What do you think?
Rate this book
Driven West: Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears to the Civil War
By the acclaimed author of the classic Patriots and Union 1812, this major work of narrative history portrays four of the most turbulent decades in the growth of the American nation. After the War of 1812, Presidents Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk led the country to its Manifest Destiny across the continent, but the forces and hostility unleashed by that expansion led inexorably to Civil War.
As president, Andrew Jackson decreed that the Indians of Georgia be forcibly removed to make way for the exploding white population. His policy set off angry debate in the Senate among such giants as Henry Clay, John Calhoun, and Daniel Webster, and protests from writers in the north like Ralph Waldo Emerson, who represented the growing abolitionist movement. Southern slave owners understood that those protests would not stop with defending a few Indian tribes.
As president, Andrew Jackson decreed that the Indians of Georgia be forcibly removed to make way for the exploding white population. His policy set off angry debate in the Senate among such giants as Henry Clay, John Calhoun, and Daniel Webster, and protests from writers in the north like Ralph Waldo Emerson, who represented the growing abolitionist movement. Southern slave owners understood that those protests would not stop with defending a few Indian tribes.
Audiobook
First published November 9, 2010
13 people are currently reading
292 people want to read
About the author
A.J. Langguth
14 books28 followersA.J. "Jack" Langguth was a Professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Southern California and an American author and journalist. In addition to his non-fiction work, he is the author of several dark, satirical novels. A graduate of Harvard College, Langguth was South East Asian correspondent and Saigon bureau chief for "The New York Times" during the Vietnam war. He was awarded a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowship in 1975, and received the The Freedom Forum Award, honoring the nation's top journalism educators, in 2001.
A nonfiction study of the Reconstruction Era, is scheduled to be published in 2013.
A nonfiction study of the Reconstruction Era, is scheduled to be published in 2013.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
December 4, 2025
The forced removal of the Cherokee from their ancestral lands is a testament to how native people were treated under the doctrine of Manifest Destiny. Jacksonian democracy is looked at in the larger context of 'nullification' - the Cherokee were caught between the state/federal arguments that were catalysts for the coming American Civil War. The Trail of Tears is covered in detail - with some of the most heart wrenching details I have ever read. Don't think I will ever look at a twenty dollar bill in the same way ever again.
May 3, 2021
This was not what I was expecting. Too much about politics, elections and political infighting. I was not interested in the biographies of politicians, especially ones I never heard of. Why would I care about how a politician’s wife felt about the climate? That was mentioned multiple times. All of that stuff needed to be pruned. There was not enough focus on the treatment of Native Americans. 2.5 stars
April 1, 2013
While I enjoyed reading this book, I just became more and more angry at how everything played out. I've read about the Trail of Tears before and it always makes me angry. Unfortunately, I don't see a whole lot of change in government from then to now. Elected officials promising everything and delivering little, self-serving individuals screwing their own people and most of us blithely ignorant of what is going on. At least I didn't throw this book at the wall.
July 31, 2025
Well researched and written. An excellent account of a tragic episode in American history.
June 26, 2019
“Driven West” is a fascinating piece of narrative history that attempts to add another layer of understanding to an appropriately thick description of the American Civil War. Though many arguments for the importance of the cause of states’ rights as a casus belli are largely viewed as racially-charged attempts to “whitewash” (literally) the real roots of the conflict, an honest historian would be quick agree that both causal issues cannot be appropriately understood without each other. Langguth helpfully complicates this debated narrative by developing a narrative a three-sided conflict the resulted in the Civil War: states’ rights, Indian removal, and slavery.
In fact, at the very end of the book, Langguth even goes so far as to claim that the first “civil war” was the Indian removal that resulted in the Trail of Tears. And, I must say, I feel that he provides compelling evidence to support that claim. The Trail of Tears, like slavery, is a black spot on American history, truly a national tragedy.
For me, the most tragic element of all was the way in which the conflict fractured the Cherokee Nation into factions respectively led by Major Ridge and John Ross, who presented two very different approaches to dealing with the overweening power of the burgeoning United States. In my estimation, perhaps showing his journalism background, Langguth presented wonderfully sympathetic portrayals of both figures, avoiding the temptation to vilify one or the other. However, I came pretty close to choosing a side after reading Langguth’s account of the assassinations of Elias Boudinot and Major Ridge’s son, John. Langguth’s larger point, though, is to demonstrate that these factions were, in effect, created by white men and then used to their advantage, preventing the Cherokee from resisting in any systematic or effective way.
Obviously, as the book’s title indicates, Andrew Jackson stands as a kind of “arch-villain” in the story, not simply for the actions of his Presidency regarding the Indian removal but for establishing a “policy direction” that remained dominant even into Lincoln’s presidency. Though there was a decided shift on the slavery question, the needle barely moved on white Americans’ disregard for the Cherokee. Van Buren, Tyler, Polk, and Taylor particularly come across here as Jackson toadies.
The most confounding element of the entire story is the choice of the Cherokee nation to side with the Confederate States of America at the outbreak of the Civil War, based once more on false promises that were not kept. Though the book is at present a nice length, I could have wished it just a bit longer so that Langguth could develop this element. The last two chapters, unfortunately, end up feeling a bit rushed.
Langguth succeeds admirably in providing portraits of the key figures, using the various personalities to provide a focus for each chapter. This helps him avoid a “and then what happened” style that can be the bane of complicated narrative. His most sympathetic portrayals are reserved for the Cherokee leaders, though he does show that the attitudes of key American leaders toward the Indians are more nuanced than is widely understood. Including Andrew Jackson.
Perhaps more than anything, this book shows that one of the elements that makes a tragedy is its apparent sense of “fatedness,” if you will. Standing in the moment, some of history’s worst decisions look to be unavoidable. However, with the perspective provided by (nearly) two intervening centuries, there are scores of moments where one solitary different decision could have rewritten some of the most painful history of our nation. I cannot read the story of the Trail of Tears and conclude, “Oh well, I guess it was bound to happen.” Rather, Langguth’s work reminds me that the greatest tragedy of all is humanity’s comfortable myopia that refuses to look beyond the obvious or the easy choice for the moral and the righteous path. When pragmatism wins out over principle, history always loses.
In fact, at the very end of the book, Langguth even goes so far as to claim that the first “civil war” was the Indian removal that resulted in the Trail of Tears. And, I must say, I feel that he provides compelling evidence to support that claim. The Trail of Tears, like slavery, is a black spot on American history, truly a national tragedy.
For me, the most tragic element of all was the way in which the conflict fractured the Cherokee Nation into factions respectively led by Major Ridge and John Ross, who presented two very different approaches to dealing with the overweening power of the burgeoning United States. In my estimation, perhaps showing his journalism background, Langguth presented wonderfully sympathetic portrayals of both figures, avoiding the temptation to vilify one or the other. However, I came pretty close to choosing a side after reading Langguth’s account of the assassinations of Elias Boudinot and Major Ridge’s son, John. Langguth’s larger point, though, is to demonstrate that these factions were, in effect, created by white men and then used to their advantage, preventing the Cherokee from resisting in any systematic or effective way.
Obviously, as the book’s title indicates, Andrew Jackson stands as a kind of “arch-villain” in the story, not simply for the actions of his Presidency regarding the Indian removal but for establishing a “policy direction” that remained dominant even into Lincoln’s presidency. Though there was a decided shift on the slavery question, the needle barely moved on white Americans’ disregard for the Cherokee. Van Buren, Tyler, Polk, and Taylor particularly come across here as Jackson toadies.
The most confounding element of the entire story is the choice of the Cherokee nation to side with the Confederate States of America at the outbreak of the Civil War, based once more on false promises that were not kept. Though the book is at present a nice length, I could have wished it just a bit longer so that Langguth could develop this element. The last two chapters, unfortunately, end up feeling a bit rushed.
Langguth succeeds admirably in providing portraits of the key figures, using the various personalities to provide a focus for each chapter. This helps him avoid a “and then what happened” style that can be the bane of complicated narrative. His most sympathetic portrayals are reserved for the Cherokee leaders, though he does show that the attitudes of key American leaders toward the Indians are more nuanced than is widely understood. Including Andrew Jackson.
Perhaps more than anything, this book shows that one of the elements that makes a tragedy is its apparent sense of “fatedness,” if you will. Standing in the moment, some of history’s worst decisions look to be unavoidable. However, with the perspective provided by (nearly) two intervening centuries, there are scores of moments where one solitary different decision could have rewritten some of the most painful history of our nation. I cannot read the story of the Trail of Tears and conclude, “Oh well, I guess it was bound to happen.” Rather, Langguth’s work reminds me that the greatest tragedy of all is humanity’s comfortable myopia that refuses to look beyond the obvious or the easy choice for the moral and the righteous path. When pragmatism wins out over principle, history always loses.
November 21, 2012
A very good high level overview of American history from 1825 through the Civil War ... with a particularly interesting emphasis on the relocation of the South East American Indians to "Indian Country." The "Trail of Tears" was a very embarressing event in the history of the US.
I enjoy Langguth's style. His books are very readable with excellent content. I learned a lot in reading this book.
I enjoy Langguth's style. His books are very readable with excellent content. I learned a lot in reading this book.
August 24, 2011
Well written, as all books by this author. Much that I did not know, but depressing enough that I am not sure I wanted to know it.
April 18, 2023
This is less a review of the book and more notes for me. I absolutely loved and was horrified learning more about some of the Trails of Tears. Greed trumps all in this book. Thanks to Chief Sequoyah's alphabet, the Cherokee story is particularly well documented. At this point in time the Cherokee had a higher literacy rate than Europeans and people of European descent in the United States, they had as many prosperous land/farm/plantations compared to said counterpart, many had embraced Christianity, higher education, and slavery. For any metric back in the day, the Cherokee had been "civilized" and they were still coerced and forced at gunpoint off their land. This is a true story of resilience in the face of anything and everything that can go wrong that does go wrong.
This is one of those history stories that is hard to read, but absolutely necessary if this country wants to start repairing the damage caused by past decisions and to make sure they never happen again. Most of my notes are not about the years that lead to the Trail of Tears, but historical facts I hadn't heard before and wanted to remember where I had read it.
9% "In 1809 Meigs had overseen a meticulous census showing that 12,395 Cherokees lived in Cherokee Nation along with 314 whites and 535 negro slaves. Their switch from hunting to farming had replaced their traditional slaves, Indians from conquered tribes, with black slaves to work their plantations. Missionaries who arrived from New England were often appalled to find Cherokees buying and selling negro families. But like their white competitors, the chiefs claimed the economy left them no choice. Besides, they said, slaves prefered life among the Indians to serving white masters."
30% "As a small consolation for his people's losses, (Butenuck) ran a summary of an argument from London that 'America's Indians were, in all probability, the descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel'."
What year? Find full article.
34% "As an emissary, Johnson himself was compromised. He lived openly with Julia Chinn, a mulatto slave he had inherited from his father. Johnson had seen to it that the education of their lovely daughters, Imogene and Adaline, matched that of any young white woman and he hoped to introduce them to Kentucky society. But when he brought one daughter to a Fourth of July barbeque, Kentuckians had demanded she wait in his carriage while Johnson delivered his oration."
64% "if compelled to vote, they must take a man that would bring the greatest strength to the party. When the new choice was revealed, Cherokees in Georgia understood that Van Buren would be no more sympathetic to their cause than Jackson had been. He had been persuaded to name Richard Mentor Johnson, the Kentucky senator who had built his political career on the claim that he had killed Tecumseh. Johnson's nomination aroused opposition from slave owners since he had made no secret of his mulatto mistress or their two daughters. Tennessee's chief justice derided the woman for claiming equality with whites and accused Johnson of trying to force his daughters into society."
69% "the Indian question was being linked to an increasingly violent debate over slavery. Even in the north memories persisted of the slave revolt in Virginia led by Nat Turner August 1831 when his followers slaughtered 57 men, women, and children before Turner was captured and executed. After that, a Boston mob opposed to abolition had broken up a meeting by the anti slavery society and chased William Lloyd Garrison through the streets, determined to lynch him. Although Garrison preached opposing slavery nonviolently, he had to take refugee overnight in the Leverett Street Jail and then disappear from the city. Now a minister scheduled to speak in Pennsylvania Hall on May 17th, 1838, had announced he would prove that slavery had always been a sin. Again, a mob descended, demolished the hall, and set it on fire. Ross's correspondent concluded that this mixing of white and black is no go in Philadelphia and since Wilson Lumpkin is a cold blooded hypocrite who would resort to any untruth to hurt the Cherokees, it was best that Indians remain silent on the race issue."
91% "'The true cause of the war', Lincoln claimed,'was Polk's desire for military glory: that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood.'"
91% "Abolitionist journals were bucking the prevailing mood. William Loyd Garrison's Liberator wished the Mexican people 'the most triumphant success'. In Massachusetts Emerson's friend Henry Thoreau joined the protest by refusing to pay his taxes. Six years had already passed since Thoreu took his name off the First Parish Church tax roles. Two years later he'd refused to pay the local poll tax. Now the levy he was protesting supported only the town of Concord not the Mexican American War. But when Thoreu set out his reasons for refusing to pay taxes in and essay he called Civil Disobedience he invoked the war as his justification. Comparing the was to the evils of slavery, Thoreu chastised those who claimed not to support the war and yet went on paying their taxes. The local tax collector was flumixed by that position. He felt personally friendly to Thoreu and asked what he should do. 'Resign!' Thoreu said. Thoreu was jailed for one night before his family defied his wishes, paid his taxes, and set him free. That brief incarceration was long enough to give rise to an enduring story of an exchange with Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson was supposed to have passed by the jail and seen Thoreu behind bars. 'Henry!' Emerson exclaimed, 'What are you doing in there?' to which Thoreu was said to reply, 'Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?'"
This is one of those history stories that is hard to read, but absolutely necessary if this country wants to start repairing the damage caused by past decisions and to make sure they never happen again. Most of my notes are not about the years that lead to the Trail of Tears, but historical facts I hadn't heard before and wanted to remember where I had read it.
9% "In 1809 Meigs had overseen a meticulous census showing that 12,395 Cherokees lived in Cherokee Nation along with 314 whites and 535 negro slaves. Their switch from hunting to farming had replaced their traditional slaves, Indians from conquered tribes, with black slaves to work their plantations. Missionaries who arrived from New England were often appalled to find Cherokees buying and selling negro families. But like their white competitors, the chiefs claimed the economy left them no choice. Besides, they said, slaves prefered life among the Indians to serving white masters."
30% "As a small consolation for his people's losses, (Butenuck) ran a summary of an argument from London that 'America's Indians were, in all probability, the descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel'."
What year? Find full article.
34% "As an emissary, Johnson himself was compromised. He lived openly with Julia Chinn, a mulatto slave he had inherited from his father. Johnson had seen to it that the education of their lovely daughters, Imogene and Adaline, matched that of any young white woman and he hoped to introduce them to Kentucky society. But when he brought one daughter to a Fourth of July barbeque, Kentuckians had demanded she wait in his carriage while Johnson delivered his oration."
64% "if compelled to vote, they must take a man that would bring the greatest strength to the party. When the new choice was revealed, Cherokees in Georgia understood that Van Buren would be no more sympathetic to their cause than Jackson had been. He had been persuaded to name Richard Mentor Johnson, the Kentucky senator who had built his political career on the claim that he had killed Tecumseh. Johnson's nomination aroused opposition from slave owners since he had made no secret of his mulatto mistress or their two daughters. Tennessee's chief justice derided the woman for claiming equality with whites and accused Johnson of trying to force his daughters into society."
69% "the Indian question was being linked to an increasingly violent debate over slavery. Even in the north memories persisted of the slave revolt in Virginia led by Nat Turner August 1831 when his followers slaughtered 57 men, women, and children before Turner was captured and executed. After that, a Boston mob opposed to abolition had broken up a meeting by the anti slavery society and chased William Lloyd Garrison through the streets, determined to lynch him. Although Garrison preached opposing slavery nonviolently, he had to take refugee overnight in the Leverett Street Jail and then disappear from the city. Now a minister scheduled to speak in Pennsylvania Hall on May 17th, 1838, had announced he would prove that slavery had always been a sin. Again, a mob descended, demolished the hall, and set it on fire. Ross's correspondent concluded that this mixing of white and black is no go in Philadelphia and since Wilson Lumpkin is a cold blooded hypocrite who would resort to any untruth to hurt the Cherokees, it was best that Indians remain silent on the race issue."
91% "'The true cause of the war', Lincoln claimed,'was Polk's desire for military glory: that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood.'"
91% "Abolitionist journals were bucking the prevailing mood. William Loyd Garrison's Liberator wished the Mexican people 'the most triumphant success'. In Massachusetts Emerson's friend Henry Thoreau joined the protest by refusing to pay his taxes. Six years had already passed since Thoreu took his name off the First Parish Church tax roles. Two years later he'd refused to pay the local poll tax. Now the levy he was protesting supported only the town of Concord not the Mexican American War. But when Thoreu set out his reasons for refusing to pay taxes in and essay he called Civil Disobedience he invoked the war as his justification. Comparing the was to the evils of slavery, Thoreu chastised those who claimed not to support the war and yet went on paying their taxes. The local tax collector was flumixed by that position. He felt personally friendly to Thoreu and asked what he should do. 'Resign!' Thoreu said. Thoreu was jailed for one night before his family defied his wishes, paid his taxes, and set him free. That brief incarceration was long enough to give rise to an enduring story of an exchange with Ralph Waldo Emerson. Emerson was supposed to have passed by the jail and seen Thoreu behind bars. 'Henry!' Emerson exclaimed, 'What are you doing in there?' to which Thoreu was said to reply, 'Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?'"
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 16, 2021
This was a fairly comprehensive volume covering the period of John Quincy Adam's tenure in the White House up through the election of Lincoln. Polk and Pierce are covered very little, and the meat of the book is during the years of Jackson, Van Buren, and John Tyler. There is also a lot of information about Henry Clay.
Aside from the American politicians, there is also a lot about several prominent Native Americans and their own political struggles from the first inklings of relocation to the Trail of Tears and beyond. While the actual event is only covered in a chapter or two, it was incredibly interesting reading about John Ross and the Boudinots and what the Cherokees went through politically while racing against time to save themselves from being lost in the wind.
The book is fairly dry, but for someone who is just looking for information about this period (I couldn't find many good biographies of Van Buren or Tyler, so I went with this) then there is a wealth included in this volume.
Aside from the American politicians, there is also a lot about several prominent Native Americans and their own political struggles from the first inklings of relocation to the Trail of Tears and beyond. While the actual event is only covered in a chapter or two, it was incredibly interesting reading about John Ross and the Boudinots and what the Cherokees went through politically while racing against time to save themselves from being lost in the wind.
The book is fairly dry, but for someone who is just looking for information about this period (I couldn't find many good biographies of Van Buren or Tyler, so I went with this) then there is a wealth included in this volume.
March 26, 2016
I found this book a bit tough going: many characters, difficult to keep in mind who was who, particularly since many Indian chiefs and leaders had English names. A reference chart would have helped keep track. Still, many misconceptions (I think stemming from a course in American history I took as an undergrad that I mostly slept through) are clarified. The era during which Indian removal from their lands east of the Mississippi River is only part of the story. Election battles for the presidency were similar to that of today except that "media" then were only newspapers, pamphlets and gossip: one candidate a pimp, another's wife's reputation besmirched, etc. Then there were the land greedy Georgians and Alabamans making life miserable for the Cherokees. If I were motivated enough (I'm not) to be really informed about this era of American history, this book would be an excellent takeoff point for further study. I'd begin by drawing up a chart of characters.
March 6, 2012
Fascinating portraits of all sorts of semi-forgotten historical figures, turns out I've forgotten a lot of American history. But here they are, Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, John Calhoun, Jackson, of course, and their ladies who play large roles in running Washington. Also the leaders of the Cherokee nation, Major Ridge and others. So far, not to the trail of tears, but what a lot of rapscallions our forefathers were. I'm glad I'm not descended from this lot of thieves, slave-owners, and worse. Book doesn't sugar coat American History, but it is fair. You get far more than The Trail of Tears, you get a look at what politics was like in the first half of the 19the Century. Plenty of villains, darn few heroes, and a whole lot of people who can't find a way to do the right things. It's a lot like today.
January 27, 2013
A.J. Langguth has become my favorite American history author, with my only complaint being he hasn't covered every period in our history yet. "Patriots" remains my favorite so far, but his writing style, knowledge and research makes each of his books enjoyable.
That said, I very much enjoyed Driven West but it found it more difficult to get into. This is a result of the times covered, an important part of American history but certainly doesn't get the play the Revolutionary or Civil wars get. Events covered in this book are important stepping stones to the Civil War though (and beyond), and Langguth is a great place to start to get into it.
Highly recommended.
That said, I very much enjoyed Driven West but it found it more difficult to get into. This is a result of the times covered, an important part of American history but certainly doesn't get the play the Revolutionary or Civil wars get. Events covered in this book are important stepping stones to the Civil War though (and beyond), and Langguth is a great place to start to get into it.
Highly recommended.
May 9, 2020
Four stars for what it is, a journalist's attempt at history. It's readable and informative. The only knock is that Langguth couldn't resist adding to the book anything he found that he thought was interesting, so the story is diffuse. It's not really about what it says it's about except at times. If you're not interested in presidential politics and certain cultural trends of the time that are--in this telling--without clear ramifications for the Trail of Tears, you're out of luck with at least half the book.
January 29, 2011
An amazing story, gripping characters portrayed in a way that a fiction writer could never build. The intrigue between Calhoun, Jackson, Van Buren, and Clay rivals the political aspirations of Alexander Hamilton. Somehow they all seem to be three faced scoundrels, but I liked their characters.
Read
June 21, 2011A detailed history of the politics and actors who affected the push to drive the Indians out of Florida and Georgia to the West.
January 30, 2017
This book is rather interesting and includes a large amount of information. The downside is that the book basically follows the politics of the trail of tears and is not that well sourced.
December 28, 2017
Excellent.
December 18, 2019
Such a fascinating book, but so depressing
April 21, 2023
Not a bad book. Well-researched and thorough. If you are interested in this period, it's worth reading. However, if you want to learn more about the Trail of Tears, you'll need to find another book. This book is really about the political career of Henry Clay and how it intertwined with presidential and congressional politics of the day.
There is actually very little information about the impact the policy of this era had on American Indians other than the obvious. It does cover several prominent figures in various tribes, but the actual plight of the people who suffered through this is at best a side note. It is really a book about political minutiae during the period. An interesting topic. Just not the one advertised.
There is actually very little information about the impact the policy of this era had on American Indians other than the obvious. It does cover several prominent figures in various tribes, but the actual plight of the people who suffered through this is at best a side note. It is really a book about political minutiae during the period. An interesting topic. Just not the one advertised.
February 12, 2021
There was one thing I liked about this book and that was the short stories about all the people that were involved in the main story of the Trail of Tears.
However, the book as a whole, seems to never get moving because of all the times the book stopped to tell another short story about this and that person.
After awhile, I mostly skipped around and read chapters that I thought would give me the most information on the main subject.
However, the book as a whole, seems to never get moving because of all the times the book stopped to tell another short story about this and that person.
After awhile, I mostly skipped around and read chapters that I thought would give me the most information on the main subject.
February 28, 2019
Zzzzzzzzz Boring
April 15, 2025
Read about half of the book, which takes me through the history relevant to my WIP. Will read the rest in future when needed for finishing my series. Very well told, readable history.
May 22, 2013
I think of this book as a lecture by a completely well-intentioned but overly-enthusiastic professor, gregarious and slightly show-offy.
Langguth doesn't sound as elegiac as one might expect. This is no cousin to "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". Rather, he spins out a tale in spurts of character studies, chapters entitled with the names of figures, forming a mosaic of a more complex kind than the more polemic treatments I've read. If the story is more complex, the delivery of it in bite-size pieces makes it harder to follow. The focus is up close, not overhead, and delivered in snapshots, not a panorama.
The prose lends itself well to this approach, a kind of smooth, nondescript hum. Langguth writes with flow and enthusiasm, but not distinction. The chapters float by without offending or inspiring, merely delivering the information and floating away from memory. I can't recall a single turn of phrase, descriptive scene or character sketch from this book (and this review is being written immediately after I finished the book). The blandness of the prose, obviously, is not well in keeping with the subject matter. Lannguth is never blasé or blithe, but he is often bloodless. The greatest accomplishment of his treatment of the Trail is that he does go beyond mere snapshots to give a moderately thorough narrative of it. But there's no sense of human drama there, just perfunctory reporting. I expected more.
Finally, Langguth picks up speed, and this latter fourth of the book is bizarrely breakneck. We jerk from his moderate pace to a careening swoop through three presidencies and the start of the Civil War. I wonder if he came up against a deadline! Granted, you don't expect an exhaustive analysis of William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, and Manifest Destiny in a book ostensibly about Andrew Jackson, but then you wonder why Langguth put them in there at all. The experience was unenjoyable.
So was the book, regrettably. The subject was there, the focus and the color weren't.
Langguth doesn't sound as elegiac as one might expect. This is no cousin to "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee". Rather, he spins out a tale in spurts of character studies, chapters entitled with the names of figures, forming a mosaic of a more complex kind than the more polemic treatments I've read. If the story is more complex, the delivery of it in bite-size pieces makes it harder to follow. The focus is up close, not overhead, and delivered in snapshots, not a panorama.
The prose lends itself well to this approach, a kind of smooth, nondescript hum. Langguth writes with flow and enthusiasm, but not distinction. The chapters float by without offending or inspiring, merely delivering the information and floating away from memory. I can't recall a single turn of phrase, descriptive scene or character sketch from this book (and this review is being written immediately after I finished the book). The blandness of the prose, obviously, is not well in keeping with the subject matter. Lannguth is never blasé or blithe, but he is often bloodless. The greatest accomplishment of his treatment of the Trail is that he does go beyond mere snapshots to give a moderately thorough narrative of it. But there's no sense of human drama there, just perfunctory reporting. I expected more.
Finally, Langguth picks up speed, and this latter fourth of the book is bizarrely breakneck. We jerk from his moderate pace to a careening swoop through three presidencies and the start of the Civil War. I wonder if he came up against a deadline! Granted, you don't expect an exhaustive analysis of William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, and Manifest Destiny in a book ostensibly about Andrew Jackson, but then you wonder why Langguth put them in there at all. The experience was unenjoyable.
So was the book, regrettably. The subject was there, the focus and the color weren't.
September 5, 2015
I found this book to be a difficult one to review. I feel like I learned a lot about the political history of America during the time of Jackson through Buhcanan, but felt that the book never truly had an identity. Much of it wanted to be a history of the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears. However, every time it started making progress with their history, it would switch over to presidential politics or something else. It seemed like the author would have been better served narrowing the book down to solely a history of the Cherokee.
Overall I am glad I read it because of the new knowledge I gained, but found the writing to jump around too much to make it a truly enjoyable read.
Overall I am glad I read it because of the new knowledge I gained, but found the writing to jump around too much to make it a truly enjoyable read.
September 9, 2016
Author attempted to cover a wide range of events in a relatively small space. Sometimes it seemed he condensed things to the extreme and left a lot of gaps. That being said, the book was still informative. Our European ancestors have a lot to account for. Cherokees tried so hard to assimilate but to no avail, due to the greed for land settlers exhibited in the south. But yes, it was complicated -- and some of their own people sold them out. But it seems that Jackson would have let them stay if it weren't for the states rights movement and threats of secession by southern leaders. In the end, the Jacksonian appeasement didn't work, what with human bondage/ownership still getting in the way.
December 6, 2014
This is the 4th book in my American history series. I'll have to concede that I didn't give it the attention it may have deserved, but I found the book incredibly difficult to get into. I'm sad to say I don't remember much from the read-just that it covered a really wide swath of history and I was looking for more intensive detail on the Trail of Tears. I may be on the lookout in the future for a more compelling story about Jacksonian era America.
July 25, 2011
Well written with interesting insights into the actions of the men on both sides of Indian removal and "The Trail of Tears". This issue & Andrew Jackson figure into the Nullification debate, however, they don't figure into the Secession Crisis of 1860-61 leading to the Civil War.
July 4, 2015
It was drier than I wanted and hoped for less politics and more perspectives of the Indians.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews