I was pleasantly surprised at how much I liked book #1 in this trilogy, despite a few concerns. So I was unpleasantly surprised that I didn't like book #2 nearly as much.
In fact, for about the first 1/3rd of this book, I really didn't like it at all. While Remini seemed to strive to be balanced and objective in his approach to Jackson in the first book, he seemed to start this book with full-on hero worship. Or should I say "Hero" worship, since he uses "The Hero" (shorthand for "The Hero of the Battle of New Orleans") as a second reference for Jackson dozens, if not hundreds, of times throughout the book. Presumably he meant it as a way to not have to write "Jackson" over and over again, replacing it with "Old Hickory," "The General," "The President," etc., but I just found the use of "The Hero" to be somewhat grating and not conducive to objectivity.
But that's just a surface-level complaint. I also thought Remini went way overboard in accusing the Monroe administration - and James Monroe himself - of corruption and malfeasance ("the greatest fraud in the nation," he writes of President Monroe, "sat in the executive mansion in Washington.") The purpose of demonizing Monroe seems to serve to portray Jackson as the savior of reform and liberty, who was poised to ride to the rescue and do what his predecessors could, or would, not.
In that regard, he also does not have much good to say about John Quincy Adams either, particularly when it comes to his election as president, in a process that Remini believes was completely fraudulent. Jackson earned more popular and electoral votes, but not a majority, so the House was left to decide, which it did for Adams. "More Americans wanted Andrew Jackson as their president than anyone else. That fact was contemptuously dismissed," Remini writes. "That was corruption to shake the constitutional system to its foundations." In truth, as unseemly as the process and the "corrupt bargain" might have been, the Constitution provides for this very mechanism to select a president when no one obtains a majority of the vote. The House's role is not to rubber-stamp the candidate who got a plurality of the vote. So Adams's election was not something to "shake the constitutional system to its foundations" - despite what you think of the outcome, it was the very definition of constitutional.
And in the mudslinging campaign of 1828, in which Jackson and Adams faced off again, the mud seems to have been slung mostly in one direction, according to Remini's telling - Jackson bears the brunt of it, while the charges leveled against Adams get scant mention.
Once Jackson becomes president later in the book, Remini's narrative settles in to something that has more resemblance to his previous book - a detailed, objective telling that recounts Jackson's successes but doesn't hesitate to call him out for his faults and mistakes. Remini acknowledges that Jackson's first Cabinet was "among the worst... in the 19th century" and calls Jackson out for his stubbornness throughout the Eaton Affair. Remini acknowledges the criticism of Jackson's rotation in office principle, which was an unfortunate precursor to decades' worth of the spoils system, which was just as corrupt as the system it replaced. Nonetheless, Remini ultimately concludes that Jackson's motives and actions were correct.
While Remini offers harsh criticism of the terrible humanitarian impact of Jackson's Indian removal policy, I couldn't help but get a sense of "he doth protest too much" when reading it. As harsh as his criticism is, it seems somehow perfunctory and insincere, because he goes on to credit Jackson for facing the issue and acting when others would not, and making the best decisions possible to resolve an impossible situation.
And, once again, as in the first book, Remini does not address Jackson's attitudes toward slavery, even going so far as to euphemistically refer to Jackson's slaves as "servants."
That's not to say the whole book is without its merits. The descriptions of Jackson's relationships with Martin Van Buren and with his Vice President John Calhoun are very well-done, as is the description of his wife Rachel's death. And Remini's ultimate conclusion that Jackson transformed the presidency, becoming actively involved in issues and legislation as opposed to deferring to Congress, is strong. "He was becoming the head of the government, not simply an equal partner," he observes.
I'm not sure why Remini seemed to go overboard in disparaging Jackson's political opponents instead of being as objective toward them as he strove to be toward Jackson himself. For that, this was not as strong a book as book #1 was. I'll soon know how book #3 compares.