The portraits that presidents hang in the Oval Office are likely there to inspire the incumbent. But since the Oval Office and its ornaments are on display to the nation, the portraits do just as much to signal to the public the styles of leadership, the outlooks, the schools of thought that incumbents have embraced. The pictures send us messages, though nothing definite, and although they all hold more content than Rorschach tests, the thoughts prompted and the feelings evoked can vary dramatically from one viewer to another. We’re all free to divine the meanings of or ascribe some meanings to the paintings.

In January 2025, President Trump put up a portrait of Andrew Jackson above a portrait of George Washington. In the following month, he replaced the Jackson with a Jefferson and the George with a Ronald. Psychoanalysis, especially the popular variety, is unlikely to give us much help in discerning how a current president might influence the course of history. Yet the portraits give us some excuse for launching into comparisons of presidents and maybe in the process we’ll fall into the sort of thoughts an incumbent president just might want us to entertain.

Andrew Jackson was the seventh president whose two terms in office extended from 1829 to 1837. Just before he was first elected, there were 24 States in the Union. During his presidency, Arkansas and Michigan were admitted.

Of the presidents ranked in the 2017 Historians’ Survey on Presidential Leadership conducted by C-SPAN, Jackson stood at18 out of 44. Jon Meacham wrote that Jackson was

"A source of inspiration to Lincoln on the eve of the Civil War, revered by Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, and hailed by Harry Truman as one of the four greatest presidents—along with Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln…" (Meacham, p. xx)

He was popular enough to win two terms in the White House. Regarded as a hero for his success against foreign enemies, he also succeeded in overcoming some opponents within the country. One of the domestic battles he waged involved the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson regarded it as an ally of the wealthy and an illegitimate force in political affairs. During his campaign for reelection he said of the bank “I will kill it.” (Remini, p. 63) He ordered government deposits to the bank to be withdrawn. Jackson’s war with the bank helped him considerably in his bid to win a second term.

Early in that second term, another battle—a political fight—broke out between the federal and State governments. In particular, legislators in South Carolina declared that they could nullify federal laws they didn’t like. Jackson worried that the Union might dissolve if the federal government did not assert its priority over the States. And the challenge for Jackson was compounded by the action of his vice president: John C. Calhoun resigned over the matter and sided with the radicals favoring nullification. Jackson’s efforts against nullification helped to hold the nation together during his tenure and for a time afterward until another president—the 16th—would face the greatest threat to the existence of the nation as we know it.

In his time, Jackson was both loved and loathed. Robert Remini noted

"Although many people loathed his presidential style and actions and others feared he might become an American Napoleon, they soon discovered that Jackson was a passionate spokesman for democracy. 'The people are sovereign,' he repeatedly insisted throughout his administration.'Their will is absolute.'” (Remini, p. 56)

All branches of the government of the United States with its leaders, including all American presidents, have been interested in supporting and advancing the needs and desires of its citizens. That has been the hope and promise of this nation. In the early years of our country, as its population and territory were rapidly expanding, most of the white European immigrants were just looking to find a pleasant place, hoping to build a house and perhaps a farm, start a business or work in one, and live in peace. They thought of themselves as worthy to succeed and regarded their culture as pre-eminent.

The influx of Europeans brought superior technologies, including horses, and contrasting political paradigms to what was for them a new land promising opportunities for freedom and growth. Some could offer as evidence of superiority their scientific progress and technological innovation, a rich artistic and literary heritage built over centuries in Europe, and an advanced ethical and political philosophy. Undoubtedly religion also supported views that affirmed the righteousness and truthfulness of its adherents.

Most of the settlers may not always have viewed their presence as a part of a great movement in history—one offering rewards for some and a world of hurt for others. But as settlers pressed on, seeing the land as free for the taking, conflicts with those already living here were inevitable. In the clash of civilizations in early 19th century America, one side barely considered the other to be a civilization at all. And this provided some of the justifications advanced for the battles with firmly entrenched inhabitants.

And there were many battles between settlers and Indians. One of the most notorious was the massacre of white settlers by Creek Indians at Fort Mims in Alabama on August 30, 1813, and the retaliation by Major General Jackson who attacked the village of Tallushatchee occupied by Red Sticks, a faction of the Creek people.

Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief, wanted to unite the many Indian peoples against the whites. And Jackson feared that the governments of Britain and Spain would continue to supply and support the Indians to counter the ascent of the United States. So to a degree he regarded the Indians as agents of foreign enemies.

Leaders might hope to bring all humanity together into one loving bunch. But efforts to unify people are often stymied by differences in language, religious beliefs, cultural practices and, not least, physical appearances. Then too, people often resist integration or assimilation when they perceive that one of the results is a loss of their identity, their way of life.

Morality takes people into consideration and distinguishes them from rocks. When we empathize with others, we take them to be like ourselves, at least in being conscious, having needs, feeling pleasures and pains, and perhaps even having certain rights. But when mutual respect, compromises, accommodations, peaceful resolutions of conflicts are not forthcoming, battles begin inevitably. And peace arrives only after war subdues the weaker.

Political decisions are often constrained, or should be constrained, by ethical considerations. But in any case, ethics and politics often struggle for the upper hand. Among innumerable examples are Harry Truman’s decision to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, Franklin Roosevelt’s decision to put Japanese Americans in concentration camps during World War II, and Andrew Jackson’s decision to sign the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The latter produced the Trail of Tears.

Jackson was not the only president to notice, be concerned about, and even propose tough remedies for the clash between reds and whites.

“'Next to the case of the black race within our bosom, that of the red on our borders is the problem most baffling to the policy of our country,' said James Madison. In 1776, Thomas Jefferson thought the Cherokees and other tribes (many of which were allied with the British) should be sent west. 'This then is the season for driving them off,' Jefferson wrote." (Meacham, p. 93)

Those who have no problem with the harsh treatment of foreigners could see Jackson’s policy of relocating Indians as necessary for the growth of a new nation, a nation considered by its citizens to have a right to exist and in some cases to have even a right to dominate an inferior race. When a people cannot be converted to "true beliefs" and learn the language and adopt the customs and be assimilated into the more powerful society, and most especially when they resist assimilation and fight against the more powerful society, they risk being segregated, expelled or even extinguished.

For good reasons, critics of Jackson’s administration and of Jackson himself deplore his policies and actions against Native Americans.

"The government acquired 100 million acres of Indian land for $70 million plus 30 million acres in the West. Amidst horrific suffering, more than forty-six thousand Indians were forced from their ancestral lands into the wilderness across the Mississippi….The cold winter of 1831-32, a cholera epidemic, and Congress’s refusal to appropriate adequate funds added to the misery of those removed." (Herring, p. 173)

One of the issues that Jackson faced and dealt with in his way—the collision of cultures—had extreme importance in his time and lasting consequences in ours. In fact the issue persists and will last as long as we do. Presidents may view the awesome powers available to them as potential solutions to many of the problems of the country. A principle that doctors follow in their practice of medicine is a good one for presidents and all other leaders to follow as well: “Do no harm.”

Many situations cry out for remedies. But sometimes the best course of action—difficult as it is, because leaders do not want to be weak and ineffectual, and then lose their power—is doing nothing. If a leader can be strong enough to avoid committing an atrocity when the calls for one are almost overwhelming, that leader might preserve at least for a time, if not a position in government, then at least what is right and good. “Justice for all” means nothing to a president who sacrifices one group of people for another.

What policy would have afforded Native Americans more justice during Jackson’s administration? John Ehle wrote

"… Washington and Jefferson believed a cultural adaptation was possible….
"[But] A practical alternative to Indian removal never came before the government. The alternative of leaving the body of the continent in Indian hands was unacceptable. It was also unacceptable to leave it in French or British hands. One possible solution in the Cherokee case, which received little attention, was made by the federal agent, Return J. Meigs:
'...If they were to become an agricultural and pastoral people, an assignment of 640 acres of land to each family would be all and more than they could occupy with advantage to themselves….The authority and laws of the several States within whose limits they resided should become operative upon them, and they should be vested with the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of those States.'
"A word of praise might be bestowed on Old England, in that they were protective of Indian rights. Prior to the American Revolution, the English King had placed Indian lands off limits to further settlement. Understandingly, predictably, land speculators were furious over this policy." (Ehle, pp. 394-395)

The point here is that most often, perhaps always, there are alternatives to any policy of government. Leaders always have pressures on them coming from all sides. But being leaders, they can make choices: they can opt for those that grant the greatest benefits to the greatest number. And most important of all, if they cannot reduce suffering in the world, they can choose to add no more suffering to humanity than it already has.

References

Brown, David S. The First Populist: The Defiant Life of Andrew Jackson. New York: Scribner, 2022.

Cozzens, Peter. A Brutal Reckoning: Andrew Jackson, the Creek Indians, and the Epic War for the American South. New York: Knopf, 2023.
Ehle, John. Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. New York: Anchor Books, 1989.

Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Lamb, Brian, Susan Swain and C-SPAN. The Presidents: Noted Historians Rank America’s Best—and Worst—Executives. New York: Public Affairs, 2019.

Langguth, A. J. Driven West: Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears to the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010.

Meacham, Jon. American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House. New York: Random House, 2008.

Remini, Robert V. “Andrew Jackson”, pp. 56-65 in To the Best of My Ability: The American Presidents. McPherson, James M. and David Rubel, eds. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2001.

Watson, Harry L. “Andrew Jackson”, pp. 82-101 in The American Presidency. Brinkley, Alan and Davis Dyer, eds. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.