Could Andrew Jackson have stopped the Civil War?

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Question: Could Andrew Jackson have stopped the Civil War?​

Ans: I don't think so. I have often cited these comments concerning secession which were made by Jackson on 10/10/1832 during the Nullification crisis:

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied… it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation.

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.

Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off.

But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled.

Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? (All bolding by ForeverFree)
As far as Jackson was concerned, armed disunion - which describes Confederate rebellion - was not something that he was going to tolerate.

Although maybe Jackson does prevent war, because Southerners fear Jackson will usher in a bloody civil war, and they will get no mercy from Jackson if they lose.

- Alan

Edited by moderator jgg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really don't think so. Compromise was not an option either side was open to at that point. If Andrew Jackson tried appealing to one side or the other he would have alienated both in the process.

Interesting fact though. Quite a few people, in the North, at the beginning of the Civil War thought a person like Andrew Jackson was needed to resolve the conflict once it broke out. This I found while reading a biography on Lincoln.

"If the Govt is not in earnest let us know it & quit. If it is then let it go to work. . . . If there is a single person that has not lost all confidence in the powers that be I have yet to find him.” Lincoln’s former ally in the antislavery Whig ranks, Truman Smith, admired his “unspotted rectitude & great goodness of heart” but insisted that “in such a crisis rectitude & goodness are poor substitutes for that spirit & determination which Genl. Jackson was accustomed to manifest.”

-Abraham Lincoln: A Life by Michael Burlingame.
 
Last edited:
I tried to post earlier, but it was being moderated. I'll try to retype what I said.

I think it possible he may have been able to prevent the war, but since he had passed before it's commencement, we will never know. It is possible that he may have prevented one from happening during his time simply through his leadership. Many of the issues that brought about the war were already issues during his time as president. The southerners idolized Jackson, while many northern papers made him look like a thug. I don't think that a leader that was so well respected by so much of the south would have let it even become an issue.

One thing he was though - an inspirational leader, and not afraid to speak his mind.
 
I think Jackson would have negotiated a big, very big deal with Mr. Lee saying "Hey look, why are we having a Civil War? Let's end this and give those black people jobs." Jackson knew some very, very good and talented black friends, and a lot of them voted for him. Jackson would have been biggly successful, I mean, how do you get a yuge amount of illegal Mexicans on our land to say "Hey, look, this is our land, pay taxes or we are going to bomb the **** out of you pal." Amazing guy. Truly an amazing guy.
 
I knew this topic was going to come up!

I posted about this subject earlier, but some heavy-handed moderator squelched it.

Honestly, when the President of the United States brings the Civil War into national discussion, we shouldn't be censoring ourselves for fear of 'politics.'
 
I think Jackson would have negotiated a big, very big deal with Mr. Lee saying "Hey look, why are we having a Civil War? Let's end this and give those black people jobs." Jackson knew some very, very good and talented black friends, and a lot of them voted for him. Jackson would have been biggly successful, I mean, how do you get a yuge amount of illegal Mexicans on our land to say "Hey, look, this is our land, pay taxes or we are going to bomb the **** out of you pal." Amazing guy. Truly an amazing guy.

Another great post!
 
I think perhaps Jackson could have prevented the war, but I don't think it would have been in the way the Confederacy would have liked. IMO Andy "Old Hickory" Jackson was no one to play with. He was quick and decisive.

Also..............

IIRC didn't Jackson say something about a war coming and slavery would be used as the cause ? Or am I thinking of someone else?


Respectfully,
William
Old Hickory - Andrew Jackson.jpg
 
I think so. Andrew Jackson had a huge personality. Old hickory could have persuaded the southerners, of which he was one of at the time, born in either SC or NC, the border was a little fuzzy at the time to hold off on on such a huge undertaking as war. Old Jeff or any of the other war hawks would have been challegned to a duel. So yes Jackson could have stopped it stone cold dead.
 
Question: Could Andrew Jackson have stopped the Civil War?​

Ans: I don't think so. I have often cited these comments concerning secession which were made by Jackson on 10/10/1832 during the Nullification crisis:

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the government of the United States; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be, denied… it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation.

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Everyone must see that the other States, in self-defense, must oppose it at all hazards.

Your pride was aroused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably-might be constitutionally made-that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens. Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off.

But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject-my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you-they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled.

Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? (All bolding by ForeverFree)
As far as Jackson was concerned, armed disunion - which describes Confederate rebellion - was not something that he was going to tolerate.

Although maybe Jackson does prevent war, because Southerners fear Jackson will usher in a bloody civil war, and they will get no mercy from Jackson if they lose.

- Alan

Edited by moderator jgg

'Although maybe Jackson does prevent war, because Southerners fear Jackson will usher in a bloody civil war, and they will get no mercy from Jackson if they lose.'

Right. Secessionsts felt Lincoln was harsh, but Lincoln was a *****cat compared to Jackson.
 
I posted about this subject earlier, but some heavy-handed moderator squelched it.

Honestly, when the President of the United States brings the Civil War into national discussion, we shouldn't be censoring ourselves for fear of 'politics.'
I know that heavy handed moderator and let me assure you he is a fine understanding sensitive individual.
 
Of course Andrew Jackson would have stopped the CW. We're gonna build a wall, folks! Right on the Mason-Dixon Line. A beautiful wall - and the Indians are gonna pay for it! We're gonna renegotiate and get a better deal for America, that I can tell you.

Am I the only one who thinks Indian Removal was a major cause of the Civil War?
 
Of course Andrew Jackson would have stopped the CW. We're gonna build a wall, folks! Right on the Mason-Dixon Line. A beautiful wall - and the Indians are gonna pay for it! We're gonna renegotiate and get a better deal for America, that I can tell you.

Am I the only one who thinks Indian Removal was a major cause of the Civil War?
Indirect cause. Annexation of Texas more direct.
 
Back
Top