What do you think?
Rate this book
Andrew Jackson #3
Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845
Available in paperback for the first time, these three volumes represent the definitive biography of Andrew Jackson. Volume One covers the role Jackson played in America's territorial expansion, bringing to life a complex character who has often been seen simply as a rough-hewn country general. Volume Two traces Jackson's senatorial career, his presidential campaigns, and his first administration as President. The third volume covers Jackson's reelection to the presidency and the weighty issues with which he was the nullification crisis, the tragic removal of the Indians beyond the Mississippi River, the mounting violence throughout the country over slavery, and the tortuous efforts to win the annexation of Texas.
672 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1984
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
March 28, 2023
One does not have to get very far into this book before learning what its author, Robert Remini, thinks of its subject, Andrew Jackson. He concludes the Preface on page xvii: "He has my respect and undying gratitude." I immediately thought "Oh no, this is going to be a whitewash of Jackson and many of the unsavory things that he did." While it was not quite that, Jackson certainly came out looking much better than he deserved to, both then and now.
Throughout the book, Jackson comes across looking good at others' expense. This is especially noticeable concerning the two Presidents that he is sandwiched between: John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren. Remini clearly dislikes Adams, missing no opportunity to bash him for his treatment of Jackson (there is some legitimacy there, but it works both ways), his acerbic personality, and his bitterness towards Jackson. Instead of lauding him for being a loud voice against slavery, Remini treats it as a detriment - saying that Adams only introduced anti-slavery petitions in the House in order to stir up trouble. He actually equates - much as Jackson did - abolitionists with nullifiers (those who wished to nullify federal law when it did not correspond to what their wants were) by saying that both groups were ultimately out to destroy the Union. This is almost laughable in Adams' case given the scope of his career. While by most accounts Adams was a difficult person to deal with, he was on the right side of the slavery question. I'm not sure how Remini can think otherwise. Yet on page 406 he calls Adams' efforts in this area "disgraceful". On the very next page, he writes that Adams was "repudiated" by the voters in 1828. Adams should not have been given the presidency in 1825 by the House of Representatives in the first place, so I am not sure how much he was really "repudiated" four years later. I am not saying that Adams was a great President (he certainly wasn't); but his work after he left the presidency is hardly disgraceful.
As for Van Buren, Remini likes to refer to him as "little". Given that his nickname was "The Little Magician", I suppose this is acceptable, but Remini didn't seem to be doing this in a friendly way. Instead he chose to emphasize how Van Buren was most assuredly NOT like Jackson, and how the Presidency was too big of an office for him. Incidentally, he also says that of John Tyler, and somewhat of James K. Polk at the end. So, essentially, any President of this era not named Jackson was not very good. It reminded me of Star Trek where any other Captain is made to look weak and feckless next to Captain Kirk.
Remini also compares Jackson favorably with George Washington, saying that Jackson's northern tour was much more intimate than Washington's was due to Washington's notorious aloofness. On page 391 he writes that Jackson was America's "first genuine celebrity". Is this accurate? While Jackson was very much seen as an emblem of the common man, whereas Washington surely was not, how does that make him a "celebrity". I think that Washington was every bit the celebrity in his day, albeit one that people were afraid to approach. And what about Benjamin Franklin? He seemed pretty popular. I don't question Jackson's popularity, but I do question if Remini isn't undervaluing Washington and Franklin with that statement.
Remini also takes great pains to say that "Jacksonian Democracy did not represent a defense of slavery." (Page 343) He writes that it was not really about slavery because not all Democrats were slaveholders nor pro-slavery. Also, he argues that this movement was more about populism, about not allowing the economy to be controlled by wealthy businessmen, about people being actively engaged in civic matters and being more involved with various levels of government. I do agree that these other elements were part of the movement. Yet, many of Jackson's followers - and of course Jackson himself - either owned enslaved persons or were pro-slavery in sentiment. That's also not to say that no Whigs were pro-slavery. Certainly some were. But the Democratic party definitely became associated with being pro-slavery by the time of the Civil War, and I think it was well on its way to that by Jackson's time.
Speaking of slavery, Remini does not get into much discussion about Jackson owning black people. It is mentioned here and there, but Remini lets him off very lightly for this abomination, saying that we have to view Jackson in the context of his times. I do agree with that on principle - yes, judging someone from the 1830s by the standards of the 2020s is almost assuredly going to lead to criticism and dismay. Yet, it's not that simple either. Not everyone back then was a slave owner. Not everyone was pro-slavery. Jackson was still wrong to do it, even if he wasn't the only one doing it. I was not looking for Remini to launch off on him over it - I think that we have had too much of that in our own society over the last several years. Yet I don't want a defense of Jackson's actions either; I think Remini bends way too far over towards leniency in this area.
While we are on the negative side of Jackson, Remini really falls flat when writing about Indian removal. On page 413: "Among his other accomplishments, Jackson also acquired an enormous territory from the Indians... Americans today may flinch at that achievement, in view of the human suffering it involved among Indians, but Americans of the Jackson era recorded it with pride. More important, removal probably did ensure the survival of several southern tribes." It is difficult to think of a more dubious "achievement" or "accomplishment" than the wholesale removal of Native peoples from their ancestral lands, all so greedy white squatters could come in and take over. Remini even admits that Jackson was more concerned about getting the Indians off the land than he was about their welfare. He also allows that Jackson was racists towards them. You don't say! Sadly I do agree that forced removal, by that point, probably did keep some of the tribes from being totally annihilated. Whites were going to stop at nothing until they drove the Indians off the land by whatever means possible. Yet Jackson helped put all of this in motion and steadfastly pushed to banish the Indians to present-day Oklahoma. It remains a horrific injustice and one of the darkest stains on this nation's past, and Jackson has his fingerprints all over it.
Remini is somewhat critical of Jackson in an administrative sense - poor appointments, allowing the press of events to overtake his concentration to other matters, his obsession with killing off the Bank of the United States. Jackson rifled through Cabinet officers like crazy, because he kept picking the wrong people for the jobs. But he did face down the Nullification crisis with South Carolina, much to his credit. He also successfully avoided war with France over spoliation claims and payments. And he did make himself available to regular people, something that is unheard of today.
There is also a lot of focus on Jackson's personal life and his chronic poor health. Remini even includes one chapter just on what life was like in the White House during Jackson's residency there. I appreciated this coloring of the narrative. Despite the book being smaller print, and Remini writing chapters without any subheadings or breaks, the story flows easily. I think part of this was due to Jackson's out-sized personality. But also Remini is a talented writer.
Remini also spends a lot of time on Jackson's remaining years after he left office. I appreciated that he did not attempt to wrap things up quickly. Rather he went the opposite way and gave a pretty full picture of how Jackson spent his retirement and what his daily life was like. I do wish that he would have included an epilogue about Jackson's place in history and how subsequent presidents viewed him or learned from him. While not a hagiography, Remini is much too pro-Jackson for my liking. I acknowledge that Jackson was not all bad, and that he was a strong and influential individual in his time. But a more balanced treatment was in order for someone who proved so divisive throughout his exciting life.
Grade: C-
Throughout the book, Jackson comes across looking good at others' expense. This is especially noticeable concerning the two Presidents that he is sandwiched between: John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren. Remini clearly dislikes Adams, missing no opportunity to bash him for his treatment of Jackson (there is some legitimacy there, but it works both ways), his acerbic personality, and his bitterness towards Jackson. Instead of lauding him for being a loud voice against slavery, Remini treats it as a detriment - saying that Adams only introduced anti-slavery petitions in the House in order to stir up trouble. He actually equates - much as Jackson did - abolitionists with nullifiers (those who wished to nullify federal law when it did not correspond to what their wants were) by saying that both groups were ultimately out to destroy the Union. This is almost laughable in Adams' case given the scope of his career. While by most accounts Adams was a difficult person to deal with, he was on the right side of the slavery question. I'm not sure how Remini can think otherwise. Yet on page 406 he calls Adams' efforts in this area "disgraceful". On the very next page, he writes that Adams was "repudiated" by the voters in 1828. Adams should not have been given the presidency in 1825 by the House of Representatives in the first place, so I am not sure how much he was really "repudiated" four years later. I am not saying that Adams was a great President (he certainly wasn't); but his work after he left the presidency is hardly disgraceful.
As for Van Buren, Remini likes to refer to him as "little". Given that his nickname was "The Little Magician", I suppose this is acceptable, but Remini didn't seem to be doing this in a friendly way. Instead he chose to emphasize how Van Buren was most assuredly NOT like Jackson, and how the Presidency was too big of an office for him. Incidentally, he also says that of John Tyler, and somewhat of James K. Polk at the end. So, essentially, any President of this era not named Jackson was not very good. It reminded me of Star Trek where any other Captain is made to look weak and feckless next to Captain Kirk.
Remini also compares Jackson favorably with George Washington, saying that Jackson's northern tour was much more intimate than Washington's was due to Washington's notorious aloofness. On page 391 he writes that Jackson was America's "first genuine celebrity". Is this accurate? While Jackson was very much seen as an emblem of the common man, whereas Washington surely was not, how does that make him a "celebrity". I think that Washington was every bit the celebrity in his day, albeit one that people were afraid to approach. And what about Benjamin Franklin? He seemed pretty popular. I don't question Jackson's popularity, but I do question if Remini isn't undervaluing Washington and Franklin with that statement.
Remini also takes great pains to say that "Jacksonian Democracy did not represent a defense of slavery." (Page 343) He writes that it was not really about slavery because not all Democrats were slaveholders nor pro-slavery. Also, he argues that this movement was more about populism, about not allowing the economy to be controlled by wealthy businessmen, about people being actively engaged in civic matters and being more involved with various levels of government. I do agree that these other elements were part of the movement. Yet, many of Jackson's followers - and of course Jackson himself - either owned enslaved persons or were pro-slavery in sentiment. That's also not to say that no Whigs were pro-slavery. Certainly some were. But the Democratic party definitely became associated with being pro-slavery by the time of the Civil War, and I think it was well on its way to that by Jackson's time.
Speaking of slavery, Remini does not get into much discussion about Jackson owning black people. It is mentioned here and there, but Remini lets him off very lightly for this abomination, saying that we have to view Jackson in the context of his times. I do agree with that on principle - yes, judging someone from the 1830s by the standards of the 2020s is almost assuredly going to lead to criticism and dismay. Yet, it's not that simple either. Not everyone back then was a slave owner. Not everyone was pro-slavery. Jackson was still wrong to do it, even if he wasn't the only one doing it. I was not looking for Remini to launch off on him over it - I think that we have had too much of that in our own society over the last several years. Yet I don't want a defense of Jackson's actions either; I think Remini bends way too far over towards leniency in this area.
While we are on the negative side of Jackson, Remini really falls flat when writing about Indian removal. On page 413: "Among his other accomplishments, Jackson also acquired an enormous territory from the Indians... Americans today may flinch at that achievement, in view of the human suffering it involved among Indians, but Americans of the Jackson era recorded it with pride. More important, removal probably did ensure the survival of several southern tribes." It is difficult to think of a more dubious "achievement" or "accomplishment" than the wholesale removal of Native peoples from their ancestral lands, all so greedy white squatters could come in and take over. Remini even admits that Jackson was more concerned about getting the Indians off the land than he was about their welfare. He also allows that Jackson was racists towards them. You don't say! Sadly I do agree that forced removal, by that point, probably did keep some of the tribes from being totally annihilated. Whites were going to stop at nothing until they drove the Indians off the land by whatever means possible. Yet Jackson helped put all of this in motion and steadfastly pushed to banish the Indians to present-day Oklahoma. It remains a horrific injustice and one of the darkest stains on this nation's past, and Jackson has his fingerprints all over it.
Remini is somewhat critical of Jackson in an administrative sense - poor appointments, allowing the press of events to overtake his concentration to other matters, his obsession with killing off the Bank of the United States. Jackson rifled through Cabinet officers like crazy, because he kept picking the wrong people for the jobs. But he did face down the Nullification crisis with South Carolina, much to his credit. He also successfully avoided war with France over spoliation claims and payments. And he did make himself available to regular people, something that is unheard of today.
There is also a lot of focus on Jackson's personal life and his chronic poor health. Remini even includes one chapter just on what life was like in the White House during Jackson's residency there. I appreciated this coloring of the narrative. Despite the book being smaller print, and Remini writing chapters without any subheadings or breaks, the story flows easily. I think part of this was due to Jackson's out-sized personality. But also Remini is a talented writer.
Remini also spends a lot of time on Jackson's remaining years after he left office. I appreciated that he did not attempt to wrap things up quickly. Rather he went the opposite way and gave a pretty full picture of how Jackson spent his retirement and what his daily life was like. I do wish that he would have included an epilogue about Jackson's place in history and how subsequent presidents viewed him or learned from him. While not a hagiography, Remini is much too pro-Jackson for my liking. I acknowledge that Jackson was not all bad, and that he was a strong and influential individual in his time. But a more balanced treatment was in order for someone who proved so divisive throughout his exciting life.
Grade: C-
March 26, 2021
First of all, I have to acknowledge what a monumental achievement this series was - for such a transformative president, there are surprisingly few scholarly cradle-to-grave biographies of Andrew Jackson, so the scope of Remini's three-volume work is unlikely to be equaled any time soon, if ever.
So now that that part's out of the way...
This final volume is the longest of the three and, it must be said, often feels that way. Certain events like the nullification crisis, which is fairly well-known, are well-covered and it's surprising to read just how perilously close the country actually came to civil war. Other events like the reparations dispute with France, which is not as well-known, are well-covered and it's surprising to read just how perilously close the country actually came to war with France.
That said, that reparations dispute, as well as other events in Jackson's second term like the Bank War, are covered in far more detail than the average reader might desire. Every conversation, every letter, every speech, is recounted in chapter after chapter. It got a bit dense.
But to complain that a three-volume biography is too long and detailed seems a bit churlish. So on to other observations - as in the previous volumes, I thought Remini went too easy on Jackson when it came to slavery and his treatment of Native Americans. I know we can't impose our 21st-century views on a 19th-century leader, but to give him a pass as a man of his time ignores the fact that all of his presidential predecessors who owned slaves at least felt conflicted about it. Jackson didn't, but Remini doesn't seem too bothered by this. Similarly, he calls Jackson's attitudes toward Native Americans "hideous, not to mention racist," but concludes that "quite simply, it was typical of American thought in 1833." The chain of events that led to the Trail of Tears is treated as a mere unfortunate side effect of Jackson's "resolution of the Indian problem."
So, I get it. My house sits on what was once Cherokee land. Am I happy that I live here instead of the Cherokee? Well, yes, I guess, but it's a tough question to answer. Are Texans and Californians happy that they live in the U.S. and not Mexico? Probably, I imagine. It's tough to look back in history and criticize presidents who expanded the country's boundaries using tactics such as Indian removal and the Mexican-American War, while simultaneously being kind of pleased with the end results. So I'm not suggesting that Remini should have outright condemned Jackson's actions, just that he explore the nuances and contradictions a bit more.
The same holds true for Jackson's Bank War and his determination to eliminate the national debt. I'm no economist, but many people today, and in Jackson's time, would argue that a central bank is a good, necessary thing and running a deficit can be beneficial as well. Remini drops withering critiques in passing, of Jackson's "ignorance of financial matters and his total lack of appreciation for the Bank of the United States and its importance to the American economy," and says his "view of the national debt was terribly naive" - but otherwise he recounts the Bank War and Jackson's drive to eliminate the national debt in great detail, but very matter-of-factly. I would have appreciated much more analysis of whether Jackson's actions were wise or necessary, not just a neutral narrative explaining how he was successful in accomplishing what he set out to do.
Jackson's reputation has suffered in recent years, so it's interesting that Remini's series, begun more than four decades ago, was meant as a corrective to restore his reputation from criticisms he was getting at the time. Remini does succeed in his goal of showing how Jackson was instrumental in pushing the country to evolve from the republic that the Founders envisioned, to more of a democracy, with the President as the representative of the people. For that, his series is still well worth the read. For sheer enjoyment and insight and analysis, however, the series does not stand the test of time quite so well. In the end, this series' scope and level of detail means that any modern Jackson biographer is going to stand on Remini's shoulders. So despite its flaws and the ambivalence that my three-star review might suggest, it's still an important work - not one that's likely to be read for fun and enjoyment, but one without which no serious study of Jackson would be complete.
So now that that part's out of the way...
This final volume is the longest of the three and, it must be said, often feels that way. Certain events like the nullification crisis, which is fairly well-known, are well-covered and it's surprising to read just how perilously close the country actually came to civil war. Other events like the reparations dispute with France, which is not as well-known, are well-covered and it's surprising to read just how perilously close the country actually came to war with France.
That said, that reparations dispute, as well as other events in Jackson's second term like the Bank War, are covered in far more detail than the average reader might desire. Every conversation, every letter, every speech, is recounted in chapter after chapter. It got a bit dense.
But to complain that a three-volume biography is too long and detailed seems a bit churlish. So on to other observations - as in the previous volumes, I thought Remini went too easy on Jackson when it came to slavery and his treatment of Native Americans. I know we can't impose our 21st-century views on a 19th-century leader, but to give him a pass as a man of his time ignores the fact that all of his presidential predecessors who owned slaves at least felt conflicted about it. Jackson didn't, but Remini doesn't seem too bothered by this. Similarly, he calls Jackson's attitudes toward Native Americans "hideous, not to mention racist," but concludes that "quite simply, it was typical of American thought in 1833." The chain of events that led to the Trail of Tears is treated as a mere unfortunate side effect of Jackson's "resolution of the Indian problem."
So, I get it. My house sits on what was once Cherokee land. Am I happy that I live here instead of the Cherokee? Well, yes, I guess, but it's a tough question to answer. Are Texans and Californians happy that they live in the U.S. and not Mexico? Probably, I imagine. It's tough to look back in history and criticize presidents who expanded the country's boundaries using tactics such as Indian removal and the Mexican-American War, while simultaneously being kind of pleased with the end results. So I'm not suggesting that Remini should have outright condemned Jackson's actions, just that he explore the nuances and contradictions a bit more.
The same holds true for Jackson's Bank War and his determination to eliminate the national debt. I'm no economist, but many people today, and in Jackson's time, would argue that a central bank is a good, necessary thing and running a deficit can be beneficial as well. Remini drops withering critiques in passing, of Jackson's "ignorance of financial matters and his total lack of appreciation for the Bank of the United States and its importance to the American economy," and says his "view of the national debt was terribly naive" - but otherwise he recounts the Bank War and Jackson's drive to eliminate the national debt in great detail, but very matter-of-factly. I would have appreciated much more analysis of whether Jackson's actions were wise or necessary, not just a neutral narrative explaining how he was successful in accomplishing what he set out to do.
Jackson's reputation has suffered in recent years, so it's interesting that Remini's series, begun more than four decades ago, was meant as a corrective to restore his reputation from criticisms he was getting at the time. Remini does succeed in his goal of showing how Jackson was instrumental in pushing the country to evolve from the republic that the Founders envisioned, to more of a democracy, with the President as the representative of the people. For that, his series is still well worth the read. For sheer enjoyment and insight and analysis, however, the series does not stand the test of time quite so well. In the end, this series' scope and level of detail means that any modern Jackson biographer is going to stand on Remini's shoulders. So despite its flaws and the ambivalence that my three-star review might suggest, it's still an important work - not one that's likely to be read for fun and enjoyment, but one without which no serious study of Jackson would be complete.
February 23, 2018
Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy, 1833-1845 is the third and final book in Robert V. Remini's biographical trilogy. It has the same strengths and weaknesses as previous volumes in the series: Remini still can't square his admissions of Jackson's personal shortcomings, political failings and occasionally-abominable policies with his clear admiration for his subject, and the book develops an odd timbre as a result. This and the second volume are, perhaps, more valuable for their lively narrative portraits of key events in Jackson's presidency - the Bank War, Indian Removal, the Nullification Crisis - and his fractious relationship with Congress and his own cabinet. As always, Remini is an honest enough historian that most readers will make their own judgments about his political skill and leadership style; that said, it's hard for me to find much good about Jackson the Man versus Jackson the Symbolic Figurehead of Democracy. Interesting, always readable, but a mild disappointment considering how much I enjoyed Remini's book on Henry Clay.
Read
September 3, 2026Presidential Biographers Don’t Say “Servant” When You Really Mean “Slave” Challenge Level: Impossible, apparently
May 7, 2013
http://bestpresidentialbios.com/2013/...
“Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy (1833-1845)” is the final volume in Robert Remini’s trilogy on Andrew Jackson. Completed in 1984 as the first full-scale biography of Jackson since Marquis James’s 1938 epic, Remini’s series immediately garnered significant attention – and praise. He later published a single-volume abridgment and readers now seem drawn to Remini’s shorter treatment of Jackson, at the unfortunate expense of this meritorious series.
Remini was a historian and professor at the University of Illinois and authored several biographies during his forty-year literary career (of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren, among others). He was named historian of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 and later authored a narrative history of that legislative body. Remini died earlier this year at the age of 91.
Andrew Jackson, through the force of his character and his idiosyncratic charisma, commanded America’s attention (and often respect) like no other president between Jefferson and Lincoln. Few figures in American history were as colorful, idealistic, flawed, committed to core principles, devoted to the will of the American people and as popular and effective a leader. Such a compelling personality clearly deserves a grand biography and Remini provides Andrew Jackson exactly that.
This volume completes Remini’s series by covering the last thirteen years of Jackson’s life – from his second presidential term through his retirement at The Hermitage in Tennessee. These years encompass his successful resolution of the Nullification Crisis, his dissolution of the Second Bank of the U.S. and his efforts to annex Texas. Toward the end of this volume, Remini provides a thoughtful, reasoned synopsis of Jackson’s legacy.
In these pages Remini also completes his well-argued assertion that Jackson transformed the United States from a republic into a true democracy. The reader witnesses Jackson redirect the forces of democracy from the wealthy and powerful to “all the people” through his actions to reform government and empower the common man. Remini occasionally point outs that Jackson did not, of course, include slaves or Indians in that particular crusade.
Like his earlier volumes, this book is lively and engaging and provides the reader with an excellent overview of the social and political issues of Jackson’s era. The longest book of the series, this volume feels 10 or 20% overweight. At this point, however, the reader is so engaged in the twilight of Jackson’s life that any delay in getting to the finish line is easily overlooked.
But if certain sections of the book seem to border on tedious (like the Bank of the U.S. discussion which finally exhausted me), Remini more than balanced the experience with generously insightful analyses of Jackson’s annual messages to Congress, wonderful descriptions of his personal and political relationships and a cogent review of his legacy as a national political leader.
Most criticism leveled at Remini argues he is too forgiving of Jackson’s faults and too wedded to the notion of Jackson’s “greatness.” While his portrait of Jackson may be too merciful for some, Remini is not blind to Jackson’s faults nor does he try to obscure them. At times he directs harsh criticism at Jackson for his public failures and personal foibles. But in the end he sees Jackson’s treatment of the Indians as a deeply flawed, but honest, effort to save them from annihilation by moving them west, and he forgives Jackson for viewing slavery no differently than many of his contemporaries.
Overall, this volume of Remini’s series on Andrew Jackson was a satisfying conclusion to an excellent series. Remini convincingly demonstrates Jackson’s success as a political leader, government reformer, defender of the Union and, ultimately, champion for true democracy. Though it could be read in isolation, this volume seems far more useful and enjoyable when read as part of the complete series.
Overall rating: 4 stars
“Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Democracy (1833-1845)” is the final volume in Robert Remini’s trilogy on Andrew Jackson. Completed in 1984 as the first full-scale biography of Jackson since Marquis James’s 1938 epic, Remini’s series immediately garnered significant attention – and praise. He later published a single-volume abridgment and readers now seem drawn to Remini’s shorter treatment of Jackson, at the unfortunate expense of this meritorious series.
Remini was a historian and professor at the University of Illinois and authored several biographies during his forty-year literary career (of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren, among others). He was named historian of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2005 and later authored a narrative history of that legislative body. Remini died earlier this year at the age of 91.
Andrew Jackson, through the force of his character and his idiosyncratic charisma, commanded America’s attention (and often respect) like no other president between Jefferson and Lincoln. Few figures in American history were as colorful, idealistic, flawed, committed to core principles, devoted to the will of the American people and as popular and effective a leader. Such a compelling personality clearly deserves a grand biography and Remini provides Andrew Jackson exactly that.
This volume completes Remini’s series by covering the last thirteen years of Jackson’s life – from his second presidential term through his retirement at The Hermitage in Tennessee. These years encompass his successful resolution of the Nullification Crisis, his dissolution of the Second Bank of the U.S. and his efforts to annex Texas. Toward the end of this volume, Remini provides a thoughtful, reasoned synopsis of Jackson’s legacy.
In these pages Remini also completes his well-argued assertion that Jackson transformed the United States from a republic into a true democracy. The reader witnesses Jackson redirect the forces of democracy from the wealthy and powerful to “all the people” through his actions to reform government and empower the common man. Remini occasionally point outs that Jackson did not, of course, include slaves or Indians in that particular crusade.
Like his earlier volumes, this book is lively and engaging and provides the reader with an excellent overview of the social and political issues of Jackson’s era. The longest book of the series, this volume feels 10 or 20% overweight. At this point, however, the reader is so engaged in the twilight of Jackson’s life that any delay in getting to the finish line is easily overlooked.
But if certain sections of the book seem to border on tedious (like the Bank of the U.S. discussion which finally exhausted me), Remini more than balanced the experience with generously insightful analyses of Jackson’s annual messages to Congress, wonderful descriptions of his personal and political relationships and a cogent review of his legacy as a national political leader.
Most criticism leveled at Remini argues he is too forgiving of Jackson’s faults and too wedded to the notion of Jackson’s “greatness.” While his portrait of Jackson may be too merciful for some, Remini is not blind to Jackson’s faults nor does he try to obscure them. At times he directs harsh criticism at Jackson for his public failures and personal foibles. But in the end he sees Jackson’s treatment of the Indians as a deeply flawed, but honest, effort to save them from annihilation by moving them west, and he forgives Jackson for viewing slavery no differently than many of his contemporaries.
Overall, this volume of Remini’s series on Andrew Jackson was a satisfying conclusion to an excellent series. Remini convincingly demonstrates Jackson’s success as a political leader, government reformer, defender of the Union and, ultimately, champion for true democracy. Though it could be read in isolation, this volume seems far more useful and enjoyable when read as part of the complete series.
Overall rating: 4 stars
July 29, 2018
This review will serve for all 3 volumes of Robert Remini’s Andrew Jackson trilogy. I chose to tackle the trilogy, rather than his single-volume biography, because I knew of Jackson’s importance, and I didn’t want to miss anything. And I was not disappointed! It took a lot of dedication to make it through this, but I found it very enjoyable. Remini manages to present a quite comprehensive and detailed story at a manageable pace, only occasionally getting bogged down in minutiae. It certainly helps that Jackson is simply more fun to read about than, say, Madison or JQ Adams. His character holds so many fascinating contradictions. He couldn’t spell or punctuate a sentence, yet he was eloquent in his own way. He had an explosive and violent temper, yet he carefully chose when to let it loose. He cared most deeply about the rights and liberties of the common man, yet he was blind to the inherent injustices of slavery and the forced relocation of Native Americans. And it was a true blindness: there was no hypocrisy in his actions on these fronts, as was certainly the case with Thomas Jefferson. I was most impressed by his courage, physical toughness, and personal loyalty. I was most surprised by his piety, particularly in his later years. If you want to be entertained and educated for months, pick up this trilogy. If you have less time, maybe check out the single volume!
October 16, 2020
This biography makes a large man larger. Andrew Jackson's role on the formation of the American republic as it went through its adolescent years cannot be understated. He expanded the democratic understanding of America, began the westward push of Manifest Destiny, and placed the focus of American culture from the elites that formed it to the regular people who populated it. This final book in the 3 volume set is the best, and Remini deserves all the accolades he received for this book. Worth a read, but certainly one best connected with the other two.
January 4, 2022
This volume 3 of 3 in Remini’s bio. Easily read with many interesting personal observations. Highlighted by excellent discussion of AJ’s handling of Bank & Nullification crises. In addition, Remini outlines AJ’s significant accomplishments as well as shortcomings, although he smoothes the rough characteristics as most biographers do for their subject.
While reading, I found myself noticing several striking comparisons to Trump, which explains why Trump chose a portrait for the Oval Office during his administration. Unfortunately for The Donald, history will never hold him in esteem to the same extent as Jackson.
While reading, I found myself noticing several striking comparisons to Trump, which explains why Trump chose a portrait for the Oval Office during his administration. Unfortunately for The Donald, history will never hold him in esteem to the same extent as Jackson.
October 17, 2016
This book was a spectacular conclusion to a highly informative trilogy on Andrew Jackson's life. Remini once again shows his attentiveness to detail as he brings to light numerous elements of Andrew Jackson's presidential administration and private life, providing an illuminating glimpse into the seventh president's accomplishments and failures.
This volume zeroes in on Jackson's second term and his post-presidency (particularly some of the goings-on in the van Buren White House and the maneuvering to get James Polk's name on the 1844 presidential ticket).
It also looks at the struggles of Jackson's son back at the Hermitage in Tennessee, allowing the reader to see some of the turmoil that occurred with the president's finances and family. There is in a bit too much jumping back and forth in some sections, but overall the effort Remini put into researching this biography comes through in a can't-miss fashion. The author's bias is still clear-he definitely has affection for Jackson-but he is far when discussing some of Jackson's miscalculations and (although he does try to makes some excuses for it) his Indian removal policy. He does his best to place some of Jackson's shortcomings into the context of the era in which he lived, and at times this borders on justifying some of his worse elements.
Remini is so careful to provide details on Jackson's life that on several occasions he provides expense reports on Jackson's remodels to the Hermitage and the White House. It was enjoyable to see how Jackson (as Arthur Schlesinger did in the Age of Jackson) continued to have a hand in the country's affairs even after his second term, and the outpourings of celebratory pageantry when Jackson would travel around the young nation were fascinating to read about. His fame as a general and president vaulted him into an almost unheard-of status when it came to America's chief executives.
One of the most compelling elements of this book (and the trilogy as a whole) was the focus on the impact Jackson's had on changing perceptions of the executive branch. His desire to extol "the will of the people" as expressed through the president above nearly all else was a huge switch in the way Americans had viewed their three co-equal branches of government. Remini pulled no punches when delving into the extent to which Jackson ushered in a change in this perception in addition to an anointing of the two party system (as the father of the modern Democratic Party).
Jackson was surely a man of contradictions and consequence, and this third volume merely capped off the superb job Robert Remini did in fleshing out his life in vivid detail.
-Andrew Canfield Shreveport
This volume zeroes in on Jackson's second term and his post-presidency (particularly some of the goings-on in the van Buren White House and the maneuvering to get James Polk's name on the 1844 presidential ticket).
It also looks at the struggles of Jackson's son back at the Hermitage in Tennessee, allowing the reader to see some of the turmoil that occurred with the president's finances and family. There is in a bit too much jumping back and forth in some sections, but overall the effort Remini put into researching this biography comes through in a can't-miss fashion. The author's bias is still clear-he definitely has affection for Jackson-but he is far when discussing some of Jackson's miscalculations and (although he does try to makes some excuses for it) his Indian removal policy. He does his best to place some of Jackson's shortcomings into the context of the era in which he lived, and at times this borders on justifying some of his worse elements.
Remini is so careful to provide details on Jackson's life that on several occasions he provides expense reports on Jackson's remodels to the Hermitage and the White House. It was enjoyable to see how Jackson (as Arthur Schlesinger did in the Age of Jackson) continued to have a hand in the country's affairs even after his second term, and the outpourings of celebratory pageantry when Jackson would travel around the young nation were fascinating to read about. His fame as a general and president vaulted him into an almost unheard-of status when it came to America's chief executives.
One of the most compelling elements of this book (and the trilogy as a whole) was the focus on the impact Jackson's had on changing perceptions of the executive branch. His desire to extol "the will of the people" as expressed through the president above nearly all else was a huge switch in the way Americans had viewed their three co-equal branches of government. Remini pulled no punches when delving into the extent to which Jackson ushered in a change in this perception in addition to an anointing of the two party system (as the father of the modern Democratic Party).
Jackson was surely a man of contradictions and consequence, and this third volume merely capped off the superb job Robert Remini did in fleshing out his life in vivid detail.
-Andrew Canfield Shreveport
July 22, 2026
Andrew Jackson, by Robert Remini (7/47)
Vol. I: The Course of American Empire
Vol. II: The Course of American Freedom
Vol. III: The Course of American Democracy
Beefiness: 🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩
Andrew Jackson is as much of a transformative president as he is a controversial one. So for both the intense opinions he invokes and the outsized influence he had toward America’s democratization, I tried to find what was considered the best and most comprehensive book on President Jackson.
That meant 3 volumes weighing in at a very comprehensive 1,300 pages of content, not including prefaces, introductions, and notes. And it was worth it.
Readability: 5/5
These books are not beach reads (though I read the 2nd one at the beach) and your girlfriend will not thank you for an explanation of Jackson’s war with the National Bank. Nor will you thank the author for his 300 pages about the National Bank and monetary policy. But these books were really really good.
It’s easier to explain what someone did than who that person was, which is largely what separates a Wikipedia entry from a good biography. Remini does both. Jackson is in the driver’s seat in these books. No passive language. The starting point is who Jackson was and where his motivations came from, and that explains what he did.
Credibility/fairness: 4/5
These books take a favorable view of Andrew Jackson and Remini seems to make a lot of excuses for him. Still, they are incredibly researched and contain enough facts and contexts to look critically at most of his conclusions.
Tea :🧀🧀🧀🧀🧀
Jackson was something of a connoisseur of drama. He thrived under controversy like a stranded man in a dessert who stumbles upon a Wendy’s. A man of chronically poor health, adversity did far more to revive him than his routine prescriptions of lead and mercury.
There’s a lot to talk about. The 19th century scandal of living with his wife before marriage (and before her divorce from an abusive husband), the Petticoat Affair (where the Secretary of War’s wife was so hot that Jackson had to replace his entire cabinet), the Nullification Crisis (where he wanted to execute his vice president).
I don’t want to talk about any of that nonsense, though. I want to talk about cheese.
Specifically, the legendary “Jackson cheese,” a 4 feet tall, 2 feet thick, 1,400 pound behemoth of pure unadulterated cholesterol.
This unholy titan of cheddar graced the White House foyer for years, until a crowd numbering 10,000, from the highest of Washington society to the lowest and most humble of stock, descended upon the People’s House in a true show of lactose democracy to share in this cheesey monstrosity.
You must understand, this was no ordered affair of demure lines and polite mingling. The congested hallways surely resembled the crowded arteries of satisfied guests. 10,000 is a lot of people and 1,400 pounds is a LOT of cheese.
Oh, that cheese probably saw things that day that Jackson wouldn’t wish upon his worst enemies. And Jackson had a lot of enemies. Imagine the clawing and slicing, the gnawing and munching, until the Jackson cheese was devoured into a salty, pungent oblivian.
As it turns out, the Jackson cheese probably did more damage to the White House than any event since the British set it on fire over two decades prior (Has me thinking of smoked cheddar). A straggler who had missed the chaos would likely stumble (and slip) over the evidence of the destructive feast that had occurred.
Cheese and grease was in the floors, the walls, the upholstery. Every crevice, every cranny oozed with it. And the smell, my god the smell! The aftermath of the Jackson cheese necessitated renovations to the White House foyer, painting over the walls and replacing the furniture. Windows remained open despite the cold winds of March, releasing an aroma that can only be imagined over the growing city of Washington.
Jackson, who left office a couple weeks after his fiesta de queso, entrusted the remediation to poor Martin Van Buren. For Van Buren, it was a foreboding sign. The stench of the Jackson cheese would linger and haunt the beginning of Van Buren’s presidency for months, as would Jackson’s banking system and monetary policy.
Overall/impressions (5/5)
This book ends with Jackson’s death in 1845. There wasn’t a 24 hour news cycle, newspapers were party organs filled with unreliable hackery, and documents were not neatly retained and organized. Writing these books must have been a massive undertaking, but as a result we all have access to the information and insights Remini collected over decades of research. It’s honestly heroic work to democratize this valuable information for the public.
Before reading these, I knew the basics of the Jackson political and military legend. His victory in the Battle of New Orleans, the 1825 “Corrupt Bargain” denying him the presidency, the Bank War, the Indian Removal Act, nullification.
These are all the highlights of Jackson’s career, but Remini turns them from piecemeal exploits into a synthesized ideological program.
Jackson’s MILITARY career:
The first of these three books doesn’t touch Jackson’s presidency, ending about a decade prior. As Jackson’s military success propelled his political career, I always believed he had lengthy experience as a soldier.
In reality, his political career largely propelled his military career, which in turn rehabilitated his political career. In his early life, reckless and orphaned by the Revolution, Jackson moved from the Carolinas to Tennessee to establish himself on the frontier. Jackson went on to be elected Major General of the state’s militia, seeing no real action until the War of 1812.
Jackson’s military career really began in his mid-40s when he led the militia against the Red Sticks during the Creek Civil War (1813-14). As many Creeks were looking to assimilate into white American culture, the faction of Red Sticks rebelled, fighting to preserve their culture and traditions while arguing, presciently, that the Americans would never treat them as fellow citizens.
General Jackson, aided more by sheer numbers and superior firepower than he was by military genius, defeated the Red Sticks decisively at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.
Following hostilities, Jackson summoned both his Creek allies and his Red Stick opponents. The allied Creeks believed they’d be rewarded for their loyalty to the United States, but were shocked to learn that they would join the Red Sticks in the dispossession of their land. It was a bitter “I told you so” moment.
The Creek War was connected to 1812 as the British supported the Red Sticks to distract American forces. Meanwhile, the war up North was going terribly for the United States. Our hopes to take Canada ended in disaster and the British burned down Washington D.C. The grim outlook made General Jackson look comparatively pretty good, leading to his assignment to defend New Orleans.
The Battle of New Orleans took place in January 1815. Jackson’s forces were lined up on a levy and the British planned to dump a bunch of barrels into the moat and use ladders to climb up to the Americans’ position.
Unfortunately the British regiment in charge of bringing those barrels and ladders forgot said barrels and ladders. The British decided to press forward with their attack anyway, and the Americans easily gunned them down from the safety of the levy.
It is true that we signed the Treaty of Ghent to end the war a couple weeks before New Orleans. But per Remini, that doesn’t mean New Orleans didn’t matter.
We did not have an undisputed claim to the Louisiana territory. The French had violated their treaty with Spain by selling it to us. and had the British succeeded in New Orleans, they potentially could have occupied a large portion of the territory along the Mississippi.
We had been fighting over the use of the New Orleans port and the Mississippi river since the Revolution. The British would be unlikely to willingly return it at the end of the War. Jackson’s success prevented such a struggle.
More abstractly, in a war referred to as “America’s Second Declaration of Independence,” Jackson’s victory swelled national pride and enhanced our standing with the European powers.
However, Jackson’s heavy-handedness toward both American allies and enemies alike foreshadowed their rough removal during his presidency.
Jackson’s POLITICAL career:
Reading about Jackson’s presidency felt awkwardly familiar. Jackson had a reputation for being loud and violent, he governed with little regard to institutional norms, he discarded those who disagreed with him, and he wanted to hang his Vice President…
The result was a mixture of good, bad, and genocidal. Beginning with the good:
Jackson came into office in 1829, four years after losing his first campaign in a controversy that left him angry and determined.
Congress decided the outcome of the 1824 election, and Congress picked someone else. Jackson felt this was as much an insult to himself as it was to the plurality of people who voted for him. And he had a point.
Radicalized by his defeat, Jackson used his presidency to set the United States on a course toward democracy (the subtitle of Remini’s 3nd volume).
He did this with a mixture of systemic reforms and vibes. In all that he did, he trusted the wisdom of the people to sustain him. Most prominently, he expanded the power of the presidency to transform presidential elections into true contests over public policy.
This is best understood by the Bank War. In 1832, Congress voted to recharter the National Bank. And Jackson hated banks, even more than he hated his first Vice President.
It’s important to keep in mind that at this time, the Executive was understood as a check to the Legislative branch, but the Executive was not considered to be part of the legislative process. The veto power existed, but past presidents used the veto rarely and only over constitutional concerns, not policy disagreements.
But Jackson really hated the National Bank. It meddled in elections and gave interest free loans to favored congressmen. Jackson blamed the bank for government corruption and the economic crisis in 1819, and he wanted it gone. So Jackson vetoed the recharter. Thus began the Bank War.
Henry Clay huffed, puffed, and pearl clutched in public, but privately he was delighted. He thought Jackson’s reckless veto may win the election for Clay in 1832 (this was Clay’s 2nd of 5 unsuccessful presidential campaigns).
And in fact, the recharter did become a major issue in the election. Which Jackson ultimately won, decrying the National Bank as a slush fund for the wealthy elites at the expense of the poor and yeomanry.
Placing the presidency at the center of legislation and policymaking turned presidential elections into true national referendums over the direction of the country.
The bad:
About the bank…getting rid of the National Bank required a replacement. Jackson had something in mind.
During the long congressional recess in the summer of 1833, Jackson ordered all new government deposits to be placed in a series of state banks under strict regulation. This was called deposit banking, and based on the books it seemed to work out fine for a while.
The propriety of moving the deposits to squeeze out the national bank soon became apparent. The bank, calling in credit that its lendees couldn’t pay, manipulated the economy to create a financial crisis. The bank used this crisis as a siege against Jackson’s deposit system, hoping to force the administration into submission.
To Jackson, this confirmed his hatred of the system and he kept his current course, letting the country weather the economic storm and referring the discontented to Nicholas Biddle, the bank’s president.
Jackson outlasted the bank through 1834 and the economy recovered. The National Bank limped on for a few more years until fading away. But Jackson accomplished his deposit system through easily reversible executive action. To solidify it, he would need Congress.
He ran into a few problems. Jackson wanted to eliminate paper money in favor of specie (coins), and he needed more banks to hold the deposits. There were also geographic concerns because he had too many deposit banks up north.
When Congress did eventually approve the deposit system, they drastically increased the number of banks holding deposits and failed to regulate them as well as Jackson’s executive action had. Shortly after Jackson left office, this system proved unsustainable.
Concurrently, Jackson’s monetary policy ran the country into problems. Jackson hated paper money because the banks could easily manipulate the value. He felt banks cheated laborers out of their wages through paper money. His solution was coins.
Jackson wanted all money paid to the government tendered in specie. He wanted his deposit banks to only hold specie. He called paper currency “rag” money.
This became an issue in combination with one of his better policies. The Democrats and Whigs (and their ideological predecessors) had long argued over what to do with America’s public lands.
The Whigs wanted to sell it for the most they could get, using the proceeds to finance the nation’s infrastructure. The Democrats felt infrastructure was the domain of the states, and the land was for the people.
Jackson did not want to sell off public lands to speculators who would cut up parcels and resell to the highest bidder. He wanted to sell the land at a discounted price to the common electorate so they could build their lives and earn the American Dream. And Jackson wanted them to pay in specie.
As a consequence, a concentration of coinage developed in the West, making it hard and even impossible for Eastern banks to back their deposits in hard currency. This contributed to the Panic of 1837 shortly after Jackson left office.
The genocidal:
Remini basically presents Indian Removal as a choice between two ethnic cleansings. In one, the government forcibly moved the tribes to new land. In the alternative, the tribes would be annihilated by the States they inhabited.
All presidents before Jackson had been complicit in stripping Native Americans from their lands in one way or another. But previous presidents had also hoped for assimilation. Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe all hoped American Indians could be integrated into white society.
Jackson had no such reservations. He wanted them gone. So did the South.
The vote for Indian Removal in 1830 was close. Many knew it was wrong, especially those from places that had already removed their own indigenous populations.
Indian Removal consisted of a series of treaties procured through coercion and often fraud. The Southern states had no intention of living among the Native Americans. Had they remained, Southern citizens would have invaded their land and wiped them out through violence. While removal was “voluntary,” Jackson warned the tribes not to expect the federal government to stop the inevitable bloodshed should they remain.
Remini acknowledges the racism of Jackson’s ideology, but qualifies that by presenting his push for removal as having the side motivation of avoiding the tribes’ extinction. By removing West of the Mississippi; the Native Americans could live and freely preserve their cultures and traditions. (🙄)
Remini insists that the abuse and exploitation of the Native Americans during the Trail of Tears was against Jackson’s fervent wishes, but acknowledges that Jackson failed to take the necessary preparations to prevent such mistreatment. To the victims, his intentions weren’t worth much.
The specific “Trail of Tears” occurred after Jackson’s presidency and refers to the gruesome march of the Cherokees after months of confinement in a detention center. But the term has come to refer to the long period of removal that began in 1830 and ultimately took 20 years to complete.
There are many excuses and mitigations to be argued over executive culpability, but in the end, at the very best, Jackson failed to recognize the humanity of the American Indians to genuinely care about what happened to them. The result was poverty, suffering, and death.
By definition, in implementing the Indian Removal Act, Jackson and his successors committed genocide.
Jackson had other accomplishments. His foreign policy was stellar. He negotiated important trade deals and secured compensation for claims against France and other European powers from the War of 1812. He eliminated the national debt and demonstrated great leadership in navigated the Nullification Crisis to preserve the Union.
But his lasting legacies seem to be his push for democratization and the national disgrace of his genocide against the American Indians.
Vol. I: The Course of American Empire
Vol. II: The Course of American Freedom
Vol. III: The Course of American Democracy
Beefiness: 🥩🥩🥩🥩🥩
Andrew Jackson is as much of a transformative president as he is a controversial one. So for both the intense opinions he invokes and the outsized influence he had toward America’s democratization, I tried to find what was considered the best and most comprehensive book on President Jackson.
That meant 3 volumes weighing in at a very comprehensive 1,300 pages of content, not including prefaces, introductions, and notes. And it was worth it.
Readability: 5/5
These books are not beach reads (though I read the 2nd one at the beach) and your girlfriend will not thank you for an explanation of Jackson’s war with the National Bank. Nor will you thank the author for his 300 pages about the National Bank and monetary policy. But these books were really really good.
It’s easier to explain what someone did than who that person was, which is largely what separates a Wikipedia entry from a good biography. Remini does both. Jackson is in the driver’s seat in these books. No passive language. The starting point is who Jackson was and where his motivations came from, and that explains what he did.
Credibility/fairness: 4/5
These books take a favorable view of Andrew Jackson and Remini seems to make a lot of excuses for him. Still, they are incredibly researched and contain enough facts and contexts to look critically at most of his conclusions.
Tea :🧀🧀🧀🧀🧀
Jackson was something of a connoisseur of drama. He thrived under controversy like a stranded man in a dessert who stumbles upon a Wendy’s. A man of chronically poor health, adversity did far more to revive him than his routine prescriptions of lead and mercury.
There’s a lot to talk about. The 19th century scandal of living with his wife before marriage (and before her divorce from an abusive husband), the Petticoat Affair (where the Secretary of War’s wife was so hot that Jackson had to replace his entire cabinet), the Nullification Crisis (where he wanted to execute his vice president).
I don’t want to talk about any of that nonsense, though. I want to talk about cheese.
Specifically, the legendary “Jackson cheese,” a 4 feet tall, 2 feet thick, 1,400 pound behemoth of pure unadulterated cholesterol.
This unholy titan of cheddar graced the White House foyer for years, until a crowd numbering 10,000, from the highest of Washington society to the lowest and most humble of stock, descended upon the People’s House in a true show of lactose democracy to share in this cheesey monstrosity.
You must understand, this was no ordered affair of demure lines and polite mingling. The congested hallways surely resembled the crowded arteries of satisfied guests. 10,000 is a lot of people and 1,400 pounds is a LOT of cheese.
Oh, that cheese probably saw things that day that Jackson wouldn’t wish upon his worst enemies. And Jackson had a lot of enemies. Imagine the clawing and slicing, the gnawing and munching, until the Jackson cheese was devoured into a salty, pungent oblivian.
As it turns out, the Jackson cheese probably did more damage to the White House than any event since the British set it on fire over two decades prior (Has me thinking of smoked cheddar). A straggler who had missed the chaos would likely stumble (and slip) over the evidence of the destructive feast that had occurred.
Cheese and grease was in the floors, the walls, the upholstery. Every crevice, every cranny oozed with it. And the smell, my god the smell! The aftermath of the Jackson cheese necessitated renovations to the White House foyer, painting over the walls and replacing the furniture. Windows remained open despite the cold winds of March, releasing an aroma that can only be imagined over the growing city of Washington.
Jackson, who left office a couple weeks after his fiesta de queso, entrusted the remediation to poor Martin Van Buren. For Van Buren, it was a foreboding sign. The stench of the Jackson cheese would linger and haunt the beginning of Van Buren’s presidency for months, as would Jackson’s banking system and monetary policy.
Overall/impressions (5/5)
This book ends with Jackson’s death in 1845. There wasn’t a 24 hour news cycle, newspapers were party organs filled with unreliable hackery, and documents were not neatly retained and organized. Writing these books must have been a massive undertaking, but as a result we all have access to the information and insights Remini collected over decades of research. It’s honestly heroic work to democratize this valuable information for the public.
Before reading these, I knew the basics of the Jackson political and military legend. His victory in the Battle of New Orleans, the 1825 “Corrupt Bargain” denying him the presidency, the Bank War, the Indian Removal Act, nullification.
These are all the highlights of Jackson’s career, but Remini turns them from piecemeal exploits into a synthesized ideological program.
Jackson’s MILITARY career:
The first of these three books doesn’t touch Jackson’s presidency, ending about a decade prior. As Jackson’s military success propelled his political career, I always believed he had lengthy experience as a soldier.
In reality, his political career largely propelled his military career, which in turn rehabilitated his political career. In his early life, reckless and orphaned by the Revolution, Jackson moved from the Carolinas to Tennessee to establish himself on the frontier. Jackson went on to be elected Major General of the state’s militia, seeing no real action until the War of 1812.
Jackson’s military career really began in his mid-40s when he led the militia against the Red Sticks during the Creek Civil War (1813-14). As many Creeks were looking to assimilate into white American culture, the faction of Red Sticks rebelled, fighting to preserve their culture and traditions while arguing, presciently, that the Americans would never treat them as fellow citizens.
General Jackson, aided more by sheer numbers and superior firepower than he was by military genius, defeated the Red Sticks decisively at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.
Following hostilities, Jackson summoned both his Creek allies and his Red Stick opponents. The allied Creeks believed they’d be rewarded for their loyalty to the United States, but were shocked to learn that they would join the Red Sticks in the dispossession of their land. It was a bitter “I told you so” moment.
The Creek War was connected to 1812 as the British supported the Red Sticks to distract American forces. Meanwhile, the war up North was going terribly for the United States. Our hopes to take Canada ended in disaster and the British burned down Washington D.C. The grim outlook made General Jackson look comparatively pretty good, leading to his assignment to defend New Orleans.
The Battle of New Orleans took place in January 1815. Jackson’s forces were lined up on a levy and the British planned to dump a bunch of barrels into the moat and use ladders to climb up to the Americans’ position.
Unfortunately the British regiment in charge of bringing those barrels and ladders forgot said barrels and ladders. The British decided to press forward with their attack anyway, and the Americans easily gunned them down from the safety of the levy.
It is true that we signed the Treaty of Ghent to end the war a couple weeks before New Orleans. But per Remini, that doesn’t mean New Orleans didn’t matter.
We did not have an undisputed claim to the Louisiana territory. The French had violated their treaty with Spain by selling it to us. and had the British succeeded in New Orleans, they potentially could have occupied a large portion of the territory along the Mississippi.
We had been fighting over the use of the New Orleans port and the Mississippi river since the Revolution. The British would be unlikely to willingly return it at the end of the War. Jackson’s success prevented such a struggle.
More abstractly, in a war referred to as “America’s Second Declaration of Independence,” Jackson’s victory swelled national pride and enhanced our standing with the European powers.
However, Jackson’s heavy-handedness toward both American allies and enemies alike foreshadowed their rough removal during his presidency.
Jackson’s POLITICAL career:
Reading about Jackson’s presidency felt awkwardly familiar. Jackson had a reputation for being loud and violent, he governed with little regard to institutional norms, he discarded those who disagreed with him, and he wanted to hang his Vice President…
The result was a mixture of good, bad, and genocidal. Beginning with the good:
Jackson came into office in 1829, four years after losing his first campaign in a controversy that left him angry and determined.
Congress decided the outcome of the 1824 election, and Congress picked someone else. Jackson felt this was as much an insult to himself as it was to the plurality of people who voted for him. And he had a point.
Radicalized by his defeat, Jackson used his presidency to set the United States on a course toward democracy (the subtitle of Remini’s 3nd volume).
He did this with a mixture of systemic reforms and vibes. In all that he did, he trusted the wisdom of the people to sustain him. Most prominently, he expanded the power of the presidency to transform presidential elections into true contests over public policy.
This is best understood by the Bank War. In 1832, Congress voted to recharter the National Bank. And Jackson hated banks, even more than he hated his first Vice President.
It’s important to keep in mind that at this time, the Executive was understood as a check to the Legislative branch, but the Executive was not considered to be part of the legislative process. The veto power existed, but past presidents used the veto rarely and only over constitutional concerns, not policy disagreements.
But Jackson really hated the National Bank. It meddled in elections and gave interest free loans to favored congressmen. Jackson blamed the bank for government corruption and the economic crisis in 1819, and he wanted it gone. So Jackson vetoed the recharter. Thus began the Bank War.
Henry Clay huffed, puffed, and pearl clutched in public, but privately he was delighted. He thought Jackson’s reckless veto may win the election for Clay in 1832 (this was Clay’s 2nd of 5 unsuccessful presidential campaigns).
And in fact, the recharter did become a major issue in the election. Which Jackson ultimately won, decrying the National Bank as a slush fund for the wealthy elites at the expense of the poor and yeomanry.
Placing the presidency at the center of legislation and policymaking turned presidential elections into true national referendums over the direction of the country.
The bad:
About the bank…getting rid of the National Bank required a replacement. Jackson had something in mind.
During the long congressional recess in the summer of 1833, Jackson ordered all new government deposits to be placed in a series of state banks under strict regulation. This was called deposit banking, and based on the books it seemed to work out fine for a while.
The propriety of moving the deposits to squeeze out the national bank soon became apparent. The bank, calling in credit that its lendees couldn’t pay, manipulated the economy to create a financial crisis. The bank used this crisis as a siege against Jackson’s deposit system, hoping to force the administration into submission.
To Jackson, this confirmed his hatred of the system and he kept his current course, letting the country weather the economic storm and referring the discontented to Nicholas Biddle, the bank’s president.
Jackson outlasted the bank through 1834 and the economy recovered. The National Bank limped on for a few more years until fading away. But Jackson accomplished his deposit system through easily reversible executive action. To solidify it, he would need Congress.
He ran into a few problems. Jackson wanted to eliminate paper money in favor of specie (coins), and he needed more banks to hold the deposits. There were also geographic concerns because he had too many deposit banks up north.
When Congress did eventually approve the deposit system, they drastically increased the number of banks holding deposits and failed to regulate them as well as Jackson’s executive action had. Shortly after Jackson left office, this system proved unsustainable.
Concurrently, Jackson’s monetary policy ran the country into problems. Jackson hated paper money because the banks could easily manipulate the value. He felt banks cheated laborers out of their wages through paper money. His solution was coins.
Jackson wanted all money paid to the government tendered in specie. He wanted his deposit banks to only hold specie. He called paper currency “rag” money.
This became an issue in combination with one of his better policies. The Democrats and Whigs (and their ideological predecessors) had long argued over what to do with America’s public lands.
The Whigs wanted to sell it for the most they could get, using the proceeds to finance the nation’s infrastructure. The Democrats felt infrastructure was the domain of the states, and the land was for the people.
Jackson did not want to sell off public lands to speculators who would cut up parcels and resell to the highest bidder. He wanted to sell the land at a discounted price to the common electorate so they could build their lives and earn the American Dream. And Jackson wanted them to pay in specie.
As a consequence, a concentration of coinage developed in the West, making it hard and even impossible for Eastern banks to back their deposits in hard currency. This contributed to the Panic of 1837 shortly after Jackson left office.
The genocidal:
Remini basically presents Indian Removal as a choice between two ethnic cleansings. In one, the government forcibly moved the tribes to new land. In the alternative, the tribes would be annihilated by the States they inhabited.
All presidents before Jackson had been complicit in stripping Native Americans from their lands in one way or another. But previous presidents had also hoped for assimilation. Washington, Jefferson, and Monroe all hoped American Indians could be integrated into white society.
Jackson had no such reservations. He wanted them gone. So did the South.
The vote for Indian Removal in 1830 was close. Many knew it was wrong, especially those from places that had already removed their own indigenous populations.
Indian Removal consisted of a series of treaties procured through coercion and often fraud. The Southern states had no intention of living among the Native Americans. Had they remained, Southern citizens would have invaded their land and wiped them out through violence. While removal was “voluntary,” Jackson warned the tribes not to expect the federal government to stop the inevitable bloodshed should they remain.
Remini acknowledges the racism of Jackson’s ideology, but qualifies that by presenting his push for removal as having the side motivation of avoiding the tribes’ extinction. By removing West of the Mississippi; the Native Americans could live and freely preserve their cultures and traditions. (🙄)
Remini insists that the abuse and exploitation of the Native Americans during the Trail of Tears was against Jackson’s fervent wishes, but acknowledges that Jackson failed to take the necessary preparations to prevent such mistreatment. To the victims, his intentions weren’t worth much.
The specific “Trail of Tears” occurred after Jackson’s presidency and refers to the gruesome march of the Cherokees after months of confinement in a detention center. But the term has come to refer to the long period of removal that began in 1830 and ultimately took 20 years to complete.
There are many excuses and mitigations to be argued over executive culpability, but in the end, at the very best, Jackson failed to recognize the humanity of the American Indians to genuinely care about what happened to them. The result was poverty, suffering, and death.
By definition, in implementing the Indian Removal Act, Jackson and his successors committed genocide.
Jackson had other accomplishments. His foreign policy was stellar. He negotiated important trade deals and secured compensation for claims against France and other European powers from the War of 1812. He eliminated the national debt and demonstrated great leadership in navigated the Nullification Crisis to preserve the Union.
But his lasting legacies seem to be his push for democratization and the national disgrace of his genocide against the American Indians.
January 3, 2020
This volume focused on the Bank War, which was far more complex than what they tell you in high school. He also focused on Jackson's international successes - of which there were a lot - and his constant battle on the political stage.
One thing I found interesting, that I obviously didn't care about in the least back when I read these in 2009, was that Jackson was the first president to push for the president to be chosen by popular vote rather than electoral college. At the time, each state chose its own electors, and some states did it proportionally to the vote. Some states did it with electors partially chosen by legislature (I'm looking at you, South Carolina). The legislature said no because, get this, they said it was the marks of democracy! America was a republic, dammit, and letting the dirty masses elect the president was just asking for trouble!
At the end of this volume, Jackson dies. And Remini mad it so fucking sad. I think Rachel's death in book 2 was sadder because Jackson's anguish was so apparent, but the collective national mourning in the final chapter was so heartfelt. Despite Jackson dying and being quickly buried at his rural home, 3,000 showed up at his funeral. Empty caskets and urns were mourned in cities throughout the country, all of which were collectively wailed and missed and simultaneously celebrated. Regardless of how terrible some of Jackson's failures and modern legacy may be, he did do something right - something that has influenced American and, surprisingly, international democracies.
If you've enjoyed this series of reviews, I encourage you to think about the complexities of history, perhaps take a look at it in a way you haven't before. Appreciate the richness that came before you, and think about how your own culture and life has been formed.
One thing I found interesting, that I obviously didn't care about in the least back when I read these in 2009, was that Jackson was the first president to push for the president to be chosen by popular vote rather than electoral college. At the time, each state chose its own electors, and some states did it proportionally to the vote. Some states did it with electors partially chosen by legislature (I'm looking at you, South Carolina). The legislature said no because, get this, they said it was the marks of democracy! America was a republic, dammit, and letting the dirty masses elect the president was just asking for trouble!
At the end of this volume, Jackson dies. And Remini mad it so fucking sad. I think Rachel's death in book 2 was sadder because Jackson's anguish was so apparent, but the collective national mourning in the final chapter was so heartfelt. Despite Jackson dying and being quickly buried at his rural home, 3,000 showed up at his funeral. Empty caskets and urns were mourned in cities throughout the country, all of which were collectively wailed and missed and simultaneously celebrated. Regardless of how terrible some of Jackson's failures and modern legacy may be, he did do something right - something that has influenced American and, surprisingly, international democracies.
If you've enjoyed this series of reviews, I encourage you to think about the complexities of history, perhaps take a look at it in a way you haven't before. Appreciate the richness that came before you, and think about how your own culture and life has been formed.
December 18, 2024
It is impossible to write about Andrew Jackson in today's era in which historical figures are held to an impossible standard of modern sensibilities. Jackson's story is complex and the historiography even more so. His actions have been used over the last 180 years to justify or denounce issues ranging from the concentration of capital to Indian relations, to the point that it is difficult to separate the man from what he has come to represent. Yet such broad strokes miss an underlying complexity.
Remini spent decades reviewing and cataloging Jackson's papers and came to know him intimately. It is plain from his prose that he admires his subject, but interestingly not as a paragon, but as a complex man who navigated complex times adhering to a moral code that is today considered anachronous. It is good to read a bit of history from a previous era in which the actions of the subject are situated within the context of their time. Instead of trying to extract a homily about current issues in the guise of biography, Remini creates a nuanced picture of the life and times of a strong executive who's impact reverberates today in the political system his presidency largely created.
Remini spent decades reviewing and cataloging Jackson's papers and came to know him intimately. It is plain from his prose that he admires his subject, but interestingly not as a paragon, but as a complex man who navigated complex times adhering to a moral code that is today considered anachronous. It is good to read a bit of history from a previous era in which the actions of the subject are situated within the context of their time. Instead of trying to extract a homily about current issues in the guise of biography, Remini creates a nuanced picture of the life and times of a strong executive who's impact reverberates today in the political system his presidency largely created.
November 3, 2025
Last of three volumes. We seemed to have forgotten Jackson and what made him so popular in the first place. Indeed as modern people, we are embarrassed to have elevated an Indian-fighting, slave owner so high in the public pantheon in the first place. Over the biography it was most remarkable to see how popular he actually was during his life. Plenty of parades, soirees, speeches. te deums and so on. He was loved by the public. This developed from his renown in the defense of the US, especially the glorious victory at New Orleans, and then as representative of common working laborers. Its now the default that politicians should take their orders from ordinary people, and that the president is their representative. Jackson is in that sense the original president, not just as the president of the government, but as President of the United States.
February 3, 2025
3.5 stars for this final book of this author's trilogy on Andrew Jackson. This book tells the story of Jackson's second term and later years. I found the discussion of Jackson's later years rushed a bit, which lost this a star for me. The discussion of Jackson's second term and the drama around it were its best parts. Highly recommend this book for a non-casual reader of presidential history.
November 16, 2017
Fantastic third volume on an interesting and controversial man. I understand the controversy, but before you have an opinion educate yourself. Great writing. Nicely paced and great research. Now on to number 8.
November 11, 2019
NICE BOOK,
January 6, 2022
Excellent in every way. Gained a greater for Andrew Jackson's life. He was not perfect, but he had strong values and usually chose the greater stand to have equal rights for all.
March 20, 2023
A stagecoach rattled along the Cumberland Road on its way to the nation’s capital.
Read
March 10, 2024The worst of the three. One thing I’ll say in favor of the man, not the biography, he did put the country before himself.
December 13, 2012
At last we come to the end of the trilogy. To the end of Jackson. To the end of his struggles, his contradictions, his paradoxes. To the beginning...of what?
The final volume begins with the rise of the Whig party; for the purposes of this book, a sketch of the antagonists. Jackson's all-consuming drive for democracy, his belief in the sovereignty of the popular will, are hammered home again and again as they have been throughout the trilogy. The Whigs, as a historical matter, favored a more centralized government involved with modernization and infrastructure. Jackson lived and died for populism; his faith in the common man's right, ability and duty to exist and operate independently of the federal government, declared these aims anathema.
He saw these aims not only as an expression of individual liberty, but as the glue that bound together the very union of the United States. This battle between ideologies was to form the basis of his political life, and it forms the basis for the book.
Everything in this long and twisty book boils down to this conflict. Remini means to tell the whole story, and he pretty much succeeds, at least in committing everything to paper. Not so successful is his attempt in weaving a clear narrative out of the tangled skein of information he has. The narrative moves from conflict to conflict, from rant to rant, from debate to debate. Few issues seem to resolve, and if that's because few issues ever were, Remini seems not to make that clear.
More relatable is his handling of the private Jackson. We see an affectionate grandfather, a struggling landowner, a variously stern and indulgent father, a blind and patronizing slaveholder. Which is one of the more disappointing parts of Remini's outlook on Jackson. For all the interminable pages spent on every detail of Jackson's fight for the rights of the common white man, Remini can be maddeningly blasé on the subject of his attitude towards people of color. The issue isn't ignored, but I almost wish it were, for it is treated with a sort of shrugging ambivalence. The final scenes and impressions are of a grand old patriarch reverently blessing the people he owned, blandly rationalizing the plight of the people he removed. I don't expect invective, but I'd hoped for some justice in print. Remini likes Jackson and what he did for the American system too much for that, and his book is the weaker for it.
Remini is a bit of a throwback to the Great Men of History school, and that's a strength and a weakness. We come to know Jackson's personal ideology as well as we can, towering and grand as he is; but there is no fault in the edifice, no crack in the pedestal from which his figure glares down at us. Thus, the book is a grand and flawed portrait of a grand and flawed man.
The final volume begins with the rise of the Whig party; for the purposes of this book, a sketch of the antagonists. Jackson's all-consuming drive for democracy, his belief in the sovereignty of the popular will, are hammered home again and again as they have been throughout the trilogy. The Whigs, as a historical matter, favored a more centralized government involved with modernization and infrastructure. Jackson lived and died for populism; his faith in the common man's right, ability and duty to exist and operate independently of the federal government, declared these aims anathema.
He saw these aims not only as an expression of individual liberty, but as the glue that bound together the very union of the United States. This battle between ideologies was to form the basis of his political life, and it forms the basis for the book.
Everything in this long and twisty book boils down to this conflict. Remini means to tell the whole story, and he pretty much succeeds, at least in committing everything to paper. Not so successful is his attempt in weaving a clear narrative out of the tangled skein of information he has. The narrative moves from conflict to conflict, from rant to rant, from debate to debate. Few issues seem to resolve, and if that's because few issues ever were, Remini seems not to make that clear.
More relatable is his handling of the private Jackson. We see an affectionate grandfather, a struggling landowner, a variously stern and indulgent father, a blind and patronizing slaveholder. Which is one of the more disappointing parts of Remini's outlook on Jackson. For all the interminable pages spent on every detail of Jackson's fight for the rights of the common white man, Remini can be maddeningly blasé on the subject of his attitude towards people of color. The issue isn't ignored, but I almost wish it were, for it is treated with a sort of shrugging ambivalence. The final scenes and impressions are of a grand old patriarch reverently blessing the people he owned, blandly rationalizing the plight of the people he removed. I don't expect invective, but I'd hoped for some justice in print. Remini likes Jackson and what he did for the American system too much for that, and his book is the weaker for it.
Remini is a bit of a throwback to the Great Men of History school, and that's a strength and a weakness. We come to know Jackson's personal ideology as well as we can, towering and grand as he is; but there is no fault in the edifice, no crack in the pedestal from which his figure glares down at us. Thus, the book is a grand and flawed portrait of a grand and flawed man.
January 1, 2012
This is Remini's third and final volume on Andrew Jackson's life. He continues his well written, thoroughly researched biography centering on his compelling argument that Jackson transformed the United States from a Republic to a Democracy, that he altered our path from a governments of elites and business interests to a true democracy where a worker had an equal voice to a banker.
There is also an excellent section on Jackson's response to South Carolina's nullification crisis and how he laid the foundation for Lincoln's later argument that the South could not secede from the Union.
The shortcoming, and it is a huge shortcoming, is the discussion of slavery and Indian Removal. While Remini does not ignore the two issues, his treatment of them is as an apologist. He dismisses Jackson's positions on protecting slavery as being a man of his times, yet he is occasionally forced to acknowledge abolitionists and others like John Quincy Adams who fought to stop the spread of slavery. Instead of acknowledging that these men took correct moral stands despite being of the same time as Jackson, Remini dismisses them and essentially parrots Jackson's argument that they were not sincere and were a threat to the union for raising the issue.
The same is true with Indian Removal. Remini notes that Clay and Webster voted against the horrible treaty that was forced on the Cherokees but argues that Jackson's attitude and actions towards the Indian was a function of his time. In this case, however, men like Webster and Jackson did the right thing but Remini dismisses their doing the right thing with a belittling tone.
An honest discussion of slavery and Indian Removal need not make Jackson a villian. Jackson's efforts in democratizing our country, his success in providing for a robust, growing economy, and his true commitment to our country deserve full credit. His horrible actions regarding slavery and Indian removal make him human, an example of complexities in our leaders which cause us to acknowledge the virtues and shortcomings. Unfortunately, Remini did not do that
There is also an excellent section on Jackson's response to South Carolina's nullification crisis and how he laid the foundation for Lincoln's later argument that the South could not secede from the Union.
The shortcoming, and it is a huge shortcoming, is the discussion of slavery and Indian Removal. While Remini does not ignore the two issues, his treatment of them is as an apologist. He dismisses Jackson's positions on protecting slavery as being a man of his times, yet he is occasionally forced to acknowledge abolitionists and others like John Quincy Adams who fought to stop the spread of slavery. Instead of acknowledging that these men took correct moral stands despite being of the same time as Jackson, Remini dismisses them and essentially parrots Jackson's argument that they were not sincere and were a threat to the union for raising the issue.
The same is true with Indian Removal. Remini notes that Clay and Webster voted against the horrible treaty that was forced on the Cherokees but argues that Jackson's attitude and actions towards the Indian was a function of his time. In this case, however, men like Webster and Jackson did the right thing but Remini dismisses their doing the right thing with a belittling tone.
An honest discussion of slavery and Indian Removal need not make Jackson a villian. Jackson's efforts in democratizing our country, his success in providing for a robust, growing economy, and his true commitment to our country deserve full credit. His horrible actions regarding slavery and Indian removal make him human, an example of complexities in our leaders which cause us to acknowledge the virtues and shortcomings. Unfortunately, Remini did not do that
July 14, 2013
This book, the third volume of a mammoth account of Andrew Jackson’s life, offers an affectionate look at his character, his second term, and his waning years. Even more than the first two books, it makes clear why Jackson is considered one of the great and transformative presidents.
That said, I think author Robert Remini did not subject Jackson’s views on slavery and American Indians to nearly the scrutiny they deserved. For instance, Remini regularly dismisses criticism by abolitionists as over the top, shrill and politically motivated, which misses a lot of its moral force.
In the end, I may be the kind of reader who Remini tipped his hat to in the book’s preface:
“In part, recent generations of Americans have ridiculed Jackson because he was a genuine hero, and heroes went out of fashion some time after World War II. His own generation did not see as well as we that he was a flawed hero, as most of that breed usually turns out to be when their lives are subjected to microscopic examination. Jackson also removed the Indians beyond the Mississippi River and for some that deed alone is so reprehensible as to condemn him for all time.”
That said, I think author Robert Remini did not subject Jackson’s views on slavery and American Indians to nearly the scrutiny they deserved. For instance, Remini regularly dismisses criticism by abolitionists as over the top, shrill and politically motivated, which misses a lot of its moral force.
In the end, I may be the kind of reader who Remini tipped his hat to in the book’s preface:
“In part, recent generations of Americans have ridiculed Jackson because he was a genuine hero, and heroes went out of fashion some time after World War II. His own generation did not see as well as we that he was a flawed hero, as most of that breed usually turns out to be when their lives are subjected to microscopic examination. Jackson also removed the Indians beyond the Mississippi River and for some that deed alone is so reprehensible as to condemn him for all time.”
August 2, 2011
This, the final in a three volume biography, finishes off the subject with the same attention to detail and objective analysis that characterized the first two. It's obvious Rimi is a big Jackson fan as well as scholar, but he doesn't shy away from the General's foibles, follies and shortfalls. As biographies go, this one not only was pretty fair in its analysis but did a fine job of integrating Jackson into the century and zeitgeist in which he lived. I learned a lot.
November 28, 2016
Excellent Portrayal of American Political Scene 1830 -1840. Jackson's force prejudice and unique messianistic drive shine through. Interesting foreshadowing of civil war to com.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews