December 14, 2024 • 52 mins
The American POTUS podcast is a 501c3 non-profit show, supported by listener patriots like you. To help us keep the program going, please join others around the nation by considering a tax-deductible donation. You can make your contribution and see what exciting plans we have for new podcasts and other outreach programs, at AmericanPOTUS.org. Thank You for your support and we hope you enjoy this episode.
Please consider a tax-deductible donation to support this podcast by visiting AmericanPOTUS.org. Thank You!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_ (00:00):
Welcome to American POTUS.
(00:01):
I'm your host, Alan Lowe, and Ithank you so very much for
joining us.
I have a very special guesttoday, my good friend, Dr.
Dan Feller.
At the University of Tennessee,Knoxville, Dan served from 2003
until his retirement in 2020 asa professor in the humanities
and as the editor and directorof the Papers of Andrew Jackson.
While he was there, he oversawthe editing of six volumes of
(00:24):
those papers, spanning the years1829 to 1834.
Prior to Knoxville, Dan hadtaught at the University of New
Mexico in Albuquerque and atNorthland College in Wisconsin.
has been very widely published,and his books include The Public
Lands in Jacksonian Politics andThe Jacksonian Promise, 1815 to
(00:44):
1840.
Dan also, very importantly,serves on the board of American
POTUS.
Dan, it's so good to talk withyou, my friend.
Welcome to American POTUS.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2024 (00:52):
I am delighted to be here.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (00:55):
I, you know, I've been a big fan of
yours for many years now.
I won't say how many years, butI remember you gave me the
Jacksonian promise when I wasdirector of the Howard Bakerson.
And I looked at it today andyour inscription says memorize
every word.
tried to do that, sir.
So I love to talk about AndrewJackson.
You certainly already got totalk to let's go right to Uh,
(01:19):
where he became a, nationalhero, a national name, his
military successes in the War of1812, the First Seminole War, he
became a national hero.
What skills did Andrew Jacksonhave that made him so very
successful on the battlefield?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (01:35):
That's a good question.
And you're going to hear me saythat a lot.
A good question is professorspeak for, I don't have a simple
answer.
There is no simple answer, butwith Jackson, nothing is simple.
And it's a good question partlybecause it's not entirely clear
what the answer is.
There are some historians whowould say he was just lucky.
Jackson was unique or at leastunusual among military,
(02:00):
commanders, among celebratedcommanders.
He had no formal militarytraining at all.
He actually had.
As a formal soldier and almostno experience at all, lowest
formal rank he ever held in thearmy was general.
(02:21):
So now
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_ (02:24):
started high up.
That's amazing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (02:26):
we did have experience, uh, as, as
an irregular, kind of an errandboy during the American
revolution.
And then he was involved invarious semi organized Uh,
expeditions against the Indians,but he did not distinguish
himself as say Winfield Scottdid with success at various,
(02:49):
ranks.
So exactly why Jackson was sosuccessful is not readily
necessarily apparent.
Uh, on the other hand, there isthe fact, and it's in, in, uh,
Inescapable fact that he keptwinning as a general.
He was always successful.
And it's not like all Americangenerals kept winning during the
(03:10):
war of 1812.
Jackson kept winning when mostof the other generals kept
losing.
So I think there's some thingsthat you can hypothesize about
Jackson.
He was very energetic.
He was always decisive.
Uh, he was not racked byindecision, nor as Abraham
Lincoln said of GeorgeMcClellan, he never had the
(03:31):
slows.
Uh, he was well attuned toquestions of logistics and
supply, and those mattered alot.
in the, the battles that Jacksonwas fighting, because he was
fighting really beyond, thesettled parts of the country
where you could count on gettingsupplies.
He was a strict disciplinarian,and you might ask, so what?
(03:58):
One could suggest, I havesuggested, that he falls into a,
a group of people, George Pattonis another one, Stonewall
Jackson is another, who werenotably successful battlefield
commanders and inspiringleaders, men whom they're,
troops trusted implicitly,perhaps despite or perhaps
because of the fact that allthree of those were, strident,
(04:19):
you might even say vicious, uh,disciplinarians.
Uh, for whatever reason,Jackson's troops did what he
told them to, and the recordkind of speaks for itself.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (04:31):
It's hard to argue with that success
for sure.
Uh, so he, he makes a nationalname for himself, sometimes
controversially, and certainlyone of the controversial topics
that will always come up todaywith Andrew Jackson is the issue
of slavery.
Emerging as a significant pointof contention in early America,
one that we now know withhindsight will indeed lead to
(04:52):
civil war.
a slaveholder, was Jackson amongthose who said he hated the
institution but didn't know howto do away with it, or was he
among those trying to justifythat institution?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (05:04):
answer to that one is neither, which
actually makes him almost uniqueamong politicians of his day,
among.
Southern politicians, there werequite a few in the Jeffersonian
tradition, and this includes notonly Jefferson, but James
Madison, George Washington, uh,later Henry Clay, men who were
(05:25):
slaveholders, but who were atleast publicly apologetic about
it, who's Public position, atleast, was we are slaveholders,
but we would prefer to live in aworld where we weren't.
On the other, at the other end,you have overtly pro slavery
(05:46):
politicians, most notably JohnC.
Calhoun, who devised an entiresocial theory based upon the
idea that slavery or somethinglike slavery is what holds the
world together.
Calhoun pretty much said ifslavery didn't already exist, we
(06:06):
ought to create it.
It's the basis for a soundsociety.
Jackson, to my thinking, almostalone, and I only say almost
because I'm, there may besomebody I'm not thinking of,
never took either position.
As a matter of fact, I cannotfind any evidence that he ever
thought about the, the abstractright or wrong about slavery at
(06:30):
all.
Which is highly unusual at thetime.
First Jackson, as we know, isnot much of an abstract thinker
anyway.
Uh, he certainly opposed anyefforts to upset the system, but
he didn't oppose those on thegrounds that anti slavery is
evil, uh, because slavery is thebasis of a sound society, which
(06:52):
was Calhoun's.
Instead he opposed, Abolitionistagitation just as he opposed pro
slavery agitation on the groundsthat it disrupted the Union and
also disrupted his own politicalparty.
Jackson just took slavery as hefound it.
He certainly never felt guiltyabout it.
He, uh, Was a slaveholder, heacquired slaves, bought slaves,
(07:17):
sold slaves, grew rich partlyoff the labor of slaves, held a
rather typical, somewhat, youmight say affectionate, but
condescending attitude towardhis own slaves.
He certainly believed in, theefficacy and the necessity of
discipline, which meanswhipping, on his own
(07:38):
plantations.
So there's really nothingdistinctive about Jackson as a
slaveholder.
Uh, the one thing for a nationalpolitician that's distinctive
about it is that he just neverseemed to have considered the
right or wrong of slavery atall.
He took it as he found it.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (07:58):
So within that ferment, which
Jackson was not part of, thebackground of the growing
abolitionist movement, That wasof, connected to, this religious
fervor, often called the SecondGreat Awakening.
You talk about this in theJacksonian Promise.
A big, a big movement inAmerica.
Was, was Jackson himself areligious man?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2 (08:22):
Yes, though, of course, we always
have to say he was religious byhis lights.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (08:28):
Hmm.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (08:29):
He considered himself a committed
Christian, whether you considerhim a committed Christian is up
for each of us to judge by ourown standards.
But yes, he was a religious man.
It did not show up very overtlyin his early life.
He was, you might say, aconventional Christian.
(08:52):
Rachel, his wife, was a deeplycommitted Christian,
Presbyterian.
And Jackson, partly at least atfirst, I think in remembrance of
Rachel or in honor of Rachel,uh, but became more and more as
he grew older, a seriousChristian practitioner, uh, as
(09:14):
president, he hauled himself outno matter the weather on Sundays
to attend sermon.
Uh, he, Paid pew rent andregularly attended and not one,
but during much of hispresidency to churches in
Washington, he hung around a lotwith clergymen.
He read devotional literature.
(09:35):
He quoted scripture, not alwaysentirely accurately, uh, quoted
it very freely.
And one thing we may talk aboutlater.
He wound up infusing one of thegreat political struggles, of
his administration, the bankwar.
with a religious and nearlyapocalyptic significance.
(09:59):
He did not himself join thechurch until he was an old man.
And it was the Presbyterianchurch.
I should say, the greatawakening involved a lot of, uh,
explorations of new methods ofreligious expression.
And Jackson didn't really haveanything to do with those.
He was a traditional ProtestantChristian.
(10:20):
You know, you weren't going tofind him at a camp meeting.
Uh,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (10:26):
Did, did those, did those new
movements support himpolitically?
Did that benefit him?
That growing movement of, ofreligion?
new types of religions.
I know my, uh, Disciples ofChrist Christian Church was
developed at this time, the CainRidge Meeting House in Kentucky.
That's where that originated.
Did they support by and largeAndrew Jackson?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (10:47):
that's a complicated question.
I would say overtly no.
And you could even say, theyovertly opposed Jackson.
I'm not talking about theCampbellites here, the
disciples, but many of the, uh,evangelically.
Reform driven, Christian groupswho believe not only in in a,
(11:14):
uh, highly emotional, highlypersonal, form of Christianity,
but also in using their faith totransform society.
Uh, and, and that include, forinstance, the Temperance
Crusade, which Jackson actuallylent some, support to, but also
the Abolition Crusade, theWomen's Rights Crusade.
Jackson didn't have anything,obviously, to do with any of
(11:35):
those.
Now, some historians havesuggested, as you may know, that
the democratizing spirit of theGreat Awakening had much in
common with the democratizingspirit in politics, that both of
them were kind of undergirded bya relatively novel idea that
everybody ought to decide forthemselves.
(11:55):
And that my opinion, both onwhat the Bible says and what it
tells me to do and on, what, uh,Correct.
Public policy is, is as good asyours.
And you could say that Jacksonwas certainly the beneficiary of
that kind of democratic,equalizing leveling spirit.
(12:16):
That some people may have found,restorationist Christianity and
what they regarded as arestorationist Jacksonian
politics as being part of thesame enterprise.
But I don't think you'd besurprised.
find formal groups expressingsupport for Jackson on that
grounds?
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153210 (12:36):
I see.
I see.
So I want to get to that Jacksonadministration where you see
this work toward democracy, thisleveling.
But first we have to get throughthe very controversial election
of 1824.
And I will tell you as aKentuckian, that's a very
sensitive topic to me with HenryClay.
So, what is your opinion?
Was the 1824 election stolen byJohn Quincy Adams through a
(13:00):
corrupt bargain with Henry Clay?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (13:02):
Well, the simple answer to that, I
would say is no.
Some historians would say thatthere was a bargain, whether or
not it was corrupt.
Uh, I think there was anunderstanding though, not the
same understanding that youusually read about in the
textbooks.
But the idea that it was stolenreally, what was a convenient,
(13:24):
Jacksonian rhetorical point.
It's not even clear now thatthis is a little bit
revisionist.
The way the story usually goesis that Jackson won the popular
vote and he won the electoralvote, but the election was taken
from him.
First, he didn't win the popularvote.
He led in the popular vote.
He got well under 50%.
(13:44):
Uh, and that was true in theelectoral vote also.
Now, you might think, okay,well, the guy who leads in the
popular and electoral vote hassome kind of moral right to win,
even if he hasn't won.
Amassed the number of votes thatgive him a legal right to win,
as has been pointed out, thepopular vote in 1824 is about as
(14:08):
close to meaningless as anational popular vote can get
the turnout from one state toanother varied wildly.
There were four candidates inthe race.
There were only a handful ofstates in which you could even
choose between electoral ticketsfor the four candidates.
(14:28):
In most states, there were onlytwo or three electoral tickets
that you could choose from.
So, If, for instance, you votefor an electoral ticket, and
this happened in some states,that has pledged to support
either Adams or Jackson, whichone did you vote for?
But the biggest hole in it all,there were 24 states in the
(14:50):
union.
Six of them didn't have anypopular vote at all.
Five of those were pretty smallstates, and the sixth one was
New York, which is by far thelargest state in the union.
There was no popular vote thereat all.
If you want to take a guess atwhat the popular vote might have
been, it's quite possible.
(15:12):
Now, this is a hypotheticalargument.
It's a, if pigs fly argument,based on the fact that John
Quincy Adams was, uh, theapparent choice in New York and
that Andrew Jackson in 24 had noOrganization and almost no
support there at all.
Uh, if you hypothesize what thepopular vote might've been in
(15:33):
New York, uh, Adams might wellhave carried it by such a large
margin that Adams instead ofJackson would have won the
national popular vote.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_1532 (15:42):
So, so Van, Van Burem wasn't an ally
yet of
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (15:46):
But no,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (15:46):
in New
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (15:47):
Van Buren was an ally of the third
guy who nobody remembersanymore, William Harris Crawford
of Georgia, who both Adams andJackson were actually leagued
against, which is why you couldrun Adams and Jackson fusion
tickets in some states.
So, and even Jackson didn'tthink that there was anything.
(16:07):
Nefarious going on in Adams,possibly looking forward,
surpassing him, in the House ofRepresentatives.
What got him was not that Adams,was elected president, but that
it was Henry Clay.
Because during the campaign,Henry Clay and Adams, uh, using
(16:28):
surrogates on Adams part had,I'm sorry, on Clay's part, had
really gone after each other.
And the idea that Henry Claywould support Adams seemed so
outlantish that you thinkthere's got to be a deal here.
Now, I should say from Clay'spoint of view and Adams point of
view, what happened is, as youmay know, Clay announced before
(16:53):
the vote in the House ofRepresentatives that he was
going to support Adams, that hewas going to do everything he
could to encourage others tosupport Adams.
And Adams then appointed, afterwinning the election, Adams
appointed him Secretary ofState.
If you break apart those twothings, treat them not as part
of some deal, but just as twoseparate decisions sequentially.
(17:18):
Henry Clay had perfectly goodreasons.
compelling reasons forsupporting Adams, which were
exactly the reasons that he hadannounced publicly.
And once Adams was president, hehad perfectly good reasons to
appoint Henry Clay.
In fact, Henry Clay was soobvious a choice for secretary
(17:39):
of state that it would have beenweird If Adams hadn't appointed
him.
Clay had wanted to be Secretaryof State for a long time.
He had hoped James Monroe wouldappoint him back in 1816.
He had a good record as adiplomat.
So, simple answer, no, there wasno corrupt bargain.
There didn't need to be acorrupt bargain.
(17:59):
Both Adams and Clay hadperfectly good reasons for doing
what they were doing.
At the same time, to someoneoutside that circle.
Like Andrew Jackson, the wholething looked rigged.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (18:11):
Yeah.
I like to hear you say that, DanFeller, because again, I'm a
good Kentuckian.
Going to Ashland this holidayseason, the great Henry Clay
home up there.
So I love hearing thatperspective.
Now you mentioned you, youstarted to talk a bit about this
earlier, I do believe whenJackson does become president,
one of his big campaigns isagainst the second bank Of the
(18:32):
United States.
Why was he so opposed to thatbank that he ultimately
destroyed?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (18:38):
Well, part of it you can trace back to
the fact that opposition to theprevious Bank of the United
States, there were two, had beena founding principle of the
Jeffersonian, so calledDemocratic Republican Party.
Jefferson and his ally, JamesMadison, way back in the George
Washington administration.
(19:01):
Had really defined themselves asopponents to George Washington's
administration over AlexanderHamilton's Secretary Treasury
plan for a Bank of the UnitedStates.
So Jackson, even though he didnot act like a.
Old style Jeffersonianthroughout the 1820s.
(19:22):
As president reverted more andmore back to what he regarded
and Jeffersonians regarded asthe true Jeffersonian faith and
opposition to the bank of theUnited States was a, a core
element in that.
But I'd say there was more to itthan that.
And unfortunately, this is not asimple question.
The bank of the United Stateswas immensely powerful.
(19:45):
And it's easy to lose sight ofhow powerful it was.
It was by far the largest,financial entity in the country.
Indeed, it was the only nationalfinancial entity in the country.
It had branches all overeverywhere.
It had a capitalization thatdwarfed that of anything else in
(20:06):
the country.
Financially, it was moreimportant than the federal
government, and to a largeextent, it actually governed the
government.
It printed the government'smoney.
It handled the government'sloans.
It moved the government's moneyback and forth.
These are things that the UnitedStates Treasury does today, some
(20:27):
of them, and some of them aredone by the Federal Reserve.
Well, at that time, the Bank ofthe United States did all of
them.
The Treasury Department was ahandful of clerks in Washington
and customs officers and landofficers spread throughout the
country.
There was no financial apparatusspreading the country in the
(20:47):
Treasury Department.
So The key point here is thatwith all this, the Bank of the
United States, despite all this,and it had these powers
according to its charter, andthese are the words of the
charter, it had exclusiveprivileges and benefits,
exclusive privileges andbenefits.
It was, and it is, anincorporated private bank.
(21:12):
It had stockholders.
It paid dividends.
It had a board of directors,five of whom were appointed by
the president of the UnitedStates, and the other 20 were
elected by the stockholders.
And it ran the country'sfinances.
Now, if you can imagine afinancial institution that, that
wields all the powers ofgovernment, And is run by
(21:35):
private people, rather nakedlyto their own benefit.
The question that Jackson posed,and he posed it rather starkly,
is who governs this country?
Do the people of the countrygovern the country through their
duly elected government?
(21:56):
Or does the Bank of the UnitedStates govern the country?
And he thought that kind ofpower in a republic was
illegitimate and dangerous.
Not only a threat to people'sfinancial well being, because
the bank could, and sometimesdid, act capriciously and
(22:16):
unlawfully, but a threat torepublicanism itself.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (22:22):
Well, I will say Dan, I've never heard
it more clearly stated than thatIt makes so much more sense to
me now, of course though when heleaves office and the bank is
gone.
are some real issues that resultfrom that, right?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2 (22:35):
Yes, and Jackson's, you might say,
problem was, if you are going todisentangle, and in fact
completely de sever, theworkings of government from the
Bank of the United States, butyou still have things that need
to be done.
The federal government literallyneeds somewhere to put its money
(22:57):
and, and it needs somebody tomove its money around and it
needs somebody to print itsmoney.
And if you're going to destroythe bank of the United States,
what are you going to replace itwith?
And Jackson's answer, notbecause it was, you might say,
the correct answer, but becausethere was no other existing
(23:18):
answer, was state charteredbanks, uh, who proved to be not
always trustworthy custodians,of the government's money.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (23:32):
Well, for a military man, we're going
to talk a lot about economicshere because now I'm going to
turn to tariffs, another bigtopic during the Jackson
administration and a growingsource of sectional discord.
Why was so controversial thetariff and how did Jackson view
it?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (23:51):
It was controversial and there were
a couple of other issues thatwere linked to it.
There was kind of a triad ofeconomic development issues.
One of them was the tariff,which is a tax on imported
goods.
And the part of it that wasreally controversial was the tax
on manufactured goods.
especially imported from GreatBritain.
(24:14):
Uh, the second issue was socalled internal improvements,
and that was whether the federalgovernment should fund and
perhaps plan a nationaltransportation system, what
today we would callinfrastructure, roads and
canals, a little bit later onrailroads, but at this time just
roads and canals.
And the third issue was publiclands.
(24:36):
The federal government had thismassive public domain in the
West.
What ought it to do with it?
Should the lands be given awayto settlers?
Should they be sold, uh, toraise a revenue?
Should they be doled out as kindof subsidies to roads and
canals?
And those issues all intersectedeach other.
(24:57):
Jackson's position on this, youhave to say when, because
Jackson's position on theseissues actually changed, during
his administration.
Jackson came into office as adefinite supporter of a
protective tariff, and reallythat stemmed from his years as a
military man.
(25:19):
I should say underneath thisall, Jackson was a nationalist.
Uh, and if we're talking aboutfirst principles, Jackson's
first principle was a fervent, Iwould say religious, familial,
devotion to the federal union.
He revered the federal union.
And so he tended to vieweconomic issues in terms of what
(25:43):
is best for the union.
Now, if this sounds high minded,I'll own it and say, thinking in
that view and in Jackson's part,we gave him a little bit of
distance from issues that someother politicians didn't have.
Jackson, from his experiences, amilitary man had, had thought
and said, we need bettertransportation and, and I'm
(26:06):
quoting him now, we need to bemore Americanized.
Meaning we have to be more selfreliant, for producing goods,
including, implements of war,and in our ability to move
things around the country.
And so throughout the late 18teens and 1820s, Jackson was a
(26:27):
supporter of a tariff on thosenationalist grounds.
And he continued in the firstcouple of years as president to
support the tariff on thosegrounds.
Now, I should say the tariff wasbecoming in the 1820s a
sectional issue, with the growthof manufacturers in the
northeastern part of thecountry, many of the
manufacturers fledglingmanufacturers in competition
(26:48):
with Britain, and Britain hadthe advantages of it.
More capital, Americanmanufacturing was always
scrounging for capital, uh, morecapital, more advanced
technology, and cheap labor.
So how as an American are yougoing to compete?
Well, the only way you're goingto compete is if you get an
(27:10):
assist from government in theform of tariff.
On the other hand, down in, thesouthern, the cotton planting
states especially, and thesewere states that, especially
South Carolina, North Carolina,were kind of in the economic
doldrums of the 1820s, and asthey saw it, the tariff was
something that was subsidizing,the North at the expense of
(27:30):
themselves.
Ostensibly, the tariff is a tax.
What Southerners, John C.
Calhoun most prominently saw itas, was really a subsidy to the
North, and you can sneak thewords anti slavery North in
there, at the expense of theSouth.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (27:52):
Mm
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (27:53):
of a gigantic Northern scheme,
first to impoverish us, and thento overthrow our society.
And so some southerners regardedthe tariff as an existential
issue.
Jackson supported the tariff ina limited way, his first couple
of years as president, and thenhe backed off from that.
(28:16):
Partly because the SouthCarolinians were getting ready
to, uh, to nullify the tariffand force a confrontation.
And Jackson thought, well, if Idrop my advocacy or my support
for a tariff I'll cut the groundout from under them.
And he said that veryexplicitly, though, of course
not publicly.
Uh, but the other thing was thatJackson.
(28:39):
Was coming to the view that thetariff both in northern,
insistence upon it and insouthern denunciation of it.
Both sides were reallyoverplaying it.
Uh, and I think moderneconomists would tend to agree
with him that the tariff wasneither as Destructive to
(29:00):
southern interests, nor asnecessary, to northern
manufacturing, as both sideswere making it out at the time.
Jackson pretty much, by the endof his administration, was
saying this.
And as he saw it, the sectionaldivisiveness, the threats to the
Union that it was created, justweren't worth it.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (29:22):
Well, so, so interesting as just about
everything about Andrew Jacksonis, but when we talk about
Andrew Jackson today, usuallywhat you hear is a lot of
criticism of his policies towardNative Americans.
It's a topic we obviously needto talk about today.
Uh, what defined his approach tothe Native Americans and why did
(29:42):
he pursue that policy now that'sso criticized a relocation of,
them to the Western lands?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_1 (29:49):
Relocation is a politic term.
Uh, and even the term that wasused at the time, removal, was
Something of a euphemism.
This is a complicated question.
And that's the first thing I, Ishould say about it.
I don't think that one cansimply say that Andrew Jackson
(30:09):
grew up hating Indians as afrontiersman, and so of course
he just wanted to kill them allor shove them out of the way,
drawing upon his makeup as afrontiersman.
In fact, Jackson did not growup, fighting Indians.
The people he really grew upfighting and hating were the
British, though we did do someIndian fighting, did quite a lot
(30:30):
of Indian fighting once he was agrown man.
Jackson shared somesuppositions, which were more
widespread among the Americanwhite population than we would
like to admit, and I'msuggesting a little bit that
(30:50):
putting this off on Jackson, notthat we shouldn't put it off on
him, but it's easy to demonizeone person and say it's all his
fault.
White Americans generally.
Uh, viewed Indians as being lesscivilized, perhaps, though this
was always kind of an openquestion, less capable of
(31:13):
civilization, as they definedit, and viewed the replacement
of Indian nations by whiteAmerican civilization as
progress.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (31:27):
Mm hmm.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (31:28):
And Jackson was not alone in
thinking that.
So the question is, what do youdo with the Indians?
Well, American policy longbefore Jackson had been kind of,
uh inherently selfcontradictory.
You even move them out of theway, which you can justify as
being good for them as well asgood for us.
Uh, or else you try to absorbthem in.
Thomas Jefferson's famous ideathat we'll intermarry till
(31:50):
Indians as a separate group ofpeople cease to exist.
Jackson.
imbibed all those we might say,uh, culturally derogatory ideas.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (32:03):
hmm.
Mm hmm.
Mm
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (32:06):
He also felt, and here perhaps his
own background did havesomething to do with this, uh,
he felt the grievance ofSouthern whites who wanted land
that Indians had and of Southernstate governments, that wanted
control over their own,territory, their own domain,
more than he did, of Indians.
(32:28):
So Jackson's solution, was toget the Indians out of the way.
He managed to justify it bysaying that it will be there to
their own benefit.
As a matter of fact, he said tothe Indians themselves, move to
the West.
Uh, there you won't be under thejurisdiction of any state
government.
The land will be yours forever.
(32:48):
He even used those phrases thatwe always thought came out of a
B movie about, uh, it will beyours as long as the grass shall
grow in the river shall run.
Did he really believe that?
Uh, hard to say.
And part of the problem inevaluating Jackson is, as we now
(33:11):
know, removal, so called, of theIndians westward, in the long
range of things just looks likeanother step in the long term
process of not only removingthem, but confining them and
ultimately dissolving theirfuture.
own societies.
(33:31):
Did Jackson anticipate that?
You know, did he, to put itbluntly, did he know he was
lying when he said it'll beyours forever?
Who can say?
The idea of the policy ofremoving the Indians for their
own benefit, supposedly,certainly for our benefit, and
(33:57):
doing it through a legal processby treaty and offering them all
kinds of inducements andbenefits and annuities and help
in getting themselvesestablished in, a new Western
locale that had been federalpolicy before Jackson, uh, James
Monroe announced back in 1824that not only was this federal
(34:17):
policy, it had always beenfederal policy, and it would
remain federal policy because itwas good for the Indians
themselves.
The question is, what if theIndians don't want to move?
And here is where Jacksondiffered from his predecessors,
firmly convinced, and I am notsaying this in praise, of the
rectitude of his own intentionsand of the benefit of his own
(34:42):
policies.
Jackson's attitude towardIndians who would not accept the
terms he was offering them.
was, well, if they don't knowwhat's good for them, I do.
And if I have to bribe them, ifI have to browbeat them, if I
have to double cross them, if Ihave to cultivate what amounts
(35:09):
to an overthrow of their owngovernments to get people in
them who will sign the thingsthat I want them to sign, I'll
do it.
And he did all of those things.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (35:22):
So we've talked a bit about some of
the controversial topicssurrounding Jackson issue of
slavery and certainly NativeAmericans, but it's not called
the age of Jackson for nothing.
You know, uh, you talk about theJacksonian revolution.
You say he single handedlyreordered the political
landscape.
So.
What, what actions define thatrevolution and what is their
(35:43):
legacy today in our politicalsystem?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (35:47):
Wait, did I say that?
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (35:50):
Me to memorize every word, Dan, and
I did.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (35:53):
Uh, first look at that, look at
things in 1828 1828, uh, thepresidential campaign was
Jackson against Adams.
And though historians have beensloppy about this, it wasn't
national Republicans againstDemocrats.
It was Jackson against Adams, orit was.
(36:17):
The Adams people calledthemselves administration, the
Jackson people called them thecoalition against the
Jacksonians.
By 1836, we're on the edge of itbeing Democrats against Whigs,
uh, so Jackson took his ownpersonal following because
(36:40):
that's what it was in 1828.
and reshaped it into a nationalpolitical party, which it
definitely was by 1836.
And in response to that, hisvarious opponents, including a
lot of former Jacksonians, therewere a lot of people who were
for Jackson in 1828, weren't forhim anymore.
(37:03):
Uh, Jackson not only defined apolicy and a party and a really
a political ethos for himselfand doing that he drove out a
lot of people, and by 1836, theywere in the process of
coagulating themselves into anopposition political party.
And so you might say the twoparty system as we have it today
(37:26):
is Jackson's legacy.
The Democratic Party, of course,is still there.
It's changed a lot.
It's still there.
Uh, it still likes to regarditself as the party of the true
popular majority against whatthe Jacksonians called the
aristocracy, against what ArthurSchlesinger and Franklin
(37:51):
Roosevelt called businessclasses.
or the malefactors of greatwealth.
There's a long legacy there forthe Democratic Party.
And then the Whig Party,obviously as a party didn't
last, but the idea of aopposition party to the
Democrats, there's always been abrief period of muddle in the
(38:16):
1850s.
But aside from that, there'salways been the Democrats and
one other political party.
And there's some continuity inthere too.
Of course, the man who, We thinkof a, as the Andrew Jackson of
the Democratic Party, that'sAbraham Lincoln grew up as a
wig, uh, in fact cut hispolitical teeth in Illinois
(38:36):
fighting Jacksonian Democrats.
So the the two party system, youcould say was a legacy of
Jackson's administration.
Many of the policies, specificpolicies of the Democratic Party
that Jackson inaugurated, canreadily be traced.
Through the Civil War, down toWilliam Jennings Bryan, Woodrow
(38:57):
Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt,Lyndon Johnson.
Being a historian, I regardeverything since Lyndon Johnson
as current events, so I won't gofurther than that.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (39:10):
Very good.
Very good.
So let
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2 (39:12):
and, uh, there are some other things
as well.
Uh, Jackson changed therelationship between the
President and the people.
And this was partly stylisticand partly substantive.
If you read Jackson'spresidential messages.
They were meant for popularconsumption.
(39:34):
They were his annual message,what today we call the State of
the Union message, which todayis also, you know, it's
televised.
Jackson's messages weren'ttelevised.
By the way, Jackson was a lousypublic speaker and avoided
Public speaking whenever hecould do it and all of his
(39:55):
famous messages to Congress, andthis was true from actually had
been since Jefferson's day weredelivered in writing, but they
were written for a public eye,his famous message vetoing the
recharter of the Bank of theUnited States.
It was sent, as a veto messagehad to be, to Congress, but it
(40:16):
was meant for publicconsumption.
Jackson cultivated a rhetoricalstyle, a political style, uh,
that was aimed at musteringsupport in the hinterlands, not
merely convincing Congress.
And part of the idea of buildinga political party, Was so you
(40:37):
could connect directly betweenthe president and the people
back home and get them to turnup the heat on Congress and
particularly on the UnitedStates Senate.
Jackson warred with the UnitedStates Senate almost to the end
of his administration.
Uh, because senators thoughtthat they were fairly
independent.
They were elected by statelegislatures, not by the people.
(40:59):
And, uh, they thought they wereelected not to do the bidding of
a president, not to do thebidding of a party, uh, but to
exercise their own, theywouldn't have said aristocratic,
but their own independentjudgment.
In order to affect his ownpolitical agenda, Jackson had to
(41:20):
build a grassroots organization,which he did.
The irony is that this is agrassroots organization, which
Jackson always said, sprung upfrom the people naturally.
Jackson loved to use the phrase,voices fresh from the people,
which they were.
But of course the people wereadvised on what they should do,
(41:45):
um, that they should get uplocal meetings and pass
resolutions and send them on tothe state legislature and send
them on to the state partyconvention and lean on their
congressmen and their senators.
They were advised all this.
from Jackson's White House.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (42:03):
Dan, you begin the Jacksonian promise
by assessing America at its 50thbirthday, the golden Jubilee,
Back in 1826 and now, uh,believe it or not, we're
approaching our semiquincentennial in 2026.
It feels like the bicentennialsince yesterday.
Uh, what will America in 2026share with that America that you
(42:25):
talked about at the Jubilee andwhat will be different?
And, and the same kind ofquestion.
What will be the same about thepresidency and what's changed
since that Golden Jubilee?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (42:36):
Well, in order to preserve my well
earned reputation for neverbeing wrong, I am strenuously
going to avoid politicalprognostications, uh,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_ (42:49):
please.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (42:49):
where we are in 2026.
I will venture to say this, inpreparing for this session, you
told me you were going to askthat question, and I immediately
thought, wow, We are almost atthe, is it sesquicentennial,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (43:07):
So quincentennial, I've learned how
to say that.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (43:10):
semi, I'm sorry, I got the wrong one.
Yes, and I thought, wow, that'scoming up on us, and maybe I've
just been living in a cave, butI haven't heard anything about
it, which is really kind ofstartling.
Because 250 is a biganniversary.
It's a quarter of a millennium.
(43:31):
And it reminded me that at theBicentennial, which I can well
remember in the 1970s, there wasall sorts of celebration and
commemoration.
And it started early.
I spent a lot of the year 1975in the Boston area.
And as you know, the AmericanRevolution starts in Boston and
(43:54):
in and around Boston in 1775 andeverybody was involved in this.
It was big news and, and bookswere being published and
commemorations were beingplanned.
Uh, so we're only a few monthsaway.
From what, four months away nowfrom the 250th anniversary of
(44:17):
Bunker Hill.
I'm sorry, of Lexington andConcord.
Bunker Hill a couple monthsafter that.
And while I don't live in Bostonnow, I think I would have heard
If, uh, if those kinds ofcelebrations were being
mustered, uh, now, so far as Iknow, they're not, I'm sure
(44:37):
something will happen, uh, but
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153210 (44:40):
I do know.
I was just recently inWashington for my day job.
the American Museum of Scienceand Energy, um, we're a
Smithsonian affiliate and partof our directors meeting up
there was talking about theSmithsonian plans for the 250 so
that, you know, there are awhole host of plans kind of
percolating right now and we'redoing some things, through the
museum here as well aboutAmerican innovation since the
(45:00):
founding and so forth.
So I think there are thosethings out there, but you're
right.
I remember in 1976, I had thefull range of bicentennial
paraphernalia, uh, cups, mugs,flags.
because zoos, whatever with thebicentennial logo on it.
So I imagine by the time we getto we'll have more like that,
but we'll see.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (45:20):
we'll, we'll see.
And my guess would be thatthere's not going to be that
much of a to do in 2026,because, uh, a full throated
celebration in 2026 would bringto the fore, uh, a question that
today seems unavoidable.
And that is, what are wecelebrating?
(45:42):
Or should we or should we evenbe celebrating?
And
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_1532 (45:49):
And I
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (45:49):
while that may seem like a question
that answers itself, I'm notsure it is.
And in this respect, going,trying to get back to your
question, I think we are at avery different place.
Uh, then we were in 1826 becausethe, the theme of that book that
you've, you've mentioned that Iwrote too long ago now, uh, the
(46:12):
Jacksonian promise was that ifthere was a common feeling, a
common ground, a common ethos, acommon zeitgeist, in 1826, it
was the widespread feeling,nearly consensual feeling.
Uh, that the United States wasstill fresh and young and new,
(46:35):
that it was blessed withcircumstances that could only be
regarded as providential, thatAmericans held their future
entirely in their hands andcould do with it whatever they
wanted, uh, and, and that therewas no limit, to the glorious,
uh, Prospects looming off in theimmediate future.
(46:58):
If only we knew exactly what weneeded to do to reach them.
Now, whenever one talks about anational feeling, or as I guys,
you can always these are broad,amorphous generalizations, and
you can always find exceptionsto them.
Things are never perfect.
Simple that way, but I thinkthat feeling there.
(47:19):
Certainly I can find plenty ofpeople from all broad spectrum
of situations and, uh, andviewpoints expressing that kind
of Confident optimism about thecountry and its future.
Uh, I'm not sure you'd find thattoday.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153210 (47:40):
I will say American POTUS, what I
hope as we get toward 2026 is totalk even more about the semi
quincentennial and, and changesin the office of the presidency
and so forth over those 250years.
I've got to say, Dan, you can,you can call me naive.
You know, I'm always the eternaloptimist.
I, I have the spirit of 1826 inme, Dan, and I, have great hope
(48:01):
for the future, but, we're goingto keep talking about that
history and that future here inAmerican POTUS.
And I really want to thank youfor joining us today.
Tell me what do you, right now,what's, what's got your
interest?
What are you researching?
What are you writing?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (48:14):
Well, I am still decompressing from
all those years of editing theJackson Papers.
Uh, but there's a project.
I hesitate to mention it becauseat some point, you know, uh, you
gotta quit talking and do it.
There's a project that Idropped.
I UT because other things wereDemanding my attention and
(48:36):
paying my salary.
And that was a, uh, a book.
I don't want to call it a simplebiography, a book about an Ohio
United States Senator who wasalso a conchologist, and an
educational reformer.
And earlier in his life, apioneer, and a judge and a whole
(48:57):
spectrum of activities, uh,named Benjamin Tappan, oh, and a
free thinker, a, an overtscoffer at Christianity and the,
the scriptures, which hereferred to charmingly as all
damn nonsense.
Uh, he was one of the foundersof the Smithsonian Institution,
believe it or not.
Uh, was a United States Senator,was, in his own peculiar way, a
(49:22):
leading anti slavery man, Ican't remember if I've mentioned
his name, was Benjamin Tappan.
He was the older brother ofLewis and Arthur Tappan, who
were two of the leadingevangelical Moral reformers and
abolitionists, in the countrynext to William Lloyd Garrison.
(49:42):
And today we would say FrederickDouglass of the Tappans were the
two probably most prominentabolitionists and abolitionists
in the country.
What interests me is thatBenjamin, their brother, was
engaged in a whole bunch ofdifferent enterprises in things
that we would not see anyconnection between, What's the
connection between being aJacksonian democratic
(50:06):
politician, and a conchologist?
Conchology is the study ofshills.
And a Pestalozian educationalreformer, and, what interests me
is that To him, these were allpart of the same project, uh,
and to the people he associatedwith, they were all part of the
(50:27):
same project.
And what I've been trying to dois to, through him, is to
resurrect the world view ofpeople who could see all those
things as being part of the sameproject, who could see their
political convictions as beingum, Integrated with really
inseparable from a worldviewthat range through a whole
(50:49):
panoply of other.
endeavors.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_1 (50:54):
Sounds like a really fascinating man.
Of course, when Dan, you publishthat, I will memorize every word
of that book as well.
I want, I want to
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (51:02):
The problem with it is, is that in
order to handle this, I have to,uh, and it's always been a
challenge for me as, as, becauseI came out of a background as a
political historian.
This means I have to, if I'mgoing to write about Pestalozian
education and conchology and abunch of other things I have to
actually learn about them.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (51:20):
Yeah.
Well, can maybe help with theconchologist, just give me a
call, uh, Dan, thank you somuch.
Fascinating conversation aboutold Hickory and such an
important time in Americanhistory.
And I want to thank all of youfor listening.
Please check out org for evenmore episodes.
(51:41):
And make sure you listen to thenew podcast, American FLOTUS,
all about the First Ladies,which we're developing with our
friends at the First LadiesAssociation for Research and
Education.
find American FLOTUS atAmericanPOTUS.
org, flair net.
org, or on your favorite podcastplatform.
So thank you all so much, andI'll see you next time on
(52:03):
American FLOTUS.
Welcome to American POTUS.
(00:01):
I'm your host, Alan Lowe, and Ithank you so very much for
joining us.
I have a very special guesttoday, my good friend, Dr.
Dan Feller.
At the University of Tennessee,Knoxville, Dan served from 2003
until his retirement in 2020 asa professor in the humanities
and as the editor and directorof the Papers of Andrew Jackson.
While he was there, he oversawthe editing of six volumes of
(00:24):
those papers, spanning the years1829 to 1834.
Prior to Knoxville, Dan hadtaught at the University of New
Mexico in Albuquerque and atNorthland College in Wisconsin.
has been very widely published,and his books include The Public
Lands in Jacksonian Politics andThe Jacksonian Promise, 1815 to
(00:44):
1840.
Dan also, very importantly,serves on the board of American
POTUS.
Dan, it's so good to talk withyou, my friend.
Welcome to American POTUS.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2024 (00:52):
I am delighted to be here.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (00:55):
I, you know, I've been a big fan of
yours for many years now.
I won't say how many years, butI remember you gave me the
Jacksonian promise when I wasdirector of the Howard Bakerson.
And I looked at it today andyour inscription says memorize
every word.
tried to do that, sir.
So I love to talk about AndrewJackson.
You certainly already got totalk to let's go right to Uh,
(01:19):
where he became a, nationalhero, a national name, his
military successes in the War of1812, the First Seminole War, he
became a national hero.
What skills did Andrew Jacksonhave that made him so very
successful on the battlefield?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (01:35):
That's a good question.
And you're going to hear me saythat a lot.
A good question is professorspeak for, I don't have a simple
answer.
There is no simple answer, butwith Jackson, nothing is simple.
And it's a good question partlybecause it's not entirely clear
what the answer is.
There are some historians whowould say he was just lucky.
Jackson was unique or at leastunusual among military,
(02:00):
commanders, among celebratedcommanders.
He had no formal militarytraining at all.
He actually had.
As a formal soldier and almostno experience at all, lowest
formal rank he ever held in thearmy was general.
(02:21):
So now
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_ (02:24):
started high up.
That's amazing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (02:26):
we did have experience, uh, as, as
an irregular, kind of an errandboy during the American
revolution.
And then he was involved invarious semi organized Uh,
expeditions against the Indians,but he did not distinguish
himself as say Winfield Scottdid with success at various,
(02:49):
ranks.
So exactly why Jackson was sosuccessful is not readily
necessarily apparent.
Uh, on the other hand, there isthe fact, and it's in, in, uh,
Inescapable fact that he keptwinning as a general.
He was always successful.
And it's not like all Americangenerals kept winning during the
(03:10):
war of 1812.
Jackson kept winning when mostof the other generals kept
losing.
So I think there's some thingsthat you can hypothesize about
Jackson.
He was very energetic.
He was always decisive.
Uh, he was not racked byindecision, nor as Abraham
Lincoln said of GeorgeMcClellan, he never had the
(03:31):
slows.
Uh, he was well attuned toquestions of logistics and
supply, and those mattered alot.
in the, the battles that Jacksonwas fighting, because he was
fighting really beyond, thesettled parts of the country
where you could count on gettingsupplies.
He was a strict disciplinarian,and you might ask, so what?
(03:58):
One could suggest, I havesuggested, that he falls into a,
a group of people, George Pattonis another one, Stonewall
Jackson is another, who werenotably successful battlefield
commanders and inspiringleaders, men whom they're,
troops trusted implicitly,perhaps despite or perhaps
because of the fact that allthree of those were, strident,
(04:19):
you might even say vicious, uh,disciplinarians.
Uh, for whatever reason,Jackson's troops did what he
told them to, and the recordkind of speaks for itself.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (04:31):
It's hard to argue with that success
for sure.
Uh, so he, he makes a nationalname for himself, sometimes
controversially, and certainlyone of the controversial topics
that will always come up todaywith Andrew Jackson is the issue
of slavery.
Emerging as a significant pointof contention in early America,
one that we now know withhindsight will indeed lead to
(04:52):
civil war.
a slaveholder, was Jackson amongthose who said he hated the
institution but didn't know howto do away with it, or was he
among those trying to justifythat institution?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (05:04):
answer to that one is neither, which
actually makes him almost uniqueamong politicians of his day,
among.
Southern politicians, there werequite a few in the Jeffersonian
tradition, and this includes notonly Jefferson, but James
Madison, George Washington, uh,later Henry Clay, men who were
(05:25):
slaveholders, but who were atleast publicly apologetic about
it, who's Public position, atleast, was we are slaveholders,
but we would prefer to live in aworld where we weren't.
On the other, at the other end,you have overtly pro slavery
(05:46):
politicians, most notably JohnC.
Calhoun, who devised an entiresocial theory based upon the
idea that slavery or somethinglike slavery is what holds the
world together.
Calhoun pretty much said ifslavery didn't already exist, we
(06:06):
ought to create it.
It's the basis for a soundsociety.
Jackson, to my thinking, almostalone, and I only say almost
because I'm, there may besomebody I'm not thinking of,
never took either position.
As a matter of fact, I cannotfind any evidence that he ever
thought about the, the abstractright or wrong about slavery at
(06:30):
all.
Which is highly unusual at thetime.
First Jackson, as we know, isnot much of an abstract thinker
anyway.
Uh, he certainly opposed anyefforts to upset the system, but
he didn't oppose those on thegrounds that anti slavery is
evil, uh, because slavery is thebasis of a sound society, which
(06:52):
was Calhoun's.
Instead he opposed, Abolitionistagitation just as he opposed pro
slavery agitation on the groundsthat it disrupted the Union and
also disrupted his own politicalparty.
Jackson just took slavery as hefound it.
He certainly never felt guiltyabout it.
He, uh, Was a slaveholder, heacquired slaves, bought slaves,
(07:17):
sold slaves, grew rich partlyoff the labor of slaves, held a
rather typical, somewhat, youmight say affectionate, but
condescending attitude towardhis own slaves.
He certainly believed in, theefficacy and the necessity of
discipline, which meanswhipping, on his own
(07:38):
plantations.
So there's really nothingdistinctive about Jackson as a
slaveholder.
Uh, the one thing for a nationalpolitician that's distinctive
about it is that he just neverseemed to have considered the
right or wrong of slavery atall.
He took it as he found it.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (07:58):
So within that ferment, which
Jackson was not part of, thebackground of the growing
abolitionist movement, That wasof, connected to, this religious
fervor, often called the SecondGreat Awakening.
You talk about this in theJacksonian Promise.
A big, a big movement inAmerica.
Was, was Jackson himself areligious man?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2 (08:22):
Yes, though, of course, we always
have to say he was religious byhis lights.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (08:28):
Hmm.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (08:29):
He considered himself a committed
Christian, whether you considerhim a committed Christian is up
for each of us to judge by ourown standards.
But yes, he was a religious man.
It did not show up very overtlyin his early life.
He was, you might say, aconventional Christian.
(08:52):
Rachel, his wife, was a deeplycommitted Christian,
Presbyterian.
And Jackson, partly at least atfirst, I think in remembrance of
Rachel or in honor of Rachel,uh, but became more and more as
he grew older, a seriousChristian practitioner, uh, as
(09:14):
president, he hauled himself outno matter the weather on Sundays
to attend sermon.
Uh, he, Paid pew rent andregularly attended and not one,
but during much of hispresidency to churches in
Washington, he hung around a lotwith clergymen.
He read devotional literature.
(09:35):
He quoted scripture, not alwaysentirely accurately, uh, quoted
it very freely.
And one thing we may talk aboutlater.
He wound up infusing one of thegreat political struggles, of
his administration, the bankwar.
with a religious and nearlyapocalyptic significance.
(09:59):
He did not himself join thechurch until he was an old man.
And it was the Presbyterianchurch.
I should say, the greatawakening involved a lot of, uh,
explorations of new methods ofreligious expression.
And Jackson didn't really haveanything to do with those.
He was a traditional ProtestantChristian.
(10:20):
You know, you weren't going tofind him at a camp meeting.
Uh,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (10:26):
Did, did those, did those new
movements support himpolitically?
Did that benefit him?
That growing movement of, ofreligion?
new types of religions.
I know my, uh, Disciples ofChrist Christian Church was
developed at this time, the CainRidge Meeting House in Kentucky.
That's where that originated.
Did they support by and largeAndrew Jackson?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (10:47):
that's a complicated question.
I would say overtly no.
And you could even say, theyovertly opposed Jackson.
I'm not talking about theCampbellites here, the
disciples, but many of the, uh,evangelically.
Reform driven, Christian groupswho believe not only in in a,
(11:14):
uh, highly emotional, highlypersonal, form of Christianity,
but also in using their faith totransform society.
Uh, and, and that include, forinstance, the Temperance
Crusade, which Jackson actuallylent some, support to, but also
the Abolition Crusade, theWomen's Rights Crusade.
Jackson didn't have anything,obviously, to do with any of
(11:35):
those.
Now, some historians havesuggested, as you may know, that
the democratizing spirit of theGreat Awakening had much in
common with the democratizingspirit in politics, that both of
them were kind of undergirded bya relatively novel idea that
everybody ought to decide forthemselves.
(11:55):
And that my opinion, both onwhat the Bible says and what it
tells me to do and on, what, uh,Correct.
Public policy is, is as good asyours.
And you could say that Jacksonwas certainly the beneficiary of
that kind of democratic,equalizing leveling spirit.
(12:16):
That some people may have found,restorationist Christianity and
what they regarded as arestorationist Jacksonian
politics as being part of thesame enterprise.
But I don't think you'd besurprised.
find formal groups expressingsupport for Jackson on that
grounds?
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153210 (12:36):
I see.
I see.
So I want to get to that Jacksonadministration where you see
this work toward democracy, thisleveling.
But first we have to get throughthe very controversial election
of 1824.
And I will tell you as aKentuckian, that's a very
sensitive topic to me with HenryClay.
So, what is your opinion?
Was the 1824 election stolen byJohn Quincy Adams through a
(13:00):
corrupt bargain with Henry Clay?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (13:02):
Well, the simple answer to that, I
would say is no.
Some historians would say thatthere was a bargain, whether or
not it was corrupt.
Uh, I think there was anunderstanding though, not the
same understanding that youusually read about in the
textbooks.
But the idea that it was stolenreally, what was a convenient,
(13:24):
Jacksonian rhetorical point.
It's not even clear now thatthis is a little bit
revisionist.
The way the story usually goesis that Jackson won the popular
vote and he won the electoralvote, but the election was taken
from him.
First, he didn't win the popularvote.
He led in the popular vote.
He got well under 50%.
(13:44):
Uh, and that was true in theelectoral vote also.
Now, you might think, okay,well, the guy who leads in the
popular and electoral vote hassome kind of moral right to win,
even if he hasn't won.
Amassed the number of votes thatgive him a legal right to win,
as has been pointed out, thepopular vote in 1824 is about as
(14:08):
close to meaningless as anational popular vote can get
the turnout from one state toanother varied wildly.
There were four candidates inthe race.
There were only a handful ofstates in which you could even
choose between electoral ticketsfor the four candidates.
(14:28):
In most states, there were onlytwo or three electoral tickets
that you could choose from.
So, If, for instance, you votefor an electoral ticket, and
this happened in some states,that has pledged to support
either Adams or Jackson, whichone did you vote for?
But the biggest hole in it all,there were 24 states in the
(14:50):
union.
Six of them didn't have anypopular vote at all.
Five of those were pretty smallstates, and the sixth one was
New York, which is by far thelargest state in the union.
There was no popular vote thereat all.
If you want to take a guess atwhat the popular vote might have
been, it's quite possible.
(15:12):
Now, this is a hypotheticalargument.
It's a, if pigs fly argument,based on the fact that John
Quincy Adams was, uh, theapparent choice in New York and
that Andrew Jackson in 24 had noOrganization and almost no
support there at all.
Uh, if you hypothesize what thepopular vote might've been in
(15:33):
New York, uh, Adams might wellhave carried it by such a large
margin that Adams instead ofJackson would have won the
national popular vote.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_1532 (15:42):
So, so Van, Van Burem wasn't an ally
yet of
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (15:46):
But no,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (15:46):
in New
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (15:47):
Van Buren was an ally of the third
guy who nobody remembersanymore, William Harris Crawford
of Georgia, who both Adams andJackson were actually leagued
against, which is why you couldrun Adams and Jackson fusion
tickets in some states.
So, and even Jackson didn'tthink that there was anything.
(16:07):
Nefarious going on in Adams,possibly looking forward,
surpassing him, in the House ofRepresentatives.
What got him was not that Adams,was elected president, but that
it was Henry Clay.
Because during the campaign,Henry Clay and Adams, uh, using
(16:28):
surrogates on Adams part had,I'm sorry, on Clay's part, had
really gone after each other.
And the idea that Henry Claywould support Adams seemed so
outlantish that you thinkthere's got to be a deal here.
Now, I should say from Clay'spoint of view and Adams point of
view, what happened is, as youmay know, Clay announced before
(16:53):
the vote in the House ofRepresentatives that he was
going to support Adams, that hewas going to do everything he
could to encourage others tosupport Adams.
And Adams then appointed, afterwinning the election, Adams
appointed him Secretary ofState.
If you break apart those twothings, treat them not as part
of some deal, but just as twoseparate decisions sequentially.
(17:18):
Henry Clay had perfectly goodreasons.
compelling reasons forsupporting Adams, which were
exactly the reasons that he hadannounced publicly.
And once Adams was president, hehad perfectly good reasons to
appoint Henry Clay.
In fact, Henry Clay was soobvious a choice for secretary
(17:39):
of state that it would have beenweird If Adams hadn't appointed
him.
Clay had wanted to be Secretaryof State for a long time.
He had hoped James Monroe wouldappoint him back in 1816.
He had a good record as adiplomat.
So, simple answer, no, there wasno corrupt bargain.
There didn't need to be acorrupt bargain.
(17:59):
Both Adams and Clay hadperfectly good reasons for doing
what they were doing.
At the same time, to someoneoutside that circle.
Like Andrew Jackson, the wholething looked rigged.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (18:11):
Yeah.
I like to hear you say that, DanFeller, because again, I'm a
good Kentuckian.
Going to Ashland this holidayseason, the great Henry Clay
home up there.
So I love hearing thatperspective.
Now you mentioned you, youstarted to talk a bit about this
earlier, I do believe whenJackson does become president,
one of his big campaigns isagainst the second bank Of the
(18:32):
United States.
Why was he so opposed to thatbank that he ultimately
destroyed?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (18:38):
Well, part of it you can trace back to
the fact that opposition to theprevious Bank of the United
States, there were two, had beena founding principle of the
Jeffersonian, so calledDemocratic Republican Party.
Jefferson and his ally, JamesMadison, way back in the George
Washington administration.
(19:01):
Had really defined themselves asopponents to George Washington's
administration over AlexanderHamilton's Secretary Treasury
plan for a Bank of the UnitedStates.
So Jackson, even though he didnot act like a.
Old style Jeffersonianthroughout the 1820s.
(19:22):
As president reverted more andmore back to what he regarded
and Jeffersonians regarded asthe true Jeffersonian faith and
opposition to the bank of theUnited States was a, a core
element in that.
But I'd say there was more to itthan that.
And unfortunately, this is not asimple question.
The bank of the United Stateswas immensely powerful.
(19:45):
And it's easy to lose sight ofhow powerful it was.
It was by far the largest,financial entity in the country.
Indeed, it was the only nationalfinancial entity in the country.
It had branches all overeverywhere.
It had a capitalization thatdwarfed that of anything else in
(20:06):
the country.
Financially, it was moreimportant than the federal
government, and to a largeextent, it actually governed the
government.
It printed the government'smoney.
It handled the government'sloans.
It moved the government's moneyback and forth.
These are things that the UnitedStates Treasury does today, some
(20:27):
of them, and some of them aredone by the Federal Reserve.
Well, at that time, the Bank ofthe United States did all of
them.
The Treasury Department was ahandful of clerks in Washington
and customs officers and landofficers spread throughout the
country.
There was no financial apparatusspreading the country in the
(20:47):
Treasury Department.
So The key point here is thatwith all this, the Bank of the
United States, despite all this,and it had these powers
according to its charter, andthese are the words of the
charter, it had exclusiveprivileges and benefits,
exclusive privileges andbenefits.
It was, and it is, anincorporated private bank.
(21:12):
It had stockholders.
It paid dividends.
It had a board of directors,five of whom were appointed by
the president of the UnitedStates, and the other 20 were
elected by the stockholders.
And it ran the country'sfinances.
Now, if you can imagine afinancial institution that, that
wields all the powers ofgovernment, And is run by
(21:35):
private people, rather nakedlyto their own benefit.
The question that Jackson posed,and he posed it rather starkly,
is who governs this country?
Do the people of the countrygovern the country through their
duly elected government?
(21:56):
Or does the Bank of the UnitedStates govern the country?
And he thought that kind ofpower in a republic was
illegitimate and dangerous.
Not only a threat to people'sfinancial well being, because
the bank could, and sometimesdid, act capriciously and
(22:16):
unlawfully, but a threat torepublicanism itself.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (22:22):
Well, I will say Dan, I've never heard
it more clearly stated than thatIt makes so much more sense to
me now, of course though when heleaves office and the bank is
gone.
are some real issues that resultfrom that, right?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2 (22:35):
Yes, and Jackson's, you might say,
problem was, if you are going todisentangle, and in fact
completely de sever, theworkings of government from the
Bank of the United States, butyou still have things that need
to be done.
The federal government literallyneeds somewhere to put its money
(22:57):
and, and it needs somebody tomove its money around and it
needs somebody to print itsmoney.
And if you're going to destroythe bank of the United States,
what are you going to replace itwith?
And Jackson's answer, notbecause it was, you might say,
the correct answer, but becausethere was no other existing
(23:18):
answer, was state charteredbanks, uh, who proved to be not
always trustworthy custodians,of the government's money.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (23:32):
Well, for a military man, we're going
to talk a lot about economicshere because now I'm going to
turn to tariffs, another bigtopic during the Jackson
administration and a growingsource of sectional discord.
Why was so controversial thetariff and how did Jackson view
it?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (23:51):
It was controversial and there were
a couple of other issues thatwere linked to it.
There was kind of a triad ofeconomic development issues.
One of them was the tariff,which is a tax on imported
goods.
And the part of it that wasreally controversial was the tax
on manufactured goods.
especially imported from GreatBritain.
(24:14):
Uh, the second issue was socalled internal improvements,
and that was whether the federalgovernment should fund and
perhaps plan a nationaltransportation system, what
today we would callinfrastructure, roads and
canals, a little bit later onrailroads, but at this time just
roads and canals.
And the third issue was publiclands.
(24:36):
The federal government had thismassive public domain in the
West.
What ought it to do with it?
Should the lands be given awayto settlers?
Should they be sold, uh, toraise a revenue?
Should they be doled out as kindof subsidies to roads and
canals?
And those issues all intersectedeach other.
(24:57):
Jackson's position on this, youhave to say when, because
Jackson's position on theseissues actually changed, during
his administration.
Jackson came into office as adefinite supporter of a
protective tariff, and reallythat stemmed from his years as a
military man.
(25:19):
I should say underneath thisall, Jackson was a nationalist.
Uh, and if we're talking aboutfirst principles, Jackson's
first principle was a fervent, Iwould say religious, familial,
devotion to the federal union.
He revered the federal union.
And so he tended to vieweconomic issues in terms of what
(25:43):
is best for the union.
Now, if this sounds high minded,I'll own it and say, thinking in
that view and in Jackson's part,we gave him a little bit of
distance from issues that someother politicians didn't have.
Jackson, from his experiences, amilitary man had, had thought
and said, we need bettertransportation and, and I'm
(26:06):
quoting him now, we need to bemore Americanized.
Meaning we have to be more selfreliant, for producing goods,
including, implements of war,and in our ability to move
things around the country.
And so throughout the late 18teens and 1820s, Jackson was a
(26:27):
supporter of a tariff on thosenationalist grounds.
And he continued in the firstcouple of years as president to
support the tariff on thosegrounds.
Now, I should say the tariff wasbecoming in the 1820s a
sectional issue, with the growthof manufacturers in the
northeastern part of thecountry, many of the
manufacturers fledglingmanufacturers in competition
(26:48):
with Britain, and Britain hadthe advantages of it.
More capital, Americanmanufacturing was always
scrounging for capital, uh, morecapital, more advanced
technology, and cheap labor.
So how as an American are yougoing to compete?
Well, the only way you're goingto compete is if you get an
(27:10):
assist from government in theform of tariff.
On the other hand, down in, thesouthern, the cotton planting
states especially, and thesewere states that, especially
South Carolina, North Carolina,were kind of in the economic
doldrums of the 1820s, and asthey saw it, the tariff was
something that was subsidizing,the North at the expense of
(27:30):
themselves.
Ostensibly, the tariff is a tax.
What Southerners, John C.
Calhoun most prominently saw itas, was really a subsidy to the
North, and you can sneak thewords anti slavery North in
there, at the expense of theSouth.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (27:52):
Mm
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (27:53):
of a gigantic Northern scheme,
first to impoverish us, and thento overthrow our society.
And so some southerners regardedthe tariff as an existential
issue.
Jackson supported the tariff ina limited way, his first couple
of years as president, and thenhe backed off from that.
(28:16):
Partly because the SouthCarolinians were getting ready
to, uh, to nullify the tariffand force a confrontation.
And Jackson thought, well, if Idrop my advocacy or my support
for a tariff I'll cut the groundout from under them.
And he said that veryexplicitly, though, of course
not publicly.
Uh, but the other thing was thatJackson.
(28:39):
Was coming to the view that thetariff both in northern,
insistence upon it and insouthern denunciation of it.
Both sides were reallyoverplaying it.
Uh, and I think moderneconomists would tend to agree
with him that the tariff wasneither as Destructive to
(29:00):
southern interests, nor asnecessary, to northern
manufacturing, as both sideswere making it out at the time.
Jackson pretty much, by the endof his administration, was
saying this.
And as he saw it, the sectionaldivisiveness, the threats to the
Union that it was created, justweren't worth it.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (29:22):
Well, so, so interesting as just about
everything about Andrew Jacksonis, but when we talk about
Andrew Jackson today, usuallywhat you hear is a lot of
criticism of his policies towardNative Americans.
It's a topic we obviously needto talk about today.
Uh, what defined his approach tothe Native Americans and why did
(29:42):
he pursue that policy now that'sso criticized a relocation of,
them to the Western lands?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_1 (29:49):
Relocation is a politic term.
Uh, and even the term that wasused at the time, removal, was
Something of a euphemism.
This is a complicated question.
And that's the first thing I, Ishould say about it.
I don't think that one cansimply say that Andrew Jackson
(30:09):
grew up hating Indians as afrontiersman, and so of course
he just wanted to kill them allor shove them out of the way,
drawing upon his makeup as afrontiersman.
In fact, Jackson did not growup, fighting Indians.
The people he really grew upfighting and hating were the
British, though we did do someIndian fighting, did quite a lot
(30:30):
of Indian fighting once he was agrown man.
Jackson shared somesuppositions, which were more
widespread among the Americanwhite population than we would
like to admit, and I'msuggesting a little bit that
(30:50):
putting this off on Jackson, notthat we shouldn't put it off on
him, but it's easy to demonizeone person and say it's all his
fault.
White Americans generally.
Uh, viewed Indians as being lesscivilized, perhaps, though this
was always kind of an openquestion, less capable of
(31:13):
civilization, as they definedit, and viewed the replacement
of Indian nations by whiteAmerican civilization as
progress.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (31:27):
Mm hmm.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (31:28):
And Jackson was not alone in
thinking that.
So the question is, what do youdo with the Indians?
Well, American policy longbefore Jackson had been kind of,
uh inherently selfcontradictory.
You even move them out of theway, which you can justify as
being good for them as well asgood for us.
Uh, or else you try to absorbthem in.
Thomas Jefferson's famous ideathat we'll intermarry till
(31:50):
Indians as a separate group ofpeople cease to exist.
Jackson.
imbibed all those we might say,uh, culturally derogatory ideas.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (32:03):
hmm.
Mm hmm.
Mm
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-202 (32:06):
He also felt, and here perhaps his
own background did havesomething to do with this, uh,
he felt the grievance ofSouthern whites who wanted land
that Indians had and of Southernstate governments, that wanted
control over their own,territory, their own domain,
more than he did, of Indians.
(32:28):
So Jackson's solution, was toget the Indians out of the way.
He managed to justify it bysaying that it will be there to
their own benefit.
As a matter of fact, he said tothe Indians themselves, move to
the West.
Uh, there you won't be under thejurisdiction of any state
government.
The land will be yours forever.
(32:48):
He even used those phrases thatwe always thought came out of a
B movie about, uh, it will beyours as long as the grass shall
grow in the river shall run.
Did he really believe that?
Uh, hard to say.
And part of the problem inevaluating Jackson is, as we now
(33:11):
know, removal, so called, of theIndians westward, in the long
range of things just looks likeanother step in the long term
process of not only removingthem, but confining them and
ultimately dissolving theirfuture.
own societies.
(33:31):
Did Jackson anticipate that?
You know, did he, to put itbluntly, did he know he was
lying when he said it'll beyours forever?
Who can say?
The idea of the policy ofremoving the Indians for their
own benefit, supposedly,certainly for our benefit, and
(33:57):
doing it through a legal processby treaty and offering them all
kinds of inducements andbenefits and annuities and help
in getting themselvesestablished in, a new Western
locale that had been federalpolicy before Jackson, uh, James
Monroe announced back in 1824that not only was this federal
(34:17):
policy, it had always beenfederal policy, and it would
remain federal policy because itwas good for the Indians
themselves.
The question is, what if theIndians don't want to move?
And here is where Jacksondiffered from his predecessors,
firmly convinced, and I am notsaying this in praise, of the
rectitude of his own intentionsand of the benefit of his own
(34:42):
policies.
Jackson's attitude towardIndians who would not accept the
terms he was offering them.
was, well, if they don't knowwhat's good for them, I do.
And if I have to bribe them, ifI have to browbeat them, if I
have to double cross them, if Ihave to cultivate what amounts
(35:09):
to an overthrow of their owngovernments to get people in
them who will sign the thingsthat I want them to sign, I'll
do it.
And he did all of those things.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (35:22):
So we've talked a bit about some of
the controversial topicssurrounding Jackson issue of
slavery and certainly NativeAmericans, but it's not called
the age of Jackson for nothing.
You know, uh, you talk about theJacksonian revolution.
You say he single handedlyreordered the political
landscape.
So.
What, what actions define thatrevolution and what is their
(35:43):
legacy today in our politicalsystem?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (35:47):
Wait, did I say that?
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (35:50):
Me to memorize every word, Dan, and
I did.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (35:53):
Uh, first look at that, look at
things in 1828 1828, uh, thepresidential campaign was
Jackson against Adams.
And though historians have beensloppy about this, it wasn't
national Republicans againstDemocrats.
It was Jackson against Adams, orit was.
(36:17):
The Adams people calledthemselves administration, the
Jackson people called them thecoalition against the
Jacksonians.
By 1836, we're on the edge of itbeing Democrats against Whigs,
uh, so Jackson took his ownpersonal following because
(36:40):
that's what it was in 1828.
and reshaped it into a nationalpolitical party, which it
definitely was by 1836.
And in response to that, hisvarious opponents, including a
lot of former Jacksonians, therewere a lot of people who were
for Jackson in 1828, weren't forhim anymore.
(37:03):
Uh, Jackson not only defined apolicy and a party and a really
a political ethos for himselfand doing that he drove out a
lot of people, and by 1836, theywere in the process of
coagulating themselves into anopposition political party.
And so you might say the twoparty system as we have it today
(37:26):
is Jackson's legacy.
The Democratic Party, of course,is still there.
It's changed a lot.
It's still there.
Uh, it still likes to regarditself as the party of the true
popular majority against whatthe Jacksonians called the
aristocracy, against what ArthurSchlesinger and Franklin
(37:51):
Roosevelt called businessclasses.
or the malefactors of greatwealth.
There's a long legacy there forthe Democratic Party.
And then the Whig Party,obviously as a party didn't
last, but the idea of aopposition party to the
Democrats, there's always been abrief period of muddle in the
(38:16):
1850s.
But aside from that, there'salways been the Democrats and
one other political party.
And there's some continuity inthere too.
Of course, the man who, We thinkof a, as the Andrew Jackson of
the Democratic Party, that'sAbraham Lincoln grew up as a
wig, uh, in fact cut hispolitical teeth in Illinois
(38:36):
fighting Jacksonian Democrats.
So the the two party system, youcould say was a legacy of
Jackson's administration.
Many of the policies, specificpolicies of the Democratic Party
that Jackson inaugurated, canreadily be traced.
Through the Civil War, down toWilliam Jennings Bryan, Woodrow
(38:57):
Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt,Lyndon Johnson.
Being a historian, I regardeverything since Lyndon Johnson
as current events, so I won't gofurther than that.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (39:10):
Very good.
Very good.
So let
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-2 (39:12):
and, uh, there are some other things
as well.
Uh, Jackson changed therelationship between the
President and the people.
And this was partly stylisticand partly substantive.
If you read Jackson'spresidential messages.
They were meant for popularconsumption.
(39:34):
They were his annual message,what today we call the State of
the Union message, which todayis also, you know, it's
televised.
Jackson's messages weren'ttelevised.
By the way, Jackson was a lousypublic speaker and avoided
Public speaking whenever hecould do it and all of his
(39:55):
famous messages to Congress, andthis was true from actually had
been since Jefferson's day weredelivered in writing, but they
were written for a public eye,his famous message vetoing the
recharter of the Bank of theUnited States.
It was sent, as a veto messagehad to be, to Congress, but it
(40:16):
was meant for publicconsumption.
Jackson cultivated a rhetoricalstyle, a political style, uh,
that was aimed at musteringsupport in the hinterlands, not
merely convincing Congress.
And part of the idea of buildinga political party, Was so you
(40:37):
could connect directly betweenthe president and the people
back home and get them to turnup the heat on Congress and
particularly on the UnitedStates Senate.
Jackson warred with the UnitedStates Senate almost to the end
of his administration.
Uh, because senators thoughtthat they were fairly
independent.
They were elected by statelegislatures, not by the people.
(40:59):
And, uh, they thought they wereelected not to do the bidding of
a president, not to do thebidding of a party, uh, but to
exercise their own, theywouldn't have said aristocratic,
but their own independentjudgment.
In order to affect his ownpolitical agenda, Jackson had to
(41:20):
build a grassroots organization,which he did.
The irony is that this is agrassroots organization, which
Jackson always said, sprung upfrom the people naturally.
Jackson loved to use the phrase,voices fresh from the people,
which they were.
But of course the people wereadvised on what they should do,
(41:45):
um, that they should get uplocal meetings and pass
resolutions and send them on tothe state legislature and send
them on to the state partyconvention and lean on their
congressmen and their senators.
They were advised all this.
from Jackson's White House.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153 (42:03):
Dan, you begin the Jacksonian promise
by assessing America at its 50thbirthday, the golden Jubilee,
Back in 1826 and now, uh,believe it or not, we're
approaching our semiquincentennial in 2026.
It feels like the bicentennialsince yesterday.
Uh, what will America in 2026share with that America that you
(42:25):
talked about at the Jubilee andwhat will be different?
And, and the same kind ofquestion.
What will be the same about thepresidency and what's changed
since that Golden Jubilee?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (42:36):
Well, in order to preserve my well
earned reputation for neverbeing wrong, I am strenuously
going to avoid politicalprognostications, uh,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_ (42:49):
please.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (42:49):
where we are in 2026.
I will venture to say this, inpreparing for this session, you
told me you were going to askthat question, and I immediately
thought, wow, We are almost atthe, is it sesquicentennial,
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15321 (43:07):
So quincentennial, I've learned how
to say that.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (43:10):
semi, I'm sorry, I got the wrong one.
Yes, and I thought, wow, that'scoming up on us, and maybe I've
just been living in a cave, butI haven't heard anything about
it, which is really kind ofstartling.
Because 250 is a biganniversary.
It's a quarter of a millennium.
(43:31):
And it reminded me that at theBicentennial, which I can well
remember in the 1970s, there wasall sorts of celebration and
commemoration.
And it started early.
I spent a lot of the year 1975in the Boston area.
And as you know, the AmericanRevolution starts in Boston and
(43:54):
in and around Boston in 1775 andeverybody was involved in this.
It was big news and, and bookswere being published and
commemorations were beingplanned.
Uh, so we're only a few monthsaway.
From what, four months away nowfrom the 250th anniversary of
(44:17):
Bunker Hill.
I'm sorry, of Lexington andConcord.
Bunker Hill a couple monthsafter that.
And while I don't live in Bostonnow, I think I would have heard
If, uh, if those kinds ofcelebrations were being
mustered, uh, now, so far as Iknow, they're not, I'm sure
(44:37):
something will happen, uh, but
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153210 (44:40):
I do know.
I was just recently inWashington for my day job.
the American Museum of Scienceand Energy, um, we're a
Smithsonian affiliate and partof our directors meeting up
there was talking about theSmithsonian plans for the 250 so
that, you know, there are awhole host of plans kind of
percolating right now and we'redoing some things, through the
museum here as well aboutAmerican innovation since the
(45:00):
founding and so forth.
So I think there are thosethings out there, but you're
right.
I remember in 1976, I had thefull range of bicentennial
paraphernalia, uh, cups, mugs,flags.
because zoos, whatever with thebicentennial logo on it.
So I imagine by the time we getto we'll have more like that,
but we'll see.
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12 (45:20):
we'll, we'll see.
And my guess would be thatthere's not going to be that
much of a to do in 2026,because, uh, a full throated
celebration in 2026 would bringto the fore, uh, a question that
today seems unavoidable.
And that is, what are wecelebrating?
(45:42):
Or should we or should we evenbe celebrating?
And
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_1532 (45:49):
And I
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (45:49):
while that may seem like a question
that answers itself, I'm notsure it is.
And in this respect, going,trying to get back to your
question, I think we are at avery different place.
Uh, then we were in 1826 becausethe, the theme of that book that
you've, you've mentioned that Iwrote too long ago now, uh, the
(46:12):
Jacksonian promise was that ifthere was a common feeling, a
common ground, a common ethos, acommon zeitgeist, in 1826, it
was the widespread feeling,nearly consensual feeling.
Uh, that the United States wasstill fresh and young and new,
(46:35):
that it was blessed withcircumstances that could only be
regarded as providential, thatAmericans held their future
entirely in their hands andcould do with it whatever they
wanted, uh, and, and that therewas no limit, to the glorious,
uh, Prospects looming off in theimmediate future.
(46:58):
If only we knew exactly what weneeded to do to reach them.
Now, whenever one talks about anational feeling, or as I guys,
you can always these are broad,amorphous generalizations, and
you can always find exceptionsto them.
Things are never perfect.
Simple that way, but I thinkthat feeling there.
(47:19):
Certainly I can find plenty ofpeople from all broad spectrum
of situations and, uh, andviewpoints expressing that kind
of Confident optimism about thecountry and its future.
Uh, I'm not sure you'd find thattoday.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_153210 (47:40):
I will say American POTUS, what I
hope as we get toward 2026 is totalk even more about the semi
quincentennial and, and changesin the office of the presidency
and so forth over those 250years.
I've got to say, Dan, you can,you can call me naive.
You know, I'm always the eternaloptimist.
I, I have the spirit of 1826 inme, Dan, and I, have great hope
(48:01):
for the future, but, we're goingto keep talking about that
history and that future here inAmerican POTUS.
And I really want to thank youfor joining us today.
Tell me what do you, right now,what's, what's got your
interest?
What are you researching?
What are you writing?
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12- (48:14):
Well, I am still decompressing from
all those years of editing theJackson Papers.
Uh, but there's a project.
I hesitate to mention it becauseat some point, you know, uh, you
gotta quit talking and do it.
There's a project that Idropped.
I UT because other things wereDemanding my attention and
(48:36):
paying my salary.
And that was a, uh, a book.
I don't want to call it a simplebiography, a book about an Ohio
United States Senator who wasalso a conchologist, and an
educational reformer.
And earlier in his life, apioneer, and a judge and a whole
(48:57):
spectrum of activities, uh,named Benjamin Tappan, oh, and a
free thinker, a, an overtscoffer at Christianity and the,
the scriptures, which hereferred to charmingly as all
damn nonsense.
Uh, he was one of the foundersof the Smithsonian Institution,
believe it or not.
Uh, was a United States Senator,was, in his own peculiar way, a
(49:22):
leading anti slavery man, Ican't remember if I've mentioned
his name, was Benjamin Tappan.
He was the older brother ofLewis and Arthur Tappan, who
were two of the leadingevangelical Moral reformers and
abolitionists, in the countrynext to William Lloyd Garrison.
(49:42):
And today we would say FrederickDouglass of the Tappans were the
two probably most prominentabolitionists and abolitionists
in the country.
What interests me is thatBenjamin, their brother, was
engaged in a whole bunch ofdifferent enterprises in things
that we would not see anyconnection between, What's the
connection between being aJacksonian democratic
(50:06):
politician, and a conchologist?
Conchology is the study ofshills.
And a Pestalozian educationalreformer, and, what interests me
is that To him, these were allpart of the same project, uh,
and to the people he associatedwith, they were all part of the
(50:27):
same project.
And what I've been trying to dois to, through him, is to
resurrect the world view ofpeople who could see all those
things as being part of the sameproject, who could see their
political convictions as beingum, Integrated with really
inseparable from a worldviewthat range through a whole
(50:49):
panoply of other.
endeavors.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_1 (50:54):
Sounds like a really fascinating man.
Of course, when Dan, you publishthat, I will memorize every word
of that book as well.
I want, I want to
squadcaster-3h9h_1_12-12-20 (51:02):
The problem with it is, is that in
order to handle this, I have to,uh, and it's always been a
challenge for me as, as, becauseI came out of a background as a
political historian.
This means I have to, if I'mgoing to write about Pestalozian
education and conchology and abunch of other things I have to
actually learn about them.
alan-lowe_1_12-12-2024_15 (51:20):
Yeah.
Well, can maybe help with theconchologist, just give me a
call, uh, Dan, thank you somuch.
Fascinating conversation aboutold Hickory and such an
important time in Americanhistory.
And I want to thank all of youfor listening.
Please check out org for evenmore episodes.
(51:41):
And make sure you listen to thenew podcast, American FLOTUS,
all about the First Ladies,which we're developing with our
friends at the First LadiesAssociation for Research and
Education.
find American FLOTUS atAmericanPOTUS.
org, flair net.
org, or on your favorite podcastplatform.
So thank you all so much, andI'll see you next time on
(52:03):
American FLOTUS.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.