Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
Jackson’s election marked a new era of politics, one in which appealing to the population at large became crucial. Universal white male suffrage had largely prevailed, and populism swept national politics (Wilentz 164). Jackson succeeded in uniting a number of disparate groups with general calls for reform, and many others supported his campaign in the interest of defeating the unsuccessful John Quincy Adams. While the Era of Good Feelings ended a major period in American politics, the rise of Andrew Jackson signaled the beginning of another one.
The election itself in 1828 clearly indicated a huge change, as described by Wilentz. The slanderous campaign proved more personal than political, and Wilentz argued that “politically charged cultural styles” supplanted actual “political issues” (162). The Adamsites laid heavy criticism on Jackson’s wife and mother, an attack which later led Jackson to blame his wife’s death on Henry Clay. Wilentz asserted that the Adamsites aimed to portray Jackson as a “boorish, lawless, frontier lowlife” (162), although I was a little surprised that Wilentz did not give a couple more examples of the political slander taking place, given the level of detail with which he wrote. He scarcely mentioned the equally absurd attacks made on Adams, such as the fact that Adams had made the government pay for his personal billiard table and had been involved in shady affairs in Russia that likened Adams to a pimp (or so I remember from my high school history class).
Wilentz didn’t seem to quite capture the nastiness of the 1828 presidential campaign, although perhaps that was intentional, since he focused more on political issues and movements. I agree with his overall point, however, that politics had suddenly become much more personal. The Peggy Eaton conflict further highlighted this. In her blog post, Ella attributed this personal aspect of politics to a lack of defined political parties. I agree with her that such issues were often petty and distracting from larger political issues, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the lack of today’s defined political parties. In fact, this trend of personal politics has continued into today’s media. One need look no further than accusations of Obama being Muslim or Mitt Romney travelling with his dog on top of the car. Even if such fixations were true, who cares? Evidently, many Americans do.
What surprised me most was that finishing these chapters left me with the impression that Jackson was not so different from his predecessors. I was hesitant to adopt fully Wilentz’s perspective on this matter, but perhaps his writing showed that popular myths of Andrew Jackson as a near lunatic are unfair to his undeniable political skills. Wilentz did mention Jackson’s unusual background, including squandering his inheritance on “drinking, gambling, and women” at the age of fifteen (83). Such aberrations were never a focus for Wilentz, though, and Wilentz almost seemed to describe Jackson’s aggressiveness as a suitable virtue for a fearless leader. The Jackson Wilentz described seemed likely to raise his voice, perhaps, but not to beat down a man with his cane in the middle of a crowd after an assassination attempt. I don’t doubt Jackson’s intelligence and drive, but nonetheless, he always seemed a little unhinged to me.
While Jackson accomplished much during his political career, many questions also arose as to whether he was overstepping his authority. Even before his presidency, he met criticism as a major general for “expell[ing] the Spanish from Pensacola and provok[ing] a diplomatic row” with Spain (129). At times, he seemed to give little regard for what was appropriate to do, and instead he went to extreme measures to accomplish what he believed needed to happen. Although we didn’t read about his war on the bank in these chapters, it exemplified his approach to politics. When Jackson had a secretary of the treasury who would not support his plan, the secretary was fired and replaced. When Jackson couldn’t kill the national bank outright, he proceeded to move as much money as he could to local pet banks, a move which almost certainly contributed to the economic crisis for which Jackson’s successor, Van Buren, was blamed.
Andrew Jackson is a complicated figure, and although Wilentz’s portrayal of him departed from that with which I was most familiar, I appreciated the fresh perspective. Perhaps Jackson’s legacy is unfairly tainted, and his presidential career was born out of much larger political circumstances than anything of his own initiative. Admiring such a man is difficult in a modern context, considering, for example, his role in the violent removal of Indians, but remembering that context has changed drastically is crucial to understanding history.