I'm not sure what this question is trying to prove here, as it doesn't really negate my point about how some on this website completely ignore the outright savagery that was Vietnam because it is a dark black mark on LBJ's record. We should indeed view Andrew Jackson with a great deal of negativity for his anti-Indian policies just as much as we should view LBJ negatively for greenlighting a war that killed over a million Southeast Asians.
As for the troll question itself, yes of course. I don't know how 40,000 lives are less important than an admittedly corrupt financial institution. Ideally I would have liked to have not killed 40,000 Native Americans AND dissolve the Second Bank of the United States, but if you are giving me a do or die decision I will obviously go with the former (especially since given the latter's biggest crime was political cronyism, which is a bit less of a crime than say genocide).
Not a "troll question" in any way, as I don't, nor will I ever, defend LBJ's foreign policy record (and I voted for Option 2 in your poll, BTW). I've just noticed a tendency of apologist attitudes towards Jackson's behavior towards Indians (mostly among libertarians, but I've seen it with a few "true leftists" do this as well) simply because the bank disillusion alone. I figured the point was worth bringing up, as was yours in the other thread.
Poll
