In the times and the context, I think more than one interpretation is reasonable. Hiring the labor of other people's slaves was very common, and renting out slaves was a major source of income for many who bought slaves as an investment, but didn't own significant agricultural property.
On the other hand, Mrs. Jackson's being mealy-mouthed is quite "in context," as well. Ladies didn't call a spade a spade, as we do in these air-conditioned times :-).
I don't care (except as an interesting historical question, "What do we 'know,' and why do we think we know it?") whether Gen. Jackson owned slaves. Is there a moral difference between owning a slave and renting the labor of one? Not to me. Is there a moral difference between owning a slave yourself, and your wife's owning a slave? Nope. Is there a moral difference between treating a person well, and treating a person poorly, irrespective of legal status? You betcha. No one has ever suggested that Jackson treated any person, in any context, without respect for his Christian dignity, and that's why I admire him.
free dixie,sw
Your defense of Jackson is passionate... and I don't begrudge you one word of it. But, I hope you don't think it was my intent to damage the reputation of this decent and honorable man. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am certainly not going to hold a man of the 1800's to 2003's standard of outraged political correctness.
I think the world could do with a whole lot more men cast in Jackson's mold.