Jackson: Hero or villain?

"incidently, what yahoo called Jackson a friend of the Cherokees? As in the same 200,000 Cherkokees who died when he defied the Supreme Court and sent them on the trail of tears? This guy also murdered someone in a duel, and yet he is on the $20 bill!"

Robert Remini has written extensively on Andrew Jackson. He is an unabashed Jackson supporter who sees very little "Old Hickory" has ever done wrong. "Sharp Knife" has been the subject of many of Remini's books. He is a Professor Emeritus at Illinois, a long respected member of the historical community. (By the way, he also uses about 6 other sobriquets for Jackson. He likes nicknames a lot, and I am subtly mocking him. How subtle is it if I explain the mocking to people who have no reason to know that? Not very.)
Here is his oft-used defense of Jackson:
Not Jackson. He had no hesitation about taking action. And he believed hat removal was indeed the only policy available if the Indians were to be protected from certain annihilation.
Andrew Jackson has been saddled with a considerable portion of the blame for this monstrous deed. He makes an easy mark. But the, criticism is unfair if it distorts the role he actually played. His objective was not the destruction of Indian life and culture. Quite the contrary. He believed that removal was the Indian¹s only salvation against certain extinction. Nor did he despoil Indians. He struggled to prevent fraud and corruption, and he promised there would be no coercion in winning Indian approval of his plan for removal. Yet he himself practiced a subtle kind of coercion. He told the tribes he would abandon them to the mercy of the states if they did not agree to migrate west.
(http://edweb.tusd.k12.az.us/UHS/APUSH/1st%20Sem/Articles%20Semester%201/Artiles%20Semester%201/Remini.htm)

His argument is that Jackson loved the Indians and they loved Jackson. Oddly, that is a legitimate arguement based on some writings of each, including the Ridge party of the Cherokees. But it is also a counter-intuitive argument based on the actions. Any time we retroactively attempt to establish motives that partially or completely contradict actions but were explicitly stated by the party doing the actions, controversy ensues. He also argues, I would say unsuccessfully, that Jackson, in forcing the Removal, saved the Indian nations from certain destruction and genocide.
I don't agree, but there it is. Award winning scholar, respected enough that the U.S. Congress in 1999 commissioned him to write a history of the House of Representatives, is the answer to the question.