What do you think?
Rate this book
Jacksonland: President Andrew Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross, and a Great American Land Grab
Jacksonland is the thrilling narrative history of two men—President Andrew Jackson and Cherokee chief John Ross—who led their respective nations at a crossroads of American history. Five decades after the Revolutionary War, the United States approached a constitutional crisis. At its center stood two former military comrades locked in a struggle that tested the boundaries of our fledgling democracy. Jacksonland is their story.
One man we recognize: Andrew Jackson—war hero, populist, and exemplar of the expanding South—whose first major initiative as president instigated the massive expulsion of Native Americans known as the Trail of Tears. The other is a half-forgotten figure: John Ross—a mixed-race Cherokee politician and diplomat—who used the United States’ own legal system and democratic ideals to oppose Jackson. Representing one of the Five Civilized Tribes who had adopted the ways of white settlers—cultivating farms, publishing a newspaper in their own language, and sending children to school—Ross championed the tribes’ cause all the way to the Supreme Court. He gained allies like Senator Henry Clay, Chief Justice John Marshall, and even Davy Crockett. In a fight that seems at once distant and familiar, Ross and his allies made their case in the media, committed civil disobedience, and benefited from the first mass political action by American women. Their struggle contained ominous overtures of later events like the Civil War and set the pattern for modern-day politics.
At stake in this struggle was the land of the Five Civilized Tribes. In shocking detail, Jacksonland reveals how Jackson, as a general, extracted immense wealth from his own armies’ conquest of native lands. Later, as president, Jackson set in motion the seizure of tens of millions of acres—“Jacksonland”—in today’s Deep South.
Jacksonland is the work of renowned journalist Steve Inskeep, cohost of NPR’s Morning Edition, who offers here a heart-stopping narrative masterpiece, a tragedy of American history that feels ripped from the headlines in its immediacy, drama, and relevance to our lives.
Harrowing, inspiring, and deeply moving, Inskeep’s Jacksonland is the story of America at a moment of transition, when the fate of states and nations was decided by the actions of two heroic yet tragically opposed men.
CANDICE MILLARD, author of Destiny of the Republic and The River of Doubt
“Inskeep tells this, one of the most tragic and transformative stories in American history, in swift, confident, colorful strokes. So well, and so intimately, does he know his subject that the reader comes away feeling as if Jackson and Ross’s epic struggle for the future of their nations took place yesterday rather than nearly two hundred years ago.”
From the Hardcover edition.
480 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 19, 2015
290 people are currently reading
3475 people want to read
About the author
Steve Inskeep
9 books207 followersSteve Inskeep (/ˈɪnskiːp/; born June 16, 1968) is one of the current hosts of Morning Edition on National Public Radio. He, along with co-host David Greene and Rachel Martin were assigned as interim hosts to succeed Bob Edwards after NPR reassigned Edwards to Senior Correspondent after April 30, 2004. Inskeep and Montagne were officially named hosts of Morning Edition in December 2004. (David Greene joined the team as the third co-host in 2012.) Prior to being host of Morning Edition, Inskeep was NPR's transportation correspondent and the host of Weekend All Things Considered.
Inskeep is the author of Instant City: Life and Death in Karachi, published in October 2011. The book examines the changes associated with the dramatic growth of Karachi, Pakistan, in the second half of the twentieth century. Inskeep has made several trips to Pakistan in his role at NPR.
Inskeep was raised in Carmel, Indiana, and graduated from Morehead State University in Morehead, Kentucky in 1990. His first professional experience in radio was a stint as a sportscaster at WMKY-FM in Morehead. Inskeep was hired by NPR in 1996. His first full-time assignment was the 1996 presidential primary in New Hampshire
Inskeep is the author of Instant City: Life and Death in Karachi, published in October 2011. The book examines the changes associated with the dramatic growth of Karachi, Pakistan, in the second half of the twentieth century. Inskeep has made several trips to Pakistan in his role at NPR.
Inskeep was raised in Carmel, Indiana, and graduated from Morehead State University in Morehead, Kentucky in 1990. His first professional experience in radio was a stint as a sportscaster at WMKY-FM in Morehead. Inskeep was hired by NPR in 1996. His first full-time assignment was the 1996 presidential primary in New Hampshire
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 335 reviews
January 26, 2018
This is non-fiction history about the decades-long saga of politics, legal maneuvering, and greed that concluded in the grand tragedy of the expulsion of the Cherokee Nation from Georgia in 1838, commonly remembered today as the "Trail of Tears." This book describes this era of history largely through the stories of two of the most able leaders on both sides—Andrew Jackson, the seventh president; and John Ross, the “principal chief” of the Cherokee.
One of the lessons I learned from this presentation of history is that there were many years of political maneuvering before the advent of the Cherokee move to Oklahoma. One reality was that there were many voices of opposition to the expulsion and some close votes in congress where things could have gone a different direction. For example, the only reason the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830 was because the winning margin of votes were traded in the belief that Jackson would sign an interstate road construction bill. When Jackson vetoed the road bill many Senators wanted to take back their vote or have a re-vote before the Indian Removal Act was signed. But it was all too late. Jackson had quickly signed the Indian Removal Act making it impossible to undo.
The tribes being removed included the five so-called "civilized tribes." Theses Indians dressed like Europeans, lived settled lives, had centralized governments, were literate, many were Christians, and many spoke English. Some were even wealthy plantation owners and owned slaves. The census performed in 1830 listed many professions and trades among the Cherokees such as farmer, miller, shop keeper and carpenter; but none were listed as hunter, gather or wanderer. In spite of indications of their willingness to be considered as citizens, the Georgia State government passed a law that explicitly stated that the Cherokees were not citizens, had no civil rights, and their testimony was not allowed in legal proceedings.
In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could not impose laws in Cherokee territory, since only the national government — not state governments — had authority in Indian affairs. One would think that with such a Supreme Court ruling that the rights of the Cherokee would be protected. But President Jackson agreed with the pending expulsion of the Indians and did not act to extend the power of the Federal Government to protect the Cherokees.
A significant part of the story is the effort of John Ross to prevent the removal, and when that was no longer possible he bargained for the best possible deal. John Ross was only 1/4 Cherokee by blood, but his family had lived among the Cherokees for two generations, and he thoroughly identified with their cause. He was fluent in English, well educated, and very skilled in his writing and bargaining skills. In the end the move of the tribe was carried out as a negotiated voluntary operation carried out under Cherokee leaders with expenses paid by the Federal Government. The fact that the move was carried out as peacefully as it was is due to the leadership skills of John Ross.
I can't help but note that there are many parallels between the politics during the Jackson era and American politics of today. Jackson was the first president of the United States who could properly be labeled a populist. He was elected largely with the support of the western and southern parts of the country against the wishes of the eastern political powers. Jackson and his supporters were not concerned with the civil rights of those they considered to not be citizens (i.e. Indians and slaves). They were willing to ignore court rulings and the law when necessary to get what they wanted. I'll let you identify the parallels with current day politics for yourself.
The first story at the following link describes some interesting parallels between Andrew Jackson's first year in office with that of DJT.
https://historyispower.blog/blogs/hip...
One of the lessons I learned from this presentation of history is that there were many years of political maneuvering before the advent of the Cherokee move to Oklahoma. One reality was that there were many voices of opposition to the expulsion and some close votes in congress where things could have gone a different direction. For example, the only reason the Indian Removal Act passed in 1830 was because the winning margin of votes were traded in the belief that Jackson would sign an interstate road construction bill. When Jackson vetoed the road bill many Senators wanted to take back their vote or have a re-vote before the Indian Removal Act was signed. But it was all too late. Jackson had quickly signed the Indian Removal Act making it impossible to undo.
The tribes being removed included the five so-called "civilized tribes." Theses Indians dressed like Europeans, lived settled lives, had centralized governments, were literate, many were Christians, and many spoke English. Some were even wealthy plantation owners and owned slaves. The census performed in 1830 listed many professions and trades among the Cherokees such as farmer, miller, shop keeper and carpenter; but none were listed as hunter, gather or wanderer. In spite of indications of their willingness to be considered as citizens, the Georgia State government passed a law that explicitly stated that the Cherokees were not citizens, had no civil rights, and their testimony was not allowed in legal proceedings.
In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Georgia could not impose laws in Cherokee territory, since only the national government — not state governments — had authority in Indian affairs. One would think that with such a Supreme Court ruling that the rights of the Cherokee would be protected. But President Jackson agreed with the pending expulsion of the Indians and did not act to extend the power of the Federal Government to protect the Cherokees.
A significant part of the story is the effort of John Ross to prevent the removal, and when that was no longer possible he bargained for the best possible deal. John Ross was only 1/4 Cherokee by blood, but his family had lived among the Cherokees for two generations, and he thoroughly identified with their cause. He was fluent in English, well educated, and very skilled in his writing and bargaining skills. In the end the move of the tribe was carried out as a negotiated voluntary operation carried out under Cherokee leaders with expenses paid by the Federal Government. The fact that the move was carried out as peacefully as it was is due to the leadership skills of John Ross.
I can't help but note that there are many parallels between the politics during the Jackson era and American politics of today. Jackson was the first president of the United States who could properly be labeled a populist. He was elected largely with the support of the western and southern parts of the country against the wishes of the eastern political powers. Jackson and his supporters were not concerned with the civil rights of those they considered to not be citizens (i.e. Indians and slaves). They were willing to ignore court rulings and the law when necessary to get what they wanted. I'll let you identify the parallels with current day politics for yourself.
The first story at the following link describes some interesting parallels between Andrew Jackson's first year in office with that of DJT.
https://historyispower.blog/blogs/hip...
July 26, 2015
It is ironic that Andrew Jackson, a murderer, kidnapper, slave owner, slave trader, land speculator acting on inside information, and last but not least, the cruel architect of Indian genocide, should hold such a revered place in the pantheon of American presidents - so much so, that when the question arose of who’s image to replace on money, it was the image of Hamilton that garnered the most attention. [Ironic as well, since it was Jackson who was obsessively opposed to a federal bank, vetoing a bill to recharter the Bank of the United States, which led to an economic depression, and Hamilton, a fiscal genius, who championed the idea.] As much as Americans have been shocked or disappointed over the behavior of some of our recent presidents, their actions are minor peccadillos compared to the abhorrent and morally horrific activities of Andrew Jackson.
Steve Inskeep, a cohost of NPR’s Morning Edition, and someone who has received multiple awards for investigative journalism, tells Jackson’s story, juxtaposing it to the story of the leader of the Cherokee people, John Ross. It is not hard for Ross to come off looking better.
It was truly difficult to listen to all the outrages committed by Jackson, and against the Native American people, and yet it is essential to understand this part of American history.
Evaluation: If you only read one nonfiction book this year, I hope you will make it this one. It is critically important that Americans understand what kind of man Andrew Jackson really was, and what was done to the Native Americans who occupied the land he coveted. It is an outstanding book, and a pleasure to experience via audio.
A Few Notes on the Audio Production:
It’s almost unfair to compare other narrators to the cohost of one of the most widely heard radio news programs in the United States. Inskeep knows how to “read for the ear” and his impassioned narration hits all the right notes.
Steve Inskeep, a cohost of NPR’s Morning Edition, and someone who has received multiple awards for investigative journalism, tells Jackson’s story, juxtaposing it to the story of the leader of the Cherokee people, John Ross. It is not hard for Ross to come off looking better.
It was truly difficult to listen to all the outrages committed by Jackson, and against the Native American people, and yet it is essential to understand this part of American history.
Evaluation: If you only read one nonfiction book this year, I hope you will make it this one. It is critically important that Americans understand what kind of man Andrew Jackson really was, and what was done to the Native Americans who occupied the land he coveted. It is an outstanding book, and a pleasure to experience via audio.
A Few Notes on the Audio Production:
It’s almost unfair to compare other narrators to the cohost of one of the most widely heard radio news programs in the United States. Inskeep knows how to “read for the ear” and his impassioned narration hits all the right notes.
July 23, 2015
This is the early 19th century history of the Cherokee Nation, the original owners in residence of the land the author, Steve Inskeep, calls “Jacksonland”.
While treaties confirmed by federal policy guaranteed the Cherokees rights and land, President Andrew Jackson found every excuse to procrastinate when it came to enforcement. Speaking of the “humanitarianism” and the “welfare” of the Indian people, President Jackson worked to free their lands for federal distribution.
Inskeep shows how prior to his presidency Jackson’s self-dealing worked to pioneer federal land policy. As the leader of a Tennessee militia Jackson removed Indians from lands which he later arranged to purchase or otherwise acquire. Inskeep also shows how the Cherokee, who helped in the removal of the Creek and fought with the US against the British in the War of 1812, were forced into a position where they had to bargain to keep what little they had. Each bargaining session ended in further erosion of their position.
The portrait of John Ross, who, with 1/8 Cherokee blood, led his people legally and politically is outstanding. Other interesting people appear such as Catherine Beecher, sister to the more famous Harriet and Henry; the “Cherokee Phoenix” editor, Elias Boudinot; Jeremiah Evarts who for religious reasons supported rights for Indians; and Major Ridge and his son who like John Ross were Cherokee advocates, and depending on how you interpret events, profiteers.
You learn more of the rivalry between Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson and how John Quincy Adams, who while sympathetic to the Indians, whom he entertained in his home, did not help them, and John Marshall who stepped out of his role to advise. You glimpse Layfayette and deToqueville who tour the US at this time. There is something of Davy Crockett and Jackson’s war on the US bank.
The end is not as good as the beginning. Only a few pages cover the aftermath. Inskeep goes from the flight of the Cherokee to the hyper-development (Disneyland being emblematic) of “Jacksonland”, (the land essentially created by Jackson’s tactics and policies). He notes the multi-multiculturalism and the use of Indian terms (i,e. “Arrowhead Motel”). I would have liked more about contemporary life on the new Cherokee lands (particularly Oklahoma, not just that there is a casino).
The book raised my awareness on how these lands were taken from the Cherokee and Andrew Jackson’s leadership role. I have never understood the laurels given this president (i.e. so many cities, counties and schools named for him and despite his distrust of currency, his picture on the $20 bill). Now I understand it even less.
While treaties confirmed by federal policy guaranteed the Cherokees rights and land, President Andrew Jackson found every excuse to procrastinate when it came to enforcement. Speaking of the “humanitarianism” and the “welfare” of the Indian people, President Jackson worked to free their lands for federal distribution.
Inskeep shows how prior to his presidency Jackson’s self-dealing worked to pioneer federal land policy. As the leader of a Tennessee militia Jackson removed Indians from lands which he later arranged to purchase or otherwise acquire. Inskeep also shows how the Cherokee, who helped in the removal of the Creek and fought with the US against the British in the War of 1812, were forced into a position where they had to bargain to keep what little they had. Each bargaining session ended in further erosion of their position.
The portrait of John Ross, who, with 1/8 Cherokee blood, led his people legally and politically is outstanding. Other interesting people appear such as Catherine Beecher, sister to the more famous Harriet and Henry; the “Cherokee Phoenix” editor, Elias Boudinot; Jeremiah Evarts who for religious reasons supported rights for Indians; and Major Ridge and his son who like John Ross were Cherokee advocates, and depending on how you interpret events, profiteers.
You learn more of the rivalry between Henry Clay and Andrew Jackson and how John Quincy Adams, who while sympathetic to the Indians, whom he entertained in his home, did not help them, and John Marshall who stepped out of his role to advise. You glimpse Layfayette and deToqueville who tour the US at this time. There is something of Davy Crockett and Jackson’s war on the US bank.
The end is not as good as the beginning. Only a few pages cover the aftermath. Inskeep goes from the flight of the Cherokee to the hyper-development (Disneyland being emblematic) of “Jacksonland”, (the land essentially created by Jackson’s tactics and policies). He notes the multi-multiculturalism and the use of Indian terms (i,e. “Arrowhead Motel”). I would have liked more about contemporary life on the new Cherokee lands (particularly Oklahoma, not just that there is a casino).
The book raised my awareness on how these lands were taken from the Cherokee and Andrew Jackson’s leadership role. I have never understood the laurels given this president (i.e. so many cities, counties and schools named for him and despite his distrust of currency, his picture on the $20 bill). Now I understand it even less.
March 15, 2023
One of the more despicable moments in American history is covered here by NPR Morning Edition co-host Steve Inskeep. While the history of Native Americans in relation to the United States is a deep one, Inskeep here chooses to focus almost exclusively on the state of Georgia, the U.S. Government and Andrew Jackson's efforts to remove the native Cherokees off of their land. At the beginning of the book are two maps showing the United States in 1812: one is a standard one with state boundaries and territories demarcated as we are accustomed to; the other is the "Indian Map" that has the lands/nations of several different Indian tribes juxtaposed on the state map. As you can imagine, the two maps are not congruous, which results in an overlapping area that Inskeep calls "Jacksonland". It encompasses most of the Deep South. Inskeep's focus is on the Cherokee lands which were mostly in northeastern Alabama, much of Georgia, western North Carolina, and southern Tennessee.
This is a fairly easy read with short chapters and sections. Inskeep tries to view events from the Cherokee perspective, primarily through its chief John Ross. Ross and Jackson are the two main antagonists. Inskeep tries to be fair to Jackson where he can, but ultimately this entire episode is one of many stains on Jackson's legacy. I'm not saying that Jackson never did any positive things, but when it comes to Indian relations he's going to rightfully receive a failing grade. Jackson held the typical white man's view of Native Americans in the early 19th century. In addition to that racist view, Jackson was a violent man, not flinching from inflicting supreme punishment on people if he felt it was necessary. (It should be noted that he was plenty violent with whites too, so this wasn't all racism - Jackson was someone whom you just did not want to get tangled up with.)
Therefore you would think that Ross was the "good guy" of the story, but that is not quite true. Like Jackson, Ross was a slaveholder. Like Jackson, Ross could play politics. Like Jackson, Ross could be manipulative. He even fought with Jackson (against other Indian tribes) in the 1810s. Ross was 7/8th white, thus he could usually pass for a white man. And while Ross was officially the leader of the Cherokees, nominally there were a few other influential figures. Indeed, one of Inskeep's themes throughout the book is how divided the Cherokees themselves were. This weakened them collectively in their efforts to fight off the relocation attempts that were being forced on them. Some Cherokees could see the writing on the wall, saw that they were in a no-win situation against a foe that was much bigger in manpower than they were, and felt that it would be best to relocate to the Arkansas Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Some wanted to hold out to negotiate for a better monetary deal from the government. Others wanted to stay as long as possible (Ross was in this camp for the most part). And some refused to leave and even disappeared into the Appalachian Mountains. These disparate viewpoints really hamstrung Ross in his dealings with Jackson's administration, and later on Martin Van Buren's administration.
While I did appreciate that Inskeep made the narrative easy to follow, I found the book suffering from an attempt to basically be popular history. What I mean by that is that Inskeep seemed to sometimes pad the book with unnecessary well-known characters, while going light on the actual Trail of Tears itself. For example, Inskeep spends several pages writing about the 1824 visit to the U.S. by the Frenchman the Marquis de Lafayette, of Revolutionary War fame. True, he did happen to visit the Cherokee land as part of his country-wide tour that he embarked on, but I could not figure out what he had to do with the situation facing the Cherokees. He was not a burning advocate for Indians remaining on their ancestral grounds. He was mostly there to visit old friends such as Thomas Jefferson before they died. Really, he had nothing to do with the focus of the book, so he did not need to be included.
Also, I thought that coverage of the Trail of Tears itself was superficial and, surprisingly, was a very small part of the book. Inskeep breezes over most of it by saying that the overland journey was arduous and people died along the way. To be fair, I think his focus was more on who and what created that situation to begin with, rather than the aftermath of it. That aftermath is pretty much wrapped up in the Epilogue. I would have preferred if Inskeep had dove into what the Cherokees found when they reached Oklahoma. Just how bad was it for them? Did the U.S. government keep any of its monetary promises to them? Were most people accepting of their situation once they arrived? However, Inskeep did not bill this as a book about that part of the process.
Speaking of the Epilogue, it seemed sort of disjointed to me. Inskeep intersperses his own travels through "Jacksonland" with brief snippets about what happened to a few of the main characters. I found it odd that Jackson's final few years were glossed over. After he wrote a somewhat frantic letter to Van Buren's Attorney General, Felix Grundy, concerned about making sure that the Cherokees were removed from their lands, we don't hear of him again. Did Jackson have any comment once the Cherokee removal was complete? Inskeep does not say so.
Inskeep doesn't dwell on his personal travels throughout the area, although I do like that he included them. I think the Epilogue would have been better served if it had consisted solely of that, instead of going back and forth between him visiting Florence, AL and talking to a historian there and then telling us how long Ross lived. A final chapter about the rest of Ross' and Jacksons' lives, as well as some more commentary about the current state of the Cherokees today would have been good, with Inskeep saving his travels for a postscript. I did like that he mentioned how, even though white Georgians took the Cherokees' (and other tribes') lands from them, they left most of the place names the same. And many businesses in the area still play on the history of the lands that they now occupy, boasting of Cherokee connections rather than shying away from them. Perhaps the most ironic of all: Georgia formed Cherokee County out of part of the former Cherokee Nation, even though by that point there were no Cherokees actually living there. Sometimes you just have to shake your head.
Grade: B
This is a fairly easy read with short chapters and sections. Inskeep tries to view events from the Cherokee perspective, primarily through its chief John Ross. Ross and Jackson are the two main antagonists. Inskeep tries to be fair to Jackson where he can, but ultimately this entire episode is one of many stains on Jackson's legacy. I'm not saying that Jackson never did any positive things, but when it comes to Indian relations he's going to rightfully receive a failing grade. Jackson held the typical white man's view of Native Americans in the early 19th century. In addition to that racist view, Jackson was a violent man, not flinching from inflicting supreme punishment on people if he felt it was necessary. (It should be noted that he was plenty violent with whites too, so this wasn't all racism - Jackson was someone whom you just did not want to get tangled up with.)
Therefore you would think that Ross was the "good guy" of the story, but that is not quite true. Like Jackson, Ross was a slaveholder. Like Jackson, Ross could play politics. Like Jackson, Ross could be manipulative. He even fought with Jackson (against other Indian tribes) in the 1810s. Ross was 7/8th white, thus he could usually pass for a white man. And while Ross was officially the leader of the Cherokees, nominally there were a few other influential figures. Indeed, one of Inskeep's themes throughout the book is how divided the Cherokees themselves were. This weakened them collectively in their efforts to fight off the relocation attempts that were being forced on them. Some Cherokees could see the writing on the wall, saw that they were in a no-win situation against a foe that was much bigger in manpower than they were, and felt that it would be best to relocate to the Arkansas Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Some wanted to hold out to negotiate for a better monetary deal from the government. Others wanted to stay as long as possible (Ross was in this camp for the most part). And some refused to leave and even disappeared into the Appalachian Mountains. These disparate viewpoints really hamstrung Ross in his dealings with Jackson's administration, and later on Martin Van Buren's administration.
While I did appreciate that Inskeep made the narrative easy to follow, I found the book suffering from an attempt to basically be popular history. What I mean by that is that Inskeep seemed to sometimes pad the book with unnecessary well-known characters, while going light on the actual Trail of Tears itself. For example, Inskeep spends several pages writing about the 1824 visit to the U.S. by the Frenchman the Marquis de Lafayette, of Revolutionary War fame. True, he did happen to visit the Cherokee land as part of his country-wide tour that he embarked on, but I could not figure out what he had to do with the situation facing the Cherokees. He was not a burning advocate for Indians remaining on their ancestral grounds. He was mostly there to visit old friends such as Thomas Jefferson before they died. Really, he had nothing to do with the focus of the book, so he did not need to be included.
Also, I thought that coverage of the Trail of Tears itself was superficial and, surprisingly, was a very small part of the book. Inskeep breezes over most of it by saying that the overland journey was arduous and people died along the way. To be fair, I think his focus was more on who and what created that situation to begin with, rather than the aftermath of it. That aftermath is pretty much wrapped up in the Epilogue. I would have preferred if Inskeep had dove into what the Cherokees found when they reached Oklahoma. Just how bad was it for them? Did the U.S. government keep any of its monetary promises to them? Were most people accepting of their situation once they arrived? However, Inskeep did not bill this as a book about that part of the process.
Speaking of the Epilogue, it seemed sort of disjointed to me. Inskeep intersperses his own travels through "Jacksonland" with brief snippets about what happened to a few of the main characters. I found it odd that Jackson's final few years were glossed over. After he wrote a somewhat frantic letter to Van Buren's Attorney General, Felix Grundy, concerned about making sure that the Cherokees were removed from their lands, we don't hear of him again. Did Jackson have any comment once the Cherokee removal was complete? Inskeep does not say so.
Inskeep doesn't dwell on his personal travels throughout the area, although I do like that he included them. I think the Epilogue would have been better served if it had consisted solely of that, instead of going back and forth between him visiting Florence, AL and talking to a historian there and then telling us how long Ross lived. A final chapter about the rest of Ross' and Jacksons' lives, as well as some more commentary about the current state of the Cherokees today would have been good, with Inskeep saving his travels for a postscript. I did like that he mentioned how, even though white Georgians took the Cherokees' (and other tribes') lands from them, they left most of the place names the same. And many businesses in the area still play on the history of the lands that they now occupy, boasting of Cherokee connections rather than shying away from them. Perhaps the most ironic of all: Georgia formed Cherokee County out of part of the former Cherokee Nation, even though by that point there were no Cherokees actually living there. Sometimes you just have to shake your head.
Grade: B
April 7, 2018
This post might get a bit political. It also deals with a few issues many Americans prefer not to think about too much. If either of those bother you, you may wish to skip this.
The history of the American government dealing with Indians (yeah, I don't use Native American, sue me) is a long ugly tale of lies, betrayal, and unfair practices at best. One of the worst examples of this was Andrew Jackson, a President who many compare with Donald Trump. That's troubling on many levels.
Jackson was a war hero, serving in the war of 1812. His biggest victory was the Battle of New Orleans, interesting for many reasons, including the fact that it was fought after the war was technically over (word hadn't reached either side that far south). Jackson served in many interior campaigns within the US, and many of his early battles were fought with the Cherokee by his side.
Once he got into office, Jackson turned on his former allies, displaying attitudes that, at best, were racial and prejudiced. He became the only sitting American President to defy the Supreme Court when they ruled against him on the matter of forcibly removing the Cherokee from their home territory. He also, purely by coincidence I'm sure, managed to keep positioning himself to profit from the land he was instrumental in taking from the various tribes. He built a personal fortune by turning on his former allies, and interpreting laws and legal decisions in the way that was most profitable and/or convenient to him and his friends.
If you have any sense of justice, reading the actual history of these events should make you mad. The Federal government had a duty to protect the Cherokee and other tribes, or at the very least to honor the treaties they signed. They did neither. It's a disgraceful era of American history that still has echoes in the modern day. Jackson's general attitude seems very similar to Trump's on many levels.
If nothing else, knowing Jackson's history makes it even more of an insult that Trump, when honoring World War II Codetalkers, did so from under a portrait of the man that arguably most responsible for the greatest loss of Indian lands.
Recommended to students of American History, those with an interest in Indians, and people willing to take a hard look at history, not the rosy, cheery version often taught in public schools.
The history of the American government dealing with Indians (yeah, I don't use Native American, sue me) is a long ugly tale of lies, betrayal, and unfair practices at best. One of the worst examples of this was Andrew Jackson, a President who many compare with Donald Trump. That's troubling on many levels.
Jackson was a war hero, serving in the war of 1812. His biggest victory was the Battle of New Orleans, interesting for many reasons, including the fact that it was fought after the war was technically over (word hadn't reached either side that far south). Jackson served in many interior campaigns within the US, and many of his early battles were fought with the Cherokee by his side.
Once he got into office, Jackson turned on his former allies, displaying attitudes that, at best, were racial and prejudiced. He became the only sitting American President to defy the Supreme Court when they ruled against him on the matter of forcibly removing the Cherokee from their home territory. He also, purely by coincidence I'm sure, managed to keep positioning himself to profit from the land he was instrumental in taking from the various tribes. He built a personal fortune by turning on his former allies, and interpreting laws and legal decisions in the way that was most profitable and/or convenient to him and his friends.
If you have any sense of justice, reading the actual history of these events should make you mad. The Federal government had a duty to protect the Cherokee and other tribes, or at the very least to honor the treaties they signed. They did neither. It's a disgraceful era of American history that still has echoes in the modern day. Jackson's general attitude seems very similar to Trump's on many levels.
If nothing else, knowing Jackson's history makes it even more of an insult that Trump, when honoring World War II Codetalkers, did so from under a portrait of the man that arguably most responsible for the greatest loss of Indian lands.
Recommended to students of American History, those with an interest in Indians, and people willing to take a hard look at history, not the rosy, cheery version often taught in public schools.
August 2, 2015
The best review of this marvelous book is the author's last paragraph: "This book has been a joy to write, even though it tells a difficult story. It is about my country, which makes it a love story. Of the many ways to show one's love, one of the best is to tell the truth." The book was hard to read, because it is a difficult story, but I so appreciate the truth in the telling.
September 2, 2020
This is about the relationship between John Ross, Cherokee leader, and Andrew Jackson. It did a good job relating the story of their interactions but the author seemed to lack passion in writing his book. Moreover, I expected him to provide some detail about the Trail of Tears but he ended the book without really doing that.
February 2, 2016
It's a fascinating history. I still can't see Jackson as anything other than a complete ass.
March 1, 2016
For a relatively compact nonfiction work, I found a distracting lack of focus at times. Inskeep set out for himself an ambitious but laudable goal of essentially writing a joint biography of Andrew Jackson and John Ross, though I didn't feel I left the narrative knowing a great deal more about either men. For Ross that might be a dearth of source material, but even Jackson didn't feel particularly fleshed out.
Part of this is due to digressions to follow the paths of other people involved in the events. I can give a pass to short stops with people directly connected (John Marshall, Catharine Beecher, etc), but far too much time is devoted to the reunion tour of Lafayette, which was a huge digression. And I am saying that as a person who loves Lafayette. I understand Inskeep was using the Revolutionary general as a conduit to talk about the state of the US at the time, but it took too long and had little to do with the story at hand. It was jarring enough that when I later came to a section entitled 'Democracy in America,' I actually said aloud, "Oh no! Now we're going to have to follow Tocqueville around!" And that is coming from someone who gave Democracy in America five stars on Goodreads and begs other people to read it (Oh my gosh, you have to read it). We did have to follow Tocqueville around, though for less time than Lafayette. All of the digressions take up so much time and space I felt like the actual result of Ross and Jackson's sparring, the horrific Trail of Tears, was tacked on as an afterthought in part of the last thirty pages.
This is not a bad book and those who are unfamiliar with the history will still learn something, though I think the book would benefit from being either 1) longer (then I would have loved all of the esoteric digressions), or 2) much more focused.
Part of this is due to digressions to follow the paths of other people involved in the events. I can give a pass to short stops with people directly connected (John Marshall, Catharine Beecher, etc), but far too much time is devoted to the reunion tour of Lafayette, which was a huge digression. And I am saying that as a person who loves Lafayette. I understand Inskeep was using the Revolutionary general as a conduit to talk about the state of the US at the time, but it took too long and had little to do with the story at hand. It was jarring enough that when I later came to a section entitled 'Democracy in America,' I actually said aloud, "Oh no! Now we're going to have to follow Tocqueville around!" And that is coming from someone who gave Democracy in America five stars on Goodreads and begs other people to read it (Oh my gosh, you have to read it). We did have to follow Tocqueville around, though for less time than Lafayette. All of the digressions take up so much time and space I felt like the actual result of Ross and Jackson's sparring, the horrific Trail of Tears, was tacked on as an afterthought in part of the last thirty pages.
This is not a bad book and those who are unfamiliar with the history will still learn something, though I think the book would benefit from being either 1) longer (then I would have loved all of the esoteric digressions), or 2) much more focused.
April 28, 2023
This book was EXCELLENT. I loved it. I’ve been to so many of the places in this book and learning the history behind them was so interesting. Im very glad I read this book. The effect of Andrew Jackson on the American South is still affecting us to this day, nearly 200 years later. It’s wild to think that one man caused such huge ripples in history. Ross was such a strong and valiant leader. I’d never heard of him before and I’m glad I got to learn about him.
March 19, 2025
You seen that parks and rec meme that goes “does it, white man?”
July 15, 2015
As I read this I wish I could have sat and listened to Inskeep talk with Brett Riggs, Tom Belt, and Andrew Denson, men who gave input at an NEH seminar on the Cherokee I was able to attend last year. Inskeep examines the events leading to the removal of the Cherokee by exploring the two key personalities involved, Andrew Jackson and John Ross. The two shared similarities, Scotch-Irish backgrounds, views of progress and democracy, yet there were also differences, chief among them, Ross’s Cherokee ancestry. Inskeep describes the many complexities of the two men’s personalities and politics. For example,the blending of political decisions which may help one’s financial situation.
Inskeep shares how the Cherokee chose a path of “civil obedience” calling the U.S government to live up to its founding documents, laws, and treaties as the Cherokee worked for the right to stay in their ancestral homes. The efforts of Ross and others in support of the Cherokee influence both the anti-slavery movement and the women’s movement. Strategies employed by the Cherokee were later used in the Civil Rights movement and other minority groups in the U.S.
Those wanting to remove Jackson’s image from the twenty dollar bill will find more evidence of why that should happen. Demanding, stubborn, Jackson comes across as a bully willing to do anything to rid the southeastern U.S. of Indians,
I appreciated Inskeep’s occasional comments relating events surrounding the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminoles with more current events. For example the tendency of government officials to underestimate the support a man like Ross had among average Cherokees to the assumption that few Iraqis supported Saddam Hussein, or that the Seminole war lasted longer than the Vietnam War and in modern terms was just as costly.
This is a readable and thought-provoking book about a tragic chapter in American history.
Inskeep shares how the Cherokee chose a path of “civil obedience” calling the U.S government to live up to its founding documents, laws, and treaties as the Cherokee worked for the right to stay in their ancestral homes. The efforts of Ross and others in support of the Cherokee influence both the anti-slavery movement and the women’s movement. Strategies employed by the Cherokee were later used in the Civil Rights movement and other minority groups in the U.S.
Those wanting to remove Jackson’s image from the twenty dollar bill will find more evidence of why that should happen. Demanding, stubborn, Jackson comes across as a bully willing to do anything to rid the southeastern U.S. of Indians,
I appreciated Inskeep’s occasional comments relating events surrounding the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminoles with more current events. For example the tendency of government officials to underestimate the support a man like Ross had among average Cherokees to the assumption that few Iraqis supported Saddam Hussein, or that the Seminole war lasted longer than the Vietnam War and in modern terms was just as costly.
This is a readable and thought-provoking book about a tragic chapter in American history.
June 24, 2015
Jacksonland is well written and supported by excellent research. History unfolds in this work to document Andrew Jackson's desire to remove the Indians (Cherokee, Creek, and Seminoles) from their traditional homelands and moved farther west. He did this, in part, for personal gain. I was surprised by the fact of his personal enrichment. And not only for himself but for his friends as well.
Jackson bullied, lied, deceived, and used force to accomplish his goal. He ignored the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling with regard to the Cherokees. Bravo Justice Marshall for fairness and apt application of the law.
Inskeep's even handed reporting doesn't just paint Jackson as a villain but shows him as a President that held the union together during a difficult time.
John Ross was someone that I had never heard of before reading this book. His leadership as principal chief of the Cherokees during this crucial time is remarkable. His political acumen and continuing search for justice for his people shows him to be a self-sacrificing and honorable individual.
History lovers will certainly enjoy this book as well as non-history buffs.
Jackson bullied, lied, deceived, and used force to accomplish his goal. He ignored the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling with regard to the Cherokees. Bravo Justice Marshall for fairness and apt application of the law.
Inskeep's even handed reporting doesn't just paint Jackson as a villain but shows him as a President that held the union together during a difficult time.
John Ross was someone that I had never heard of before reading this book. His leadership as principal chief of the Cherokees during this crucial time is remarkable. His political acumen and continuing search for justice for his people shows him to be a self-sacrificing and honorable individual.
History lovers will certainly enjoy this book as well as non-history buffs.
January 24, 2019
This is a 3.5 rating. I learned a lot from this very readable account of Andrew Jackson, John Ross, and the fight over Cherokee land. One of the most interesting parts is how Jackson bought his own land. Since he was literally on the front lines as a general and he had a friend surveying the land, Jackson had a lot of inside information. He got rich from purchasing and renting Cherokee land. Fascinating.
Another interesting part of this story is the Cherokee removal. Without fast communications, General Winfield Scott operated under different circumstances in the field as Ross got a deal to manage the removal process. However, Scott couldn't wait for Ross to take over, and those who stayed, were stuck in camps full of sickness.
NPR's Steve Inskeep seems to glance over the internal divisions of the Cherokees as a group of Cherokees signed a treaty Ross and many in his tribe did not support. However, this did not stop me from enjoying this book.
Another interesting part of this story is the Cherokee removal. Without fast communications, General Winfield Scott operated under different circumstances in the field as Ross got a deal to manage the removal process. However, Scott couldn't wait for Ross to take over, and those who stayed, were stuck in camps full of sickness.
NPR's Steve Inskeep seems to glance over the internal divisions of the Cherokees as a group of Cherokees signed a treaty Ross and many in his tribe did not support. However, this did not stop me from enjoying this book.
September 27, 2020
An interesting read but I ended up wanting more. The level of detail felt uneven. The earlier years were much more fully discussed but the ending (Trail of Tears) felt like an afterthought.
September 19, 2021
Chock full of events that I was not aware of:
- Georgia gold rush that encouraged land grab from Indians
- Cherokees approach to assimilate to US customs and traditions as a way to negotiate future statehood
- Supreme Court decision that Cherokee nation a sovereign state yet no enforcement begins ruling
I went back and forth between print and Audible copy. Easy read. Great read to understand the nuances at this point in time.
- Georgia gold rush that encouraged land grab from Indians
- Cherokees approach to assimilate to US customs and traditions as a way to negotiate future statehood
- Supreme Court decision that Cherokee nation a sovereign state yet no enforcement begins ruling
I went back and forth between print and Audible copy. Easy read. Great read to understand the nuances at this point in time.
January 12, 2021
Fascinating history, well-researched and told by Inskeep.
So, another President used his position to advance his real estate interests.
Hadn't been aware of Jackson's key role in creating what we think of as the Deep South.
And had no clue that a Scotsman's son with very little Cherokee blood could actually be their chief.
Inskeep's prose keeps the reader engaged throughout, even though you know the outcome.
So, another President used his position to advance his real estate interests.
Hadn't been aware of Jackson's key role in creating what we think of as the Deep South.
And had no clue that a Scotsman's son with very little Cherokee blood could actually be their chief.
Inskeep's prose keeps the reader engaged throughout, even though you know the outcome.
February 13, 2021
An excellent history of the times. Steve Inskeep is one of the best interviewers on NPR and I could hear his voice while reading this book. It was published in 2015, but is even more relevant today as I found frightening similarities between Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump in the way they manipulated the public and took personal monetary advantage of their governmental activities. The Trail of Tears is one of the most shameful episodes in this country's history and this book brilliantly tells the tale of how that came to be.
May 6, 2025
When most people think of Native American resistance to 'manifest destiny' and the relentless encroaching creep of white settlers across the spread of the American continent, they tend to think of the Plains Wars, with mounted braves against American troops, and scalping and massacres. The Cherokees took a different approach, fighting with law and order and treaties. But they still lost.
In many ways the Cherokee Nation was an example of the triumph of George Washington's policy towards the Native Americans of 'pacification' and 'civilisation'. They were one of the Five Civilized Tribes, as they were known, adopting a written language, cultivating farms, building schools, establishing a newspaper and adopting a constitution and legislative government much like that of the United States. Whilst maintaining their identity as a separate nation, their leader, the half-Scottish John Ross, affirmed that they were part of the family of the United States. This, arguably, was what many Americans claimed they wanted for the Native tribes, to give up their 'savage' ways and become 'civilized' members of society. Of course, what Americans really wanted was their land, and President Andrew Jackson was prepared to give it to them.
The story ultimately culminates in the infamous 'Trail of Tears' in which the Cherokee Nation and many other tribes were forcibly removed from their lands. Andrew Jackson is very much the villain in this tale, deservedly so, profiting from the sale of Cherokee lands, refusing to abide by signed treaties, refusing to enforce court decisions from the Supreme Court, manipulating federal policy. John Ross' fatal mistake seems to have been in believing in the promise of America, the truths held to be self-evident. He tried to play the white man's game, but Andrew Jackson wouldn't abide by the rules of that game.
Steve Inskeep pulls no punches in the telling, deservedly so. This is a sad, sordid tale of a relatively neglected chapter in American history. The removal of the tribes from an area that stretched across Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama was one of the most bare-faced and brutal acts of aggression in American history, an act that Andrew Jackson set in motion with no legal justification and against a direct judgement by the Supreme Court. As John Ross famously (and perhaps apocryphally) said, "Even when we won, we lost."
In many ways the Cherokee Nation was an example of the triumph of George Washington's policy towards the Native Americans of 'pacification' and 'civilisation'. They were one of the Five Civilized Tribes, as they were known, adopting a written language, cultivating farms, building schools, establishing a newspaper and adopting a constitution and legislative government much like that of the United States. Whilst maintaining their identity as a separate nation, their leader, the half-Scottish John Ross, affirmed that they were part of the family of the United States. This, arguably, was what many Americans claimed they wanted for the Native tribes, to give up their 'savage' ways and become 'civilized' members of society. Of course, what Americans really wanted was their land, and President Andrew Jackson was prepared to give it to them.
The story ultimately culminates in the infamous 'Trail of Tears' in which the Cherokee Nation and many other tribes were forcibly removed from their lands. Andrew Jackson is very much the villain in this tale, deservedly so, profiting from the sale of Cherokee lands, refusing to abide by signed treaties, refusing to enforce court decisions from the Supreme Court, manipulating federal policy. John Ross' fatal mistake seems to have been in believing in the promise of America, the truths held to be self-evident. He tried to play the white man's game, but Andrew Jackson wouldn't abide by the rules of that game.
Steve Inskeep pulls no punches in the telling, deservedly so. This is a sad, sordid tale of a relatively neglected chapter in American history. The removal of the tribes from an area that stretched across Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama was one of the most bare-faced and brutal acts of aggression in American history, an act that Andrew Jackson set in motion with no legal justification and against a direct judgement by the Supreme Court. As John Ross famously (and perhaps apocryphally) said, "Even when we won, we lost."
March 15, 2017
Andrew Jackson may be getting a bit of a revival thanks to President Trump's hamfisted attempts to draw parallels between himself and Old Hickory. Before making this effort, President Trump would have been well-advised to have read Steve Inskeep's "Jacksonland," Inskeep's fascinating review of President Jackson's fight to clear millions of acres of land in the American south for safe American settlement.
That anodyne statement glosses over the fact that, in order to make the land safe for settlement, Jackson had to sweep aside native tribes who had lives on the land for centuries. And Jackson did so by hook, by crook, and other means covering a dizzying range of tools at his disposal.
All in all, President Jackson may be on the Mt. Rushmore of 'Complicated' Presidents. While Inskeep's book does not explore all the nuances of Jackson's presidency, Jackson's role in the "Great American Land Grab" was pivotal and, depending on your perspective, either a nightmare or a triumph. Jackson's defenders will observe that by clearing the South for American settlement, Jackson secured a vital region of our country that would have otherwise ended up in British or Spanish hands. Jackson's critics correctly observe that, regardless of the motive, Jackson's treatment of the local tribes was inhumane, deceitful, and a stain on American honor.
It is this complexity that has caused most modern Presidents to look elsewhere for their inspiration even though Jackson's many achievements exceed many of the other members of the presidential fraternity. Perhaps if Trump and his acolytes understood this better, they might have thought more carefully before hanging Jackson's portrait in the Oval Office.
Thanks to Inskeep's wonderful book - written with great humor and reflecting extensive research - anyone who wishes to can get an entertaining and informative understanding of our flawed but noteworthy Old Hickory. This book makes a great companion piece to Jon Meacham's "American Lion," which offers a more comprehensive look at the President.
That anodyne statement glosses over the fact that, in order to make the land safe for settlement, Jackson had to sweep aside native tribes who had lives on the land for centuries. And Jackson did so by hook, by crook, and other means covering a dizzying range of tools at his disposal.
All in all, President Jackson may be on the Mt. Rushmore of 'Complicated' Presidents. While Inskeep's book does not explore all the nuances of Jackson's presidency, Jackson's role in the "Great American Land Grab" was pivotal and, depending on your perspective, either a nightmare or a triumph. Jackson's defenders will observe that by clearing the South for American settlement, Jackson secured a vital region of our country that would have otherwise ended up in British or Spanish hands. Jackson's critics correctly observe that, regardless of the motive, Jackson's treatment of the local tribes was inhumane, deceitful, and a stain on American honor.
It is this complexity that has caused most modern Presidents to look elsewhere for their inspiration even though Jackson's many achievements exceed many of the other members of the presidential fraternity. Perhaps if Trump and his acolytes understood this better, they might have thought more carefully before hanging Jackson's portrait in the Oval Office.
Thanks to Inskeep's wonderful book - written with great humor and reflecting extensive research - anyone who wishes to can get an entertaining and informative understanding of our flawed but noteworthy Old Hickory. This book makes a great companion piece to Jon Meacham's "American Lion," which offers a more comprehensive look at the President.
July 24, 2015
I originally heard about the book after seeing the author Steve Inskeep promoting his book on Twitter and then read some early reviews, in which they praised the book. I saw it at Booksamillion the day it came out, but passed, then went ahead and bought it a few days later at Mitzi's Books. I am so glad I did!
Inskeep does a masterful job of bringing the reader into the story, establishing both Andrew Jackson and John Ross as giants in their own time, in their own way. It was fasinating to learn that our government recognized two different maps of our country--"The White Man's Map" and the "Indian Map" (which comprised the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and of course, Cherokee nations). Reading through this history book, it was enraging and sad to the extent that Native American land was eventually taken--through treaty, squatting, purchase or eventually force with President Jackson signing the Indian Removal Act in 1830 leading to the Trail of Tears.
Each chapter was a goldmine of masterful storytelling that made this part of our country's history come alive. I also liked how he weaved in key events, building up and foreshadowing the Civil War. Inskeep also did a great job bringing other important "players" within CHerokee Nation to the forefront, such as Elias Boudinot, Jeremiah Evarts and Major Ridge, which deserve further study. My opinion of Jackson definitely changed after reading "Jacksonland" and we should consider removing him (or adding John Ross?) to the $20 dollar bill. Well-research and even better written, this is in my "Top 5" of best U.S. History books I've ever read. 5 stars!
Inskeep does a masterful job of bringing the reader into the story, establishing both Andrew Jackson and John Ross as giants in their own time, in their own way. It was fasinating to learn that our government recognized two different maps of our country--"The White Man's Map" and the "Indian Map" (which comprised the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole and of course, Cherokee nations). Reading through this history book, it was enraging and sad to the extent that Native American land was eventually taken--through treaty, squatting, purchase or eventually force with President Jackson signing the Indian Removal Act in 1830 leading to the Trail of Tears.
Each chapter was a goldmine of masterful storytelling that made this part of our country's history come alive. I also liked how he weaved in key events, building up and foreshadowing the Civil War. Inskeep also did a great job bringing other important "players" within CHerokee Nation to the forefront, such as Elias Boudinot, Jeremiah Evarts and Major Ridge, which deserve further study. My opinion of Jackson definitely changed after reading "Jacksonland" and we should consider removing him (or adding John Ross?) to the $20 dollar bill. Well-research and even better written, this is in my "Top 5" of best U.S. History books I've ever read. 5 stars!
November 20, 2021
A well-ordered and even-handed overview of the history of the steady defeat and exile of the "Five Civilized Tribes" of the Southeastern U.S. (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole). Specifically, Inskeep zeroes in on the Cherokees, which made the book of particular interest to me as a Chattanoogan. I live on land that used to belong to that tribe, and Chief John Ross' former house is just five minutes from mine. Ross' 20-year chess game with federal and state governments receives a play-by-play here.
The history of removal is complex and less popularly studied than it needs to be, and Jacksonland is an excellent foray into correcting this imbalance. Inskeep's storytelling skill keeps the narrative moving, and through the ups and downs of the political process, he manages to keep the reader hoping that the outcome could be something other than the tragedy and national shame it became.
The history of removal is complex and less popularly studied than it needs to be, and Jacksonland is an excellent foray into correcting this imbalance. Inskeep's storytelling skill keeps the narrative moving, and through the ups and downs of the political process, he manages to keep the reader hoping that the outcome could be something other than the tragedy and national shame it became.
June 14, 2015
As a kid, seeing my hometown, Athens, Tennessee, in print via anything larger in scope than The Daily Post-Athenian, was always exciting. However, the three mentions of Athens in Jacksonland: President Andrew Jackson, Cherokee Chief John Ross, and a Great American Land Grab by Steve Inskeep was quite sad. Calhoun, a neighboring McMinn County community to Athens, was an embarkation point for Cherokees moved in the late 1830’s, and apparently Athens offered the nearest printing press.
There was little in the book that was not sad or disappointing. I’ve long known of the horrific treatment of the Cherokees, no Indian tribe escaped human plow of manifest destiny, but somehow I thought that Jackson’s actions were at least for what he believed was a higher purpose. His motivation was little more than profit from land deals.
There was little in the book that was not sad or disappointing. I’ve long known of the horrific treatment of the Cherokees, no Indian tribe escaped human plow of manifest destiny, but somehow I thought that Jackson’s actions were at least for what he believed was a higher purpose. His motivation was little more than profit from land deals.
November 21, 2017
Started this book a few years ago but never could finish this book because it was chapter after chapter of how awful a human being Andrew Jackson was, how he mistreated Native Americans and how he profited so much off his position. I can't really comment how well written this was, because i was getting so fed up with this horrible human being that I just could not take any more time to read about him. I got the picture very early on and could not justify my time to read more about this awful man and president. I've read biographies of almost all the early presidents, and loved them all, but this one i found myself dreading to open, and could read 10 pages at a time before i was disgusted by this cretin.
June 16, 2015
If you ever start to get that feeling that politics, corruption, and civil rights are reaching a new low then you need to go read some history books. This is one of those books. Steve Inskeep gives a damning account of how the US government (in particular, President Andrew Jackson) was complicit in the theft of Cherokee land by the state of Georgia. I checked out the audiobook and the e-book from the library and alternated between them. Steve Inskeep narrates the book and of course does a great job, but the e-book is quite helpful for keeping up with all the names and places. I recommend it for those interested in early American history.
June 15, 2015
Everyone knows about Andrew Jackson. Everyone knows about the Trail of Tears. But who's ever heard of John Ross? Steve Inskeep has, and in this book, he not only introduces this Cherokee Chief to us for the first time, but also narrates his relationship with the 7th president of the United States in the context of the overall struggle between the Civilized tribes, Georgia, and the federal government over Indian Policy. It's brilliantly written and truly enlightening, not only of Ross, but also of the more familiar historical characters that you thought you knew.
January 17, 2016
Although I enjoy listening to this book's author, Steve Inskeep, on NPR, I worried that the book would lean more towards an examination of white guilt than towards actual history.
I'm glad to report I was wrong. I found this book engaging, engrossing, and educating without being overbearing, heavy-handed, or even overtly moralistic.
Inskeep shows not just Jackson and Ross but also all the other minor players in the drama as people of their time to be understood in the circumstances of the day. He avoids the all-too-common sermonizing of modern, moralistic presentism.
Well done, indeed.
I'm glad to report I was wrong. I found this book engaging, engrossing, and educating without being overbearing, heavy-handed, or even overtly moralistic.
Inskeep shows not just Jackson and Ross but also all the other minor players in the drama as people of their time to be understood in the circumstances of the day. He avoids the all-too-common sermonizing of modern, moralistic presentism.
Well done, indeed.
October 10, 2018
We listened to Steve Inskeep read this audiobook on a road trip from Memphis to Florida for a beach vacation... And then as we drove to Atlanta to escape Hurricane Michael.
The book is good. To me, it seemed to focus more on the historical and political events leading up to the forced removal of Indians from the American South than on Andrew Jackson as a person. In that sense, the title may seem a little misleading.
The book is good. To me, it seemed to focus more on the historical and political events leading up to the forced removal of Indians from the American South than on Andrew Jackson as a person. In that sense, the title may seem a little misleading.
April 26, 2016
This was a noteworthy book of real people functioning in real time. Paralleling the decisions faced by Pres. Andrew Jackson and Cherokee leader John Ross was effective for both storytelling and prompting critical thinking on the reader's part.
March 23, 2021
I read the combined audible and kindle books that were produced in 2015. The audible book was read by the author Steve Inskeep. As an online national public radio personality, he has a good voice but I wouldn’t say that he brought any special asset to the reading of this particular book. I was hopeful that he would bring an impartial effort to reporting on the major characters of this book. I have spent no small amount of effort to find some reasonable and believable and impartial representation of Andrew Jackson who normally seems to lend his history to extremes. Because I was looking for that Balanced presentation constantly I did think occasionally that I might have found it on particular instances in the book. But I have to admit that I came to the conclusion of the book still not quite sure I understand to Andrew Jackson really was. Maybe the fact that he died with two bullets still in him, one from a duel and one from a gun fight, says enough about him. I think Steve might say in summary that Jackson had firm believes and didn’t like to back away from them under any circumstances.
So we have Andrew Jackson and the second character in the book is John Ross who for much of the book was the main chief of the Cherokees elected by vote. He was 1/8 Cherokee which seems strange on the face of it. Steve tried to explain how the Cherokees didn’t quite see it the same way since his heritage was on the female side which is how the Cherokees trace their history: through the women. Anyway he seemed successful in hanging onto his position for a very long time. One of his big assets was that he was fluent in English which was important in the constant negotiating on the national political scene. The big issue for Native Americans in the early 1800s was removal from their homelands in the east across the Mississippi. The Cherokees were about 16,000 people predominately in Georgia at that time. It is interesting that currently there are also about that same number 16,000 Cherokees in the eastern US who have returned or invaded removal plus of course population increase.
The book was interesting enough to listen to and there were a considerable number of small items that seemed like new and overlooked history to me that appeared regularly. There is a good deal of attention paid to people who both opposed and supported the removal and the arguments that occurred politically and simply among common people. I think the book did help me to see some different points of view and to understand what the experience of the early 1800s was like as this issue percolated through the country. In short I found it to be an interesting and manageable book for someone without a necessarily large amount of experience with this particular part of American history. And maybe I will just have to concede that Andrew Jackson is going to be a mixed bag!
One last interesting detail. Andrew Jackson probably got a bad rap from a lot of us when we saw that it was his portrait that Mr. Trump had in the oval office. On the surface it does certainly seem that there are some disturbing likeness is between the two. However the author of this book pointed out that Jackson portrait was also in the scene of Abraham Lincoln signing the emancipation proclamation. Mr. Lincoln apparently had some good thoughts about Mr. Jackson as well. Interestingly both later presidents were in a different political party.
History authors often like the concept of writing about two history characters and how they impacted each other and overlapped and shared a particular moment in history. That is obviously the case in this book. Maybe someday someone trying to be a historian will write a comparison of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Trump.
So we have Andrew Jackson and the second character in the book is John Ross who for much of the book was the main chief of the Cherokees elected by vote. He was 1/8 Cherokee which seems strange on the face of it. Steve tried to explain how the Cherokees didn’t quite see it the same way since his heritage was on the female side which is how the Cherokees trace their history: through the women. Anyway he seemed successful in hanging onto his position for a very long time. One of his big assets was that he was fluent in English which was important in the constant negotiating on the national political scene. The big issue for Native Americans in the early 1800s was removal from their homelands in the east across the Mississippi. The Cherokees were about 16,000 people predominately in Georgia at that time. It is interesting that currently there are also about that same number 16,000 Cherokees in the eastern US who have returned or invaded removal plus of course population increase.
The book was interesting enough to listen to and there were a considerable number of small items that seemed like new and overlooked history to me that appeared regularly. There is a good deal of attention paid to people who both opposed and supported the removal and the arguments that occurred politically and simply among common people. I think the book did help me to see some different points of view and to understand what the experience of the early 1800s was like as this issue percolated through the country. In short I found it to be an interesting and manageable book for someone without a necessarily large amount of experience with this particular part of American history. And maybe I will just have to concede that Andrew Jackson is going to be a mixed bag!
One last interesting detail. Andrew Jackson probably got a bad rap from a lot of us when we saw that it was his portrait that Mr. Trump had in the oval office. On the surface it does certainly seem that there are some disturbing likeness is between the two. However the author of this book pointed out that Jackson portrait was also in the scene of Abraham Lincoln signing the emancipation proclamation. Mr. Lincoln apparently had some good thoughts about Mr. Jackson as well. Interestingly both later presidents were in a different political party.
History authors often like the concept of writing about two history characters and how they impacted each other and overlapped and shared a particular moment in history. That is obviously the case in this book. Maybe someday someone trying to be a historian will write a comparison of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Trump.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 335 reviews