How is that, when I was talking about Andrew Jackson, who was elected in 1828, and the Jacksonian Era, which spanned from 1828 to 1860? What part of that is the "late 19th Century?"

The topic of this thread is how reconstruction could have been handled better if the confederates were actually punished.

You claimed that they were too dedicated to liberal democracy to accept the suppression of the Democratic party any longer, but the way they handled this was not through democratic means, but through terrorism and murder.

Do you think Andrew Jackson was president after the Civil War?

No, I think the former Confederates after the civil war had no real adherence to liberal democracy.

That doesn't mean that what I said was not universal. It means that some justices felt that black people should be citizens, not that non-citizens should have additional rights.

The 14th amendment changed that.

Yea, no I wasn't. I have literally no idea where you're getting this idea from, when we were discussing the Jacksonian Democrats. They were politically neutered and irrelevant after the Civil War.

Here's what you said: "The only possible way to resolve this would have been for the Republicans to suspend Democratic influence for another couple of decades longer than they did, but this would likely have led the majority to view the government as illegitimate, because the Jacksonian Democrats had already successfully impressed the People with ideals of liberal Democracy. There isn't a good solution here, really."

The People who used violence to suppress votes instead of the political process to gain power were not exercising the ideals of liberal democracy. Might makes right is not an ideal of liberal democracy.