Hopefully, by this point in the course you have learned that historical individuals are complex characters with complex motivations. It can be easy to accept that a person is inherently bad or good from reading one side of the story. Good historians look at historical figures from multiple perspectives to try to create a fuller picture of that person. History is still interpretation at the end of the day, though, so you should analyze people in history for yourself and use the evidence you discover to make an educated interpretation of the people you read about. In addition, it takes time for people to see how an event or leader plays out in the longer run. Reflecting on the past and situating the event or person in context is also an important part of being a historian.
To practice historical interpretation, here is a short excerpt from a history about Andrew Jackson. Read the document, noting the characterization of Andrew Jackson. Then, respond to each of the questions.
“There was an electrifying dynamism about Jackson that I found irresistible…[He was] the embodiment of the new American...This new man was no longer British. He no longer wore the queue and silk pants. He wore trousers, and he had stopped speaking with a British accent…Everyone has warts.(flaws) Lincoln has warts. But in the end you have to ask, ‘Does a man believe in some good things?’ He believed in this Union. He believed in this country. And he was morally surefooted in believing that government shouldn’t be for only a small segment of society, but for all of us. And by God, that’s what I want in my president.”
-Historian Dr. Robert V. Remini
Questions.
1) Summarize the document above in 1-2 sentences. What point is the author making about Jackson?
2) The author writes "Everyone has warts." What are some of the most glaring warts (flaws) that Andrew Jackson had?
3) Do you believe in his interpretation of Jackson? Why or why not?
1) The document describes Andrew Jackson as an electrifying and dynamic figure who embodies the new American. The author argues that Jackson believed in the Union, the country, and that government should serve all of society.
2) The document does not explicitly mention the specific flaws or "warts" of Andrew Jackson. However, based on historical context, some of Jackson's most glaring flaws include his treatment of Native Americans, his use of executive power, and his support for slavery.
3) Whether or not one believes in the interpretation of Jackson depends on their own analysis of the evidence and their personal perspectives. The document portrays Jackson in a positive light, highlighting his belief in the Union and government serving all of society. However, it may overlook or downplay his flaws and controversial actions. It is important for historians to consider multiple perspectives and evaluate all available evidence before forming their own interpretations.
write it like a 8th grader
The document is saying that Andrew Jackson was a really energetic and exciting person who represented the new America. The author thinks that Jackson believed in the Union, the country, and that the government should help everyone.
The author says that everyone has flaws, even great people like Abraham Lincoln. But they didn't really mention the specific flaws that Jackson had in the document.
I'm not sure if I agree with the author's interpretation of Jackson because they didn't talk about his bad actions. For example, Jackson treated Native Americans very poorly and used too much power as president. It's important to look at different perspectives and evidence before deciding what you think about someone in history.