American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the
White House (2009)
Four and half Stars out of Five
Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power
(2012)
Four Stars out of Five
Jon Meacham
Under Jon Meacham as editor-in-chief at Newsweek, that once
popular but now gone news weekly achieved remarkable heights in terms of news
analysis, rivaling even the current standard for such reporting,
The Economist. Though Meacham is now a contributing editor at Time magazine, he
also has also written four books and acted as the editor on two more, all with
a focus on American history. His prose is fluid and agile, and generally provides
a point of view towards his subjects that does not ignore their flaws. His
greatest appeal to me as a reader is that unlike some other historians that
produce books for the general public, Meacham always does a good job of
analyzing the historical consequences of his subjects’ actions. Presumably
Meacham chose to write books on Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson because of similarities in their impact on the modern presidency; certainly their natures
and attitudes regarding most subjects beyond the importance of the presidency and
the preservation of the Union could not be further apart. Because of this
similarity in impact, this review will combine both books into a single review.
In Meacham’s latest book, “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of
Power”, Jon Meacham reveals much about Jefferson but also delineates two
critical aspects of Meacham’s approach to the subject area. In a broad sense,
history can be told to the general reading public in a variety of ways: for
example, adversarial/muck raking, fawning hack summaries, neutral reporting, or
in the case of Meacham a method that has been referred to in the NY Times as
the Flawed Giant. That is to say, the subjects are persons of
historical importance and while they certainly do not have feet of clay, they
do have some flaws that must be investigated and explained as thoroughly as
their strengths and successes. Consider for example the presidents under review
in these two books: both held slaves,
Jefferson held quite hypocritical views on the topic of slavery, Jackson was
equally dismissive of the rights for Native Americans, and both practiced
campaign strategies that took little notice of former allegiances or respect
for their adversaries’ reputations and true abilities, all in the name of getting themselves
elected. Meacham covers all of this territory in the two books referenced
above, and while he pays only a moderate amount of time on some of their flaws
(e.g. Jefferson’s hypocrisy as regards his slave/mistress Sally Hemmings and
their offspring working as his house servants), he goes into great depth in
other areas of questionable behavior such as Jackson’s near self-destructive
defense of his Secretary of War John Eaton and his wife, Peggy.
The second aspect of Meacham’s approach to politics is
suggested in the title on Jefferson; that is to say, the “Art of Power”.
Meacham’s view towards leading is that a level of pragmatism along with the
more expected traits of decisiveness and strength of will is an essential
aspect of running a democracy: this is shown to be the technique of Jefferson,
and to stand in stark contrast with Jackson’s firmly held belief in his own
vision. Even though some groups within modern America have done their best to
demean "compromise" as a trait found only in weaklings, the
ability to function as a politician, to find a middle way between two warring
viewpoints is in fact according to Meacham’s analysis of Jefferson a key aspect
to his success and impact on the office of the modern American presidency.
According to Meacham, “…politics is an imperfect means to an altruistic end”;
and by politics, he referring to compromise, to pragmatism. How these two
presidents employed their own personal skills in politics is a central theme of
both books.
In “Art of Power” (one of the 2012’s best according to the
NY Times Book Review), Jon Meacham describes in modest detail the early life and
influences on Thomas Jefferson, his writings (Declaration of Independence
amongst others), his role in the Revolutionary War as the Virginia governor, his
political life under George Washington, the endless battles with Alexander
Hamilton and “neo-Monarchists” aka the Federalists, his years as president, and
post-presidential years leading up to his reconciliation with John Adams and their
near simultaneous deaths on the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of
Independence in 1826. His personal life is described by Meacham
and shown how it was fraught with tragedy as his young wife and multiple
offspring all met early deaths. Additionally discussed is how his intellectual
life was one to be modeled by anyone: architect, scientist, agronomist, and politician.
One area in the book I thought could have been enhanced would have been to
better link how Jefferson’s personal experiences as son, husband, and father
shaped his political thought processes. One could draw a conclusion from
Meacham’s exploration of Jefferson that he came to his philosophies almost without influence from his personal life. This is the greatest weakness of the book for me.
Where the book does catches fire, was in Meacham’s summary
of the 1790’s. During this era, the two party system starts to take shape and
Meacham goes into great detail describing the political polarities of the time
as well as the viciousness of the partisan politics (including a series egregious
acts by Jefferson himself in his 1796 presidential race against Adams). The party Jefferson
came to represent was an agrarian-centered/small government group of republicans,
while John Adams (Jefferson’s former best friend and colleague) and Alexander
Hamilton led and spoke for the Federalists, a strong central government party.
To be certain, there were many leaders and members of each party beyond the
three I list here. But I choose to focus (as does Meacham) on Adams due to his Revolutionary
War alliances with Jefferson and on Hamilton, who for Jefferson came to
represent an icon of political immorality as he (in Jefferson’s view) pushed
hard for a movement back to monarchy. Much is made in the book on Jefferson’s
near mania over his fears of a return to monarchy and how the average American
of the time stood to lose in such a scenario. Were Jefferson’s fears exaggerated
or real – this is an area on which I would have liked a two viewpoint discussion
by Meacham. We get a clear idea of Jefferson’s view on the subject, but little non-partisan
analysis on the Federalist viewpoint.
What we do get and enjoyably so, is several examples of
Jefferson’s pragmatism. A good example was an early example of State needs
versus those of the Federal government. In the early years following the
Revolutionary War, about half the states were suffering from deep debts incurred
during the war. Hamilton worked hard to get the Federal government to raise
taxes in order to provide relief to the states. Jefferson with his small
government mindset was firmly opposed to the taxes as well as to the idea that
the Federal government would or should intrude on state issues (it was also
opposed by his home state of Virginia, which was not in debt). Despite his
strong opposition to the relief act (it had been argued against on Jefferson’s
behalf by his longtime friend and political colleague, James Madison),
Jefferson was able to reach a compromise with Hamilton and the Federalists. Other
examples of Jefferson’s willingness to compromise his beliefs about government
versus his great desire to protect and advance the American experiment are
given throughout the book. The key was always in Jefferson’s analysis: do what
was needed to protect and nurture the new American republic, even if that meant
compromising your personal ideals.
In a contrasting manner, Meacham’s Pulitzer-prize winning
book on Andrew Jackson, “American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House” goes
into the life and times of our seventh president, by focusing on his approach
to the presidency and his unstinting view point that his viewpoint, his vision
of populism should guide the American government’s actions. And as with Jefferson, Meacham demonstrates how the nature of political campaigning have changed little in the near hundred and
ninety years since Jackson's election in 1828. There were with the Jackson years a
number of critical battles that took place (US Bank charter, federal tariff on
imports, and the Eaton problem). The dogged manner in which Jackson pursued
each of these problems were critical to how he expanded and shaped the office
of the presidency; effects that linger into the 21st century.
Jackson began his professional life as a Nashville lawyer who
later evolved into a planter, politician and militia officer. He began his
private life by courting a married woman (Rachel Donelson Robards); he later
married her, though questions about her legal eligibility for a new marriage were
very much up in the air. Her death following his successful presidential campaign
in 1828 provide a good view of Andrew Jackson’s approach to life. He fiercely
loved and defended her, but felt the brutal attacks on her chastity during the
campaign led in Jackson’s view to her early death. How Jackson responded in
terms of ferocity and his permanent defense of his loved ones and allies versus
his assault on his enemies gives an interesting contrast to Jefferson and his
approach to political opponents: there was no mercy or compromise in Jackson;
his enemies were enemies alone, and no grey was ever seen by him.
Another example of Jackson’s lack of an approach to compromise was the
problems endured by his Secretary of War, John Eaton and his problematic wife,
Margaret (Peggy) Timberlake. Peggy was widely despised/disapproved of by the Washington
elite due to Eaton and her living together prior to their marriage. The problem
gained serious traction when the wife John Calhoun’s (Jackson’s VP) snubbed Peggy
and influenced many others to do so, too. The consequences of this seemingly
trivial affair were actually critical and far reaching. Jackson in typical
Jacksonian fashion divided Washington into two groups: Friends of Peggy (and
thus Jackson) and Enemies. One consequence was that Calhoun would be replaced by the
bachelor Martin Van Buren (he had no wife to feud with Peggy; there were philosophical issues, too). Van Buren would succeed Jackson as president in 1836. One can easily wonder at presidential
succession had the Eaton affair not occurred: conceivably it would still not have
been Calhoun, but Van Buren’s chances would have been considerably dimmed, too
had he not had the position of VP. Other consequences were equally profound as
Jackson found his policies and alliances within the Washington ruling class to
some degree compromised and distracted by this otherwise petty problem. With Peggy as with the case of Jackson’s wife Rachel, the consequences of infelicities of the
couples involved always landed the hardest on the female half of the pair. In
these cases, Meacham also does a great job of showing just how much a blood
sport in early 19th century America politicking could become and the
price innocent bystanders would sometimes suffer.
Two other major examples from the Jacksonian era were his battles
over the re-chartering of the US Bank and his decision to “relocate” the
Cherokee nation from Georgia to Oklahoma territory. In the first case, Meacham succinctly
details the fight by Jackson over this issue, but like the fight between
Jefferson and the Federalists, I would have liked more discussion on why the re-chartering
might have been good for the US. Jackson derived his decision based on his
distaste for the involvement of the Federal government in banking and his
conclusion that the bank only met the needs of an elite and wealthy few at the
expense of the many – but was there a valid opposing point of view? In the case
of the Cherokees, Jackson claimed to be actually doing them a favor as the
contrary case of “allowing” them to stay in Georgia on their own property would
have caused a situation where their eventual outcome would have been worse than
their re-location (i.e. the local white populace would have massacred them).
There are so many reasons why this logic is faulty and offensive, I cannot even
comment; like for example, how about sending in the cavalry to protect them. Both
of these cases demonstrate that with Jackson his views of what was best for the
majority would almost always trump the rights of the few. The Eaton affair was
an exception to this rule but an example of Jackson’s other rule: his family and
allies always came first, logic and evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
What do Meacham’s biographies of Jefferson and Jackson show
these two presidents to have in common? Primarily, Meacham deftly shows how
each man via his own personal style of politicking and political gamesmanship
worked to expand and define the role of the president in the fledgling American
government. It is an absolute certainty that George Washington was uniquely
gifted in setting the stage for the role of the president, but these two later
presidents demonstrated through their actions new and clear presidential responsibilities
and latitude as a part of our tripartite system. A second important point was these
early years were far more perilous for our young government than most
contemporary Americans understand. Meacham not only does a marvelous job of
defining that peril as seen by these two men and demonstrating how they helped the
United States survive the early years when our survival was not a given, but
also to crucially set examples of presidential prerogatives for all presidents
to follow. Yes, Washington was great and unique, but Jefferson and Jackson were
in many ways, even more so on both points.
