Rating: 
Summary: Excellent account of the Jacksonian Era
Review: This book is one of the most insightful studies of American politics during the Jacksonian Era. It is obvious that it was during the Jacksonian Era that many of the policies and ideas Thomas Jefferson wrote and spoke about came to fruition during this period in our country's history and it was accomplished mainly by the efforts of the radical, libertarian wing of the Democratic Party called the "Locofocos". Author Jeffrey Rogers Hummel said it best that: "No one other than Schlesigner has better appreciated the genuine radicalism of the Democratic Party's support for laissez faire and hard money policies in opposition to the Whig's conservative defense of government intervention." I think Schlesinger's trying to link Jackson and his policies with those of the F.D.R. and the New Deal are weak since they are diametrically different (and the reason for the four stars) but his book is a fascinating and enlightening account of the politics of the Jacksonian Era. The Pulitzer Prize for History Schlesigner won for this book is well earned. If you like to read books along similar lines, I also recommend "All On Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery" by Henry Mayer which details not only the life of William Lloyd Garrison but the abolitionist movement as well. The abolitionists also contributed greatly to the ideas espoused during the Jacksonian Era for their focus on the hypocrisy of America's 'support' of the institution of slavery.
Rating: 
Summary: I don't care what people think...
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: excellent political history
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: A Great Historian; A Great President
Review: 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.
| 
