American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House

Jackson aimed to push Indigenous Americans west of the Mississippi to make land available for Southern states eager to expand cotton cultivation. While existing treaties guaranteed Indigenous land rights, Jackson dismissed Indigenous Americans’ claims to their lands, demanding they either submit to state laws or relocate. The immediate case involved the Creek tribe, and Jackson used it as a pretext to advocate for displacement, promising peace and permanence if the Creek moved west. Jackson’s actions were part of a long history of white settlers displacing Indigenous Americans, motivated by a mix of religious zeal and hunger for land.

As Jackson assumed the presidency, the desire for Indigenous land became more pressing and contentious. Earlier presidents like Monroe and Adams had also devised displacement plans, but Jackson viewed the tribes as direct threats and pushed aggressively for their relocation. This stance polarized opinions, with Jackson’s opponents shifting their positions to oppose displacement despite having supported it earlier. Jackson’s administration faced increasing demands from states like Georgia, which claimed Cherokee lands, setting the stage for a confrontation. Jackson sought congressional approval for displacement, unwavering in his belief that it was necessary and justified.

Jackson believed that adding Indigenous lands to the US through conquest was vital for national safety. In communications with government officials, he stressed the need to push Southern tribes west of the Mississippi to strengthen America’s southern borders with a white population. Jackson did not view Indigenous Americans as autonomous and sought to manage them for the benefit of white America. Despite humanitarian and missionary efforts to argue for Indigenous rights, the white imperialist agenda of acquiring more land and exerting complete control prevailed. Jackson’s stance on displacement was an exaggerated but mainstream view at the time, as he advocated for forced displacement where predecessors had suggested “voluntary” emigration.

In the early months of Jackson’s presidency, John Eaton considered resigning from his Cabinet position due to the strong prejudice against him and Margaret. Emily Donelson noted in a letter to her mother on May 10 that Eaton had discussed resigning, believing it might be the best course of action. However, Jackson’s staunch support for Eaton prevented such a decision. Had Eaton resigned, possibly taking a diplomatic post or running for governor in Tennessee, it could have brought peace to Jackson’s family and altered the political dynamics between Calhoun and Van Buren. Without the Eaton controversy, Van Buren would have needed a different strategy to win Jackson’s favor, as Calhoun believed the Eaton Affair was driving Jackson’s growing animosity toward him. Even if Eaton had resigned, Jackson’s resentment toward Calhoun might have persisted, but the rivalry between Calhoun and Van Buren would have taken a different path. Ultimately, Eaton chose to remain, supported by Jackson, leading to continued conflict and division within the administration.

Jackson and his circle learned to navigate this social and political landscape. Jackson’s charm offensive extended to making personal calls and showing deference to established figures, which helped keep the old guard off balance. However, not everything in Washington was as it seemed. Clergymen like Reverend John Campbell Ely, who should have been above the fray, were instead spreading scandalous stories. Jackson’s own family failed to enthusiastically support his wishes regarding the Eatons, and his vice president was hostile to the Union’s supremacy. Van Buren emerged as a stabilizing figure for Jackson. Van Buren, understanding the importance of political alliances, sought to maintain warm relations even with former president John Quincy Adams. He paid a courtesy visit to Adams with Jackson’s approval, recognizing the potential future benefits of such a gesture. Adams, although no longer in power, appreciated the attention, and the visit was seen as a step toward reestablishing friendly relations. Van Buren, aiming to stay on good terms with everyone, carefully navigated the issue of Margaret Eaton. He sided with Eaton and upset Emily when he suggested that she was influenced by Washington’s elite.

In the summer of 1829, tensions were high among Jackson’s close circle due to the Eaton controversy. Rumors spread in Washington about Margaret’s alleged power over Jackson and her involvement in political appointments, contributing to unease in the capital. Critics suggested Margaret’s influence complicated Jackson’s administration and cast doubt on the integrity of political decisions. Andrew Donelson was increasingly worried about his and Emily’s future as the Eatons gained influence with Jackson. In August, Reverend Campbell confided to Andrew that he had provided information fueling the rumors against Margaret Eaton. When Jackson found out that it was Campbell spreading the rumors, he sought proof that they were false. He found what he believed was conclusive proof in papers written by Timberlake, Margaret’s former husband.

In mid-September 1829, rumors about the conflict between President Jackson and clergymen like Campbell were spreading through Washington, though many details were unclear. The controversy involved a special Cabinet meeting with Reverend John Campbell and the secretaries, during which Jackson fiercely defended Margaret against allegations of impropriety.

While Jackson struggled to influence the social circles of Washington, he asserted his authority in other areas. He placed his supporters in federal offices, subtly threatened Nicholas Biddle (the president of the Bank), made clear his intentions toward Indigenous Americans, and initiated a secret diplomatic mission to improve trade relations with Turkey. In the autumn of 1829, Biddle visited Jackson. Jackson expressed his general distrust of banks, rooted in a personal history of near financial ruin due to speculative ventures. Though he was skeptical, he appreciated Biddle’s plan to eliminate the national debt by the anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans in 1833 and promised to acknowledge this achievement in his upcoming message to Congress. However, Jackson also noted ongoing complaints about the Bank, suggesting that his approval was not unconditional. Biddle, perhaps selectively interpreting Jackson’s remarks, felt reassured and satisfied with their exchange.

As Jackson prepared his first annual message to Congress, he articulated his vision for a direct connection between the presidency and the people. He proposed constitutional amendments for direct presidential elections and limiting presidents to a single term to prevent despotism. Jackson believed the presidency should protect the people against entrenched interests, advocating for the removal of officeholders as a public service. Unlike earlier presidents, he believed in directly appealing to the broader public, suspecting that elites prioritized their interests over the common good. This conviction stemmed from his 1824-25 defeat, which he saw as the result of elite manipulation. In his message, Jackson advocated for limiting the federal government’s role while emphasizing the presidency’s centrality. He called for moderate tariff reform and highlighted the benefits of retiring the national debt, reflecting his wariness of centralized power and special interests. Jackson also addressed Indigenous displacement, acknowledging the moral arguments against it. However, he argued that displacement or submission to state laws was the only solution given past policy failures. Emigration, he insisted, should be voluntary but would be inevitable if the tribes remained within state boundaries.

Debates began to arise in the Senate about slavery, states’ rights, and presidential power. Senator Foot of Connecticut proposed limiting the sale of public lands; his move was criticized by some as targeting the West and setting a dangerous precedent. Sensing an opportunity, Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina delivered a states’ rights manifesto, emphasizing Southern grievances and describing the tariff as a prelude to abolition. Hayne argued for the independence of states and warned against the consolidation of federal power, suggesting that local control was essential for the system to function effectively. Hearing Hayne’s words, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts saw an opportunity to address the nature of the Union itself. He criticized the South Carolinian advocates of nullification, warning against viewing the Union as merely a matter of profit and loss. Hayne responded by defending slavery, advocating for nullification, and extolling the independence of the states.

Webster and Hayne attended a White House levee amid their ongoing Senate debate. Webster, defending the Union with passion and eloquence, saw his speech as a defining moment. Though Jackson and Webster differed on many issues, they found common ground on preserving the Union. Webster’s emotional appeal—that the Union was sacred and perpetual—contrasted with Calhoun and Hayne’s constitutional arguments. This message of “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable” transformed the debate (129), making allegiance to the Union a more compelling and emotional cause. However, Calhoun’s allies hinted at the possibility of secession if Southern grievances weren’t addressed.

In late May 1830, President Jackson faced crucial decisions on the tariff and federally funded internal improvements, such as roads and canals. The funds from the tariff supported projects that mainly benefited the middle states and the West, creating skepticism about large federal government involvement. Jackson and Van Buren preferred minimal government interference in the market and worried about corruption and unequal distribution of resources from localized federal projects. A bill for the Maysville Road in Kentucky, part of Henry Clay’s state, came to Jackson for approval. Van Buren argued against it, suggesting it was politically motivated rather than for the public good. Jackson agreed, preferring interstate projects over local ones. He vetoed the bill. In the weeks following the Maysville veto, President Jackson relished his strategic use of the veto power, recognizing it as a constitutional tool he could wield at will.

Jeremiah Evarts, a Christian reformer, passionately opposed Jackson’s Indigenous displacement policy, viewing it as an unprecedented injustice. Evarts argued that America had sinned against Indigenous Americans before but that Jackson’s proposed legislation was a systematic betrayal of moral principles. The bill authorizing Indigenous displacement sparked intense debate, particularly around Jackson’s disregard for existing treaties with the tribes. Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, supported by Evarts, led the opposition, emphasizing the moral and ethical implications of the displacement. Frelinghuysen’s speeches appealed to Americans’ sense of justice, raising questions about Jackson’s overreach and despotic tendencies.

In a letter to Jackson in June 1831, Margaret Eaton accused the Donelsons of unkind treatment. Jackson confronted Andrew Donelson, expressing his frustration and suggesting the Donelsons leave Washington if they could not conform to his expectations. During this period, Jackson planned to advance his Indigenous displacement agenda and invited the Eatons to join him in Tennessee. Andrew felt defeated as the Eatons accepted, fearing the loss of his influence over Jackson. Jackson’s friend John Coffee attempted to mediate. Coffee brokered a temporary truce, convincing Emily to receive Margaret courteously. However, Emily reconsidered and refused to meet Margaret, fearing it would undermine her position in Washington society. In response, Jackson announced that neither Emily nor Margaret would return to Washington with him.

Jackson and John Eaton invited the Chickasaw, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Creek tribes to discuss their displacement to lands west of the Mississippi River. Only the Chickasaws attended, and Jackson pressured them to submit to the laws of Mississippi and relocate. Through bribes and negotiations, the Chickasaws agreed, though the deal later fell apart. Subsequently, Eaton and John Coffee arranged the displacement of the Choctaws, culminating in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek on September 27, 1830. This treaty exchanged 5 million Choctaw acres in Mississippi for 13 million acres west of Arkansas, marking the first displacement under the 1830 law. In March 1831, the Supreme Court ruled on a case concerning the Cherokees’ legal rights. Chief Justice John Marshall’s majority opinion acknowledged the Indigenous Americans’ plight but refrained from ruling in their favor, declaring the Cherokee a “domestic dependent [nation]” (152). Marshall suggested that the Court might reconsider in a future case but avoided confrontation with Jackson and Georgia.