Recently I've been reading a well-received biography of Andrew Jackson written by Jon Meacham entitled American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House . Meacham devotes much time to an exhaustive retelling of the so-called Petticoat Affair, a controversy that sprang up in reaction to the wife of Jackson's Secretary of War, a beautiful, but headstrong, and as such, highly controversial woman by the name of Peggy Eaton.
In our day, her presumed offenses might lend themselves to some unkind remarks and assorted snickering but would not carry the full weight of scandal as they did then. In short, she was assumed to be a fallen woman who had engaged in promiscious behavior, was rumored to have driven her first husband to suicide as a result of her dalliances, and furthermore engaged in the indignity of not waiting a respectable length of time before being remarried to her second husband. That she was also not an especially tactful, nor restrained person with a quick temper, her strong opinions made an unfortunate situation much worse. The President, however, liked the Eatons and made it known that he wished that they be allowed to live in peace and that those who shunned the couple ought to be seen as personally affronting him.
However, even so, other cabinet members, particularly their wives refused to call on Eaton, a direct snub according to the social conventions of the day. Social divisions within Jackson's inner circle that had been papered over unskillfully prior to Jackson's election now found themselves in open display as two camps broke out: those in favor of Peggy Eaton and those not. Washington society spread one salacious rumor after another, further encouraging the discord. Soon, the entire cabinet had to be dissolved, with prominent members being dispersed to cities and locations well away from Washington. As the reader, I still find it incredible that some took such lengths to dissociate themselves from one person knowing that doing so would created tremendous problems within the Presidency itself and compromising the governance of an entire nation.
My point in writing this review is to question to what degree the role of tainted womanhood creates in our day and age. Back then, one woman of ill-repute created a proxy war among men with their own political agendas and future plans of greatness. Though we fight back against a belief that still exists in our time where women are unfairly judged based on an unfair purity standard, could such a thing like this happen again in our time? If it has, what stories of your own do you have to share?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Petticoat Affair.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/17001
>> As the reader, I still find it incredible that some took such lengths to dissociate themselves from one person knowing that doing so would created tremendous problems within the Presidency itself and compromising the governance of an entire nation.
It appears there was actually a time when principle trumped politics.
As ridiculous as their principles were in that "affair" -- it might be nice to have more principle and less politicking in DC. It might be nice to have more government-types that were willing to crash and burn for what they believed. It might be nice if someone up there had SOMETHING they wouldn't sell out for a vote or a clever applause line.
kbz
Not so much a principle as a prejudice. It would be nice to see more principles in politics. This was a case of people who thought it was more important to punish a woman than run the country. That's more like witch-hunting, than principled behaviour, and we have more than enough of that.
I'm thinking Hillary took a battering for many a long year. She wasn't wifely and silent.
What's the objective difference between principles and prejudices?
Unfortunately I don't know how to answer your question. Jackson's day was different from ours in so many ways. I read Meecham's book over the summer and still need to read H.W. Brands American Lion sometime. The best I can say is that norms have changed, but I would venture a guess that such a deep polarization over a particular person is entirely possible if the right issue was found. In Jackson's day it was "Purity" and Jakson it mus be remembered whatever his failures in other areas stood by Mrs. Eaton because she reminded him of his wife. Today it might be the sex of a person's spouse that causes such a rift. In an earlier time circa 1950 it might be Skin Color, Read Robert Caro's Master of the senate for a fascinating discussion of Hubert Humphrey's reception in the senate.
I think that sometimes people dislike each other for justifiable reasons but sometimes people, like dogs, just don't like the way another person's ass smells and thus dislike them.