American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House

“Wrestling was a common pastime, and a contemporary who squared off against Jackson recalled, ‘I could throw him 3 times out of 4, but he would never stay throwed.’”

Jackson’s determination to get back up signifies his relentless spirit and unwillingness to accept defeat. The anecdote also reflects Jackson’s physical and mental toughness. Wrestling, which requires both physical strength and mental resilience, serves as a metaphor for the challenges Jackson encountered.

“Citizens who visit the President must not fall into the egregious error of supposing that they may treat him as the Farmer of Tennessee, or the unpretending republican.”

This quote shows the duality of Andrew Jackson’s public identity. On one hand, he was the self-made man from Tennessee, a symbol of the common people’s aspirations and values. On the other, as president, he was expected to embody the nation’s highest office with all its associated gravitas and formality. This duality speaks to the broader theme of the evolving nature of American democracy, where leaders were beginning to be seen as representatives of the common people yet still had to maintain a certain level of respect and authority.

“By the Eternal! I will not remove the old man—I cannot remove him. Why, Mr. Wright, do you not know that he carries more than a pound of British lead in his body?”

In a desperate attempt to save his job, the Federalist Van Rensselaer showed Jackson his war wounds, evoking an emotional response from the president. The mention of “a pound of British lead” in Van Rensselaer’s body serves as a reminder of the personal sacrifices made by the veteran, recalling Jackson’s own experiences and principles. This moment reveals Jackson’s willingness to overlook political logic and partisan pressures in favor of honoring bravery and service.

“Ely was both sanctimonious and salacious, questioning the honor of one of Jackson’s dearest friends, assailing his friend’s wife in detail, and tying Rachel to the current scandal.”

By adopting a morally superior tone, Reverend Ely attempted to position himself as a guardian of virtue and propriety, ostensibly acting out of concern for Jackson’s reputation and the integrity of his administration. However, Ely’s detailed and lurid recounting of the allegations against Mrs. Eaton and his willingness to drag Rachel Jackson into the scandal suggests a different motive. Ely’s sanctimoniousness is a veneer for his real aim: to influence Jackson’s decisions by leveraging the power of scandal and public opinion. Ely’s questioning of the honor of one of Jackson’s dearest friends, Major Eaton, and the detailed assault on Mrs. Eaton’s character reveal a calculated effort to manipulate Jackson. By emphasizing the alleged moral failings of Mrs. Eaton in explicit terms, Ely sought to create a sense of urgency and moral panic.

“The Cherokees, who took on every ‘civilizing’ custom the white man asked of them—writing a constitution, developing an alphabet, publishing a newspaper, farming, and living in peace—were key targets, save for the rich land on which they lived.”

This quote shows the hypocrisy and contradictions in the American government’s policy toward Indigenous Americans. The Cherokees’ efforts to adopt the cultural and societal norms of white Americans were supposed to integrate them into American society and secure their rights to their land and way of life. However, even assimilation was insufficient to protect their interests in the face of relentless white expansionism and greed for land. The “civilizing” policies promoted by the US government were in practice merely a façade: The real goal was the acquisition of land, and any means of achieving this end were deemed acceptable.

“Van Buren probably would have outfoxed Calhoun in the end anyway—the Eaton affair only exacerbated and exaggerated fundamental differences of political opinion, chiefly on the question of the nature of the Union, between Calhoun and Jackson, but it would probably have been more difficult, and taken longer.”

The Eaton Affair, while personal and scandalous, served as a catalyst that brought underlying political disagreements to the forefront. The scandal provided a convenient and immediate battleground for these larger issues to be contested. It allowed Jackson and Van Buren to frame their opposition to Calhoun in terms of loyalty and personal integrity, as well as political ideology.

“As usual, Margaret had done herself little good by talking. Much of the to-ing and fro-ing between the president, the clergy, and the Eatons was known because of Margaret, Mrs. Adams said: ‘All this got abroad from the intemperate language of the Lady.’”

Jon Meacham portrays Margaret Eaton’s outspoken nature as a negative force that exacerbated the controversy surrounding her. Meacham’s description of her language as “intemperate” and suggestion that she did herself “little good by talking” implicitly align with the societal expectations of the time, which demanded discretion and restraint, particularly from women. This characterization subtly places the blame for the scandal on Margaret’s behavior rather than on the societal prejudices and the double standards that fueled the controversy.

“The words that came to Jackson that morning now provoked a gasp from Southerners: ‘Our Union—it must be preserved.’”

Jackson’s statement, made during a commemorative dinner for Thomas Jefferson, was a clear and bold assertion of his belief in the supremacy of the Union over sectional interests. It was unexpected and shocking to many Southerners, who had hoped for a more sympathetic stance toward their cause of state sovereignty and opposition to federal tariffs. The simplicity and directness of his wording conveyed an unequivocal message: Jackson viewed the survival of the United States as a single, indivisible entity as paramount.

“And so the president of the United States and his secretary were reduced to an epistolary battle over grammar, sniping at and professing love for each other, often in the same paragraph.”

The personal dynamics between Jackson and Andrew Donelson mirrored the larger political battles Jackson faced, developing the theme of the Intersection of Private Lives and Public Roles. Their correspondence was not just about resolving personal misunderstandings but also about asserting control and influence within Jackson’s inner circle. The intense emotions expressed in their letters, alternating between love and criticism, reveal the high stakes of their relationship and the pressure both men felt to navigate their personal loyalty and political ambitions.

“Jackson had let him down and was ‘as jealous of his military fame as ever was Othello of his wife and easily played upon with it by the cunning men by whom he is surrounded.’”

Calhoun, once a close ally and now a rival, felt disillusioned by Jackson’s leadership. Comparing Jackson to Othello, Calhoun not only questions Jackson’s judgment but also paints a picture of a president ensnared by his own vanity and the machinations of those around him. Jackson’s military successes were a cornerstone of his public image and political capital, but Calhoun’s critique implies that unscrupulous advisors and politicians could exploit this very strength.

“What Jackson did say, to John Coffee, was: ‘The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.’”

Jackson’s reaction indicates his belief in a strong executive authority that can override other branches when necessary; it also showcases his willingness to subordinate constitutional and legal principles to his political agenda and the interests of his allies. Jackson’s statement that the decision “cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate” reveals the constraints on the judiciary in the absence of executive enforcement. Overall, Jackson’s stance challenged the balance of power among the branches of government, which is key to the book’s discussion of the Expansion of Executive Power.

“Beyond the capital, though, Kendall’s Hickory Clubs were creating a sense of excitement around Jackson’s reelection, a sense, for voters, of belonging to a larger and grander cause than the ordinary work of their days. It was, in a way, politics as entertainment, but it was also a serious, even sacred undertaking.”

The Hickory Clubs offered voters a sense of belonging and purpose, positioning Jackson’s campaign as a grand cause that transcended their daily routines. This strategy mobilized support and fostered a collective enthusiasm that extended beyond the traditional confines of political engagement. This approach not only boosted Jackson’s popularity but also reinforced the idea that democracy was a participatory endeavor.

“Consider the extent of its territory, its increasing and happy population, its advance in arts which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our Territories and States. Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support. Look on this picture of happiness and honor and say, We too are citizens of America.”

In his Nullification Proclamation, Jackson paints a vivid and idealized picture of the United States. His depiction of America as a land of opportunity and progress seeks to inspire a sense of pride and unity among its citizens. This vision of America is not just a physical space but a beacon of enlightenment and civilization, spreading education and moral values throughout its expanse. Jackson aims to remind his South Carolina audience of the benefits they enjoy as American citizens to counteract the divisive sentiments of nullification and secession.

“Solemnly impressed with these considerations, my countrymen will ever find me ready to exercise my constitutional powers in arresting measures which may directly or indirectly encroach upon the rights of the states or tend to consolidate all political power in the general government.”

In his second inaugural address, Jackson acknowledges that his proactive stance may be viewed with skepticism or concern by those who fear an overreach of executive authority. He anticipates criticism from both political opponents and supporters who are wary of any actions that might consolidate too much power in the presidency or the federal government as a whole. Jackson’s words demonstrate his attempt to reassure these critics by framing his actions within the bounds of constitutional legitimacy.

“Still, blood had been drawn. It was the first such physical assault on an American president, and the country reacted nervously, seeing the assassination attempt as a sign of more fundamental tensions.”

In Meacham’s telling, the assassination attempt on Jackson reflects the intense and often volatile nature of political discourse during his presidency. Jackson’s tenure saw fierce partisanship and contentious policies, which polarized public opinion. The attempt on his life exposed the extreme measures that some individuals were willing to take to oppose him. This event therefore serves as a stark reminder of the potential consequences of political extremism.

“Are you prepared to give up the Republic? This is a struggle to maintain a government of the people against the most heartless of all aristocracies, that of money.”

Kendall’s dramatic rhetoric emphasizes the populist and anti-elitist dimensions of Jackson’s political stance, framing the Bank War as a fight against entrenched financial interests. He taps into American antipathy toward hereditary privilege and inequality, mobilizing public sentiment against the Bank and its perceived overreach.

“As I recall that in treating the question on the same basis in 1812, Mr. Madison brought about Congress’ declaration of war on England.”

Sérurier’s statement reflects his awareness of the precariousness of the situation and his attempt to prevent history from repeating itself. In drawing this parallel, he seeks to encourage a more measured and conciliatory approach to the dispute over the French indemnity payments. The invocation of the War of 1812 reminds all parties involved that the stakes are high and that diplomatic channels must be exhausted to prevent a repeat of past conflicts.

“The deposits issue was the occasion, therefore, for a broad struggle—and the conflicts of the spring of 1834 brought a new force to life: a formal second party in opposition to Jackson’s Democrats.”

The opposition to Jackson’s aggressive executive actions coalesced into a more organized and structured political force, giving rise to the Whig Party. The Whigs, drawing their name from the British party that opposed monarchical tyranny, framed themselves as defenders of constitutional government and the rule of law against what they perceived as Jackson’s autocratic tendencies. The Whig Party’s emergence solidified a two-party system in the United States, providing a structured platform for political opposition and debate that shaped the future of American democracy.

“On Monday, February 22, 1836, in a message to Congress, Jackson quoted George Washington: ‘There is a rank due to the United States among nations which will be withheld, if not absolutely lost, by the reputation of weakness. If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it. If we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known that we are at all times, ready for war.’”

Andrew Jackson invokes the authority of George Washington to assert the importance of national strength and readiness for war. Aligning his views with those of a revered founding father reinforces his argument with historical gravitas. This perspective reflects Jackson’s broader approach to policy, which was characterized by a firm stance against threats to American sovereignty or prestige.

“Blair’s newspaper, the Republican said, carried ‘the grossest calumnies against Judge White,’ […] Jackson himself, the Republican said, would never ‘lend himself to such uses knowingly and willfully. In this conviction we are confirmed by the subscriptions of those envelopes which we have seen, and which are not in the handwriting of the President, but in the handwriting of another individual, whose position gives him great facilities in affording these advantages to his political friends.’”

Mudslinging was a common strategy employed by political factions to sway public opinion and diminish the appeal of their adversaries. The Republican’s claim that the Globe, a pro-Jackson publication, was spreading defamatory statements about Judge White suggests a deliberate attempt to show Jackson’s camp as engaging in unethical practices. The effectiveness of mudslinging in this era was amplified by the limited avenues for rebuttal and the public’s reliance on newspapers for information. The Republican’s assertion that the defamatory messages were distributed using the presidential franking privilege further insinuated a clandestine effort to manipulate the electorate.

“‘Spare the rod and spoil the child,’ Emily would say in arguments about discipline with Jackson, who would reply: ‘I think, Emily, with all due deference to the Good Book, that love and patience are better disciplinarians than rods.’”

This quote reveals a side of Andrew Jackson that sharply contrasts with the commonly held perception of him as a fierce, uncompromising leader. This anecdote suggests that Jackson’s approach to personal relationships, especially within his family, was governed by a philosophy of care and understanding rather than the rigid enforcement of rules and the harsher, more authoritarian methods he employed in his public life. It is therefore an exception to the general correspondence Mecham identifies between public and private character.

“Worried that anti-slavery forces were about to destroy the country, Jackson said: ‘There is doubtless no respectable portion of our countrymen who can be so far misled as to feel any other sentiment than that of indignant regret at conduct so destructive of the harmony and peace of the country’”

Framing the abolitionists’ efforts as a threat to peace and order, Jackson aligned himself with the pro-enslavement factions that saw the preservation of enslavement as integral to the nation’s economic and social fabric. His fear that abolitionist activities could “destroy the country” suggests a perception that any disturbance to the status quo could lead to widespread instability and possibly civil conflict. This outlook was not uncommon among political leaders of the time, who often prioritized national unity and economic interests over the moral and humanitarian arguments against slavery.

“Soon Jackson stood, leaning on a cane, in the Hermitage church, declaring his faith. It was a world away from the Waxhaw meetinghouse—so many years, so much strife, so many battles, so many struggles. Yet he had returned, in a way, to the place where he had first set out.”

Jackson’s declaration of faith symbolizes a full circle in his life, bringing him back to the religious roots of his early years. This moment in the Hermitage church is a reconnection with his past and a reconciliation with the values and beliefs that his public life may have overshadowed. It represents a moment of introspection and perhaps an attempt to find peace and meaning after a lifetime of conflict and public service. This act of declaring his faith can be seen as a final affirmation of his identity, grounded in the simple, steadfast faith of his upbringing.