Customer Reviews

The Age of Jackson

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

This book is a classic of American History, and is very much a chapter in Schlesinger's broader project of discovering the roots of (then-) modern liberalism through history. This is a book that is best described as a history of ideas, and particularly of the idea of democracy as it expanded in the 1830s and 1840s, embracing universal suffrage and economic as well as political egalitarianism. The book very much reflects the time in which it was written and the debates which it was part of, and, like much history of the period, seeks to refocus discussion of American history away from themes of frontier and nationalialism.

There are several things this book is not:

This book is not a comprehensive history of the period;
it is not even a social or economic history of the period;
it is not a biography of Jackson (indeed, Martin Van Buren may well receive more ink than Jackson in this book); and
it is not an attempt to write a definitive work; rather, it is a voice in a rather lively debate.

Schlesigner's voice in the book is clear and open. His own biases and prejudices are on the surface, not hidden and not given any claims of a "disinterested" scientific approach. Yet his research and his mustering of support are thorough and meticulous, and he is just as clear in discussing the shortcomings of his analysis (such as in the closing chapters) as in describing the shortcoming of other's analyses.

His fundamental argument is that the Jacksonian intellectual tradition was the first American intellectual tradition to clearly recognize a need for economic as well as political egalitarianism, and the first to make good on the fundamental concept that "All men (still men in the Jacksonian age) are created equal." He focuses on the entire intellectual movement of Jacksonian Democracy, not exclusively on the General himself, and shows the differing currents of thought and how they interacted to create a policy that fundamentally based itself on addressing a conflict between classes.

Schlesinger's project does have difficulty in dealing with reactions to slavery, which cut across class and ideological lines, and he wrestles through this to recognize in the end that a fundamental conflict of the time was the conflict between a sectionally and ideologically motiviated politics, resulting in much "crossing of aisles" and in radically different alliances in the 50s and 60s than existed in the 30s and 40s. Perhaps, however, it is just as important to examine ideologies that go beyond the Jacksonian economic perspectives and focus on underlying religious and moral views. Schlesigner also wrestles briefly, and less successfully still, with the impact of immigration and the opening of the frontier on the development of American political ideas. In doing so, at the end of the book, however, he is more laying out the areas needing further work than attempting to actually tackle the issues in detail.

Some of the many strenghts: Schlesigner provides us with the most coherant discussion before or since of the failure and demise of federalism, gives us the best history before or since on the battles over the 2nd National Bank, and brings out significant parts of the Jacksonian inheritance that had long been underappreciated. He incorporates original material into his work in a way that animates the material, makes it clearly understandable, and provides it context. Perhaps most importantly of all, he contributes a voice to American history that is personal and open, and puts the biases and personal intellectual struggles of the writer on display as part and parcel of his analysis.

Since Schlesinger's time, much has changed, but, in the developing debates Jacksonian Democracy is perhaps even more relevant. For example, there is again an alliance between economic and religious conservatives as there was in the Harrison/Van Buren election. Other reviewers have criticized, for example, Schlesigner's finding of common cause with the radical Jacksonians given Schlesinger's prediliction for "big government" liberalism; yet Schlesinger is very clear and insightful in showing how that the Jacksonian opposition's early view of limited government was inspired by the clear alliance of government and business at the time to the detriment of the common person, and that the view of government involvement developed significantly as the Jacksonians consolidated power and then watched it dissipate. We are once again in an era where the conservative party is increasingly the party of a bigger, more expansive and intrusive government, one which actively promotes policies geared toward conservative causes and business interests, and where liberals are, once again, more often the voice of governmental restraint. Schlesinger's analysis is helpful in tying together the development of differing approaches to government all in a common attempt to serve and respond to egalitarian social concerns. Schlesigner also is careful to call out the discontinuities between Jacksonian Democracy and the New Deal, highlighting in particular the struggles of the Jacksonians with industrialization, immigration and slavery.

While this book is highly recommended for all, and, indeed, is among the very best American History works, it is particularly recommended for those seeking intellectual roots for egalitarianism.

When, as a young man, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. published "The Age of Jackson" he gave us an insightful volume about the founder of the modern Democratic party, and of the critical generation of U.S. History that followed the presidencies of Madison and Monroe, and preceded the woefully incompetent administrations that helped to precipitate the Civil War. From the vantage point of the year 2000, it is easy to criticize the author for failing to take Jackson to task for his vile policy toward native Americans. It is also much harder for intelligent Americans of today to understand the merits of Jackson's opposition to the Bank of the United States. But his opposition to the Bank of the United States was derived from a populist streak that makes liberals cheer, and his position on other major issues justifies the honors bestowed on him by today's Democrats (just as Republicans have "Lincoln Day" dinners to annually honor their party's best President, Democrats have "Jefferson-Jackson Day" dinners to honor their party's two founders).

"The Age of Jackson" is probably the second place that all college history students should turn to, as they study pre-Civil War America, second only to getting the raw outline of events from their required textbook. Of course, the Schlesinger book is no longer the final place for the student's research; more recent, albeit less well-written works must be studied as well. Still, historians would be hard-pressed to ignore this classic.

As has been pointed out by other reviewers, Schlesinger's work is essentially an all-out assault on conservatism in American politics masked as a history of Jacksonian America. Not an attack on the "conservative" position on this or that topic, mind you. Rather, he argues that there is some sort of innate dark side in America - the conservatives - that has consistently and relentlessly tried to deprive society of freedom and liberty at every turn.

Schlesinger twists and bends and stretches American history in his attempt to show how the national saving grace of liberalism has continued in one uninterrupted line from Jefferson to Jackson to Lincoln to Wilson and, finally, to FDR, even though the issues, parties and arguments have changed radically. (Had this book been published in the late- rather the mid-twentieth century, I'm sure the author would have demonstrated the role Johnson, Carter and Clinton played in that continuum.)

Schlesinger saves his most impressive feat of historical casuistry for explaining how and why the Democratic Party wasn't "really" the political party of slavery and oppression. By 1848, in Schlesinger's analysis, the two central parties, Democrat and Whig, existed in name only. All the radical (read "truly liberal") elements of the Jacksonian tradition had joined the Republican Party by 1858 (conveniently allowing them to take credit for the Civil War and destroying American bondage), but were back in the Democratic Party by the time big business usurped the GOP during and after Reconstruction.

With such a contemptuous and sarcastic review, you might be wondering "so why the 4 stars"?

Well, it has been said that the field of economics progresses one funeral at a time - and I would argue the same holds true for the study of history. Whatever this book's faults, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. is one of the most influential historians of the twentieth century and this book shaped the minds and ideas of a generation of liberal intellectuals, including senior Democratic statesmen. For anyone interested in learning more about Jacksonian America and understanding one popular, albeit controversial, interpretation of its roots in modern American liberalism, this book is essential reading.

I have to disagree with the previous reviewer. THE AGE OF JACKSON was inspired by the author's support of FDR's New Deal, not World War II. Jackson's Democrats are FDR's Democrats, and the anti-Jackson Whigs are the anti-FDR Republicans. Therefore, any theme that did not support Jackson's image as a democrat and enemy of the wealthy was ignored, such as Old Hickory's genocidal policy against Native Americans. However, within his limitations, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. is a brilliant historian, and THE AGE OF JACKSON was well deserving of its Pulitzer Prize.

Many conservatives love Andrew Jackson and hate Franklin Roosevelt; many liberals love Franklin Roosevelt and hate Andrew Jackson; rare it is will you find a historical scholar with the cojones to point out a truth that most are loathe to admit - that the two men, though separated by a century, represented manifestations of the same basic ideology, and as such should be admired by anyone who adheres to progressive political values.
Arthur Schlesinger - a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian (for this and one other book) and a high-ranking employee for Franklin D. Roosevelt, Adlai E. Stevenson, and John F. Kennedy - is supremely well-qualified to render a verdict as to Jackson's legacy. This he does, and in spades, in a book that brilliantly captures the spirit of the Jacksonian Era even while digging deep into the political, economic, social, cultural, religious, and intellectual life of the time. This book is in part a chronicle of the movers and shakers of the Jacksonian movement(Martin Van Buren, John Calhoun, Jackson himself, and countless others), but it is primarily an all-encompassing chronicle of a political movement that has been more or less forgotten today. Anyone who doesn't recommend this book either doesn't know much about American history, or has an ideological agenda that they wish to foist upon you which is impeded by the facts presented in this volume. Ignore their imprecations and read it anyway.

I found it very hard to rate this book. In the end, I chose between three and four stars, and went with four. But, at various times, I considered everything from two to five.

This book has several serious problems. The most important is the incredible bias of the author. This bias is evident, to some extent, throughout the book, where Schlesinger's very liberal views taint almost everything he discusses. The last section of the book is particularly outrageous. It is, essentially, a very biased, distorted attack on legitimate policy views held by some moderates and conservatives. (By the way, I am not an arch-conservative; I'm a moderate who agrees with Schlesinger on many political and policy issues, but who doesn't think they should warp his account of history so much.)

Still, the book is a classic, and not without reason. It's well-written (unlike a lot of history I've been reading lately), lucid, and thoughtful. The story of Jackson and the politics of the first half of the 19th century is fascinating and very important to ones understanding of the development of the U.S. At the time at which this book was written, it advanced significantly our understanding of Jackson and this period -- even if subsequent research and analysis has improved on it. And, it's a good read.

So, I recommend this book as long as you go into it knowing its weaknesses and understanding that a lot in it is colored by Schlesinger's own political views.

In the sixty years since Schlessinger wrote TAOJ, our attitudes towards history have changed. Sparked in part by the civil rights movement, we now realize the importance of Jackson's policies towards the Native Americans. In this sense, as Schlessinger and all other historians before the 1960s fail to note, Jackson was deeply flawed. Still, no one is either all good or all bad. Schlessinger paints a very good and convincing portrait of Jackson's policies towards white Americans. He shows the logic behind Jackson's opposition to the Bank of the United States and support of hard money beautifully.

This book is one of the worst works ever written on Andrew Jackson. My main problem is that the author seems to want to believe that the Democratic Party has basically been around in much the same form as it was during the New Deal. FDR may have been the savior of America in the 1930s, but Andrew Jackson was his prophet. This just is not true (Schlesinger also attempts to establish the kinship between the two in reverse in his three volumes on Roosevelt as well, but not in the same degree as he does here).
The only real eternal verities in American History are the ones originally represented by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson at the establishment of the US. Simplified to their essence these are a belief in a strong federal government (Hamilton) or a weak one (Jefferson), a desire for wide spread equality (Jefferson) or confidence in the rich and well-born (Hamilton). Positions on these matters change throughout the extent of US history. There is no continuity between either of the two parties. Schelesinger's primary failing is not to recognize this.

Jackson and Roosevelt may have shared a basic vague sense of equality among the populace, but there the similarity ends. Each probably had a radically different view as to what peoples constituted the American nation. Words like "democracy" also changed over time in the 100 years that separate the age of Jackson with that of Roosevelt.

The biggest difference Roosevelt's notions of what government should and should not do would have been an anathema to Jackson. Jackson, who came into office determined to thwart John Q. Adams and Henry Clay's ideas of the federal government funding "internal improvements," would have been appalled by the New Deal. Jackson hated the idea that the federal government was funding roads and canals, the WPA and PWA would have sent a shiver down his spine. Roosevelt and Jackson had to radically differing views as to the role of the federal government. Arguments for any kinship between the two break down when one compares and contrasts their respective goals and visions. Jackson has more in common with Ronald Reagan than he did with FDR.

Another shortcoming in this book is its coverage of Jackson and the Indians. Were he to live in our own time, Jackson would be the most appalling racist and a large measure of his prejudice was focused against indians. While a number of other people did share Jackson's views, there were also those who did not and were appalled by the forced removal of indians from their property in Georgia for the discovery of gold there. Jackson did love the people, particularly if they were white and land speculators. Indians were not part of his calculation.

While Jackson is an interesting and important president, this is not the first book I would recommend. More useful is Robert Remini's three volumes on Jackson which is better at putting Jackson in the proper context.

Not only is this a classic Progressive interpretation of Jacksonian era politics, it offers great insight into how intellectuals of the forties understood the New Deal and saw it foreshadowed by Jackson and Van Buren. It is far from comprehensive in scope, and lack of attention to the Trail of Tears says alot about how New Deal liberals thought about diversity.

What it is: A political history of the US focusing on the 2nd quarter of the 19th century. This book is so well researched and written that even the footnotes are of interest.

What it isn't: A biography of Andrew Jackson