Reddit reviews AMERICAN LION: Andrew Jackson in the White House
We found 8 Reddit comments about AMERICAN LION: Andrew Jackson in the White House. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Random House Trade Paperbacks
It was this one by Meachum. I had read a couple of his other biographies and liked them. This one was good...I enjoyed it and learned a lot about a time period I hadn't read that much on.
https://www.amazon.com/AMERICAN-LION-Andrew-Jackson-White/dp/0812973461/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511827547&sr=8-1&keywords=andrew+jackson+biography
there's a lot of people that express disgust at Andrew Jackson... but my gut tells me they know nothing of the context of the time he was in... nor his personal life...
I personally recommend everyone to read An American Lion by Jon Meacham. If you think this was badass... just read about his childhood... he literally came out of nothing, was orphaned through The American Revolution at 12... and just the shear fact of him rising up to a General is a feat of its own... to become a President is pretty much Legendary.
Almost positive you won't read this, but I'll go ahead anyway for the viewers.
How you think you are trained in history while actually believing the shit that has come out of your mouth dumbfounds me. I encourage your pursuit of a career in history, but you're going to find yourself laughed out of any reputable institution if you spew this buncombe in front of a historically literate audience. What you have just done is presented a counterargument, almost unilaterally dismissed anyone's criticism of it without presenting actual evidence (and got angry at one person for doing so), and committed numerous logical fallacies (I even left a few out)—all in a cocksure, haughty style of writing that is littered with grammatical mistakes, misspellings, and generally imprecise word choice.
>rather flattered that you wasted so much of your time on myself.
Rather than pick apart your ignorance of what a reflexive pronoun is, I submit: very little time was wasted, as you say, and that's my judgement to make, not yours. The only sense in which it appears to have been wasted is in its vanity—that is, you have a super-inflated ego and will obviously dismiss any challenge to your argument.
>if you pick up a textbook they will make the exact same claims but will actually care enough to support it
I'm not sure if this implies that you're at a level of education that requires textbooks per se, but your arrogance suggests it. There is a second thing I have to respond to in this sentence: that I haven't supported my claims. I was, for the most part, not in the business of presenting evidence when I wrote this so much as pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Without making claims of my own, in other words, I was pointing out to you that the deliberation behind your conclusions is inadequate for making such bold claims. The only shortcoming of my previous post is that I didn't explain why, so here's one example, broken apart by sentence:
>Trail of tears, probably the only president who, under modern culture/law could be legitimately put in prison as a war criminal.
[Presentism.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis) This is not a historical argument, it's an anachronism by definition.
>He led the final genocide of the native americans.
No he didn't. He forcibly removed by executive order the Cherokee from their homelands, directing them to present-day Oklahoma. Jackson ignored the SCOTUS decision that they were a nation within a nation, and therefore removal of them by executive order violated federal law guaranteeing them special sovereignty. He was not present, obviously, and he did not order the slaughter of anybody as far as we can tell. It was not genocide, therefore, nor was it final. Friction between Native American nations did not end in the 1830s.
>While they were certainly on the decline at that point in history...
This is very vague almost to the point of meaninglessness, so I can't really refute it, but it's bad writing.
>...he was the one who put the snuff over the candle.
No, he wasn't, because it was not one single person that did this. Increasingly disadvantageous policymaking (on the part of the Native American nations) is the term applied to a process spanning hundreds of years.
>The dude was a dictator who was bound by the constitution, and he is on our $20 bills (shame on us).
He was not a dictator, and it's ludicrous that you would claim that. He was elected twice against formidable candidates of the Washington elite. Certain transgressions of the Constitution does not automatically make you a dictator, particularly when you have a Congress that has to fund any policies that Jackson wanted to enact. He had very rigid, extrinsically imposed limitations. The second cause is just merely superfluous, but there's technically nothing wrong with it.
The study of Andrew Jackson's presidency is far more complex than you've made it sound, and there are a number of biographies that will support my common-knowledge claims about Jackson. Here are two very popular ones: Meacham's bestseller and Remini's more academic account.
And another thing, for the hell of it:
>In these examples, you've made so many errors that you're not making much of a case for convincing a discerning person, but are being outright deceptive to people who want to formulate an informed historical viewpoint.
I must have slipped through the cracks, then, as my B.A. in History at Loyola University Chicago and Master's (specializing in early modern English social history) from the University of Chicago have apparently not been helpful in making historical arguments. I am, while reluctant to boast, am very qualified in this sort of thing, with an education from one of the most prestigious universities in the United States. You sound like a pompous undergrad with a penchant for history but unwillingness to think critically about historical matters. My only apology is that I might be (very understandably) wrong in this assessment, which I base on your obvious coxcombry.
Again, this is not for you, but to merely warn the viewers of this thread of your bullshit claims that no reputable historian would grant.
Andrew Jackson and the Bank War From 1967, but I think still the standard on this topic
Otherwise, AMERICAN LION: Andrew Jackson in the White House for the full presidency.
American Lion is about the life and presidency of Andrew Jackson. It is crazy dense but well worth the read. It's also really cheap. http://www.amazon.com/American-Lion-Andrew-Jackson-White/dp/0812973461
John Adams is also a great book about the president's life.
https://books.google.com/books?id=s-sTrTHz8oMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=john+adams&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tsYaVZfYHoOWyATT2YCwDg&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAQ
I'm pretty sure he's talked about American Lion by Jon Meacham at some point. It's about how badass and crazy Andrew Jackson was.
darkwingduckdunn: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link
I went to the Library once and read http://www.amazon.com/American-Lion-Andrew-Jackson-White/dp/0812973461 American Lion. It was a total white wash of the most important part of this dudes life, ending a central bank subverting the interests' of the Republic. So
TL;DR: New York times awarded journalists subscribe to the globalist version of history.
I went to the Library once and read http://www.amazon.com/American-Lion-Andrew-Jackson-White/dp/0812973461 American Lion. It was a total white wash of the most important part of this dudes life, ending a central bank subverting the interests' of the Republic. So
TL;DR: New York times awarded journalists subscribe to the globalist version of history.