Very interesting and timely. And almost impossible to read w out the framework of Trump giving the Jackson portrait the place of honor in the Oval Office. There's something to be said about the similarities of both Trump and Jackson relying upon and glorifying the "faith-based" ("we don't need no stinkin' facts") element of the electorate. Hard to read much of anything about Andrew Jackson and his times and his politics w out thinking about Trump.
I think you need to more explicitly include or explain Martin Van Buren for “Hunters of Kentucky” to work well as an explanation for Jacksonianism. It wasn’t just backwoodsmen getting mud on the White House carpets while cutting a chunk out of the big wheel of cheese!
The heritage of New England Puritans of course has quite a lot of explanatory power. I say that as a lifelong resident of the former Western Reserve of Connecticut, where the New England connection is omnipresent.
Ohio is also an example of how much depends on when and from where one’s ancestors first crossed the Alleghenies, which also feeds into choosing sides, or at least sympathies, in the Civil War. Compare Cleveland (strong for the Union) and Cincinnati (a nest of Copperheads). Another way of structuring that is to look at whether the local economy looked to the East Coast and especially New York or to the Mississippi and points South.
It would also be interesting to know more about how 19th-century immigrants and their descendants fit into this picture later on. It seems like everyone eventually has to pick a side.
It is very hard, very hard indeed to figure out what was actually going on inside the Jackson administration. If you have a good source you trust—or think you do—I would love to know what it is. He hated Nicholas Biddle. He hated John C. Calhoun. He hated the Five Civilized Tribes. And did anything else really drive his personal policy? And how did that mix into what was the mélange that became his administration's policy? Everyone writing I have studies brings their own spin—usually for reasons strongly connected with the contemporary politics of their day—and selects the items they like best from the buffet...
I have read next to nothing specifically about Van Buren. There’s an older (1984) biography that has been reprinted in the Princeton Legacy Library series: Donald G. Cole, “Martin Van Buren and the American Political System,” that I have been meaning to read.
Jackson might have been the first president whose supporters believed that he was “one of us” or “understood us,” without reference to a particular policy platform. Imagine anyone thinking that of JQ Adams, or really any of the first sixth presidents.
A further point re the last sentence of your reply: I remember very distinctly that the history books I read as a youth left me with the impression that eliminating the Second Bank of the United States was a good thing, which it probably was not.
"This, those people who saw themselves as “the hunters of Kentucky” or who wanted to identify in some way with “the hunters of Kentucky”, had been stopped by the (true?) hunters of Kentucky (which may have been farmers) when Andrew Jackson had called and mobilized them to come down the Mississippi to New Orleans."
Confusion over what persons Jackson used to fight that battle, if the "mountain men" who call themselves "hunters of Kentucky" were not among that group of soldiers? Further on, it seems as if the farmers of the area may have been pressed into service, or joined because of threats to their way of life.
It is likely that the true story was not known, and Jackson was stuck with a legend that he knew to be false.
So, how did the supposed "mountain men" go back upriver to their homes if that was true?
Further on in your comments, a search on the internet of the parties that Jackson did not like will show he had reason for his dislikes. Further in the Webster information, he was opposed to tariffs. So, he was the free market type of person, but the government made its income from tariffs, so may have not have been popular.
I found this very short history of the War of 1812 to be helpful.
The picture of the "mountain man" with a dead squirrel is the very worst image of the U.S. future I have ever seen, and the exploitation of its resources that is supposed to be our deserved destiny.
To add to your references: There's a great account of the Battle of New Orleans in What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America 1815--1848. American artillery--industrial power--won that battle, anticipating the source of future U.S. power.
The War of 1812 is, for me, the archetypal war. Fought over nothing in particular, settled on the status quo ante, celebrated by both sides (US and Canada) as a famous victory. And the most famous battle fought after the peace treaty was signed
The "Hunters of Kentucky" shtick was established before 1815. The Second Amendment was part of a popular glorification of the militia, which was pretty useless in the Revolution, yet revered anyway. The novelty was in the deification of Jackson. The Hunters of Kentucky were a mere upgrade of the Farmers of Massachusetts.
Alan Taylor writes quite a bit about the War of 1812 era. One of the points he makes was that, in the Chesapeake area, the militia system was basically a failure as slave owners resisted militia duty because of the implied threat of slave revolts if the owners had to leave for militia duty.
Very interesting and timely. And almost impossible to read w out the framework of Trump giving the Jackson portrait the place of honor in the Oval Office. There's something to be said about the similarities of both Trump and Jackson relying upon and glorifying the "faith-based" ("we don't need no stinkin' facts") element of the electorate. Hard to read much of anything about Andrew Jackson and his times and his politics w out thinking about Trump.
Good one! Loved the inclusion of the song.
Any mention of Jackson, brings to the peabrain the Trail Of Tears.
I think you need to more explicitly include or explain Martin Van Buren for “Hunters of Kentucky” to work well as an explanation for Jacksonianism. It wasn’t just backwoodsmen getting mud on the White House carpets while cutting a chunk out of the big wheel of cheese!
The heritage of New England Puritans of course has quite a lot of explanatory power. I say that as a lifelong resident of the former Western Reserve of Connecticut, where the New England connection is omnipresent.
Ohio is also an example of how much depends on when and from where one’s ancestors first crossed the Alleghenies, which also feeds into choosing sides, or at least sympathies, in the Civil War. Compare Cleveland (strong for the Union) and Cincinnati (a nest of Copperheads). Another way of structuring that is to look at whether the local economy looked to the East Coast and especially New York or to the Mississippi and points South.
It would also be interesting to know more about how 19th-century immigrants and their descendants fit into this picture later on. It seems like everyone eventually has to pick a side.
It is very hard, very hard indeed to figure out what was actually going on inside the Jackson administration. If you have a good source you trust—or think you do—I would love to know what it is. He hated Nicholas Biddle. He hated John C. Calhoun. He hated the Five Civilized Tribes. And did anything else really drive his personal policy? And how did that mix into what was the mélange that became his administration's policy? Everyone writing I have studies brings their own spin—usually for reasons strongly connected with the contemporary politics of their day—and selects the items they like best from the buffet...
I have read next to nothing specifically about Van Buren. There’s an older (1984) biography that has been reprinted in the Princeton Legacy Library series: Donald G. Cole, “Martin Van Buren and the American Political System,” that I have been meaning to read.
Jackson might have been the first president whose supporters believed that he was “one of us” or “understood us,” without reference to a particular policy platform. Imagine anyone thinking that of JQ Adams, or really any of the first sixth presidents.
A further point re the last sentence of your reply: I remember very distinctly that the history books I read as a youth left me with the impression that eliminating the Second Bank of the United States was a good thing, which it probably was not.
"This, those people who saw themselves as “the hunters of Kentucky” or who wanted to identify in some way with “the hunters of Kentucky”, had been stopped by the (true?) hunters of Kentucky (which may have been farmers) when Andrew Jackson had called and mobilized them to come down the Mississippi to New Orleans."
Confusion over what persons Jackson used to fight that battle, if the "mountain men" who call themselves "hunters of Kentucky" were not among that group of soldiers? Further on, it seems as if the farmers of the area may have been pressed into service, or joined because of threats to their way of life.
It is likely that the true story was not known, and Jackson was stuck with a legend that he knew to be false.
So, how did the supposed "mountain men" go back upriver to their homes if that was true?
Further on in your comments, a search on the internet of the parties that Jackson did not like will show he had reason for his dislikes. Further in the Webster information, he was opposed to tariffs. So, he was the free market type of person, but the government made its income from tariffs, so may have not have been popular.
I found this very short history of the War of 1812 to be helpful.
https://kids.britannica.com/kids/article/War-of-1812/353909
The picture of the "mountain man" with a dead squirrel is the very worst image of the U.S. future I have ever seen, and the exploitation of its resources that is supposed to be our deserved destiny.
To add to your references: There's a great account of the Battle of New Orleans in What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America 1815--1848. American artillery--industrial power--won that battle, anticipating the source of future U.S. power.
The War of 1812 is, for me, the archetypal war. Fought over nothing in particular, settled on the status quo ante, celebrated by both sides (US and Canada) as a famous victory. And the most famous battle fought after the peace treaty was signed
This needs an introductory sentence or two. I was at sea too long with the
"are not" thing. Found myself re-reading for sense.
The "Hunters of Kentucky" shtick was established before 1815. The Second Amendment was part of a popular glorification of the militia, which was pretty useless in the Revolution, yet revered anyway. The novelty was in the deification of Jackson. The Hunters of Kentucky were a mere upgrade of the Farmers of Massachusetts.
Some have said the 2nd amendment Militia was a sop to the Slave States. Militia = Slave Chasers.
Alan Taylor writes quite a bit about the War of 1812 era. One of the points he makes was that, in the Chesapeake area, the militia system was basically a failure as slave owners resisted militia duty because of the implied threat of slave revolts if the owners had to leave for militia duty.