Customer Reviews

The Passions of Andrew Jackson

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

 

 

First and foremost, THE PASSIONS OF ANDREW JACKSON is compelling. This short book moves along at a quick pace. While the early life stories of some historic figures are dull necessities in larger biographies, Jackson's early life is the action-packed focus of this biography. The story of Andrew Jackson is a story of violence, sex scandal and adventure. Author Andrew Burstein does a good job of maximizing the drama of the story, and I enjoyed reading it very much.

Yet, while on the whole, THE PASSIONS OF ANDREW JACKSON is an enjoyable book, it also contains a major disappointment: Burstein's treatment of Jackson's presidency. Burstein set out to write a book about Jackson's character with an emphasis on exploring his friendships. He explicitly did not intend to chronicle Jackson's presidency, so his brief treatment of that part of Jackson's life was not especially surprising. It was, however, disappointing for a number of reasons.

To begin with, Burstein hurls the gauntlet in his introduction at other Jackson biographers, especially "the reigning Jackson authority," Robert Remini. His basic criticism of Remini, who wrote a three-volume biography of Jackson, is that Remini bought into Jacksonian mythology a bit too much. By contrast, Burstein sets as his goal writing about Jackson as he really was. I found the assault on Remini to be odd and out of place. Remini's last volume was published in 1984, so I'm not sure why Burstein felt the need to justify writing a new book. More importantly, by contrasting his own book with Remini's, Burstein suggests a parallelism that doesn't really exist. THE PASSIONS OF ANDREW JACKSON is much more limited in scope than Remini's work. Its focus is almost exclusively on who Jackson was rather than what he did.

Burstein falls short in not explaining enough what Jackson did. He assumes the reader's familiarity with the Jackson record and policy-making style. He alludes to important events associated with Jackson, such as the tragic "trail of tears," without fully explaining Jackson's role. Burstein probably could have done the job with an additional 20 pages, but it almost seems that the author lost interest in his own work at the point Jackson became president. The overall quality of the story degenerates after that. Burstein made his point already, the rest of Jackson's life is glossed over. The final several pages of reflective, explanatory writing seems almost redundant, which is a problem in a short book.

What is Burstein's point? It seems to be that Jackson was an impulsive, violent, unreflective man whose popularity was out of sync with his aptitudes for governing. His success at arousing emotional public support for short-sighted policies was the dark side of democracy. Beyond that, Burstein seems to very subtly be drawing a comparison between Jacksonian era politics and the politics of today, but this point is not developed probably because Burstein wanted his book to last. But by including this implied, under-developed comparison at all he fails to develop other implications, such as the idea that the early founders' elitist republicanism may have been a superior form of governance (another of Burstein's implications). In the end Burstein's only conclusions that stick are about Jackson's character, and not how any of this means anything larger.

The most disappointing aspect of THE PASSIONS OF ANDREW JACKSON is that there hasn't been a well-known popular Jackson biography published for several years. Jackson was too important a figure for "the reigning authority" to keep his crown for 20 years without a new contribution. As enjoyable as THE PASSIONS OF ANDREW JACKSON is, if Remini holds the title, Burstein does not quite pose a threat to win it.

While the book was a pretty enjoyable read, I am not really sure that Burstein accomplished what he set out to do.

It seems en vogue nowadays to go against the grain when writing biographies, and Burstein's effort is no exception. I decided to read this book after seeing an hour-long documentary of Jackson on the History Channel.

I was particularly interested in the executions of Ambrister and Arbuthnot. Ironically in a book filled with anti-Jackson material this event wasn't covered in as much detail as I figured it would be.

While it doesn't appear that Burstein set out to discredit Andrew Jackson's image, the book definitely trends toward the negative. Burstein uses a lot of Jackson's own words, and in many cases they aren't pretty. Burstein also keeps a running count of all of the duels, scuffles and scrapes that Andrew Jackson was drawn into to protect his honor. Burstein DOES discuss Jackson's devote love towards Rachel Donelson Robards, (even if the events leading up to the marriage are rightly questioned) and as well as his acts of charity, but the majority of the books serves to tear down Jackson's image.

Burstein does try to account for Jackson's flaws by discussing the political and social environment of the times, as will as addressing the fact that Jackson was the first President from 'the frontier', however I was left with the impression that Jackson was an extremist, when it came to protecting his honor. With Jackson there were no middle grounds, it was a personal affront to him to disagree with him politically.

Some of the book reads more as a general history book with Jackson as the main character rather then a biography. This is good in the sense that it may peak the reader's curiosity (as it did mine) to learn more about Burr, Calhoun, Clay and Monroe.

One very irritating part of the book, as one reader has already mentioned was Burstein's lack of structure with regards to his references. Bursteins uses 'notes' and while they are easy to follow, I found myself flipping to the back of the book way too much. What was really annoying was the fact that several of the notes were a paragraph long and should have probably been included in the main text of the book.

While Burstein uses his 'Introduction' to alert that reader that what he is about to write is not a 'heroic saga' as many prior biographers have written, after reading this book I was left wondering whether the definitive Jackson biography is still waiting to be written.

Biographies concentrate on many subjects - detailed analysis of actions and their motives, character studies, descriptions of times and events or, as in this case, an examination into what motivated the seventh president of the United States to do and say what he did. I sympathize with reviewers who castigate the author for skimming historical events, but he plainly states that the purpose of this book was an explortaion of the early 19th century mindset and what makes it so "American" and even compelling to this day.

As a Tennessean, where AJ takes on demigod status, I judged the author to be harsh but in the end, just. The question persists - were his "passions" atypical of the times? One must remember that Jackson's life encompassed the most important years of the nation. A Revolutionary War incident forever soured his view of Britain. He witnessed the founding of the Republic, the settling of the West, the coming of age of the body politic. He may be a grand - even great - figure but his flaws are legendary and it is these upon which Burstein dwelled.

Whether it was slavery, duels, treatment of Indians, inability to compromise, hot temper or pattern of blaming others for his own mistakes, AJ fares poorly. What is missing is that inner self so brilliantly illuninated in recent books on Franklin, Hamilton and Adams. What caused his monomania over the US Bank, why could he never accept criticism, keep friends? In a sense, he was a "modern" politician - opponents were not simply mistaken but instead were morally corrupt.

It is the politics that is missing. I mean, he was President for two terms through sheer force of will. A diehard Jeffersonian, a believer in an agrarian American, a populist, a foe of "special interests", a defender of states rights. His ideas changed once in office and that in itself would have made for good reading. All in all, a good overview.

Burstein seems to have been in a hurry to write this uninvolved book about a complex historical figure. His style is entertaining but he never delves into what Jackson DOES! I rather accept some of the assessments about Jackson's character as so totally self-centered that he couldn't keep a friend, take advice, or even adhere to the constitution, but I'd have liked to see more actual evidence put forth. Jackson's actual participation in the events he directed, caused, or undermined are completely skipped and replaced with a single opinionated point of view (which may well be accurate, but I'd rather form those conclusions myself).

I particularly dislike his arrangement of notes and the lack of a structured list of references. This (lately popular) method of substantiating the facts (or even opinions) in non-fiction books is an insidious attempt to thwart verification. I spent more time recording by hand the references I wished to check than I did actually reading the book. Why not list them in the conventional manner? It makes me suspect, especially when Remini is so cavaliarly dismissed.

Andrew Burstein is an entertaining writer, but this work is just too sloppy to be taken as a serious study of a complicated topic.

While reading this book, I didn't feel the author was particularly motivated to create a negative protrait of Jackson. By utilizing Jackson's own writing Burstein examines Jackson as he presented himself to others. This Jackson seems to be a man motivated by his belief that he was right in all things that mattered and if you disagreed you were disloyal. These are probably not uncommon traits for a president who was exceptionally popular, but played fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution and the will of the other branches of government.
That being said by focussing on Jackson's relationships with various individulas in his life, I felt I was not getting a complete portrait. Why was this man so revered by the people and what motivated his his various decisions? I feel this book gave me a starting point in understanding Jackson, a president who I feel abused his position like few others, but there seems to be more of a story here and THE PASSIONS OF ANDREW JACKSON seems to raise as many questions as it answers.

The conclusions reached (repeatedly) by Burstein seem to rely more upon his "instincts" than his analytical skills. Cultural historians are too often criticized for "teasing out" meaning from texts and the cause of that is in a book like this. Interpreting or "reading" texts from the 19th century is often eschewed for what seems to be "mind reading" and conclusion jumping on the slightest of pretexts. Burstein *assumes* influences (as another reviewer provided an excellent example, I will not) and often motives where there is no clear evidence that any such things were important to Jackson himself!
What appeared to be a corrective to the plentiful hagiographies is instead a book that looks to be more aimed at creating attention for Mr. Burstein. Too bad, Andrew Jackson has had a long career as an American icon and a good critical evaluation of the man and the phenomenon is overdue. This book seems to be hostile for hostility's sake which provides no new insights at all.

I found this book to be unabashedly one-sided and unconvincing. Instead of being more objective about the life and character of our seventh president than other historians, as Burstein claims, it is obvious to even a casual reader that he is determined to emphasize Jackson's flaws at the expense of his accomplishments. He will go on for paragraph after paragraph and page after page about anything detrimental to Old Hickory, but when he absolutely cannot avoid making a positive statement, he manages to do so as briefly as possible. For example, he covers many pages describing the murky details of the young Andy's relationship with his future wife Rachel Donelson Robards, some of them cogent and convincing. There is no way, however, that he can avoid mentioning that their love was true and endured for all the years of their marriage, but he manages to do so in one or two sentences, omitting the many examples he might have given that prove Jackson's devotion to his wife. I suspect that the author believes that a controversial and revisionist biography, loaded with unsubstantiated psychological interpretations, will sell books.

I found this book to be a very interesting if unflattering take on Andrew Jackson. The title is revealing-this book is primarily intersted in what made Jackson tick. This isn't done with new age psychoanalysis but by looking behind the actions Jackson took. Thus there is considerable time spent on Jackson's duels, physical confrontations and his political battles. Because of this there may be an imbalance in the book towards the negative actions Jackson took-such as his duels, disregard for military or political authority and his actions towards even his allies among the native americans. However the book makes it clear that it was these very traits that made him the General and President that he was. For a more positive and comprehensive book on Jackson read Brands book. Beter yet read them both.

This book will surely enlighten those that want to learn more about Andrew Jackson. It does however glaze over a few of the mans more notorious deeds. There was barely a page devoted to the forced relocation of the Cherrokee and other tribes of indians that lived East of the Missippi. Today this would have been a crime against humanity and it led to the Trail of Tears which is one of the more humiliating parts of American history. Nothing at all was mentioned of the fact that this was done with the Supreme Court saying that such an action was unacceptable. The subject of the closure of the National Banks could have done with some more discussion as well. The book did give the reader a bit of a look into the "What was he thinking?" question that most modern minds are led to ask when thinking of some of the actions of Gen. Jackson.
It's shortcomings aside, I am glad to have read it as it is a good look into an all too often forgotten time of American history.

If you are looking for a book that provides the "normal" and "heroic" Jackson that comes to most people's mind when they think of him, this is not it. There are plenty of them available. If you want an overview of antebellum politics, this book is not for you. If, however, you are a student of history and want a realistic portrayal of what Jackson and his associated politics were like in this period, then this book IS for you. Contrary to the inculcated myths most people, including myself, unconsciously hold, the founding generation and their 19th century successors were all too human just as people are today. This is what makes history so interesting and relevant. Technology may change. Even culture changes much by the century. But, human beings still retain the same basic set of good and bad attributes. Therefore, the early presidents had positive and negative characteristics. If you've ever read the aforementioned general "treatments" of Jackson and thought that he was many times paranoid, inconsistent, excessively violent and, perhaps, did much to slow down the country's economic development, then this book will help you understand why. It's probably not very helpful if you are just beginning to learn about history, as you need an appropriate baseline knowledge of the period to appreciate the author's opinions and analysis.