Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson both had many defining characteristics and similarities. They were both strong Presidents while in office, and changed the way the Nation ran and operated, and left their marks on the country. This essay will explore the various examples of these characteristics and traits, and compare the two great Presidents.
Andrew Jackson was the first President to insist that he was the ultimate decision maker in the country. He enhanced the power of the executive branch many times over, and refused to enforce laws or rulings that he did not agree with, and his adversaries soon learned that it was completely futile to try to pass laws that they knew Jackson didn't agree with. His actions then are quite possibly the cause for the Oval office being the supreme voice of power in the United States, and the world, today. He was a powerful person of commanding size and stature, and his word was as good as law. He was a very strong general in the Seminole wars, but negotiated humane and fair treaties with the Indians when the time came for them to be relocated once more. He was not so level headed when it came to insults directed at his wife however, and embarked on a personal vendetta to avenge her death that he believed was caused by the many insults she faced caused him to make many rash decisions. He was known for his power and control, and during the Nullification Crisis with South Carolina, he marched his army into the state's capital and forced them to comply with the new law, stating that he would personally hang the first man who stood up in opposition. He didn't start any wars, but felt very strongly about the British because of the terrible things that he had suffered under them.
Abraham Lincoln is, in my opinion, one of the most misunderstood characters in all of American history. He pushed the South into starting the bloodiest war in the history of the United States,(page 269, Kennedy) and was assassinated, which is why no one detects his faults anymore. In fact, he had many undesirable characteristics that are not often mentioned, such as the fact that he didn't actually go to war to free the slaves as is commonly thought, but rather to preserve the Union (pg. 269, Kennedy). At the start of the war he specifically mentioned slaves, saying that the purpose was not to free slaves and that he was not planning on doing so. And according to PBS.org
, Lincoln was not a strong, gung ho President as is commonly thought, but had an “essentially passive personality”. He preferred to react to a situation rather than take action, and this is one of his weakest points. He did have some very strong points, such as his honesty and his determination to keep slavery from spreading and to cloister it into the South. He was not for completely abolishing slavery, but rather for containing it in the areas that it had already spread to. This stance is what allowed him to entice the Border States to side with the Union, and if he had said he was going to abolish slavery, they would have gone with the South and changed the outcome of the war. Lincoln was also very ugly, and this cost him his Illinois senate election.
When compared to one another, I believe that Jackson was the worse man but the stronger President by far. Jackson stopped a possible war; Lincoln started one. The vast majority of people in the United States supported Jackson; Lincoln was very unpopular during the war years. Only the Federalists, whom he had defeated in two elections, disliked Jackson. He instated the spoils system in which the President chooses who receives a powerful position because of friendship or loyalty rather than skill, and refused to allow anyone to do something he didn't whole-heartedly approve of. Lincoln, on the other hand, was a slight pushover. He tried everything he possibly could before making the South initiate the war, rather than marching his armies into their capitals and commanding them to cease and desist. He didn't want to release the slaves, and only did so for the Southern slaves so as to weaken the Southern economy.
I personally don't believe that he was as contrite and pure-hearted as many people think, because of the fact that releasing the slaves was not included in his war plans. If Jackson had been firmly for the cause of abolitionism, I have no doubt in my mind that it would have been abolished without war because he had such a strong hold over the states of the Union. Although slavery was abolished completely at the end of the war, and its demise backed up by a Constitutional amendment, Lincoln was already dead by the time the amendment was passed. I do not believe Lincoln was a strong President at all, but rather a weak President who happened to find a general capable of winning the war for him, and then was immortalized by being assassinated. In all honesty, even his general, Ulysses S. Grant, would not have hoped to win a single battle if it were not for his massive amounts of troops in comparison to Lee's fairly small forces. I have no doubt in my mind that the war would have been a complete loss by Lincoln if it had been the North which revolted, and I don't think that teachers would be preaching to elementary-school children about Lincoln being the Savior of the Negro populous.
As a whole, I believe that Lincoln and Jackson were both good Presidents, but that Jackson was far superior in many ways when compared to Abraham Lincoln. He was a much stronger President in the face of war, he was supported whole-heartedly by most of America, and he stood his ground when he was confronted, rather than giving ground to his enemies again and again.
