Last night my history book club met to discuss American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House by Jon Meacham. It was agreed that the book was a good read that one might recommend to others. The book is better read as a biographical sketch of Jackson during his years in the White House rather than a history of the American presidency under Jackson. Thus it focuses a great deal on his private life, and some would have rather had more focus on the policies of his presidency.
The book makes clear that Jackson was a man of great talent. Starting as a poor orphan, he accumulated a fortune, apparently in part through land dealings. Trained as a lawyer, albeit with little formal education, he became an enormously successful military leader. He appears to have led in the creation of what became the first modern political party, showing a genius for politics. He changed the nature of the presidency in important ways that influence American government to this day, showing an immense talent for governance. How many others can you think of who were so multi-talented. (OK, Franklin, Jefferson, Benjamin Thompson but early America was very lucky that way.)
Perhaps his talent was due to innovation. He seemed not to easily accept the patterns laid down by others, seeking new ways to do things at least as a general, as a politician and as a chief of government.
Jackson established for future presidents the principle that the Union was indivisible and that the federal government laws took precedence over those of the states. He established a government that was responsive to the common man rather than an aristocratic elite. These were actions that have greatly influenced the future of the United States to our own day.
He was also a slave holder and supporter of slavery. He was in favor of expulsion of native Americans from east of the Mississippi and expropriation of their lands. As vile as these policies seem now, they were widely accepted in his time. Moreover, as I just posted, they may have contributed substantially to the wealth of the modern United States. (By the way, check out this posting by Matthew Yglesias pointing out that the economic lead of the United States over most European nations dates back more than a century -- the lead that policies in the 19th century provided this country over France and Germany played a significant role in the wealth we enjoy today.)
With his limited education, I wondered whether Jackson could accurately predict the long term effects of his policies. It seems unlikely, although as my fellow club members pointed out, some of our founding fathers seem to have done so.
It seems clear that the ideas and attitudes of the people around us deeply shape what we believe and do. (Check out Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives by Nicholas A. Christakis and James H. Fowler). The attitudes of the majority of people of his time and place seem very likely to have formed Jackson's attitudes towards slavery and native Americans. In that sense we may see negative aspects of his ideas and values as excusable in a man of his time. Should we also see the positive aspects of his ideas and values as the result of the "common sense" of his time and place?
A lot of the book was devoted to the battle that broke out among the wives of Jackson's cabinet members (including his own first lady, a younger relative) which seems to have resulted in the dissolution of his cabinet. The controversy was over the suspected immorality of the wife of one cabinet member, and the women in our group seemed doubtful that such a petty issue could have such grave repercussions, or that such a dispute could have occupied as much of the president's time as Meacham suggests. I am not so sure. In that time, when women's authority outside the home was so limited, they may have been very jealous indeed of their authority within the home.
It is really hard to understand what "makes sense" in a different culture. Most of us recognize that it is really hard for Americans to fully understand the way people in the Islamic nations think. I would point out that the American culture of Jackson's time is quite different than ours, perhaps more different that that of other cultures of our own time. It is very dangerous to assume that historical figures share our opinions and values.
It was interesting last night to see people reaching for parallels in our culture to what happened in Jackson's time, seeking to impute the motives of current actions to those of similar actions of people 180 years ago. Actually, it seemed a pretty good approach. Would Jackson have had more success in controlling the actions of his White House hostess than did John Mitchell in controlling the actions of his wife Martha during the Watergate investigation? How about the response of the political elite to infidelity of current politicians?
In summary, Jackson was a fascinating man, and the book was a good read. It was useful to be reminded that even in 1830 the United States was a fragile invention, threatened by the great powers of Europe and even by Mexico. Had things gone differently then, the history of the 20th century might be very different indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment