Could the Civil War have been avoided if Jackson had been President in 1861?

[EnglishPete]

Donald Trump has come under some fire today for saying that Andrew Jackson was unhappy with the Civil War (he died in 1845) and that if he had been around later he could have stopped the Civil War, that something could have been worked out.

Now clearly what Andrew Jackson was angry about was the nullification crisis rather than the Civil War (perhaps this is a sly reference to 'sanctuary' cities effectively trying to nullify Federal immigration law).

However is Trump right in his suggestion that a President Andrew Jackson could have avoided  the Civil War? After all Mexico, the Federal Republic of Central America, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Dutch Empire and the Danish Empire all successfully abolished slavery without a Civil War?

Could the United States not have done have achieved the same? Come to some compromise that would have averted war and then moved towards peacefully ending slavery sometime in the 1870s or 1880s as happened in Cuba and Brazil?

[sparkey]

Considering that the immediate cause of the Civil War was the secession of Southern states in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, it's pretty obvious that the Civil War would not have begun when it did if an Andrew Jackson-like candidate (maybe Douglas? or Andrew Johnson?) won in 1860. The real question is how long it would take Republicans to eventually win an election, and how long (and if) the South would liberalize on its own. The North was more electorally powerful than the South, so if they won within an election or two, then the Civil War may have just started an election or two later. If it took a generation or so, then prospects are better, because Southern society was getting more and more influence from Northern education at the time, although it's also possible that the South could have reacted to that trend by entrenching its position more.

Perhaps a perpetual Andrew Jackson would have prevented Civil War, but he may have prevented abolition as well.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It depend when he is president , if he is president instead of James Buchanan yes he stops it because he stops it before any state can secede just like he did during the nullification crises . If he is president when Lincoln becomes president no cause by then it was too late .

[SoLongAtlas]

Jackson being a southerner and a slaveowner of the landed plantation class would have tried to work a deal but in the end like many others of 1860-61 would have said screw it and sided with the secessionists. The Civil War would have happened regardless because both sides were very firmly entrenched and would not budge, southern to Mexican and Cuba expansion of slavery due to soil degradation and more slaves = more land needed, abolitionists unwillingness to give an inch on the rights of people not property, etc.

It could have been avoided but only by buyout or massive repatriation programs, things the south largely did not want and avoided as well as acceptance of the Republican Party and trends of northern leadership on the federal level. It was a marginalized and marginalizing society year after year. Post-1854, war was inevitable even if Jackson was born a few decades later but if he was he would have never achieved his fame in the Battle of New Orleans and thus never won the Democratic nomination - moot point.

[Kingpoleon]

John Bell, Sam Houston, John Crittenden, Andrew Johnson, or Edward Everett all would have prevented the Civil War. Houston may even have managed to lessen tensions and moderate the South. An alternate Civil War may see fewer rebel states - maybe just VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, and LA.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The whole reason Buchanan was President was because he was enough of an cypher that Northern and Southern Democrats could agree on him in 1856. Whatever else Jackson was, he wasn't a cypher.  That said, the real question is whether the Civil War could have been avoided had someone other than Taylor/Fillmore been elected in 1848.  The Compromise of 1850 and the acrimony that arose from that is what led to an almost inevitable Civil War. A different Compromise might have been able to avoid the Civil War.

[sparkey]

Jackson being a southerner and a slaveowner of the landed plantation class would have tried to work a deal but in the end like many others of 1860-61 would have said screw it and sided with the secessionists.

I wouldn't take this as a given. Jackson had very harsh words for Calhoun, purportedly: "John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation, I will secede your head from the rest of your body." Jackson was in many ways a prototypical Southern Unionist, and many pro-Union Southern Democrats called themselves "Jackson Democrats" during the Civil War era. Tennessee was also the Confederate state with the most Unionists. Genuine Jacksonians were a bit of a dying breed by the Civil War, but one obvious and famous one, Andrew Johnson, was himself a Tennessee Unionist.

[pbrower2a]

No. Too tied to slavery to do anything against it.

The British had the right model for emancipating slaves, and Lincoln knew it. The problem was that the Southern politicians would have had nothing to do with it.

[The Mikado]

The whole reason Buchanan was President was because he was enough of an cypher that Northern and Southern Democrats could agree on him in 1856. Whatever else Jackson was, he wasn't a cypher.  That said, the real question is whether the Civil War could have been avoided had someone other than Taylor/Fillmore been elected in 1848.  The Compromise of 1850 and the acrimony that arose from that is what led to an almost inevitable Civil War. A different Compromise might have been able to avoid the Civil War.

I think it becomes even more interesting if it's restricted to Taylor not dying when he did. Zachary Taylor was willing to veto the Compromise of 1850 and provoke a Civil War then and there before his sudden death.

[Jaguar4life]

http://alternate-timelines.proboards.com

I think we talked about this on this thread.  You can join it if you want to.

[Thomas]

In my opinion, the Civil War was inevitable. Now, if Andrew Jackson would've been President during 1861 he would've simply delayed the Civil War by some years. If the slavery question is not answered by the executive office then either the North or the South will secede depending on who the succeeding presidents sides with. If the majority of the presidents sides with the South then the North secedes and that spells the end of the Union and if the majority of the presidents sides with the North then the South secedes and depending on how many years have gone by then the war would've been bloodier and more lives would've been lost.

[Kingpoleon]

In my opinion, the Civil War was inevitable. Now, if Andrew Jackson would've been President during 1861 he would've simply delayed the Civil War by some years. If the slavery question is not answered by the executive office then either the North or the South will secede depending on who the succeeding presidents sides with. If the majority of the presidents sides with the South then the North secedes and that spells the end of the Union and if the majority of the presidents sides with the North then the South secedes and depending on how many years have gone by then the war would've been bloodier and more lives would've been lost.

If Breckinridge, Crittenden, Bayard, or even Bell had somehow won in the 1850s or 1860s, what states do you think would secede? I assume New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, but what of the Midwest and West?

[Thomas]

In my opinion, the Civil War was inevitable. Now, if Andrew Jackson would've been President during 1861 he would've simply delayed the Civil War by some years. If the slavery question is not answered by the executive office then either the North or the South will secede depending on who the succeeding presidents sides with. If the majority of the presidents sides with the South then the North secedes and that spells the end of the Union and if the majority of the presidents sides with the North then the South secedes and depending on how many years have gone by then the war would've been bloodier and more lives would've been lost.

If Breckinridge, Crittenden, Bayard, or even Bell had somehow won in the 1850s or 1860s, what states do you think would secede? I assume New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, but what of the Midwest and West?

New England, New York, Pennsylvania, the Midwest, and the West all secede in this alternate Northern secession scenario. However i don't know about Kansas that's an ify

[Kingpoleon]

I sincerely doubt that any state in which Lincoln got less than 35% of in which Breckinridge got over 20% of the vote in would secede.

[Thomas]

I sincerely doubt that any state in which Lincoln got less than 35% of in which Breckinridge got over 20% of the vote in would secede.

Okay in that case, this Northern secession would be New York, New England, the Midwest and the West would stay on the fence then

[RINO Tom]

Considering that the immediate cause of the Civil War was the secession of Southern states in response to the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, it's pretty obvious that the Civil War would not have begun when it did if an Andrew Jackson-like candidate (maybe Douglas? or Andrew Johnson?) won in 1860. The real question is how long it would take Republicans to eventually win an election, and how long (and if) the South would liberalize on its own. The North was more electorally powerful than the South, so if they won within an election or two, then the Civil War may have just started an election or two later. If it took a generation or so, then prospects are better, because Southern society was getting more and more influence from Northern education at the time, although it's also possible that the South could have reacted to that trend by entrenching its position more.

Perhaps a perpetual Andrew Jackson would have prevented Civil War, but he may have prevented abolition as well.

Going to need this term, in this context, explained.  Surely it bares zero connection to modern American liberalism, as that would be ridiculous.