Customer Reviews

Andrew Jackson vs. Henry Clay: Democracy and Development in Antebellum America (Bedford Series in History & Culture)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Today we know them as Old Hickory and the Great Compromiser. However, they called each other King Andrew the first and the Corrupt Bargainer. Jackson and Clay were the opposite poles of the axis of Antebellum politics. Each man carried an ideological dislike and often personal hatred of the other man. However, each shaped the political landscape in the US perhaps more than any men after 1800. The 1820-30s were the utmost of critical in the development of the US- the crossroads where the US could prove a failed democratic experiment or emerging industrial country. In these crucial times nothing happened in Washington, DC without either Clay's or Jackson's approval. Their personal feud infulenced everything from construction of national highways, and the national banking system to slavery and tarriffs.

Watson keeps an even hand in explaining the complex relationship of these two important men. His writing is percise and insightful. The first part is Watson's explantion and analysis. Part 2 consist of over 100 pages of historical letters and writings. This allows the reader to understand Jackson and Clay thru their own words. The 200+ pages read very fast and contain all the information your likely to ever need to know about the connection between Clay and Jackson. The book was designed "to be a reasonable one-week assignment for a college course." It proves very reasonable indeed.

This is a fine, concise account of the policy differences that often get overlooked in accounts of the personal rivalry, even hatred, between Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay. They had real personal issues, but they also had very different ideas about the role of government in the early years of the Republic and this books makes them very clear.

I felt that the author of this book is one of those who romanticizes the life and career of Andrew Jackson, while glossing over his more controversial and perhaps more interesting acts. The whole of the book read as a sort of shrugging off of anything negative that Jackson had done, and an embrace of his persona and political career.

It seemed as if Henry Clay was an after-thought of the author, as he went on and on in praise of Jackson, he did not pay nearly as much attention to Clay (particularly positive attention). All in all this book is alright as an introduction, but I wouldn't accept it as a final truth on Jackson or Clay.