Andrew Jackson

C

Cypress

Well-known member
I saw an author discussing his book on Andrew Jackson, on Cspan book TV this weekend.

If it's not too lame of me, I wouldn't mind picking people's brain, on what they think of Jackson.

Some consider him a villian. Others consider him one of the historically most important Presidents ever.

This is pretty much all I know about Jackson's presidency:

On the positive side, he expanded democracy and voting beyond the propertied classes. In effect, he (perhaps unintentionally) set into motion, events that would expand democracy to all americans - blacks, women, etc. "Jacksonian Democracy" was a paradigm shift in american history, IMO.

On the negative side, he was extremely cruel to the native americans, and he was kind of a thug and bully - constantly trying to assert his authority over congress and the SCOTUS - in effect, trampling on the Constitution.

I'm pretty much shooting blanks after that. Off the top of my head, I don't know much more about Jackson. If you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I think IHG likes stuff like this..........
 
Cypress said:
I saw an author discussing his book on Andrew Jackson, on Cspan book TV this weekend.

If it's not too lame of me, I wouldn't mind picking people's brain, on what they think of Jackson.

Some consider him a villian. Others consider him one of the historically most important Presidents ever.

This is pretty much all I know about Jackson's presidency:

On the positive side, he expanded democracy and voting beyond the propertied classes. In effect, he (perhaps unintentionally) set into motion, events that would expand democracy to all americans - blacks, women, etc. "Jacksonian Democracy" was a paradigm shift in american history, IMO.

On the negative side, he was extremely cruel to the native americans, and he was kind of a thug and bully - constantly trying to assert his authority over congress and the SCOTUS - in effect, trampling on the Constitution.

I'm pretty much shooting blanks after that. Off the top of my head, I don't know much more about Jackson. If you have any thoughts, I'd appreciate it. I think IHG likes stuff like this..........
Click to expand...

I would have liked to see that. I saw on booktv, this weekend, a discussion between authors of Coolidge and Jefferson. But I would have liked to see this, I don't know much about Jackson myself. I have a book that largely addresses his presidency by Sean Wilentz, but I haven't read it yet.
 
Darla said:
I would have liked to see that. I saw on booktv, this weekend, a discussion between authors of Coolidge and Jefferson. But I would have liked to see this, I don't know much about Jackson myself. I have a book that largely addresses his presidency by Sean Wilentz, but I haven't read it yet.
Click to expand...



Isn't "Book TV" the best thing since sliced bread? ;)


I missed that Coolidge/Jefferson thing. Maybe I'll see a rerun of it.
 
Well Cypress we have discussed Jackson before so you know how I feel about that man. Jackson is definitely a significant President we may be considered the first populist President. Jackson was also the first President to behave as though he were above the law. His instruction to the SCOTUS to protect the Cherokee with their army sums this up pretty well. Jackson certainly set the tone for every other Presidency to come.
 
IHG,

Virtually all presidents are guilty of supporting or enabling horrific policies. Thomas Jefferson, who I greatly admire, was a slave owner, and possibly slave rapist.


My question is, on balance, where the postive things Jackson did (or put into motion) outweighed by the negative things he did.
 
I believe they were because they enabled a precedent of further flouting of the law by our Presidents. Jackson is the precursor to the actions of Lincoln, FDR, Nixon and even Bush. Obviously Lincoln and Bush shouldn't even be compared but power can be used for good or ill purposes.

I would say Jackson's positive contributions are not outweighed by the liabilities of his tenure and this is with the hindsight of history. Although I will admit my historical analysis is not exactly mainstream.

Overall he is considered one of the greatest but in the ratings Presidents are not rated highly for restraint but for decisive action. I find often that historical ratings of US presidents does not use significantly different metrics than the ratings of historical autocrats.
 
IHateGovernment said:
I believe they were because they enabled a precedent of further flouting of the law by our Presidents. Jackson is the precursor to the actions of Lincoln, FDR, Nixon and even Bush. Obviously Lincoln and Bush shouldn't even be compared but power can be used for good or ill purposes.

I would say Jackson's positive contributions are not outweighed by the liabilities of his tenure and this is with the hindsight of history. Although I will admit my historical analysis is not exactly mainstream.

Overall he is considered one of the greatest but in the ratings Presidents are not rated highly for restraint but for decisive action. I find often that historical ratings of US presidents does not use significantly different metrics than the ratings of historical autocrats.
Click to expand...

well, thanks.

I'm no expert on Jackson. I've never even read a book about him. So, that's why I wanted your opinion. I don't know enough about his excesses, to say whether or not they are outweighed on balance by his expansion of democracy to more americans.
 
Jackson had his highs just as every president (with a few exceptions). He did behave as a butcher though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top