As we see again in today's Disunion column, "The Minds of the South," keyboarded by a Cambridge scholar, Michael O'Brian, who nevertheless seems clueless about the United States in these eras. Why is that Brits, whether historians or historical novelists get the American Civil War wrong (at least all I've read)? What do they do wrong in their research?
I mean, John C. Calhoun, a staunch Unionist? This was a man whose arrogance and power lust had him dreaming of creating an entire new nation in the South, with himself running the show -- shades of Aaron Burr* -- because Jackson** beat his ass for POTUS. During the Nullification crisis, he resigned as VP, before Jackson kicked his butt out for disloyalty (Jackson being Jackson there was zero tolerance for back-stabbing; Jackson made these things deeply personal matters of personal honor ( not for him "it's politics, lets go play golf now"). Down in South Carolina, not incidentally, medals were struck that proclaimed "John C. Calhoun, First President of the Southern Confederacy." And no, the Nullification Crisis was not about slavery at all, except that like now during which everything is always about the oil bidness in one way or another, it was about slavery.
"The tariff was only the pretext," he insisted, "and disunion and a southern confederacy the real object." Then he predicted what the next excuse would be, a prediction tragically fulfilled three decades later. "The next pretext," Jackson warned, "will be the negro, or slavery question."
This is from Andrew Jackson writing to Reverend Andrew J. Crawford, May 1, 1833, in Jackson's Correspondence, V.3, p. 72.
Further, this opinion was shared by others, namely that at the bottom of the nullification controversy "lurked a settled design to dissolve the Union and set up a southern Confederacy. Only the "disaprobation" of other southern states cause its abandonment at present". B.F. Perry to Webster, April, 1833, Webster Papers, New Hampshire Historical Society.
_______________________
* Speaking of Burr, as we were, check this out.
** Is it necessary to state that in my opinion, in so many ways Andrew Jackson was a dangerous man, perhaps even a sociopath, and that in this area, at least, I share Thomas Jefferson's opinion, that he wasn't fit to be POTUS? (Neither George Washington, nor Martha, after her husband's death, believed Jefferson worthy of the presidency either.)
However, Jackson was one of the most effective Presidents in our history. He had an agenda for his presidency, he was determined to accomplish his agenda and he did. He was the one who changed our political process from 'republic' to 'democracy.' Moreover, if the federal government hadn't become so corrupt and patronage-happy, that huge wave of populist disgust for it wouldn't have been there for him to ride in on. Of course, instead of 'patronage,' he instituted the infamous 'spoils' system. In our nation, every president who came in on an agenda to reduce spending and corruption left with more of it in place. This has been the same with the national debt -- except with Jackson. Jackson paid down the national debt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Out of 44 presidents, we've had maybe 10-15 worthy of the office. So far, we've been lucky, in that Lincoln and Roosevelt were there for the two biggest crises in our history. Really, America is lucky to be here still.
That many, you think?
Jackson was the most vindictive MF of them all. I think he beats even Nixon and the jrshrub.
For example in advert for a runaway slave he offers a bonus to anyone who catches his property and administers 100 lashes before delivering said property back to Jackson.
I have examined hundreds of slave sale and runaway slave advertisements from the 17th century through to the early years of the Civil War. Never, ever have I seen any other advertisement that includes this incentive for re-capturing stolen selves.
Love, C.
Post a Comment