Civil war and Andrew Jackson

[Richie B.]

The internet is exploding with the talk about either the past president Andrew Jackson could have stopped the United States civil war. Some claim he saw it coming despite dying 16 years before it happened. Some say the Civil war was because the North was aggressive, despite the first shots originating from Confederate weapons on Fort Sumter. And few think that a great deal could have been made which could have avoided the bloody conflict.

I am curious to see who has any opinions on both the civil war and Andrew Jackson, from my understand of the man named Andrew Jackson would have been in favor of keeping slaves. As he was a slave owner and his wealth came from those slaves. But my knowledge on him is limited so maybe I have missed something.

I know some say that the Civil war wasn't about the slavery but in fact state rights, but wasn't one of the state rights which the war was fought over the right for states to continue slavery? This topic is a personal one for many since people's families were greatly affected by the war. My own family was a part of the civil war.

If anyone has any opinions or comments about this topic lets have a discussion about it here.

 

[Jaime]

This was what Trump said in essence: if Andrew Jackson were around when the Civil War DID start, he MIGHT HAVE been able to stop it. It was taken WAY out of context by his critics, in my opinion. Now, let me make something perfectly clear: I am not a Trump supporter. But I know my history, and his comment was, profoundly, perfectly reasonable.

In order to show you why this is, let me relay to you an incident that happened during Andrew Jackson's presidency from 1829 to 1837: immediately after the election of 1832, and the subsequent inauguration of Jackson to his second term, South Carolina was preparing to secede from the Union. They had apparently had enough on federal tariff laws that were being enforced by the federal government/Jackson's administration, and their legislature voted to nullify these tariff laws. The issue of nullification had been a problem for the administration ever since Jackson had come into office, and for those that don't know, nullification within our government back then was the idea of a state having the right to declare what federal laws it wanted to observe and adhere to, and those that it did not.

Anyways, before this, there had been a falling out between Jackson and his vice president, John Calhoun. I won't go into the details of that here unless prompted, but I will say Mr. Calhoun and the then Secretary of State, Martin Van Buren, both had different agendas and both aspired to the presidency. Anywho, Jackson severed ties with Calhoun during a deadlock crisis within his cabinet - with Jackson supporters on one end and Calhoun supporters on the other - and promised he would assist Van Buren with his succession to the presidency after Jackson's second term. For those wondering how this is related to the South Carolina issue and why I'm rambling about it: Calhoun was the leader of the "Nullification Movement" and championed the causes of the states who were against federal enforcement of their laws. AND his home state was South Carolina

Back to the "present": Upon hearing of South Carolina's threats of secession, Jackson started to prepare for civil war, proclaiming: "Disunion by armed force is treason." Soon after, Calhoun resigned as Vice President, and sought a seat in congress as the senator from South Carolina, thinking the issue was going to be lashed out there. But President Jackson began mobilizing federal troops, and let it be heard near and far that if South Carolina were to follow through with its secession, he would hang John Calhoun, and there would be civil war. South Carolina backed off its threats after that, and rescinded its nullification legislation on Jackson's sixty-sixth birthday. It's actually considered a historic birthday present, believe it or not.

So Andrew Jackson stopped civil war from occurring almost 30 years before the fateful day at Fort Sumter where the Confederacy initiated hostilities with the North. Wouldn't it be perfectly reasonable, then, to say that he MAY HAVE been able to stop it if he were alive to see the rising tensions of 1861?

 

[Richie B.]

@Jaime thing was the reason for the difference between these two situations, the nullification and the civil war are in fact different because of one clear thing. Lincolns platform was to stop the expansion of slavery into the new territories which caused the majority of states to secede from the union. While the nullification was about tariffs. And Andrew Jackson was a strong supporter of slave rights so he could have delayed it sure but that would mean the continuation of the slavery in the south.

So saying he could have delayed the civil war sure but this would have also delayed the freedom that the government should have given to everyone. So the tensions in 1861 and those in the past were different and Jackson yes might have ease said tensions but not in the way that was right or what was needed because of his own personal believes.

So while trump has some creditability in his statement the way in which he expressed it shows he didn't have the full grasp of what he was saying.

This person explains it a bit better then me.

In retrospect maybe not the best video.