As William Nester asserts in The Age of Jackson , it takes quite a leader to personify an age. A political titan for thirty-three years (1815–1848), Andrew Jackson possessed character, beliefs, and acts that dominated American politics. Although Jackson returned to his Tennessee plantation in March 1837 after serving eight years as president, he continued to overshadow American politics. Two of his protégés, Martin “the Magician” van Buren and James “Young Hickory” Polk, followed him to the White House and pursued his agenda. Jackson provoked firestorms of political passions throughout his era. Far more people loved than hated him, but the fervor was just as pitched either way. Although the passions have subsided, the debate lingers. Historians are split over Jackson’s legacy. Some extol him as among America’s greatest presidents, citing his championing of the common man, holding the country together during the nullification crisis, and eliminating the national debt. Others excoriate him as a mean-spirited despot who shredded the Constitution and damaged the nation’s development by destroying the Second Bank of the United States, defying the Supreme Court, and grossly worsening political corruption through his spoils system. Still others condemn his forcibly expelling more than forty thousand Native Americans from their homes and along the Trail of Tears, which led far west of the Mississippi River, with thousands perishing along the way. In his clear-eyed assessment of one of the most divisive leaders in American history, Nester provides new insight into the age-old debate about the very nature of power itself.
William Nester, PhD is a Professor of Government and Politics at St. John’s University. He is the author of twenty-five books that explore varying dimensions and subjects of international relations and power. He taught at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London from 1987 to 1989, and since then at St. John's University.He received a BA in international studies and history from Miami University of Ohio, and a MA and PhD in Political Science from the University of California at Santa Barbara.
If you want an unbiased interpretation of Jackson don’t read it.
Another liberal trying to interpret Jackson. As far as the discourse of the facts are concerned, the author does a good job. Otherwise he fills in his reinterpretation of all other related facts by omitting them and installing a liberal narrative.