This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
Text and/or other creative content from Andrew Jackson, Sr. was copied or moved into Andrew Jackson with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Andrew Jackson, Sr. was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 31 January 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Andrew Jackson. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Shira Klein (June 14, 2023). "The shocking truth about Wikipedia's Holocaust disinformation". The Forward. Retrieved June 16, 2023. A similar disinformation campaign is taking place in Wikipedia's articles on Native American history, where influential editors misrepresent sources to the effect of erasing Native history and whitewashing American settler colonial violence. The Wikipedia article on Andrew Jackson, plagued by such manipulations, attracts thousands of readers a day.
Kyle Keeler (2023-2-23). "How Wikipedia Erases Indigenous History". Slate. Retrieved 2023-12-1. A behind-the-scenes battle raged at Wikipedia last fall. The conflict stretched over three months and three separate pages, tallying more than 40,000 words. It began in August, when editor FinnV3 went to the "talk" page (where revisions are discussed by editors) for Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States. FinnV3 claimed that Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act was ethnic cleansing and that the page needed to reflect that reality, rather than calling Jackson's policy "forced removal." According to FinnV3, the phrase forced removal presented a sanitized, unrepresentative view of history that did not match scholarship. Other users disagreed. Display name 99, who has added the second most information to the page (20,085 characters—in addition to writing nearly half of U.S. President John Adams' page), argued that Jackson "wanted the Indians to be treated well" and that although his decision to remove Native peoples was "tragic," it was "necessary." After months of back and forth, "ethnic cleansing" was added to the article in October.{{cite news}}: Check date values in: |access-date= and |date= (help)
There's an image from that time in that section. The mezzotint is from a daguerreotype taken about 2 months before Jackson died. There are details with a link to a digitized copy of the daguerreotype on the image's Wikimedia Common's page. Wtfiv (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking abut a different. Just google "photograph of Andrew Jackson". I can't show it here because I don't "own" the image. It might be a fake because I've only seen it on a few sites, but it looks like Andrew Jackson, but very old looking.
When I google "photograph of Andrew Jackson", I get a dozen images, not all of which are photographs. Is it one where he is wearing glasses?
The one where he is wearing glasses was interesting to me, because I've seen it in a print biography of Jackson. When I search Wikimedia Commons for "Andrew Jackson", I don't see it, but I'm sure that we can upload it to the Commons from wherever it is, because any photo that old must be in the public domain.
I'm a little leery of adding another photo of the old Andrew Jackson to the article, though, because he looked kind of bad by then. Unless there is some overriding historical interest, one photograph of him in that section of the article is enough. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the one with the glasses. His face is very wrinkled and he appears to be frowning. I don't know if it's a real photograph of him. I just thought it would be cool to add because there's something about that image that just feels very interesting, it's hard to explain.
This one was chosen when the article was first put through the Featured Article process. There's two other daguerreotypes taken circa 1844-1845, where he is wearing glasses. Adding them has been discussed before. The daguerreotypes showing him wearing glasses makes his eyes difficult to see. This certainly creates a marked psychological effect on many viewers. One photograph in this section seems enough though, as the article is already crowded with images. As per Bruce leverett's comment, one seems enough as this wasn't a time of Jackson's major activity. The one chosen has the strength of allowing readers to compare what older Jackson looks like compared to younger Jackson. (Only one of the paintings show him with glasses (Whiteside Earl's 1830-1832 portrait), and that one shows his eyes too. Imagine the effect the painting would have it made his eyes difficult to see. It too would be interesting.) Wtfiv (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is the daguerreotype you guys are talking about:
Andrew Jackson photographed at age 78.
It's an amazing image. Besides his incredibly aged face, I find the extra lens on each of the eyeglass stems or temples, presumably for peripheral vision correction, to be very unusual and interesting. Regarding his face, he appears to be careworn and world-weary, and seems to be suffering. I hope he suffered greatly, given the suffering and devastation he visited on Native peoples of this country, including some of my ancestors. Cursed be his name.
About his eyes, it's hard to be sure, but I think I can see enough of his right eye to believe that he looks haunted, as well he should have been. I hope the spirits of all those whose deaths he caused haunted him night and day, and that his body was racked with pain. Carlstak (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page currently claims: “Jackson's father died at the age of 29 in a logging accident while clearing land in February 1767, three weeks before his son Andrew was born.” The claim that Jackson’s father died in a logging accident is not substantiated. The source provided is Robert Nowlan’s The American Presidents, Washington to Tyler: What They Did, What They Said, What Was Said About Them, with Full Source Notes. Nowlan’s source for this claim is something called “‘Jackson’s Military Career,’ oppapers.com/essays/Jacksons-Military-Career,” attributed to no one. oppapers.com is not operational, but the URL suggests that it was a database of papers for high school students to plagiarize. If you Google “‘jackson’s military career’ logging accident,” the first hit is along these lines: https://www.ipl.org/essay/Andrew-Jacksons-Military-Career-6BB488035A49D24E. There is an unattributed PDF on the NCPedia website that makes the claim: https://ncpedia.org/printpdf/55. But the actual NCPedia entry for Jackson, taken from the Dictionary of North Carolina Biography, does not make it: https://ncpedia.org/jackson-andrew-unc-press-dncb.
I have looked at several biographies—by Robert V. Remini, John S. Bassett, James Partin, and William B. Sumner—for substantiation. I have found none. This looks to be a myth. Malachi Mulligan (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheathem (2014) does not attribute a cause of death, just "He died around the time a third son, his namesake, was born on 15 March 1767." citing Remini, AJ, 1:33; Law license, 26 September 1787, in PAJ, 1:10–11; Ely and Brown, Legal Papers of Andrew Jackson, xxxvi.
Curtis, Andrew Jackson and the search for vindication, (1976) says: "Having survived the arduous ocean crossing and the long trek to Carolina, Elizabeth's husband died suddenly while working on the new homestead. His son would later claim that he 'died like a hero in battle, fighting for his wife and babes; fighting an uphill battle against poverty and adversity as no one in our generation could comprehend.' Perhaps local custom embellished this accident. More likely, Jackson sorely missed a father and needed to construct and believe in such a heroic death." Mom was living with sister when President AJ was born. The Internet Archive version doesn't include any footnote that I can see just a three-page essay on sources.
I'd remove this claim. Nowland is published by McFarland & Company, who is usually considered to be pretty reliable. But - I've found similar instances in some of their books where some of the referencing is just odd, such as a Civil War book citing a web forum. If nothing else has this, this should be considered spurious. My opinion of McFarland is dropping. Hog FarmTalk19:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not ready to throw McFarland in the bin entirely *but* I just looked at a book review (doi:10.1353/soh.2022.0120) of an Andrew Jackson book published by them and "Deppisch also frequently and inexplicably relies on Wikipedia and Geni.com, neither of which are reliable scholarly sources." Yikes! jengod (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McFarland tried to act like a university press (& get library sales), but it lacks the academic advisors on campus who pay close attention to their university presses. Rjensen (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the sentence found in the article regarding Jackson's statement of wanting to hang Clay and shoot Calhoun should be reversed with the actual statement being that he wanted to shoot Clay and hang Calhoun PrisonersPrisoners (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you hear a lot about 45-47 being the first president w a criminal record but I think "assault w intent to kill" is a felony? Does State of Tennessee v. Andrew Jackson (1807) warrant a mention? See papers of Andrew Jackson vol 2. pp 172–175. He was acquitted.
I pushed this live bc I'm seeing assault w attempt to kill, contempt of court, and obstruction of justice, and I know there's umpteen civil lawsuits between him and the local gentry. I think it's notable and in line with existing content but we will see! jengod (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when you get acquitted by a jury (as was Jackson in 1807), you are officially innocent, then and now. As for contempt of court, it was not a big deal then or now. What has changed are duels--illegal then but prestigious. Illegal now and very bad for a reputation. The current debate is about "lawfare" to punish people by forcing them to months in court & huge lawyer bills. Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! I created list of violent incidents involving Andrew Jackson to sort out all of his duels and feuds and mostly bc I didn't want to see any more videos claiming he'd been in a 100 duels. I suspect I need to read Bertram Wyatt-Brown to contextualize it all in the time period. It's currently barely a list but gotta start somewhere. jengod (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How should this lithograph be described? It lacks authenticity. (For one, if it occurred as shown, Jackson would likely be missing a hand.) So is it a "patriotic print", "propaganda", or "history according to Andrew Jackson"? Who is the artist? Humpster (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, since this lithograph was published in 1876 (and no artist is listed), it is not a primary or even a secondary source for the incident. From the text, I see that we are citing biographies by Meacham and Remini as our actual sources, and this lithograph is only for, shall I say, amusement. Illustrations of historical events often have that "inauthentic" flavor. There are several others in this article alone, as well as in some of our other articles about U.S. presidents. Bruce leverett (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is when does amusement become propaganda? To me this image is clearly designed to invest Jackson with the mantle "Revolutionary warrior" and "anti-British martyr" when in fact I imagine he was more like an impoverished, sickly, and vulnerable kid who got mistreated by events far beyond his control.
This is part of the latter-day "political fashioning" of Jackson that benefitted the Democratic Party he is credited with founding. The manipulation of images to convey certain nuances is simply the nature of political messaging (up to the present time); our responsibility is to provide context regarding the production of the image: who, when, why was this image produced? How was it disseminated? To whose benefit?
We accept some images we know to be constructed, such as Trumbull's Declaration of Independence, without too much fuss because internally (to the U.S. at least) there's no advantage or disadvantage to be gained by disputing its mild historical inaccuracy.
On the other hand, I would argue that almost every 19th-century image of Jackson fits into a binary distinction: great American hero, or great American villain. If we are not annotating these images as such, I personally think we are failing the reader. I also think that intentionally illustrating with pro- or anti- propaganda images is absolutely appropriate and necessary. We timidly avoid this because we fear violating NPOV but in doing so we absolutely neglect to serve our higher mission of making knowledge free, in this case the knowledge being that Jackson the person and Jackson the political symbol (not the same thing) had many vociferous fans and righteous opponents whose fierce conflict defined the 1820s to the 1850s in the United States.
Therefore, I think illustrating him becomes less a question of finding images that show particular places, events, or time periods (which is a luxury we can enjoy with the Millard Fillmore and Calvin Coolidge class of presidents) than a question of finding and using images that serve as a mirror of the *exterior* history that was happening **around him the person** and **around and through his image**, which, in my non-neutral, non-encyclopedic, non-reliably sourced opinion, is amongst the most manipulated and problematic in the presidential pantheon. jengod (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment seems spot-on to me. I've been reading about the remaking of Jackson's image when he ran for president. In particular, his "irregular" marriage was surpressed. (I will write about it sometime.) The Battle of New Orleans was credited to Jackson, with little mention of how the British attack was botched, largely by one person.
The question remains how to inform the reader that an illustration is biased. American history is rife with slanted descriptions but they can sometimes be balanced by other scholars. Humpster (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The role of these images is to illustrate the story, as illustrations before the age of photography did. Just as Napoleon Crossing the Alps is highly unlikely to reflect Napoleon's attitude, leading an army on a long march and handling. All such works are imaginative. As Jengod points out, much of the work they are doing are the product of the image creation of their time. But they do reflect the current secondary literature. For example, it is in both Meacham's narrative (p. 12) and Remini's in Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Empire (p. 21). In my opinion, there are issues of sourcing and reliability in what are considered the primary sources, but a version of this tale is ubiquitous in the secondary literature, which this article summarizes. Wtfiv (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed back some recent edits, each for a slightly different reason. I outline them below
Caption for Illustration of Waxhaws. The current title reflects the story as told in Meacham and Remini. The illustration may be dramatic, and the story is problematic, but the current title reflects the story as it is presented in the secondary literature.
Recombined Early career and Marriage. The timeline of his early career and his relationship with Rachel is intertwined. Not breaking them up avoids having a one-paragraph section.
Removed the role of slave-trading in 1824 election, that is not part of the main article. The lead should reflect the main article. Returned...its in the article. Wtfiv (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm posting this under your new topic since the discussion has moved there.
It is an illustration of a story, not a drawing of an event. The topic is Jackson demanding to be treated as a POW. Brown (quoting Reid and Eaton), Wilentz, and Meacham all describe the incident as Jackson demanding to be treated as a prisoner of war.
The tale isn't about about muddy boots or scars, it's about stubbornness. "Resistance to authority" or "strong will" if you prefer. It's also apocryphal: "Of questionable authorship or authenticity." Humpster (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an almost certainly an aggrandizing lie. He had a scar because someone beat the shit out of him. "I stood up to the British army" is a wonderfully romantic explanation.
Just for fun I'll see if I can find where it first entered the legend. I'm curious. Yeah you can read the "original story" or close to it in the Eaton bio. This is a terrible story of teenagers who were captured and probably abused in dark ways. Why did the brother "at the same time for a similar offense" also receive a deep cut on the head? Did the British really need shiny shoes or is that just a polite metaphor for submission? The key words here are "separated and confined they were treated with marked severity" -- the whole "young Andrew Jackson had a sassy mouth on him and isn't that what we love about him" is a writer's device tying the most problematic aspects of Jackson's executive leadership to the abuse of a child to imperial oppression as well as aligning responsibility for Jackson's scarring with the nationalist rationale for American Revolution and the War of 1812.
"...what paroxysms of contemptuous rage shook his slender frame when he saw his cousin's wife insulted, her house profaned, his brother gashed; himself as powerless to avenge as to protect. 'I'll warrant Andy thought of it at New Orleans, said an aged relative of all the parties to me in an old farm-house not far from the scene of this morning's dastardly work. To horse. Andrew was ordered to mount, and to guide some of the party to the house of a noted whig of the vicinity, named Thompson. Threatened with instant death if he failed to guide them aright, the youth submitted, and led the party in the right direction. [and then were POWs and were starving and most of them had smallpox] For some time Andrew escaped the contagion. He was reclining one day in the sun near the entrance of the prison, when the officer of the guard, attracted, as it seemed, by the youthfulness of his appearance, entered into conversation with him entered into conversation with him. The lad soon began to speak of that of which his heart was full-the condition of the prisoners and the bad quality of their food. He remonstrated against their treat- ment with such energy and feeling that the officer seemed to be moved and shocked, and, what was far more important, he was induced to ferret out the villainy of the contractors who had been robbing the prisoners of their rations. From the day of Andrew's remonstrance the condition of the prisoners was ameliorated; they were supplied with meat and better bread, and were otherwise better cared for."
Did Andrew Jackson persuade the British to treat him better as 14yo prisoner by appealing to the better angels of their nature, or...?
The whole thing honestly sounds pretty rapey. But the legend goes that Andrew Jackson's brutality and penchant for bullying and humiliation and sending children on death marches was sui generis so... jengod (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm looking at Remini and he's adjudicating earlier statements as a historian does. If we follow him on this we might consider taking his cue and copying this map of the war in the Carolinas that was prepared by Amos Kendall with input from Jackson.
Remini wrote "Andrew struggled to control himself. In a calm voice he replied, "Sir, I am a prisoner of war, and claim to be treated as such."40 Incensed by this retort, the officer lifted his sword and aimed it straight at Andrew's head." And commenting about it in the notes: "40. These are not, of course, Jackson's actual words but an approximation devised by Parton, Jackson, I, 89. The same sense is found in Reid and Eaton, Jackson, p. 16"
I'll leave the haunted past where it lies now but from what I can tell the original source of this "image" is mostly Jackson himself to his post-presidential biographers (Kendall) topped off some new material and commentary supplied by Parton investigating in the 1850s. By the time we get to Currier & Ives in the 1880s we are three times removed from the original statement. Meh.
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Andrew Jackson photographed at age 78.
Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)