Your Daily Newt: Obama Would Make Andrew Jackson Want to Vomit

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


78 year-old Andrew Jackson.: Wikimedia CommonsSources say 244 year-old former president Andrew Jackson is privately seething over President Obama’s reluctance to have his political opponents shot: Wikimedia CommonsAs a service to our readers, every day we are delivering a classic moment from the political life of Newt Gingrich—until he either clinches the nomination or bows out.

The Associated Press’ Ken Thomas reported on Monday that Newt Gingrich, “speaking at the Tennessee state capitol, says Andrew Jackson would have been ‘enraged by Barack Obama.”

We’ll take a look at that last claim.

The facts: Historians agree that “rage” was a defining character trait of our seventh president. This is the same Andrew Jackson who, after a Nashville man insulted his wife, promised to “follow him over land and sea” until Jackson had the opportunity to kill him (he did). He challenged the first lawyer he ever argued a case against to a duel. He invaded Spanish Florida without authorization, singlehandedly drove future Sen. Thomas Benton from the state of Tennessee after an open-air gunfight (prefaced with the immortal line, “I am going to punish you”), and as a child had a tendency to “work himself into fits of rage so paralyzing that contemporaries recalled he would begin ‘slobbering.'”

Jackson spent much of his life in acute pain from the bullets lodged in his chest and left arm. That produced a natural state of irascibility. Or at least it would have if it’d happened to us. From a policy standpoint, Jackson had a 19th-century southern plantation owner’s view on race (in addition to serving as president, Jackson was a 19th-century plantation owner) and owned more than three dozen slaves—something that struck him in as not at all morally wrong. His views on human rights, checks and balances, internal improvements, and finance would be anathema to a large swath of today’s public. And like we said, he had a habit of discharging firearms at people he didn’t like.

Our ruling: There are some definite areas of agreement—Jackson was an unabashed proponent of class warfare, for instance, suggesting he’d be sympathetic to Obama’s embrace of the 99 percent. His invasion of Florida in pursuit of the Seminole was cited by the Department of Justice in a memo justifying Obama’s Guantanamo detainee policy. Nonetheless, Andrew Jackson, a man whose reputation was built in large part on acts of unbridled rage, would likely have been enraged by Barack Obama. Jackson, who allied with pirates at the Battle of New Orleans, might also wonder why the President has adopted such a hostile policy to Somali pirates. And Obama’s insistence on adhering to the 13th and 14th amendments would be a particular sore point. The bottom line is Washington, through the extension of civil rights to women and minorities in the decades since the Civil War, would have become something totally unrecognizable to Old Hickory. Andrew Jackson fear change. Andrew Jackson angry. Andrew Jackson smash.

We rate this claim “mostly true.”

Take the next step: Help us fight for the truth.

Investigative journalism, like the story you just read, takes time to do. Months of research. Weeks of writing, editing, and fact checking—and putting together the photography, art, video, and audio that tell the stories in a new way, illuminating new perspectives and voices.

We can afford to take that time because we don’t report to an oligarch or corporation with a special agenda. We report to you, and for you. That’s why we unabashedly pursue the truth and relentlessly shine a light into the darkness.

In this month’s Summer Membership Drive, we’ve got to raise $200,000 to support more crucial investigations. This is a pivotal moment in our nation, with democracy on the line, and we can only do this work because readers like you step up. Every donation, of any amount, makes a difference here. We cannot do this work without you.

So, we’re asking: Will you support independent journalism that demands those in power answer for their actions?

Take the next step: Help us fight for the truth.

Investigative journalism, like the story you just read, takes time to do. Months of research. Weeks of writing, editing, and fact checking—and putting together the photography, art, video, and audio that tell the stories in a new way, illuminating new perspectives and voices

We can afford to take that time because we don’t report to an oligarch or corporation with a special agenda. We report to you, and for you. That’s why we unabashedly pursue the truth and relentlessly shine a light into the darkness.

In this month’s Summer Membership Drive, we’ve got to raise $200,000 to support more crucial investigations. This is a pivotal moment in our nation, with democracy on the line, and we can only do this work because readers like you step up. Every donation, of any amount, makes a difference here. We cannot do this work without you.

So, we’re asking: Will you support independent journalism that demands those in power answer for their actions?

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate