Trump's imaginary history

[TNHarley]

dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump. Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.

Yet not a single one of those issues would have "trumped" Jackson SWORN commitment to the Constitution. As has been pointed out, Jackson eloquently predicted the use of slavery as an "excuse" for secession. And if Jackson had no problem subjugating First People he would have no problem "subjugating" seceding traitors.

Hell, by your logic, President Grant, WHO OWNED SLAVES, would have promptly nullified the Emancipation Proclamation. Afterall, he was a SLAVE OWNER, he would support the Confederacy. Oh, wait a minute.

Julia Dent, the president's wife, owned a few slaves and sold them.

Winston can substitute his desires for facts and evidence, and the result still is that Jackson would have supported secession in 1860.

It is amazing what people will ignore for agenda.

 

[Crixus]

If any southerner had been elected in 1860 there would have been no secession. The election of Lincoln threw the south into a "Lincolns going to take your slaves" panic

close, but not quite 100% accurate

the real issue was whether or not the practice of slavery would be allowed into new lands as the US expanded it's territories

many "historians" (presumably intelligent, from places like Yale) have chimed in that "Trump was wrong" & that Jackson could not have prevented the War Between the States because the war was "all about slavery"

they are wrong - revisionist history is fun and all, but Andrew Jackson used the might of the federal government to quash succession well before the War Between the States

and Jackson was no abolitionist, not by a long shot

it's worth noting that slavery existed just about everywhere & the world & ended without wars as bloody as the one fought here in the US

slavery in the USA would have ended with or without the war & would have ended even if the South had won the war

had we settled the slavery issue peacefully, we'd be far better off as a country for it today

the secessionist movement had been around for a long time - most people don't realize this & many historians whitewash the other factors that contributed to causing that war

whether you like it or not, Trump's statements were not unreasonable & a credible argument can be made that he is correct here

If the south had not seceded, slavery would have gradually been eliminated over the next 20-30 years. Slaveholders would have received compensation for the loss of their "property" and new generations would be born free. It would have been a gradual evolution to Jim Crow

With the war, slaves were free in five years and had the right to vote in ten

Slavery was already becoming commercially untenable by the turn of the 19th century. Why do you think they started disappearing from the North, because Yankees all suddenly became abolitionists? Please, that movement started in the South. Hell, by almost every commentator of the times, the North was more racist than the South despite the institution of slavery.

But it was the cotton gin that saved slavery. The cotton gin that "caused" the Civil War.

Now, think about that. That massive increase in productivity, provided by a "capital" investment, generated a huge amount of WEALTH. It took the blood of an entire generation, and over twenty years of "reconstruction", to wrestle that wealth away from the powerful and to the people. The tariffs, the Civil War, and Reconstruction were all about the control of that wealth.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yup basically the war was about industrial might. People have to remember that the south was the bread basket at the time and supplied allot of raw material to the north. No way any sitting president would let that go.

 

[TNHarley]

he does make shit up but he does it effectively. Of course the GOP wants the next andrew jackson- push the brown skins back to mexico, fight terrorism, white power ya know... If he had said he wants to emulate lincoln the GOP would have booed him.

So you think the GOP doesn't support tyranny?

 

[Aries]

he does make shit up but he does it effectively. Of course the GOP wants the next andrew jackson- push the brown skins back to mexico, fight terrorism, white power ya know... If he had said he wants to emulate lincoln the GOP would have booed him.

So you think the GOP doesn't support tyranny?

I think the GOP doesn't know what they support anymore. They don't know which way is up and which way is down lol. Major identity crisis!

 

[rightwinger]

If any southerner had been elected in 1860 there would have been no secession. The election of Lincoln threw the south into a "Lincolns going to take your slaves" panic

close, but not quite 100% accurate

the real issue was whether or not the practice of slavery would be allowed into new lands as the US expanded it's territories

many "historians" (presumably intelligent, from places like Yale) have chimed in that "Trump was wrong" & that Jackson could not have prevented the War Between the States because the war was "all about slavery"

they are wrong - revisionist history is fun and all, but Andrew Jackson used the might of the federal government to quash succession well before the War Between the States

and Jackson was no abolitionist, not by a long shot

it's worth noting that slavery existed just about everywhere & the world & ended without wars as bloody as the one fought here in the US

slavery in the USA would have ended with or without the war & would have ended even if the South had won the war

had we settled the slavery issue peacefully, we'd be far better off as a country for it today

the secessionist movement had been around for a long time - most people don't realize this & many historians whitewash the other factors that contributed to causing that war

whether you like it or not, Trump's statements were not unreasonable & a credible argument can be made that he is correct here

If the south had not seceded, slavery would have gradually been eliminated over the next 20-30 years. Slaveholders would have received compensation for the loss of their "property" and new generations would be born free. It would have been a gradual evolution to Jim Crow

With the war, slaves were free in five years and had the right to vote in ten

Slavery was already becoming commercially untenable by the turn of the 19th century. Why do you think they started disappearing from the North, because Yankees all suddenly became abolitionists? Please, that movement started in the South. Hell, by almost every commentator of the times, the North was more racist than the South despite the institution of slavery.

But it was the cotton gin that saved slavery. The cotton gin that "caused" the Civil War.

Now, think about that. That massive increase in productivity, provided by a "capital" investment, generated a huge amount of WEALTH. It took the blood of an entire generation, and over twenty years of "reconstruction", to wrestle that wealth away from the powerful and to the people. The tariffs, the Civil War, and Reconstruction were all about the control of that wealth.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

No doubt cotton was king. It was the most valuable commodity being produced in this country and huge fortunes were being made. There was enough money being made to actually pay your labor and still make a big profit. But why pay for labor when you can get it for free?
The Confederacy was not a country worthy of admiration. Almost 40% of its population was in bondage. States like South Carolina and Mississippi had almost 60% of their populations in bondage

 

[rightwinger]

His Orangeness is ignorant about American history.

It is not just that he is ignorant about US History but he claims to be Andrew Jacksons biggest fan and is emulating his Presidency. Read a freak'n book about Jackson
There are dozens of documentaries and videos

But Trump just makes shit up to support his agenda

he does make shit up but he does it effectively. Of course the GOP wants the next andrew jackson- push the brown skins back to mexico, fight terrorism, white power ya know... If he had said he wants to emulate lincoln the GOP would have booed him.

Adams once said of jackson that he was a "brute who could barely write his own name"- seems like jackson and trump have more in common than we knew.

Ever see Trump write his name?
Looks like a lie detector

 

[Winston]

dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump. Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.

you must have missed my post that links the private letter Jackson wrote where he predicted that a war would come over the succession issue

you know that Abe Lincoln had Jackson's portrait hanging in the Oval Office - right?

why do you think he chose that picture?

I can tell you it was not because of his abolitionist views...

Rightwinger was 100% correct in stating that had Jackson, or any other Democrat, been president in 1860, there would have been no secession

Trump simply said that he thinks that Jackson could have prevented the Civil War had he been in office 24 years after his actual presidency

So basically, he offered an opinion. Historians can disagree with that opinion, but the argument cannot be "proven" either way (but logic suggests that Trump is correct and the leftist historians are flat out wrong)

So, you will have to forgive me for not being convinced by the opinion of leftist historians in the leftist world of academia

oh hell, I am having fun - let's dive a little deeper

YES - the "historians" are truly demonstrating that they are bad at their job - they should feel bad, I really mean that

Let's look at this logically...

IF Jackson had been elected President in 1860, he would NEVER have supported preventing slavery from expanding into new territories (the expansion of slavery was the real hot button issue - no one was advocating for ending slavery where it already existed, or at least, no one that had any power, certainly not Abe Lincoln)

Furthermore, Jackson was a Southerner and a Democrat. So, again, just by applying logic, we can show that these historians just don't know their stuff (must suck to be that bad at one's job...)

The fact that Lincoln was viewed as a radical from an upstart party (the Republican Party) & was not even on the ballot in 10 Southern states, was a stick in the eye and fueled the secessionist flames.

So, playing this fantasy game to its natural conclusion:

Jackson as President in 1861 would have been a member of the Democrat Party & would have enjoyed the support of most Southern state legislatures & governors, thereby preventing secession

So yes, Jake, yes by God!

The historians are wrong

Jackson as President in 1861 would have likely prevented the Civil War

I am a progressive. I think Trump is an idiot. But history is not right or left and in this case, Trump is SPOT ON. I posted Jackson's letter in this now merged thread as well. I posted his quoted public response to the nullification crisis. It is rumored that when Jackson heard of Calhoun's support for secession Jackson threatened to separate Calhoun's head from his body. He was forced to resign. A pretty strong signal that Jackson would have taken a harder line than Lincoln.

Besides, it is one thing to secede when the President is some little known short time representative. Quite another to secede when the President is a foul talking, hard drinking, war hero known to have taken a gut shot during a duel and THEN calmly squeezing off a kill shot to his opponent.

 

[Aries]

dcbl clearly fails in defending Trump. Because AJ defended slavery, subjugated First Peoples, and wanted Texas and California, and because those facts ran right up to secession issue to project the South ans slavery, AJ would have supported secession in 1860, if we were alive.

you must have missed my post that links the private letter Jackson wrote where he predicted that a war would come over the succession issue

you know that Abe Lincoln had Jackson's portrait hanging in the Oval Office - right?

why do you think he chose that picture?

I can tell you it was not because of his abolitionist views...

Rightwinger was 100% correct in stating that had Jackson, or any other Democrat, been president in 1860, there would have been no secession

Trump simply said that he thinks that Jackson could have prevented the Civil War had he been in office 24 years after his actual presidency

So basically, he offered an opinion. Historians can disagree with that opinion, but the argument cannot be "proven" either way (but logic suggests that Trump is correct and the leftist historians are flat out wrong)

So, you will have to forgive me for not being convinced by the opinion of leftist historians in the leftist world of academia

oh hell, I am having fun - let's dive a little deeper

YES - the "historians" are truly demonstrating that they are bad at their job - they should feel bad, I really mean that

Let's look at this logically...

IF Jackson had been elected President in 1860, he would NEVER have supported preventing slavery from expanding into new territories (the expansion of slavery was the real hot button issue - no one was advocating for ending slavery where it already existed, or at least, no one that had any power, certainly not Abe Lincoln)

Furthermore, Jackson was a Southerner and a Democrat. So, again, just by applying logic, we can show that these historians just don't know their stuff (must suck to be that bad at one's job...)

The fact that Lincoln was viewed as a radical from an upstart party (the Republican Party) & was not even on the ballot in 10 Southern states, was a stick in the eye and fueled the secessionist flames.

So, playing this fantasy game to its natural conclusion:

Jackson as President in 1861 would have been a member of the Democrat Party & would have enjoyed the support of most Southern state legislatures & governors, thereby preventing secession

So yes, Jake, yes by God!

The historians are wrong

Jackson as President in 1861 would have likely prevented the Civil War

I am a progressive. I think Trump is an idiot. But history is not right or left and in this case, Trump is SPOT ON. I posted Jackson's letter in this now merged thread as well. I posted his quoted public response to the nullification crisis. It is rumored that when Jackson heard of Calhoun's support for secession Jackson threatened to separate Calhoun's head from his body. He was forced to resign. A pretty strong signal that Jackson would have taken a harder line than Lincoln.

Besides, it is one thing to secede when the President is some little known short time representative. Quite another to secede when the President is a foul talking, hard drinking, war hero known to have taken a gut shot during a duel and THEN calmly squeezing off a kill shot to his opponent.

Trump is not spot on. That succession threat was over taxation, not slavery. We do not know how he would have handled the civil war, as he was long dead. But we do know he was a slave owner, if he was pres there would have been no war- and no freedom for the slaves.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Winston and dcbl are wrong based on all of the evidence and Jackson's character.

If he had been compos mentis, he would have been a fabulous war secretary, and would have made the CSA states exactly what he wanted in the war effort.

 

[Meathead]

If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.

With the exception of Polk????

Polk was an exceptionally good president. I don't expect people unschooled in US history to be aware of this.

 

[CowboyTed]

Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
Probably what he was talking about..

People rate that funny, but no one wants to touch it. This is like the media crucifying him for saying that shit about china and korea.. He was right..

Dude, you are talking about the nullification crisis, which had next to nothing to do with the Civil War...

Why does the Right need to keep pumping false narratives..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polk had four goals and accomplished them all.

If one can be pointed to as the Prior Cause for the CW, point at Polk.

The introduction of Texas and the great Southwest into the Union exacerbated the slavery issue until the point of national break down.

 

[dcbl]

Winston and dcbl are wrong based on all of the evidence and Jackson's character.

If he had been compos mentis, he would have been a fabulous war secretary, and would have made the CSA states exactly what he wanted in the war effort.

people have different opinions

opinions are like noses (or assholes)

some smell more than others...

the point is, this big "GOTCHA"

isn't

because a credible argument can be made to support Trump's statements

 

[CowboyTed]

If it hadn't been for a string of terrible presidents between Jackson and Lincoln, with the exception of Polk, the Civil War might well have been preempted. It is not unlike the folly we've experienced since Clinton's second term. Hopefully Trump will succeed where others have failed.

With the exception of Polk????

Polk was an exceptionally good president. I don't expect people unschooled in US history to be aware of this.

First Three quotes from Wiki on him:

No president who performs his duties faithfully and conscientiously can have any leisure.
Trump: Golf.....

Peace, plenty, and contentment reign throughout our borders, and our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world.
Trump: Grab them by the pussy....

One great object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities or encroaching upon their just rights.
Trump: Hispanics, Muslims, Blacks, Women.... Anyone who is not white and male...

But Trump is better in the Slave Owning Department...

 

[TNHarley]

Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
Probably what he was talking about..

People rate that funny, but no one wants to touch it. This is like the media crucifying him for saying that shit about china and korea.. He was right..

Dude, you are talking about the nullification crisis, which had next to nothing to do with the Civil War...

Why does the Right need to keep pumping false narratives..

No shit.
Read what Jackson said about it and how he handled it.
Maybe if you learn some history, history will make sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Winston and dcbl are wrong based on all of the evidence and Jackson's character.

If he had been compos mentis, he would have been a fabulous war secretary, and would have made the CSA states exactly what he wanted in the war effort.

people have different opinions

opinions are like noses (or assholes)

some smell more than others...

the point is, this big "GOTCHA"

isn't

because a credible argument can be made to support Trump's statements

Your lead up does not support the conclusion. There is no credible argument to support Trump. He clearly did not understand the situation or the history.

Let's see if the snitch, TNHarley, now supports the insupportable, Trumps's comments. Ok, we have a funny emoticon.

 

[Political Junky]

Trump s functionally illiterate about history.

 

[flacaltenn]

And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
Reagan was really angry over 9-11

Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War

"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."

This is in the vein of imagining various alternate histories of the United States.

"He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart."

Jackson was known for his temper and his loyalty to his friends, so this is OK.

"He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."

Jackson did not, because Jackson was dead.

"He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

See above.





.

You can't even read the first line you quoted in your post.
You're a moron.

I'm sorry, but you need to read EVERY line Trump said. It showed he is a moron of the caliber of Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

Sarah Palin was essentially correct in what she said. The sound of muskets firing were the volunteers emptying the musket load before muster. Standard practice was to muster at the Inn or Pub and the weapons needed to be safed..

Even written statements from the British Commander back her up...

 

[rightwinger]

Trump s functionally illiterate about history.

Trump is just plain functionally illiterate

 

[rightwinger]

And Teddy Roosevelt was pissed off about Pearl Harbor
Reagan was really angry over 9-11

Note to President Trump: Andrew Jackson wasn't alive for the Civil War

"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."

This is in the vein of imagining various alternate histories of the United States.

"He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart."

Jackson was known for his temper and his loyalty to his friends, so this is OK.

"He was really angry that-- he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War."

Jackson did not, because Jackson was dead.

"He said, 'There's no reason for this.'"

See above.





.

You can't even read the first line you quoted in your post.
You're a moron.

I'm sorry, but you need to read EVERY line Trump said. It showed he is a moron of the caliber of Sarah Palin and Paul Revere

Sarah Palin was essentially correct in what she said. The sound of muskets firing were the volunteers emptying the musket load before muster. Standard practice was to muster at the Inn or Pub and the weapons needed to be safed..

You forgot about ringing the bells