Let me make one thing clear right away. This blog is not about the current president, but rather the 44 or so who preceded him; at the moment I am doing Jackson. My general plan is to write a book about each one, starting with Jackson. There are several reasons I'm starting with Jackson. First is that I already know a lot about him, from a historiography course I took maybe forty years ago. Second, there are claims that the current president is like him (he is not, except in a few ways). In a way then studying the wild 1830s can give me perspective on what we're going through now. In fact I already find myself wanting to read some history immediately after I read the news, as if delving into the past is like taking a shower after a long day. Even ten minutes of news requires a shower these days.
OK so here's what I've found out about Jackson so far, and I'm only a couple days into it. I found the James Parton biography, a 3-volume set done in the 1880's, the first reasonably complete biography of Andrew Jackson. He has a very careful explanation of how Jackson was born in North Carolina, right across the South Carolina border. It turns out they lived in North Carolina when the father died, and mom went and stayed with one sister in North Carolina, where he was born, and then moved with the infant to South Carolina where he would grow up. He would always call South Carolina his native state, but this just clouded up the issue and he wasn't old enough to write it down. Parton has good credible sources for how it happened. I buy them.
What's curious is the variety of things people say in the modern biographies of Jackson. One didn't even mention Parton, and simply said he was born in South Carolina. One said "probably South Carolina" which is at least not a falsehood. Somewhere in there in the hundred-fifty years since Parton wrote his book, historians have closed ranks around trhe idea that it South Carolina even though there is credible evidence that it wasn't. How did this happen?
There was some reference to a generation of Carolinans arguing about it, as if partisans from each state jumped in there with their own arguments. Judging from Parton's arguments I'd say the Northh Carolinians have a good argument if not just plain out right. Did the South Carolinians argue louder? harder? more forcefully? How did this happen? It's like they rewrote history.
People point out, probably correctly, thhat nobody in the area knows or cares; the Waxhaws district straddled both states and had an identity of its own. This actually speaks more to how AJ himself could have been wrong. If you go back and look at the farms in question, and what mom was doing, staying with each sister, arriving at the one that she would live with for seven years already carrying an infant, we can buy Parton's argument very easily. It baffles me how historians could close ranks around something that is basically not true.
And makes me wonder how many other times history has basically been rewritten.
OK so here's what I've found out about Jackson so far, and I'm only a couple days into it. I found the James Parton biography, a 3-volume set done in the 1880's, the first reasonably complete biography of Andrew Jackson. He has a very careful explanation of how Jackson was born in North Carolina, right across the South Carolina border. It turns out they lived in North Carolina when the father died, and mom went and stayed with one sister in North Carolina, where he was born, and then moved with the infant to South Carolina where he would grow up. He would always call South Carolina his native state, but this just clouded up the issue and he wasn't old enough to write it down. Parton has good credible sources for how it happened. I buy them.
What's curious is the variety of things people say in the modern biographies of Jackson. One didn't even mention Parton, and simply said he was born in South Carolina. One said "probably South Carolina" which is at least not a falsehood. Somewhere in there in the hundred-fifty years since Parton wrote his book, historians have closed ranks around trhe idea that it South Carolina even though there is credible evidence that it wasn't. How did this happen?
There was some reference to a generation of Carolinans arguing about it, as if partisans from each state jumped in there with their own arguments. Judging from Parton's arguments I'd say the Northh Carolinians have a good argument if not just plain out right. Did the South Carolinians argue louder? harder? more forcefully? How did this happen? It's like they rewrote history.
People point out, probably correctly, thhat nobody in the area knows or cares; the Waxhaws district straddled both states and had an identity of its own. This actually speaks more to how AJ himself could have been wrong. If you go back and look at the farms in question, and what mom was doing, staying with each sister, arriving at the one that she would live with for seven years already carrying an infant, we can buy Parton's argument very easily. It baffles me how historians could close ranks around something that is basically not true.
And makes me wonder how many other times history has basically been rewritten.
Comments
Post a Comment