Best President of the Jacksonian Era, and Why?

[Frodo]

The Jacksonian Era is essentially synonymous with the Second Party System that began with Andrew Jackson's election in 1828, and ended around 1854.   

[Donerail]

Harrison. Why? He didn't screw anything up and didn't invade Mexico or try to provoke war with Britain (or try to buy Cuba).

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Polk!

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Polk!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Polk was the most skilled and successful on his own terms, but I've always had a soft spot for Van Buren. Old Kinderhook wasn't a great President by any means but a lot of what Polk was so skilled and successful at doing was pretty morally suspect.

[jaichind]

Martin V B.  Mostly because of his support for Locofoco ideas

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

either Taylor or Van Buren.

I admire Zachary Taylor for his bold attempts to keep the union together and stop slavery from expanding into the West through immediate statehood (in spite of being a southerner and a slave owner himself).  If he'd been successful, perhaps the worst elements of the 1850 compromise could have been avoided. In terms of effectiveness, he's lacking because he didn't work well with Congress, and of course his untimely demise. His biggest downside may be leaving the nation with Fillmore.

I like Van Buren for his policies of economic decentralization and widespread democracy, while he wasn't as much of a hardline on the bank as Jackson and not as prone to the more vile forms of populism. Still, he shares in some of Jackson's sins when it came to Indian removal and the protection of slavery (even though he opposed slavery both in his time in New York and after he left office.) If Van Buren's record can include his post-presidency opposition to risking war by annexing Texas and his support and candidacy for Free Soil, then he looks a lot better.

[technical support]

Andrew Jackson

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Taylor, if I'm not mistaken, actually opposed compromise and supported the South. These were all rather mediocre or poor presidents, but I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for Jackson.

[The Mikado]

Hmm...van Buren (good-hearted but unlucky and incompetent) or everyone else (downright malevolent)?

van Buren it is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I love that description and shall steal it at some point (perhaps in a different context with different names).

[Rooney]

This is probably the best era of presidents the U.S. has ever experienced. I voted for President Pierce because of his opposition to internal improvements and tariffs. He does have the terrible distinction of caving to Northern agricultural interests, railway proprietors and land speculators by signing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 but his opposition to internal improvements somewhat makes up for it. 

[Insula Dei]

Yeah, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, that horrible piece of Yankee corporatist legislation(?)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

This is probably the best era of presidents the U.S. has ever experienced. I voted for President Pierce because of his opposition to internal improvements and tariffs. He does have the terrible distinction of caving to Northern agricultural interests, railway proprietors and land speculators by signing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 but his opposition to internal improvements somewhat makes up for it. 

Surprised you didn't choose Van Buren.

[Rooney]

Surprised you didn't choose Van Buren.

I was going to (as I do deem Van Buren the best president) but so many people had already selected the Little Magician that it felt unoriginal.

Yeah, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, that horrible piece of Yankee corporatist legislation(?)

No, I would not say corporatist as I am fairly sure that that philosophy was not all too present in Antebellum America. It is not inaccurate, however, to state that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was supported by agricultural interests and that Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois introduced the bill in part because of land speculation. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Polk; his leadership during the Mexican War and with the purchase of the California and Oregon Territories is what gives him top honors in my book.

[Rooney]

Polk; his leadership during the Mexican War and with the purchase of the California and Oregon Territories is what gives him top honors in my book.

You are using a good book t0 judge President Pol. He's a good choice as well. I applaud his repeal of the Black Tariff, signing of the Walker Tariff, veto of several internal improvement bills, the Slidell Mission to Mexico and reestablishing Van Buren's Independent Treasury. In terms of a classically liberal economic vision Polk is one of the best presidents the U.S. has ever had.

In terms of Oregon I deem that Secretary Buchanan mishandled the situation but political issues in Great Britain concerning the Corn Laws were able to stop more belligerent figures from taking power across the Pond. In terms of Mexico I find that Polk is held accountable for starting a war that he never wanted. Polk attempted to work with the Herrera government in Mexico to purchase lands from that nation. The United States could easily have taken the land due to massive debts that Mexico owed the U.S. but the Slidell Mission was rebuffed. Things then progressed towards war but it is to the credit of Polk and Herrera that peace was the first option that both desired in handling issues surrounding Mexican/U.S. relations.

[Insula Dei]

Yeah, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, that horrible piece of Yankee corporatist legislation(?)

No, I would not say corporatist as I am fairly sure that that philosophy was not all too present in Antebellum America. It is not inaccurate, however, to state that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was supported by agricultural interests and that Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois introduced the bill in part because of land speculation. 

I'm sorry if my post comes across as a little bit agressive, and you're obviously correct about what was the motivation of some of those backing the bill (not a total U.S. History illiterate over here), but it strikes me as odd that that would be what you find problematic about the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you.

[Rooney]

I'm sorry if my post comes across as a little bit agressive, and you're obviously correct about what was the motivation of some of those backing the bill (not a total U.S. History illiterate over here), but it strikes me as odd that that would be what you find problematic about the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood you.

I did not find what you posted as aggressive. Additionally your post history is evidence that you are far more literate in United States history than I am in Belgian history.

The reason I find the issues mentioned as the most problematical parts of the bill is because these highly personal (and some moralists may say greedy) reasons allowed for Kansas and Nebraska to become the political footballs that they became.

[Jerseyrules]

Fillmore.  Kept the union together, consolidated the various radical fringe groups, and slapped them around.  Kept extremists away, and thus avoided civil war.  Would've been successful too, if it weren't for Scott and Webster opposing his renomination.  He could've won re-election if the convention didn't go to 100+ ballots as per otl.  Moderate hero, great lawyer, Great Compromiser

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Taylor, if I'm not mistaken, actually opposed compromise and supported the South. These were all rather mediocre or poor presidents, but I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for Jackson.

Taylor did oppose the Compromise of 1850, but a President who supported the South wouldn't have advocated the admission of California and New Mexico as free states.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Taylor, if I'm not mistaken, actually opposed compromise and supported the South. These were all rather mediocre or poor presidents, but I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for Jackson.

That is highly innaccurate. The man was a simple soldier first and foremost and not a politician. He saw statehood in simple terms and thus didn't understand the fuss that the South was making over CA coming into the union and freely deciding to be a free state. He thus opposed the compromise of 1850, and believed that California should be admitted as a free state since that is what CA wanted and that was that.

The south was the imposing party in most of these affairs. The continued growth of the non-South and their admission as free states would mean that the Senate would join the House in being hostile to slavery and that would get worse with each passing decade. California was the tipping point and never again would the Senate be tied between slave and free state Senators. So their political strategy was to rile up as much chaos to force concession to be made lest the country split apart. From an unbiased position the South's arguments in these affairs could be summarized as follows, "Our freedoms and rights can't be protected unless everyone else's is infringed upon".

While indeed a Southerner, Taylor didn't much care for political strategery and thus ended up allied with Northerners and abolitionists against the the Southerners. When he died, Fillmore embraced the compromise because although a Northerner, he was first and foremost a politician.

[TNF]

They were pretty much all horrible.

But I voted for Polk here. Least bad of a rotten bunch. Polk expanded the territory of the United States and did essentially everything he wanted to do in four years. That takes some talent.

If only Henry Clay had been elected President...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Taylor, if I'm not mistaken, actually opposed compromise and supported the South. These were all rather mediocre or poor presidents, but I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for Jackson.

That is highly innaccurate. The man was a simple soldier first and foremost and not a politician. He saw statehood in simple terms and thus didn't understand the fuss that the South was making over CA coming into the union and freely deciding to be a free state. He thus opposed the compromise of 1850, and believed that California should be admitted as a free state since that is what CA wanted and that was that.

That really distorts Taylor's position, tho it is possible that his military background caused him think of himself as a second Alexander as he thought he had a solution to the Gordian knot of whether the territory acquired from Mexico should be free or slave.  He favored admitting the California, Utah, and New Mexico Territories as States, thereby eliminating the issue,  Frankly, none of them were ready, with California Statehood only happening because the people flooding in there because of the gold rush made it a necessity.  However, it would have been wiser had only North California been admitted.  California is too big a State, as is Texas.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Taylor, if I'm not mistaken, actually opposed compromise and supported the South. These were all rather mediocre or poor presidents, but I guess I'll hold my nose and vote for Jackson.

That is highly innaccurate. The man was a simple soldier first and foremost and not a politician. He saw statehood in simple terms and thus didn't understand the fuss that the South was making over CA coming into the union and freely deciding to be a free state. He thus opposed the compromise of 1850, and believed that California should be admitted as a free state since that is what CA wanted and that was that.

That really distorts Taylor's position, tho it is possible that his military background caused him think of himself as a second Alexander as he thought he had a solution to the Gordian knot of whether the territory acquired from Mexico should be free or slave.  He favored admitting the California, Utah, and New Mexico Territories as States, thereby eliminating the issue,  Frankly, none of them were ready, with California Statehood only happening because the people flooding in there because of the gold rush made it a necessity.  However, it would have been wiser had only North California been admitted.  California is too big a State, as is Texas.

No, I highly doubt he saw himself in such grandiose terms and it wouldn't mesh with what happened either. My analysis of his actions was one of being naive, not being some sort of genius. He had no political background and wasn't one to entertain the nuances and such. Every source I have read on the subject has painted him as seeing the addition of new states as positive, that if they wanted to be free states it was their own choice, and lastly that he didn't appreciate/care about the objections being raised against doing so. Thus he also didn't see the need for a compromise. This position ignored the political reality created by the South and its demands.

Would Utah or New Mexico have been pre-disposed to becoming slave states? And even if they were, admitting three states would still cause problems with one side or the other because someone would have to lose out in the Senate balance, which is the root of the controversy. If anything such a position only adds weight to my interpretation. It by no means was a reasonable solution.

What is beyond doubt is that he clearly didn't support the South here. If it had been Texas say instead of California but with the same circumstances, then that might be different. That was my point in responding to the innaccuracy of Snowstalker's post. I wanted to establish that he was in fact opposing the demands of the South here but not out of any ideological pre-dispositions for one side or the other. Failure to mention the last bit, would have ignored crucial elements of his opposition to the compromise and created a different, far more aggregious distortion.