My fascination with the Jacksons' began when I was eleven and
I visited Tennessee with my grandparents. What an idyllic trip it was. I was fascinated
by the Hermitage and the story of Andrew and Rachel and the scandal of her
previous marriage which haunted their lives.
Irving Stone is a craftsman. I have read at least one of his
books: The Agony and the Ecstasy about Michelangelo.
I was more into by the pre-marriage friendship and
courtship of the Jacksons’ and the dramatization of her difficult relationship
with her first husband. Unrequited love is exceedingly romantic. Post
consummated love is dull. But that’s my own hang up. There’s a reason why I love
the Brontes' and can’t stand the last four minutes of the more recent movie version of Pride and Prejudice which
shows the Darcys in their domestic life. Blah.
So I skimmed the last part which was full of the ups and
downs of their economic endeavors and which revealed the political drive that
kept Andrew involved and climbing the ladder of politics despite Rachel’s
desire for a quiet life out of the limelight that was so painful to her. He
seemed to be quite the dreamer and risk taker but had that homespun frontier
quality that was so endearing and comforting to the people – that rugged
quality that rural America is drawn to – much to the bewilderment of urbanites and
Europeans. It hearkens back to my review of a Davy Crockett biography.
The book portrays the couple as having an enduring bond which
united them despite the disappointment of infertility and the painful shaming
that was directed at them due to them accidentally marrying before her divorce
was finalized.
We can look at times past with great nostalgia, but there is
no doubt that every era has its own evils. The way that Rachel Jackson was
vilified and persecuted is tragic - sometimes because of social fear mongering
– alternately for political gain.
They certainly lived at an epic pulse. There’s something
about that burning up daylight hours to be in the arena for one's short life
that’s appealing. But I also feel the call of the fireside like Rachel. I think
people really felt the power to affect change in the political arena. I’m not
sure how possible that is now but perhaps I’m too much the cynic. The political
machines were whirling then as they are now I suppose. Money and power, power
and money. Age old saga. Dominance hierarchies are permanently in motion from
the playground to the Capitol.
