History vs. Andrew Jackson - James Fester

與歷史對比下的安德魯‧傑克遜 - 詹姆士‧費斯特

譯者: Harry Chen 審譯者: Geoff Chen

A national hero? Or public enemy number one?

是個全國的英雄? 或是國人的頭號敵人呢?

Historical figures are often controversial,

歷史人物經常是讓歷史爭議不斷，

but few were as deified or vilified

但是很少有人的一生是 如同美國的第七任總統一般

in their lifetime

被歷史神格化

as the seventh President of the United States.

或是被歷史貶低的，

This is History vs. Andrew Jackson.

今天的話題是 《與歷史對比下的上安德魯‧傑克遜》

"Order, order, hm, uh, what were we...ah yes, Mr. Jackson!

「肅靜！肅靜！好的，傑克遜先生

You stand accused of degrading the office of the presidency,

你今天在這邊是因為被控訴 玷汙了總統的職位，

causing financial collapse

造成金融崩潰、

and wanton cruelty against American Indians.

還有恣意地殘忍對待美國的印地安人，

How do you plead?"

你有什麼要申辯的嗎？」

"Now, Your Honor, I am not a big city lawyer,

辯方律師： 「庭上，我不是一個大都市的律師，

but I do know a few things.

但是我還是知道一些事情的，

And I know that President Jackson was

而我知道傑克遜總統先生以前是

a self-made frontiersman,

自願來成為墾荒者的、

a great general,

一位傑出的將軍、

a real man of the people."

是一個深受民眾愛戴的人！」

"Your Honor, this 'man of the people' was a gambler,

控方律師:「庭上，這個受民眾愛戴的人是個賭徒、

a drunk, and a brawler.

酒鬼、愛鬧事的人，

Why, I've heard it said that

為什麼我還曾經聽過人說

he would fight at the drop of the hat

他會毫不猶豫的投入打架，

and then drop the hat himself.

之後還丟了自己的官位，

I ask you,

我請教您，

was such a man fit for the most distinguished office in the nation?

這樣的一個男人配得上 這個國家裡最顯著的辦公室嗎?

Can we forget the debacle of his inauguration?

我們能忘記掉在他的就職典禮時 發生的大災難事件嗎?

Who ever heard of inviting a drunken mob

有誰曾經聽過邀請酒醉了的暴徒

into the White House?

進去白宮裡面?

It took ages to get the upholstery clean."

過了好幾年才讓椅子上的顏料變乾淨的。」

"That drunken mob, sir, was the American people,

辯方律師:「庭上，這些 酒醉了的暴徒是美國的人民，

and they deserve to celebrate their victory."

而且他們夠格來慶祝他們在選舉的勝利。」

"Order, order! Now, did this celebration have pie?"

「肅靜！肅靜！這場慶祝會有涉及什麼利益嗎?」

"Very well. Mr. Jackson, is it not the case

控方律師:「很好，傑克遜先生，這不就是

that immediately upon assuming office

你在就職後立即地

you introduced the spoils system,

帶進了連帶利益體系，

replacing hundreds of perfectly good federal employees

任用了無法勝任職位的政黨支持者，

with incompetent party loyalists?"

來取代好幾百位絕對優秀的聯邦雇員。」

"Your Honor, the President did no such thing.

辯方律師:「庭上，總統先生沒做過這種事情，

He tried to institute rotation in office

他想要在辦公室採用輪調機制，

to avoid any profiteering or funny business.

避免任何牟取利益或是不誠實行為。

It was the rest of the party

是黨內的所有其他人

who insisted on giving posts to their lackeys."

堅持要給能聽話做事的人一個職位。」

"But Mr. Jackson complied, did he not?"

控方律師:「不過傑克遜先生同意了，不是嗎?」

"Now, uh, see here."

辯方律師:「嗯，這些我都聽到了」

"Moving on.

控方律師:「下一件事

Mr. Jackson, did you not help to cause

傑克遜先生， 你沒有促使

the financial Panic of 1837,

1837年的金融恐慌的發生嗎?

and the ensuing economic depression

以及緊隨著經濟蕭條之後，

with your obsessive war

針對「美國銀行」

against the Bank of the United States?

發起了一場糾葛不休戰爭，

Was not vetoing its reauthorization,

你不是否決了再授權法案嗎?

as you did in 1832,

如同你在1832年時做過的事情一樣。

an act of irresponsible populace pandering

一個迎合大眾的不負責任行為，

that made no economic sense?"

完全沒有經濟上的道理。」

"Your Honor, the gentleman has quite the imagination.

辯方律師:「庭上，這位先生想像力豐富，

That bank was just a way for rich Yanks

「美國銀行」只是讓有錢的美國人

to get richer.

變得更有錢的工具，

And all that money panic was caused

一切的金錢恐慌是當時

when British banks raised interest rates

「英國銀行」調高利率、

and cut lending.

放款減少所引發的，

To blame it on the President is preposterous, I say."

我認為歸罪於總統先生 是荒謬無理的。」

"But if Mr. Jackson had not destroyed the National Bank,

控方律師:「但是，如果傑克遜先生 沒有摧毀國家的銀行，

it would have been able to lend to farmers

當其他銀行都不再借錢出來，

and businesses when other credit dried up,

美國銀行早就能借錢給農民、 還有各行各業的生意，

would it not?"

不是嗎?」

"Hm, this is all highly speculative.

法官大人：「這些東西是過度臆測了！

Can we move on?"

我們可以再往下繼續了嗎?」

"Certainly, Your Honor.

控方律師:「沒問題的！庭上，

We now come to Mr. Jackson's

我們接著講到傑克遜先生

most terrible offense:

最惡劣的罪行：

forcing entire tribes out of their native lands

透過『印地安人遷移法案』

via the Indian Removal Act."

迫使所有的部落 離開他們的棲地。」

"I resent that accusation, sir.

辯方律師:「先生，我對你的控訴感到生氣，

The U.S. of A. bought that land from the Indians

美國政府從這些印地安人處 買進土地的行為

fair and square."

是光明正大的。」

"Do you call coercion and threats

控方律師:「你說擁有更強大軍隊的政府，

by a nation with a far more powerful army

所做出的強迫和威脅

fair and square?

是光明正大的 ?

Or signing a treaty for removing the Cherokee

或是和小部分團體簽下條約，

with a small group that didn't include

其中不包括實際的部落領袖人物，

their actual leaders?

來遷走「切羅基人」

They didn't have time to properly

切羅基人在美國軍隊到來，

supply themselves before the army came

迫使他們步入「淚水之途」之前，

and forced them to march the Trail of Tears."

不夠時間妥善做好準備。」

"Now, hold on a minute.

辯方律師:「請等一下，

This was all Van Buren's doing

這些事情都是范‧布倫所為，

after President Jackson left office."

發生在傑克遜總統先生任期結束之後。」

"But Mr. Jackson laid the groundwork

控方律師:「不過，傑克遜先生做好了 所有的事前準備工作，

and made sure the treaty was ratified.

而確使這個條約能被正式批准，

All President Van Buren had to do afterwards

范‧布倫總統先生之後 所做的一切事情

was enforce it."

就是執行政策罷了。」

"Look here, Your Honor.

辯方律師:「庭上，請看我這邊，

Our government's been purchasing

我們的政府從最早開始就

Indian land since the beginning,

一直在購買印地安人的土地，

and my client was negotiating these deals

而我的委任人就參與在 協談這些交易的過程裡，

even before he was President.

甚至還早在他當總統之前。

President Jackson truly believed

傑克遜總統先生真心相信

it was best for the Indians

這是對印地安人來說最好的事情，

to get compensated for their land

用他們的土地換得了報償，

and move out West,

然後般離美國西部，

where there was plenty of space

搬到有大量空間的地方

for them to keep living

讓他們繼續過日子，

the way they were accustomed,

用他們所習慣的方式生活，

rather than stick around

好過死守留下

and keep butting heads with the white settlers.

而繼續與白人殖民者爆發衝突，

Some of whom, I remind our court,

庭上，讓我提醒你，部分的殖民者

wanted to exterminate them outright.

想要徹底消滅這些住民，

It was a different time."

那是一個很不同的時空背景。」

"And yet, even in this different time,

控方律師:「然而，就算在這麼不同的時空背景，

there were many in Congress

國會裡頭有許多人，

and even the Supreme Court

還有甚至是最高法院，

who saw how wrong the Removal Act was

都清楚『遷移法案』是不對的，

and loudly opposed it,

而且激烈反對『遷移法案』，

were there not?"

不是這樣子嗎?」

"My client was under a great deal of pressure.

辯方律師:「我的委任人承受了巨大的壓力，

I say, do you think it's easy

你認為掌理這麼偉大的國家，

governing such a huge country

還要保持各州團結在一起

and keeping the Union together,

是輕鬆的一件事情嗎?

when states are fixing to nullify

當各州不斷想要

federal laws?

讓聯邦法律失效，

President Jackson barely got South Carolina

傑克遜總統先生無法得到南卡羅那州

to back down over those import tariffs,

支持進關稅，

and then Georgia had to go discover gold

之後喬治亞州要探採黃金

and start grabbing up Cherokee land.

就開始不停奪取「切羅基人」的土地，

It was either get the Indians to move

這既使得印地安人要離開土地，

or get in another fight with a state government."

還要和州政府打一場仗。」

"So, you admit that Mr. Jackson

控方律師:「這麼說來你承認傑克遜先生

sacrified moral principles to achieve

犧牲正當行為的準則來達成

some political goals?"

部分的政治目的嗎?」

"I do declare, show me one leader who hasn't."

辯方律師:「真是奇怪，那麼你找出一位不這麼 做事的領導者給我看。」

As societies change and morals evolve,

當社會更迭和正當行為準則演進，

yesterday's hero may become

過去的英雄可能就會變成

tomorrow's villain, or vice versa.

未來的惡棍，反之亦然。

History may be past,

歷史將會過去

but our understanding of it is always on trial.

但是我們對它的瞭解 總是在辯論之中沒有答案。