Righwinger's command of the language dwarfs that of meathead.
The point is that Trump really had no grasp of Jackson's presidency and did not really know where he fit in during the first half of the 19th century American history.
Since Jackson was pro slavery, anti First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California in the Union, the CW would have come despite him living a bit later. His unionism would not have been strong enough to counter the much stronger growth of secessionism later in the 1850s.
I am no Trump fan. I believe he is an idiot. But in this case, well some people are making mountains out of molehills and, ironically, displaying an amazing ignorance of American History themselves.
"Had Jackson been later"--as in, had Jackson been president in the 1840's, or most certainly, the 1850's, perhaps there would have been no Civil War. And it is not as if Jackson would have negotiated a compromise, it is just Jackson would have hung the early secessionists from oak trees on their farms.
Let's check out some quotes. First, Andrew Jackson, in response to South Carolina.
But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. [emphasis added] To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confounding the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent upon a failure.
Now, let's go to James Buchanan, twenty eight years later, his last State of the Union Address.
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a merebility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy [here referring to the existing Union] is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Not very difficult to construct an argument that Trump was exactly right. Jackson was against the right of secession exempt in extreme circumstances. Buchanan, although correct about the ramifications of secession, exhibited an almost lackadaisical attitude towards it and appeared to accept it as a "constitutional remedy".
And irony appears everywhere here. The slavery issue is a red herring and Jackson predicted that the secession of the south was all about an independent Southern Confederacy that, while using the issue of tariffs during his administration, would later use the issue of slavery to sever the South's ties to the Union.
