I have no real opinion on Jackson: Jackson's popularity on the Right usually stems from misconceptions of him—particularly those by Walter Russell Mead—who wrongly painted Jackson as some kind of mercantilist, nationalist, populist, protectionist, and traditionalist. However, the real Jackson at the very least actively opposed mercantilism and protectionism. That fucktard pseudohistorian 'socks' is one of those who hates Jackson on this very website: precisely because he wrongly believes that Mead's 'Jackson' resembles the real Jackson.

Jackson is one of the most lied about Presidents in American history. Let's examine three of the most egregious examples:

1. Jackson fought one hundred duels:

This farcical claim appeared in Atlantic and Newsweek articles. The origin of this claim is an 1828 pamphlet, which claims that Jackson may have partook in a hundred fights. However, Jackson partook in only one duel, and in that he was injured. The claim that Jackson may have partook in up to one hundred fights eventually mutated into the claim that he did take part in one hundred duels.

2. Jackson kept Amerindian skulls as trophies:

This nonsense claim has latest appeared in a 2019 book authored by Yale historian Greg Grandin.

Originally, Jackson wrote in an 1814 letter that he had been so successful in retrieving the bodies of all his own KIA that not a single one of his men had been scalped by the Amerindians.

A 1979 book by an idiotic Japanese-American 'historian', Ronald Takaki, misquotes this as claiming that Jackson wrote that he had successfully scalped every Amerindian his men had killed.

Grandin's 2019 book takes this 1979 claim and changes 'scalps' to 'skulls'. In conclusion, Jackson's claim that he had avoided having any of his own men scalped by the Amerindians mutated into the ridiculous claim that he himself collected Amerindian skulls.

3. Jackson used bridle reins made of Indian flesh

This nonsense claim has latest appeared in a 2020 book authored by female black journalist Isabel Wilkerson.

Originally, an 1895 book stated that a man told its authors that some of Jackson's men (without his knowledge) may have done this to some Amerindians. The man in question died in 1882.

The exact same 1979 book by Takaki mentioned above misquotes the 1895 book, but instead claims that it was a fact rather than mere hearsay.

A 1992 book misquotes Takaki's 1979 book as instead claiming that Jackson personally supervised his men doing this.

A 1997 book by black 'philosopher' Charles Mills misquotes this 1992 book as instead claiming that Jackson was personally involved. Wilkerson then takes Mills' 1997 claim one step further to its current form: that Jackson himself skinned Amerindians to make bridle reins of their flesh.

In conclusion, hearsay mutated into the claim that Jackson personally skinned Amerindians to use their flesh as bridle reins.

What we should learn from these three ridiculous claims is that much of what people believe about Andrew Jackson (and history more generally) is, in fact, total nonsense.

As for the question, I'm not going to attempt ranking them. But I definitely do not like: Lincoln, Wilson (a clear globalist without whom the UN probably would not later exist), FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Obama and the current POTUS.