‘‘The High Minded Honourable Man’’ Honor, Kinship, and Conflict in the Life of Andrew Jackson Donelson M A R K R . C H E AT H E M

Andrew Jackson Donelson and James K. Polk approached the President’s Mansion after taking their evening constitutional. Donelson had not been a sociable companion. His thoughts had been on his uncle, Andrew Jackson, and the many times that the two of them had walked this same path as President Jackson had pondered the ‘‘prominent events of his administration.’’ Donelson contemplated what had changed in his life since the shrubbery, which he had passed on previous strolls years ago, had matured. His wife, Emily, had died, and he had remarried. He had helped the man beside him become president and had convinced the Texas government to accept annexation. Jackson had died three months earlier, a loss from which Donelson was still recovering. Perhaps most important, he still had not achieved his uncle’s expectations of one day ‘‘be[ing] selected to preside over the destinies’’ of the nation. The chance for his own greatness was swiftly passing him by, Donelson thought.1 Donelson’s self-reflection that fall evening in 1845 may have gone even deeper than he recalled to his wife, Elizabeth. Throughout his life, he Mark R. Cheathem is an assistant professor of history at Southern New Hampshire University. He wishes to thank John F. Marszalek, Dan Feller, Jonathan M. Atkins, and William J. Rorabaugh for their comments on early drafts of this essay. He also wishes to thank Roderick McDonald and the anonymous JER reviewers for their help in revising the essay. 1. Andrew J. Donelson (hereinafter AJD) to Elizabeth R. Donelson (hereinafter ERD), Sept. 27, 1845, Andrew Jackson Donelson Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; and Andrew Jackson (hereinafter AJ) to AJD, May 20, 1822, in Harold D. Moser, David R. Hoth, and George H. Hoemann, eds., The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume 5, 1821–1824 (Knoxville, TN, 1996), 188–89. Journal of the Early Republic, 27 (Summer 2007) Copyright 䉷 2007 Society for Historians of the Early American Republic. All rights reserved.

266

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

had been intimately connected to a nationally recognized celebrity in the person of Andrew Jackson. Born into one of the elite families of middle Tennessee, the young Donelson grew up as a ward in the household of his uncle and aunt, Andrew and Rachel Jackson, after his father died. They treated him like a son, and it was under his uncle’s tutelage that he learned how to become a southern gentleman. Jackson taught him, implicitly and explicitly, that virtue was necessary to become a good citizen of the American republic; that ambition was required to survive and advance in the republic; and that honor was the key to achieving these often-conflicting goals.2 The bond between Jackson and Donelson was not simply that of a father and son, however; it also exemplified what those who study honor call the patron–client relationship. This type of relationship, as historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown describes it, consists of ‘‘a non-contractual arrangement whereby two individuals of unequal power . . . agree on the basis of mutual interest and cordiality to do favors for each other.’’ For Donelson, this meant that he received all of the benefits of being the General’s scion. His name, his education, his social status, his career—all were tied to the person and image of Andrew Jackson. In return, his uncle expected Donelson to heed his advice, pursue the goals laid out before him, perform the duties asked of him, and, above all, demonstrate

2. Donelson’s life has been covered in part and in whole in Annie Middleton, ‘‘Donelson’s Mission to Texas in Behalf of Annexation,’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 24 (April 1921), 247–91; Middleton, ‘‘The Texas Convention of 1845,’’ Southwestern Historical Quarterly 25 (July 1921), 26–62; Robert B. Satterfield, ‘‘The Early Public Career of Andrew Jackson Donelson, 1799–1846’’ (master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1948); Satterfield, ‘‘Andrew Jackson Donelson: A Moderate Nationalist Jacksonian’’ (PhD diss., The Johns Hopkins University, 1961); Satterfield, Andrew Jackson Donelson: Jackson’s Confidant and Political Heir (Bowling Green, KY, 2000); Frederick R. Walters, ‘‘The Donelson Mission to the German Federal Government, 1848–1849’’ (master’s thesis, The American University, 1964); Charles Faulkner Bryan, Jr., ‘‘The Prodigal Nephew: Andrew Jackson Donelson and the Eaton Affair,’’ East Tennessee Historical Society Publications 50 (1978), 92–112; Harriet Chappell Owsley, ‘‘Andrew Jackson and His Ward, Andrew Jackson Donelson,’’ Tennessee Historical Quarterly 41 (Summer 1982), 124–39; William Joseph Pike, ‘‘ The Public Life of Andrew Jackson Donelson’’ (master’s thesis, Southwest Texas State University, 1988); and Mark R. Cheathem, ‘‘Republicanism, Self-Interest, and Failure: The Political and Private Struggles of Andrew Jackson Donelson, 1799–1871’’ (PhD diss., Mississippi State University, 2002).

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

267

unquestionable loyalty. Violating the obligations implicit in the relationship could be disastrous for both parties.3 Donelson’s relationship with Jackson sheds light on how the southern political order functioned during the early republic. Historians have long recognized the role of honor, patriarchy, and kinship in the antebellum South, but they have not always made clear the effect of these social concepts on the career ambitions of aspiring southern politicians like Donelson. The relations between uncle and nephew also illustrate how Jackson related to his inner circle of advisors, but historians have largely ignored Donelson’s role in the so-called Kitchen Cabinet, which was minor not only because he was young but also because he defied his uncle during the Eaton affair. Donelson’s involvement in that incident, however, offers a prime example of how Jackson’s ‘‘passions’’ often ruled both his political and personal actions and how real and perceived breaches of honor could affect relationships within American political parties.4 3. Bertram Wyatt-Brown, ‘‘Andrew Jackson’s Honor,’’ Journal of the Early Republic 17 (Spring 1997), 14, 16. The literature on honor and, particularly, the patron–client bond is extensive. While Wyatt-Brown’s work speaks most directly to the Donelson–Jackson relationship, one should also consult the following works for a broader understanding of how the concept has been explained: James Scott, ‘‘Corruption, Machine Politics and Political Change,’’ American Political Science Review 63 (Dec. 1969), 1142–58; Rene´ Lemarchand and Keith Legg, ‘‘Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary Analysis,’’ Comparative Politics 4 (Jan. 1972), 149–78; Robert Kaufman, ‘‘The Patron–Client Concept and MacroPolitics: Prospects and Problems,’’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 16 (June 1974), 284–308; Luigi Graziano, ‘‘A Conceptual Framework for the Study of Clientelistic Behavior,’’ European Journal of Political Research 4 (June 1976), 149–74; Ernest Gellner and John Waterbury, eds., Patrons and Clients in Mediterranean Societies (London, 1977); Steffen Schmidt, ed., Friends, Followers and Factions: A Reader in Political Clientelism (Berkeley, CA, 1977); Saul N. Eisenstadt and Louis Roniger, ‘‘Patron–Client Relations as a Model of Structuring Social Exchanges,’’ Comparative Studies in Society and History 22 (Jan. 1980), 42–77; Howard F. Stein, ‘‘A Note on Patron–Client Theory,’’ Ethos 12 (Spring 1984), 30–36; and Sharon Kettering, ‘‘The Historical Development of Political Clientelism,’’ Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18 (Winter 1988), 419–47. 4. Drew Gilpin Faust’s A Sacred Circle: The Dilemma of the Intellectual in the Old South, 1840–1860 (Baltimore, MD, 1977) and James O. Farmer’s The Metaphysical Confederacy: James Henley Thornwell and the Synthesis of Southern Values (Macon, GA, 1986) deal to some extent with the personal connections among southern intellectuals and politicians, while Joanne B. Freeman’s Affairs of Honor: National Politics in the New Republic (New Haven, CT, 2001) looks at

268

•



JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Living a life of honor was a foundational element of antebellum southern society. As Wyatt-Brown has defined it, honor is ‘‘essentially the cluster of ethical rules, most readily found in societies of small communities, by which judgments of behavior are ratified by community consensus.’’ The three basic components of honor include, according to Wyatt-Brown, ‘‘the inner conviction of self-worth, the claim of self-assessment before the public, and the assessment of the claim by the public, a judgment based upon the behavior of the claimant.’’ ‘‘In other words,’’ he concludes, ‘‘honor is reputation.’’5 By the time Donelson came to live with his uncle, Jackson already possessed a good reputation in Tennessee, at least in some quarters. Overcoming a childhood in the Carolinas that had left him orphaned and seemingly lacking future prospects of success, he had made his name in the state through his legal practice, his marriage into the prominent Donelson family, his aggressive land speculation, and his service in the state militia. He had risen as a planter in the Nashville gentry and had even won election as Tennessee’s first representative to the U.S. House of Representatives. Not everyone thought well of him, though; Jackson’s propensity to let his temper rule his actions had resulted in some personal and political confrontations, and the years when Donelson lived with his uncle witnessed even more dramatic altercations. These included Jackson killing a man in a duel and his famous brawl with the Benton brothers on the streets of downtown Nashville. As regrettable as these incidents were, they added to Jackson’s reputation in at least one way: People understood that he was not a man they wanted to cross. To Donelson, they only served to enhance his admiration of his uncle as a strong guardian, one who could help him succeed. the familial and community ties that pervaded northern politics. Neither Andrew Burstein’s The Passions of Andrew Jackson (New York, 2003), which examines Jackson’s relationships with several of his closest prote´ge´s, nor Lorman Ratner’s Andrew Jackson and His Tennessee Lieutenants: A Study in Political Culture (Westport, CT, 1997), an interesting, but ultimately unsatisfactory, attempt to analyze Jackson’s relationship with his close political advisors in Tennessee, explore to any great extent Donelson’s place in Jackson’s inner circle. 5. Bertram Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (New York, 1982), xv, 14, 135.

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

269

Like many southern fathers and patriarchs, Jackson saw his nephew as an ‘‘extension’’ of himself and his reputation. As Donelson grew older, Jackson expected him to become his heir, if not financially, then surely politically and socially. That Donelson was Jackson’s relative and namesake but not his son and legal heir did not seem to matter, even after the Jacksons adopted another nephew in 1809 and gave him the name Andrew Jackson, Jr. Donelson remained, in Jackson’s mind, his best chance for securing his legacy. These expectations placed Donelson in a situation familiar to many young southern males, who derived ‘‘inspiration’’ from older male relatives ‘‘but also [faced] the formidable challenge of living up to almost mythological heroes from the family past.’’ In Donelson’s case, he owned not just a well-known family name but, following January 8, 1815, one associated with a national figure, the hero of the Battle of New Orleans. For many people, this latter distinction of military honor seemed to trump Jackson’s earlier problems in Tennessee; it certainly gave Donelson more reason to aspire to emulate his uncle.6 Jackson, who cared for many wards, paid special attention to Donelson, his favorite. He provided for his education through private tutors and, when it came time, had him admitted into the best schools, including the United States Military Academy in 1817 and Transylvania University in 1822. During those years, Jackson imparted numerous pieces of advice to Donelson. While Donelson was a West Point cadet, Jackson warned him to ‘‘alone intermix, with the better class of society, whose charectors are well established for their virtue, & upright conduct.’’ The General followed the example of some southern fathers when he also advised Donelson to spend time with virtuous females and ‘‘shun the intercourse of the others as you would the society of the viper or base character.’’ The company of immoral women, Jackson warned, ‘‘engender[ed] corruption, & contaminate[d] the morals, and fit[ted] the young mind for any act of unguarded baseness.’’ Above all, Jackson wanted Donelson to ‘‘part with existance, before you will tarnish your honor.’’7 Even as Donelson reached the age of maturity and began pursuing an education in law at Transylvania University, Jackson continued to impart

6. Ibid., 118, 121, 122. 7. AJ to AJD, Feb. 24, 1817, in Moser, Hoth, Hoemann, eds., The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume 4, 1816–1820 (Knoxville, TN, 1994), 91–92; and WyattBrown, Southern Honor, 195.

270

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Figure 1: From Donelson’s childhood on, Andrew Jackson was his patron and mentor (1845). Credit: The Hermitage: Home of President Andrew Jackson, Nashville, Tennessee.

lessons about life. On one occasion, he recommended that Donelson read Jane Porter’s novel, The Scottish Chiefs. In it, Donelson would find the story of Scottish hero William Wallace, a virtuous patriott, & warrior [who] was the best model for a young man—In him we find a stubborn virtue, which was never overcome by vice, it was too pure for

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

271

corruption.—we find in him the truly undaunted courage, allways ready to brave any dangers, for the relief of his country or his friend—In him we find true greatness of soul capable of true friendship, and in his enemies, a lesson from the want of it, necessary for every virtuous high minded youth to be acquainted with, that he may be guarded against that vile hypocrisy, & deceipt, that often lurks beneath a fair exterior which is cloathed with power.

In the example of Wallace’s life, Jackson judged, ‘‘you will See the great contrast between virtue & vice, between the high Minded honourable man, & the base treacherous deceiver.’’8 Jackson had no doubt that Donelson would follow Wallace’s virtuous and honorable example. ‘‘Believe me when I say to you,’’ Jackson solemnly declared, ‘‘I have watched over all your acts, and well understood (or I believe) your disposition and your feelings from your childhood and know how to appreciate them . . . your Virtue and moral course, with your talents, if life lasts, will lead you to fill the highest stations in our government.’’ There would come a day when Donelson’s ‘‘age and experience will Justify your country calling you’’ to a position of leadership. Jackson echoed these sentiments in a letter advising his prote´ge´ to speak carefully on political subjects. ‘‘One of my objects in placing you at Lexington was that you might become acquainted with the young gentlemen from various parts of the south & west,’’ Jackson wrote, ‘‘that when you enter in to professional life, . . . you may then be known—for I will not disguise, I look forward, if you live, to the time when you will be selected to preside over the destinies of america.’’9 As one historian observes, Jackson ‘‘imagined himself an infallible judge of others’’ and tended to project onto people his own fears and hopes. This was especially true with Donelson. Jackson was convinced that he recognized in Donelson a similar regard for honor and virtue. By following his uncle’s advice, which he usually did, Donelson reinforced Jackson’s trust in him and fulfilled his obligations as ‘‘son’’ and client. He was developing ‘‘the credentials and potentialities of the client [that] really mattered,’’ including rhetorical and writing skills, financial econ8. AJ to AJD, Mar. 21, 1822, in Moser, Hoth, and Hoemann, eds., Papers of Andrew Jackson, 5: 163–64; and Wyatt-Brown, ‘‘Andrew Jackson’s Honor,’’ 22. 9. AJ to AJD, Apr. 12, 1822 and May 2, 1822, Donelson Papers, Library of Congress; and AJ to AJD, May 20, 1822, in Moser, Hoth, and Hoemann, eds., Papers of Andrew Jackson, 5: 188–89.

272

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

omy, ambition, honor, virtue, and fealty. As another historian rightly notes, ‘‘patrons like General Jackson did not feel obliged to move any numbskull ahead.’’ Donelson could not count on his kinship with Jackson to make him successful; through his behavior, he had to prove himself worthy of his name.10 Just as Donelson was fulfilling his obligations as ‘‘son’’ and client, Jackson was also satisfying his responsibilities as patriarch and patron. He bestowed on his nephew every conceivable advantage—education, social and political connections, instruction on proper conduct and financial management—necessary to become a member of the southern elite. By aiding Donelson, however, Jackson was not simply looking out for his nephew’s interests; he was protecting his own reputation as well. Recent historians have noted Jackson’s propensity for surrounding himself with younger men on the make, who were bound to him with ties of kinship, honor, and loyalty. Donelson was certainly one of those young men. He had to have understood, though, that his unique relationship with Jackson required him to make extra efforts to protect his uncle’s social and political standing and to prove his worthiness as a member of Jackson’s elite inner circle.11 To do so, Donelson sacrificed his law practice to help Jackson during his presidential campaigns of 1824 and 1828. While not a leading member of the Nashville Junto, a group of Jackson’s political allies in Tennessee who orchestrated his campaigns, Donelson played a role in its activities. He continued his unofficial role as Jackson’s private secretary, assisting him in answering correspondence and writing public statements. When Jackson’s enemies published or alluded to correspondence that they said would incriminate the General in scandals, Donelson assumed the responsibility to ascertain the legitimacy and accuracy of such alleged letters and then respond appropriately. One of these attacks almost led Donelson onto the field of honor. Jackson could not have failed to notice and appreciate his nephew’s readiness to serve as his proxy in a duel.12 10. Burstein, Passions of Andrew Jackson, 218; and Wyatt-Brown, ‘‘Andrew Jackson’s Honor,’’ 18. 11. Burstein, Passions of Andrew Jackson, 103; Wyatt-Brown, ‘‘Andrew Jackson’s Honor,’’ 16, 33; and Ratner, Andrew Jackson and His Tennessee Lieutenants, 1–34. 12. Satterfield, ‘‘Moderate Nationalist Jacksonian,’’ 45–77; Draft of Andrew Jackson’s letter to the Tennessee state legislature [coauthored by Andrew J. Donel-

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

273

When Jackson won the presidency in 1828, he chose Donelson to accompany him to Washington as his private secretary, and Donelson’s wife, Emily, who was also Jackson’s niece, took the late Rachel Donelson’s place as White House hostess. This time should have been one of personal satisfaction for Donelson, but differing expectations and definitions associated with the father–son and patron–client relationships that Jackson and Donelson shared instead produced conflict between the two during the Eaton affair of Jackson’s first administration. This social scandal, which involved the marriage of Secretary of War John H. Eaton to Margaret O’Neal Timberlake, jeopardized Jackson’s political coalition and threatened to destroy the relationship between uncle and nephew. Initially, Donelson seemed unconcerned about the marriage and accompanying scandal. Instead, it was his wife, Emily, who set the tone for the Donelsons’ relationship with the Eatons in Washington. Margaret Eaton called on the Donelsons shortly after the young couple arrived in Washington in 1829, and Emily returned her call ‘‘to please Uncle.’’ But when Margaret ‘‘let it be [known] that . . . [the Donelsons] had paid her a visit and they were her best friends,’’ Emily ‘‘could not think of visiting her any more.’’ Her opinion of the embattled newlywed worsened because of Margaret’s attempts to ingratiate herself. ‘‘I have been so much

son and John H. Eaton], Oct. 12, 1825, Andrew Jackson Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; AJ to John H. Morgan and the Citizens of Fayetteville, Tennessee, July 6, 1826, Andrew Jackson memorial to the Tennessee state legislature, ca. Oct. 18, 1826, Deposition of Elizabeth Brown Craighead, Dec. 2, 1826, Deposition of Mary Henley Bowen, Dec. 21, 1826, AJD to Roger Jones, Sept. 29, 1827, in Harold D. Moser and J. Clint Clifft, eds. The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume 7, 1825–1828 (Knoxville, TN, 2002), 573, 577, 579, 594; AJD to Boyd McNairy, Aug. 15, 1828 and Aug. 16, 1828, McNairy to AJD, Aug. 16, 1828 and Aug. 19, 1828, Donelson Papers, Library of Congress; John H. Eaton (hereinafter JHE) to John Coffee, Nov. 3, 1828 and Nov. 10, 1828, Robert Dyas Collection, Tennessee State Library and Archives, Nashville, Tennessee; AJD to Coffee, Nov. 15, 1828, quoted in Satterfield, Jackson’s Confidant and Political Heir, 18; Kenneth S. Greenberg, Honor & Slavery: Lies, Duels, Noses, Masks, Dressing As a Woman, Gifts, Strangers, Humanitarianism, Death, Slave Rebellions, the Proslavery Argument, Baseball, Hunting, & Gambling in the Old South (Princeton, NJ, 1996), 62–64; Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor, 349–61; WyattBrown, ‘‘Andrew Jackson’s Honor,’’ 21–22; Steven M. Stowe, Intimacy and Power in the Old South: Ritual in the Lives of the Planters (Baltimore, MD, 1987), 24–30; and Burstein, Passions of Andrew Jackson, 140.

274

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

disgusted with what I have seen of her,’’ Emily complained, ‘‘that I shall not visit her again.’’ When John Eaton wrote Emily a patronizing letter warning her about the dangers of associating with slanderers, Andrew helped his wife compose a dismissive response.13 ‘‘I thank God in all cases where I have need of the council and advice of a friend I have one who is competent to judge for me,’’ Emily began her letter sarcastically. She made it clear that she did ‘‘not wish to decide upon any person’s character here, nor controul [sic] in any way the etiquette of this place.’’ In order to strengthen his wife’s reply, Donelson appended his own comments to Emily’s letter. He asserted that his wife had not ‘‘given credence to these allegations’’ against the Eatons. As for their future relations with the secretary of war and his wife, Donelson assured Eaton that ‘‘no one can be more ready than myself to pay to yourself and to Mrs[.] Eaton every proper mark of respect, and by my example to recommend the sentiment which justifies it to my family.’’ Anything more than that, Donelson remarked, ‘‘my regard for them, and my duty to society does not require me to go.’’14 As angry as Eaton’s lecturing made Donelson, he still did not find the exchange of letters threatening. His attitude changed, however, when on an excursion to Norfolk, Virginia, Margaret Eaton promised to have the Donelsons sent home to Tennessee for their alleged mistreatment of her. It was at this point that Donelson determined that ‘‘it was impossible that I could submit to the degradation of having a tribune of this character constituted for the purpose of determining within what limits my good

13. Emily T. Donelson (hereinafter ETD) to Polly Coffee, Mar. 27, 1829, ETD to JHE, Apr. 10, 1829, John Donelson to John Coffee, Apr. 20, 1829, in Pauline Wilcox Burke, Emily Donelson of Tennessee (2 vols., Richmond, VA, 1941), 1: 176, 177–79, 186–87; John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Autobiography of Martin Van Buren, in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1918, vol. 2. (Washington, DC, 1920), 344; JHE to ETD, Apr. 8, 1829 and Apr. 9, 1829, AJD to JHE, Apr. 10, 1829, in John Spencer Bassett and J. Franklin Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson (7 vols., Washington, DC, 1926–35), 4: 29–30. Washington’s elite women also influenced Emily’s behavior. See Catherine Allgor, Parlor Politics: In Which the Ladies of Washington Help Build a City and a New Government (Charlottesville, VA, 2000), esp. ch. 5, which deals with the Eaton affair. 14. ETD to JHE, Apr. 10, 1829, in Burke, Emily Donelson, 1: 186–87; and AJD to JHE, Apr. 10, 1829, in Bassett and Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, 4: 30.

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

275

behaviour might secure the station which I held,’’ he told Jackson later. Over the next two years, Donelson found himself forced to prove his loyalty to his uncle, who in turn was making every effort to support the Eatons and force his cabinet and Washington society to accept them, defending them in often emotional terms that went beyond simple friendship.15 Donelson’s failure to anticipate his uncle’s sensitivity on the Eaton matter is hard to fathom, given Jackson’s own marital background. The questionable relationship that his uncle began with Rachel Donelson Robards upon moving to Tennessee; his role in Rachel’s separation and divorce from her husband, Lewis Robards; the accusations that Andrew and Rachel had lived together outside of marriage—the similarities were not exact, but they were there. Donelson could hardly have missed equating Jackson’s volatile outbursts about the Eaton marriage with his uncle’s inability to defend Rachel from malicious attacks about their marriage during the 1828 presidential election and his guilt over her death shortly thereafter.16 As if Donelson’s naivete´ about Jackson’s emotional state were not enough reason to doubt him, his uncle believed that he had other reasons, two of which centered on their honor relationship. First, Donelson refused to give the Eatons the full support that his uncle bestowed upon them. He tried several attempts at compromise, but Jackson rejected each of them, demanding that Donelson acquiesce to his will as head of

15. AJD to AJ, Oct. 25, 1830, in Bassett and Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, 4: 189–91; and Burke, Emily Donelson, 1: 202–3, 205. 16. Discussions of the Jackson marriage can be found in Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Empire, 1767–1821(New York, 1977), 57–69; Burstein, Passions of Andrew Jackson, 241–48; and John Buchanan, Jackson’s Way: Andrew Jackson and the People of the Western Waters (New York, 2001), 108–19. For its use by Jackson’s political opponents during the 1828 election, see Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822– 1832 (New York, 1981), 117–21, 143–55; and Remini, The Election of Andrew Jackson (New York, 1963), 151–53, 197–98. John F. Marszalek’s The Petticoat Affair: Manners, Mutiny, and Sex in Andrew Jackson’s White House (New York, 1997) and James C. Curtis, Andrew Jackson and the Search for Vindication (Boston, MA, 1976) clearly explain the psychological and emotional connections that Jackson made between his own marriage and that of the Eatons, while Charles Faulkner Bryan, Jr., looks specifically at Donelson’s role in the Eaton uproar in ‘‘The Prodigal Nephew,’’ 92–112.

276

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Figure 2: Although she died before Jackson took over the presidency, Rachel Jackson had a profound influence on her husband’s reaction to the Eaton affair. Credit: Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LCUSZ62-25773.

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

277

the Jackson household. By refusing to honor Jackson’s requests, Donelson threatened his uncle’s patriarchal position. Jackson told his friend John Coffee that duty required that ‘‘my household should bestow equal comity to all, and the nation expects me to controle [sic] my household,’’ which Donelson was not allowing him to do. Second, the president was convinced that Donelson continued to support John C. Calhoun even after he had identified his vice-president as the source of the opposition to the Eatons. Jackson was certain that his nephew and niece were ‘‘permit[ting] themselves to be held up as the instruments, and tools, of such wickedness’’ as that perpetuated by the ‘‘great Magician’’ (Calhoun). Consorting with the enemy was an act of betrayal that Jackson found reprehensible and dishonorable, even though Donelson was more antiVan Buren than pro-Calhoun during the course of the Eaton affair.17 Until the Eaton affair, Donelson had displayed the complete loyalty that Jackson and southern society required. When he opposed the Eaton marriage and refused to associate with John and Margaret Eaton, however, he broke the southern paternalistic and patronal codes. Challenging Jackson on the Eaton issue meant violating both relationships. Southern honor demanded complete ‘‘obedience to household patriarchy,’’ which Donelson questioned. ‘‘The cardinal principle of [southern] honor,’’ according to Wyatt-Brown, ‘‘was family defense. To war against one’s own family was a violation of law—a law that, unwritten and often unspoken, superseded all other claims.’’ Donelson’s defiance of Jackson also illustrated the fragility of this patron–client relationship. ‘‘Any arrangement based upon intense expressions of mutual affection, between equals or unequals’’ in southern society, Wyatt-Brown suggests, ‘‘is bound to be brittle because both parties demand complete loyalty, complete trustworthiness. When ambitions diverge or the status and power of the parties substantially change, frustration, jealousy, hurt feelings quickly arise.’’18 Unquestionably loyal to his uncle, Donelson believed that he was simply following the advice that Jackson had given him while he was attending West Point. His uncle had warned him repeatedly to choose his friends and acquaintances carefully, taking time to ensure that they were 17. AJ to John Coffee, July 20, 1830, AJ to William B. Lewis, July 21 and July 28, 1830, in Bassett and Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, 4: 164–65, 165–66, 167. 18. Wyatt-Brown, Southern Honor, 75, 110; and Wyatt-Brown, ‘‘Andrew Jackson’s Honor,’’ 15.

278

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Figure 3: Andrew Jackson Donelson was his uncle’s private secretary in the President’s Mansion when this portrait was made (1830). Credit: The Hermitage: Home of President Andrew Jackson, Nashville, Tennessee.

virtuous and worthy of amity. Jackson had even cautioned him against interacting with immoral females. In Donelson’s opinion, Jackson’s insistence that his nephew and niece interact with the Eatons contradicted his uncle’s previous counsel. On this point, Donelson had listened and learned well. Donelson was also adhering to his personal sense of honor

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

279

as it related to his own household, particularly in regard to Emily. Unlike Jackson, who demanded absolute acquiescence to his patriarchal authority, even from Emily, Donelson believed that his duty was to protect his family from corrupt influences. One of his responsibilities was to listen to his wife, whom he believed had authority in the social sphere. In many ways, the conflict was not even between uncle and nephew, but between uncle and niece, with Donelson caught in the middle. Pulled in several different directions, he chose to respect his wife’s authority rather than yield to Jackson’s demands, a decision that was no doubt difficult, but necessary in order to maintain his sense of honor and independence. One historian describes Donelson as ‘‘Andrew Jackson’s son in that way. He stubbornly held to his view as a matter of honor, even if it meant opposing the very man who had taught him about honor in the first place.’’ Donelson made it clear that whatever damage his stand might have on his ‘‘future prospects,’’ he hoped to show that he ‘‘was not tempted by those considerations which usually assail integrity of motive and uprightness of heart.’’ Donelson’s statement, while ostensibly about himself, applied to Jackson as well. His uncle had to uphold their relationship of honor as well and not allow himself to succumb to the manipulations of a headstrong woman, a jealous advisor, or a petulant niece. Both men had a duty to maintain their loyalty; to do otherwise, they both believed, would be dishonorable.19 That is not to say that Donelson was not conflicted over his defiance of Jackson. He realized that by his actions, he risked banishment from the president’s house and administration to the family and political graveyard. (Emily, in fact, was forced into exile in Tennessee for several months in 1831, and Donelson was briefly replaced as the president’s private secretary.) But, if Donelson relented, then he would be compromising his own beliefs not only about virtue and honor, which he clearly thought were crucial to the argument, but also about control over his own household. (This, of course, was just what Jackson was saying about his household.) In a southern society built upon patriarchy and hierarchy, losing control over one’s household indicated weakness and ruin. By the time he arrived in Washington in 1829, Donelson was twentynine years old and married, had one young son, and possessed several

19. Marszalek, The Petticoat Affair, 140; and AJD to AJ, Oct. 25, 1830, in Bassett and Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, 4: 189–91.

280

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Figure 4: Emily Donelson’s involvement in the Eaton affair complicated her husband’s relationship with their uncle (1831). Credit: The Hermitage: Home of President Andrew Jackson, Nashville, Tennessee.

hundred acres of Tennessee land and the slaves needed to work that land; he even owned racehorses, just like his uncle. He was a southern planter on the rise, having become the patriarch of his own family by virtue of the benefits that Jackson, as his patriarch, had bestowed on him. He had achieved this distinction by emulating his uncle. Maintaining that position, Donelson thought, required him to continue following Jack-

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

281

Figure 5: This photograph of Margaret Eaton, wife of Secretary of War John Eaton, was taken in the 1870s. Credit: Brady-Handy Collection, Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LC-DIG-cwpbh-03801.

282

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

son’s example, even if that meant opposing his uncle. In other words, Donelson believed that controlling his household, upholding his social status, and avoiding those who were not virtuous were the most important values for preserving his honor. Ironically, belief in those same values undermined Jackson’s confidence in his nephew. The fallout from the Eaton affair did not appear to manifest itself publicly in Donelson’s relationship with Jackson. By most accounts, Donelson had proven himself a worthy political prote´ge´, and his service seemingly paid political dividends in later years. Following his time in his uncle’s administrations, Donelson received consideration for cabinet positions from two presidents (Martin Van Buren and James K. Polk), diplomatic appointments to Texas and Europe, political patronage in the form of a newspaper editorship, and the vice-presidential nomination of a major political party. He also made a name for himself on the state and local levels as well, securing appointment to various political positions in Davidson County, Tennessee, where he maintained residency most of his life, and Shelby County, Tennessee, where he spent his last years. Whatever his differences with Jackson in the Eaton controversy over loyalty and independence, Donelson reaped the political rewards of his association with his uncle. Donelson’s personal life also thrived, as he learned what it took to be an elite southern planter and politician. He and his two wives, Emily, who died in 1836, and Elizabeth, whom he married in 1841, had twelve children altogether. He owned several plantations during his lifetime, including Tulip Grove, just a short distance from Jackson’s home, the Hermitage, and additional tracts in Tennessee, Mississippi, and Arkansas. To any observer, Andrew Jackson Donelson appeared to be a successful politician, husband, father, and planter who had achieved all that his uncle expected of him. Beneath the veneer of success, however, was a man troubled by conflict, bitterness, and failure. The change in Donelson following his break with Jackson over the Eaton affair was palpable. He more frequently began exhibiting unreliable behavior. At times, Donelson boldly and energetically proclaimed his political ambition and desire to save the Union, just like Jackson; on other occasions, he displayed indecisiveness and passivity, retreating into the background when asked to contribute his talents during important political crises. He proclaimed his allegiance to Jackson and his principles and asserted his claim to the mantle of his uncle’s legacy, yet he eventually left the Democratic party and joined

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

283

Figure 6: A central figure in the Eaton affair, Martin Van Buren found himself at odds with Donelson, who was suspicious of Old Kinderhook’s motives (photograph taken between 1840 and 1862). Credit: Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LC-BH82401-5239.

former Whigs in opposing past political friends, all the while claiming that his uncle would have done the same to support the Union. Two examples of this dichotomous behavior serve as illustrations. In 1850, Donelson took part in the Nashville Convention, a meeting of

284

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

southerners to discuss the limits of federal control over the institution of slavery. Having just returned from a diplomatic mission in the German states, Donelson took a leadership role in calling a state convention to select delegates and was himself appointed as a delegate to the regional convention set for Nashville in June. At the initial meeting, however, Donelson said nothing publicly. Not until the passage of the compromise legislation of 1850 and the convening of a second meeting of southern delegates at Nashville in November did he interject himself into the public debate. By that point, it was clearly too late to affect the outcome of the proceedings. His most public statement, in fact, came after the convention had dissolved. While strong in support of the Union and in references to the example set by his uncle during the Nullification Crisis, Donelson’s public pronouncements came too late to cloak him with Jackson’s legacy of preserving the Union. While many southerners begrudgingly accepted the Compromise of 1850, they did not perceive Donelson as a leader who could protect them.20 Several years later, Donelson further undermined his claim to be Jackson’s political heir, at least to others, when he left the Democratic party in a dispute over patronage and alleged corruption and joined the KnowNothing, or American, party. During his years in the Know Nothings, Donelson made bold claims to be Jackson’s successor. In his first public acknowledgment of his break with the Democrats, Donelson blasted the ‘‘new school of Democrats’’ supporting ‘‘the treachery and imbecility of Mr. Pierce and his Cabinet.’’ Tennessee governor Andrew Johnson was part of that ‘‘new school,’’ Donelson wrote, and mirrored the northern abolitionists in his refusal to support the 1850 compromise. Donelson could only conclude that Johnson agreed with the ‘‘higher-lawism’’ and ‘‘fanaticism’’ of prominent abolitionists William H. Seward and Joshua

20. Thelma Jennings, The Nashville Convention: Southern Movement for Unity, 1848–1850 (Memphis, TN, 1980), 78, 94–97, 130–33, 194–97, 233–50 (appendix B); Jonathan M. Atkins, Parties, Politics, and the Sectional Conflict in Tennessee, 1832–1861 (Knoxville, TN, 1997), 166–67; Nashville Daily Union, Apr. 13, 1850, May 7, 1850, Sept. 26, 1850, Nov. 19, 1850, Nov. 22, 1850, Nov. 25, 1850, and Nov. 26, 1850; Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, May 7, 1850, Nov. 15, 1850, Nov. 19, 1850, Nov. 20, 1850, and Nov. 25, 1850; Washington Daily Union, June 5, 1851; and St. George L. Sioussat, ‘‘Tennessee, the Compromise of 1850, and the Nashville Convention,’’ Mississippi Valley Historical Review 2 (Dec. 1915), 323–24.

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

285

Giddings. ‘‘This trickery and humbuggery belong not to the creed of the old[-]fashioned Tennessee Democrat,’’ Donelson remonstrated, those who had ‘‘follow[ed] in the footsteps of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson’’ and fought against nullification in every form. At the party’s national meeting in Philadelphia in June 1855, Donelson regaled the Know Nothings with recollections about Jackson’s stand against Calhoun and South Carolina and warned President Pierce and his supporters ‘‘that the people are rallying, as in the days of old, to the preservation of the true principles of the constitution,’’ and their cry, as well as his, would be ‘‘Our Federal Union—it must and shall be preserved.’’21 Donelson recognized that his ‘‘speeches expose[d] me to much abuse and calumny.’’ Tennessee and national Democratic newspaper editors blasted him for trading on his uncle’s name. This ‘‘abuse’’ became physical at a July 1855 public debate between Donelson and Democrat Gideon J. Pillow, with whom Donelson had worked to secure Polk’s presidential nomination in 1844. The two men exchanged blows over their participation in the Nashville Convention, but the worst attack Donelson suffered at that meeting was verbal. After Pillow had left Donelson woozy from a blow to the head, Democrat Andrew Ewing mocked Donelson’s constant use of his uncle’s name. ‘‘He labors under the worse hallucination of supposing that the mantle of Jackson has fallen upon his shoulders, and that he could do whatever old Hickory accomplished. . . . In his blind furor and unpardonable self-importance,’’ Ewing continued, ‘‘the Maj[or] evidently forgets that’’ whatever Jackson’s fondness for him, ‘‘it was utterly impossible for him to cram his brains into another man’s head, and that his pretensions, in this particular, will but serve to remind the world of the ass that covered himself with the lion’s skin.’’ Ignoring the ridicule, Donelson continued to tout himself as Jackson’s prote´ge´, while Democrats continued to attack him throughout his 1856 campaign as the Know-Nothing vice-presidential candidate.22 Why Donelson thought it necessary to emphasize his association with 21. AJD to Allen A. Hall, editor of the Nashville Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, May 24, 1855, and AJD to E. G. Eastman, May 22, 1855, in Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, May 25, 1855; Washington Daily American Organ, May 29, 1855; and Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, June 26, 1855. 22. AJD to ERD, July 23, 1855, Donelson Papers, Library of Congress; and Columbia (Tennessee) Democratic Herald, July 21, 1855.

286

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Jackson is no mystery. What is perhaps surprising is that after the Eaton affair, the use of Jackson’s name to help Donelson get ahead largely came from Donelson himself, not from his uncle. There is no doubt that Jackson viewed Donelson differently after the Eaton affair. He continued to trust him with some responsibilities and even looked after his welfare to some extent. But Jackson also found excuses to keep his nephew from achieving the ambitions that he had been encouraging in his young ward since his earliest years. Two examples illustrate this change in the uncle and nephew relationship. In early 1837, rumors reached Donelson that Van Buren was going to ask him to serve as his secretary of war, which he did. The presidentelect praised Donelson profusely when making his offer, but then he changed his mind. In his autobiography, Van Buren wrote that he did so after consulting ‘‘a discreet and disinterested friend’’ in Tennessee. The friend, he remembered, had ‘‘thought that the appointment would cause a surprise on the part of the public and would be regarded as an advancement disproportioned to the stations he had before occupied.’’ In other words, friends and foes alike would look at Donelson’s appointment as a sop to Jackson. According to Van Buren, Jackson confirmed that ‘‘the same idea had passed through his own mind, but that he had not felt himself at liberty, under the circumstances, to suggest it.’’ With this advice fresh in his mind, Van Buren informed Donelson of his withdrawal of the offer, attributing his decision to staunch opposition from ‘‘mutual friends.’’23 When notified of Van Buren’s decision, Donelson agreed that it was important to avoid the appearance that he was receiving a position simply because of his relationship with Jackson. Such participation in Van Buren’s cabinet would only revive Whig charges of ‘‘dictation.’’ To save face, he told the president-elect that he had written his uncle ‘‘such a letter . . . as would induce you, even if the judgment of mutual friends

23. Martin Van Buren (hereinafter MVB) to AJD, Feb. 8, 1837, Martin Van Buren Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Fitzpatrick, ed., Autobiography of Martin Van Buren, 346–47; AJD to MVB, Feb. 21, 1837, ibid., 346–47; W. S. Derrick to Nicholas P. Trist, Feb. 13, 1837, Nicholas P. Trist Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; MVB to James K. Polk (hereinafter JKP), Feb. 21, 1845 [two letters], James K. Polk Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; and James C. Curtis, The Fox at Bay: Martin Van Buren and the Presidency, 1837–1841 (Lexington, KY, 1970), 57.

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

287

had created any doubt in your mind, to come to the decision which had been adopted.’’ No record of the correspondence with Jackson exists, but there is no doubt that Donelson believed that he had no other choice but to acquiesce. He was also more disappointed than he indicated to Van Buren. When it seemed that he was about to ascend to a powerful position, one for which Jackson had trained him, Donelson found it taken away from him, and his uncle had been complicit in the decision.24 Jackson’s agreement with Van Buren must have frustrated Donelson. His uncle had convinced him early in life that he would hold the highest positions in the nation, but when an opportunity arose for his advancement, Jackson considered him unprepared for the job. He could understand his uncle’s opposition to him over the Eaton affair—that had been about loyalty and honor, concepts Donelson well appreciated, even if he did not agree with Jackson in that particular instance. This situation, however, was different. It was a slap to the face. In the winter of 1844–45, Donelson faced a similar circumstance: A Democratic president-elect, this time James K. Polk, considered him for the secretary of war position. Every indication led Donelson to think that Polk wanted him in his cabinet, but Polk never made the offer. Donelson first received news of the rejection from his uncle, who had taken Polk’s misgivings about Donelson’s past conduct under advisement, while reconsidering his nephew’s then-precarious financial situation. Donelson needed a position that would prove financially profitable, but heading an executive department, Jackson decided, was not appropriate. At the same time, Donelson needed some prestigious station that would keep his name before the public. After an exchange of letters with the president-elect, Jackson informed Donelson that, when Polk took office, he would make him a ‘‘full minister to some foreign court.’’ A foreign ministry would provide him with a regular salary and the prominence needed to advance politically.25

24. AJD to MVB, Feb. 21, 1837, in Fitzpatrick, ed., Autobiography of Martin Van Buren, 346–47. 25. AJ to JKP, Jan. 10, 1845, in Wayne Cutler and Robert G. Hall, II, eds. Correspondence of James K. Polk: Volume 9, January–June 1845 (Knoxville, TN, 1996), 37–39; AJ to William B. Lewis, Feb. 4, 1845, in St. George L. Sioussat, ed., ‘‘Selected Letters, 1844–1845, from the Donelson Papers,’’ Tennessee Historical Magazine 3 (1917), 150–51; and AJ to AJD, Feb. 16, 1845, in Bassett and Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, 6: 367–68.

288

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Figure 7: Following Jackson’s advice, Donelson informed James K. Polk, whom he had helped win the 1844 election, that he would not accept a cabinet appointment. Credit: Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-1491.

Once Donelson had time to see his uncle at the Hermitage, he wrote Polk, ‘‘It appears that without any knowledge or agency of mine some of my friends had suggested my name for the War office, and the Genl informs me [that] your kind feelings disposed you to comply with their suggestion.’’ After having a ‘‘full conversation’’ with Jackson, Donelson said that he thought the proposition unneeded. ‘‘I have no political aspirations, and certainly none that could lead me to consider the high office referred to as not demanding talents and experience greatly above mine,’’

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

289

he demurred. ‘‘My only ambition is to repair now, by a life of economy, the mistakes of early years, and lay up, if possible, something for the education of my children, and the support of old age,’’ Donelson confided. ‘‘This consideration and duty would induce me to accept public employment where it might aid this object, but not at the hazard of postponing the claims of others whose weight of character or greater efficiency would be a surer guarantee for the advancement of the public interest.’’ Jackson wrote Polk the same day, confirming Donelson’s agreement with the decision not to offer him the war office appointment and asking the president-elect to remember to provide his nephew with a foreign post. ‘‘The Major appears satisfied,’’ he concluded.26 Actually, Donelson was unhappy with Jackson. His uncle had once more thrown an obstacle in his path to a prestigious and profitable political office, but, yet again, Donelson had acceded in this action. His stance on the cabinet appointment showed that he still was unable to contradict Jackson publicly, even when his political future was at stake. Serving as secretary of war would have allowed Donelson to continue working for Polk and the Democratic party on a national level, in a capacity in which he had some practical experience. When he finally responded to the president-elect, however, Donelson parroted Jackson’s arguments for why he should decline the position: his poor health, his financial instability, and the inevitable Whig charges of dictation. A cabinet position would have brought Donelson recognition fitting Jackson’s expectations, but, in the end, the nephew did not defy his uncle, who believed him unprepared for the job. The pattern of Jackson dictating Donelson’s political career until his death in 1845 and Donelson leveraging his association with Jackson into political gain after his uncle’s death suggests that the two men never reconciled the conflict over honor, patriarchy, and loyalty that the Eaton affair precipitated. Donelson in particular found no resolution between his own ambitions and his honor relationships with Jackson. With every accomplishment, Donelson expected more for himself. When he did not achieve his loftiest goals or when he faced adversity, he became depressed, caustic, and brooding. Donelson alternated between blaming others for his problems and criticizing himself for poor decisions. These

26. AJD to JKP, Feb. 1, 1845 and Feb. 15, 1845, AJ to JKP, Feb. 15, 1845, in Cutler and Hall, eds., Correspondence of James K. Polk, 9: 80, 103–4, 104–5.

290

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

Figure 8: This drawing by John K. Magee, entitled ‘‘The Great Presidential Race of 1856,’’ shows Know-Nothing presidential candidate Millard Fillmore riding on the back of Donelson, who is depicted as a goose. Fillmore is saying, ‘‘I’m ‘All Right on the Goose,’ and yet I dont seem to make much head way, Gentlemen, you may all laugh, but if I’m not the next President the Union Will Be Disolved, The South Wont Stand It.’’ Credit: Stern Collection, Prints & Photographs Division, Library of Congress, LC-USZ62-92031.

responses were not conducive to inspiring confidence among others in his skills and talents, of which he possessed not a little. Instead, Donelson alienated himself from old friends and new allies, and then complained when others pointed out his shortcomings. Why Donelson behaved in such a manner can be traced directly to his relationship with Jackson and their strained bond after the Eaton affair. Before the Eaton affair, Donelson was confident, self-assured, and focused. He knew his uncle’s expectations and lived up to them as best as he could. After the Eaton affair, Donelson was insecure, self-doubting, and unsure about how to prove himself to Jackson. As he grew older and particularly after the Old Hero died, Donelson became obsessed with convincing himself and others that Jackson had anointed him as his political successor. For his part, Jackson upheld his understanding of what honor and loyalty entailed. He was patron, patriarch, and president, and Donelson had challenged his authority in all three capacities. Jackson never brooked insubordination, not even from family members. Loyalty was an

Cheathem, ‘‘THE HIGH MINDED HONOURABLE MAN’’

•

291

integral part of the southern society of which he was a part and of the military career at which he had excelled; one rarely received a second chance to get back in his good graces. Donelson’s actions during the Eaton affair undermined whatever confidence Jackson had in his loyalty. Indeed, they may have persuaded him that his nephew also did not possess the necessary abilities to make a successful politician. That is not to say that the General was not willing to make use of Donelson—his nephew served as his private secretary until Jackson’s death in 1845. But the conviction that he had once expressed about how far Donelson would rise in American politics disappeared, replaced by an unwillingness to help his nephew, his ward, his client, achieve much in the way of political advancement beyond paying off his many financial debts. Donelson carried on his shoulders a double burden: being the namesake of a famous relative and trying to make a name for himself in the socalled ‘‘Age of the Common Man.’’ One anonymous writer from this period described aptly what Donelson must have felt at times: Take, for example, a youth who feels both the desire and ability to achieve the loftiest distinction. He embarks in the career of his hopes, believing that all the glorious lessons he has learned are now to be reduced to practice—that the great models whom he has before his eyes, and in whose footsteps it has always been his fondest wish to walk, he may now perchance triumphantly imitate—that he, too, may one day read his blessings in the nation’s eyes. Almost at the first step he finds he must truckle to what he knows to be caprice, or delusion, or vice, which he will not flatter.27

Donelson was certain that, one day, Jackson and others would acknowledge that he had simply been standing up for what was right during the Eaton affair, that he was talented and deserved recognition for his loyalty and service to his uncle, his party, and his nation. In his mind, he had acted honorably and had done his best to follow his uncle’s example without compromising his principles. To comprehend Andrew Jackson Donelson and his life, to explain how this man with ‘‘a naturally amiable nature’’ became ‘‘soured’’ over

27. ‘‘The United States by Chevalier,’’ American Quarterly Review 21 (1837), 351, quoted in George B. Forgie, Patricide in the House Divided: A Psychological Interpretation of Lincoln and His Age (New York, 1979), 65–66.

292

•

JOURNAL OF THE EARLY REPUBLIC (Summer 2007)

his lifetime, requires an understanding of his bond with Andrew Jackson. Jackson served as a father figure, political mentor, and a personal role model to his nephew. He was the man Donelson most sought to emulate. To follow in the footsteps of the Hero of New Orleans, ‘‘to preside over the destinies’’ of the United States as his uncle had, required Donelson to abide by the obligations inherent in his relationship with Jackson. His failure to do so during the Eaton affair shaped the remainder of his life and led his political and private opponents to accuse him of being the ‘‘ass’’ who clothed himself in the ‘‘lion’s skin’’ of his uncle’s reputation. It left Donelson searching in vain for a way to legitimize his claim to possess Andrew Jackson’s name.28

28. Memphis (Tennessee) Daily Appeal, June 27, 1871; and Columbia (Tennessee) Democratic Herald, July 21, 1855.