The Problematic History of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson

Photo Credit: Playbill, Joan Marcus.

Andrew Jackson is arguably the worst President in American history. Between his ownership of slaves, decision to disband the National Bank, and his policies that became the foundations for the Trail of Tears, he’s a fascist. Creating a campy musical centered around the savage nationalist sounds ridiculous. And it only gets more outlandish when Andrew Jackson becomes a viciously attractive, whiny asshole set to a score of inconsolable punk rock music, right? Believe it or not, this musical exists and it’s called Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson. 

A huge part of Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is displaying Jackson’s interactions with the Native community. It would be impossible to accurately represent Jackson’s history without including these interactions, yet this is the same reason why the show has sparked controversy and protest. Despite the fact that this musical is seen as extremely offensive, I believe it to be one of the most ingenious musicals ever made. 

And no, I’m not some crazy conservative. By no means am I a fan of Andrew Jackson. I’m the complete opposite. I’m a leftist who cannot stand the polarization of political parties in the United States. I can tell that the show’s creators aren’t a fan of Jackson’s politics either. But just like the United States, this show has its flaws. 

With an opening number entitled “Populism Yea Yea” it’s immediately clear that the show is meant to be a satire that belittles Jackson’s administration and highlights his poor decisions. In notes that Alex Timbers (playwright and director) and Michael Friedman (lyricist and composer) have written to accompany the script, they stress “while this show is not politically correct by any measure, the depiction of Native Americans should be done tastefully and respectfully. One of our intentions in writing Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson was to explore our collective national responsibility towards a genocide that most Americans seem to forget, ignore, or, perhaps worst, have collectively come to peace with. To portray the Native Americans as cartoons or old Hollywood stereotypes undermines the message of the show.” 

Although the writers claimed to have intended to portray Native people in a respectful manner, they faced plenty of backlash. The show ignited debate in 2010, during its New York debut, running off-Broadway at The Public Theatre: “‘Seeing the show made me ashamed to be in that theater,’ Steve Elm, an Oneida Indian, told Capital” (Levine 2010).

At the time The Public Theatre had a Native Theatre Initiative. Many questioned why the creative team did not consult the initiative’s Native American Advisory Committee. Friedman and Timbers did respond to the situation. The two addressed the issues of the show with some of the Native American people who had a relationship to The Public Theatre. One of the issues was with the character, Black Hawk: “Natives also point out that Jackson’s compatriot Black Hawk, portrayed in Bloody Bloody as a collaborating self-serving traitor, is revered as a hero among Native Americans.” (Levine 2010). Friedman and Timbers seemed to be understanding of this and explained that if the show were to go to Broadway, they would be open to making edits, taking into account the Indigenous community’s concerns. 

Sure enough, when the show arrived on Broadway in 2011, Friedman and Timbers seemed to have followed through on their promise. The character that was once referred to as “Black Hawk” became “Black Fox”. Except it should be noted that the character did not differ very much from its off-Broadway version. 

Steve Elm also said, “the audience was 99 percent European, and they were all laughing uproariously at jokes about Indians…And that was very, very uncomfortable for me and made me feel very ashamed that I was sitting in there” (Levine 2010). I would never want to downplay anyone’s experience, but maybe this is not an issue with the material itself. Perhaps this is a part of a bigger conversation: the importance of making theatre accessible to all. 

Of course, I’m not going to sit here and shut down everything the Native community thinks about this show. One of the best things about art is that it's subjective and it elicits something different in everyone. I agree with this point: “the native protestors believe some of that altered history will help misinform viewers” (Levine 2010). The history portrayed in Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson is significantly summed up. Whilst a 90 minute musical cannot delve into every single historical detail, it was wrong to have Jackson’s parents killed off by Native people. Though this does make for a good villain origin story and gives the audience a reason to empathise with Jackson, this is historically inaccurate and it stereotypes Native people as violent.

Interestingly, some Native people have spoken out against the show, but I struggle to find a Native person that has reviewed the show in its entirety. However, I have found plenty of positive reviews from sources like the New York Times and New York Theatre Guide, though seemingly none of them include Native voices. It really is important to hear from a diverse set of voices and because journalism (like many things in America) is dominated by white people, this was not achieved.

At heart I can tell this is an anti-racist show and I wish others could see that because I think there’s a lot that can be learned from the show. Everything that is seemingly offensive has a purpose. One of my favorite details is the part where the Native character Keokuk asks for dreamcatchers in return when making a deal with Jackson. While it's true that dreamcatchers are a symbol deeply rooted in Indigenous culture, it’s almost like Timbers used the one thing that most people know about Native culture. In my opinion, this is incredibly intentional and furthers the satirical effects of this show. It just goes to show the musical depicts Native people in the way that the white audiences often ignorantly tend to view them. 

In an interview I had with the show's choreographer, Danny Mefford, he told me that “Michael was, like, the smartest guy in the room…” and this becomes evident through his score. In particular, I find the song “Ten Little Indians” to be extremely clever. The title of the song refers to the nursery rhyme with the same name. This title was also used for the Agatha Christie novel later renamed to And Then There Were None because of its racist origins (Stein 2016). In Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Friedman’s song is used to describe ways Europeans contributed to the deaths of Native people. By having this song acknowledge mass genocide, it also acknowledges the racist way in which the title has been used in the past. 

On top of this, in “The Saddest Song”, Jackson sings, “and this country I’m making cannot be divided”. This lyric is ironic and actually a criticism of Jackson because he essentially created the party division in the U.S. When the U.S. was formed, political parties tended to be very fluid. Sometime after Jackson’s first term, the country was so distraught that there strictly became two parties, the Jacksonian party and the anti-Jacksonian party. And in the song “The Corrupt Bargain”, several characters sing, “Alexis de Tocqueville says something in French/That none of us can translate.” This lyric is incredibly ironic as well because de Tocqueville warned people of a power-hungry man like Jackson who would destroy Democracy, but in this context the characters are completely ignoring what he has to say, chalking it up to be irrelevant. 

The idea to blend politics with rock music may sound strange, though having the musical set in a sort of concert style, where Jackson has his own band and his own “fans” is rather inventive. This is an idea that musicals such as Hamilton and Six would later adopt (Hamilton using rap music, another unconventional style to explain history and politics. Six doing the same by using a concert setting to explain history). Friedman and Timbers prove that politics and music are a lot more similar than one would think. Both politics and music have the power to bring people together. Not to mention, people often look up to and glorify rockstars/musicians in the same way they do with politicians. In both facets mob-mentality can emerge. 

Photo Credit: Politico

This leads me to the glorification of Jackson and the other historical figures in this show. Not to say that the show makes Jackson look good by any means, still the musical quite literally paints Andrew Jackson as a rockstar. Every single “average citizen” in the show is obsessed with him and gives their utmost respect to him. I think it’s pretty much impossible to create art without glorification or romanticization because at one point or another art is put into the hands of the viewer who can interpret it in any way they so choose. Obviously that doesn’t mean we should just stop creating, because art can teach important lessons too. Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson warns people about Jackson’s manipulative rise to power and I will continue to stress that its purpose is to educate. Another proof of this is the writers including Lyncoya as a character. Many people don’t know that Jackson took in a Native child, naming him Lyncoya. In the show, Lyncoya feels a strong relationship to his Native culture, but he’s forced to assimilate and never allowed to truly explore his heritage. Creating this show inherently glorifies Jackson and his colleagues, but at the same time it inherently allows the Native community to live on by including their horrific realities they faced due to colonization.

But it's more complicated than that. The show makes it look like Natives have been exterminated, ending the show with Jackson and colleagues dead, in a sort of purgatory. I’ve been thinking a lot about erasure and the fact that many Native people who took issue with the show found a problem with the idea that the show does not prove Native people are still here. For a long time I assumed that it was common knowledge that Native people still exist. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise, right? Nevertheless, if we don’t continue to discuss that Native people and culture are still all around us, people will forget. I think that’s maybe Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson’s fatal flaw. I think it's absolutely possible that this show can be a satire making a commentary on Jackson’s presidency, while also making it clear that Native people still exist.

In my opinion, in any future productions, it’s vital that casting is taken into account. It’s important to have Native actors portray the roles of the Native characters because they deserve to tell their own story. Additionally, having a Native costume designer would be important too. In the original production, the costume design is sort of tacky. This is definitely intentional as it aligns with the nature of the show, however I think having at least the Native roles wear clothing that is genuinely representative of Native culture is important in the way audiences view them. It will further dignify the Native characters in the way that Timbers and Friedman hoped  to do in the first place.

Photo Credit: New York Theatre

Adding to this, a land acknowledgement should be done. (It would be nice for a land acknowledgement to always be done in American theatre, regardless it should be done particularly before a performance of this show due to its content). There should be an acknowledgement of any changes that are made to the show to acknowledge the mistakes the musical initially made. The history of Native genocide should not be hidden, nor should the history of the musical. The only way that we can further as a society is by owning up to the mistakes that we and our communities have made. 

Lastly, I believe it is dire that the ending be altered to prove that Native people did not completely die out. That’s not to say the ending has to change entirely, but it could be built on. It’s vital to show that Jackson’s atrocities still haunt the Native community and has left them to grapple with current day racism and discrimination. 

Still, I find Timbers’ writing to be masterful, but if there is ever a revival of this show I hope Timbers would revisit his book. I urge him to include the Native community throughout the whole process. There is a way to be mindful of Native people’s opinions without compromising the nature of the show.

I fully recognize that this musical is imperfect. Maybe it is perfectly imperfect. It indicates that we still have a long way to go as a country. I consider Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson to be a start in acknowledging America’s racism in an innovative way.

To this day the show is frequently protested. A 2013 production at Stanford University was protested, leading to the production being canceled entirely. In 2014, a local production in Minneapolis, Minnesota was protested. In 2015, a community theatre in Raleigh, North Carolina’s production was protested (then replaced with Hedwig And The Angry Inch, which I find funny as it's no stranger to controversy itself). I mean, when does this border on censorship? 

Sure, the show’s language is quite crude and vulgar, with Jackson dropping F-bombs all over the place. Danny Mefford even describes it as, “a madcap crazy thing…” There are plenty of reasons why this show had a whopping 94 performances on Broadway (excluding previews). But this is a show that needs to be seen. It’s amazing that the show made it to Broadway in the first place as it's far from commercial. There’s something powerful about the fact that a show that is so critical of America held residency on Broadway: an industry filled with racism and capitalist greed. 

As a white person, perhaps it’s not my place to talk about Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson at all. I ask myself why I love the musical so much. Friedman’s writing has inspired me endlessly because he pushed the limits for musical theatre. He created a musical that addressed racism in a blatant and shocking way. He created a musical that has the power to help people unlearn their preconceived notions about Native people. At the very least Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson forced many to reckon with their part in America's racism.

I believe Friedman and Timbers were determined to display history, so that it would not be repeated. They were trying to educate people, while also making people laugh. The two wanted people to leave the theatre thinking: was building our Western America worth it if it hurt millions of people in the process? When I listen to the second to last song in the soundtrack, “Second Nature”,  I hear Friedman’s answer so clearly: “no, no, no."

Citations:

Friedman, Michael, and Alex Timbers. Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson 2007.

“Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Aug. 2023, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Bloody_Andrew_Jackson. 

Levine, D.M. “Native Americans Protest ‘Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.’” POLITICO, 24 June 2010, www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2010/06/native-americans-protest-bloody-bloody-andrew-jackson-067373. 

Reid, Joanna. “A Conversation with Christie Baugher and Danny Mefford.” Jojo’s Theatre Blog, 11 Sept. 2023, www.jojostheatre.com/post/a-conversation-with-christie-baugher-and-danny-mefford. 

McCall, Tulis. “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, Review, Public’s Newman Theater, off-Broadway.” New York Theatre Guide, New York Theatre Guide, 7 Apr. 2010, www.newyorktheatreguide.com/reviews/bloody-bloody-andrew-jackson-0. 

Brantley, Ben. “Old Hickory, Rock Star President.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 6 Apr. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/theater/reviews/07bloody.html#:~:text=There%20are%20curiosity%20and%20empathy,As%20the%20irresistible%20Mr. 

Stein, Sadie. “Mystery.” The Paris Review, 6 Feb. 2016, www.theparisreview.org/blog/2016/02/05/mystery/.

Cover Image: “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson: Show Photos.” Broadway.Com, www.broadway.com/shows/bloody-bloody-andrew-jackson/photos/bloody-bloody-andrew-jackson-show-photos/155809/show-photos-bloody-bloody-andrew-jackson-ben-steinfeld. Accessed 29 Aug. 2025.