The old saying in History goes, "When dealing with Andrew Jackson, you either love the man or you totally hate him."  He was that polarizing kind of figure.  I give him credit for the modern Political Party system, but I will condemn him for his role in Indian forced relocation.

This is another historiographical argument.  Are we justified in condemning the actions of those in the past whose acts we find unconscionable according to current values, or should we not judge them by the standards of their time?  This is an argument I have had several times in classes.  I think we are wrong to impose our morals on the past, if we do so then we unfairly judge those who we acknowledge were not as enlightened as we are.  Instead, we should look at their actions based on their own contemporary morality as to whether they were right or wrong in their actions.I do think you are right about Jackson.  He is an either or type of figure, there is no middle ground.