Talk:Andrew Jackson/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Andrew Jackson, slave trader

Hi Jengod, You added description of Andrew Jackson as a slave trader in the lead that linked to the article, Andrew Jackson and the slave trade in the United States. I reverted the link because it needs to be in the main text before it is considered for the lead. I think it could easily be put in the main text with Cheathem's 2011 article Andrew Jackson, Slavery, and Historians p. 327 as a source.

What I'm less sure of is whether it should be in the lead. Though Jackson was engaged in treating enslaved people as commodities, including buying and selling, which was part of his being a plantation slave owner, he says he gave up his role of being involved in the business of trading in slaves before 1800 he became involved in national politics. So while there's no doubt he was involved in the business of trading early in his life and it should be mentioned, it doesn't seem like it wasn't part of his professional identity, like it was for someone like Nathan Bedford Forrest.

So, my own thought is that it should go in the article, maybe early in the Legal career and marriage section, but not necessarily in the lead. I'd like to hear your thoughts, as well as gather the consensus of those who watch this page. Wtfiv (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree, based on the sources presented, that it should be placed in the article. The lead should be for specific events and those things which he is most notable for. I'm not sure this would qualify. There is so much material on this very controversial former president and soldier. I doubt the article could contain every aspect of his life in great detail without risk of becoming so verbose again. I would include it as Wtfiv mentions and proceed from there. --ARoseWolf 11:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Wtfiv@ARoseWolf legal career and marriage section sounds great and Cheathem's article would be a good source to cite. I'll wait a day or so in case anyone else wants to weigh in. Anyone else who wants to edit between now and then, please go to town--I don't feel particularly comfortable editing this article! That said, my gut (and a close reading of the fragmentary detail we have) suggests to me he was trading to some extent for the better part of 20 years (~1790–~1810). Perhaps eventually scholars will be able to shed more light on this huge question for which there are few clear answers. jengod (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We could also just edit/add a clause in the slavery section:

Jackson also participated in the local slave trade.

>>

Jackson was also an [[Andrew Jackson and the slave trade in the United States|early speculator]] in the [[slave trade in the United States|North American slave trade]], trafficking people between Nashville and the [[Natchez District]] of [[Spanish West Florida]] via the [[Natchez Trace]]. jengod (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that placement might make better sense than even under the legal career and marriage section. --ARoseWolf 15:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The couple spent time together in the lower Mississippi River valley, where Jackson owned a trading post and racetrack, and was an [[Andrew Jackson and the slave trade in the United States|early speculator]] in the [[slave trade in the United States|North American slave trade]], trafficking people between Nashville and the [[Natchez District]] of [[Spanish West Florida]] via the [[Natchez Trace]].

...? jengod (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Where do you envision this statement fitting? --ARoseWolf 17:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

After the separation, Jackson and Rachel became romantically involved, living together as husband and wife. The couple spent time together in the lower Mississippi River valley, where Jackson owned a trading post and racetrack, and where he worked as a "negro speculator", trafficking people between Nashville and the Natchez District of Spanish West Florida via the Natchez Trace. Robards petitioned for divorce in 1790 [?], which was granted on the basis of Rachel's infidelity. jengod (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Added a sentence. I put it at the end of the paragraph preceding the one describing Jackson and Rachel, as it looks like he was already into the trade in 1788, before he became involved with Rachel. Changed the language to stay close the language of the sources. "trafficking" changed to "transporting" as the trade wasn't illegal. (Though as Remini's article points out, as well as the Wikipedia article on Jackson and the slave trade, he most likely participated in activities that were at least in the gray zone if not further. I put Cheathem as the reference for the first half. Used Remini's journal article on Jackson and the Natchez trace as a source on the second half. Also added the date of the divorce and used Remini's vol 1 as a source for it. Wtfiv (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Words and sourcing look great. jengod (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Acting first ladies

"For the only time in U.S. history, two women acted simultaneously as unofficial first lady for the widower Jackson."

Just wanted to surface Martha Johnson Patterson and Mary Johnson Stover, daughters of Andrew Johnson. Martha was definitely the lead but Mary co-hosted quite a lot. The mom was still alive but never left her room etc. Acting First Lady is not an official job and it's really hard to quantify who did what etc but not sure this was the *only* such case. No big deal just wanted to mention it in case there are any acting First Lady hobbyists who want to delve further. Cheers. jengod (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson, the Battle of New Orleans, and Slavery

Hi Jengod, You recently added text about Jackson's recruitment of slaves and his promise to free them, which was taken from a primary source, James Roberts narrative of the battle and his role in it. Roberts claim is plausible: possibly Jackson did promise freedom to slave soldiers who fought with him during the battle. However, I think using Roberts, a primary source, may not be sufficient. There are many things that may be biasing his version of the story, in part the point to demonstrate the importance of his personal role in the battle (see pg. 15, for example) and publicizing the injustice of Buchanan not giving him a pension for his service. Issues like this make the reliability of the source unclear. If Jackson made the promise Roberts mentions, perhaps we can find it in one or two reliable secondary sources. Wtfiv (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll work on it. :) jengod (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Wtfiv (talk) 01:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

IDK if this rises to the level of validation of Robinson's narrative but two secondary and one primary seem to be in the ballpark:

"Planters sent slaves under military watch to dig trenches, shovel earthen mounds into shape, clear timber, and boost fortications"

p. 109

"Many of the slaves who fought in the Battle of New Orleans did not receive the freedom they expected." p. 113

10.5149/northcarolina/9781469647142.003.0006

“Instead, Andrew Jackson guaranteed “a full and entire pardon” to slaves who helped defend New Orleans, and he promised a monetary and land bounty to those free blacks, or “sons of freedom,” who supported the American cause. ...In the end, Jackson’s proclamations and promises denied to Cochrane an important source of much-needed manpower for British operations while maintaining the social status quo within the region. Ultimately, Jackson never fulfilled his promises to the slaves and only slowly fulfilled his obligations to the free blacks, further diminishing the status of both groups as the South moved toward a southern slave society based on cotton plantation agriculture.”

— The Slaves' Gamble: Choosing Sides in the War of 1812 by Gene Allen Smith pp 245–246

"But the reader must know that general Jackson had obtained from the masters of the slaves their word of honour, that they would grant them a full and entire pardon; and that the known honour of those planters leaving him no room to doubt of the strict performance of their promise, he had pledged himself to general Lambert that the slaves should suf-

fer no manner of ill treatment on their return."

Latour, 1816, originally in French

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081801718&seq=250

p. 222

compare to Roberts pg 16:

I asked him if he did not promise me my freedom, if that battle was fought and victory gained? He replied, "I did, but I took your master's word, as he told me. You are not my property, and I cannot take another man's property and set it free." My answer was, You can use your influence with our master, and have us set free. He replied thus: "If I were to hire you my horse, could you sell it without my leave? You are another man's property, and I have not money sufficient to buy all of you..."

etc etc etc.

jengod (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jengod,

As I looked things up on my side, a number of sources bring up the free black militia that fought for Jackson, But sources also point out that New Orleans was against arming slaves. Particularly because of their fear of another slave revolt in Louisiana like the recent 1811 German Coast uprising in Louisiana, which was one of the largest slave revolts Unites States History.

I'm not sure about the secondary sources, the section in Smith's The Slave's Gamble (2013) seems questionable. To describe Jackson's action, p. 164 relies almost exclusively on Robert's narrative. It uses Latour's mention "full and entire pardon" as support. But Latour's context for "full and entire pardon" is about a different issue than Robert's claim that he was promised freedom after being enlisted for fighting.

As Smith alludes on p. 172 of Slaves' Gamble the "full and entire pardon" is for slaves who had run away to join the British, who had promised freedom. This is what is described in Latour pp. 221-221 The pardon is in the context of the subsequent peace treaty with the British, not promises to volunteers in American forces. The British had released the formerly enslaved African-Americans and the treaty stipulated they should remain free. But Latour states that Lambert, with the assent of Jackson, treated the formerly enslaved people either as deserters or property: The African-Americans had been labeled criminals, but Jackson had "had obtained from the masters of the slaves their word of honour" that they would give their slaves a "full and entire pardon" (e.g., allow them to return to enslavement without further punishment).

The other source, Chapter 6 of Jason Berry's (2018) book City of a Million Dreams : A History of New Orleans at Year 300. isn't really an independent of Smith. Berry's brief statement on the topic on p. 172 relies on Slaves' Gamble as its source: the same pages of Smith discussed above (see Berry's note 113 at back of book). More thoughts? Anybody else have thoughts on this? Wtfiv (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I found an 1863 pamphlet that selectively (IMHO) quotes Jackson leading up to the battle of New Orleans as evidence for why arming what came to be known as "colored troops" during the ACW was in the tradition of military forebears Geo. Washington and A. Jackson. (The British had a pesky habit of freeing American slaves and not giving them back which reduced American military staffing levels--it gave the Patriots fits in both wars.)

One document is J's proclamation to the "free colored inhabitants" of New Orleans. And the other is an address from Jackson by way of Edward Livingston: "...To THE MEN OF COLOR.—Soldiers! From the shores of Mobile I collected you to arms,—I invited you to share in the perils and to divide the glory of your white countrymen. I expected much from you; for I was not uninformed of those qualities which must render you so formida- ble to an invading foe. I knew that you could endure hunger and thirst and all the hardships of war. I knew that you loved the land of your nativity, and that, like ourselves, you had to defend all that is most dear to man. But you surpass my hopes. I have found in you, united to

these qualities, that noble enthusiasm which impels to great deeds. Soldiers! The President of the United States shall be informed of your conduct on the present occasion; and the voice of the Representatives of the American Nation shall applaud your valor, as your general

now praises your ardor. The enemy is near. His sails cover the lakes. But the brave are united; and if he finds us contending among ourselves, it will be for the prize of valor, and fame, its noblest reward."

I look forward to the day when someone finds Jackson's contemporaneous notes from the battle: "Had to use my friends' slaves that I sold them back in 1798 to win this and they were great. Have returned them all to bondage. Done and dusted. Yay me." Until then, we have the usual echoing void of white documentation of the conditions of American slavery. :( not anyone living's fault, just makes me sad generally jengod (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I found the primary sources in Niles' Weekly Register, published before the Battle of New Orleans. The 21 Sep 1814 proclamation to the "free colored inhabitants of Louisiana" signed by Jackson is in Vol 7, issue 169, p. 205 from Dec. 1814. It's interesting because it promises the participants $124 and 160 acres, the same as whites.

The second address, given to the militia on 18 Dec 1814 is in Vol 7, issue 178, pp. 345-346 from January 1815. It's interesting because two speeches are given. The appeal to the white Americans is about defending their freedom and city. In contrast, the address to the "men of color", given by aid-de-camp Thomas L. Butler, an appeal to glory and the promise of the president and congress being informed of their valor. Also notable is that unlike the September address, no mention of a tangible award is given, although the battle is now only two weeks away.

As you mentioned, it remains unclear is whether Jackson actually promised freedom to enslaved Americans to get them to fight as Roberts attests. It's possible, but I also think that the fear of the whites in the area after the 1811 French-revolution and Haiti inspired slave revolt would have stepped in and prohibited enslaved people from having fire arms or having the opportunity to kill whites, even British ones. It's just a possible that Jackson wouldn't have made such a promise: he would've been in further trouble with the white population of the city if it had been even rumored he did so, whether or not he intended to honor it.

I also wonder whether Jackson tried to follow up on his promise of reward to the free militia. Even if the intention was there, would Louisiana or the US government had allowed it? It seems to me that that issue and the related one of the role of African-Americans in the battle and its aftermath a good subtopic- or even spinoff article- for the Battle of New Orleans article. At this point, the role of Blacks in the battle gets only a parenthetical mention. Wtfiv (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Will work on a Battle of New Orleans section! A couple interesting details from Robinson that are more appropriate for an actual historian to address but...Robinson was property of Calvin Smith. Smith's brother Philander Smith (Mississippi) was involved with Peter Bryan Bruin on a couple of key things: (1) they co-signed a document asking Congress to pls adopt Spanish Mississippi and also let them keep slavery, (2) Bruin was the co-judge and P. Smith was the grand jury foreman on Aaron Burr's treason indictment hearing in 1807. And Bruin's settlement of Bruinsburg is where Jackson had his slave-trading kiosk and racetrack or whatever it was. Also, Robinson mentions someone saying they should get more slaves from Springfield Plantation (Fayette, Mississippi). Springfield is allegedly Jackson married Rachel, and while that may be a retcon/lie, the Greens and the Donelsons definitely intermarried a lot and Jackson sold slaves to them. So Colonel-General Jackson wasnt just recruiting randos. if Robinson is telling the truth, Jackson was going around to specific planters with whom he had personal ties to collect slave laborers to contribute to the defense of New Orleans. Anyway, I'll work on more research for a future section for the BoNO article! jengod (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to tell how reliable Roberts is. For example, when discussing his role at New Orleans on p. 15 he states "At this point I lost the fore finger of my left hand, and received a deep wound on my head from a British sword. After that I took the fellow's head off, and five more of his fellow soldiers." If Roberts is stating what happened, it sounds like he received the same kind of wound Jackson says he received when he was a youth in the revolutionary war (though Roberts lost his fore finger, Jackson didn't). But truth can be far stranger than fiction. And almost any narrative is a bit of a mix of both. Some of the connections you see in Robert's narrative make sense. His narrative seems to reflect the network of connections on that end of the Natchez trace.

On a different topic, the connections you have unearthed are fascinating and definitely get me thinking. I'm inclined to think your intuition about there being a network is probably correct. I wonder if there's enough of a paper trail for a researcher to see if the dots connect more clearly. If a historian is searching the obscurity of a talk page for an idea for a doctoral dissertation, and is willing to do a lot of work finding documentation in a culture where many of the actors moved outside of writing... Wtfiv (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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)