RATING
3 stars
N/A = good but not on the scale
1 star = perspective supplementing
2 stars = perspective influencing
3 stars = perspective altering
Short summary:
Jackson strengthened the office more than anyone since Jefferson. The first President to rise from poor means, he commanded a victory in New Orleans as a general and rode this star power to defeat JQA in 1828, serving two terms. He survived the Petticoat scandal by cabinet dissolution. Calhoun was his first veep, then Van Buren.
Jackson defended the national government and individual rights over states’ rights by coming down hard on the Nullifiers in South Carolina, but he did not defend the Abolitionists when they were intimidated with sedition. Through broken treaties, he personified the shameful federal push for Native removal to westward lands, which blackens his legacy. Jackson was the first President to utilize his veto power to drive legislation. He also fought the charter of the National Bank and was censured for it. Ultimately, his legacy is contradictory. He was a strong President that saved the Union and preserved its strength for Lincoln.
From a historical lens, he was selective in his desire to preserve liberty and freedom. For some but not all. The ultimate point about Jackson’s presidency: despite his ambivalence towards slavery and Native Americans, his actions to strengthen the office enabled Lincoln to act strongly during the Civil War. Arguably, Lincoln relied on Jackson’s legacy–Force Bill, Nullification Proclamation and suspension of habeus corpus in New Orleans–to push the US towards a different moral character. Also, Old Hickory was a badass. He killed a man in a duel, almost died in a fight after being shot, and survived an assassination attempt thanks to the ghost of George Washington.
Expanded summary:
It’s taken me a little while to try and write this summary. Partly because I have Andrew Jackson fatigue. It took a long time for me to listen to this book–almost three months has lapsed between this post and when I first started. By the end, although I really enjoyed the biography, I was kind of tired of thinking about Andrew Jackson. I knew that I needed a break when a few nights ago, I had a dream where I was at the Hermitage with Peggy Eaton, explaining to her why I thought the Petticoat Affair wasn’t a big deal. You know you’ve reached the seventh ring of nerd-hell when you have a dream like that.
So, what to say about President Jackson. Before reading the biography, I had some idea that Jackson was a strong President. I kind of equated him with the second string of early Presidents–not quite Washington or Jefferson, but solidly on the bench with Madison. I’ve completely changed my opinion here. I know it’s early in the game, but I’d venture to guess that in terms of historical importance, Jackson will certainly make my top ten list, perhaps even higher, but we’ll see. I think I mentioned this before, this does not mean that I think Jackson was a good guy or had the top ten best character or positive impacts of the Presidents. Nah, I’m mainly judging this based on the delta of where the office was in the years before he held office and after. Perhaps this will amplify or mitigate as I read on in future biographies–after all a Presidential legacy is partly influenced by what happens years and decades after his or her term ends.
Why do I feel strongly about President Jackson? I’ve actually been asked that quite a few times. In a short sentence, here’s why. Because although Jackson did not have a strong moral compass from a modern perspective, his actions in the Presidency laid the foundation for future Presidents to take the mantle and move the country toward a more perfect union. I talked about this in the short summary, but the strength of office he flexed, through the Force Bill, the Proclamation on Nullification, the vetoes, the opposition to the National Bank and even the removal of Native Americans added strength to the office. Make no mistake, though, this strength should not be equated with goodness. And particularly with respect to the Native American issue, his actions could be equatable to modern day despots. A black mark on our legacy as a country. I wrote about this a lot. That based on our past treatment of Native Americans, all of us, each and every one, are living on borrowed land. And therefore we all have an obligation to somehow try and validate the recriminations of the past by acknowledging our tenancy here and taking stewardship in society. That the order of forming a more perfect union comes not just because we wrote it on a piece of paper but because we owe it by virtue of what we took, improperly many times, to build the union.
Jackson certainly strengthened the office of the Presidency, and through that he was able to allow other presidents to build on that power to exert American influence and push their domestic agenda. From that perspective alone, to me, his impact is undeniable. Which takes me to my next thought: that a measure of an impactful Presidency does not equate to the impact of a good person holding the office. John Quincy Adams, in my view, was a weak President, but he was a fairly strong in his pre-Presidency political career (negotiating the Louisiana Purchase for Jefferson) and in his post-Presidency political career. In fact, JQA added so much weight to the abolitionist cause, that this country would not be the same without him, despite his ineffective Presidency.
Overall, too, Jackson was able to change the perception of the Presidency as an office where power was derived from state electors, disconnected from the populous, to an office where power was derived from the people via state electors. We kind of take that for granted these days. That the people elect the President. But that’s not technically true. The reason why we short circuit the electors in the modern electoral mindset these days has its origins in Jacksonian politics.
Jackson used the Presidency to enhance the Executive Branch over the others in the federal government. He leaned on the veto threat significantly to push legislative agenda. After the Worchester v. Georgia Supreme Court decision, Jackson intimated at the sole ability to execute laws by saying some (toned-down) version of the now mythical phrase “John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it!”
As I go through the next bios, I’ll see how impactful and long lasting Jackson’s legacy is. He was certainly a man of contradiction. And like it or not, no assessment of a President, pre-Lincoln, is complete without evaluating the person’s views on slavery, our original sin. Jackson did not fight to abolish it at all, and in fact on a micro-level through family slave ownership and on a macro-level through federal inaction, Jackson basically endorsed the institution. So there it goes, despite all of this, and even accounting for moral relevatism, does a US President really belong in the pantheon without passing this basic test?
Notes while reading:
4/4/2016 comments:
The intro to this bio had me gripped. More so than any intro except for maybe the biography I read for Jefferson, Art of Power (also by Jon Meacham). My prior knowledge of Jackson is quite limited. I know that South Carolinians proudly claim him as a native son, that he sent a bunch of Native America tribes out west on the trail of tears, he won in New Orleans, and he might disappear from the face of the $20 due to his checkered legacy and his disdain for the idea of a national bank. There’s more in there that I’ve picked up from prior bios but you get the gist.
So turns out that Jackson was the first President who grew up a poor country boy. Both NC and SC claim him as their own, and it’s up for debate. Jackson had two brothers and they both died at a young age. Jackson’s dad died before Andrew Jackson was born, and his mother also died when he was young. So he basically grew up as an orphan with no siblings in the backwoods of SC. His younger brother died when, during the revolutionary war, a British soldier hit him over the head with a sword or rifle. Jackson often spoke of his mom throughout his life and it seems like there was some part of him pushing to make her proud. She was buried in an unmarked grave and much of Jackson’s life was spent looking for it. Jackson’s family experiences during the revolutionary war with British soldiers seemed to shape his perception of military command, something he took to heart in the war of 1812.
4/11/16 comments:
I’m at the part of the book where Andrew Jackson is going through his young adulthood. The book talks a good deal about how Jackson was the first president who did not have any formal education (although Washington too had very little formal education too). After his mother died, thus leaving him an orphan with no siblings (both brothers died during the Revolutionary War), Jackson spent most of his early childhood and young adult years in South Carolina. Every Sunday, he would attend sermons, which greatly shaped his world view. Jackson moved to Tennessee in young adulthood (early 20s?) where he met Rachel Donelson, a woman who was already married, but later remarried Jackson (they started an affair while she was still married to her first husband). This fact is often associated with Jackson as demonstrative of his less than stellar moral character–and it’s a point that the author makes as does most historical accounts of Jackson’s life.
One interesting bit from this section of the book. The author suggests that Jackson saw himself as a living metaphor of David from the Old Testament–a metaphor that, according to Meacham, would bear out of the course of Jackson’s life. In particular, Meacham draws a veiled analogy between Jackson and King David–David was a man who served God through valor on the battlefield, who was a flawed man of sin who “stole” one of his wives from a married man. Jackson was famous for his military triumphs and also married Rachel Donelson while she was married to another man (before she had petitioned for divorce).
4/13/16 comments:
Man, was Andrew Jackson a badass. He killed a man in a duel after the guy talked shit about his wife. During the duel, the guy shot first, hit Jackson in the chest, and Jackson hit him back with a kill shot. Andrew Jackson carried that bullet in his chest for the rest of his life. Can you even imagine today a presidential candidate dealing with that kind of baggage in his or her past?
I’m now at the point in the book involving Jackson’s involvement in the War of 1812. If I’m completely honest, I don’t really know how he went from moving to the frontier of Tennessee to becoming a commander during the War of 1812. Maybe I zoned out during that part. Regardless, Jackson got his nickname Old Hickory when he lead about 100 soldiers in his command back to Nashville. Basically, these guys had marched to Mississippi during the war, and when they got there, Jackson was told that they weren’t needed any more and that they should be disbanded. Jackson pledged to take care of them like a father, disobeyed the orders to disband, and lead them back to Nashville. I guess the name Old Hickory is intended to convey his strength and steadfastness.
When Jackson got back to Nashville, he continued his badassery. He and a friend got into a feud with someone. When Jackson saw the guy in Nashville, he tried to whip him with a horse whip. The guy shot Jackson in the arm. There was a brawl, but everyone survived. It makes me imagine how lawless the frontier land must have been. I can also kind of see how the legacy of gun ownership might have become part of the culture. You never know when you’ll be in a duel, so I guess you’d have to be prepared.
Jackson also retaliated again the Creek Indians for an attack they laid. And the book is now shifting towards his defenses of Florida and New Orleans during the War of 1812.
Andrew Jackson also had met with Aaron Burr to discuss potential Spanish aggression against the US, but later charged and tried Burr for treason (Burr was acquitted). Aaron Burr, I think, is a fascinating character in early American history, and I’d like to read a biography of him and Alexander Hamilton.
4/15/16 comments:
A fair amount to write here, as I’ve gone through about two more hours of the audio book.
In 1814, as General during the War of 1812, Jackson led a decisive victory against the British in the Battle of New Orleans. The win was pretty staggering. Several thousand British soldiers were killed or injured in comparison to only several dozen American soldiers. The battle itself, however, wasn’t really necessary as the British and Americans had signed the Treaty of Ghent weeks before the battle. The news didn’t make it back home in time, and instead the Battle of New Orleans continued. This victory contributed significantly to Jackson’s public image as a war hero. He often evoked his win here throughout his political life.
After the battle, Jackson instituted martial law by suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Interestingly enough Abraham Lincoln would rely on this precedent during his presidency to also suspend the writ during the Civil War.
A few years earlier, Jackson was a General during the First Seminole war. I am a little unclear of the timing of all of this, but basically, Jackson had limited authority (if any) from James Monroe to battle the Indians. He drove the Seminoles into Florida and then hanged two British soldiers who he suspected of colluding with the native population. This caused an international incident, and caused Congress to pass a resolution of condemnation. Jackson was widely criticized for being a maverick, acting without proper authority. His political critics often cited his maverick nature here, together with his imposition of martial law to cast him as a reckless leader. Often this was used, together with his poor upbringing and his history of fighting and dueling to make him seem like an backwoods kind of person.
There’s a lot of discussion in the book about Jackson’s personal philosophy and shrewdness. One of the points the book makes is that Jackson had this fundamental belief to distrust people unless they earned his trust. The quote used in the book goes something like, don’t trust anyone unless they have earned it, but don’t let anyone know that you distrust him. Basically, always present a face as a mask of confidence and faith, but behind that, only trust the people who you know you can. Meacham here draws an interesting analogy of Jackson’s philosophy on this to the national disposition at the time–that at the time, the country’s mood was to present to the international world a face of calm, confidence and trust, despite whatever internal issues might be festering. This might partly explain how he was able to climb so high in the national political scene given his background–that his personal philosophy was a microcosm for the larger national narrative. It’s something that I think you see often nowadays; politicians are successful when their personality reflects the temperament of the country.
The election of 1824 is an interesting one. Four main candidates Jackson, John Q. Adams (the incumbent president), Henry Clay and William Crawford. Jackson has the largest number of popular votes cast, but no candidate secures a majority in the electoral college, so the decision for the presidency goes to the House of Representatives. Henry Clay served as the speaker of the House, and Jackson and Clay hated each other. Clay persuaded the House to reelect John Q Adams, and after his election, Clay was appointed Secretary of State, which back then was a springboard to the presidency (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and John Q Adams were all Secretaries of State). Fun fact: the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 15th presidents all served as Secretaries of States, and since then, zero Secretaries of State have become president. Maybe Hilary Clinton will reset that in 2016?
Anyway, Clay’s appointment to Secretary of State caused Jackson to characterized JQA’s election as modern day cronyism, a monarchy 2.0 of sorts. It set up for a very contentious and divisive election in 1828 with tons of mudslinging, even by today’s standards.
4/25/16 comments:
I took some time away from listening to the book, mainly due to work travel. But I’m back at it.
The book right now is talking about the election of 1828. Meacham tells Jackson’s story in an interesting way, I think. He doesn’t go strictly chronological, which some other bios have. Rather, he jumps to periods of Jackson’s life based on the theme of whatever he’s describing.
Right now, the book is describing Jackson’s general political philosophy. How he beat JQA in the election of 1828, and his belief in Jeffersonian Republicanism. In principle, this involved a weak federal government, an Executive (President) with limited powers, a strong Congress, and a belief of power deriving from the people. In practice, however, Jefferson was a strong executive (one example of which was the Louisiana Purchase). Jackson was similar, in principle believing in decentralized government, but in practice acting as a strong, power filled President.
One thing about the election of 1828 that strikes me is how similar it is to party politics today. My thought is that maybe party politics is always or almost always dirty.
Another thing of note. Jackson’s wife Rachel died before his election. No matter what the biography, I am always struck with how these early presidents dealt with so much family tragedy and still managed to push forward to achieve whatever they did.
5/1/2016 comments:
It is an interesting time to be reading Jackson’s biography. The Treasury Department recently announced that Harriet Tubman will be replacing Jackson on the $20 bill. I think this is interesting for many reasons. Obviously, it’s long overdue for a woman to be placed on US currency. It may seem like a trivial statement, but I personally think that our national symbols should evolve to our priorities and philosophies as a civic society. So I’m all for it.
I’m also all for it because I’m reading now how opposed Jackson was to a central bank. He believed that having a central bank would mean that the US political system would be become beholden to creditors.
Also, the biography is dabbling a bit into Jackson’s views towards the removal of Native Americans to lands West of the Mississippi River. I think we will dive more into it, but as an initial reaction, Jackson believed that removal of the native population to western lands was essential to both their survival and the survival of the white Americans.
5/3/2016 comments:
The Petticoat Affair: It basically involved John Eaton, a senator from TN and Jackson’s secretary of War, getting it on with a married woman, Peggy ONeil. This was scandalous because ONeil was married at the time and then she became a widow and immediately married Eaton. It also was illusionary to Jackson and his late wife Rachel (who died before he became President) and their alleged affair while she was married. The scandal was used as a bellweather to test Jackson loyalists. The wife of John C. Calhoun (Jackson’s VP) led a movement against Oneil, while Martin Van Buren sided with Jackson. Seems like such a weird thing for a Presidency to get embroiled in, but those were the time. Jackson was a dude who shot a guy in a duel, but then this affair, not even involving him, led to such chaos in the beginning of his presidency.
One interesting fact. After Jackson’s inauguration, Jackson and JQA did not communicate any transition of power, and thus, there was this massive, uncontrolled party at the White House the day Jackson took office. Sounds like a rager–uncontrolled crowds crashing the party. Crazy to think about.
5/7/2016 comments:
I have to admit, this part of the book is pretty boring. A lot of talk about the Petticoat Affair, which I still don’t really understand as to how it became so controversial. Admittedly, I am looking through a modern bias. But it was a big deal. Calhoun’s wife leading a charge to undermine Jackson has some intrigue. In fact, it made me purchase on Audible of John C Calhoun that I’ll listen to when I finish this up.
I am eager to hear the portions about the westward removal of Native Americans. Jackson believed this to be necessary to ensure the survival of the white male race as well as the native race. Seems to me that he didn’t really care about the Native Peoples but instead he just wanted to preserve European male influence and control in the United States.
Jackson also believed pretty strongly in the separation of church and state. This is me just shooting from the hip, but part of me wonders that early presidents opposed entanglement of church and state to partly avoid moral questions from entering into public debate. I have no support at all for this belief but it just seems to me that it’s one way to square their support of slavery (explicit or implicit) by keeping morality and religion based morality out of the debate. I’d like to go back and see what JQA thought of religion, as he was a great supporter of abolishing slavery, especially later in his life.
5/10/16 comments:
So, my speculation about religion, separation of church and state, etc. from my last update was completely and utterly wrong. At least as it related to Jackson. There’s no evidence to suggest that Jackson supported separation of church and state for fear that a religiously minded society would look at the Native American removal with absolute morality. In fact, according the author, many European-American Christians at the time believed that it was man’s right (specifically, white man’s right) to domesticate the land and populate it freely. The fact that there were already people living on that land didn’t matter, for they were uncivilized “savages” and thus the land and it’s people needed to be civilized and then domesticated.
There is some discussion about native tribes, especially the Cherokee trying to “civilize” in accordance with expectations of their white neighbors in order to fit in under the protection of local and state laws. But this was not sustainable. It seems as if the only acceptable outcome for Jackson and American society was the removal of native tribes to land west of the Mississippi, where they were promised to be able to live there freely and in perpetuity. Obviously this did not happen. And the kicker is that their removal flew in the face of countless treaties signed between the tribes and the US Government.
It honestly is a sad chapter in American history. I’m trying not to let views and expectations of modern life color my interpretation of the historical context I’m reading about. But it seems like we really do need to reflect as a society on what it means to be living on essentially stolen land. You can’t go to the past and change injustices, but you can recognize that they are real and that they should affect and guide views on the future. Maybe it’s because it’s an election year, but it just seems very saddening that some of the more unfortunate rhetoric of “true Americans” vs immigrants comes from perceptions that do not at all take our collective obligations to these past injustices. Regardless of ancestor history, I think it’s important for all Americans to recognize that because we built a nation in some unscrupulous ways at times, we have an obligation to be stewards of this land and to make this country and our society the best we can in order to honor and absolve the past.
5/13/2016 comments:
This Petticoat Affair saga is really boring. I guess maybe people will look at the Lewinsky affair in the Clinton years similarly when they read about it a century from now. But apparently, it had a big effect on cabinet loyalties. Maybe I’ll write more about it, but it’s just not that interesting to me.
On to more interesting things: Jackson was the first president to publicly state that he believed the Presidency should be determined by popular vote and that a president should be limited to one four or six year term. Jackson believed that, but for the House of Representatives, all other areas of the federal government derived power from sources outside of the people. E.g., the Senate from state governments, the Judiciary from the Presidency, and even the banking system from a group of creditors.
The book is starting to discuss Jackson’s disagreements with Nicholas Biddle, president of the Second National Bank. Jackson believed that if government deposits are held in a national bank, then the authority of the government is swayed by the creditors of that bank. His fear was that though presidents might come and go, the bank remains.
5/19/2016 comments:
I’m reading now about the famous Webster-Haynes debate that took the place in early 1830. It originally started from legislation introduced by a Connecticut senator regarding land surveying in the West, but quickly morphed into a debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Haynes of South Carolina. The book talks about it at a high level, but Here is a Wikipedia like about the debate. Apparently Websters first response to Haynes is considered one of the greatest speeches ever given in Congress. Lincoln later borrowed his “of the people, by the people, for the people” from Webster.
5/22/2016 comments:
I have found this section to be the most entertaining from a legislative process point of view. Andrew Jackson is credited for being the first president to really leverage his veto power to influence legislation and to strong arm Congress into adopting bills that reflect his will. His first four vetoes set the tone. Apparently, Congress was debating spending bills, and at the time, the “pork” of the day was Congress approving bills for internal state improvements. Jackson’s response was to veto any spending bill that was not related to interstate commerce. So any bill that was related exclusively to internal state improvements would be vetoed. In total, Jackson vetoed four such bills. Although this may seem unimportant by today’s standards, it really did change the perception of presidential power. The eight presidents before Jackson had vetoed bills for a grand total of nine times; by the time Jackson was done at the Presidency, he used his veto power twelve times.
5/25/2016 comments:
Man, we really did screw the Native Americans, didn’t we. It’s terrible. I just finished learning about the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Jackson strongly believed that the Native American tribes in the south must be moved off their land in order to ensure their survival. Really, it seems to be all about the survival of the white settlers on that land. Again, I am trying to keep my present day biases out of this and look at the facts in the historical context in which they arise. In fact, I’m sure that there is a shit ton of stuff happening now that I turn a blind eye to every day that, in 100 years, will seem unconscionable. Not an excuse or a reason not to care about past injustices, but just a reminder to learn with the historical context in mind AND THEN analogize to the present day.
Anyway, the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Man, that’s a tough thing to read about as an American. One notable thing was how controversial the Act was. Those who opposed it mostly were religious people from the north. Most native tribes subject in the Act were located in the South, and thus Southern representation in Congress was almost squarely and uniformly in favor of removal. As I mentioned before, Jackson previously used legislative maneuvering (most significantly the power of his veto) to muscle Congress to his will. Thus, he was able to sway Congress significantly, even though this Act wasn’t something where his veto threat would be deemed essential for his position to prevail (there was nothing really for him to veto–he wanted the Act to pass). The Act passed somewhat narrowly. According to Wikipedia it was 28 to 19 in the Senate and 101 to 97 in the House. So 13 Congressional votes and one Presidential signature resulted in a Federal US policy to remove the peoples of the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, Seminole, and Cherokee Tribes, among others, to move off land that they occupied literally for centuries.
This raises an interesting question to reflect on. By the time the Indian Removal Act of 1830 was passed, was there anything that could have been done? In other words, if the Act fails and the Tribes stay in the South, would their people been completely annihilated by the hands of the state governments? Would they have coexisted? Would the Natives have assimilated? It’s hard to say and to me it remains one of the biggest questions in US History. Jackson’s point about needing the law to pass to ensure the survival of the Native People makes sense in one way–especially if you sign on to the view that there was a huge existential threat there. This is a very loose analogy, but it reminds me much of the formation of the state of Israel; a safe land for a group of people marginalized through history. If, after the tribes moved West on the Trail of Tears, westward expansion by the US stopped, would this be seen as a success? Is it fair to blame the national sentiment of Manifest Destiny more than (or at least as much as) Jackson’s position on native removal? Did he really believe he was doing this to preserve their existence? All interesting questions.
Here’s what I think. There were a bunch of treaties that the US Government signed with these tribes ensuring their sovereignty. So either Jackson believed that the increasing rhetorical of nullification would at some point render these treaties unenforceable against Southern states or Jackson believed that these treaties should be disregarded. In other words, he thought the US Government should keep it’s word, but that it’s word would be hard to enforce or that he thought that the US Government should negotiate new terms. I honestly think that it was more the latter than the former, though given his VP (Calhoun) increasingly taking strong positions on Southern nullification, maybe he saw this as a way to placate the South. Again, shooting from the hip here, but just a thought.
Either way, it’s a real historical tragedy, what happened to the native tribes in the South. Who’s to say what the inertia of the time would have led to otherwise, but we’ll never know that. It’s kind of like the old Schrodinger’s cat concept. At the time, in 1830, several fates for the native tribes were possible, but once a path was chosen and decades and centuries have passed, it’s not really worthwhile to imagine what could have been, since those other paths are gone. What is worthwhile though, and necessary in my opinion, is just for us to self-reflect. What is our prosperity, our privilege, our opportunities and standings in the world based on? How did we get to where we are, good and bad. How did we go from a society that allowed slave holders to write our Constitution and hold the Presidency and in less than a handful of generations elect a first African American man to that very office? What are our struggled, good and bad, based on? And what do we owe to the past, what sins do we need to absolve not by apologizing to the past, but looking toward the future?
Something about this time really has made me think, as you can tell. I am reminded of a song, Letter to My Countrymen by indie rap artist Brother Ali. He says, in part:
“I used to think I hated this place.
Couldn’t wait to tell the President straight to his face.
But lately I’ve changed, nowdays I embrace it all.
Beautiful ideals and amazing flaws.
Got to care enough to give a testament
To the deeply depressing mess we’re in.
It’s home so we better make the best of it.
I want to make this country what it says it is.
Still dreaming the vividest living color,
No matter how many times my love been smothered.
Who’s ever above us won’t just let us suffer.
All of this struggling has got to amount to something.”
It’s that last line. All of this struggling has got to amount to something. That’s what gets me. All of these past injustices must lead us to something great, and we owe it from crimes of the past to make the potential of the future incredible.
So yeah, that’s what happened in 1830.
5/26/2016 comments:
I have to say, the story of Jackson’s presidency has to be the most captivating one so far of the first seven presidents. A few things I realized as I listened on the drive up to work this morning. First, Jackson was truly the first “outsider” president. Nowadays, it’s pretty common to have politicians run against the establishment and in particular run against the status quo in Washington. Jackson was the first person to really capture the White House on rhetoric as being an outsider. The first six presidents–Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, JQA–all followed some sort of lineage that is kind of traced back to the country’s founding. It wasn’t until the election of 1828 where the inherency of that broke. Think about that, that’s about 40 years from Washington’s first term to Jackson’s first term that the country elected people who were tied to some sort of informal aristocracy.
Second, it is apparent to me that Jackson was a transformational president. It will be interesting to revisit this list when I’m done with the bios (not for many, many years I am sure), but in terms of affect/influence on the office, I would bet that Jackson makes the top ten list of presidents. Jefferson recalibrated the presidency by moving towards limited Federalism, but Jackson moved the presidency towards populism. In other words, I feel like before Jackson, there was a sense that the presidency wasn’t really an office elected by the people. The sentiment seems to be that it was the Electoral College (and the House of Representatives in 1800 and 1824) that elects the president, and those electors are chosen by the people, yes, but that’s beside the point. I almost feel like if the lineage of Washington to JQA were to have continued, we could have gotten rid of a system of electors chosen by popular vote, and no one really would have cared.
But enter Jackson. He decidedly moved the needle towards a belief in the populist mandate of the office. That the President was chosen by the people through the electoral college. Maybe it was the fact that he won a plurality of the popular vote in 1824 but didn’t capture the presidency when it went to the House. Maybe it comes from the fact that he grew up a poor child from South Carolina and ascended to the highest office in the land. Who knows? Which actually brings me to another corollary point. I feel like before Jackson, there was a strong view that the presidency was not necessarily the strongest branch of the Federal government. Maybe that’s still up for debate, and at least institutionally, separation of powers and checks and balances ensures coequal branches. But Jackson was the first president, I feel, to use his power of the veto to assert some level of dominion over Congress. So to me, Jackson elevated the office of the presidency in two longstanding ways: 1. A belief that the President’s power comes from the people, not the states or electors or the House and 2. The President’s power to control legislation
As for the actual content of the story. Van Buren decided to resign as Jackson’s Secretary of State to strategically allow Jackson to end the drama of the Petticoat Affair. Van Buren was a trusted advisor to Jackson and proposed to Jackson that he (Van Buren) resign in order to allow Jackson to reshuffle his cabinet. Quick aside, Jackson and Van Buren used to take daily horse rides to talk strategy. Interesting to imagine in current day DC. Jackson begrudgingly agrees, Van Buren resigns, and Jackson also asks for the resignation of Eaton (who’s wife and himself are the center of the scandal) from his position as Secretary of War. Ultimately, Jackson fires nearly his entire cabinet. Spoiler alert: Van Buren’s resignation allowed him to ultimately capture the Presidency in the election of 1836 by running as, you guessed it, an outside to Washington. His resignation thus was a short term loss for a long term gain.
Upon firing nearly everyone, Jackson then as able to invite his nephew Andrew Donnelson and his wife Emily back to the White House. It’s a long dramatic story that I find kind of boring, but basically Emily was cold to Margaret (Peggy) Eaton for a long time due to the scandal, and it was tearing Jackson’s familial scene apart, especially given that his wife Rachel died before he took office.
5/31/16 comments:
One of the crazier stories I’ve heard is how after Jackson fired his Cabinet, John Eaton challenged three men to a duel: dismissed Sec. of Treasury Samuel Ingham, former Attorney General John Berrien, and dismissed Sec. of the Navy John Branch. It’s kind of crazy, to think that there was an open duel challenged in Washington DC. In particular, the duel challenge from Eaton to Ingham was particularly funny. Eaton didn’t like what Ingham wrote about him in an article in The Telegraph, so Eaton decided to try and kill him. Ingham was so fearful to leave his house, and Eaton took up positions all around DC and near the Treasury building to try and ambush Ingham. This was all publicly known! And Jackson relished in it! He didn’t do anything to encourage it, but by all accounts, he was amused by it. It’s absolutely insane. Again, sometimes when we look at our history with nostalgic reverence, it’s helpful to hear stories like this and realize that the “good ole days” weren’t always that good. Eventually, Eaton pleaded with Jackson, who refused to help him out, so Eaton ran away to Pennsylvania to save his life. Ridiculous. We’re talking about the Secretary of War openly trying to kill the former Secretary of the Treasury, with at least a passive complacency by the President of the United States. What a time to live in.
Less salacious, but probably more important on a macro-historical level, there is a lot of discussion now of nullification. John C. Calhoun served as Jackson’s vice president and was an aid in assisting with Jackson’s popularity in the South. Their relationship started to fray about two years after Jackson’s first election. Jackson found out that Calhoun and lobbied President Monroe to censure Jackson for his invasion of Spanish Florida. Wikipedia indicates that Jackson “discovered” this by questioning Calhoun, but the book seems to indicate that Jackson really knew this all along, and was waiting for the opportunity to call him out on this. The seeds of the rift between Jackson and Calhoun were also sewn when Calhoun’s wife decidedly took an anti-Eaton stance in the Petticoat Affair, working to ostracize Margaret Eaton.
On to nullification. Calhoun had his sites set on the Presidency, and he believed that by shifting entirely to a Southern Strategy (a first of many in US History), he could secure the Presidency in the Election of 1832. Basically, in South Carolina, the nullification movement was growing strong. The pro-nullifiers (I might have made term up) argued the theory of nullification as follows: If a state disagreed with the legitimacy of a national law, the state could nullify the law (i.e., not execute it) until the law itself enshrined in the Constitution. In other words, if states did not agree with a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, a state could simply ignore it until the Constitution was amended to actively incorporate the law. The argument went that the states are not avoiding national laws all together. Instead, they have an obligation to the Constitution, and should the Constitution be amended to include the offending law, then they certainly would abide, but absent that, they would not follow it.
This posed two major logical problems, as the anti-nullifiers (yep, made this term up too) expressed. First, it would be extremely cumbersome to amend the Constitution with every single law that was passed by Congress. The whole point of the Constitution was to provide equal voice to small and large states, in part, through equal representation in the Senate. That, together with embedded checks and balances through the three branches, meant that laws passed by Congress were passed with a dissenting state’s opinion, though losing opinion, in mind. If the nullification doctrine was followed, the Congressional process would be rendered meaningless and would move legislation to the purview of Constitutional amendment, something that would be extremely time consuming. Which leads to the second, more far reaching problem. Even if the Constitution was amended to codify each offending law, what would happen if a state continued to disagree? The argument was that this could lead directly to state secession. People in South Carolina, the state leading the charge for nullification, argued that the nullification doctrine actually were built on the platforms of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which were written by Jefferson and Madison to protest the Alien and Sedition Acts and larger Federal policies of the first Adams administration. However, the author points out that the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions did not call for nullification. Instead, as I understand it, they called for an additional Federal vehicle for dissenting states to object to laws they did not like. It did not call for states to disregard Federal law, which was what the nullification doctrine seemed to be about.
A quick summary on the tariffs that caused the Nullification Crisis: The protectionist tariffs, particularly the Tariff of 1828 (aka the Tariff of Abominations) passed during JQA’s administration and benefited the North more than the South because it protected northern industries through the tariff, and thus made it more expensive for Britain to export their goods in the US. Thus, because the British could not export as much, they could not pay to import as much cotton from the US, which had a huge impact on the Southern economy. (This is a complete side tangent, but writing this makes me wonder about economic culpability. What would have happened to slavery in the US had Britain just stopped buying cotton altogether? Is there a present day analogy here? What if we stopped by X good from Y country–what impact would it have? How does it relate to things like the Iranian Sactions, or is that an apples to oranges analogy?)
Keep in mind, to me, this is pretty much where the bloodline for the Civil War starts. You could argue, and would be justified in many ways, that it actually goes back much further to the founding itself–that when a country is founded on a significant population enslaved, inevitably a revolution will happen. To me, this is the philosophical point where the drumbeat towards secession becomes more of a very realistic “when” rather than a hypothetical “if.” I grew up in South Carolina, and having learned US History partly from the Southern perspective, there are a lot of people, rightly or wrongly, who believe that the Civil War was a war of economics, and that slavery was the institution affected by economic imperialism of the Federal Government. That is, the argument goes that protectionist tariffs is what started the nullification crisis, which lead to secession, which lead to the Civil War. According to this historical perspective, it was not an issue of slavery, it was an issue of economics. Although I personally think that Southern secession was founded, in a very, very significant part, on Southern states wanting to keep slaves, I do believe that economics did play somewhat of a role. It makes me wonder if absent any economic/political conflict, absent any Tariff of Abominations, absent any small state, big state, regional differences in the Federal Government, if all states got along just fine, would the abolitionist movement have been enough, by itself, to have ended slavery? Would it have led to a Civil War? Are my assumptions even correct? Was it really westward expansion and the debate between free states and slave states admitted to the Union that really was the starting point of an inevitable Civil War? I think these are important and deeper questions to ask and answer.
6/1/2016 comments:
A couple of semi-major things happened. After Jackson dissolved his cabinet, he nominated Van Buren for a position as Minister (Ambassador) to Great Britain. The Senate was tied in his confirmation vote, and as Vice President of the United States and thus and President of the Senate, Calhoun cast the tie breaking vote against confirming Van Buren. Predictably, Jackson was pretty pissed and all but said that Calhoun wouldn’t be on the ticket with him in 1832.
The next incident that happened was the case of Worcester v. Georgia, in which John Marshall rendered the majority opinion for a case involving some missionaries that went onto tribal land in Georgia without a license to do so from the state of Georgia. The issue was whether or not Georgia had authority to pass a law categorizing who could or could not go on tribal land. Marshall ruled, again according to Wikipedia, that it was within the rights of only the Federal government, not the states, to pass laws related to native american affairs. The rationale was that the Federal government, not the states, inherited this right from Great Britain. Thus, Georgia had no right to pass the law in question. Jackson opposed the ruling, not surprising given his stance on Native American issues. He also opposed the ruling, perhaps, for fear of another southern state turning against him. South Carolina was already talking up rhetoric of nullification, and I don’t think he wanted conflict with Georgia. It is here where the mythological accounts of Jackson have him saying “John Marshall made his decision; now let him enforce it!” In actuality, though, it seems like he never said those words exactly, but rather a toned down version.
The other major issue that’s coming up is the debate of renewing the charter of the National Bank. Jackson has opposed this due to his fear of a financial stranglehold the bank would have on the national government.
6/6/2016 comments:
The nullification crisis is in full force. Jackson issued a Proclamation denouncing nullification and emphasizing a nationalistic view. I’d like to read that proclamation sometime, the author indicates that it was one of the more well written documents during that historical time. Here is a link to it that I will read at some point.
A few interesting things about the nullification crisis. When we look back at US History, we kind of just assume that the southern states were aligned in wanting to secede from the union. During this period, though, it was really just South Carolina at first. The fear for Jackson was that the other southern states, from Virginia to Mississippi, would follow SC’s lead, but SC was the first state to push the idea of nullification. Another interesting thought, there were some contemporaries in the south who believed that secession from the Union would just lead to a tyrannical/overbearing dominance of Virginia of the southern alliance, and some thought that would not be all that different than Washington DC.
Calhoun has resigned as VP in late 1832, and later was soon after appointed as Senator from SC. At this point, Jackson has won reelection over Henry Clay and Martin Van Buren was Jackson’s VP. I don’t know if I missed this part in the book (seems like a pretty big thing), or if it has not been addressed yet, but oops, I guess I should mention that Jackson won the election of 1832 and was reelected to a second term.
The book is now describing Jackson’s Force Bill as it is being debated in Congress. The Force Bill basically was a request by Jackson to gain Congressional authority to enforce the federal tariffs on South Carolina should they move forward with nullification. This was an interesting piece of politics by Jackson. The idea was that Jackson knew that he already had the authority to enforce the federal tariffs. But by asking Congress, he created more options for himself, which is the sign of a great politician–creating options. If Congress gave him the enforcement authority in the Force Bill, Jackson could act more strongly with the backing on Congress. If Congress did not give him the authority, he could either (1) use them as a scapegoat for not acting against SC or (2) act anyway within the authority as the Executive Branch. Calhoun lobbied against the bill in the Senate and gave a speech against it (and his former boss). How quickly things change.
6/8/2016 comments:
A lot has happened in the book. I am going to try and write a summary while watching game 3 of the 2016 NBA finals. So, Jackson avoids the Nullification Crisis by passing a compromise tariff bill along with the Force Bill. The compromise tariff bill reduces tariffs imposed by the “Tariff of Abominations” and the Force Bill gives Jackson broad enforcement authority to enforce the tariff. Henry Clay, loser of the 1836 election, actually worked on the compromise here.
In response, South Carolinians had a lukewarm reaction. They reluctantly stood down from further calls of nullifying the federal tariff laws, but in a symbolic move, South Carolina officially nullified the Force Bill. Meacham emphasizes that this is clearly indicative that South Carolina believed it lost the battle, but a larger war over nullification was still to be fought. An interesting point was raised by one of Jackson’s contemporaries. He basically said that the time will come when the South raises again the issue of nullification, that this time it was about tariffs, but next time it will surely be about enslavement.
The book also talks about Jackson’s second inauguration, which is supposed to be one of the hidden gems of American orator. Here is a link to it, and I think it is worth a read. I plan to go back and read it when I’m done with the book as I synthesize my broad thoughts. I do find Jackson’s presidential style interesting, and I already know that, barring any surprises, he will certainly make my top 10 list of most influential presidents. His ability to balance states rights with preservation of the Union, through politics, shrewdness, personal passion, and strategic alliances, bears a lot of resemblance to our body politic today. Another interesting thought from Meacham–his definition of successful oratory seems to be one that “inspires and instructs.” I thought this was a great summary, and I would like to think more about how it applies to other great communicator presidents.
Jackson was also the first President who had an assassination attempt during his Presidency. Interestingly enough, because such attempts did not happen in the first six presidencies, a lot of the general public equated the assassination attempt as further evidence that Jackson was a monarch rather than a president, where in Europe such attempts on leaders’ lives were more common. I thought that was interesting. The assassination attempt basically involved some guy jumping off a ship or naval vessel of some sort at Jackson. Jackson’s nephew, Andrew Donelson, was able to thwart the attack. I do know also that there was another attempt on Jackson’s life, and according to Wikipedia, the event I just described doesn’t even count as an assassination attempt, so take that for what you will.
6/9/2016 comments:
I’m getting to the home stretch here. The major issue right now, probably a defining one of Jacksons presidency is his fight against the national bank. He fought it before by refusing the banks charter via a Presidential veto, but his fight against Biddle and the national bank this time was more forward looking. From what I can gather, Jackson hated the idea that the nations deposits where held in a bank that could then use its power to lobby and corrupt the national government. So the Presenti veto power to constrain the bank would last only as long as his tenure as president, and once that was over the subsequent presidencies could fall victim to the banks lobbying.
Jackson wanted to end the bank issue. So he devised a plan to withdrawn the nations deposits from the national bank and instead redistribute them to a series of state banks. He fired his treasury secretary over this issue and went forward with the deposit reallocation. This lead to to talks and movements by Biddle and others to impeach Jackson. More to write on this later.
One of the things that I have found to be fascinating is the parallels between politics then and politics now. Maybe it’s because it’s an election year and because of Trumps ridiculous rhetoric and slogan of “Make America Great Again,” but it is interesting to see how even in Jacksons time, his opponents were calling him a king, a despot, a tyrant, etc, and attacked him by harping on the idea that America was once great but that Jackson had changed it so fundamentally that it was not anymore. It’s so striking to me the similarities to today, that it makes me wonder that if this is just a resonance nature of democracy; that such arguments will always sway some portion of the populus, even going back to the birth of democractic governance in Ancient Greece Interesting to think about.
Though, I should say that Trump would be the equivalent of a modern day despot. And it’s not because my leanings are liberal. Although I did not vote for them, I do have a fundamental respect for George W Bush, Mitt Romney, John McCain and other conservative leaders. Though I don’t agree with them on policy, I believe them to be well intentioned with the interests of all Americans in mind. Just like I may not think historical morality is necessarily favorable to Jackson in every example of leadership (nor will it be to us or our society norms), I do believe that he was a strong President, working within the constraints of his time to what he thought is best for this country. There–that’s my one and hopefully only political rant.
Another funny anecdote. Jackson was not as popular with the northern states as he was elsewhere. So people in New England would often scare schoolchildren into behaving by invoking Jackson. My favorite: a Sunday school teacher asked “who killed Abel?” Answer: Jackson. Seems a little extreme.
6/13/2016 comments:
I’ve really enjoyed this bio, but I am getting pretty fatigued from it. It’s not so much the length as it is the amount of time it has been on my shelf. I only have 3 hours left in it, so I would like to finish it soon.
Jackson is currently going through his censure battle. The impeachment movement against him failed, so the Senate is voting to censure him for his actions against Biddle, the national bank and his “pet banks” scheme. Spoiler alert: Jackson ends up getting censured, the only President in US History to have that happen, but I knew that beforehand.
There is some drama with France over their failure to pay some money owed to the US that was accumulated during Napoleon’s time. This is interesting because it seems like Jackson did not have many foreign policy dilemmas during his presidency. He certainly had some, and the Native American question is arguably one as well, but this was a major issue that sent the two countries marching towards war. Right now Great Britain is intervening to avoid getting caught between both sides.
Jackson was often referenced as a tyrannical monarch during his Presidency. Henry Clay came up with a term for those who opposed Jackson’s rule: Whigs. This was named after the Whigs in England who opposed the monarchy. Thus was the birth of the Whig political party.
6/14/2016 comments:
Jackson’s story is coming to an end. I only have about two hours left in the book. But it’s getting really interesting right now. Jackson’s conflict with the French ended with a diplomatic victory. He was able, with the help of the British, to get the French to pay for the debts owed to the United States. In doing so, he reaffirmed the American stance set forth by George Washington, that in order for America to safeguard her interests in peaceful relations with the international community, America’s preparedness to go war must always be a real threat. Jackson was willing to do that with the French, and thus was able to win diplomatically. When I hear this, I think that it would be interesting to watch this thread emerge as I read the next bios. How is this philosophy adapted by successive presidents and how is it analogized to modern history. I am reminded of a recent article in the Atlantic (link here) that is an exposé on the so-called Obama Doctrine of foreign policy. The article talks in detail of the benefits and drawbacks of American threat credibility and how it informs President Obama’s policy views. The idea is that credibility must always be legitimate, but when followed to it’s extreme, it can also lead to misguided and costly engagements like Vietnam. It will be interesting to see how history categorizes other recent engagements–the war in Afghanistan, the 2003 coalition invasion in Iraq, drone strikes, the Libyan intervention, etc. But I digress.
One of the craziest stories of Jackson’s biography has to be the assassination attempt on him. There was an earlier one where a crazy guy tried to jump on him, but this one was a lot more serious, and Jackson was a lot luckier here. Basically, Jackson was in the House Chamber of the Capitol leaving a Congressional funeral. An unemployed painter named Richard Lawson approached Jackson with two pistols. He aimed the first one at the President, but it did not fire (the cap exploded but the gunpowder did not light, and thus the bullet was never launched). Jackson, startled, immediately went after the man with his cane. With his fucking cane! That’s insane to think about, he just got shot at and he’s the President of the United States and his response is to retaliate with his walking stick. Badassery at its best. Anyway, the shooter pulls out his second gun and that one too does not explode. Similar to his first attempt, the cap explodes, but the gun powder does not light. This allows Jackson to really pursue the guy. Jackson chases him with his cane and ultimately Lawson is tackled by someone nearby.
BUT HERE’S THE CRAZY PART: Back then, there was a gaping hole in the middle of the Capitol. It was there because the intent was to bring the remains of George Washington to the Capitol and bury him underneath it. But Washington’s heirs objected, and Washington’s remains stayed in Mt. Vernon. However the hole in the ground was still there, which based on it’s depth, added a little more moisture to nearby air. That, together with the weather conditions on that January day likely dampened the gunpowder in the would-be assassin’s guns which caused both of them to fail. After the attempt, an analysis of both guns were done, and both were fired successfully. Some expert at the time put the odds of both guns misfiring at 125,000 to 1. So in a very real way, the ghost of Washington saved Jackson’s life, the first President of the United States saving the first President of the United States to be threatened by an assassination attempt.
The major topic after the assassination that I’m learning about now is Jackson’s feelings towards slavery. I’ve said it through this commentary that I believe Jackson will make it in my top ten list of most influential Presidents. I don’t want this to be confused with my top favorite Presidents or my top admirable personalities of Presidents. Those lists all look different from one another. Though, these lists come with a significant asterisk that I am inherently limited by the views and perspectives of the author that I choose to read. So, based on my reading of Meacham, I believe that Jackson would make the list of influential Presidents. But I also believe that Jackson’s legacy and views on slavery, being on the wrong side of history, will add a massive contradiction to that.
Jackson supported slavery. There’s no doubt about that. His family members, including his nephew, purchased, traded, mistreated their slaves. On an individual level, even within the White House, Jackson’s family would often spend time dealing with the logistics of their slave ownership–how to buy and sell, how to transport, etc. On a Presidential level, Jackson’s contradiction in supporting and allowing slavery to continue stands in stark contrast to his strong views against nullification. During the Nullification Crisis, Jackson was prepared to mobilize every bit of force he had as the Executive to quash the dissenting nullifiers. In that crisis, Jackson was a strong supporter of federalism, and by extension, the liberties of the Constitution from which federalism derived, including individual liberties. He was willing to stake that against the states’ rights argument, and was willing to mobilize arms and force to defend that position. With slavery, however, Jackson took a very contradictory approach.
Basically, there were these abolitionists who wanted to hold a rally in South Carolina and use the public mail to disseminate anti-slavery literature. Crowds in South Carolina attacked and suppressed them, and destroyed their mailings. It was very similar to the reaction down there during the Nullification Crisis. Jackson, however, chose not to be consistent. As ardently as he opposed nullification, he supported South Carolina’s rights to suppress the abolitionists. I’m still in the middle of the details of all of this, but Jackson even went so far as to request from Congress a national law that called for punishment of abolitionists who, in his eyes, were inciting violence. Jackson also seemed to agree with his rival Calhoun that such rebellions could not be tolerated nor endorsed by the federal government, and the states’ rights issue of maintaining the slavery institution was an important American priority.
Now, obviously, that is sad. Maybe sad isn’t even the right word. There should be shame , yes, that our history is based on this legacy, but as I have said before, I think that it is equally important that we as a people look to this history with a clear eye to see where we were, where we are, and what our obligations are to where we are going. Not all problems can be traced to this historical lineage, but some surely can.
As Meacham summarized, by Jackson taking the side of states’ rights on the issue of slavery and suppressing the speech of abolitionists against slavery, Jackson was not only living a strong philosophical contradiction vis a vis Nullification, but he essentially set the tone that the rights embodied in the Constitution certainly did not apply to the enslaved people but also by extension did not apply to the free people who opposed this institution. That the terrible institution of slavery was more important than the individual rights of free people to print and to assemble and to speak in a most basic way. Even if you take the moral relativism of the time at face value and somehow justify that “all people are created equal” excluded the enslaved, the acidity of that argument is neutralized by the base notion that the rights of even free people (Abolitionists) would not be protected if they spoke out against the institution. As was the situation with Jackson on the Native American question and the Indian Removal Act of 1830, it was more important for Jackson to preserve the rights of only some free people, not all free people (including law abiding native populations). Thus, I think that Jackson’s response to Nullification should be looked at primarily to protect his own power, and only secondarily from a purest belief of protecting and safeguarding federalism and protecting the liberties of the Constitution over states’ interests. The only conclusion that I can draw is that Jackson found it politically expedient to preserve federalism when it came to the tariff but not when it came to the protection of rights of free abolitionists (at the very least) and the abomination of slavery (at the very most).
Although Jackson was confined to the limtations of his times, so too were the abolitionists who recognized the larger questions of morality. One of these abolitionists was also a President–former President John Quincy Adams. I apologize if I come across as biased from a modern perspective, but I do believe that the contemporary evidence and justification was there for Jackson to at least take a more appropriate approach to the question of slavery, even if he didn’t go all the way.
What does this mean for us? There are a lot of things I would want to think through. But I have strange initial reactions to all of this. I still think that it is amazing that we ever moved ourselves, on our own, from the checkered legacies of our past. That, political beliefs aside, it is just freaking amazing that we could go from Jefferson to Jackson, from Lincoln to Roosevelt, from Kennedy to Reagan and to Obama in just 200 years. I continue to believe that knowing this history is important for all of us. Not so much in a deprecating or self-apologetic way. But moreso in order to try and understand who we are as a people. That our legacy is linked to a lineage of choices, powerful and weak, righteous and questionable, on a micro and macro scale. That our journey in such a short time, relative to other countries, cultures, and societies, has taken us so far. It actually fills me with optimism, that should we check our biases (or maybe more importantly recognize our biases), myself included, and look at the past with curiosity and then quickly turn our heads to the present, we can be in awe of both where we are, and where we still want to go.
I sometimes look at historical injustices and feel shackled and burdened and weighed down by them. And it makes me resort to feelings of self-loathing that as a society we are tied to such a terrible legacy that we will never be able to shed the skin of our unjust past and keep the body dreaming of a free and peaceful society for all, a more perfect union. Events like the terrible Orlando attack this week bolster this thought for me, and sometimes it feels like we are trapped in this infinite loop, manifestations of the old templates of hate, that each act of terror and tragedy is a new incarnation of either some deep ancient hate or a fresh new hate that festers either inter- and intra-society. And that hate is only begetting hate is only begetting hate… But then, sometimes I feel that by just looking at our history for what it is, nonjudgmentally and simultaneously with our own biased perspectives, we can lift a huge burden for ourselves. That we can’t solve our modern problems by looking at history, but we can see the path that we have taken to get where we are. And we can see the delta of change that we’ve experienced.
Make no mistake, I don’t believe that every instance of modern tragedy finds blame or explanation in the past. Often times it doesn’t. Often times, tragedy is the starting point, not a point of traversal. What I do think though, now more than ever, is that regardless of origin the slope of the curve, is positive given enough time. That it dips up and down, but it trends upwards. That we can go from a society where President after President after President endorses slavery, and that if you were to zero in at any given moment in that time or in our time, it seems futile that anything will ever change for the better, but looking back on the aggregate, you see that the derivative of change was positive. Perhaps this is what Dr. King meant when he said that the “arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” I’m not sure how much of my reading of Jackson is relevant to all of this, but I will say that reading about his contradictions, it at least makes me view modern society through this lens a little more.
6/16/2016 comments:
Jackson’s presidency has come to an end. Here are the latest issues that came about during his final year in office.
Mexico, Texas and the United States. During the 1830s, Texas was a territory owned by Mexico. Many European/Anglo-Americans had settled into Texas at that point, including Stephen F. Austin and Sam Houston. During the last year of Jackson’s presidency, Texas started a rebellion against Mexico. The leader of Mexico was the famous Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, who was a strong leader of Mexico and fiercely fought against the rebellion in Texas. I will only scratch the surface of the conflict here, but basically Austin and Houston attempted a rebellion and were defeated at the Battle at the Alamo. Houston’s forces won a subsequent engagement using the now famous battle cry: “Remember the Alamo!” Ultimately, Santa Anna was defeated and captured. Texas and Mexico signed a treaty that recognized the independence of the Republic of Texas, and Santa Anna was released back to Mexico. There’s a hell of a lot more details here that I don’t know about, but I do know that there’s a Mexican-American war coming up and maybe this planted the seeds for it.
The Second Seminole War. The Second Seminole War began when the Seminole tribe resisted their westward removal. This war began in the last year of Jackson’s presidency, but went on for a long-ass time, seven years, mostly during Van Buren’s presidency, so I am sure that I will learn about this soon.
Trail of Tears. Another notch in the belt of Jackson’s dubious legacy. In instituting removal of the Cherokee people from Georgia to west of the Mississippi, Jackson signed a treaty (Treaty of New Echota) with the Cherokee people exchanging all of their land on Georgia for land in present day Oklahoma. Except the people who signed on behalf of the Cherokee people represented a very small fraction of what could be called representative authority. There were 16,000 Cherokees in Georgia and something like 95% of them supported this other Chief. But Jackson and Van Buren signed the treaty with a faction group of the tribe that was never recognized by the tribal people as authoritative. The Jackson administration then forcefully removed the Cherokee people in accordance with the “treaty.” This forceful removal westward was called the “Trail of Tears.” Of the 16,000 Cherokee, around 4,000 people died during removal. So basically, the administration signed into law this ridiculous Congressional Act (Indian Removal Act of 1930), agreed to a bullshit treaty that flies in the face of general contract legal theory, and then essentially eradicated 25% of the Cherokee population by forcing them off their land. Not our finest hour.
The gag rule. Another sterling moment in US History. Though this wasn’t really Jackson’s fault. The US House of Representative voted to institute a procedural motion that basically tabled any motion/bill/amendment or other legislative issue that involved slavery. So, in effect, representatives of abolitionists and others who questioned slavery couldn’t even raise the issue on the House floor. John Quincy Adams, for as uninspiring as his Presidency was, really gets a lot of credit in my mind for his seemingly impassioned speech on the House floor against this rule. JQA also later advocated for the freeing of enslaved people on the Amistad. So it goes to show you that influential presidencies does not always equate influential Presidents. The Senate had it’s own implicit version of the gag rule, though not explicitly adopted.
Donnelson family. One thing I’ve realized that I haven’t really commented on much during the bio summary is the influence that the Donnelson family had on Jackson. Jackson’s wife Rachel died in 1828 after his election to the Presidency, but her family came to live with him at the White House. Andrew Donnelson, Rachel’s nephew, had particular influence on Jackson throughout his presidency (he would later be a VP candidate for the no-nothing party in the 1850s). Andrew Donnelson’s wife, Emily, died at the age of 29 during the last year of Jackson’s presidency, which served as an eerie bookend to Jackson losing his wife Rachel at the start of his presidency.
6/20/2016 comments:
I finished the book. I actually finished it on Thursday last week, but didn’t put my last entry in. I was mainly waiting to think about what I’m going to do to sum it all up. This is a work in progress, but I’m thinking that I’m going to do four things in a recap post: (1) a 200 word summary; (2) a longer summary that is reasonable in length; (3) my favorite segment summaries of the book and (4) what I was doing during the time of reading this bio.
Not much new material in the last few pages of the book. Mainly Meacham recaping and summarizing Jackson’s impact. Basically, the thesis that Meacham put together was that Jackson was a strong President flawed by both the moral settings of his time and his own temperaments. He fought hard to protect the Union during the Nullification Crisis but did not fight hard against slavery. However, Meacham summarizes Jackson laid the foundation of a strong Union upon which future generations could pick up the baton and address these issues. It makes me think again of our role as stewards of this society in this age.
I’ll have to think about everything and digest it for a summary. I look forward to doing that. Van Buren is next, though I might take a break and listen to another audio book in between.
Book Summaries. Less than 272 words. 