Talk:Andrew Jackson

Recent images

Three images were recently added. I removed the one of York Scott, as the relationship to Jackson is incidental. I'm also not sure about the two maps. The Wilkinson survey is interesting, but it seems hard to read and I'm not sure if it provides much context for guiding readers. The one on Tennessee in 1796 seems like it could be appropriate, as it shows Tennessee when Jackson moved into it, but I'm unsure. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your judgement is good. Remove whatever feels fussy. I would never squwak about it. But also this page needs more illustrations and maps and images that aren't hagiographic fantasy portraits of the Hero of New Orleans etc. etc. Those are esswntially Tiger Beat magazine-profile photos for 1845 Democratic Party fanboys, and they don't tell the reader anything about what this man was about or what he did to or for the United States and its people. jengod (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I do feel they look a bit fussy, but I realize that other eyes are may have other insights. You're not the only one to critique the images. For reference, here's an older version of the article just before it went through a grueling Featured article review process that was full of controversy. Most of the images were retained, the Jackson page is a pretty controversial one, but you can see a number disappeared, including the one with Jackson, who was feeling ill at the time, standing on the top of the parapets in the Battle of New Orleans. Also, you might find reading the sections that pique your interest worth reading to see where the article was and where it is. Wtfiv (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans by F.C. Yohn

"Those are essentially Tiger Beat magazine-profile photos for 1845 Democratic Party fanboys" is pretty funny. For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with most of the images in the article. The one attributed to Thomas Sully makes him look like a resurrected corpse, so it's fine by me.;-) I believe the contemporaneous images, including the cartoons, help the modern reader understand how he was viewed by the US populace at the time; don't care for the "Battle of New Orleans by Dennis Malone Carter", though (sorry, Wtfiv). I've added a fairly high resolution image of Jackson at the battle to Wikimedia Commons that is perhaps less dramatized and more realistic (can almost smell the testosterone). What do editors think? Carlstak (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I realized I should be quiet bc the images I want probably don't exist: "Andrew Jackson body count" (Coffin Handbills tho?) and "U.S. territory in square miles that A. Jackson personally colonized" (but also see File:Maps from *The West Florida controversy, 1798–1813* by Isaac Joslin Cox (1918) 01.jpg and File:Map from Indian land cessions in the United States by Charles C. Royce 11.jpg with notes like "black oak marked A.J." Sorry. I'm basically in "how do you delete someone else's impact on humankind tweet" territory with this guy, which is pointless. Note to self: Stop drinking poison. Blah. jengod (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Jengod, I'm hoping current map on the Native American cessions makes the point you mentioned: All or almost all the U. S. territory acquired as a result of Jackson's actions. If you take a look at the pre-FAR article linked above, it had only a map of the lands impacted by the Indian Removal Act, and it had a separate map for the treaty of Ft. Jackson. Though both were accurate, they served to understate the impact of Jackson's policies on Native Americans.

The current map, which replaced these earlier maps, put together all the cessions that Jackson was involved in one location. It includes the information in the original Treaty of Ft. Jackson map, as well as in the Tennessee map, and the Royce Map. It's intended to show how substantial Jackson's actions were, many well before the Indian Removal Act, cumulatively resulting in Native Americans being removed from the majority the Southeast, including almost all of Alabama, 3/4 of Mississippi and nearly half of Tennessee. Wtfiv (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Carlstak, it works for me if you want to change the picture. The change came about because of this discussion on the FAR talk page. I tried out Malone because it was closer to its time historically and it seemed the editors were okay with it. But they seemed okay with Yohn as well. So, if you like to change it, please do. Wtfiv (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that discussion at FAR, or forgot it. I personally like the near-impressionistic realism, the broad brush-strokes of the Yohn painting, with the scene more naturally represented and the canvas exuding the heat and sweatiness of battle, rather than the formal arrangement and dramatic posturing of the rather stiff figures in Malone's. I'll go ahead and move it; I get the impression the community can accept either one. Carlstak (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I swapped out the recently added Map of Tennessee circa 1798. It had the strength of showing the Natchez trace as it headed southwest, but the coloring of the 1798 map could lead readers to misunderstand how Tennessee was divided at the time, as the color coding dividing West Tennessee from East Tennessee is simply geographic; the colors did not show Native American lands or that the state of Tennessee had two discontinuous areas, the eastern counties and the Mero District.

Both maps reflect Tennessee after the Treaty of Tellico in 1798 when the Cherokee had given up some of their land adjacent to the eastern counties. The eastern counties, informally known as the Washington District, and the western counties known as the Mero District. The majority of land in the state was held by Native Americans, the Cherokee and the Chickasaw. This is now color coded in the new map.

The new map still shows a portion of the Natchez Trace, which has been highlighted. But its only the section that runs in the state. Wtfiv (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice work. jengod (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Dickinson duel

So. This is possibly messy because it involves negotiating centuries of sources about a conflict that had months of buildup but regarding this sentence:

"They had an argument over a horse race, and Dickinson allegedly uttered a slur against Rachel."

I personally recommend we cut the "slur against Rachel" bit per:

The feud with Mr. Dickinson is generally traced to the aftermath of a forfeited horse race and rumors questioning Jackson's honor, said Daniel Feller, a University of Tennessee history professor and an editor of Jackson's papers. "Some historians have written that Mr. Dickinson also insulted Mrs. Jackson, although documents from the time do not reflect that, Mr. Feller said." - https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/us/17grave.html?unlocked_article_code=1.P04.hVt3.-liypsFX_2X4&smid=url-share

"The origin of the dispute between Jackson and Dickinson remains uncertain. Jackson's first biographer, James Parton, noted that sometime between November 1805 and January 1806 Dickinson, who was prone to drunken bravado, besmirched Rachel's name in public. Nowhere in the private correspondence or public exchanges that took place during these months, however, does Rachel's name appear as a pretext for the enmity between the two men." Cheathem, AJ, Southerner 2013, p. 43

But also bc I think that the "violence in defense of genteel white femininity" is playing into a grand mythology rather than the facts of this case.

"If a man did not fight back when his life, his freedom, or his family was in jeopardy, his failure to act signified a deficiency in manliness in antebellum terms. At the same time, vengeful acts of violence, or aggression against women or children, would be read as unmanly. Real men in the antebellum period took up arms openly and confidently, and only for noble causes, like protecting white womanhood, preserving ones liberty, or defending ones country." -Gender and Race in Antebellum Popular Culture (2014) doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107338852 page 7, note 7

Im also pretty sure this duel had its roots in all their slave trading but that aside, I feel strongly that the "Jackson did it for love" defense is specious on its face and we are under no obligation to perpetuate it. jengod (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to get other opinions. I have no qualms with removing it, as per Cheathem. It may not be in the documentations, but it is part of Parton's research, and has moved on from there. I don't see it as part of the mythology of Jackson "doing it for love," My thoughts are they are more a prelude of what occurred later when Jackson ran as president. As I see it, the questions around his relationship with Rachel, were probably one of the largest threats to his community reputation. Rumors of bigamy besmirched it, and he was protecting it. Wtfiv (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Updated the entry, removing the allegations of a slur to Rachel. The best summary is in the editors of Jackson's correspondence, Moser and Macpherson (1984), p. 77-78. (There's a link to the pdf in the article). As you mention, Moser and MacPherson state that the slur against Rachel did not appear in print until 1860, when Parton put it in his biography. They state that Parton heard it from Sam Houston.

Also, looking at the correspondence is suggestive: The elements you mention may be in play too. Dickinson was involved in the Nashville-New Orleans slave trade, and had recently come back from New Orleans just before the duel. Wtfiv (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Photo of Andrew Jackson

In the later life and death section, it would be cool to add the photograph of Andrew Jackson taken 2 months before he died.

NicoConservative (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

NicoConservative (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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.

NicoConservative (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)