When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Uh, no. Not even close. Not even today, after decades and decades of the Imperial Presidency and the legal expansion of the President's powers.
When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.
Which do you think would have been easier for Andrew Jackson to do? Shooting Henry Clay or hanging John C. Calhoun? I'd say the latter as South Carolina almost seceded from the Union and if it had, President Jackson would have crushed South Carolina like a bug.
Which do you think would have been easier for Andrew Jackson to do? Shooting Henry Clay or hanging John C. Calhoun? I'd say the latter as South Carolina almost seceded from the Union and if it had, President Jackson would have crushed South Carolina like a bug.
The US army during this period was around 10,000-20,000,which was all spread out across the US.There's no way in hell he could have successfully beaten won any kind of civil war and become a dictator even if the entire army threw it's lot behind him.Let's get real here, does Jackson have the US Army on his side, and enough generals willing to back him on this matter? These generals are also needed to help expand the pro-Jackson faction into a serious military force to, yes, make Andrew Jackson military dictator of the United States. IMO Jackson is the most likely American dictator, even if it would take a variety of PODs to set the stage for Jackson to assume that power. OTL Jackson dueling Henry Clay (and no doubt winning) and hanging Calhoun wouldn't end well for him...but if Jackson has enough people backing him on the matter, whose gonna stop him? Perhaps a short civil war (as Chile had a few tons), and the Jacksonian faction is on top with Andrew Jackson as dictator of the United States.
The US army during this period was around 10,000-20,000,which was all spread out across the US.There's no way in hell he could have successfully beaten won any kind of civil war and become a dictator even if the entire army threw it's lot behind him.
The moment Jackson tries to pull a Louis Napoleon,the army units loyal to him will get swarmed by state militiamen and Jackson will control nothing except DC.The state governors won't stand for this and they control the bulk of the country,not Jackson.There's a reason why the military can't just launch a coup in the US.Jackson's opposition was scattered throughout the country, as was Jackson's. If it had to be that way, Civil War style, as long as Jackson had the majority of the standing army with their experience and education as well as the ability to raise a huge amount of new units, he could win. Jackson mobilised a lot of people to his cause, after all.
Whether they would become soldiers for him to suppress his opposition and whether his more powerful backers would agree a Jackson dictatorship and the obvious civil war over the issue is worth it is a whole different issue.
I use "civil war" not in caps since I believe any civil war over this issue will not be as strong of an "issue" as the Civil War. Either Jacksonians rout the enemy after a few months/a year of fighting, or the opposite, and everyone agrees to a truce, with Jackson as dictator, or Jackson imprisoned and charged with treason amongst other charges of murder, etc.
The moment Jackson tries to pull a Louis Napoleon,the army units loyal to him will get swarmed by state militiamen and Jackson will control nothing except DC.The state governors won't stand for this and they control the bulk of the country,not Jackson.There's a reason why the military can't just launch a coup in the US.