[Motley]

Well now I can sleep better knowing I have your permission to think on my own. Many historians do consider Andrew Jackson to be a founding father.

The fact of the matter was established by the source you asked for, and which I provided. But as is always the case with flaming libs, all you really want to do is argue. First you wrongly stated Jackson's age at the time, which you said was 9 when it was actually 13. Second, and again according to historians and your own qualifying stated criteria, he " fought the revolution."

Feel free to name said historians that consider it. I'm still looking. I said he was 9 years old when independence was declared. Was I wrong? Might want to look at my criteria again. He did not "lead" the revolution, nor did he contribute anything intellectually to the founding documents of our country. Like I said, you want to call him a "FOUNDER" of the country because he was captured and mistreated is up to you. Other than yourself however, please find me one historian that calls him a founding father. I've provided multiple examples that say otherwise. Where is yours?

But you can be assured on one point, your fake knowledge is even more thinly veiled than your liberal ideology. I went class regularly, and I remember the discussions on American History and in particular one 13 year old hero named Andrew Jackson who was brave enough to pursue his quest to serve in the Colonial Army until he was granted a position as courier. Any way you slice it, he had more courage and conviction than a bunch of nobody's who never served their country, but nonetheless think they have something meaningful to say about American Heritage. Thanks, and though I have a credential which states I have my ducks in a row on the matter, please do continue your lecture on matters of which you are just grinding a liberal ax.

I too remember my American history classes well.

I remember the part where Andrew Jackson didn't help found the country.

I also remember the part where he signed the Indian Removal Act forcing thousands off their land to expand slavery in the South.

I remember his disobedience in going into Florida to capture runaway slaves only to take this opportunity to assist in wiping out the Seminole people.

I remember not only his owning of slaves, but his extreme mistreatment of slaves, including not only offering reward for their capture but “ten dollars extra, for every hundred lashes any person will give him, to the amount of three hundred.”

I vaguely remember him stopping freedom of speech by intercepting and stopping any mail that included abolitionists' literature that he disagreed with.

I remember his economic policies being a strong cause of the Panic of 1837.

By the way, not serving your country does not mean you do not have the right to freedom of speech, nor does it mean that my commentary is meaningless on the issue, despite your little rant about that.

But please feel free to continue to grind your conservative ax on the issue if you please. Just a matter of perspective anyways. My perspective is that the above things doesn't make him worth of being on currency. It's also my perspective that he wasn't instrumental in us not only declaring our independence, but in helping "found" anything in our new country.