Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What an ignoramus -
When I first saw your thread, I feared that Trump had again uttered that bit of foolishness; however, checking the video's date (May 1, 2017) I found that not to be so. Accordingly, I'll reprize what I have written about Trump's having made that remark.
Donald Trump remarked that Andrew Jackson "was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." That remark is merely among the most recent Trump has made and that show his penchant not only for revisionist history (alternative facts?) -- modern and long ago -- and/or his abject ignorance of yet another subject, American history.
No small number of people have noted salient facts about Andrew Jackson:
Was Jackson cognizant of the divisive potential slavery held? Of course, he was. Everyone and every political leader dating to the Founders was. Jackson, like plenty of his contemporaries, surely remarked upon how slavery may well be "the undoing of the nation." So contentious was the issue that there'd have been and is nothing particularly prescient in his having done so.
- He died some 15 years before the Civil War.
- He was POTUS some 30 years before the Civil War.
- He owned ~150 slaves, enough that (1) we can safely say he didn't take great exception with the "peculiar institution," and (2) he, in person, may not actually have known or met each of them.
Quite simply, one either was supportive of/acquiescent about slavery or one was not, and the extent which one held either stance drove one's position on its political impact. Similarly, one had a 50/50 shot of being right, no matter one's thoughts about whether slavery would sunder the nation. So it is with all things binary.
Trump's dearth of knowledge about Jackson and his age's U.S. history, though bizarre for a man who has succeeded Jackson, is minor. Far more troubling is "The Donald's" ardently pathological refusal to keep mum about things he doesn't know well. Even worse, however, is the toddler-like obdurate truculence he manifests in avouching the verity of his thus uttered hogwash.
Trump disagreeing with the reigning liberal consensus on the Civil War and slavery hardly makes him wrong, not at all.
Just as Sam Houston did not support secession despite owning slaves, Jackson would not have either.
Just as Sam Houston did not support secession despite owning slaves, Jackson would not have either.
Lol, you are an idiot.^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.Seems to me that, as is usual, the war was more about $ than slavery. Had the South been "allowed" to keep slaves I think the war would have happened anyway. The end of slavery was a good thing, but the war was fought over other issues. imo of course.
Greg
Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
Wow, a lib that admits that white men did something right?More grasping at straws. They won freedom for slaves, and preserved the union. That is a HUGE win bud.The Union left 360,000 soldiers laying dead in Southern dust. What exactly did they win?
In what way? How was it about dollars. Jews (as per usual) were funding both sides. So if that's what you mean, then your claim has merit.Slavery was $. it was the driving force of their agrarian economy. They had also spend 3/4 of a century having an advantage over the North that they kept well past the point of population divergence.
I do get your point but it was about $ first and foremost. (imo of course). The slavery thing came later.(And I am very glad it did).
Greg
I keep reading about "unfair tariffs" on the South wrt the North. Now I don't hold that the South was right to secede etc etc, but they did view the various impositions on their mostly rural industries as unfair. This is an extraxt that is along the lines of my own thinking on the matter.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause.
The Tariff of 1828, called the Tariff of Abominations in the South, was the worst exploitation. It passed Congress 105 to 94 but lost among Southern congressmen 50 to 3. The South argued that favoring some industries over others was unconstitutional.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest written by Vice President John Calhoun warned that if the tariff of 1828 was not repealed, South Carolina would secede. It cited Jefferson and Madison for the precedent that a state had the right to reject or nullify federal law.
In an 1832 state legislature campaign speech, Lincoln defined his position, saying, "My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank . . . in favor of the internal improvements system and a high protective tariff." He was firmly against free trade and in favor of using the power of the federal government to benefit specific industries like Lincoln's favorite, Pennsylvania steel.
The country experienced a period of lower tariffs and vibrant economic growth from 1846 to 1857. Then a bank failure caused the Panic of 1857. Congress used this situation to begin discussing a new tariff act, later called the Morrill Tariff of 1861. However, those debates were met with such Southern hostility that the South seceded before the act was passed.
The South did not secede primarily because of slavery. In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address he promised he had no intention to change slavery in the South. He argued it would be unconstitutional for him to do so. But he promised he would invade any state that failed to collect tariffs in order to enforce them. It was received from Baltimore to Charleston as a declaration of war on the South.
Slavery was an abhorrent practice. It may have been the cause that rallied the North to win. But it was not the primary reason why the South seceded. The Civil War began because of an increasing push to place protective tariffs favoring Northern business interests and every Southern household paid the price.
Protective Tariffs: The Primary Cause of the Civil War
Now granted it is not something I consider conclusive proof; the authors obviously have their own agenda. But I do see it as on the "right" track, or at least one that is more real than "Let's free the Slaves" and kill a million Americans to do it. To me at least it was a total clusterf***.
But it did, in the end, keep the Union together and abolished Slavery. That result at least I find very good indeed. But the war itself? I just don't think it was necessary.
BTW: The Jews funding both sides? It was the lendees who put the money to whatever use they so desired. From what I can gather the Banks just did what banks do; lend money. I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.
Greg
I think the Alt-Right is better represented here than in any physical place I've been to. That's a lot of places, ranging from NYC and Los Angeles "big" to Jackson Hole, Tahoe, Jupiter, Martha's Vineyard and my "backwoods" Southern hometown [1] "small." Accordingly, I don't think WheelieAddict is wrong on that point. [2]Lol, you are an idiot.^Blames the Jews. The republican alt-right is all over this forum folks.
What an ignoramus -
When I first saw your thread, I feared that Trump had again uttered that bit of foolishness; however, checking the video's date (May 1, 2017) I found that not to be so. Accordingly, I'll reprize what I have written about Trump's having made that remark.
Donald Trump remarked that Andrew Jackson "was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War." That remark is merely among the most recent Trump has made and that show his penchant not only for revisionist history (alternative facts?) -- modern and long ago -- and/or his abject ignorance of yet another subject, American history.
No small number of people have noted salient facts about Andrew Jackson:
Was Jackson cognizant of the divisive potential slavery held? Of course, he was. Everyone and every political leader dating to the Founders was. Jackson, like plenty of his contemporaries, surely remarked upon how slavery may well be "the undoing of the nation." So contentious was the issue that there'd have been and is nothing particularly prescient in his having done so.
- He died some 15 years before the Civil War.
- He was POTUS some 30 years before the Civil War.
- He owned ~150 slaves, enough that (1) we can safely say he didn't take great exception with the "peculiar institution," and (2) he, in person, may not actually have known or met each of them.
Quite simply, one either was supportive of/acquiescent about slavery or one was not, and the extent which one held either stance drove one's position on its political impact. Similarly, one had a 50/50 shot of being right, no matter one's thoughts about whether slavery would sunder the nation. So it is with all things binary.
Trump's dearth of knowledge about Jackson and his age's U.S. history, though bizarre for a man who has succeeded Jackson, is minor. Far more troubling is "The Donald's" ardently pathological refusal to keep mum about things he doesn't know well. Even worse, however, is the toddler-like obdurate truculence he manifests in avouching the verity of his thus uttered hogwash.
Trump disagreeing with the reigning liberal consensus on the Civil War and slavery hardly makes him wrong, not at all.
Just as Sam Houston did not support secession despite owning slaves, Jackson would not have either.
Just as Sam Houston did not support secession despite owning slaves, Jackson would not have either.
Nobody with any sense asserts that Jackson would have supported notions of the South seceding. But an exposition on what Jackson may have thought about Southern secession isn't what Trump uttered. What he said is that Jackson was angry about what he saw re: the Civil War, not what events Jackson speculated about, feared may come, predicted, or anything other than "what he saw." What Jackson saw re: the Civil War is this: absolutely nothing.
You never did answer the question what about the OP "ain't pretty". Guess that makes YOU the loser, doesn't it?Losers/traitors have to cling to what they can to feel better.OT:West Virginia
Robert E. Lee's horse, Traveler, was from W. VA.
Following the war in 1865, horse and owner relocated to Lexington, Virginia, when Lee accepted the presidency of the then Washington College. Lee even arranged to have a large brick stable built behind the President’s House for Traveller in 1869.
After General’s Lee’s death in 1870, Traveller remained at the college, being allowed to graze the campus grounds. In June 1871, while Lee’s daughter was feeding Traveller a lump of sugar, the horse was found to be lame. A close examination revealed a “small nail or tack” in the animal’s hoof, which was removed without incident. A few days later, however, Traveller became ill with tetanus and had to be euthanized. He was buried beneath a tree on the college grounds.
Traveller’s bones were exhumed at some point in 1875, bleached, and placed on exhibit for several years in New York. In 1907, the skeleton was mounted and returned to Washington and Lee University, where it remained on display until 1929. The bones were then relocated to the basement of Lee Chapel and finally reinterred outside the chapel near the entrance to the Lee family crypt in 1971, one hundred years after the horse’s death.
I'm convinced most of the men who fought for the South really were about state's rights and resentment of the imperious North.Right, but the abolitionist movement was spreading southward at a fairly steady pace, no?I remember reading Maryland had just taken the first steps to abolishing it. In any case, you don't dispute it was dying out from north to south, do you?No, the Civil War was about slavery--that and states' rights--but, slavery was the issue at stake in the Missouri Compromise. Slavery was the issue in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Slavery was the subject of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Slavery was what polarized the election of 1860. As for economic reasons, slavery was doomed anyway. A slave is a very inefficient source of labor and the whole system was gradually dying out on its own. Pennsylvania and everything north had all already abolished slavery. Maryland had already taken the first steps to end slavery. Abolition was on the table in Virginia. Had Lincoln been Andrew Jackson, we probably wouldn't have had that bloody war.
When the Civil War started the Union States of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, Kentucky, and New Jersey, still had slavery.
Slavery was slowly dying out in Northern states that simply could not grow the big money crops of cotton and tobacco because of their climate.
At the beginning of the war the South was making over 2 Billion dollars per year on such crops.
Some Southern people probably didn't care about slavery one way or the other. But does anyone think that the South would just give up a Billion dollar enterprise that was backed by recent acts of Congress and the US Supreme Court?
...
I gave you a lot of facts and history in the entire post......
Lincoln went to war when the southerners attacked Ft Sumter which was U.S. property. The war was their baby. "Lincoln led the north into war"? WTF kind of bullshit are you selling?No, the Civil War was about slavery--that and states' rights--but, slavery was the issue at stake in the Missouri Compromise. Slavery was the issue in the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Slavery was the subject of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Slavery was what polarized the election of 1860. As for economic reasons, slavery was doomed anyway. A slave is a very inefficient source of labor and the whole system was gradually dying out on its own. Pennsylvania and everything north had all already abolished slavery. Maryland had already taken the first steps to end slavery. Abolition was on the table in Virginia. Had Lincoln been Andrew Jackson, we probably wouldn't have had that bloody war.There’s been a lot of ignorant commentary lately about Donald Trump’s speculation that Andrew Jackson wouldn’t have let the Civil War happen. Doesn’t Trump know that Jackson died 16 years before Fort Sumter?!?
But Trump was right to point to Jackson’s successful handling of South Carolina’s secessionist movement in the 1830s, which was led by Jackson’s initial vice president, the formidable pro-slavery intellectual John C. Calhoun.
The ostensible subject was South Carolina being anti-tariff, but as Calhoun admitted privately in 1830, the ultimate cause was that South Carolina’s “peculiar domestick institution” had made South Carolina different enough that economic policy that was in the national interest would generally not be in South Carolina’s interest.
The crisis began around 1830 with a famous debate in the U.S. Senate between the southerner Hayne and the New Englander Webster:
The debate presented the fullest articulation of the differences over nullification, and 40,000 copies of Webster’s response, which concluded with “liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable”, were distributed nationwide.Jackson’s uncompromising stand in favor of Union, and willingness to use federal might on the side of nationalism, combined with his lack of enthusiasm for tariffs, gave him the opportunity to turn what had looked like a national crisis into routine political horse-trading, with tariffs being reduced enough to allow South Carolinians to climb down from the perch they had gotten out on.
Many people expected the states’ rights Jackson to side with Hayne. However once the debate shifted to secession and nullification, Jackson sided with Webster. On April 13, 1830 at the traditional Democratic Party celebration honoring Thomas Jefferson’s birthday, Jackson chose to make his position clear. In a battle of toasts, Hayne proposed, “The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States.” Jackson’s response, when his turn came, was, “Our Federal Union: It must be preserved.” To those attending, the effect was dramatic. Calhoun would respond with his own toast, in a play on Webster’s closing remarks in the earlier debate, “The Union. Next to our liberty, the most dear.” Finally Martin Van Buren would offer, “Mutual forbearance and reciprocal concession. Through their agency the Union was established. The patriotic spirit from which they emanated will forever sustain it.”
Van Buren wrote in his autobiography of Jackson’s toast, “The veil was rent – the incantations of the night were exposed to the light of day.” Senator Thomas Hart Benton, in his memoirs, stated that the toast “electrified the country.”[67] Jackson would have the final words a few days later when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson’s reply was:
“ Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.
Jackson’s proteges, such as Sam Houston who had fought under Jackson during the War of 1812, and gone on to be governor of Tennessee, President of the Republic of Texas, and finally governor of Texas, tended to be exactly the type of pro-Union Southerners that Lincoln needed more of. In 1861, Houston was deposed as governor of Texas by secessionists because he refused to take a loyalty oath to the Confederacy.
Similarly, Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, a Jackson-like Tennessee Democrat pro-Union man, as his running mate in 1864.
My personal feeling is that a military confrontation between the Union and South Carolina, font of the ideology that a slave owning oligarchy was the highest form of society, was inevitable at some point in the 19th Century. The big question was how many other states would ally with the South Carolina firebreathers?
Jackson had adeptly kept Calhoun’s South Carolina malcontents isolated by focusing on the key issue of Union.
When it came to the crisis after the 1860 election, South Carolina seceded first, followed quickly by six deep Southern slave states that largely depended upon King Cotton.
But then nothing happened for months, with the other 8 slave states uncertain what to do. Unfortunately, Lincoln didn’t seem to perceive the significance of the national crisis, devoting much of his energy during his first six weeks in the White House to interviewing Republican volunteers seeking local postmaster jobs.
Lincoln’s unreadiness for the big time drove William Seward, Lincoln’s secretary of state, crazy. Seward put forward a plan to re-unite the Union by taking exception to how France and Spain were violating the Monroe Doctrine in response to internal American disarray by colonizing Mexico and the Dominican Republic, respectively. But Lincoln saw Seward’s clever idea as a personal diss and shut down all consideration of it.
Eventually, the Union managed to hang on to four slave states, including crucial Kentucky. But after Fort Sumter, it lost four states to the Confederacy, including Jackson’s old state of Tennessee, where much of the Civil War was fought, and, catastrophically, Virginia, which became the main battlefront. Virginia is further north than any other secessionist state, so it should have stayed in the Union with Kentucky and Missouri. But Lincoln’s belated initiatives to hold Virginia, such as offering Robert E. Lee command of the Union Army, didn’t come until after Virginia had finally voted for secession.
What should have been a quick war thus turned into a 4 year long ordeal that killed 750,000 Americans, largely fought in Jackson’s state of Tennessee and heavily Scots-Irish Virginia.
Moreover, the class ideology of Jacksonism tended to be averse to slavery. Calhounism favored a slave-owning oligarchy that had little need for a flourishing class of white yeomen, except to fight for the oligarchs. The Western-oriented populist Jeffersonian-Jacksonian mindset was largely about small farmers and remained an important force outside of cotton country.
Cotton plantations worked by slaves were so profitable in the deep South that the six Cotton Belt states followed South Carolina, but further north, the Jefferson/Jackson social matrix was stronger. For example, the furthest north Confederate state, Virginia, suffered secession by its hillbilly northwest into the Union state of West Virginia (another reason why belated secession by Virginia seems like such an avoidable tragedy).
A climate map of the United States shows that the rain-watered cotton belt runs out in East Texas, while independent farmers can flourish further west the further north you go. Inevitably, a pro-Western policy like Jackson’s is going to be unenthusiastic about slavery.
Seems to me that, as is usual, the war was more about $ than slavery. Had the South been "allowed" to keep slaves I think the war would have happened anyway. The end of slavery was a good thing, but the war was fought over other issues. imo of course.
Greg
So Lincoln led the North into the war to free the slaves? I just can't see it. He wanted to crush the Confederacy; that slavery became part of it is an "of course" but without the States rights issues then I doubt that Lincoln would have gone to war just to free slaves. If it was a matter of freeing Slaves then there were many alternatives that could have and should have been explored before a total war. (Seems to me like a chicken/egg argument; there are powerful arguments on both sides imo).
Greg
Gtopa1 said 'I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.'That's not to say he is or is not an idiot. I don't know a damn thing about the guy or what he's posted, so I'm not defending him or concurring with you on that broader point.
Brian Williams confirmed that the Civil War went down completely different than how Trump described it.
Libtards dont have to answer questions.You never did answer the question what about the OP "ain't pretty". Guess that makes YOU the loser, doesn't it?
Nobody with any sense asserts that Jackson would have supported notions of the South seceding. But an exposition on what Jackson may have thought about Southern secession isn't what Trump uttered. What he said is that Jackson was angry about what he saw re: the Civil War, not what events Jackson speculated about, feared may come, predicted, or anything other than "what he saw." What Jackson saw re: the Civil War is this: absolutely nothing.
That sequence of remarks doesn't have any assignment of culpability in it.Gtopa1 said 'I see no merit in bringing the Jews into it at all.'That's not to say he is or is not an idiot. I don't know a damn thing about the guy or what he's posted, so I'm not defending him or concurring with you on that broader point.
To which WheelieIdiot accused him of blaming Jews.
He obviously did not even read what Gtopa1 posted.
Nobody with any sense asserts that Jackson would have supported notions of the South seceding. But an exposition on what Jackson may have thought about Southern secession isn't what Trump uttered. What he said is that Jackson was angry about what he saw re: the Civil War, not what events Jackson speculated about, feared may come, predicted, or anything other than "what he saw." What Jackson saw re: the Civil War is this: absolutely nothing.
I dont think that Trump selects his words and statements carefully enough to parse them so much.
The best you can do is to take the general intent for what it obviously is and go with it.
That is if you are trying to understand what he meant, and not what the NYT wants people to think he said.
The best you can do is to take the general intent for what it obviously is and go with it....That is if you are trying to understand what he meant
What an ignoramus -
What an ignoramus -
Published on May 1, 2017
Bitch, this is not news, you are a goober faggot.
