PDF Summary:American Lion, by Jon Meacham

Andrew Jackson's presidency was a study in contradictions. American Lion by Jon Meacham explores how Jackson championed the common man yet bitterly fought indigenous peoples. He harnessed the power of the presidency in new ways to reflect the will of the electorate—yet his actions often highlighted democracy's limits.

The author vividly recreates Jackson's rise, from his turbulent early years to his pivotal military victories and political triumphs like dismantling the national bank. Jackson emerges as a transformative yet complicated figure: fiercely loyal, vengeful towards rivals, and willing to protect slavery and white rule by suppressing civil liberties.

(continued)...

As the head of the Bank, Nicholas Biddle became the principal opponent of Andrew Jackson. With a mind as strong and quick its Jackson's own, Biddle understood the mechanics of politics, finance, and government as well as anyone in the country. Biddle's association with a distinguished Philadelphia banking family provided him with seamless entry into the most elite circles of cultural and political life on both continents. He was the polar opposite of Jackson, exuding cultivated elegance, possessing a profound academic background, and displaying an alluring charisma in social gatherings. The animosity was intense, driven by a mix of personal animosity and firmly held convictions about how power and financial control should be allocated in a developing nation.

The divergent stances of Jackson and Biddle highlighted the difficulties faced by a nation shifting towards an industrialized economy.

The discussions surrounding the future of the Bank underscored a critical conflict during Andrew Jackson's time. Jackson foresaw the transformation of the United States into an economy dominated by industry, with an increasing workforce of wage earners and a declining number of farmers, a shift that might stray from the democratic ideals central to Jefferson's philosophy. He argued that the growing power of institutions like the national bank and the central government was creating an increasing divide between these entities and the citizens of America during a period of rapid change across the nation. To protect the country, it was crucial to have a steadfast leader who was aware of the limits of the country's power and took action to defend the citizens against the control of powerful financial institutions. Jackson's viewpoint was based on a romanticized concept of a rural republic, which overlooked the growing significance of cities and financial markets in the development of a major transatlantic country.

He utilized his presidential power to reject legislation in order to reduce the control that a private organization had over the nation's finances.

The July 1832 veto message concerning the Bank, which Jackson refined with assistance from his attorney general, Roger Taney, and which integrated Taney's apprehensions regarding the initial draft's inclination towards the financial institution as initially composed by Treasury Secretary Louis McLane, underscored Jackson's strategic maneuvers and provided a substantial constitutional rationale that would deeply impact the American view on the extent of presidential power. The electoral strategy centered on a direct appeal to voters regarding the matter of the bank. Jackson held the belief that the President had the authority to interpret the Constitution on his own, without being limited by the viewpoints of the legislative or judicial branches. He ignored the judiciary's prior ruling. The ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, which confirmed the constitutional validity of the Bank, caused concern among Washington's political elite over the possibility that Jackson might be overstepping his presidential powers. The public believed that Nicholas Biddle not only had the ability but also the determination to sabotage the American government, and many suspected he was indeed involved in such activities. By emphasizing the national financial institution as a key issue during the fall elections, Jackson believed he could garner public backing, which would provide him with the authority to abolish the institution. His evaluation proved to be accurate.

The clash involved fervent activists and a leader whose confidence was not steadfast.

Meacham argues convincingly that Jackson, although not hostile to religion, remained cautious about the possibility that fervent religious fervor could cause unrest within the country's unity as he scrutinizes the moral and religious dimensions of Jackson's period of leadership.

Jackson deemed the initiative to halt mail delivery on Sundays as a hazardous and unwise endeavor in the pursuit of enforcing religious observance.

The fervent intertwining of religion with political matters, resulting in a significant conflict between the presidential administration and prominent Protestant church figures during Jackson's tenure, underscored the potential for such zeal in the political sphere to be as contentious and risky as any other type of political enthusiasm. As a devout Presbyterian, Jackson held the conviction that it was the church's duty, not the government's, to uphold religious teachings, a belief that resonated with Jefferson's strong advocacy for a clear demarcation between church and state. President Jackson discreetly but firmly backed a Democratic committee led by Kentucky's Richard M. Johnson, which counseled against backing any bills that would interrupt the delivery of mail on Sundays as the initiative was gaining momentum. He was a strong proponent of establishing a government on secular principles instead of allowing religious beliefs to shape it.

He viewed personal belief as a private affair and remained cautious of religious leaders who might jeopardize his rapport with the electorate.

The writer offers an insightful examination of how Jackson viewed the separate roles of government and religious organizations, highlighting his conviction that members of the clergy had the potential to influence the electorate in an improper manner, similar to any other faction. He was known for his unwavering dedication to his Christian faith, yet he was careful not to align his language with any particular religious sect, aware that a president's remarks on organized religion could be fraught with peril and the potential to incite division.

Jackson struggled to reconcile his personal beliefs with his endorsement of a clear separation between religious and state affairs.

Jackson regarded spirituality as an essential element of life, though he seldom discussed his faith and only became an overt member of the church following the conclusion of his presidency. The author convincingly argues that his fundamental beliefs, which influenced his worldview, were established in his early life, a time when he was deeply influenced by the religious teachings he embraced at Sunday worship, especially through the powerful depiction of its commitments and stark realities found in the Bible. Jackson's political beliefs were probably formed not just by his extensive reading after leaving his initial residence but also, and perhaps more profoundly, by his spiritual encounters, which counter the skepticism of certain biographers. He was convinced that democracy was at risk when banks or ministers claiming to speak for their followers significantly interfered with the direct communication between the president and the people.

The dispute centered on the clash between advocates of nullification and Andrew Jackson's vision of a cohesive nation.

Andrew Jackson, while staunchly upholding states' rights, challenged South Carolina during its effort to nullify federal tariffs that threatened its economic stability and traditional customs. The clash with John C. Calhoun and his allies signified a critical juncture in the clash of distinct national beliefs.

The growing fervor of abolitionists and the expansion of federal authority were causing increasing alarm among Southern states, as they perceived a diminishing influence over the institution of slavery.

Leaders from the South grew more and more certain that the federal government's growing power and the escalating efforts of Northern abolitionists, especially those eligible to vote, posed a danger to their customary lifestyle and slave-dependent economic structures. Calhoun's theory of nullification, in which a state could refuse to follow a federal law, was his attempt to create the constitutional ground on which a free people could stand up to federal power. Jackson firmly believed that those who supported nullification were undermining the cohesion of the United States, since permitting any state to invalidate federal legislation could set a dangerous precedent, possibly leading to the withdrawal of southern states and perhaps even some northern ones, depending on the nature of the dispute.

John C. Calhoun's intellectual prowess, though often removed from pragmatic use, laid the groundwork for secession and thus set the stage for the Civil War.

John C. Calhoun captivated many during Jackson's time. Calhoun, whose intellect was both complex and flexible, harbored grand ambitions and wielded a formidable mind that, despite its intricacies, steered him toward detrimental consequences. Meacham offers a persuasive case that Calhoun's dedication to preserving the Union's cohesion was insincere. While he frequently minimized the advocates for the right to withdraw from the union and focused on adjusting import duties and using his political influence to maintain balance among the various regional factions, the author persuasively argues that his stance on states' rights suggested the South possessed the freedom to depart if it chose to do so.

The writings under the pseudonym "William Penn" were an unsuccessful effort to oppose the growing wave of ambitions typical of the era of Jackson.

Jeremiah Evarts, a New England Congregationalist, became the leading voice opposing Jackson's position on indigenous peoples, authoring a series of 24 essays under the pseudonym "William Penn" to contest the Indian Removal Bill. The moral reasoning presented by Evarts fell on deaf ears among the powerful. The "William Penn" essays illuminate the inadequacy of reason and dialogue when faced with the principles of Andrew Jackson, which demanded the removal of any dissent to preserve solidarity.

Other Perspectives

• While Jackson did consolidate executive power, some argue that his use of the veto power was an overreach that upset the balance of power between branches of government.
• Critics of Jackson's approach to the national bank suggest that his dismantling of the institution destabilized the national economy and led to the Panic of 1837.
• Jackson's treatment of Native Americans, particularly the Trail of Tears, is often cited as a significant blemish on his presidency and contradicts his image as a champion of the common man.
• The idea that Jackson's party was more representative of the general population can be contested, as it primarily represented the interests of white male citizens, excluding women, Native Americans, and African Americans.
• Jackson's approach to the nullification crisis, while effective in maintaining the union, can be criticized for its potential to set a precedent for the use of military force against states.
• Some historians argue that Jackson's opposition to the national bank was less about protecting the common man and more about personal animosity and a desire for political control.
• Jackson's stance on the separation of church and state, while progressive, can be criticized for not fully addressing the complex relationship between religion and politics in American society.
• The effectiveness of Jackson's communication strategies is sometimes questioned, as his speeches and policies were not always consistent with the interests of all segments of the population.
• Jackson's victory over the national bank is seen by some as a pyrrhic victory that ultimately harmed the economy and limited the government's ability to manage financial crises.
• The assertion that Jackson's presidency bolstered the country's international standing can be debated, as his actions sometimes led to increased tensions with foreign nations, particularly in relation to trade and territorial disputes.
• Jackson's personal beliefs and their influence on his policy decisions, especially regarding Native American removal, are often viewed critically in light of modern values regarding human rights and equality.

During his early presidential campaign and at the beginning of his term in office, Andrew Jackson faced numerous personal and political challenges, including the controversy surrounding Secretary of War John Eaton.

This section of the narrative explores how Andrew Jackson's personal tribulations, including the grief over his wife Rachel's passing, his choice to take in her kin, and the scandal involving Margaret Eaton, were intricately connected with his political confrontations, such as his disputes with Calhoun, Van Buren's rise to power, and the heated debates over the national bank and states' rights, thus reinforcing the author's perspective that Jackson's political pursuits were as intense and multifaceted as his private life.

The dispute surrounding his union with Rachel

The story of Andrew Jackson's early life with Rachel highlights the profound impact she had on his life and the crucial part she took in his lengthy presidential campaign. Jackson and Rachel believed that her divorce had been completed when they met, but this was not entirely the case. Still, the scandal of her remarriage played a central role in Jackson's first presidential campaign in 1824, and he believed that later attacks on Rachel's virtue during the 1828 race against John Quincy Adams led to her death just weeks before his inauguration.

Her death as the central tragedy in his life and the roots of his rage in those he believed responsible, both in 1828 and later

Jackson always bore the scars of Rachel's passing, a sorrow that never fully mended. The loss, Meacham argues plausibly, was the great tragedy of his life and explains, in part, his tendency to defend anyone he thought attacked unfairly, his intense aversion to those he perceived as adversaries, and his aspiration to exert significant control over his environment, whether by familial ties or through his position of power. While living in the White House, he preserved the room at the Hermitage exactly as it was when she died, and in his later years, he frequently devoted significant amounts of time to contemplation near her elaborately adorned grave.

His relentless attacks on her reputation for political advantage and his efforts to twist the truth persisted, despite some aspects of the accusations being grounded in truth.

Rachel Jackson was subjected to a number of dubious claims in the 1820s, among them charges of adultery and bigamy. Jackson's reaction to these accusations carried substantial political repercussions. Andrew steadfastly protected her reputation, denouncing his opponents as deceivers and diligently searching for evidence to confirm the lawful conclusion of her prior marriage, despite substantial indications that their association commenced while she was yet wed. For Jackson, the political manipulation of the attacks against him held greater significance than the actual specifics of the events.

Her guidance influenced his view that the contentious nature of Washington politics disturbed the peace of domestic life.

Jackson considered the nation's capital to be a center dominated by moral degradation and cunning, where the incessant pursuit of power, prestige, and position threatened individual happiness. Jackson's view of the political epicenter of the United States was profoundly shaped by his own experiences, particularly the profound grief he suffered following the death of his wife Rachel, which he believed was caused by the defamation she faced during the 1828 campaign, and not by any abstract ideas about the nature of a republic. Jackson and his spouse shared apprehensions regarding their life in Washington, as they believed their peaceful existence was interrupted by his military and presidential duties.

The Eaton Affair serves as a clear illustration of the limits to Andrew Jackson's sway.

Meacham demonstrates that even the most astute, strong, and well-liked leaders can find themselves entangled in complex conflicts, revealing that they may be unable to aid their friends despite their earnest and vigorous efforts, by examining the complex case of Peggy Eaton, John Eaton's wife.

Margaret Eaton's lack of tact frequently resulted in unease and strained relations within Andrew Jackson's inner circle.

The scandal surrounding Margaret Eaton had a profound impact on both the personal life and the presidency of Andrew Jackson, originating from societal concerns over the moral conduct of women and a personality that the author persuasively presents as lacking in discretion and decorum. The author portrays Margaret's life as a series of exciting adventures, a portrayal underscored by one of her advocates. During that period, she attracted a multitude of adversaries while simultaneously cultivating an unparalleled loyalty among her supporters.

She engaged in a rivalry with the objective of securing Andrew Jackson's endorsement and sought to create an enduring political legacy, contending with John C. Calhoun and Martin Van Buren in the process.

The union between Eaton and the daughter of an innkeeper, where Jackson had once stayed during his tenure as a senator from Tennessee, unexpectedly swayed the contest over Jackson's presidential succession. Jackson viewed Floride Calhoun's choice to avoid social interactions with Margaret Eaton, which was based on ethical concerns, as an issue with political implications, seeing opposition to the Eatons as a direct insult to himself. Martin Van Buren, hailing from New York and serving as Jackson's secretary of state before becoming vice president, often stood up for Mrs. Eaton and championed her cause in social gatherings. Despite numerous appeals from his supporters to reassess his position, Calhoun's steadfastness, along with Van Buren's adept maneuvering through the social and political terrains, was instrumental in transforming the scandal into a decisive event that influenced Jackson to transfer his allegiance to Van Buren rather than Calhoun.

Jackson's steadfast backing of Eaton's wife underscores his deep loyalty to his confidants and his pursuit of unchallenged power.

His chivalrous disposition was a major factor in guiding and supporting Mrs. Eaton. The author argues that he harbored a deep-seated disdain for the often-encountered deceit in Washington's elite gatherings and deliberately kept in mind the slurs cast at Rachel's reputation, likening her to Margaret, whom he unwaveringly declared to have a purity comparable to that of a virgin—a statement that, it seems, neither Margaret nor anyone else attempted to confirm. Jackson's unwavering support for the Eatons stemmed from his desire to exert influence over his environment, encompassing both his personal affairs and his official responsibilities. Having been left to survive on his own from a young age, he demanded unwavering loyalty and sought respect from all those close to him. When loyalty was lacking or respect was withheld, his reaction often manifested as profound ire, especially noticeable in the conflict with the Secretary of War.

After a time away, the Donelson family returned to live at the White House.

The story of Andrew and Emily Donelson provides the author with a perspective to explore the continuous interplay between the quest for authority and the enduring strength of familial ties within Jackson's domain. The Donelsons, unwavering in their loyalty to Jackson and equally determined in their personal aspirations, found that their participation in politics with him was characterized by similar upheaval and the potential for hardship, mirroring the difficulties Jackson faced during his initial years of conflict.

Emily's social calculations as a source of frustration for AJ and her efforts to reconcile political reality with proper appearances

Jon Meacham sheds light on how the Donelson family's role was crucial during Jackson's presidency, emphasizing the tension that emerged from divergent ambitions: the President's aim for absolute control in his sphere of influence and the personal aspirations of his nephew by marriage, Andrew, who was eager to carve out his own place in the political landscape while keeping his bond with his famous uncle—and Emily, Andrew's wife, who aspired to be a dominant force in the social scene of Washington, a challenge made more complex by her duties as the main hostess for a president who was, at that time, the most divisive figure in American politics.

Andrew longed for the unwavering support of his family, despite holding political beliefs that differed from those of AJ, and he harbored ambitions of rising to a significant role in the political landscape.

The author clearly adopts Emily's viewpoint on the matter involving the Eatons. Emily was advised to keep up a minimal degree of polite communication with the wife of the Secretary of War while in the President's home, to benefit Jackson, even if their exchanges were limited to purely official ones. Jackson, however, was adamant, telling Andrew and Emily that they must treat the Eaton's as he himself did-which meant that they were to welcome and accept the Eatons and make their social acceptance one of their own defining duties.

Jackson depended heavily on Donelson to help him manage the profound emotional challenges that arose within his close-knit family circle.

When the Eaton affair remained unresolved despite attempts at negotiation and strategic moves—an issue President Jackson believed could only be settled if his nephew Andrew and his wife, Emily, agreed to welcome Margaret Eaton into their most intimate social gatherings as though no scandal had occurred—he dispatched the Donelsons to their home in Tennessee for a duration of more than a year. As the cold months of 1830 drew near and it was time for the legislative assembly to convene, he acutely sensed their absence and therefore summoned Andrew to return to Washington, leaving Emily with the responsibility of looking after their children at the Mansion. Donelson returned, compelled by his profound allegiance to Jackson and personal ambitions, rendering his choice inescapable.

Other Perspectives

• While Jackson faced personal and political challenges, some historians argue that his personal vendettas and emotional reactions sometimes exacerbated these challenges rather than merely responding to them.
• The significance of the Eaton affair can be debated; some might argue that it was a distraction from more pressing national issues that Jackson could have focused on.
• The impact of Rachel Jackson's past and death on Andrew Jackson's political career could be seen as an example of how personal matters can unduly influence public policy and governance.
• Jackson's defense of Rachel's reputation might be criticized as a strategic move to garner public sympathy and support rather than a purely noble act.
• Jackson's view of Washington politics as corrupt could be seen as a convenient narrative to position himself as an outsider and populist, which was a key part of his appeal.
• The Eaton Affair might be interpreted not just as a limit of Jackson's influence but also as a reflection of his inability to prioritize political battles, choosing to focus on personal loyalty over political strategy.
• Margaret Eaton's behavior and its impact on Jackson's inner circle could be seen as a reflection of the gender biases and societal expectations of the time, which unfairly placed the burden of maintaining social decorum on women.
• The idea that Margaret Eaton was seeking Jackson's endorsement and a political legacy could be challenged by noting that women of the era had limited avenues for power and influence, and her actions might have been driven by survival rather than ambition.
• Jackson's loyalty to Eaton's wife might be criticized as an example of his stubbornness and unwillingness to adapt to changing political circumstances for the greater good.
• The return of the Donelson family to the White House and the interplay between authority and familial ties could be seen as nepotism and a lack of professional boundaries in Jackson's administration.
• Emily Donelson's social calculations might be defended as necessary diplomacy in a highly charged political environment, rather than a source of frustration.
• Andrew Donelson's political aspirations and desire for family support could be viewed as a natural ambition for someone in his position, rather than a challenge to Jackson's authority.
• Jackson's reliance on the Donelsons could be seen as a weakness in his leadership, indicating an over-reliance on personal relationships to manage state affairs.

Andrew Jackson instigated significant transformations within the political and social fabric of the United States.

Jackson's lasting impact on the roles and duties associated with the presidential office.

Andrew Jackson's ascent to becoming a highly successful political figure as president was achieved despite his lack of extensive formal schooling. His impact considerably changed the extent and power associated with the office of the President.

He endeavored to make the executive office the cornerstone of the nation's governance, impacting it with outcomes that were both beneficial and detrimental.

Jackson's tenure as president is often described by a significant expansion of presidential power. He understood the significance of the public's opinion and the unique capacity of the president to shape and influence the electorate with his charismatic guidance. The disputes with South Carolina regarding nullification and the contention over the national bank arose from legislative and constitutional interpretation challenges, yet at their core, they were about determining the dominant branch of government: whether it would be the legislative, judicial, or executive. Jackson capitalized on the chance to bolster presidential authority by directly addressing the populace regarding his issues, which led to the voters making choices that aligned with his timeline and conditions.

He revolutionized the role of the president, creating a precedent that enabled subsequent presidents to engage directly with the populace and utilize their charisma to influence events.

Jackson recognized the theatrical elements inherent in the presidency, which his predecessors had overlooked. The author presents a persuasive argument that Jackson's charm originated from his extraordinary skill in crafting and directing the story. Jackson was seen as a defender, a protector, and a heroic figure by the general public due to his support for the common white male voter and the everyman, particularly when he faced his most formidable opponents in South Carolina.

The enduring perception of a strong executive branch is shaped by the idea of a leader committed to protecting the well-being of the citizens.

The writer makes a compelling argument that the enduring impact of Jackson's presidency can still be seen in the distinct shape of executive power that persists today. Jackson expanded presidential authority by frequently using his veto rights, adeptly wielding the influence that came with his office, creating a political network across the country, and frequently presenting himself as the common person's advocate, thus setting a precedent for the most successful future presidents. A president who is perpetually at odds with opponents, real or imagined, shows through his actions that the public is willing to bestow upon him the power to act in this confrontational way, mirroring Jackson's approach.

Andrew Jackson's indifference towards ethnic issues

Andrew Jackson did not extend his trust in the intrinsic moral compass and sense of fairness to all American citizens. During his presidency, a period marked by growing unease over issues of race and the institution of slavery, Meacham presents a compelling argument that Jackson, despite his support for democratic principles for white males, personified the nation's persistent hesitance to accept that its promise of equity and justice was intended for every person.

The forced relocation of Native Americans highlights the difficulties a national leader encounters in thoroughly understanding and applying the ideals of liberty and justice for all individuals within the United States.

The author presents a persuasive argument that the manner in which Andrew Jackson dealt with Native American issues represents a profoundly disturbing stain on his legacy and America's history. The profound apprehensions held by Andrew Jackson were a major factor in his decision to move Native American tribes from the South and West, and these apprehensions also affected many other facets of his existence. Jackson harbored a belief that, even in the absence of concrete evidence, the indigenous peoples he came across in Tennessee, Alabama, and Florida were under the influence of foreign powers such as Britain or Spain, which aimed to destabilize or seize control of the United States. Jackson considered Native Americans to be groups that were dependent, not entirely sovereign, nor fully qualified for citizenship.

An active defense of slavery and a passive acceptance of the suppression of abolitionist free speech in order to protect what he considered to be a necessary compromise

Jackson staunchly supported the right of all white male citizens to speak freely, yet he firmly maintained his support for the institution of slavery. In response to the growing fear among Southern states regarding Northern abolitionists, Jackson took measures to limit the spread of the anti-slavery movement during the 1835 pamphlet dispute, and he also took action during the discussions in Congress in 1836 about a procedural maneuver designed to reject petitions which the South deemed provocative and hostile to the practice of slavery. It was another instance where Jackson showed he was shaped by his time—many Americans, even those hailing from the North, regarded the abolitionist movement as ill-advised and dangerous—and a leader ready to set aside a core principle, specifically the liberty of expression and the populace's entitlement to appeal to their government, to safeguard what he considered more crucial: the unity of a nation constantly facing the threat of discord.

Other Perspectives

• Jackson's expansion of presidential power could be seen as a consolidation of authority that undermined the checks and balances system designed by the Founding Fathers.
• His direct engagement with the populace, while innovative, may have bypassed the more deliberative legislative process, potentially leading to more populist and less informed decision-making.
• The strong executive branch shaped by Jackson could be argued to have set a precedent for potential overreach by future presidents, which might not always align with democratic principles.
• Jackson's treatment of ethnic issues and his stance on slavery reflect a more complex legacy, where his actions could be viewed as a product of his time rather than a deliberate moral failing.
• The forced relocation of Native Americans, known as the Trail of Tears, is widely regarded as a humanitarian disaster, and some might argue that it was a direct result of Jackson's policies and not just a difficulty in applying liberty and justice.
• The defense of slavery and suppression of free speech could be criticized as being in direct contradiction to the values of liberty and democracy that Jackson purportedly championed.
• Jackson's actions regarding the suppression of abolitionist free speech could be seen as prioritizing political unity over fundamental human rights and freedoms.