Indigenous members of the Andrew Jackson household

Jackson as father and Great Father

One analysis of Jackson's relationship with his numerous wards and foundlings characterizes his "preoccupation with acquiring dependents" as necessary to an internal and external construction of "Jackson's mastery as a white male." Scholars have speculated on Jackson's political and psychological motives from bringing Indigenous children into his home, but the only testimony in his letters suggests that he identified with their orphanhood, as he had lost his entire surviving family (mother and two brothers) during the American Revolutionary War. Historian Lorman Ratner described Jackson as a boy without a father, and a man without sons, which may have motivated him to accept guardianship of dozens of young people who lived with him at various times or whom he assisted legally, financially, or socially.

Jackson's motives in adopting Theodore, Charley, and Lyncoya were likely complex. He repeatedly described Muscogee people as savage and barbaric "wretches" but simultaneously Jackson was socially and politically required to take a paternalistic tone when dealing with non-whites: "Jackson's claims to Indian territories and enslaved people of African descent revolved around the assumption that anyone who was not white and male needed the paternal oversight of Southern white men such as himself." During the years 1815 to 1821, Jackson served as an Indian agent for the Five Civilized Tribes and in his speeches to those communities leaned heavily on Great White Father metaphors that infantilized the Indigenous, arguing that subordination of the helpless Indian child to the authoritarian white father was essential to the survival of the American national family. Around the time Charley was being transported to the Hermitage, Jackson made a speech at the Horseshoe Bend battlefield expressing his feelings about the fate of the Muscogee, stating, "The fiends of the Tallapoosa will no longer murder our Women and Children, or disturb the quiet of our borders...They have disappeared from the face of the Earth...How lamentable it is that the path to peace should lead through blood, and over the carcasses of the slain!! But it is in the dispensation of that providence, which inflicts partial evil to produce general good." Biographer Robert V. Remini summarized the conclusions of a book called Fathers and Children: Andrew Jackson and the Subjugation of the American Indian as "[Michael Paul Rogin] finds Jackson's relations with the Indians to involve deep psychological problems," but "while I feel there are many excellent insights into Jackson's character in this book, I do not accept its fundamental analysis of Jackson's motivation."

Individual tour guides at the Hermitage have used Jackson's "fostering of Lyncoya, Theodore, and Charley [to suggest] that he did not 'hate the Indians,' as visitors so often complained. This infused conceptions of color-blindness into the historic interpretation of racialized systems of oppression...which in itself undergirds white supremacy and protects whiteness...Some interpreters also raise the longstanding story that when Lyncoya's family was killed, the women in the village 'refused' to care for him and were going to leave him to die." Contemporary historians generally challenge the 19th-century interpretation of Jackson's actions toward Charley, Theodore, and Lyncoya as benevolent, finding instead that they were part of a pattern of insidious race-based cruelty. As historian Rebecca Onion put it: "Jackson killed Creek people, took Creek land, and raised their children as his own—a primal act of domination." In his 2019 Surviving Genocide: Native Nations and the United States from the American Revolution to Bleeding Kansas, historian Jeffrey Ostler wrote of the Creek War and the "rescue" of Lyncoya at Tallushatchee:

...Taking prisoners (rather than killing them) as well as feeding refugees (rather than letting them starve) also allowed Americans to make a war of extermination appear—to themselves and observers in the 'civilized' world—consistent with principles of Christian humanitarianism. No U.S. leader mastered the art of reconciling catastrophic destruction and paternalistic benevolence better than Andrew Jackson... In the same way that Jackson assumed the role of father to Lyncoya, while at the same time destroying his people, so did Americans think of themselves as good parents to their Indian children even as they declared the necessity of Native extinction.