# Think Tank > History >  Was Trump right on Andrew Jackson?

## kona

In reference to his comment, "if Jackson had been alive then, the civil war would have never happened."

From my understanding, Trump appears to be correct, based on the fact that decades earlier, SC or Maryland or whoever was trying to secede over ridiculous tariffs, and instead of launching a war on his own people (a la Lincoln), he simply slashed the tariffs. So it is not unreasonable to assume he would do the same 10-15 years later.

I'm not sure where Ron ranks Jackson, but I know Murray Rothbard was a big fan. He seems like one of the all-time greats, underrated beyond belief due to the Cultural Marxism of the left. 

Lincoln was a psycho's psycho. The Hitler of the 19th century. The worst, most evil man in American history. We're still paying for his mental illness.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Jackson had his faults but I'm certain that Trump is correct about that and I hope he is mindful of Jackson's views on Banksters and the British as well.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> Jackson had his faults but I'm certain that Trump is correct about that and I hope he is mindful of Jackson's views on Banksters and the British as well.


I havent seen trump try to get rid of the federal reserve yet so until he does im not thinking he is so much an acolyte of jackson as he might imply

----------


## Superfluous Man

> In reference to his comment, "if Jackson had been alive then, the civil war would have never happened."
> 
> From my understanding, Trump appears to be correct, based on the fact that decades earlier, SC or Maryland or whoever was trying to secede over ridiculous tariffs, and instead of launching a war on his own people (a la Lincoln), he simply slashed the tariffs. So it is not unreasonable to assume he would do the same 10-15 years later.
> 
> I'm not sure where Ron ranks Jackson, but I know Murray Rothbard was a big fan. He seems like one of the all-time greats, underrated beyond belief due to the Cultural Marxism of the left. 
> 
> Lincoln was a psycho's psycho. The Hitler of the 19th century. The worst, most evil man in American history. We're still paying for his mental illness.


Source for that quote?

It seems very unlike Trump to take any interest in history, or to think Lincoln was wrong to compel the submission of the rebelling states, rather than give in to them. By all indications, I would expect him to admire Lincoln's power grabs.

Edit: Never mind. I found it. Looks like he said it a couple years ago.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/opini...dup/index.html

----------


## kona

> Source for that quote?
> 
> It seems very unlike Trump to take any interest in history, or to think Lincoln was wrong to compel the submission of the rebelling states, rather than give in to them. By all indications, I would expect him to admire Lincoln's power grabs.
> 
> Edit: Never mind. I found it. Looks like he said it a couple years ago.
> https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/opini...dup/index.html


I agree Trump is probably unaware of Jackson slashing the tariff to avoid a war. That doesn't invalidate his statement though. He lucked into a smart thing, he just couldn't explain why.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I agree Trump is probably unaware of Jackson slashing the tariff to avoid a war. That doesn't invalidate his statement though. He lucked into a smart thing, he just couldn't explain why.


The main reason the Civil War wouldn't have happened under Jackson is that the southern states wouldn't have seceded in the first place with him as President on account of their not having had any reason to fear erosion of their ability to continue owning slaves.

It has nothing to do with him being tolerant of secession or unwilling to go to war to stop if it need be. He wanted a powerful federal regime controlling as much land as possible. He was an expansionist.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I havent seen trump try to get rid of the federal reserve yet so until he does im not thinking he is so much an acolyte of jackson as he might imply


He has put himself in opposition to the Fed somewhat, time will tell if he plans to take it farther.

----------


## kona

> The main reason the Civil War wouldn't have happened under Jackson is that the southern states wouldn't have seceded in the first place with him as President on account of their not having had any reason to fear erosion of their ability to continue owning slaves.
> 
> It has nothing to do with him being tolerant of secession or unwilling to go to war to stop if it need be. He wanted a powerful federal regime controlling as much land as possible. He was an expansionist.


Expansionist yes, but destroying your own central bank puts a very low ceiling on expansion.

I remain unconvinced The War to Prevent Southern Independence had anything to do with slavery.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

> He has put himself in opposition to the Fed somewhat, time will tell if he plans to take it farther.


yes but his opposition seems to be concerned that the fed isnt printing ENOUGH money.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> yes but his opposition seems to be concerned that the fed isnt printing ENOUGH money.


True, but that could just be an easy way to tell the public that they are at fault for our economic problems and that they manipulate the economy for political purposes.

I don't give him much credit on that front yet but only time will tell.

----------


## oyarde

> Expansionist yes, but destroying your own central bank puts a very low ceiling on expansion.
> 
> I remain unconvinced The War to Prevent Southern Independence had anything to do with slavery.


You could be right , but there is this .Had it not been for slavery there would never have been very many volunteers from southern Indiana . Here southern slavers were viewed as unwanted trespassers , people lacking courtesy , lowlifes and the lowest form of man . They certainly did not volunteer because they gave a crap about the federal govt.s ability to reign . There had only been white populations here to any extent in villages off of the Ohio river for 50 years or less . These volunteers were young men who valued freedom and hard work and  were born here in log cabins on farms cut out of the hardwood swamplands near rivers by their Fathers .

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I remain unconvinced The War to Prevent Southern Independence had anything to do with slavery.


Then you should read the ordinances of secession of the states that seceded and disabuse yourself of that error.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp

----------


## oyarde

> The main reason the Civil War wouldn't have happened under Jackson is that the southern states wouldn't have seceded in the first place with him as President on account of their not having had any reason to fear erosion of their ability to continue owning slaves.
> 
> It has nothing to do with him being tolerant of secession or unwilling to go to war to stop if it need be. He wanted a powerful federal regime controlling as much land as possible. He was an expansionist.


That is how I see it . In the Mexican War , Jackson would have just kept mexico too .

----------


## Working Poor

The narrative is that Lincoln fought the civil war to end slavery. Most of us here know that's not true. Slavery was about to end on it's own but you never hear about that.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

Lincoln's war was NOT about slavery; _secession_ was about slavery above all else, but Lincoln's _war_ was about secession and federal power.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Lincoln's war was NOT about slavery; _secession_ was about slavery above all else, but Lincoln's _war_ was about secession and federal power.


Exactly. People tend to oversimplify it so that they can pick a side. Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant, and ending slavery was not what drove him to war.

But the southern states were tyrannies too, and preserving slavery was what drove them to war.

We're allowed to condemn both sides.

----------


## kona

> Exactly. People tend to oversimplify it so that they can pick a side. Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant, and ending slavery was not what drove him to war.
> 
> But the southern states were tyrannies too, and preserving slavery was what drove them to war.
> 
> We're allowed to condemn both sides.


Most in South were against slavery, it meant less work for them and they couldn't compete with the elite slaveowners, who were a fraction of the South. Every major battle you had non-slaveowner Southerners fighting against northern slaveowners. As well as free blacks fighting against northeners.

The south was not driven to war by any means. Lincoln drove the war singlehandedly by himself. Tariffs, protectionism, central empire were the motives. Slavery was barely on the periphery and used merely to incite an insurrection in the south, which failed miserably because most of the South did not have slaves. Lincoln literally was the "you can have your slaves as long as you pay taxes and stay in the union" guy. Helps explain why there was so much slavery in the north, contrary to popular opinion. NC/TN/AK and others originally voted to stay in the union, then withdrew AFTER they saw Lincoln attack the sister states like a madman. But we're supposed to believe the cause was slavery. Just like 100 years from now Americans will be taught the Iraq war was to liberate the Iraqis.

You told me to disabuse myself of the error that the war was over slavery. Tell me, does Ron, Lew, Dilorenzo, Spooner, Woods, Rothbard need to disabuse themselves of this error as well?

I condemn SLAVEOWNERS on BOTH SIDES. I will not condemn the Constitution, which clearly allows secession.

----------


## jmdrake

> In reference to his comment, "if Jackson had been alive then, the civil war would have never happened."
> 
> From my understanding, Trump appears to be correct, based on the fact that decades earlier, SC or Maryland or whoever was trying to secede over ridiculous tariffs, and instead of launching a war on his own people (a la Lincoln), he simply slashed the tariffs. So it is not unreasonable to assume he would do the same 10-15 years later.
> 
> I'm not sure where Ron ranks Jackson, but I know Murray Rothbard was a big fan. He seems like one of the all-time greats, underrated beyond belief due to the Cultural Marxism of the left. 
> 
> Lincoln was a psycho's psycho. The Hitler of the 19th century. The worst, most evil man in American history. We're still paying for his mental illness.


Jackson threatened to hang the secessionists.  Congress slashed the tariffs, not Jackson.  At the time the South seceded, the low tariffs were still in effect.  It was *after* southern secession that the higher tariffs passed.  Trump is right on this part.  The civil war wouldn't have happened because, with Jackson as president, the South would have backed down from secession.  First Jackson was himself a slave owner and very popular in the South which is a reason why *only South Carolina* seriously considered secession while he was president.  And second, everybody *knew* Andrew Jackson was crazy as hell.  There absolutely would have been a war if the South had seceded under Jackson.  They were too scared to do that though.

_Edit: I had initially said only two states backed secession when Jackson was president.  But in fact it was only one!  For all the talk about tariffs, when tariffs were actually super high no other states backed S.C.'s secession call._


https://potus-geeks.livejournal.com/109516.html
_
Andy Jackson's Two Regrets

    Mar. 31st, 2011 at 8:22 AM

PolkHappy
kensmind
In going through what happened in history on March 31st, I noticed that it was the anniversary of the death of John C. Calhoun. Calhoun had been Andrew Jackson's vice-president in Jackson's first term, but was dumped from the ticket in Jackson's second term in favor of Martin Van Buren. A lot of Presidents didn't get along with their Veeps, but Jackson actually threatened to hang Calhoun. It was all over the "Nullification Crisis" in which a number of southern states were upset with high tariffs on imports of common manufactured goods made in Europe which made those goods more expensive than ones from the northern U.S. Southern politicians argued that tariffs benefited northern industrialists at the expense of southern farmers.

The issue came to a head in 1828 when Vice President Calhoun, supported the claim of his home state, South Carolina, that it had the right to "nullify" (declare void) the tariff legislation of 1828, and more generally the right of a state to nullify any Federal laws that went against its interests. Although Jackson sympathized with the South in the tariff debate, he was also a strong supporter of a strong union, with effective powers for the central government. Jackson attempted to face down Calhoun over the issue, which developed into a bitter rivalry between the two men.

On April 13, 1830, the two were at a Jefferson Day dinner, involving after-dinner toasts. Robert Hayne began by toasting to "The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States." Jackson then rose, and in a booming voice added "Our federal Union: It must be preserved!" – a clear challenge to Calhoun. Calhoun clarified his position by responding "The Union: Next to our Liberty, the most dear!"

At the first Democratic National Convention, Van Buren replaced Calhoun as Jackson's running mate and in December 1832, Calhoun resigned as Vice President to become a U.S. Senator for South Carolina. In response to South Carolina's nullification claim, Jackson vowed to send troops to South Carolina to enforce the laws. He privately threatened to hang Calhoun. Jackson issued a proclamation against the "nullifiers," stating that he considered "the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."

South Carolina, the President declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought. Jackson also denied the right of secession: "The Constitution... forms a government not a league... To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."

Jackson asked Congress to pass a "Force Bill" explicitly authorizing the use of military force to enforce the tariff, but its passage was delayed until protectionists led by Clay agreed to a reduced Compromise Tariff. The Force Bill and Compromise Tariff passed on March 1, 1833, and Jackson signed both. The South Carolina Convention then met and rescinded its nullification ordinance. The Force Bill became moot because it was no longer needed.

When Jackson left office, he is quoted as saying "I have only two regrets: I didn't shoot Henry Clay and I didn't hang John C. Calhoun."_

----------


## jmdrake

What people don't seem to know about crazy Andy Jackson.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lincoln's war was NOT about slavery; _secession_ was about slavery above all else, but Lincoln's _war_ was about secession and federal power.


And Jackson would have done the same and worse.

----------


## jmdrake

> Most in South were against slavery, it meant less work for them and they couldn't compete with the elite slaveowners, who were a fraction of the South. Every major battle you had non-slaveowner Southerners fighting against northern slaveowners. As well as free blacks fighting against northeners.


Some of those in the South who were against slavery seceded from their southern states and fought for the Union.  On case in particularly was "The Free State Of Jones" (county Mississippi).  They became their own libertarian mecca during the civil war with poor whites and escaped slaves fighting off the confederates.  Oh, and the confederates had a draft which exempted slave owners.  




It's like our modern oil wars fought by people who don't own oil fields.  Only we've convinced people to die for no reason without a draft.

----------


## kona

> Some of those in the South who were against slavery seceded from their southern states and fought for the Union.  On case in particularly was "The Free State Of Jones" (county Mississippi).  They became their own libertarian mecca during the civil war with poor whites and escaped slaves fighting off the confederates.  Oh, and the confederates had a draft which exempted slave owners.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like our modern oil wars fought by people who don't own oil fields.  Only we've convinced people to die for no reason without a draft.


Exactly.

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Exactly. People tend to oversimplify it so that they can pick a side. Yes, Lincoln was a tyrant, and ending slavery was not what drove him to war.
> 
> But the southern states were tyrannies too, and preserving slavery was what drove them to war.
> 
> We're allowed to condemn both sides.


The southern states were not "driven to war"; they were driven to _secession_. The war of Northern aggression was Lincoln's war start to finish.

Secession is not aggression.

----------


## jmdrake

> The southern states were not "driven to war"; they were driven to _secession_. The war of Northern aggression was Lincoln's war start to finish.
> 
> Secession is not aggression.


Andrew Jackson would have hung them all.  That is what this thread is about right?

----------


## oyarde

> Andrew Jackson would have hung them all.  That is what this thread is about right?


He would kill anyone he could . Just because .

----------


## The Rebel Poet

> Andrew Jackson would have hung them all.  That is what this thread is about right?


Yeah, Jackson was one crazy mofo.

----------


## kona

> Yeah, Jackson was one crazy mofo.


The point is that Jackson was able to avert a war over secession, as did every other president not named Lincoln. In comparison to Dishonest Abe, he was a saint.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Some of those in the South who were against slavery seceded from their southern states and fought for the Union.  On case in particularly was "The Free State Of Jones" (county Mississippi).  They became their own libertarian mecca during the civil war with poor whites and escaped slaves fighting off the confederates.  Oh, and the confederates had a draft which exempted slave owners.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's like our modern oil wars fought by people who don't own oil fields.  Only we've convinced people to die for no reason without a draft.





> 1) The Title – The Free State of Jones  is a name that still  resonates in the county with a great deal of  pride.  It can still be  seen on car tags and county government seals.   But the nickname is not  about the Newt Knight saga. In fact at the time  of this rebellion, it  was referred to in a Natchez newspaper as the  “Republic of Jones,” a  name extensively used throughout the last 150  years, especially by  historians writing on the subject.  Other names  for the Knight rebellion  have also been used:  the “Jones County  Confederacy,” a “Confederacy  within a Confederacy,” and even the  “Kingdom of Jones,” which I had  never heard until I watched the Ken  Burns “Civil War” documentary.
>  The name “Free State of Jones” can be traced back to the 1830s and   1840s. When new lands opened up in South Mississippi, thanks to the   Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830, Jones County, already sparsely   populated, lost a sizable portion of its population, as people sought   out more land and better opportunities. As that shift occurred, the   civil government, in place since the county’s inception in 1826,   essentially collapsed. With few slaves, not much government, and a small   population, it was a very free place to live.  In fact, the state   legislature had to pass a law in 1843 to reorganize the non-existent   county government.  Many years after the war, the name “Free State of   Jones” came to be associated with the Knight rebellion.
>  2) Jones County Unionism – The essence of the film was that   Jones County, as well as a few of the surrounding counties, was a hotbed   of unionist, as well as anti-slavery, support since it was sparsely   populated with slaves.  In fact, there were just over 300 blacks in the   whole county in 1860.  The film makes it seem as though the majority   unionist Jones Countians reacted against the plantation-slave-cotton   economy of the South, every bit as much as the hated “Twenty Negro Law”   and the Confederate “tax-in-kind” policy.
>  And to build up this dramatic, anti-wealth narrative, what we see is a   large-scale plantation right in the center of Ellisville, complete with   a big house with a cruel and unjust master, named James Eakins, who   raises a lot of cotton, enough to fill the cotton market in the small   town.  The set up seems to be taken right from Natchez and transplanted   in the heart of Jones County.  But it is complete fiction. Jones County   had no major plantations and was comprised mainly of small yeoman   farmers, who raised more cattle than cotton.
>  In fact, aside from Eakins, there are many fictional characters in   this film, nearly as many as authentic characters in the true story –   Moses Washington, the main freed slave in the Knight Company who   occupies much of the center stage throughout the film, and Daniel   Knight, Newt Knight’s nephew killed at the Battle of Corinth at the   start of the movie, are both completely fabricated.
>  As for Confederate tax policy, the “tax-in-kind” that required  farmers  to give ten percent to the government, it was a tough tax in  those  farm-based areas and there were reports of rough tactics used to   collect it.  But the film essentially portrayed the Confederate army and   tax collectors as barbarians. I was unsure if I was seeing the   Confederate army or the first coming of Hitler’s Wehrmacht.  One   particularly nasty tax-collecting officer, a Lt. Barbour, was also a   fictional character.
>  But the film left out the fact that the Confederate Congress changed   the tax several times, including a major change in February 1864 that   exempted poor and needy families but also heavily taxed the rich and   affluent.  One political scientist from Yale wrote that the Confederate   Congress, in this new change, “taxed all property including slaves at   5%; all gold, silver, and jewels were taxed at 10%; all shares or   interest in banks, companies or businesses were taxed at 5%; monies in   any form were taxed at 5%; and taxes on profits were increased to 10%,   with companies that made more than a 25% profit taxed at 25%.”[4]  And all because of the complaints of, and out of concern for, struggling farmers.
>  And of course the film completely omits the fact that the Knight   Company was burning homes and plundering farms of those who remained   loyal to the Confederacy in a fashion much worse than actions undertaken   by the Confederate army.
>  In one letter from Captain W. Wirt Thompson to the Confederate   Secretary of War, James Seddon, he recounts the carnage:  “Several of   the most prominent citizens have already been driven from their homes,   and some have been slaughtered in their own homes because they refused   to obey the mandates of the outlaws and abandon the country. Numbers   have been ordered away and are now living under threats and in fear of   their lives.”[5]
> ...


...

----------


## jmdrake

> ...
> 2) Jones County Unionism – The essence of the film was that Jones County, as well as a few of the surrounding counties, was a hotbed of unionist, as well as anti-slavery, support since it was sparsely populated with slaves. In fact, there were just over 300 blacks in the whole county in 1860. The film makes it seem as though the majority unionist Jones Countians reacted against the plantation-slave-cotton economy of the South, every bit as much as the hated “Twenty Negro Law” and the Confederate “tax-in-kind” policy.


That is opinion about the film, not fact.  The fact is that the draft of non slave owners is portrayed in the film as the driving force behind the secession from the secessionists more than the tax.  The main character leaves the confederacy over the injust draft, not the tax.  He does help people push back against the tax.

If you'd rather watch a documentary, then here:

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That is opinion about the film, not fact.  The fact is that the draft of non slave owners is portrayed in the film as the driving force behind the secession from the secessionists more than the tax.  The main character leaves the confederacy over the injust draft, not the tax.  He does help people push back against the tax.
> 
> If you'd rather watch a documentary, then here:


You only responded to one part.

----------


## jmdrake

> You only responded to one part.


That's because it was a freaking wall of text and the only part that was relevant is what I responded to.  In my post I talked about the fact that some areas of the south where there wasn't a lot of slave ownership seceded from the south and that the south had to institute a draft to have enough soldiers.  Your wall of text *actually proved my two main points*!

----------


## Superfluous Man

> Most in South were against slavery, it meant less work for them and they couldn't compete with the elite slaveowners, who were a fraction of the South. Every major battle you had non-slaveowner Southerners fighting against northern slaveowners. As well as free blacks fighting against northeners.
> 
> The south was not driven to war by any means. Lincoln drove the war singlehandedly by himself. Tariffs, protectionism, central empire were the motives. Slavery was barely on the periphery and used merely to incite an insurrection in the south, which failed miserably because most of the South did not have slaves. Lincoln literally was the "you can have your slaves as long as you pay taxes and stay in the union" guy. Helps explain why there was so much slavery in the north, contrary to popular opinion. NC/TN/AK and others originally voted to stay in the union, then withdrew AFTER they saw Lincoln attack the sister states like a madman. But we're supposed to believe the cause was slavery. Just like 100 years from now Americans will be taught the Iraq war was to liberate the Iraqis.
> 
> You told me to disabuse myself of the error that the war was over slavery. Tell me, does Ron, Lew, Dilorenzo, Spooner, Woods, Rothbard need to disabuse themselves of this error as well?


If they claimed that the preserving slavery was not a major motivation for the Confederate states to secede (which I doubt all, if any, of them did), then yes, that was an error they should have disabused themselves of. And they could have done that by reading those states' official reasons for secession, as I suggested to you.

Did you read those?

----------


## Superfluous Man

> The southern states were not "driven to war"; they were driven to _secession_. The war of Northern aggression was Lincoln's war start to finish.
> 
> Secession is not aggression.


That is true. I don't dispute how you put it at all. They should have been allowed to secede. If northern abolitionists truly wanted to end slavery, they had recourse to other methods short of militarily subjugating under their rule what were then foreign nations.

However, Lincoln spoke the truth in his Second Inaugural Address when he said, "While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

Both of those sides were wrong. And I do not diminish the charge that Lincoln paints himself and his cohorts in a rosier light here than they deserved, for allowing the union to dissolve without war would have been right, and a union that requires war to maintain is not a union worth maintaining.

----------


## kona

> If they claimed that the preserving slavery was not a major motivation for the Confederate states to secede (which I doubt all, if any, of them did), then yes, that was an error they should have disabused themselves of. And they could have done that by reading those states' official reasons for secession, as I suggested to you.
> 
> Did you read those?


I did. My comment stands. Slavery was a factor in secession, not a factor in the war. The cause of the war was tariffs.

See Dilorenzo on Lincoln vs the Constitution.

See Ron call the war a tariff war when running.

Why did NJ, a slave state until the end of the war, not secede? Why were they allowed (along with other northern states) to have slaves?

As Lincoln said, you can have your slaves if you collect the tariff.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I did. My comment stands. Slavery was a factor in secession, not a factor in the war. The cause of the war was tariffs.
> 
> See Dilorenzo on Lincoln vs the Constitution.
> 
> See Ron call the war a tariff war when running.
> 
> Why did NJ, a slave state until the end of the war, not secede? Why were they allowed (along with other northern states) to have slaves?
> 
> As Lincoln said, you can have your slaves if you collect the tariff.


It's as if you didn't read what I wrote.

I agree that ending slavery was not a major motivation for the Union to fight the Civil War. But preserving slavery was a major motivation for the Confederate States to secede, as you now admit. No such motivation would have existed under a Jackson presidency. But that's no reason to like Jackson.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> That's because it was a freaking wall of text and the only part that was relevant is what I responded to.  In my post I talked about the fact that some areas of the south where there wasn't a lot of slave ownership seceded from the south and that the south had to institute a draft to have enough soldiers.  Your wall of text *actually proved my two main points*!


LOL

----------


## kona

> It's as if you didn't read what I wrote.
> 
> I agree that ending slavery was not a major motivation for the Union to fight the Civil War. But preserving slavery was a major motivation for the Confederate States to secede, as you now admit. No such motivation would have existed under a Jackson presidency. But that's no reason to like Jackson.


I don't think ending slavery was a motivation AT ALL for war. 

Nor did I say it was a "major motivation" for the South to secede. I called it a factor. Not THE factor. It was a legal tactic.

"When the Southern states seceded, they were concerned to do so legally or constitutionally under the Constitution so that the North could not legally claim that it was an act of rebellion and invade the Southern states. To make this case, the South needed to make a case that the North had broken the Constitutional contract and that the South was seceding because the North had not kept to the Constitution.

This presented a legal challenge for the South, because the reason for which the Southern states were seceding was the tariff, but the Constitution gave the federal government the right to levy a tariff. Therefore, the Southern states could not cite the tariff as a breach of the Constitutional fabric."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/11/...he-uneducated/

The fact remains that Jackson avoided a war over secession. If we're going to deify presidents, it should be Jackson, not Lincoln, that is immortalized (I am against deifying anyone).

You are right, Jackson not starting a war is not a reason to like him. But people who don't launch wars are preferable to those who do.

I get it, you don't like Jackson. I think that is perfectly agreeable. But killing the 2NB was a major victory for liberty, for everyone, and stands out like a diamond in our history.

----------

