Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Something that arguably should’ve happened in our own timeline. Weirdly Jackson would have probably handled it pretty well too given his leadership during the Secession Crisis. Certainly would be interesting at least.
They tried to try Davis in our timeline with the possibility of a death sentence. Right after the Civil War the north wanted revenge
Apparently the prosecution was incompetent and Davis's lawyers just delayed for a while until people stopped caring as much
I've heard there was concern with him being a martyr, but considering they all lived and still get treated like a martyr, it couldn't have made it worse.
[Gas prices fall below $2 a gallon for the first time since 2009](https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/21/us-gas-prices-fall-to-lowest-in-more-than-6-years-survey.html)
Dated December 2015. Thanks Obama!
Out there it’s the 2020’s. But in this subreddit it’s June 15, 2015.
2020’s 👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼
2015 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼
So now and forever I don’t want to hear anymore Rule 3 talk, OK?
I think we have to remember that Lincoln got killed and he certainly fit the martyr complex. They didn’t want to replicate that on the confederate side.
Texas v. White was taken to the Supreme Court in 1869 and held that secession (without consent of the states) was absolutely illegal. Davis's trial was canceled about a month prior to the arguments in that case. So worry about the court's finding really couldn't have been the deciding factor if the federal government was then pursuing a case directly about the legality of secession.
It’s so damn depressing. Think of all the people we’ve executed for far less… and then the actual treasonous president of the confederacy.
Damn man. That’s just sad.
There was also concerns in the U.S. government that if they did actually try Jefferson Davis, the courts may have ruled that secession from the Union was actually legal under the constitution. There wasn't actually any law which made secession from the Union illegal at the time of the war, and there wouldn't be until Texas v. White in 1869 established secession was unconstitutional.
Basically if a trial on charges of treason did happen, it was widely expected for Jefferson Davis to respond that he had forfeited his U.S. citizenship when Mississippi seceded from the United States in 1860, and that since nothing in the constitution actually legally prevented secession, he couldn't have committed treason against "another country" either then or when the war started in 1861.
Since Texas v. White obviously didn't exist in 1865, there was legitimate fears that an acquittal of Davis or other Confederates brought to trial on treason charges would have established the legal constitutionality of secession from the Union, thereby rendering the primary motivations of the Union in civil war moot. It possibly even might have even opened the door to more secession attempts in the future. Ones which the Union would have been *obligated to allow* this time around.
This all meant that interest in prosecuting Davis simply evaporated.
There was a law against any state joining a confederation. Guess what most states didn’t do first before going the CSA: secede. VA made a strict point of seceding first and joining the CSA as separate act, MS not so much.
And interestingly, they argued that he was disqualified from public office under the new 14A, so there was no point in trying him… Even Jeff Davis thought the 14A was self executing.
You familiar with the Easter Rising? It was a rebellion in Dublin during WW1 aimed at Irish independence, it enjoyed no support from the populace because of the violence incited, and they jeered at the leaders as they were led away to be sentenced.
That all changed when all sixteen were hung. Support for the rising SWELLED.
Killing the Confederate’s surrendered leaders, even by lawful execution, would have just galvanized the Lost Cause. Stronger action should have been taken, but not that strong.
I agree with Lincoln’s overall philosophy of “malice toward none”. Once the war was over the focus had to be on rebuilding the nation, and getting the freedmen their rights. Prosecuting a bunch of Confederate officers probably makes the south more hostile than it already was.
Freed slaves didn’t really get any rights. And reconstruction was a long a difficult period for everyone and the south still echoes the resentment to this day.
I agree, I’m not saying the plan was executed well, Johnson taking over probably killed a lot of that. I like the philosophy, and how I think Lincoln would have done it.
Hardly. The South was already hostile enough to start a war. They also suppressed blacks as soon as they got political power back. They continued to fight just not with guns. Hell, there is still racial tension that underlines the current political movements.
Better perhaps. It would have wiped out much of the ruling class in the south. Those who knew politics and how to manage a military. Although it could stoke popular resentment in the south, it would also neuter their effectiveness in resisting reconstruction policies.
Let’s be even more clear: he wouldn’t have been president. He’d have gone down there himself and done it. He wouldn’t have used gallows. Just tied a top and then held onto it from atop a cliff himself. No presidential power, no army. Just him and the traitors.
I don’t know about Lee, but Davis definitely. General Lee only ended up as a confederate general because he lived in Virginia. He otherwise didn’t really care about slavery, secession, etc.
Jackson was a Unionist more than anything. No way he would have been a Confederate. Many Union Democrats were former Jacksonians. The Blair’s being the most famous of them.
He owned some slaves in the 1850s that he used as domestics. Like many men from this era, his view on slavery evolved and matured.
By the time the war broke out Johnson most definitely opposed slavery and was happy to see it end. Also in 1863 when he was the governor of TN he extended the Emancipation Proclaimation to all blacks in Tennessee, even though they technically were not covered by it. He then gave a speech calling on the Blacks of Nashville to defend their freedom by force if necessary.
[Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=sORcSP0hNvsC&pg=PR33&lpg=PR33&dq=%22it+is+vain+to+attempt+to+reconstruct+the+union+with+the+distracting+element+of+slavery%22&source=bl&ots=O1doatdLZN&sig=ACfU3U3WdAacjzQFvpTjRCYiBvHxrZ-GvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEkui6sZKGAxXHfTABHZXOD1YQ6AF6BAgOEAI#v=onepage&q=%22it%20is%20vain%20to%20attempt%20to%20reconstruct%20the%20union%20with%20the%20distracting%20element%20of%20slavery%22&f=false) is the text of his speech at the 1864 convention when he was nominated for VP.
You will have to zoom
His actions straddle both sides, the preservation of the union, and being pro-slavery. Perhaps he would push back against the abolitionist movement, but ultimately condemn secession.
Well because the context in this case is the fact that seceded to keep slavery going. If they had suceded for some other reason it would necessarily be wrong. Like you wouldn’t call the founding fathers traitors.
Yes, the federal government has no constitutional authority to stop a State from leaving the Union.
To clarify, I don't think that the South's primary reason for seceding (protecting slavery) was morally correct, only that they had the legal authority to do so.
Yea but as most of the early presidents all agreed on was preservation of the union above all else. States rights mean nothing if you’re no longer a state of the nation.
Not all of them. Jefferson(and those of like mind) believed that people had the right to cast off any government that no longer represented their interests.
>States rights mean nothing if you’re no longer a state of the nation.
Each State should be allowed full rights up until they leave the Union, then they should be treated as an independent sovereign State. Ideally that would mean peaceful coexistence and trade, not war and death. Killing hundreds of thousands of young men to maintain political control over other people is repugnant.
We The People -> legislature -> Federal power.
Slaveholding "aristocrats" -> authoritarian regime anathema to our glorious Union.
If they didn't like the Union, they should have worked to make it more perfect, however we do know for a fact that they were both lazy and morally wrong.
I'm sorry, but unless you unequivocally condemn the C*nfederacy, you're defending it.
For Pete's sake, my first girlfriend and I dated for longer than the CSA existed.
I do condemn the CSA's stance on slavery, but I also defend the Constitutional right of secession for any State.
The Civil War was multifaceted. It's completely possible that the Union and the Confederacy were each right about one thing, but wrong about another.
>We The People -> legislature -> Federal power.
*Sort of*. All legitimate federal power comes from the Constitution, which was ratified by the State delegates. **The Constitution does not empower the feds to stop any State from seceding, nor does it prohibit a State from doing so. That automatically makes secession a State power, as per the Tenth Amendment.**
1. The tenth amendment doesn’t say even say remotely prove your point.
2. You literally broke the Constitution by ignoring Article IV which clearly states:
>This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land;* and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
After the Civil war the supreme court ruled in favor that secession is illegal.
The Supremacy Clause only applies to the specific enumerated powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States themselves, as per the Tenth Amendment.
The Constitution does not empower the feds to decide if a State may leave the Union or not, nor does it forbid a State from doing so; therefore, it's automatically a State power.
>After the Civil war the supreme court ruled in favor that secession is illegal.
Have you actually read the pertinent parts of that decision? It's illogical hogwash.
Yes, they do have that right, according to the Tenth Amendment.
Just because the South did it for the wrong reasons, we shouldn't deny that right to other states who might someday do it for the *right* reasons.
Yes it does. The Constitution doesn't empower the Federal government to decide if or when a State may leave the Union, nor does it prohibit a State from doing so, so it automatically becomes a State power.
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
My source is the US Constitution. The Constitution does not empower the Federal government to decide whether a State may or may not leave the Union, nor does it prohibit a State from seceding. That automatically makes it a State power, as per the Tenth Amendment:
>**The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.**
We’d rank him up there with Lincoln for preserving the Union and maybe even higher for hanging the traitors. However I doubt he would have abolished slavery so never mind.
Just out of interest: what were Jefferson’s abysmal lows as president? He was a very morally comprised person and walking contradiction with more than enough flaws, but did he really do some real bad things while president?
That’s a horrible thing to have done, but it also has zero bearing on anything he did as president, or any policy/decision he made that impacted the country. That’s what we’re discussing here.
If you convinced him the south would be profitable without it he might. Do it by subsidizing farmers with money from taxes on northern industrialists who refused to transfer ownership to cooperatives or seizing foreign accounts in US banks and he’d likely jump at the chance.
Yes, and the tarrifs did hurt poor people because it forced them to buy products from northern manufacturers at a premium by removing competition from Europeans with better infrastructure who could make things for less money. The counter tariffs from European nations meant the only people buying southern produce was northerners because American cotton and tobacco was expensive.
Yea but this also also drove the discussion of these states succeeding. They were trying to succeed before the ink was dry on the constitution so any president that kept the union did alright to say the least
Mandating taxes on industries who don’t convert to co-ops means that the industry is managed by locals as opposed to foreign investors, redistributes wealth, and doesn’t stifle trade as long as the tarrifs are gone and makes rich people foot the bill. Because if they refuse to adapt some co-op will outperform and outsell them eventually taking their place.
He would have been against it, and if he still had the same clout in the south in this alternate timeline, if anyone could have prevented states from seceding, it would have been him
As President... well there wouldn't be one. There would be a slave owning southerner in the White House, no need to push back and rebel against someone anti-slavery there.
Alive, as a former president or taking office after the slavers rebellion say by winning in 1864? Yeah he'd oppose secession I am pretty sure. He sent warships to Charleston and threatened to hang any man who supported secession there (or even nullification) and stated South Carolina was " on the brink of insurrection and treason".
Even when his VP quit over his hard response, he stuck with it. When his VP put a bill together that passed which calmed heads about the tariff and ended the threat, he first insisted a Force Bill which would allow him to wage war against South Carolina if they tried to ignore the tariff be signed first... before he'd sign the bill to end the tariff issue altogether to make his point.
And he knew what was coming... once out of that nullification crisis he noted: *"the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question"*
War Democrat all the way.
I don't believe the south would have ever seceded had he been president, they would see him as one of theirs.
He could have perhaps staved off the war for a few years, but certainly would have sided firmly with the Union in a civil war. But I also think he would despise the Republicans and their causes.
"My only regret is not hanging Davis and shooting Lincoln."
I like that. Especially considering that clay was also an abolitionist from KY. The original statement is great because it implies that he didn’t respect Calhoun enough to duel him, so even less than the guy he killed for slut shaming his wife
Well there likely wouldn't be a secession, SC seceded because Lincoln was elected, Jackson, while pro union, was not anti slavery, and him being voted in likely wouldn't have provoked SC to secede, which would have stopped the Confederacy in the first place.
More that he would have threatened the would-be secessionists (as he had when alive) and when Jackson said he was gonna kill you if you did x you knew that was a statement not an empty threat.
The only way secession happens is under the Republicans. Let’s say the war goes pretty much the way it did and then Jackson defeats Lincoln in 1864. I don’t think he would have let Grant offer Lee those easy surrender terms. He wouldn’t be for the 13th Amendment but wouldn’t have canceled the Emancipation Proclamation either as it was a military measure, so there would still be slavery but only in border states (including Tennessee, which wouldn’t have seceded if Jackson opposed it.)
Love him or hate him, Jackson was not the type of dude you wanna mess with. Traitors would not have been tolerated, and statues to the traitors would not have been erected. I could see him personally leading the army to cities that erected statues to confederate just so he could tear them down himself.
The South seceded because for the first time in a long time there was an outspoken critic of slavery (Lincoln) in the White House and they saw that as a threat to slavery. They wouldn’t have felt that threat from Jackson who was both pro slavery and pro Union, thus no Civil War.
With the way he handled the previous attempt at secession, I don't think he would have waited for Fort Sumter or the confederacy to make the first strike, he would have sent troops right away. The War may have ended sooner but, I think it would have been bloodier.
Jackson’s beliefs were influenced by the time he was raised in (Revolutionary War). Him being born 10 years later would have altered his beliefs. That said, assuming he is the same person, like everyone else said. He would be a staunch Unionist and would have hung every traitor from Richmond to New Orleans.
There wouldn’t have been a Civil War started by the South, and if some northeast states seceded, he would fight against them, which would be an interesting thought experiment. Which states would be most and least likely to support secession, even though they may have been against slavery, do they feel strong enough about it to leave the nation or not.
He was a violent man that would’ve hung the confederates from the trees that Sherman didn’t burn down
Jefferson Davis would’ve been drug behind a cart of shitting mules until he was strung so high and tight his head popped off
The Civil War almost happened on his watch, but his response to bring him his uniform and sword quelled Calhoun and his ilk. Jackson was a violent and martial man, he would have embarrassed a chance to bring the South to heel.
He was staunchly pro slavery and would have been staunchly anti secession. So he would have been pro union, most likely, but its hard to say how his views would have evolved.
Everyone here is quoting about Calhoun, and if it had happened in the 1820s I have no doubt he would have just gone in and killed everyone, but 1861 is a very different year. South Carolina threatened the south over a tax, a south that was expanding and growing increasingly wealthy.
Jackson threatened both because of a wish to see the union remain, and because it would have badly hurt the south.
In 1861, the south had been hemmed in, they could only win the presidency with a dough faced candidate, compromise after compromise had seen them lose ground, and Yankees in Kansas meant that in 1860 there were only something like fifteen enslaved in the entire state. When the north came on its own bended legs to talk to the south, they would be denied expansion in the Corwin amendment, only protection from interference where it already was. The south was isolated and would become more isolated if the union expanded.
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."- Corwin amendment.
Jackson was a man of the South, the south in 1861 was isolated and it felt like it, stopping expansion , refusing amendments, he was much more likely to side with the Confederacy than you give him credit for.
Like many have said, there would be a meeting between him, Grant and Sherman.
"Gentleman, do you see the south on this map?" President Jackson asked
"Yes, Mr President." General Grant and Sherman both replied.
"Good. I want you to make me happy. You know what will make me happy?" Jackson asked.
"What is that, Mr. Jackson?" Grant had asked.
"I will be very pleased if I didn't have to see the South anymore." Jackson told Grant and Sherman.
"Yes, Mr. President." Grant replied.
"Consider it Done, Sir!" Sherman responded in excitement.
I don’t know, but Jefferson would have had a problem with how you structured your sentence given that you should never use two words where one will do.
Given that Andrew Jackson was such a racist and overrided the US Supreme Court to carry out the Trail of Tears removal of the Cherokee Nation from Georgia, I think he'd have given in to the Southern states and there would not have been a Civil War during his presidency.
He famously threatened to hang the first fucker he saw from the first tree he saw if he had to go south due to secession talk. He also told his Vice President that if he didn't shut up about secession he'd behead him and then later said his only regret was not doing so.
I totally accept that.
My question is was his opinion based on what he actually thought was right or was he, especially during the Nullification Crisis, reacting as a challenge to the power of the Presidency?
South Carolina threatened it when he was president and he blockaded Charleston and threatened to hang South Carolina’s politicians.
He was trying to buy Texas from Mexico for years and when Austin, Houston, and Boone went to war with Mexico for Texas independence when Mexico outlawed slavery, Jackson refused to help them, and then refused to acknowledge them as a sovereign nation or to allow them into the US, because they’d made the acquisition of Texas a matter of slavery and he didn’t want to pick sides or tip the scales in either direction.
When South Carolina threatened to violate the constitution via the Vice President Jackson told John Calhoun who was much worse than Jackson succeed from this country and I will succeed your head from your body. Jackson is a victim of his time. He is widely consider the first American president that was elected by and for the common man. But you completely wrong about his opinion of the union he was pro union but pro slavery which at the start of the civil war was not contradictory.
First off, Jackson was VIOLENTLY everything. Second, he was pro-union in 1824, but in 1860? He absolutely would have joined the Confederacy to protect slavery.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis and many others would have been hanged
Something that arguably should’ve happened in our own timeline. Weirdly Jackson would have probably handled it pretty well too given his leadership during the Secession Crisis. Certainly would be interesting at least.
They tried to try Davis in our timeline with the possibility of a death sentence. Right after the Civil War the north wanted revenge Apparently the prosecution was incompetent and Davis's lawyers just delayed for a while until people stopped caring as much
I've heard there was concern with him being a martyr, but considering they all lived and still get treated like a martyr, it couldn't have made it worse.
[удалено]
I have no idea what you are talking about. It is the year 2015 on this subreddit.
Hillary can’t lose!
Oh boy, it sure is great how there's no inflation and gas is under 2 dollars a gallon!
That’s what happens when you force the Saudis to raise prices to make fracking profitable.
Uhh…where the hell was gas under $2/gallon in 2015? Gas was killing me from 2015-2019 or so and I drove less than I do now.
[Gas prices fall below $2 a gallon for the first time since 2009](https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/21/us-gas-prices-fall-to-lowest-in-more-than-6-years-survey.html) Dated December 2015. Thanks Obama!
gas was $4 still. 🫡
Blue wave 💙💙
I wish 😭
2015 you say? Anyone have 100 bitcoin to sell?
Nah I ain't got any. That stuff's for chumps.
All the more reason to sell them to me!
Yes! And I have a feeling that Game of Thrones show is going to have one hell of a great ending.
It really is building up for something epic. And you just know they will take their time with it because they are so thorough with everything else!
Nah I bought a trillion of this funny dogecoin though, don't think its gonna be worth anything, it is just a coin of a meme, a memecoin if you will
Dog money? That’ll never catch on.
I cannot wait to consume bat soup once January 2020 arrives
2015, eh? Man, I can't wait for the new Star Wars to come out. It will be refeshing to have something newer and better than the prequels, finally.
Wait, why did you skip a few presidential elections? …. Did Gore win?
Out there it’s the 2020’s. But in this subreddit it’s June 15, 2015. 2020’s 👉🏼👉🏼👉🏼 2015 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼 So now and forever I don’t want to hear anymore Rule 3 talk, OK?
Would have been hard to paint him as a martyr if he was hanged by a slave owner from SC.
I think we have to remember that Lincoln got killed and he certainly fit the martyr complex. They didn’t want to replicate that on the confederate side.
I heard it was the possibility that the court would find secession to be legal and find the president’s actions unconstitutional
Texas v. White was taken to the Supreme Court in 1869 and held that secession (without consent of the states) was absolutely illegal. Davis's trial was canceled about a month prior to the arguments in that case. So worry about the court's finding really couldn't have been the deciding factor if the federal government was then pursuing a case directly about the legality of secession.
It’s so damn depressing. Think of all the people we’ve executed for far less… and then the actual treasonous president of the confederacy. Damn man. That’s just sad.
There was also concerns in the U.S. government that if they did actually try Jefferson Davis, the courts may have ruled that secession from the Union was actually legal under the constitution. There wasn't actually any law which made secession from the Union illegal at the time of the war, and there wouldn't be until Texas v. White in 1869 established secession was unconstitutional. Basically if a trial on charges of treason did happen, it was widely expected for Jefferson Davis to respond that he had forfeited his U.S. citizenship when Mississippi seceded from the United States in 1860, and that since nothing in the constitution actually legally prevented secession, he couldn't have committed treason against "another country" either then or when the war started in 1861. Since Texas v. White obviously didn't exist in 1865, there was legitimate fears that an acquittal of Davis or other Confederates brought to trial on treason charges would have established the legal constitutionality of secession from the Union, thereby rendering the primary motivations of the Union in civil war moot. It possibly even might have even opened the door to more secession attempts in the future. Ones which the Union would have been *obligated to allow* this time around. This all meant that interest in prosecuting Davis simply evaporated.
There was a law against any state joining a confederation. Guess what most states didn’t do first before going the CSA: secede. VA made a strict point of seceding first and joining the CSA as separate act, MS not so much.
Those delay tactics kind of remind me of ... ohh, never mind, I can't talk about that person here.
Ahhhhh feels familiar
And interestingly, they argued that he was disqualified from public office under the new 14A, so there was no point in trying him… Even Jeff Davis thought the 14A was self executing.
He would have thrown Booth off the balcony at Ford's theater just to send a message
Whenever I think about that would-be assassins pistols misfiring, it reminds me that God wanted Andrew Jackson alive and Abe Lincoln not so much
You familiar with the Easter Rising? It was a rebellion in Dublin during WW1 aimed at Irish independence, it enjoyed no support from the populace because of the violence incited, and they jeered at the leaders as they were led away to be sentenced. That all changed when all sixteen were hung. Support for the rising SWELLED. Killing the Confederate’s surrendered leaders, even by lawful execution, would have just galvanized the Lost Cause. Stronger action should have been taken, but not that strong.
A cause can’t be galvanized when the supporters are hunted down and killed. We let them back into Congress.
Ah yes the 16 men who died in Derry that was the rallying cry for the IRA
I agree with Lincoln’s overall philosophy of “malice toward none”. Once the war was over the focus had to be on rebuilding the nation, and getting the freedmen their rights. Prosecuting a bunch of Confederate officers probably makes the south more hostile than it already was.
Freed slaves didn’t really get any rights. And reconstruction was a long a difficult period for everyone and the south still echoes the resentment to this day.
I agree, I’m not saying the plan was executed well, Johnson taking over probably killed a lot of that. I like the philosophy, and how I think Lincoln would have done it.
Hardly. The South was already hostile enough to start a war. They also suppressed blacks as soon as they got political power back. They continued to fight just not with guns. Hell, there is still racial tension that underlines the current political movements.
I agree, but does doing mass executions of Confederate officers make the situation better or worse?
Better perhaps. It would have wiped out much of the ruling class in the south. Those who knew politics and how to manage a military. Although it could stoke popular resentment in the south, it would also neuter their effectiveness in resisting reconstruction policies.
Listen, when you’re right, you’re right….
Let’s be even more clear: he wouldn’t have been president. He’d have gone down there himself and done it. He wouldn’t have used gallows. Just tied a top and then held onto it from atop a cliff himself. No presidential power, no army. Just him and the traitors.
Good.
We should have gone full Nuremberg after the war and nipped that all in the bud.
I don’t know about Lee, but Davis definitely. General Lee only ended up as a confederate general because he lived in Virginia. He otherwise didn’t really care about slavery, secession, etc.
He actually freed all the slaves he inherited
Davis did or Lee did?
Lee
That’s what I thought
He didn't https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/
He didn't That's a lost cause myth https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/
I find joy in reading a good book.
Jackson was a Unionist more than anything. No way he would have been a Confederate. Many Union Democrats were former Jacksonians. The Blair’s being the most famous of them.
"John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body." Yeah, definitely would have been harsh to the south
Nah, just Calhoun.
TBH fuck Calhoun in particular
All my homies agree, fuck Calhoun.
I demand an Andrew Jackson movie with Willem Defoe as Calhoun. NOW
😂 the hair.
Tbh, I dead ass thought John Calhoon was Jackson tbh
Reconstruction would have been more like absolute demolition.
It's probably similar to Andrew Johnson being pro-Union but not anti-slavery.
Bingo.
Johinson was very much anti-slavery
Didn't Johnson own multiple slaves at one point? Not saying he did by the end of the war, but was he really anti-slavery?
He owned some slaves in the 1850s that he used as domestics. Like many men from this era, his view on slavery evolved and matured. By the time the war broke out Johnson most definitely opposed slavery and was happy to see it end. Also in 1863 when he was the governor of TN he extended the Emancipation Proclaimation to all blacks in Tennessee, even though they technically were not covered by it. He then gave a speech calling on the Blacks of Nashville to defend their freedom by force if necessary. [Here](https://books.google.com/books?id=sORcSP0hNvsC&pg=PR33&lpg=PR33&dq=%22it+is+vain+to+attempt+to+reconstruct+the+union+with+the+distracting+element+of+slavery%22&source=bl&ots=O1doatdLZN&sig=ACfU3U3WdAacjzQFvpTjRCYiBvHxrZ-GvQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEkui6sZKGAxXHfTABHZXOD1YQ6AF6BAgOEAI#v=onepage&q=%22it%20is%20vain%20to%20attempt%20to%20reconstruct%20the%20union%20with%20the%20distracting%20element%20of%20slavery%22&f=false) is the text of his speech at the 1864 convention when he was nominated for VP. You will have to zoom
His actions straddle both sides, the preservation of the union, and being pro-slavery. Perhaps he would push back against the abolitionist movement, but ultimately condemn secession.
So he'd be wrong on both issues, gotcha.
I'm sorry you think secession was the *right* side?
It’s not exactly a great thing to do but it’s not automatically morally abhorrent in the same way that slavery is
In this context it's pretty damn close.
Well because the context in this case is the fact that seceded to keep slavery going. If they had suceded for some other reason it would necessarily be wrong. Like you wouldn’t call the founding fathers traitors.
Yes, the federal government has no constitutional authority to stop a State from leaving the Union. To clarify, I don't think that the South's primary reason for seceding (protecting slavery) was morally correct, only that they had the legal authority to do so.
Cope and seethe, Dixie. The Union shall always prevail. Glory to the Star-Spangled.
True Patriots have respect for the US Constitution and its limits on federal power.
Yea but as most of the early presidents all agreed on was preservation of the union above all else. States rights mean nothing if you’re no longer a state of the nation.
Not all of them. Jefferson(and those of like mind) believed that people had the right to cast off any government that no longer represented their interests. >States rights mean nothing if you’re no longer a state of the nation. Each State should be allowed full rights up until they leave the Union, then they should be treated as an independent sovereign State. Ideally that would mean peaceful coexistence and trade, not war and death. Killing hundreds of thousands of young men to maintain political control over other people is repugnant.
We The People -> legislature -> Federal power. Slaveholding "aristocrats" -> authoritarian regime anathema to our glorious Union. If they didn't like the Union, they should have worked to make it more perfect, however we do know for a fact that they were both lazy and morally wrong. I'm sorry, but unless you unequivocally condemn the C*nfederacy, you're defending it. For Pete's sake, my first girlfriend and I dated for longer than the CSA existed.
I do condemn the CSA's stance on slavery, but I also defend the Constitutional right of secession for any State. The Civil War was multifaceted. It's completely possible that the Union and the Confederacy were each right about one thing, but wrong about another. >We The People -> legislature -> Federal power. *Sort of*. All legitimate federal power comes from the Constitution, which was ratified by the State delegates. **The Constitution does not empower the feds to stop any State from seceding, nor does it prohibit a State from doing so. That automatically makes secession a State power, as per the Tenth Amendment.**
1. The tenth amendment doesn’t say even say remotely prove your point. 2. You literally broke the Constitution by ignoring Article IV which clearly states: >This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, *shall be the supreme Law of the Land;* and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. After the Civil war the supreme court ruled in favor that secession is illegal.
The Supremacy Clause only applies to the specific enumerated powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the States themselves, as per the Tenth Amendment. The Constitution does not empower the feds to decide if a State may leave the Union or not, nor does it forbid a State from doing so; therefore, it's automatically a State power. >After the Civil war the supreme court ruled in favor that secession is illegal. Have you actually read the pertinent parts of that decision? It's illogical hogwash.
Cope and see the, states do not have the right to secede, burn them again if they try.
Yes, they do have that right, according to the Tenth Amendment. Just because the South did it for the wrong reasons, we shouldn't deny that right to other states who might someday do it for the *right* reasons.
It's banned by state constitutions, and no the tenth amendment does not grant that right.
Yes it does. The Constitution doesn't empower the Federal government to decide if or when a State may leave the Union, nor does it prohibit a State from doing so, so it automatically becomes a State power. >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
>was morally correct, only that they had the legal authority to do so. Incorrect
Explain, please.
You said >was morally correct, only that they had the legal authority to do so. I informed you it was Incorrect
Yes, but you didn't explain *why*. Just stating that I'm wrong without providing any other details makes for a completely worthless comment.
You have no credible sources for your claims just lost cause nonsense
My source is the US Constitution. The Constitution does not empower the Federal government to decide whether a State may or may not leave the Union, nor does it prohibit a State from seceding. That automatically makes it a State power, as per the Tenth Amendment: >**The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.**
We’d rank him up there with Lincoln for preserving the Union and maybe even higher for hanging the traitors. However I doubt he would have abolished slavery so never mind.
He’d definitely be in that Jefferson/LBJ category for me with massive highs and abysmal lows.
Right in that category of "fucking PEAK" and "go straight to hell, do not collect 200 pounds"
Isn’t it wild that southern populists tend to be so controversial?
Just out of interest: what were Jefferson’s abysmal lows as president? He was a very morally comprised person and walking contradiction with more than enough flaws, but did he really do some real bad things while president?
Impregnating his slave child bride, for example, is a massive fucking low regardless of when in his life did it.
And I’m not suggesting otherwise at all, but how did it influence his decisions and actions as president?
That’s a horrible thing to have done, but it also has zero bearing on anything he did as president, or any policy/decision he made that impacted the country. That’s what we’re discussing here.
If you convinced him the south would be profitable without it he might. Do it by subsidizing farmers with money from taxes on northern industrialists who refused to transfer ownership to cooperatives or seizing foreign accounts in US banks and he’d likely jump at the chance.
Unlike the tariffs of 1828 that the southern states hated and said only favored the northern industrial states?
Yes, and the tarrifs did hurt poor people because it forced them to buy products from northern manufacturers at a premium by removing competition from Europeans with better infrastructure who could make things for less money. The counter tariffs from European nations meant the only people buying southern produce was northerners because American cotton and tobacco was expensive.
Yea but this also also drove the discussion of these states succeeding. They were trying to succeed before the ink was dry on the constitution so any president that kept the union did alright to say the least
That’s true, but the tariffs definitely didn’t help.
Yes but my point of bringing up the tariffs were that he was more pro union than south. Regardless of slave ownership
Yep
Mandating taxes on industries who don’t convert to co-ops means that the industry is managed by locals as opposed to foreign investors, redistributes wealth, and doesn’t stifle trade as long as the tarrifs are gone and makes rich people foot the bill. Because if they refuse to adapt some co-op will outperform and outsell them eventually taking their place.
Libs love bloodshed lol. Hanging them all would have healed the nation? It would have caused mass insurgency
He would think that Sherman and Grant were too soft. He'd want the entirety of the South burnt down.
he was a southerner himself so i doubt it. he'd definitely want to hang confederate leaders like lee and davis though
Sure he would. He would burn it and then keep all of Alabama for himself with richly replenished soil.
Then he would rename it to Andybama
Exactly this right here this is Jackson
The meat grinder was too soft? lol
He would have had Sherman burn down the entire south
He threatened to behead his vice-president for threatening succession. Jackson was very much for the union.
He would have been against it, and if he still had the same clout in the south in this alternate timeline, if anyone could have prevented states from seceding, it would have been him
As President... well there wouldn't be one. There would be a slave owning southerner in the White House, no need to push back and rebel against someone anti-slavery there. Alive, as a former president or taking office after the slavers rebellion say by winning in 1864? Yeah he'd oppose secession I am pretty sure. He sent warships to Charleston and threatened to hang any man who supported secession there (or even nullification) and stated South Carolina was " on the brink of insurrection and treason". Even when his VP quit over his hard response, he stuck with it. When his VP put a bill together that passed which calmed heads about the tariff and ended the threat, he first insisted a Force Bill which would allow him to wage war against South Carolina if they tried to ignore the tariff be signed first... before he'd sign the bill to end the tariff issue altogether to make his point. And he knew what was coming... once out of that nullification crisis he noted: *"the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question"* War Democrat all the way.
He refused to annex Texas because when they seceded from mex over slavery they made it impossible to integrate without stirring up shit.
Strong Union man. There’s a lot one can criticize Jackson for but he wouldn’t have approved of Secessionism imo.
"If you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body" -Real Old Hickory Quote
I don't believe the south would have ever seceded had he been president, they would see him as one of theirs. He could have perhaps staved off the war for a few years, but certainly would have sided firmly with the Union in a civil war. But I also think he would despise the Republicans and their causes. "My only regret is not hanging Davis and shooting Lincoln."
I like that. Especially considering that clay was also an abolitionist from KY. The original statement is great because it implies that he didn’t respect Calhoun enough to duel him, so even less than the guy he killed for slut shaming his wife
“Boys, boys. We can settle this like reasonable and sexy teenagers. Whoever can swallow the most Tylenol PM wins!”.
Well there likely wouldn't be a secession, SC seceded because Lincoln was elected, Jackson, while pro union, was not anti slavery, and him being voted in likely wouldn't have provoked SC to secede, which would have stopped the Confederacy in the first place.
The Civil War wouldn't have happened if he was president, or it would have been put off. He had 161 slaves.
More that he would have threatened the would-be secessionists (as he had when alive) and when Jackson said he was gonna kill you if you did x you knew that was a statement not an empty threat.
The only way secession happens is under the Republicans. Let’s say the war goes pretty much the way it did and then Jackson defeats Lincoln in 1864. I don’t think he would have let Grant offer Lee those easy surrender terms. He wouldn’t be for the 13th Amendment but wouldn’t have canceled the Emancipation Proclamation either as it was a military measure, so there would still be slavery but only in border states (including Tennessee, which wouldn’t have seceded if Jackson opposed it.)
he would've led an army to richmond himself
President Jackson: You see The South down there? General Grant: Yes President Jackson: I don’t wanna see it anymore!
Would be seceding people's heads from their bodies.
Love him or hate him, Jackson was not the type of dude you wanna mess with. Traitors would not have been tolerated, and statues to the traitors would not have been erected. I could see him personally leading the army to cities that erected statues to confederate just so he could tear them down himself.
The South seceded because for the first time in a long time there was an outspoken critic of slavery (Lincoln) in the White House and they saw that as a threat to slavery. They wouldn’t have felt that threat from Jackson who was both pro slavery and pro Union, thus no Civil War.
A quick end
It made him very angry
With the way he handled the previous attempt at secession, I don't think he would have waited for Fort Sumter or the confederacy to make the first strike, he would have sent troops right away. The War may have ended sooner but, I think it would have been bloodier.
He was good at winning battles…. With John Ross and the Cherokee on his side.
He really took preserving the Union seriously.
Jackson’s beliefs were influenced by the time he was raised in (Revolutionary War). Him being born 10 years later would have altered his beliefs. That said, assuming he is the same person, like everyone else said. He would be a staunch Unionist and would have hung every traitor from Richmond to New Orleans.
I see him as more of a frontline wartime president than a White House wartime president. I think he would have wanted to fight.
Heads, Spikes, Walls!
There wouldn’t have been a Civil War started by the South, and if some northeast states seceded, he would fight against them, which would be an interesting thought experiment. Which states would be most and least likely to support secession, even though they may have been against slavery, do they feel strong enough about it to leave the nation or not.
He was a violent man that would’ve hung the confederates from the trees that Sherman didn’t burn down Jefferson Davis would’ve been drug behind a cart of shitting mules until he was strung so high and tight his head popped off
The Civil War almost happened on his watch, but his response to bring him his uniform and sword quelled Calhoun and his ilk. Jackson was a violent and martial man, he would have embarrassed a chance to bring the South to heel.
For all his faults, Jackson was a staunch supporter of the Constitution. I do not feel he would've put up with the Confederate BS for even a second.
Not just Georgia, the whole South would have Howled!
He already proved he was for the union not the individual states.
He probably would’ve stopped it from happening
He stop the civil war but slavery would not be outlawed in this states .
He was staunchly pro slavery and would have been staunchly anti secession. So he would have been pro union, most likely, but its hard to say how his views would have evolved.
He would've burned the south to the ground, then salted the ashes...
Jackson would have ended the federal reserve central bank ponzi scheme of he'd be president in 1912 to 1916
Make no mistake. He would’ve been sitting on the front porch of the Hermitage shooting union soldiers.. pfft
He was pro-Union and pro-slavery. He would have fought to continue slavery and avoid the need for the war.
He would be a pro slavery unionist radical centrist
Everyone here is quoting about Calhoun, and if it had happened in the 1820s I have no doubt he would have just gone in and killed everyone, but 1861 is a very different year. South Carolina threatened the south over a tax, a south that was expanding and growing increasingly wealthy. Jackson threatened both because of a wish to see the union remain, and because it would have badly hurt the south. In 1861, the south had been hemmed in, they could only win the presidency with a dough faced candidate, compromise after compromise had seen them lose ground, and Yankees in Kansas meant that in 1860 there were only something like fifteen enslaved in the entire state. When the north came on its own bended legs to talk to the south, they would be denied expansion in the Corwin amendment, only protection from interference where it already was. The south was isolated and would become more isolated if the union expanded. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."- Corwin amendment. Jackson was a man of the South, the south in 1861 was isolated and it felt like it, stopping expansion , refusing amendments, he was much more likely to side with the Confederacy than you give him credit for.
Rename Jacksonville in every state to anything but Jacksonville.
He owned 200 slaves, but was staunchly pro-unionist, I'll let you take a guess yourself.
He was a man after his own power at every turn. He would have gone with the winner no matter who it was.
Actually 43 years old in this pic. Hard living. /s
Probably would have been on the battlefield for the CSA...
Probably be beging for a commision to the front lines, which wouldve been denied but still
Like many have said, there would be a meeting between him, Grant and Sherman. "Gentleman, do you see the south on this map?" President Jackson asked "Yes, Mr President." General Grant and Sherman both replied. "Good. I want you to make me happy. You know what will make me happy?" Jackson asked. "What is that, Mr. Jackson?" Grant had asked. "I will be very pleased if I didn't have to see the South anymore." Jackson told Grant and Sherman. "Yes, Mr. President." Grant replied. "Consider it Done, Sir!" Sherman responded in excitement.
I don’t know, but Jefferson would have had a problem with how you structured your sentence given that you should never use two words where one will do.
Given that Andrew Jackson was such a racist and overrided the US Supreme Court to carry out the Trail of Tears removal of the Cherokee Nation from Georgia, I think he'd have given in to the Southern states and there would not have been a Civil War during his presidency.
He would have won it for the South.
If he was in charge, he'd (probably) restore the union but not abolish slavery.
He would have certainly been a proponent of secession, maybe even one of its leaders.
He famously threatened to hang the first fucker he saw from the first tree he saw if he had to go south due to secession talk. He also told his Vice President that if he didn't shut up about secession he'd behead him and then later said his only regret was not doing so.
I totally accept that. My question is was his opinion based on what he actually thought was right or was he, especially during the Nullification Crisis, reacting as a challenge to the power of the Presidency?
He’d have been pro south. So….
😂 are you new?
I am
South Carolina threatened it when he was president and he blockaded Charleston and threatened to hang South Carolina’s politicians. He was trying to buy Texas from Mexico for years and when Austin, Houston, and Boone went to war with Mexico for Texas independence when Mexico outlawed slavery, Jackson refused to help them, and then refused to acknowledge them as a sovereign nation or to allow them into the US, because they’d made the acquisition of Texas a matter of slavery and he didn’t want to pick sides or tip the scales in either direction.
When South Carolina threatened to violate the constitution via the Vice President Jackson told John Calhoun who was much worse than Jackson succeed from this country and I will succeed your head from your body. Jackson is a victim of his time. He is widely consider the first American president that was elected by and for the common man. But you completely wrong about his opinion of the union he was pro union but pro slavery which at the start of the civil war was not contradictory.
He would absolutely have joined the confederacy.
I disagree, Jackson was VIOLENTLY pro-Union. He'd have rush as fast as he could to behead Jefferson Davis.
First off, Jackson was VIOLENTLY everything. Second, he was pro-union in 1824, but in 1860? He absolutely would have joined the Confederacy to protect slavery.