|
Post by Jim Boylston on Jan 15, 2010 18:41:56 GMT -5
I give Jackson credit for his handling of the nullification crisis but that's about it in terms of the big issues. Indian removal was indefensible, his determination to kill the bank at all costs was ill conceived and reckless, and he was too driven by personal agendas in other areas. I don't even think his drive to consolidate power in the executive branch was ideological, I think it was ego driven. Everything was always about him, and he took any opposition as personal insult. Jackson's was one of the most important administrations in U.S. history, but I think AJ was a very petty, vindictive man. His public image as a man of the people was a political construct. He had very little in common with his constituents, and didn't do much for them. As Thomas P. Abernethy wrote of Jackson, "He thought he was sincere when he spoke to the people, yet he never really championed their cause. He merely encouraged them to champion his." Jim
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 15, 2010 19:50:56 GMT -5
I will agree, the abolitionists probably were not as a big concern to the slave owners as the concept of a slave rebellion, which was a very big fear--as it was in Texas at the time of the rebellion--. Jackson understood that beneath the Tariff issue was also a concern about slavery. So, Jackson kept the Union together, but also made sure not to threaten slavery (which of course, as a slave holder was not in his best interest). The destruction of US mail to stop abolitionists prublications is a good example of Jackson trying to not allow anything to challange slavery or promote slave uprisings. That can also be said of the Second Seminole War: remember that presure was on from the South to stop runanway slaves from finding a haven among the Seminoles.
I think the traditional historic record of Jackson was that he saved the Union and prevent war while at the same time helping to create a new interpretation (and in fact recreating the role) of the presidencey. Now, we tend to balance this with the Indian Removal Bill and other aspects of his administration. I will agree, the champion of the people was not the friend of the common man. The bottom line on the Jackson's determindation was flix on his bullheadness. If he did not like it or you, that was pretty much it (of course, he did later play nice with the Benton's).
Part of the Indian Removal effected our area. The last of the Kickappos were removed (by treaty) from here with out much concern or comment from locals in 1833. The Pottawatomie's were driven out of Indiana in 1838 and pass through here on their Trail of Death. Again, little if any comment, about that event in the local papers. I think there was a fealing by many Americans this was all wrong, but on the frontier, I think they were happy to get rid of them--and get the prairie cultivated.
Which is why Crockett, a man of the frontier with some moral sense, stands out so because of his opposition.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 15, 2010 22:01:33 GMT -5
Haven't seen that one, RR, sounds interesting. Meacham doesn't cover Jackson's early life in American Lion. I'm not a fan of Jackson either, and AL hasn't changed my mind about him, but I don't think that was Meacham's intent. The author does a good job of explaining Jackson's thought processes without making a lot of excuses for some of his more regrettable actions. I find that I have a better understanding of Jackson, but don't necessarily sympathize with him. American Lion explains why Jackson's presidency was so important, and how it affected the evolution of the office. For good and bad. I'm wrapping up the book tonight and hope to continue our discussion here. Jim He was definitely a major hisitorical figure, but for the moment I'm satisfied with the recent Andrew Jackson documentary on Public Television. Meacham participated along with several other noted historians. Have you guys seen this film? Andrew Jackson: Good, Evil and the Presidency www.pbs.org/kcet/andrewjackson/
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 15, 2010 22:32:17 GMT -5
I saw that documentary and a comparable one on the History Channel around the same time. I thought both were hagiographic and somewhat superficial. You just can't cover these issues and nuances in any depth in a 2-hour film.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 17, 2010 12:39:57 GMT -5
I saw that documentary and a comparable one on the History Channel around the same time. I thought both were hagiographic and somewhat superficial. You just can't cover these issues and nuances in any depth in a 2-hour film. Allen Well, the African American historians and the Indian historians (including the woman talking head on the Creek Wars) were pretty negative on the PBS one: but the spin at the end, that Jackson screwed all of these folks (everyone except the white male) but by doing it pathed the way for them to get unscrewed was an interesting justification. Finished the book-walked away pleased with it, and have some better insights. Still not a Jackson fan, historically speaking.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 17, 2010 16:34:53 GMT -5
I think that sums it up well Kevin, re: Meacham's book. I thought it worth reading. I also agree the PBS special was more balanced than the History Channel; was that part of the "American Experience" series? Those PBS programs are a cut above other TV stuff.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jan 17, 2010 16:43:46 GMT -5
I think that sums it up well Kevin, re: Meacham's book. I thought it worth reading. I also agree the PBS special was more balanced than the History Channel; was that part of the "American Experience" series? Those PBS programs are a cut above other TV stuff. Allen Tonight on Monster Quest-Andy Jackson hunts the Lou-Lou and the Loup-garous in the Louisiana Swamps.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 17, 2010 18:03:20 GMT -5
Heady stuff!
|
|
|
Post by crocketteer58 on Oct 18, 2010 22:53:31 GMT -5
Have read the book twice and am more mystified than ever, at this fascinating contradictory soul. So much in his life, from the Revolution, to duels, wars, and defying anyone he considered worthy of defying, majestic, passionate, with a sturdy absolutist stand to take Texas, and a horribly mismanaged removal of the Tribes, the Trail of Tears - (and this is no politically correct opinion - I understand the times for what they were, as much as we can from this vantage - of long ago and far away) - but looking through the events of each individual Native, when many were perfectly willing to compromise with the white culture, though the opposite was not so - with the exception of a few bold sincere patriots, like Crockett, and Houston - through his years as a devoted friend of certain of The Tribes. (And it makes one wonder, how Houston could possibly remain close with Jackson - knowing what he'd put into action, forcing the Cherokee out). Also, off the Jackson topic, what is it with certain historians, biographers and writers -- who portray Crockett and Houston as "friends"? - The 2004 film makes it appear they were more than aquaintences - but the truth being at that time, Jackson - through Polk and several of his "minions" - was for destroying the career of Crockett permanently - Houston - being close to Jackson - how could he feel any differently? I have thought on occasion of doing a screenplay - with Crockett serving at the side of Jackson in the Creek War, riding together with Polk to their early legislative work, before a rapid falling out, and whatever time he really spent with Houston - given what was to come - - - Crockett riding into the sunset and battling for the future of Texas (that Jackson, Houston and Polk all wanted, needed - to add to the USA - and the picture of Houston, weeks after Crockett's battling and dying for the new Texas Republic - Houston receiving the surrender from Santa Anna - then sending him to Washington, to meet with Jackson. (To have been a fly on THAT wall!) And a few years later, Santa Anna pulling a con on James Polk, receiving money, and time - before going back to fight the Americans again - In the end, we Americans did get our country shaped from sea to shining sea - but at what a horrific cost - the inevitable Civil War. Another imaginary thought - young Mr. Lincoln worked on keelboats, from Illinois to New Orleans & back , on the Mississippi - is it inconceivable, he may have met any number of the legendary characters, crossing the river - heading west to the destiny in Texas. Of course its unlikely - but an amazing number of now (and then) famous people crisscrossed that area, during those times.
|
|