What do you think?
Rate this book
In Defense of Andrew Jackson
"He was a man of the frontier, self-made but appreciative of those who gave him their loyalty and support. He was, pure and simple, and American..."
Andrew Jackson was controversial in his time—and even more controversial in our own. Indian fighter, ardent patriot, hero of the War of 1812, the very embodiment of America’s democratic and frontier spirit, Andrew Jackson was an iconic figure.
Today, Jackson is criticized and reviled – condemned as a slave-owner, repudiated as the president who dispatched the Indians down the “Trail of Tears,” dropped with embarrassment by the Democratic Party, and demanded by many to be removed from the twenty-dollar bill.
Who is the real Andrew Jackson? The beloved Old Hickory whom Americans once revered? Or the villain who has become a prime target of the Social Justice Warriors?
Using letters, diaries, newspaper columns, and notes, historian Bradley Birzer provides a fresh and enlightening perspective on Jackson —unvarnished, true to history, revealing why President Donald Trump sees Andrew Jackson as a political role model, and illustrating the strong parallels between the anxieties of Jacksonian America and the anxieties of the "Hillbilly Elegy" voting bloc of today.
In this brilliant new book, Bradley Birzer makes the case that Jackson was…
In Defense of Andrew Jackson sets the record straight on our seventh president, revealing a radically new but historically accurate perspective on Jackson.
“I’m not an Andrew Jackson fan, but I’m definitely a Bradley Birzer fan. His case for Old Hickory is as strong as any I’ve seen and deserves to be reckoned with.” - THOMAS E. WOODS JR., author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
“Most discussion of Andrew Jackson falls into predictable ruts, defaulting automatically to clichés that reflect more on our own time than his. Whether America is entering another ‘Jacksonian’ period depends upon understanding the first one more clearly, and we have Bradley Birzer to thank for taking up a spirited defense of this complicated man and his legacy.” - STEVEN F. HAYWARD, author of The Age of The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980-1989.
“Liberal revisionists have pounded Andrew Jackson down to the point where Democrats are ashamed to admit he founded their party. In Defense of Andrew Jackson sets the record straight on America’s first populist president.” - JAMES S. ROBBINS, author of Erasing Losing Our Future by Destroying Our Past .
“As a man and a military hero, Andrew Jackson is as American as they come. But in this timely biography, Bradley Birzer has managed to peel back layers of cliché and reveal our seventh president as a more complex human being than current textbooks allow.” - GLEAVES WHITNEY, director of Grand Valley State University’s Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies.
Andrew Jackson was controversial in his time—and even more controversial in our own. Indian fighter, ardent patriot, hero of the War of 1812, the very embodiment of America’s democratic and frontier spirit, Andrew Jackson was an iconic figure.
Today, Jackson is criticized and reviled – condemned as a slave-owner, repudiated as the president who dispatched the Indians down the “Trail of Tears,” dropped with embarrassment by the Democratic Party, and demanded by many to be removed from the twenty-dollar bill.
Who is the real Andrew Jackson? The beloved Old Hickory whom Americans once revered? Or the villain who has become a prime target of the Social Justice Warriors?
Using letters, diaries, newspaper columns, and notes, historian Bradley Birzer provides a fresh and enlightening perspective on Jackson —unvarnished, true to history, revealing why President Donald Trump sees Andrew Jackson as a political role model, and illustrating the strong parallels between the anxieties of Jacksonian America and the anxieties of the "Hillbilly Elegy" voting bloc of today.
In this brilliant new book, Bradley Birzer makes the case that Jackson was…
In Defense of Andrew Jackson sets the record straight on our seventh president, revealing a radically new but historically accurate perspective on Jackson.
“I’m not an Andrew Jackson fan, but I’m definitely a Bradley Birzer fan. His case for Old Hickory is as strong as any I’ve seen and deserves to be reckoned with.” - THOMAS E. WOODS JR., author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.
“Most discussion of Andrew Jackson falls into predictable ruts, defaulting automatically to clichés that reflect more on our own time than his. Whether America is entering another ‘Jacksonian’ period depends upon understanding the first one more clearly, and we have Bradley Birzer to thank for taking up a spirited defense of this complicated man and his legacy.” - STEVEN F. HAYWARD, author of The Age of The Conservative Counterrevolution 1980-1989.
“Liberal revisionists have pounded Andrew Jackson down to the point where Democrats are ashamed to admit he founded their party. In Defense of Andrew Jackson sets the record straight on America’s first populist president.” - JAMES S. ROBBINS, author of Erasing Losing Our Future by Destroying Our Past .
“As a man and a military hero, Andrew Jackson is as American as they come. But in this timely biography, Bradley Birzer has managed to peel back layers of cliché and reveal our seventh president as a more complex human being than current textbooks allow.” - GLEAVES WHITNEY, director of Grand Valley State University’s Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies.
175 pages, Hardcover
Published September 11, 2018
18 people are currently reading
133 people want to read
About the author
Bradley J. Birzer
30 books68 followersBradley J. Birzer is an American historian. He is a history professor and the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies at Hillsdale College, the author of five books and the co-founder of The Imaginative Conservative. He is known also as a J.R.R. Tolkien scholar.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
March 3, 2019
Being a fan of Brad Birzer's work, as both a historian and a social commentator, I wanted to give In Defense of Andrew Jackson more than three stars. But while this book doesn't have any major glaring issues, it struck me as a good, but not great book.
Birzer has said that he was working under significant time constraints for his publisher, and it shows, not in the quality of the work but definitely in its quantity. Birzer acknowledges this at the beginning of the book, commenting that it is as much a historical essay as it is a full-length book. Coming in at 150 pages plus 30 pages of Jackson's Farewell Address, Birzer can only dedicate a few pages each for major events in Jackson's life - be it the Battle of New Orleans, his military and political maneuvers in Florida, his election to the presidency, or his advocacy for the Indian Removal Act that led to the infamous Trail of Tears. This is a shame, because if Birzer had more time he could have tied his overall thesis - that Jackson was a flawed and heroic figure - to each of these events.
The publisher further handicapped Birzer by foisting the title on him (although I suspect that it is successful as a marketing strategy). In reality, this is not a defense of Andrew Jackson. It's more a work of contextualization, and of both the triumphs and the failings of human nature. It is here that Birzer is at his best, noting that while Jackson was capable of great violence and even cruelty, he was also capable of deep love and respect. The characteristic that Birzer most often notes, however, is Jackson's conception of honor and the importance that it played in his personal and professional life. In this way, Jackson is something of an alien to the modern reader, who lives in an era in which the very concepts of honor and duty are undermined to the point of extinction. To the extent that Birzer defends Jackson, it's less a defense of what Jackson did than it is a call to recognize his virtues that accompanied his faults - a call to not submit to the modern tendency to think of history and historical figures in categorically good or categorically bad terms.
Ultimately, Birzer mostly succeeds in this effort, but necessarily, given the length of the book, leaves out further analysis and details that would have strengthened his work. Even so, In Defense of Andrew Jackson is well worth reading, as long as it is considered a primer, and not a fully-developed narrative, on Jackson and his life.
Birzer has said that he was working under significant time constraints for his publisher, and it shows, not in the quality of the work but definitely in its quantity. Birzer acknowledges this at the beginning of the book, commenting that it is as much a historical essay as it is a full-length book. Coming in at 150 pages plus 30 pages of Jackson's Farewell Address, Birzer can only dedicate a few pages each for major events in Jackson's life - be it the Battle of New Orleans, his military and political maneuvers in Florida, his election to the presidency, or his advocacy for the Indian Removal Act that led to the infamous Trail of Tears. This is a shame, because if Birzer had more time he could have tied his overall thesis - that Jackson was a flawed and heroic figure - to each of these events.
The publisher further handicapped Birzer by foisting the title on him (although I suspect that it is successful as a marketing strategy). In reality, this is not a defense of Andrew Jackson. It's more a work of contextualization, and of both the triumphs and the failings of human nature. It is here that Birzer is at his best, noting that while Jackson was capable of great violence and even cruelty, he was also capable of deep love and respect. The characteristic that Birzer most often notes, however, is Jackson's conception of honor and the importance that it played in his personal and professional life. In this way, Jackson is something of an alien to the modern reader, who lives in an era in which the very concepts of honor and duty are undermined to the point of extinction. To the extent that Birzer defends Jackson, it's less a defense of what Jackson did than it is a call to recognize his virtues that accompanied his faults - a call to not submit to the modern tendency to think of history and historical figures in categorically good or categorically bad terms.
Ultimately, Birzer mostly succeeds in this effort, but necessarily, given the length of the book, leaves out further analysis and details that would have strengthened his work. Even so, In Defense of Andrew Jackson is well worth reading, as long as it is considered a primer, and not a fully-developed narrative, on Jackson and his life.
October 6, 2018
This is a short and delightful biography and defense of a man who is the object of way too much scorn in our day and time. All those who malign Jackson can be glad that it is the gentle, wise, and witty pen of Bradley Birzer who is defending Old Hickory and not Old Hickory himself. (Translation: If Jackson were still alive, there would be a few 'killins'.)
Since I have turned book reviewing into a business (hobby/diversion/addiction/illusion), I have tried to avoid being the critic who shreds the hard labors of an author while appearing to be all knowing and wise. But I must begin by a straight forward, unrestrained attack on Dr. Bradley Birzer and his book In Defense of Andrew Jackson.
THIS BIOGRAPHY WAS TOO SHORT. The text covering the life, views, and defense of Jackson halted abruptly some 150 pages in. I was wanting another 150 pages devoted to the man. The final 30 pages is Jackson’s Farewell Address. Birzer and his publisher (Regnery) should have given us 300 pages about Jackson, followed up with a collection of letters and speeches of at least another 300 pages. I hope that the prof and the publisher are smarting under this severe lashing.
Now, let’s calm down and look at this delightful little book. First of all, in spite of all that is said about tolerance, open-mindedness, diversity, etc., there are some topics and people who are not allowed to be discussed or defended. Our eighth President has become the poster boy for much that was wrong or unenlightened in American political history. And if you are wanting to find a man with flaws, Jackson is an easy target. If anything, he was up-front, transparent, unequivocal, and in-your-face regarding his views, actions, and opinions. There is no search for the real Andy Jackson or the inner thoughts of this man.
He was, in a sense, the first truly American-made President. The previous Presidents had been born into, nurtured in, and refined by the British Colonial world. That was not a bad world, and its influence was strongest on the coastal and northern parts of the still young nation. Jackson was born in 1767 to a Scots-Irish family who had immigrated to the Carolina frontier. Jackson was a frontiersman, a Scots-Irish, a self-made man, a Presbyterian, a fighter, a rough-hewn sometimes crude but still self-educated man, and a mover and shaker. What he never could be accused of being was an Englishman, an aristocrat, a ruling elite, a refined and cultured gentleman. Those kinds of species didn’t survive where Jackson grew up.
He was the first man to prove that anyone can become President. From his birth to his wartime ventures (in both wars against Britain and numerous other battles) to his politics to his relations with others, he had a battle from the start. He was incredibly courageous, resourceful, and self-willed. He could live by the sword and nearly die by the sword. Any meekness that ever showed up was purely a work of God’s grace. And Jackson is a remarkable illustration of the slow soul formation of God’s grace. His mother had hoped he would grow up to be a Presbyterian preacher, but he didn’t get struck by lightening or undergo any turning point that would have inclined him that way in short form.
What Birzer demonstrates is that Jackson was a great leader. Even some of his worst connections (Indian removal, slave-owning) have to be studied in greater context and not simply attacked. What many might truly find objectionable about Jackson is this: He was a dedicated Constitutionalist and fiscal conservative. It is interesting that many have drawn parallels between Jackson and President Trump. President Trump’s better angels and actions have been Jacksonian. The better parallel would be between Jackson and Reagan. Both men were primarily educated by long lives of political, economic, and social experiences. But were gut-led conservatives, but both were savvy about human nature and government. Both changed the atmosphere of Washington and the United States for a long time. (However, I could wish that Reagan’s legacy would be more enshrined in actions.)
Washington, due to the nature of government and sinful men, will always be tending toward being a swamp. Government is a swamp building enterprise. Draining the swamp is a useful and never completely accomplished image. Although Jackson’s peers and predecessors, men like James Monroe, John Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun, were men of caliber and competence, they did not have the frontier-inspired ability to get to the root of problems the way Jackson did.
I confess to having a long-term tendency to like Jackson. Yes, I tend toward hero-worship of Presidents, Generals, and men of action. Maybe it was caused by the time my parents took me to visit the Hermitage, just outside of Nashville, when I was in high school. But there was a long season where I drifted toward a hostility to Jacksonian Democracy, mob rule, the rise of the common man. As I bounced from pole to pole, Gregg Singer’s opposition to Jackson was on one side, while R. J. Rushdoony’s favorable lecture was on the other. And I confess to having some sympathy for nullilfication, the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions, and South Carolina’s angst over the Tariff of Abominations. And, the Trail of Tears is a great blight on the American Story.
I have read the books of the premier Jackson scholar in America–Robert Remini. In fact, I bought a paperback Remini book on Jackson when I made that high school age visit to the Hermitage. I also read and loved Jon Meacham’s American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.
Along with those two scholars and their books, I have picked up several other Jackson biographies over the years. I have a great dvd that we use in my class that features Dr. Remini and lots of in-depth discussion of Jackson. I have also had a favorable view of Jackson personally because of his unwavering devotion to his most godly wife Rachel. Rachel and Jackson’s mother were the primary ones who pointed him to faith. As a Presbyterian, I have delighted in reading about his devotion to God, faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith which became very pronounced in his older years.
But it was the reading of this book that made me realize that in spite of my readings and teachings, I had underestimated and under-admired the man. It was also delightful to see Birzer, the author of several really fine studies, quote from Paul Johnson’s Birth of the Modern. You see, real academics are not supposed to quote from Johnson. Granted, Paul Johnson is a delightful writer and quite original and bold in his pronouncements, he doesn’t fit the criteria of acceptable scholarship. Thanks, Dr. Birzer, for ignoring the pattern of ignoring the really gifted, sometimes wrong, often entertaining, and inimitable Paul Johnson.
Get this book: In Defense of Andrew Jackson. It is published by Regnery History, and in case you did not know, Regnery doesn’t just have the motto “Great conservative books, great conservative authors,” they really do produce some outstanding books.
Since I have turned book reviewing into a business (hobby/diversion/addiction/illusion), I have tried to avoid being the critic who shreds the hard labors of an author while appearing to be all knowing and wise. But I must begin by a straight forward, unrestrained attack on Dr. Bradley Birzer and his book In Defense of Andrew Jackson.
THIS BIOGRAPHY WAS TOO SHORT. The text covering the life, views, and defense of Jackson halted abruptly some 150 pages in. I was wanting another 150 pages devoted to the man. The final 30 pages is Jackson’s Farewell Address. Birzer and his publisher (Regnery) should have given us 300 pages about Jackson, followed up with a collection of letters and speeches of at least another 300 pages. I hope that the prof and the publisher are smarting under this severe lashing.
Now, let’s calm down and look at this delightful little book. First of all, in spite of all that is said about tolerance, open-mindedness, diversity, etc., there are some topics and people who are not allowed to be discussed or defended. Our eighth President has become the poster boy for much that was wrong or unenlightened in American political history. And if you are wanting to find a man with flaws, Jackson is an easy target. If anything, he was up-front, transparent, unequivocal, and in-your-face regarding his views, actions, and opinions. There is no search for the real Andy Jackson or the inner thoughts of this man.
He was, in a sense, the first truly American-made President. The previous Presidents had been born into, nurtured in, and refined by the British Colonial world. That was not a bad world, and its influence was strongest on the coastal and northern parts of the still young nation. Jackson was born in 1767 to a Scots-Irish family who had immigrated to the Carolina frontier. Jackson was a frontiersman, a Scots-Irish, a self-made man, a Presbyterian, a fighter, a rough-hewn sometimes crude but still self-educated man, and a mover and shaker. What he never could be accused of being was an Englishman, an aristocrat, a ruling elite, a refined and cultured gentleman. Those kinds of species didn’t survive where Jackson grew up.
He was the first man to prove that anyone can become President. From his birth to his wartime ventures (in both wars against Britain and numerous other battles) to his politics to his relations with others, he had a battle from the start. He was incredibly courageous, resourceful, and self-willed. He could live by the sword and nearly die by the sword. Any meekness that ever showed up was purely a work of God’s grace. And Jackson is a remarkable illustration of the slow soul formation of God’s grace. His mother had hoped he would grow up to be a Presbyterian preacher, but he didn’t get struck by lightening or undergo any turning point that would have inclined him that way in short form.
What Birzer demonstrates is that Jackson was a great leader. Even some of his worst connections (Indian removal, slave-owning) have to be studied in greater context and not simply attacked. What many might truly find objectionable about Jackson is this: He was a dedicated Constitutionalist and fiscal conservative. It is interesting that many have drawn parallels between Jackson and President Trump. President Trump’s better angels and actions have been Jacksonian. The better parallel would be between Jackson and Reagan. Both men were primarily educated by long lives of political, economic, and social experiences. But were gut-led conservatives, but both were savvy about human nature and government. Both changed the atmosphere of Washington and the United States for a long time. (However, I could wish that Reagan’s legacy would be more enshrined in actions.)
Washington, due to the nature of government and sinful men, will always be tending toward being a swamp. Government is a swamp building enterprise. Draining the swamp is a useful and never completely accomplished image. Although Jackson’s peers and predecessors, men like James Monroe, John Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun, were men of caliber and competence, they did not have the frontier-inspired ability to get to the root of problems the way Jackson did.
I confess to having a long-term tendency to like Jackson. Yes, I tend toward hero-worship of Presidents, Generals, and men of action. Maybe it was caused by the time my parents took me to visit the Hermitage, just outside of Nashville, when I was in high school. But there was a long season where I drifted toward a hostility to Jacksonian Democracy, mob rule, the rise of the common man. As I bounced from pole to pole, Gregg Singer’s opposition to Jackson was on one side, while R. J. Rushdoony’s favorable lecture was on the other. And I confess to having some sympathy for nullilfication, the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions, and South Carolina’s angst over the Tariff of Abominations. And, the Trail of Tears is a great blight on the American Story.
I have read the books of the premier Jackson scholar in America–Robert Remini. In fact, I bought a paperback Remini book on Jackson when I made that high school age visit to the Hermitage. I also read and loved Jon Meacham’s American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House.
Along with those two scholars and their books, I have picked up several other Jackson biographies over the years. I have a great dvd that we use in my class that features Dr. Remini and lots of in-depth discussion of Jackson. I have also had a favorable view of Jackson personally because of his unwavering devotion to his most godly wife Rachel. Rachel and Jackson’s mother were the primary ones who pointed him to faith. As a Presbyterian, I have delighted in reading about his devotion to God, faith, and the Westminster Confession of Faith which became very pronounced in his older years.
But it was the reading of this book that made me realize that in spite of my readings and teachings, I had underestimated and under-admired the man. It was also delightful to see Birzer, the author of several really fine studies, quote from Paul Johnson’s Birth of the Modern. You see, real academics are not supposed to quote from Johnson. Granted, Paul Johnson is a delightful writer and quite original and bold in his pronouncements, he doesn’t fit the criteria of acceptable scholarship. Thanks, Dr. Birzer, for ignoring the pattern of ignoring the really gifted, sometimes wrong, often entertaining, and inimitable Paul Johnson.
Get this book: In Defense of Andrew Jackson. It is published by Regnery History, and in case you did not know, Regnery doesn’t just have the motto “Great conservative books, great conservative authors,” they really do produce some outstanding books.
January 13, 2022
This is an exceptionally well-written essay, a deep look at the values, beliefs, and character of our seventh president. Bradley Birzer has the historian’s credentials to write a thorough report on the life of a forceful and controversial figure in early American history. His research is substantial and he is careful to point out the themes, biases, and motives of published authors on this subject. Birzer’s motive is to examine the reason why there is a wide gulf between the view of presidents Reagan and Trump toward Andrew Jackson and that of post-modern historians, political pundits, and others. He does this quite well by explaining the history of political parties in America, the shift in presidential politics in Jackson’s time, and the evolution of the warping of original constitutional principles. Firsthand accounts, personal papers, and scholarly research are used to provide a picture of what the man in his time was really like, what he did, why he did it, and what the American people in that day thought about all that. The picture Birzer describes is that of a consistently principled, rugged, independent individualist, and patriotic republican citizen who became the embodiment of the ideal American to his fellow citizens; in fact, the one who Birzer calls the first true American president, unencumbered by ties to the old world. That this description infuriates post-modern folk, socialists, non-Christians and universalists is understandable but that does not negate the veracity and truth of the matter. Birzer does an outstanding job of calmly and thoroughly debunking the progressive narrative of obfuscating the truth and attacking Jackson in a way that suits their agenda. Their motive is deconstructing and destroying America through revisionist rewriting of history, inappropriately applying today’s “values” to historical figures (who had to live in the world into which they were born), analyzing history through colored lenses, and removing the foundation of patriotic heroes, significant events, and national accomplishments that all Americans can admire. One indicator of the reason for their disdain of Jackson is found in his final address to America, found as the last chapter. His beliefs are well articulated and clearly the anti-thesis of what post-modern progressives believe; one can only imagine their reaction if Jackson were giving this speech on television today.
September 21, 2018
Andrew Jackson, according to Jon Meacham, represented the best and worst of America. War hero and Indian-fighter, democrat and slave owner, honorable man and vengeful, Jackson is one of the great Americans of all time. His reputation has taken more than a few hits for the usual reasons: slavery, the Trail of Tears, his brand of populism which is seen as a precursor to Trump.
Brad Birzer, progressive rock fan and conservative writer and historian, gives us a largely appreciative portrait of Jackson that does not whitewash the man but views him with affection.
Though Birzer does not dwell on Jackson’s ownership of slaves, which is something I think could be looked into, his coverage of Jackson and the natives is wise. On the one hand, Jackson’s Trail of Tears was a disaster in terms of the many lives lost. But on the other hand, Jackson, though a fierce fighter against the tribes, had a certain respect for the Natives that stood out among even his peers.
Especially heroic about Jackson is his fight against the institution of a national bank and his essentially republican-libertarian temper when it came to understanding who held the power. Jacksonianism means individualism and populism, and though he did increase the use of the executive in his day, he did it with the spirit of restoring balance to the government, to something as the Founders would have hoped. I’m ultimately not confident in the idea of limited government as being sustainable; I’m more of a Rothbardian anarchist in my beliefs, but I am thoroughly sympathetic to Jackson, Jefferson, and any who hoped for limited government that would protect the people’s liberties.
Ultimately, however, Jackson believed it was in the hands of the people and in their hearts to preserve the great liberties they enjoyed. If only more would take this lesson to heart.
I think Birzer’s assessment is right: we need Jackson.
He was flawed, and there are things about him I could do without. As for American greatness, I consider the Founders to be greater, especially Jefferson. But that goes without saying.
But I agree: We need Jackson. He is our American hero.
Brad Birzer, progressive rock fan and conservative writer and historian, gives us a largely appreciative portrait of Jackson that does not whitewash the man but views him with affection.
Though Birzer does not dwell on Jackson’s ownership of slaves, which is something I think could be looked into, his coverage of Jackson and the natives is wise. On the one hand, Jackson’s Trail of Tears was a disaster in terms of the many lives lost. But on the other hand, Jackson, though a fierce fighter against the tribes, had a certain respect for the Natives that stood out among even his peers.
Especially heroic about Jackson is his fight against the institution of a national bank and his essentially republican-libertarian temper when it came to understanding who held the power. Jacksonianism means individualism and populism, and though he did increase the use of the executive in his day, he did it with the spirit of restoring balance to the government, to something as the Founders would have hoped. I’m ultimately not confident in the idea of limited government as being sustainable; I’m more of a Rothbardian anarchist in my beliefs, but I am thoroughly sympathetic to Jackson, Jefferson, and any who hoped for limited government that would protect the people’s liberties.
Ultimately, however, Jackson believed it was in the hands of the people and in their hearts to preserve the great liberties they enjoyed. If only more would take this lesson to heart.
I think Birzer’s assessment is right: we need Jackson.
He was flawed, and there are things about him I could do without. As for American greatness, I consider the Founders to be greater, especially Jefferson. But that goes without saying.
But I agree: We need Jackson. He is our American hero.
January 23, 2021
I cannot give this more than three stars despite being a sometime colleague and friend of Prof. Birzer. While the final chapter makes a good case for Jackson being a harbinger of things both good and bad in the near future for America, it is the chapter on the Indian removals that is the weakest. Birzer attempts to excuse them by placing them in historical context but cannot bring himself to call evil, evil.
I've seen Brad give some of the most powerful lectures I've ever seen at FEE seminars and write beautiful passages. He is an excellent historian in my opinion. I just think his task to write something revisionist or counter to the zeitgeist got the better of him.
In the end, Prof. Birzer did actually improve my general outlook on Jackson, save for that one issue. He was deeply unconvincing there.
I've seen Brad give some of the most powerful lectures I've ever seen at FEE seminars and write beautiful passages. He is an excellent historian in my opinion. I just think his task to write something revisionist or counter to the zeitgeist got the better of him.
In the end, Prof. Birzer did actually improve my general outlook on Jackson, save for that one issue. He was deeply unconvincing there.
September 23, 2018
Be prepared for history to come alive and to rediscover the relevance of the past for today!
Engaging, eloquent, enlightening. The way Brad Birzer brings Andrew Jackson to life in this biography is an educational delight. A thought-provoking and quick read, I could only put the book down to ponder this perspective on Jackson and America.
Engaging, eloquent, enlightening. The way Brad Birzer brings Andrew Jackson to life in this biography is an educational delight. A thought-provoking and quick read, I could only put the book down to ponder this perspective on Jackson and America.
June 14, 2019
Regrettably, factual and interpretive errors permeate this biography, making it an unreliable addition to the study of Jackson.
November 29, 2022
This is a good short biography of Jackson that hits on major aspects of his political life and presidency that don't get the same attention in scholarly biographies.
April 3, 2026
Bradley Birzer’s “In Defense of Andrew Jackson” is a spirited attempt to rehabilitate the legacy of our seventh president. While much of the discussion about Andrew Jackson has become politicized, Birzer’s balanced study presents Jackson as a man in full: warrior, lawyer, public official, legislator, populist and president.
Birzer is a history professor and the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies at Hillsdale College; the author of numerous books, Birzer is also known also as a Tolkien scholar.
Throughout Donald Trump’s first term, rioters continually visited Jackson Square in New Orleans — a square which commemorates Jackson’s victory in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 — asserting that any commemoration of Jackson was offensive to black Americans, and offensive to democratically minded people. Notwithstanding, when he was elected to the presidency, Jackson received a landslide in the electoral college, and 56 percent of the popular vote.
In response to these mobs, Birzer has written a brief overview of the life and presidency of Jackson that is mindful of the issues that faced early 19th century America.
Birzer writes:
In the end, Jackson made bridging the gap between our worlds easy because whatever his faults — and there were many — he was nothing if not brutally honest about himself and his ideas... Jackson considered it a virtue to be as consistent as possible, even in his violence.
This brief study relies heavily on Jackson’s own writings to capture the essence of the man. This is not an academic text; rather, it is a readable history.
Jackson’s commitment to the Republic; his preference for militias instead of a standing army; his belief in the People”; his dedication as president to uphold the Constitution of the United States; and concern to support specie money against paper currency are themes that unite the life of Andrew Jackson.
Jackson was also a different kind of Democrat. He wanted to restrain the government and its spending. Moreover, unlike today’s Democratic governors, Jackson resisted efforts to nullify federal law. When a neo–Confederate governor such as Minnesota's Tim ’John Calhoun’ Walz seeks to abrogate law in the name of empathy, let Jackson speak:
“In order to maintain the Union...it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country...and that every good citizen, should at all times, stand ready to put down...unlawful resistance.
Read Birzer’s book.
Birzer is a history professor and the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies at Hillsdale College; the author of numerous books, Birzer is also known also as a Tolkien scholar.
Throughout Donald Trump’s first term, rioters continually visited Jackson Square in New Orleans — a square which commemorates Jackson’s victory in the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812 — asserting that any commemoration of Jackson was offensive to black Americans, and offensive to democratically minded people. Notwithstanding, when he was elected to the presidency, Jackson received a landslide in the electoral college, and 56 percent of the popular vote.
In response to these mobs, Birzer has written a brief overview of the life and presidency of Jackson that is mindful of the issues that faced early 19th century America.
Birzer writes:
In the end, Jackson made bridging the gap between our worlds easy because whatever his faults — and there were many — he was nothing if not brutally honest about himself and his ideas... Jackson considered it a virtue to be as consistent as possible, even in his violence.
This brief study relies heavily on Jackson’s own writings to capture the essence of the man. This is not an academic text; rather, it is a readable history.
Jackson’s commitment to the Republic; his preference for militias instead of a standing army; his belief in the People”; his dedication as president to uphold the Constitution of the United States; and concern to support specie money against paper currency are themes that unite the life of Andrew Jackson.
Jackson was also a different kind of Democrat. He wanted to restrain the government and its spending. Moreover, unlike today’s Democratic governors, Jackson resisted efforts to nullify federal law. When a neo–Confederate governor such as Minnesota's Tim ’John Calhoun’ Walz seeks to abrogate law in the name of empathy, let Jackson speak:
“In order to maintain the Union...it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country...and that every good citizen, should at all times, stand ready to put down...unlawful resistance.
Read Birzer’s book.
September 13, 2023
8/10.
Overall a good book, but it has faults in so far as Birzer's ideological underpinnings are false. He believes that full democracy of "le peuple" will be essentially divine. If "the people" rule, then all will be well. This completely ignores the actual biological quality of the people ruling, which is by far the most important factor in whether a so-called "democracy" (which has never been fully implemented) can work.
If the citizens are limited to men of noble stock (as practiced by the Spartans and Athenians, to varying degrees), then "democracy" can go well. But, by nature, man is differentiated. There are the weak and the strong, the cowardly and the courageous, the demented and the strong-spirited. Thus, even within a given homogeneous biological group, will arise natural leaders.
The lack of choosing these natural leaders to lead is the great betrayal of justice in the modern world. If the inferior are placed in a superior position, then your polity is not in accordance with nature. Inversion has seeped into it. Therefore, it must fall, as inferior traits (cowardliness, selfishness, greed, lack of metaphysical spirit) will inevitably lead to decline. The coward must run away from the courageous. The selfish must fall in face of the collectively unified. The greedy parasite will eventually suck its host dry. And the lack of metaphysical understanding will lead to immense societal confusion and personal mental illness — as we can easily see looking at today's world.
So, no, "democracy" is not some divine prerogative of God or Nature. It is, in fact, the greatest rebellion against these two great forces that has ever come into being. The assertion that "all men are equal" can be disproved by the simple act of opening one's eyes and ears and walking around a city's streets. Some on the sidewalks yell. Some are filled with defiling tattoos, even up to their face. Some are dressed in a prim and proper manner. Some slouch. Some stand upright and proud. Some are rushing everywhere, every day. Some take a slow cruise, knowing that they will have the same fate as their over-anxious brothers.
Abundant facts fill the mind in support of the proposition that men are unequal. Only years — nigh, decades — of incessant educational, governmental, and digital propaganda have obscured this clear fact.
Overall a good book, but it has faults in so far as Birzer's ideological underpinnings are false. He believes that full democracy of "le peuple" will be essentially divine. If "the people" rule, then all will be well. This completely ignores the actual biological quality of the people ruling, which is by far the most important factor in whether a so-called "democracy" (which has never been fully implemented) can work.
If the citizens are limited to men of noble stock (as practiced by the Spartans and Athenians, to varying degrees), then "democracy" can go well. But, by nature, man is differentiated. There are the weak and the strong, the cowardly and the courageous, the demented and the strong-spirited. Thus, even within a given homogeneous biological group, will arise natural leaders.
The lack of choosing these natural leaders to lead is the great betrayal of justice in the modern world. If the inferior are placed in a superior position, then your polity is not in accordance with nature. Inversion has seeped into it. Therefore, it must fall, as inferior traits (cowardliness, selfishness, greed, lack of metaphysical spirit) will inevitably lead to decline. The coward must run away from the courageous. The selfish must fall in face of the collectively unified. The greedy parasite will eventually suck its host dry. And the lack of metaphysical understanding will lead to immense societal confusion and personal mental illness — as we can easily see looking at today's world.
So, no, "democracy" is not some divine prerogative of God or Nature. It is, in fact, the greatest rebellion against these two great forces that has ever come into being. The assertion that "all men are equal" can be disproved by the simple act of opening one's eyes and ears and walking around a city's streets. Some on the sidewalks yell. Some are filled with defiling tattoos, even up to their face. Some are dressed in a prim and proper manner. Some slouch. Some stand upright and proud. Some are rushing everywhere, every day. Some take a slow cruise, knowing that they will have the same fate as their over-anxious brothers.
Abundant facts fill the mind in support of the proposition that men are unequal. Only years — nigh, decades — of incessant educational, governmental, and digital propaganda have obscured this clear fact.
April 29, 2026
This is a tidy little book that does exactly what it purports to do. Recently, President Andrew Jackson has come under withering attack from historical revisionists who see Jackson as heinous, evil, and totally unfit for the position of president. In reply, author Birzer states, "If Jackson has become
unfashionable, it is not because we have outgrown his virtues, but because we have need of them."
Among his arguments, Birzer suggests that if Jackson, rather than Buchanan had been president in 1860-61, we might not have had a civil war at all, and that the Trail of Tears, for which Jackson is largely vilified, demonstrated empathy, not enmity, toward the Indian tribes.
This book is worth a long look.
unfashionable, it is not because we have outgrown his virtues, but because we have need of them."
Among his arguments, Birzer suggests that if Jackson, rather than Buchanan had been president in 1860-61, we might not have had a civil war at all, and that the Trail of Tears, for which Jackson is largely vilified, demonstrated empathy, not enmity, toward the Indian tribes.
This book is worth a long look.
May 27, 2022
On the plus side, Bradley Birzer's defense of Andrew Jackson is persuasive and educational. It ought to be required reading for people who wouldn't otherwise give a second thought to political questions like the difference between a democracy and a republic. Birzer also deserves kudos for reprinting Andrew Jackson's farewell address, which I've never seen even alluded to elsewhere. Jackson's fierce patriotism and sense of honor shine through the narrative.
On the minus side, this book seems sometimes encumberd by Birzer's breezy style. And after President Jackson and his allies successfully derail South Carolina's efforts at tariff nullification, the story whimpers to a close.
On the minus side, this book seems sometimes encumberd by Birzer's breezy style. And after President Jackson and his allies successfully derail South Carolina's efforts at tariff nullification, the story whimpers to a close.
September 19, 2018
Bradley Birzer uncovers the complexity of Andrew Jackson in his new book. A concise and clear biography from primary sources that reveal the man as he was from a war hero, elected official, and President. Birzer does not so much think there is a defense of many violent and inexcusable events such as his Indian policy, yet he provides a context for it. Birzer rescues Jackson from some of the bizarre misconceptions that have arrived around his character. He was a man of his time. Like a complex bourbon and cigar, I enjoyed this story of “Old Hickory
September 21, 2018
An excellent short biography and defense of our seventh president. Birdzer's well-researched work is a must read for those looking for a truthful depiction of Jackson's overall life and policies while president. Old Hickory has been a major target of Leftist academia for some time, which makes a book like this a crucial read for those interested in seeing an alternative view of such a maligned figure of American history.
April 20, 2022
This is more an essay than a book, but it is a wonderfully concise argument in defense of a president who has fallen out of modern-day favor. He doesn’t gloss over Jackson’s more controversial actions, but instead places him in the context of his time. My main complaint is that I wish it had been longer.
May 7, 2019
I have a bit of love hate with this president. This was a very well written defense and although I am still conflicted the author makes some great points and it is a very easy read.
May 24, 2020
Concise.
Good take
Good take
Want to Read
December 30, 2020My 4th grader came home (from a Christian school) talking about how bad Andrew Jackson was, so when I saw this book by Birzer, I thought I should take a look.
July 30, 2022
Solid book. A little hard to read. But interesting counter cultural take on Old Hickory.
January 22, 2024
We are told Andrew Jackson was one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States. We are also told that Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest. The truth is the exact opposite of this. Don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself.
May 1, 2023
This isn't really a defense of AJ - he did some horrible things. It is more of an overview with the good and the bad in context.
Read
March 25, 2019I grew up with an affinity for our seventh president. It came naturally—partly from patriotic interest in U.S. history but also from family history. In 1814, my great-great-great-great-grandfather, Barzilla Taylor, fought Creek Red Sticks at the Battles of Emuckfaw and Enotachopco Creek, in what is now central Alabama, as a Tennessee volunteer under General Andrew Jackson. One year later, three of Barzilla’s brothers were with Jackson at the more famous Battle of New Orleans.
My long-ago personal connection to Jackson parallels the underlying theme of BradleyBirzer’s book. Birzer, a historian at Hillsdale College, and a scholar-at-large at TAC, posits that Jackson was, in some ways, “the first truly American president.” His experiences and attitudes were deeply rooted in our young nation’s soil, his military leadership during our “Second War of Independence” echoed that of General Washington, and he became an exemplar of democracy.
Read the rest: https://www.theamericanconservative.c...
My long-ago personal connection to Jackson parallels the underlying theme of BradleyBirzer’s book. Birzer, a historian at Hillsdale College, and a scholar-at-large at TAC, posits that Jackson was, in some ways, “the first truly American president.” His experiences and attitudes were deeply rooted in our young nation’s soil, his military leadership during our “Second War of Independence” echoed that of General Washington, and he became an exemplar of democracy.
Read the rest: https://www.theamericanconservative.c...
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews