March 15, 1767 – Birth of Andrew Jackson & Review of “American Lion” by Jon Meacham

Jon Meacham won a Pulitzer Prize for this biography of Andrew Jackson, probably because it is well-written, and most Americans know precious little about Jackson or the United States in the 1830’s. In my opinion, however, the book suffers from the author’s emphasis on the interpersonal relations between Jackson and his surrogate family (his wife died shortly after he was elected president), while giving somewhat short shrift to the key political and economic issues of the day. Even when discussing the key issues, Meacham spends more ink on who was winning (Jackson almost always won) than the merits of the disputes.

Jackson was born on this day in history into the Scots-Irish community in the Waxhaw Settlement between North Carolina and South Carolina, British America. His early life is summarized by Meacham, but the focus of this book is on his presidency. Jackson and his Vice Presidential candidate John C. Calhoun handily defeated John Quincy Adams in 1828. Many today don’t realize that during the election, Jackson’s opponents referred to him as a “jackass”. Jackson liked the name and used the jackass as a symbol for a while, but it died out. However, it became the symbol for the Democratic Party when cartoonist Thomas Nast popularized it later in the century.

1837 lithograph believed to be the first ever image associating the jackass with Jackson’s party.

In office, Jackson appointed John Henry Eaton as his Secretary of War. Jackson had been instrumental in introducing Eaton to his wife, Margaret, known as Peggy. Peggy became a liability for both Eton and Jackson because she was intemperate and outspoken and because she seems to have married Eaton while still married to another man. Jackson had great sympathy for the Eatons, perhaps because their situation was somewhat similar to Jackson’s with his wife, Rachael, whom he may have married a little before her divorce.

John Henry Eaton

Meacham expends many words on the Eaton affair as a public scandal and source of contention in his cabinet, and perhaps that is appropriate. At least one entire cabinet meeting was devoted to resolving how to deal with the issue. Indeed, Meacham attributes the success of Martin Van Buren and the failure of John C. Calhoun to influence Jackson to their respective stances on the Eaton affair. Yet, I can’t help thinking Meacham could have devoted more space to issues like Indian removal and the Bank of the United States and less to the question of which Washington wives were willing to exchange visits with the Eatons.

One issue Meacham does handle adroitly is that of the crisis over the tariff and South Carolina’s efforts to “nullify” it. Southern planters did not like having to pay Yankee manufacturers “exorbitant” prices for goods. Had not a comprehensive protective tariff been imposed upon them by the northern states, the goods could have been purchased from foreign suppliers at lower prices. Of even more concern to them was the possibility that the northern states would use their leverage to restrict or eliminate slavery through legislation. Thus Calhoun and others promulgated a doctrine of nullification that would have permitted individual states to ignore federal legislation unfavorable to them.

Cartoon drawn during the nullification controversy showing the manufacturing North getting fat at Southern expense.

Jackson saw the nullification theory as tantamount to the power to secede from the Union. Jackson asked for and received from Congress authority to enforce the tariff by military force if necessary. However, he was also instrumental in reducing the rates of many of the import duties. One of the main thrusts of Jackson’s second inaugural address was directed at opposing the nullification doctrine. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln analyzed Jackson’s address in formulating his own legal theories in opposition to the South’s later secession. The combination of the authorized military action, reduced duties, and Jackson’s eloquence was sufficient to defuse the nullification crisis, and the southern states did not ignore federal law for another twenty-four years.

In contrast to his coverage of nullification, Meacham says little about Indian removal (the forceful relocation of virtually all Indians from the southern states to lands west of the Mississippi) except to point out that Jackson was its leading proponent. [White Georgians wanted the valuable land in their state for themselves and the state legislature enacted laws designed to force Native Americans to migrate west. John Marshall’s Supreme Court declared the Georgia laws invalid, but Jackson ignored this decision. When the Cherokees refused to leave, Jackson sent troops who forced them at gunpoint to sign a treaty giving up their lands. Three years later they were driven along the “trail of tears” to the barren wastes of Indian Territory (today’s Oklahoma). Thousands died during or just after this journey. For excellent coverage of this issue, see the book Jacksonland by Steve Inskeep.]

Map of United States Indian Removal, 1830-1835

Even less satisfying is Meacham’s treatment of the controversy over the Bank of the United States, the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton. We learn that Jackson was against it, saying it financed the political campaigns of his enemies, and that Nicholas Biddle, the Bank president, was for it. Nowhere does he discuss the merits of the bank (remember, this was before there was a federal reserve) or whether Jackson’s allegations of favoritism toward his rivals had any substance to them. Only one paragraph is devoted to the fact that a financial panic and severe depression struck the country just months after Jackson left office. Meacham mentions that there is “much historical debate” over the effects of Jackson’s economic policies, but doesn’t characterize or even describe the debate.

Meacham’s description of Jackson as a person is well-wrought. He owned 150 slaves, and freed none of them, even upon his death. He was formidable and an exceptionally strong leader. After Jackson’s death, when one of his slaves was asked whether he thought Jackson had gone to heaven, the slave answered, “If the General wants to go, who’s going to stop him?”

He was the first president to use the veto power against legislation simply because he disagreed with it — prior presidents had vetoed only bills they thought were unconstitutional. He justified his exercise of power by the fact that the president was the only person elected by “all the people.” (In those days, senators were elected by state legislatures.) This exercise of power, however, included the tendency to reward those loyal to him and punish his enemies. But the conflicts were couched in such a way as to make it seem as if it were the will of the people versus a disdainful elite. Meacham does not analyze the repercussions of this type of populism.

Andrew Jackson as most people know him today

Evaluation: This book focuses too much on the personal to the detriment of the political. In the current political climate, readers could benefit by learning about a president who claimed to represent the little people, and then used to office to go after his internal enemies no matter what the cost to country and decency. Those who choose this book should make careful comparison to other historical treatments of Jackson, in order to get the full story.

Rating: 3/5

Published by Random House, 2008