h2g2 Literary Corner: Getting the Skinny on Andrew Jackson
Created | Updated Jan 1, 2017
Do you have trouble sorting out fake news from real stories? Do you think this is a new problem? Here's a sample of fact-checking from the 19th Century.
Getting the Skinny on Andrew Jackson
Ed notes: William Joseph Snelling (1804-1848) was born in Boston. When he grew up, he went out west to Minnesota, which was a frontier back then. He lived with the Dakotas for awhile. Snelling was a journalist, a poet, and an adventurer. He made a lot of enemies with his forthright truth-telling. From his writings, Snelling also appears to have been an assiduous fact-checker1.
Andrew Jackson was 1828's version of Donald Trump. Meaning: he won the election, which was a very nasty business2. His supporters loved him, and believed he represented the common man. (And we do mean 'man', not 'person'.) His detractors thought he was worse than the Plague. While we can't swear that Jackson's lie rate was anywhere near what has been clocked for Mr Trump, the General was known to prevaricate upon occasion3. We're not sure what the real story was behind that 2016 presidential hopeful's claim to have stabbed a man in his youth. But Jackson's duelling exploits were the stuff of urban legend back in the day.
William Joseph Snelling says this in the preface to his 1831 book about Jackson:
'We doubt not that his wisest friends would desire that most of the acts of his life should be buried in oblivion, as the only means of saving his reputation, and that of the nation which tolerated them. This desirable consummation has been prevented by the reckless folly of some of his adherents, who, not content that his errors should be forgotten or forgiven, demand that they should be applauded.
I think we get the idea. Snelling obviously felt about Andrew Jackson more or less the way Keith Olbermann feels about Mr Trump. But Snelling has taken a different tack. He's fact-checking the president. He's got footnotes. Snelling seems to figure the truth will out. Want to see for yourself? Try reading A brief and impartial history of the life and actions of Andrew Jackson, 1831. See? History's not boring. It's news and gossip in sepia. Have fun!
Andrew Jackson Fights a Duel
An excerpt from Snelling's book:
What are called the laws of honor are more rigidly observed in the West4 than here, and though the practice of duelling can never have the sanction of good men, yet in particular situations many
circumstances may palliate its turpitude5. An individual only yields his right of self-redress for the benefit of society, on condition that the laws shall protect him when attacked. But where the state of manners and morals is such that a man is shut out from society for suffering an insult to pass unavenged, the law can afford him no compensation for the injury; and it has been alleged that he may defend his honor, or, in other words, his worldly reputation6, with as much propriety as he may defend his purse and life against a highwayman. But this excuse can never serve the aggressor, or him who puts himself in the way of a quarrel. Whether this reasoning be just or not we leave to better casuists to decide, but certain it is that in the West, a man who declines revenging an affront, puts himself into the condition of an outcast. These remarks are drawn from us by a duel that took place between judge Jackson and a Mr. Dickenson, in 1806, in which the former, if he gave evidence of a high sense of honor, did not show much dignity or command of temper.
Mr. Dickenson was a promising young gentleman, much respected by the community. He was much addicted to horse-racing, as was judge Jackson; and the controversy grew out of a match between them for five thousand dollars. Mr. Dickenson lost the race and his temper together, and declared before the assembled multitude, that judge Jackson's rider had conducted unfairly. The judge, as sudden and quick in quarrel as the other, on hearing this charge, declared that if any one accused his rider of foul play, he would make it a personal affair. Dickenson replied, that as he had never known his servant to be guilty of an untruth he must believe him on this occasion. Both were now highly excited, and an altercation ensued, in which decorum was slightly regarded, and which brought Dickenson a challenge from judge Jackson. It was accepted.
They met, and it was agreed that they should fight with pistols, at the distance of ten paces.
The word was given, and the duellists both drew their triggers at the same instant. Dickenson's
bullet grazed Jackson's body without doing him any injury. Jackson's pistol missed fire and now,
as he had had time to reflect, and had given sufficient proof of his firmness, and as his life was in
no farther danger, he would have done well to waive his right to fire. But no such consideration
withheld his hand. While Dickenson stood silently, waiting the result, Jackson coolly cocked his pistol, took deliberate aim, and shot him dead.
This action excited the public indignation against judge Jackson, and his subsequent conduct was still more reprehensible. The death of his victim awakened general sorrow, and his memory was honored with testimonials of the respect of his fellow-citizens. Several of the inhabitants of the town requested the editor of the Nashville Review to dress the columns of his paper in mourning; but judge Jackson interfered to prevent it, and menaced those who had suggested the measure with his displeasure. This induced them to withdraw their request. It must be owned that this extension of enmity beyond the grave does our hero little honor, and we see that his admiring biographers have passed the whole affair over in silence. So will not we; we begun with the intention of telling the truth, and we intend to tell the whole truth.
[Snelling goes on to discuss accusations that Jackson was known to have met with Aaron Burr, the former vice president of the United States who was tried for treason in 1807 on the charge of trying to set up his own personal country in Texas. Plus ça change.]
