Florida Democrat attacks Party's founder

Today, the Tallahassee Democrat reported that a leader of the Leon County Democratic Party is looking to impose her extreme views on other members of the party in the name of political correctness. Acting party chair, Monica O'Neill, who was never elected to the position by Leon County Democrats, is attempting to force her beliefs on the party by denouncing the memory of Andrew Jackson, the former president, first military governor of Florida, and founder of the modern Democratic Party.

While Thomas Jefferson is commonly referred to as the founder of the Democratic Party, as well as the nation, no American in history has contributed more to the values of the modern Democratic Party than former President Andrew Jackson. Jefferson's Democratic Party, which ironically was known as the "Republican Party," was founded in 1792 and was the opposition to the soon-to-be failed Federalist Party. The Democratic Party, however, truly found its stride when a faction of the party emerged in 1828 with the election of Andrew Jackson as the seventh President of the United States.

Jackson's Democratic Party sought to establish a "party of the people," stating that the president should hold a national mandate from the voters. Jackson's populist message became the foundation for such leading progressives as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Huey Long, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Like most early Americans, Jackson has blemishes on his record. His aggressive miliary action against Native Americans, especially the Seminoles, has been judged harshly by history, but in hindsight, it was Jackson's leadership during the First Seminole War that allowed for Florida to join the Union.

Prior to the Florida engagement, Jackson had recruited free black men to serve alongside his white soldiers against the British during the War of 1812. The Battle of New Orleans in 1815 was historic, because the American forces under the command of Jackson were comprised of white and black soldiers, as well as some Native Americans. Such diversity in the U.S. military was unprecedented at the time.

Just as President George W. Bush is attemting to rewrite history in regards to the Iraq War, the unelected chair of the Leon County Democratic Party, Monica O'Neill, is now attempting to rewrite the history of the national Democratic Party. Democrats and those who respect their Party's grand history must stop her.

Today, extremists in the Democratic Party aim their hostility toward great men like Jefferson and Jackson. But who is next? Will extremists in the party go after Presidents Kennedy and Clinton or Dr. Martin Luther King, because of the perception by some that they degraded women? Will anti-war extremists attack Wilson and FDR because they were aggressive wartime presidents.? Will human rights activists attack the memory of Harry Truman because he oversaw the destruction in Japan caused by two nuclear bombs?

O'Neill's attacks on the founders of the Democratic Party are ridiculous and point out the party's fundamental problem, a lack of leadership. Florida Democrats should be focused on the future, not dwelling on the past. Additionally, Ms. O'Neill should not take it upon herself to serve as an apologist for the Democratic Party, when the party has done so much to make America the greatest country in the world.

Fortunately, Ms. O'Neill's interim period is quickly coming to an end. Let's hope that her successor concentrates his efforts on the positive instead of blaming Democrats for the country's shortcomings. Leon Democrats deserve a better leader than Monica O'Neill. Let's hope they get one.

•  Objection to Jackson

  Since you didn't bother to mention her objection, I will supply it:

  "Monica O'Neal, the acting chair of the county party, referred to it at a steering committee meeting last week as "the soon-to-be-renamed JJ Dinner." When that caused a momentary stir around the table, she explained, "a lot of people have a problem with that name."

  O'Neal said "some blacks won't attend a dinner named for Jackson" because of his involvement in removing native people from the region. "

  Jackson has an involvement with the Trail of Tears.

  I understand the 'different times' idea, but this is not a trivial or deranged issue.

  by phillies on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 02:45:30 PM PDT

•  Andrew Jackson

  his warts should not be whitewashed, such as his contempt for the courts in the Cherokee case.

  by RBH on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 02:48:41 PM PDT

  •  Do you object ...

    to a holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King? He was a serial adulterer who was frequently unfaithful to his wife. Should this flaw supercede the positive contributions he made to our country? I personally don't, but your comments lead me to believe that you would. I look forward to your answer.

    by floridapolitix on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 02:53:28 PM PDT

    •  Apples and Oranges

      Did Martin Luther King's adultery lead to the forced relocation of thousands of people?

      by RBH on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:01:18 PM PDT

    •  What?

      Are you comparing adultery to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native American people from the southeastern United States?

      Jackson was a complicated man. He was progressive in some ways, and deeply reactionary in others. Sadly, after Jackson, the Democratic Party entered the most vile phase of its history. Go take a read through some of the campaign literature for Horatio Seymour's 1868 campaign if you want a sample. The Democratic Party officially proclaimed itself "The White Man's Party" in opposition to the "Black Republicans". Northern and Southern Democrats alike agreed on the principle of white supremacy in social, political and economic life. It wasn't until the late 19th century that the Democratic Party rediscovered it's "populist" roots. And it wasn't until the 1930s that the Democratic Party seriously challenged its white supremacist heritage.

      by Elrod on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:06:16 PM PDT

    •  What is your point?

      RBH said something perfectly reasonable.  Let's not whitewash history and pretend that Jackson didn't do things which are deplorable.  

      He never said anything about whether there should be a Jefferson-Jackson dinner.  I think it's fine to have a Jefferson-Jackson dinner.  They were the co-founders--in a way-- of the Democratic Party.   We criticize Bush for never admitting to mistakes.  Let's have the JJ dinner while still admitting that the people who started the Democratic Party were real human beings who made some real big mistakes.

      by ortcutt on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:06:58 PM PDT

    •  Adultery and Murder

      are the same thing?! You're a sick, twisted person.

      by ZT155 on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:22:35 PM PDT

      •  Your simple thinking is shocking ...

        the point of my comment was not to compare adultery and murder. If that is what you read from the comment, then I'm at loss of words.

        The point was that Democrats should not forget where they came from. Our founders were not perfect, but neither are our leaders today. Democrats should take an objective view of the past and be proud of their traditions and history. That was the point.

        While Jackson's activities during the Seminole War are much different than MLK, JFK, and others treatment of women, the point is that once we start rewriting history in an attempt to be politically correct, we face a slippery slope. Before we know it, there will be no Democratic leaders that the PC police will allow us to honor.

        Remember that the next time your local Democratic Party hosts a speaker who voted for the Iraq War. Should Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and John Edwards be banished from the Democratic Party because they voted to kill innocent women and children in Iraq? (That wasn't their intention at the time, and most Americans supported their vote at the time.)

        Most DKos readers would say that Clinton, Kerry and Edwards should be banished from the Party, but most rank and file Dems would not.

        by floridapolitix on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:09:40 PM PDT

    •  You sound like a Republican

      With the current Republican logic, Bush's repeated lies about the war are equivalent to Bill Clinton lying about Monica giving him a blow job.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:51:16 PM PDT

      •  I don't sound like a typical DKos reader ...

        that's for sure.

        As my profile indicates, I am a political moderate. I find myself frequently aggravated by both liberals and conservatives, while I'll admit that I think conservatives have been much worse recently.

        by floridapolitix on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:25:53 PM PDT

        •  clarification:

          How does one become a moderate if the only choices in the poll are "be ashamed" or "be proud"?  

          by pico on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:41:31 PM PDT

          •  See comment below ...

            by floridapolitix on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:57:42 PM PDT

    •  good point

      in a discussion on marital ethics, but a far cry from the issue discussed here.  My great great grandparents were Cherokee who escaped the Trail of Tears while traveling through Arkansas and eventually settled in Louisiana.  You should educate yourself about the Trail of Tears.  That was one of many grave sins committed by Jackson - one of which I cannot forget for the sake of the Democratic Party.  Jackson was a racist pro-slavery, expansionist expand white wealth at all costs.  He is a mixed bag.  I am not asking for balance, rather a truthful reflection on his contributions.

      by cracklins on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:52:02 PM PDT

•  Both Proud and Ashamed

  We should be proud about the things that are worth being proud of, and ashamed of the things which are shameful.  Is that so complicated?

  The dichotomous choice being proud and ashamed reminds me of the chapter in Al Franken's Liars book, where he contrasts the way that a four-year-old judges things and how an adult does.  A four-year-old can only see things as all good or all bad.  An adult can look at things and people and say that some of the things they did were good and some were bad.  Nobody is perfect and almost no one is completely bad.  Let's just have honest judgments and not make people who did some real bad things into the saints that they weren't.

  I hope that both sides of this debate can learn to see Jackson as a human being and not as either a saint or a devil.  

  by ortcutt on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:00:54 PM PDT

  •  agreed

    I agree.  In fact, the grey areas make history more exciting, complex and full of excellent metaphors or lessons.

    Take Thomas Jefferson. One of the most famous and prominent defenders of human liberty to walk this earth yet had slaves.  Can't deny this fact, it walks with him through history.

    In fact, by recognizing who Thomas Jefferson was we can understanding what America was and is - a country that has constantly espoused individual liberty yet restricted rights for others.  It is this contrast that makes characters and personalities that much more appealing.

    by Church Rock on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 04:19:48 PM PDT

  •  I totally agree with you ...

    and I admit that my poll answers were a little simplistic. (This was my first time using the poll feature. I'll remember your points next time.)

    You seem to understand my point. Every year, I hear Democrats attacking Jefferson and Jackson in the name of political correctness. I agree that we shouldn't view either as a saint, nor should we viciously attack their legacies. They were just humans who happened to found the Democratic Party.

    They should be respected for their contributions to the Party and to the country.

    by floridapolitix on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:36:34 PM PDT

•  Have you ever heard

  of the Trail of Tears? Andrew Jackson was a sick fuck. Period. Who gives a crap about the past? Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, is one of my idols. And, yes, I'm a proud Democrat.

  by ZT155 on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:20:58 PM PDT

  •  My Mother's

    Great Grandmother died on the trail of tears. I am a Democrat because I believe all people should be treated equal, the legacy of Jefferson not Jackson.

    by arkdem on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:20:57 PM PDT

    •  I agree with you ...

      but just be aware that the PC police will attack you next for sticking by Jefferson. Remember he was a slaveholder, so you're argument that he believed in equality is open to attack.

      Still, I never said that the Democratic Party's founders were saints. Just that they were the founders, who did good and bad, but still deserved respect.

      Don't really see why respecting our elders is so controversial.

      (Not that I think you were being unfair. Your comment was probably the tamest on the post. Thanx.)

      by floridapolitix on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:30:40 PM PDT

•  I don't like Andrew Jackson at all

  He was a horrible president and was a pretty horrible guy all around.  That said, he did make some valuable contributions to the country.  For one thing, he defeated the British at New Orleans.  Yes, the war was already over, but it is still the only American victory in that dreadfully stupid war and it did a lot to bolster American spirits.  Secondly, while he was an awful president, he was the first non elite to ever hold the office.  And that's extremely important.  Think about how many presidents we've had who were not born to wealthy, aristocratic families.  Think about the good ones we wouldn't have had if that monopoly had never been broken.  We sure wouldn't have had LBJ, Jimmy Carter, or Bill Clinton.  Honestly though, I don't think this is an extreme action.  

  by SoCalLiberal on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:49:50 PM PDT

  •  Very much agree

    But New Orleans isn't that unqualified in its love of Jackson, either.  Any kid growing up there comes off thinking Jean Lafitte and the massively rag-tag group of soliders, citizens, natives, slaves, and pirates were the true heroes of that battle.  

    by pico on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 07:40:01 PM PDT

•  Let's not whitewash....

  ...history here. Jackson was a great populist, that's true enough and did a lot of good for the country. But he was also a big racist, even by the standards of his day. Jefferson was a great thinker whose ideals are largely worth following to this day. He was also a hypocrite when it came to slavery. So, we take the good with the bad but perhaps respecting the views of African-Americans on these two historical figures isn't such a bad idea.

  by metal prophet on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 06:38:22 PM PDT