You can hardly get me to conform to anything except the Laws of the Universe. (I'm an engineer after all).

I do have a tribe. The American Tribe. I recognize all who are members of that tribe even if their Americanism is only in their heart.

I think you are saying that by having a view, and then sharing that view with passion, that one needs to worry about others adopting that same view who may have a bit more passion in that view than you do.

It bites being a leader, Eric.

So NOW what u gonna do with your gun-toting, pit bull loving, BIG L Libertarians?

The Big L Libertarians are all bark and no bite.

what u gonna do with your gun-toting, pit bull loving, BIG L Libertarians?

Do with them? As a gun-toting, pit bull loving, small-l libertarian, I didn't know I owned them!

:)

While we're alone in this little comment box, Eric and Simon, may I tell you how much I enjoy the work you do here. You have always been good, but lately the two of you are on fire! Thanks.

Jacksonians are also the ones who insist on reciprocity and fair play. Help those that help you and reach out to embrace friends and neighbors; to those who scorn friendship, they deserve none; and to those that attack you without cause nor warrant - they must end.

Is that inherently xenophobic? If you judge the entirety of the Jacksonian tradition through the modern lens then *only* then you allow for no judgement as to how those that come to it have adapted throughout history. If society comes to the agreement that blacks, women and, indeed, all races are the same then they all deserve the same liberties *bar none*. It is the societal agreement that matters, and then making sure that everything is held to equally.

Are there Jacksonians that are racist and xenophobic in the modern world? Of course there are. Just as there are Catholics, Irish, Blacks and all other forms of humans that also have those qualities. This appears to be a human condition not de-limited to Jacksonians... shall we then castigate the entire human race for having these qualities? Or shall we judge people as individuals? Take out the broad brush of labels and apply it in one area and then you *must* do the same to each and every other movement and aspect of human life.

When asking the anti-melting pot question, it really should be qualified: in what way? Across the board so that there *is* no common culture or society? Or is this a tradition to honor your ancestors for what they did (even the black sheep for being black sheep), recognizing what they have sacrificed to make our lives, today, possible and then carrying that work onwards? The Scots-Irish clan affiliation is still deep and strong, but that has been melded together with Nordic traditions and the movement towards government held accountable to society and to having a say in how you are governed. Is that a *bad* thing to hold on to? Government by common assent? Shall we give that up in our melting pot? For it was that clan and village based outlook that held nobility and Kings to be accountable, especially in the transplanted Nordic tradition. That was the *second* route to democracy separated from the mediterranean one... it was rougher, yes, but it actually held together in that rough way until these forms of democracy could come together. Lets toss that out in the melting pot, shall we?

If you consider the Nullification Proclamation you find one of the strongest porponents of a strong union: one in which we must have common accord and agreement to have a nation. Do remember this was when the US was still slowly moving past the Appalachians and the era of the frontiersman had found someone to support *their* rights to explore and settle. Is this the speech of a xenophobe, anti-melting pot President:

"I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to burly you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the consequences they will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condition of that country of which you still form an important part; consider its government uniting in one bond of common interest and general protection so many different States-giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of AMERICAN CITIZEN-protecting their commerce-securing their literature and arts-facilitating their intercommunication--defending their frontiers-and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth! Consider the extent of its territory its increasing and happy population, its advance in arts, which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our Territories and States! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say, WE TOO, ARE CITIZENS OF AMERICA--"

Yes the wretched and oppressed finding refuge in the United States. Extremely xenophobic, no?

Then there is the Bank Veto Message to end the National bank... that would not see a second attempt until President Wilson to bring the economy under some form of federal oversight... the message would be 'populist' but not the way we mean it today, thats for sure. Take this passage:
"In another of its bearings this provision is fraught with danger. Of the twenty-five directors of this bank five are chosen by the Government and twenty by the citizen stockholders. From all voice in these elections the foreign stockholders are excluded by the charter. In proportion, therefore, as the stock is transferred to foreign holders the extent of suffrage in the choice of directors is curtailed. Already is almost a third of the stock in foreign hands and not represented in elections. It is constantly passing out of the country, and this act will accelerate its departure. The entire control of the institution would necessarily fall into the hands of a few citizen stockholders, and the ease with which the object would be accomplished would be a temptation to designing men to secure that control in their own hands by monopolizing the remaining stock. There is danger that a president and directors would then be able to elect themselves from year to year, and without responsibility or control manage the whole concerns of the bank during the existence of its charter. It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions millet flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people.

Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? The president of the bank has told us that most of the State banks exist by its forbearance. Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-elected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it; but if this monopoly were regularly renewed every fifteen or twenty years on terms proposed by themselves, they might seldom in peace put forth their strength to influence elections or control the affairs of the nation. But if any private citizen or public functionary should interpose to curtail its powers or prevent a renewal of its privileges, it can not be doubted that he would be made to feel its influence.

If we must have a bank with private stockholders, every consideration of sound policy and every impulse of American feeling admonishes that it should be purely American. Its stockholders should be composed exclusively of our own citizens, who at least ought to be friendly to our Government and willing to support it in times of difficulty and danger. So abundant is domestic capital that competition in subscribing for the stock of local banks has recently led almost to riots. To a bank exclusively of American stockholders, possessing the powers and privileges granted by this act, subscriptions for $200,000,000 could be readily obtained. Instead of sending abroad the stock of the bank in which the Government must deposit its funds and on which it must rely to sustain its credit in times of emergency, it would rather seem to be expedient to prohibit its sale to aliens under penalty of absolute forfeiture."

Highly populist, that, no? That if we are to have a National bank it should be owned, directed and run by citizens of the nation. Perish the thought, I know.

Then a bit further on he gets ardently populist in this direction:

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist 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 equally entitled to 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. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves-in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy."

There you have it: equality under the law for everyone, removing the opportunity of the rich to influence legislation and the nation unduly, upholding the rights of States and seeking to ensure that all citizens get a fair shake.

What are the standards that are being put forth here? Pro-citizen or xenophobic? 'Populist' or ensuring that the common man gets his say and that the rich have influence curbed? Anti-melting pot or welcoming of the poor and wretched to have a chance for freedom?

That was a rough, hard era for this Nation and yet the basic ideals of liberty were not only sustained but enriched to allow freedom of expression and ideas to permeate throughout the land to get a better understanding of our place in the world as a people and a Nation. And are these standards that Jackson used to govern worth keeping... or should they just be tossed out because he came from a rough era?