Andrew Jackson vs Donald Trump

A comparison of moral controversies on the Campaign trail.

The morality of political campaigning has always been a contentious issue, deeply influenced by the cultural, social, and political contexts of the time. This thesis explores the subjectivity of morality in political campaigns by comparing the controversies surrounding Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, with those of modern-day President Donald Trump. Both figures are known for their populist appeal, contentious actions, and the moral debates their campaigns have sparked.

Andrew Jackson: A Life of Controversy and Influence

Andrew Jackson, born on March 15, 1767, in the Waxhaws region straddling North and South Carolina, rose from humble beginnings to become one of the most influential and controversial figures in American history. His life was marked by significant achievements, personal controversies, and a steadfast commitment to his principles.

Early Life and Marriage

Andrew Jackson’s early life was characterized by hardship and resilience. Orphaned by the age of 14, Jackson’s early experiences shaped his tenacity and fierce sense of independence. In 1791, Jackson married Rachel Donelson Robards, believing her previous marriage to Captain Lewis Robards had ended in divorce.

This misunderstanding led to their initial marriage being invalid. When they discovered the divorce was not finalized, they legally remarried in 1794 after the divorce was officially granted. This marriage controversy would later resurface and haunt Jackson throughout his political career, providing ample ammunition for his political adversaries (Brands, 2005).

Similarly, Donald Trump’s personal life has been scrutinized heavily in the political arena. His three marriages, accusations of infidelity, and allegations of sexual misconduct have all been focal points of moral controversy. Critics argue that such behaviors reflect poorly on his character and fitness for office, while supporters often dismiss these concerns as irrelevant to his political capabilities.

Military Career and the War of 1812

Jackson gained national fame as a military hero during the War of 1812, particularly after his decisive victory at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. His leadership and strategic acumen in this battle earned him national recognition and the nickname “Old Hickory” for his toughness and resilience (Remini, 1999).

Though His treatment of Native Americans, harsh disciplinary measures, use of martial law, and conduct during the Battle of New Orleans all highlight the ethical dilemmas inherent in his leadership. While Jackson is celebrated for his military acumen and contributions to American territorial expansion, his actions also raise important questions about the ethical responsibilities of military leaders and the moral costs of their decisions. Nonetheless, Jackson’s military success laid the groundwork for his subsequent political career, showcasing his ability to lead and inspire.

Trump, on the other hand, built his public image through his business ventures and television presence, particularly as the host of “The Apprentice.” His reputation as a successful businessman and a no-nonsense leader became central to his political brand. However, the moral scrutiny he faced, including accusations of financial misdeeds and unethical business practices, parallels the scrutiny Jackson faced over his personal and military actions.

The Dickinson Duel

Jackson’s fiery temper and sense of honor often led him into conflicts. One of the most notorious incidents was his duel with Charles Dickinson on May 30, 1806. The feud began over a horse race bet and escalated when Dickinson insulted Rachel, calling her a bigamist. In the duel, Dickinson shot Jackson in the chest, but Jackson stood firm and fatally wounded Dickinson. Jackson carried the bullet near his heart for the rest of his life, suffering chronic pain. This duel cemented Jackson’s reputation for personal honor and toughness, illustrating his willingness to defend his and his wife’s honor at all costs (Meacham, 2008). Murder’s a guy because that second round is against duel standards…..but he’s validated as the result.

In the modern context, Trump’s approach to personal insults and challenges has been markedly different but equally controversial. Known for his use of social media, particularly Twitter, Trump has engaged in numerous public feuds, often using harsh and derogatory language. For some the communication is a sign of authenticity, wit, and a rebuke of the Political Class at large; for others, it is the mockery of an arrogant person that doe not presidential standards.

Presidential Campaigns and Rachel’s Death

Jackson’s political career was marked by his populist appeal and connection to the common man. He ran for president in 1824 but lost to John Quincy Adams in a contentious election decided by the House of Representatives. Jackson claimed the outcome was a “corrupt bargain,” which further fueled his determination (Wilentz, 2005).

He ran again in 1828 and faced vicious personal attacks from Adams’ supporters, who seized on the controversy surrounding his marriage. They accused Rachel of bigamy, deeply affecting both Jackson and his wife. Despite these attacks, Jackson won the election decisively, as many voters sympathized with him and viewed the accusations as unjust. Rachel’s health deteriorated under the stress of the campaign, and she died in December 1828, just weeks before Jackson took office. Jackson blamed his political enemies for her suffering, and her death profoundly affected him as he entered the presidency with a sense of personal loss and vindication (Brands, 2005).

Similarly in today’s 2024 Election, one of the primary criticisms towards Trump’s campaign has been oriented around infidelity and a bribery case with Stormy Daniels. And equally similar, both presidents have openly stated their vindictive mindset to their campaign plights.

The Inauguration and White House Party

Jackson’s inauguration on March 4, 1829, was marked by an infamous open house reception. Inviting the public to the White House, thousands of people attended, causing chaos and significant damage to the mansion. Overcrowded rooms led to broken furniture and stained carpets. Jackson was forced to leave the party through a window to escape the throngs of people.

The crowd eventually moved to the White House lawn, where the celebrations continued. This event underscored Jackson’s populist approach but also highlighted the challenges of hosting such large public gatherings (Remini, 1981).

In a modern parallel, Trump’s presidency culminated in the events of January 6, 2021, when his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Trump had invited supporters to Washington, D.C., for a rally, where he repeated claims of a stolen election. The ensuing riot led to significant damage, the deaths of several individuals, and a profound crisis in American democracy. Critics argue that Trump’s rhetoric incited the violence, while his supporters contend that he merely exercised his right to free speech.

Both events reflect the potential consequences of populist leadership and the moral complexities of inciting public action. Jackson’s lawn party and Trump’s rally both spiraled into chaos, raising questions about the responsibility of leaders to manage their influence over the masses.

The Indian Removal Act and Immigration Policy Efforts

Andrew Jackson’s presidency is particularly noted for the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which mandated the relocation of Native American tribes from their ancestral lands in the southeastern United States to territories west of the Mississippi River. This policy led to the infamous Trail of Tears, during which thousands of Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation on their forced march to the designated Indian Territory (Howe, 2007).

The Indian Removal Act was justified under the guise of “Manifest Destiny,” a belief that American expansion across the continent was both justified and inevitable. Jackson framed this policy as a means to further American greatness by acquiring valuable land for white settlers and expanding the nation’s territory. However, this came at a severe moral and humanitarian cost, as it involved the forced displacement and suffering of Native American populations.

In a contemporary context, Trump’s immigration policies have also been framed as efforts to “Make America Great Again.” His administration implemented strict measures such as the travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries, the family separation policy at the US-Mexico border, and increased deportations. These policies aimed to control immigration and protect American jobs and security, often resonating with his base’s desire for national restoration and security (Brands, 2020).

While the contexts and specifics differ, both Jackson’s and Trump’s policies reflect a broader narrative of American greatness and national improvement through exclusionary and often harsh measures. Jackson’s Manifest Destiny sought physical expansion through land acquisition, whereas Trump’s policies focused on restricting immigration to safeguard perceived American values and opportunities.

Language and Insults: Targeting Minority Groups

Both Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump utilized inflammatory and derogatory language towards minority groups, which significantly impacted their public perception and the ethical evaluations of their leadership.

Andrew Jackson’s Language Towards Native Americans and Minorities

Jackson’s language and policies towards Native Americans were often dehumanizing and dismissive. He frequently referred to Native Americans in derogatory terms, viewing them as obstacles to American expansion and progress. Jackson’s rhetoric emphasized their supposed inferiority and the necessity of their removal for the benefit of white settlers. For instance, Jackson once stated:

“Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country, and philanthropy has been long busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth… But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another.” (Jackson, 1830)

Such language framed the forced removal and suffering of Native Americans as an inevitable and even necessary process for American progress, reflecting a deep-seated disregard for their rights and humanity.

Donald Trump’s Language Towards Immigrants and Minorities

Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency were marked by similarly inflammatory rhetoric towards immigrants and minority groups. His statements often painted these groups in a negative light, using fearmongering and derogatory terms to rally his base. One of the most infamous instances was his speech announcing his candidacy in 2015, where he stated:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” (Trump, 2015)

Furthermore, Trump’s rhetoric towards Muslims was particularly harsh. He called for increased surveillance of Muslim communities, stating:

“We’re going to have to do certain things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago… We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.” (Trump, 2015)

Additionally, Trump proposed a total ban on Muslims entering the United States, stating:

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on… We have no choice. We have no choice… And it’s not about religion. This is about safety. This is about security. This is about survival.” (Trump, 2015)

This language fueled xenophobic and Islamophobic sentiments and justified strict immigration policies, similar to how Jackson’s rhetoric justified the harsh treatment of Native Americans. Both leaders used such language to galvanize support among their bases, leveraging fear and prejudice to achieve their political goals.

Not The Same Human - Just Similar Social Attacks

Despite their similarities in using populist rhetoric and facing significant controversies, Donald Trump and Andrew Jackson differ fundamentally in their core values. Trump, a business mogul turned politician, places a high value on popularity and wealth, often leveraging his financial success and media presence to bolster his political image. His approach emphasizes personal brand and public appeal, reflecting his background in the entertainment and business worlds.

In contrast, Andrew Jackson, a military hero and statesman, was driven by principles and a sense of duty. Jackson’s actions, whether during his military campaigns or his presidency, were often rooted in a deep commitment to what he perceived as the national interest and his unwavering belief in the principles of democracy and federal union. This difference underscores a significant divergence in their motivations and approaches to leadership.

References

• Brands, H. W. (2005). Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. Doubleday.

• Brands, H. W. (2020). The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace. Anchor.

• Howe, D. W. (2007). What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. Oxford University Press.

• Jackson, A. (1830). “Second Annual Message to Congress.” Retrieved from The American Presidency Project.

• Meacham, J. (2008). American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. Random House.

• Remini, R. V. (1981). The Life of Andrew Jackson. Harper & Row.

• Remini, R. V. (1999). Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans. Viking.

• Trump, D. J. (2015). “Presidential Announcement Speech.” Retrieved from Time.

• Trump, D. J. (2015). “Donald Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration.” Retrieved from Politico.