Andrew Jackson and the Age of Democratic Revolution

the article.

• Refers to jackson as - irascible - distracted
• used to be a boy soldier during american rev
  • captued by the british!
  • got slashed in the head by the soldier, very prideful of it because it represents his patrotism
• almost got impeached, senate was not happy
• was very polarizing: love and hatred, no middle ground! hmm..
• and modern historians don;t like him! he is no longer a hero..?
  • ignorant, violent, suppressed abolitionisnts, ruined economy, ect
• pos: jackson as the enemy of a souless market rev that widened the US econ and social life inequality
• neg: agressive self promoting "laissez-faire" capatalism
  • dominates the country during the gilded age
  • also, avatar of racism
• this clash in interpretations is confusing!
  • stems from long term changes in basic ideas and ideals
  • "basic american vocab" is very diff now than it was in the 1830s
• tranposing political labels onto the old people is a bad idea!
  • calls it, anachronistic, deceptive, distorted.

"The idea, for example, [the assertion?] that there has always been a pro-big government party and a laissez-faire party, and that presidents can be judged by which they adhere to, is as useless in interpreting the politics of the 1830s as it is for interpreting our own time."

• parties have always blended the small and big gov policies
  • argues, this doesnt mean that political parties are unprincipled and "bend their ideas merely to advance their own interest; it means that party politics cannot be reduced to simplistic formulas about deferal versus state powers, in either the past or the present"
    • hmm… so argues that there is some deeper connection here that we are missing? also doesnt imply that parties arnt unprinicpled
• jackson was a heavy mix of these two parties idealogies

All efforts to judge Andrew Jackson by political standards other than his own, and those of his time, are doomed from the start.

uh.. no??

• people at the time considered him very anti-slavery and such
• believes himself to be very egalitarian
  • conincided with the "Age of Democratic Revolution in the Atlantic world"
    • age of political upheaval! challeneged "unquestioned authority of royalty and aristocracy." (all over the atlantic world)
• about eradicating corrupt privlige END, start of page 6 *
• was the head of the first mass democratic party in the world
• anti-jacksonian: 'it is with them, the poor against the rich; and it is not to be disguised'
• had lots of paradoxes
  • great challenges: making sense of these paradoxes
• was really very anti-aristocratic, and this was what led to him shutting a bunch of things down
• reject the idea of universal equality, but also that it doesnt matter.
• the real issue is:
  • aritificial inequality
    • ie, inequality manufacgtered by people for their own benefit
    • jackson says: gov should undo this artificial inequality
    • foundational idea!!
• so the question becomes, what is natural and what isnt?
  • like, for example, racism
• says that we should interepret jackson as a transitional democrat

why we care: argues that coming to terms with jackson is crucial to the understanding of american hist

• historians rate prez at the top, washintion lincoln and FRD all were during the "three great political revolutions that defined the american experience"
  • US rev + constitution,
  • civil war,
  • new deal
• jackson oversaw the decline of the elitites getry people
• argues: he causes the civil war through his 'imcompleteness?'

The widespread judgment that Jackson lacked a guiding political philosophy, and was motivated chiefly by his passions and prejudices, is as mistaken about the realities of the American presidency as it is about Jackson

• says, ofc he changed his ideals and opinions! that's what good leaders do!
• jacksons view of the people were the "humble members of society"
• nonsense. literal nonsense.