Trump, Jackson and the Civil War...

Twitler is a delusional ignorant despot.

It's like America has gone back to the Dark Ages ... in Moldova!

You idiots continue to defend him because you think you're "winning."

And you are! This year, DOTY rightfully goes to every voter to pulled the lever for Twitler!

Congratulations on your victory.

P.S. -- where's IBIdiot? His head might have exploded as a result of this latest exhibition of lunacy. If so, then we're ALL winners!

P.S. -- where's IBIdiot? Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

That's right... U B an idiot!

It's obvious you know even less about our nation's history than the POTUS, oinkboy. Was Moldova a free state or a slave state? Maybe if you beg him nicely, IB will throw you a lifeline!

I'll chime on this as this is a what if scenario.

the excessively high tariffs was the fuse, and slavery was the fuel that lit the civil war.

Jackson dealt with one state (south carolina) threatening to secede. it wasn't too much trouble for him to threaten with the support of congress and come up with a compromise legislation on the tariffs. But what if the situation was like 1860 in 1832-1833 and you're dealing with not one, but 12 states (texas wasn't in the union at that time).

the dynamics would be very different with emotions running very high. Jackson would be hard pressed to keep the 13 states in the union. His only hope is to come up with a comprise that all parties would be satisfied with.

If not, I think the split would be inevitable. If he succeeded, he'd be delaying the inevitable. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Jackson was an interesting man who got things done regardless of what the courts said. e.g. transferring the Cherokee tribe from the Carolinas to Oklahoma. Just by the force of his personality he accomplished much, but many Indians today will still not accept a $20 bill.

I recently read a biography on Thomas Jefferson. He was talking about the problems between the North and the South, and the probability of a split at the beginning of the Nation. This was around 1783.

Think about this:

American Revolution.................... 1776
Columbus arrival in America .......1492
Time passes........................ ..........284 years. Slavery immediately went to the islands in the gulf of Mexico where sugar was grown for import to Europe. Tobacco brought Slavery to North America, followed by cotton which was shipped to England for processing.

Beginning of the Civil War...........1861
American Revolution Ends..........1783
Time passes........................ ............78 years.
Beginning with Jefferson, many people tried to address the Slavery Issue. Many issues were accomplished, including a Negro's right to be free. Before the Civil War arrived a Master could free his own slaves. Jefferson could not free his own change, that was the law: he tried to change the law, but failed.

Today......................... ..................2017
End of the Civil War.....................1865
Time passes........................ ..........142 years.

Slavery existed in the United States a short 78 years, at a time that it was coming to an end. It had already ended in Great Britain.

Get over it everyone. The world then is not the world now. It is as it is. Let's get on with living the best way we can.

Twitler is a delusional ignorant despot.

It's like America has gone back to the Dark Ages ... in Moldova!

You idiots continue to defend him because you think you're "winning."

And you are! This year, DOTY rightfully goes to every voter to pulled the lever for Twitler!

Congratulations on your victory.

P.S. -- where's IBIdiot? His head might have exploded as a result of this latest exhibition of lunacy. If so, then we're ALL winners! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

If Trump had been around and negotiated things, he could have prevented a million deaths, you gay person.

It was nice while you weren't around these last few days.

I was hoping you had a car crash and were in a coma, with a sadistic nurse who hated gays like yourself, and she tortured you and measured your pain levels...

I hate ignorant MoFo's. Black , white ,asian, Indian, man , woman or even a crossdresser like LL. Hate'em all the same...



. Originally Posted by WTF

Interesting that Illegal Mexicans didn't make YOUR list !

Austin Reacharound Crew Unite! Originally Posted by gnadfly

Wouldn't they call that a " daisy chain gang bang " in the vernacular of the fudge packers ? Or would they call it band practice, since they'd all be playing the rusty trombone on each other ?

Interesting that Illegal Mexicans didn't make YOUR list ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

He's afraid of them.

He's afraid of them. Originally Posted by LexusLover

They're the one's that " spin him like a spit roast " ?

American Revolution.................... 1776
Columbus arrival in America .......1492
Time passes........................ ..........284 years. Slavery immediately went to the islands in the gulf of Mexico where sugar was grown for import to Europe. Tobacco brought Slavery to North America, followed by cotton which was shipped to England for processing.

Slavery existed in the United States a short 78 years, at a time that it was coming to an end. It had already ended in Great Britain. Originally Posted by JRLawrence

this is partially true. slavery existed in british colonial America for 170 years. (1619 - 1789) first british settlement to the formation of the USA under the current constitution.

Saving an arbitrary "union" is a lousy reason to kill people.

Freedom for the blacks was a more noble cause, one in which white men killed each other to free the blacks.

Who cares about preserving the Union? It is an arbitrary construction of mankind, countries come and go, why kill for it?

power!!!!

Since you included trump,
I thought your point was once again trump's version of reality is at odds with the facts. Jackson died in 1845 so he didn't have many thoughts about the civil war. He had already backed maintaining the union during the nullification crisis. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Typical liberal tripe, Trump never said he had a thought on the civil war he said that had he been president he would have never allowed it to happen, speaking to his nature and personality. Jesus you idiots take the cake. Go do what liberals do best suck dicks and give away shit that doesn't belong to you.

Typical liberal tripe, Trump never said he had a thought on the civil war he said that had he been president he would have never allowed it to happen, speaking to his nature and personality. Jesus you idiots take the cake. Go do what liberals do best suck dicks and give away shit that doesn't belong to you. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Just like your name says- you are a dirty filthy dog- a female dog at that so may I call you a Dirty Bitch? Let;s see what Historians- who know a helluva a lot more about historical facts than some dumb POS like you- who doesn't even have a college education:


Amy Greenberg: Mr. President, a fifth grader could have answered your question

What most dismays -- okay, angers -- me about President Trump's statements on Andrew Jackson being able to prevent the Civil War is his profound historical ignorance. Ask any fifth grader, "Why did the Civil War happen?" That child can give you an answer. That answer may vary depending on the section of the country where you ask the question, but he or she will have a clear answer.
How dare Donald Trump state that, "People don't ask that question -- but why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?" Historians have been asking this since 1861. Elementary school classes debate it.
One person who never asked this question, of course, was Andrew Jackson, because he died in 1845. Nor is there any evidence, whatsoever, that he "saw it coming." Indeed in 1844 he pushed to have the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Martin Van Buren, dropped from the ticket after Van Buren opposed annexing Texas out of a belief that it would exacerbate sectional tensions. Jackson preferred James K. Polk, an avid expansionist, and like himself, a slave holder. Had Jackson seen the Civil War coming, would he have deliberately made tensions between the North and South worse?
Amy S. Greenberg is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History at Penn State University. An award-winning author of four books, including "A Wicked War: Polk, Clay, Lincoln and the 1846 US Invasion of Mexico" (Vintage Books, 2013), she is writing a biography of First Lady Sarah Childress Polk, to be published by Knopf in 2018.

David Reynolds: Andrew Jackson would have defended slavery's expansion, Mr. President

Andrew Jackson, a Tennessee slaveholder who sent thousands of Native Americans to the West on the Trail of Tears, refused to take a moral position on slavery expansion, which in the 1850s led to plans for a U. S.-controlled slave empire to include Cuba and parts of Central and South America. Had Jackson, who died in 1845, been around in the 1850s, doubtless he would have defended slavery's expansion. The only deal Andrew Jackson might have offered the South to prevent the war would have been to allow slavery to persist and spread.
It took the firm-principled Abraham Lincoln, who was antislavery to the core, to accept civil war rather than allow the spread of slavery. When Lincoln assumed the presidency in 1861, seven southern states had left the Union; four more soon followed. Lincoln knew that to tolerate secession spelled the end of the United States—"the last best hope on earth," as he called it.
He carefully studied how national crises had been handled by previous presidents, including Andrew Jackson, who had once successfully used negotiation and threats of force to prevent South Carolina from seceding over a tariff issue. Lincoln used Jackson's carrot-and-stick technique—and much more, including offers of big money--to appease the South, but slavery was so deeply entrenched that Lincoln was sucked into a four-year civil war. The deaths of 750,000 Americans was the tragic price of abolishing slavery and opening the way to civil rights.
David S. Reynolds is a Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He is the author or editor of 15 books, including "Waking Giant: America in the Age of Jackson."

Peniel Joseph: No one man, elected official, or historical event could have prevented the Civil War

President Trump's assertion that Andrew Jackson, the ornery and uncompromising soldier-statesman who opened the White House to ordinary white male suffrage and made a reputation as a pacifier of Native American populations through extraordinary campaigns of violence, is as incredible as it is ahistorical.
Jackson died almost sixteen years before the outbreak of the Civil War. But in truth, no one man, elected official, or historical event could have prevented the bloodiest war in American history.
What Trump could learn from Andrew Jackson
What Trump could learn from Andrew Jackson
The Civil War's origins were rooted in the political and economic consequences of racial slavery, a system that produced horrific human costs even as it offered undreamed of wealth for a young nation. The war exploded after decades of sectional disputes, legal battles, and full-blown national crises over the fate of both enslaved blacks and American democracy.
President Trump's political hero, Andrew Jackson, possessed neither the temperament nor ability to stop a war that, for all its carnage, immeasurably transformed the nation and brought us toward a more perfect union. This is not only wishful thinking on his part, but dangerous in its distortion of the signal most enduring conflict in our nation's history and in its willful ignorance about American history.
Peniel Joseph is the Barbara Jordan Chair in Political Values and Ethics and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is also a professor of history.

Julian Zelizer: Our president has shown no interest in the history of our nation, or his own office

The Civil War was not a result of the nation lacking smart dealmakers -- it was a product of the poisonous slave-holding economy in the South. It is unclear that any president could have prevented this war.
Not only did Jackson die long before Civil War started, which makes the entire debate purely speculative, but as a slave-holder, it is also likely that by 1861 Jackson could have been on the wrong side of history and stood with the Confederacy. In addition, Trump overlooked what else might never have happened if the war had been avoided: the end of slavery. As the historian Jim Grossman said, "If one sees the Civil War as a war of liberation, which it was, then it shouldn't have been avoided."


Even more troublesome is the simple fact that President Trump has shown no interest in the history of our nation, including the presidency. It is too late for him to start taking a deep dive into historiographic debates. He has consistently played fast and loose with the facts, shown no interest in the past, and he has seriously misrepresented some pretty basic issues, such as voter fraud.
While there is always room for speculation about counter-factuals, it should surprise no one that many historians are not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is seriously thinking through these questions.
More likely, this is part of a continued appeal to his base by using President Jackson, a favorite for conservative populists -- appealing to white working class voters with this famous strongman. This move is particularly loaded when clumsily connected to the question of who or what could have "saved" the nation from the Civil War.

Saving an arbitrary "union" is a lousy reason to kill people.

Freedom for the blacks was a more noble cause, one in which white men killed each other to free the blacks.

Who cares about preserving the Union? It is an arbitrary construction of mankind, countries come and go, why kill for it? Originally Posted by DSK

As one who has been in war, and you have not: war is always lousy. One does what one has to do. The world is what it is, not what you want it to be.

"one in which white men killed each other to free the blacks"

I though I addressed that. The events that lead to the Civil War were not driven only by slavery, which played a very minor part.

The North nearly lost the Civil War at the First Bull Run (Battle of First Manassas - the name used by Confederate forces), July 21, 1861. I lived in Fairfax County, Virginia and walked the battlefield.

The idea of a war with the South was not popular with the North, at that time. Lincoln waited a long time for the North to get organized, finally win a major battle, before using the slavery question a means of propaganda for the North.

Today, a lot of people want us to feel sorry for the poor negro who was bound in slavery. While every person should be respected, there were many people in slavery throughout history besides the negro.

No disrespect to the Negro. I do have disrespect for those who choose just to talk without reading history. For those people who care not if they remain ignorant; they are advised to quit talking out of their ass.

Quit repeating propaganda you have heard. Pick up a book and read the real story about what happened: turn of the TV and the computer/phone that doesn't give one the real news and learn for yourself.

JR

Interesting that Illegal Mexicans didn't make YOUR list ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

Ok...ignorant Mexicans too