. How on earth is that outweighting an Indian genocide?
Battle of New Orleans had no effect on paper. But I assure you, it certainly effected the attitudes of the Americans and British, as well as instilled national pride in the country. The Indian genocide will always be a dark mark on Jackson's presidency, but it was by no means an issue solely related to him. Indians were consistently losing land, and beyond that, Jefferson had suggested removing Indians after the Louisiana purchase. The misdeeds done to the Cherokee are certainly terrible, but in no way should it be sole justification to write off Jackson, who is one of the more interesting presidents.
The breakthrough for mass democracy that occurred in his Presidency ...
What does that mean?
His election was the first to allow popular vote.
The Jacksonian era of politics coincided by and large with the removal of property qualifications on the vote, leading to an era of universal white male suffrage. Also starting with the election of 1828, only at most one state did not choose its electors via the popular vote. (South Carolina continued to have its legislature select the electors in every presidential election thru the one of 1861. (Does anyone have a link to the results for the Confederate Presidential election of 1861?) And Colorado's legislature chose its 3 electors in 1876.)
Jackson wouldn't want it any other way considering his absolute annoyance with Henry Clay selling his support for a cabinet position.
Poll
