I’ve been spending a lot of time reading Daniel Walker Howe’s What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. This book is another outstanding contribution to the Oxford History of the United States series. Howe’s work might be the best of the bunch so far, I don’t know.
Anyway, his handling of Andrew Jackson and his legacy has really been interesting and thought provoking. Howe avoided using terms such as “Jacksonian America” and he did so as Jackson was a very controversial figure who tended to divide American, which, for example, was in staunch contrast to Monroe who was pretty much the opposite. To call this era as being “Jacksonian” is probably not historically accurate.
So how do you teach Jackson? I have to admit, part of me really finds a no-nonsense president who had actually fought in a battle (and killed) kinda appealing considering the ilk we get today.
Jackson’s era was complicated, crazy, and incredibly American. It was a time of lots of things, both good and bad: massive expansion, technological and transportation revolutions, and of course, slavery.
Interestingly, I see a lot of similarities with Jackson and President George W. Bush. Though even if future historians are tempted, I hope they don’t label us “Bushonian,” Gawd (wink) that would be horrificationally (wink) bad.
However, looking at the two, the similarities are interesting. Both won by running as “outsiders.” Though Jackson won the popular vote decidedly, Bush did not.
But continuing, both had presidency’s that were decidedly divisive, polarizing, and highly scrutinized. Jackson seemed to have created the Democratic party by dismantling its predecessor, and the Bush presidency has probably seriously altered the Republican party.
From the polarizing effects of Jackson and his opposition emerged two parties: the Democratic Republicans, or Democrats, adhering to Jackson; and the National Republicans, or Whigs, opposing him. Both evolving from the old Republican Party. Today, the Republican party might very well be undone after Bush is gone as well. There are already ramifications.
Both were criticized and saw members of their party abandon them because of their policies, and both are seen as cowboys or westerners.
Jackson, an unapologetic racist and white supremest (much like most whites of his time). Bush, rightly or wrongly, was not beloved by such groups as the NAACP and La Raza.
Bush will probably be remember as a gunslinger or warmonger, or something of sort. Jackson had killed and was always up for a duel.
And as the election comes around, something else to note, when Van Buren succeeded Jackson as a candidate, it was described as “Jackson’s Third Term,” and today political opponents are calling McCain, “Bush’s Third Term,” as well.
This is not a “political” post but an observation. I take no sides, express no ideological belief, but only seek to find some kind of “historical sense” within the here and now, as well as the past. So please, do not enter comments blasting Bush or anyone else, they will be deleted. If you wish to make an intelligent observation, please do!!
President Bush’s “outsiderness” is part of the standard part of most recent politician’s image isn’t it? Jimmy Carter was an outsider, Ronald Reagan was an outsider, Bill Clinton was an outsider, George W. Bush is an outsider. Both Obama and McCain cultivate, in different ways, an outsider image.
Jackson was very different from the presidents who came before. He wasn’t a gentleman, he wasn’t from Virginia, or an Adams. President Bush wasn’t the first Yalie, the first Texan, or even the first Bush to be president.
Jackson was in several wars, as a military man, but his presidency wasn’t particular warlike(unless you were Cherokee). President Bush avoided his generation’s war, but will be defined and to a great extent defined himself as a war president.
Jackson expanded the role of the presidency by his actions against the Cherokee in defiance of the Supreme Court, his strong language(but skillful handling) of the nullification crisis, his successful assault on the US Bank. In the fight on terrorism, Bush expanded the powers of the executive as well.
Jackson, extended the franchise and made the nominating process more democratic.
Of course, Bush is a man of our time, and Jackson was a man of his.
I am mindful of not turning this into a modern day political debate, and hope I didn’t do that.
Matt, thanks for the post. Good point on Jackson as the first and of course ultimate “outsider.”
C
Outside of military service, is Jackson the only president to shoot someone? I can’t think of anyone else.
Lincoln was involved in a comic opera of a duel of course, but no one got hurt. Zach Taylor? James Monroe?
Very strange that you put together this essay just now, as I have been meditating on how much McCAIN reminds me of Jackson, and should he get the chance to serve, how he might replicate Jackson’s style. Jackson had a talent for pissing off just about everyone around him at some time or other, as does McCain. They share a hard-headedness, temper, and eccentric past.
JRW clearly you are mistaken to identify McCain with Jackson… He’s not even a President and hardly compares on any level close to Jackson, a two term president – especially concerning the characteristics you mention. President Bush would clearly be the comparison to make.
C
Chris, I understand your point, but I was not comparing Presidential service but personality and party politics. McCain likes to think of himself as a maverick, has abandoned his party on several occasions (remember the “Gang of 14″?), and seems just as hard-line about his own opinions as Jackson.
I like your blog, but I find your response to my above post a bit ungenerous and condescending.