7th president of the United States of America, the face of the $20 bill, a war hero, a charismatic man, and a man who wanted to eliminate the Indian race. These are some things that the “admirable” and controversial Andrew Jackson was known for. Andrew Jackson was a president that has and still is heavily analyzed by historians because his impact on America for better or worse. To some, many may think Andrew Jackson is one of the greatest presidents ever. Nevertheless , there are mixed views on whether Andrew Jackson was an “influential” president in today’s view. Jackson had different views that didn’t strictly lean to the left or the right. Furthermore, which results in heavy dispute if Jackson was the ideal conservative or liberal in today’s
…show more content…
Even when discussing the events of the Trail of Tears, he didn’t seem like he was inserting his own opinion. But rather just stating the history of the initial actions. Overall, Wilentz presents the book just a unbiased informational piece on Andrew Jackson’s life. If you look at more information about the author, he’s a liberal and a supporter of the Clinton campaigns. Despite his liberal views, he talks about Jackson’s involvement in abusing human rights on a neutral standpoint. Even though Wilentz is neutral when it comes to his stance on Jackson, he shows a glimmer of admiration for the 7th president. Highlighting Jackson’s personality and accomplishments shows that the author doesn’t show a dislike nor favoritism for Jackson. Respect is shown for Jackson by Wilentz. But he did downplay the events of the Trail of Tears and the Indian removal act as something that just happened rather than unpleasant part of American history.
Walter Russell Mead’s book review of Andrew Jackson praises Wilentz’s work for being “concise and clear” . In his review, he compares Wilentz work with someone else 's. He was very short and sincere about his review about Andrew Jackson. In another review, Ray Olson is concise about his thoughts about the book as well. Olson said that the “text is harder to read” more than others but “it’s essential for serious history students”
Even when discussing the events of the Trail of Tears, he didn’t seem like he was inserting his own opinion. But rather just stating the history of the initial actions. Overall, Wilentz presents the book just a unbiased informational piece on Andrew Jackson’s life. If you look at more information about the author, he’s a liberal and a supporter of the Clinton campaigns. Despite his liberal views, he talks about Jackson’s involvement in abusing human rights on a neutral standpoint. Even though Wilentz is neutral when it comes to his stance on Jackson, he shows a glimmer of admiration for the 7th president. Highlighting Jackson’s personality and accomplishments shows that the author doesn’t show a dislike nor favoritism for Jackson. Respect is shown for Jackson by Wilentz. But he did downplay the events of the Trail of Tears and the Indian removal act as something that just happened rather than unpleasant part of American history.
Walter Russell Mead’s book review of Andrew Jackson praises Wilentz’s work for being “concise and clear” . In his review, he compares Wilentz work with someone else 's. He was very short and sincere about his review about Andrew Jackson. In another review, Ray Olson is concise about his thoughts about the book as well. Olson said that the “text is harder to read” more than others but “it’s essential for serious history students”