andrew jackson was a highly consequential president. it's consequently difficult to know what things would have been like had he lived after he did, because things wouldn't have been the way they actually were.

but, if we ignore this important point, there's nothing particularly egregious about speculating about whether andrew jackson would have been able to prevent the conflict. lincoln himself was not actually opposed to slavery, which is why he didn't abolish it so much as he restricted it to convicts. that caveat in the 13th amendment led to the jim crow laws, marijuana prohibition and every other excuse to put black people in jail.

so, the fact that andrew jackson was an asshole doesn't really address the question. lincoln was an asshole, too.

how about this: get historians on either side of the question and have them debate the topic. that's what you do when somebody makes a claim of this sort...

do i agree? well, trump is probably parroting a right-wing conspiracy about the federal reserve, and it probably went over most people's heads. if that his argument, i don't agree with his argument. but, i don't understand the basis of the blanket condemnation, either.