Home :: Books :: History  

Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History

Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical
Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
Age of Jackson (Back Bay Books (Series))

Age of Jackson (Back Bay Books (Series))

List Price: $21.95
Your Price: $14.93
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 >>

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Good with salt
Review: Andrew Jackson was born to poor Scotch-Irish immigrant mother on March 15, 1767. Jackson's father, after whom he was named, was killed while working on the new homestead. Just after Andrew Jackson Sr. was killed Elizabeth moved in with her sister. "Elizabeth took charge of a large household that now included eleven children" (5). It was in this large household that Andrew Jackson grew up in. However, his mother, though she ran the household, was largely treated as a guest. Elizabeth was a welcome help as her sister was an invalid.
By 1781, during the War for Independence, Jackson's mother passed away. Two years later, he was only 16 years old he learned he had a small fortune waiting for him in inheritance from his grandfather. It was not long that the money was gone and he was in debt. He wondered aimlessly through his young adulthood, bringing shame to his extended family because of his reputation for living fast and being quite the "rake". Many young ladies' parents believed that "he would get himself killed before he was many years older" (14). During this time he is described as being "entirely callous to the feelings of others". This would be an accurate description of Jackson through his entire life.
After a time of stumbling about, he finally landed on trying to practice law and was admitted to practice on the 20th of September 1787 in Wadesborough, North Carolina. Barely 3 months later the North Carolina State Legislature decided to send judges and advocates over the Appalachians to help settle the frontier dockets. This was the perfect opportunity in the eager young man's eyes to further himself and to become a true gentleman. Less than a year after gaining permission to practice law he was insulted by a true gentleman lawyer, Waightstill Avery, "the prominent attorney who had refused to accept Jackson as an apprentice" (16). He felt slighted and challenged the man to his first duel. No doubt Jackson enjoyed the sense of honor the duel gave him as he was later involved in several more duels.
This was the birth of Jackson's life as a frontier gentleman. This was the only kind of gentleman that Jackson was capable of becoming, which in some Easterner's eyes was no gentleman at all, but a mockery of landed aristocracy. He was not thriving in the East, but taming the West, and the rules of society were different. He moved through the echelons of society in the growing town of Nashville in middle Tennessee. Marrying into the prominent, but at the moment desperate Donelson family.
"Jackson entered politics to become a judge; he played politics to become a general" (39). He was already involved in politics and had gained a bench. However, it was not long that he pulled the connections he had with Blount, the politician of Tennessee, to become the judge advocate for the militia. And he eventually gained the rank of major general and remained the leader of the Tennessee militia through the War of 1812. It was not until the end of the war that Jackson gained his true fame. He and his men were at New Orleans in January of 1815 and beat the British with a loss of 13 total casualties. 6 dead, 7 wounded. The British sustained around 1600 dead and wounded. Jackson is often not given the full credit for the victory, but confusion, fog and other things are also handed the laurel. At the time however, the nation began singing the praises of their new hero "Old Hickory".
It was a short jump into the Presidency from there where he served two terms and managed to divide the Democratic-Republican party. He was a man who took things intensely personal. For example, the issue of nullification. The issue was whether or not it was the individual State Legislatures that decided the constitutionality of new laws and if they had the power to void them at their borders. Jackson being essentially a westerner deeply ingrained in a Southern mentality, was a big proponent of state's rights. This seems like it would have been an issue he would have allowed to go through. However, his deep sense of "l'estat c'est moi" meant that these states were personally attacking him. He would never stand for that and killed the issue.
Another example of his taking issues and political maneuvering personally, and his stance on state's rights, was with the Bank. The National Bank of the United States was a sound financial institution of the day. However, men like John C. Calhoun (Jackson's one time Vice President), Henry Clay and Daniel Webster were all big supporters of the Bank. They had committed treason against the person of the President so he would be sure to kill whatever they supported. He was already determined that the Bank was out to kill him. So, Jackson hired and fired a company of men to be the Secretary of the Treasury until he found one to be his lackey. Once the right man was found, Roger B. Tanney, he was able to withdraw all the federal money from the U.S. Bank and put it all into smaller state banks around the country. In doing so he rendered the Bank financially ruined. Calhoun and the men of his company were sure to not ratify as many appointments as they could in Jackson's cabinet as to stall any more of his policies from passing.
Curtis aims to portray Jackson as a man searching for vindication. I find Curtis portraying Jackson as a man simply searching. Jackson desires respect and respectability more than anything. During his two terms as the nation's executive he reminds me Orson Wells' famous portrayal of Citizen Kane. Always looking for appreciation, willing to play both sides of an issue for the pleasure of being right or honorable. Too often in Jackson's life, as in Kane's, these things were not two sides of the same coin. Curtis portrays Jackson honestly, and seemingly true to form. Curtis gets lost often in his own analysis and should stick to the facts, allowing them the room to speak for themselves. The best example of this is the "psycho-babble" covering Jackson's early life. Most readers will be able to see the scars Jackson bore, perhaps unwittingly, through his life when the facts are observed plainly, rather than thru Curtis' lingo.
I have come away from reading this book feeling that some questions are not answered. The portrayal of Jackson's relationship to his enemies seems to be missing some details. Also, the voice of Jackson himself is largely missing, except when Curtis wants to point out Jackson's delight in sport or his 18th Century penchant for being over dramatic. At least Curtis shines a mocking limelight on Jackson's "dramatis personae" only to show how his personality thrashed about to show off. He does this all the while wanting the reader to take into serious consideration how Jackson was deeply affected by the traumatic events in his early life. I found Curtis to be fair in his attempt to understand a complex and difficult man to appreciate. I liked Jackson, though I would not like to know him personally. From a distance I could admire some of his qualities, at close quarters he would loathe me.

blc

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Flawed but Essential Reading
Review: 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.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Masterful!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: I am very disapointed in the fact that this masterpiece has not recieved a higher rating it is one of the best historical works to date and recieves appraise. In noted Jackson historian and biographer, Robert V. Remini's words, "For the history of this period generally, especially to catch the color and the splash of the times, there is no better book than Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr's book The Age of Jackson. For the history lover who would like to read further into the life and times of the "fighting president" check out Robert Remini's numerous works on Andrew Jackson.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: flawed, but worth reading
Review: 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.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Review from a high school student
Review: I used this book as a resource for my AP US History term paper, and it was by far the best resource I could find on Jacksonian democracy. Schlesinger carefully details the events and attitudes surrounding the shift from Jeffersonian to Jacksonian (modern) democracy. It is tough reading, and there are a few somewhat opinionated comparisons between the 1940s and 1830s, but it is outstanding history.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Review from a high school student
Review: I used this book as a resource for my AP US History term paper, and it was by far the best resource I could find on Jacksonian democracy. Schlesinger carefully details the events and attitudes surrounding the shift from Jeffersonian to Jacksonian (modern) democracy. It is tough reading, and there are a few somewhat opinionated comparisons between the 1940s and 1830s, but it is outstanding history.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: This book was terrible!
Review: I was forced to read The Age of Jackson in fulfillment of credit in AP History. I found the book absolutely delightful. It gives great insight into the administration of Jackson and also into the other men who made up that administration. Schlesinger writes a page-turning biography if that doesn't sound strange. Plus, the use of footnotes lets the reader know the book is an excellent source of information.

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: a let down but worth the experience
Review: It's worth the read for the names and events that one encounters but I expected more of a work that's been awarded a Pulitzer; it is blantantly bias and I consider myself a liberal! I do believe instead of writing history Mr. Schlesinger was trying to woo the public.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Probably the worst book I have ever read.
Review: Perusing some of the other reviews here, this is obviously a case of one man's trash being another man's treasure. It totally escapes me how anyone could praise this book, other than for the obvious depth of research. Agonizingly written in stiff and stilted prose, poorly organized to the point of distraction, and chock full of information about the era in question, this book is only for the serious student of history willing to sift through the blatant bias of the author. That this book won a Pulitizer Prize only serves to discredit all other Pulitizer Prize winners. Kind of like the movie 'Fargo' winning academy awards.

Rating: 1 stars
Summary: Schlesinger needs to hang it up
Review: This book is absolutely flawed in its arguements. Schlesinger ignores the context of the times; he ignores basic truths; he is jaded in his outlook. By all accts., Mr. Schlesinger is a New Deal Democrat who tries to firmly tie in the New Deal Democrats into the Democrats of old.

However, I will give the man credit where it is due, he does his research. Pity he doesn't know what to do with it.


<< 1 2 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates