This historian may be highly educated, but he apparently has never read the Constitution
Article 2, Section 1.5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Jackson was most definitely a citizen when the Constitution was adopted in 1787. Therefore he was fully eligible to be president.
It also seems highly unlikely he was 12 years older than he claimed. Then he would have been fully grown during the Revolution, not a young teenager as is well known.
AJ's birthplace is also not west of the Appalachians. It's not far from Charlotte.
How many mistakes can be fitted into one post?
Jackson was from Tennessee, not born there. That’s where the reference to “west of the Appalachians” comes from.
There has long been a dispute between North and South Carolina (even debated in Congress in 1929) over where Jackson was born.
I don’t know if Eckert is correct or not in his assertion that Jackson was born at sea.
My point was that the “controversy” over where Jackson was born could “potentially” be used to establish a precedent that even though questions exist about where he was actually born, Jackson did ultimately hold the office of President.
But, yes, Jackson was a citizen when the Constitution was adopted and was therefore eligible for the presidency. I’m not sure why the author claims otherwise.