Trump's imaginary history

[Correll]

.
It is understandable why Der Gropenfürher’s supporters made him their president, his grasp of history is identical to theirs. Like all other issues, Der Gropenfürher continues to impress his minions with “alternate facts” they eagerly accept as truth. And they will defend their own ignorance as well as that of Der Gropenfürher, swearing their complete lack of knowledge makes them superior individuals to the “educated elitists” who rely on facts.

The right-wingers’ alternate facts, alternate reality, and typical delusional flights-of-fantasy are embraced by conservatives everywhere. This will be proven by their responses to this OP and the article at the link below.

Donald Trump ridiculed after asking 'why was there the Civil War?'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'''


.

Your use of the slur, "Der Gropenfürher’s" makes a complete mockery of your pretense of intellectual superiority, and a fool of you, on so many levels,


not that you have the self awareness nor honesty to face that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Yep, and if he had been alive in 1860, AJ would have supported secession.

I think Jackson would have been irate at the election of Abe Lincoln

 

[NYcarbineer]

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..

lol, yeah like Trump is a scholar when it comes to the minute details of the Andrew Jackson presidency.

Maybe what Trump was trying to say was that a Democrat like Jackson could have prevented the terrible war that the Republican Lincoln couldn't.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Its funny that you try to justify Trumps idiocracy. Keep spinning and it will eventually make sense.

Using his context and the actual history I posted, it makes sense.
John Adams even seeked help from Jackson with regards to the inevitable war. That was like 60 years or so before the CW

Perhaps you are right, but don't you find it odd that this kind of stuff keeps happening? If Trump is this brilliant guy then why can't he just explain what he means when he speaks instead of making these generalized inaccurate statements that require interpretation and explanation by his supporters and surrogates.

If Trump had a history of displaying in depth knowledge about anything then it could be understandable that he be misinterpreted from time to time due to a vague statement, however, this confusion is becoming the norm... idiotic statements and the scramble to explain and justify by his base... Y'all are gonna need to take a spa day soon!

Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?

If he knew Jacksons history, that he was dead before the civil war, he would have phrased his statement differently. If he was talking about the issues that lead to the civil war he would have phrased his statement differently.

True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.

 

[rightwinger]

I was re-reading Trump's quote- and its hard to tell whether he misspoke or is ignorant.

But I am curious how anyone thinks Jackson would prevented the Civil War.

Certainly I suppose if Jackson was elected in the same election that Lincoln was elected, it would have prevented it- because the Slave States would have beaten the abolitionist movement. Is that what Trump meant?

Jackson would have been 95 at the time but he would have despised Lincoln
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

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think Trump is just mesmerized by Jackson's hairdo.

 

[dcbl]

Look - I get it that many of you hate Trump

Really, I do get it. I hated Obama. I hated Carter

I didn't really hate Clinton, but I sure didn't like him...

Anyway - Jackson actually predicted the Civil War

He even said that the tariff was nothing more than a pretext for Southern succession & predicted that the "negro" would be used later.

Quote:
I have had a laborious task here; but nullification is dead, and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve the country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds, and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers you have amongst you. Let them meet the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now known, was a mere pretext. Its burthen was on your coarse woolens---by the law of July, 1832, coarse woolen was reduced to five per cent. for the benefit of the South. Mr. Clay's bill takes it up and classes it with woolens at 50 per cent., reduces it gradually down to 20 per cent., and there it is to remain, and Mr. Calhoun and all the nullifiers agree to the principle. The cash duties and home valuation will be equal to 15 per cent. more, and after the year 1842, you pay on coarse woolens 35 per cent. If this is not protection, I cannot understand. Therefore the tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery, question.


President Andrew Jackson on Secession and Nullification

Trump is not stupid, as many believe.

He also has a portrait of Ole Hickory hanging in the Oval Office (as did Abe Lincoln)

So, yes, I do believe Trump was referring to this piece of history when he made his statement

On this issue, Trump is correct. This is backed up by an understanding of the historical record

you know, facts & shit...

 

[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..

lol, yeah like Trump is a scholar when it comes to the minute details of the Andrew Jackson presidency.

Maybe what Trump was trying to say was that a Democrat like Jackson could have prevented the terrible war that the Republican Lincoln couldn't.

Seems he did. I mean, he did say it..

 

[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

 

[TNHarley]

Using his context and the actual history I posted, it makes sense.
John Adams even seeked help from Jackson with regards to the inevitable war. That was like 60 years or so before the CW

Perhaps you are right, but don't you find it odd that this kind of stuff keeps happening? If Trump is this brilliant guy then why can't he just explain what he means when he speaks instead of making these generalized inaccurate statements that require interpretation and explanation by his supporters and surrogates.

If Trump had a history of displaying in depth knowledge about anything then it could be understandable that he be misinterpreted from time to time due to a vague statement, however, this confusion is becoming the norm... idiotic statements and the scramble to explain and justify by his base... Y'all are gonna need to take a spa day soon!

Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?

If he knew Jacksons history, that he was dead before the civil war, he would have phrased his statement differently. If he was talking about the issues that lead to the civil war he would have phrased his statement differently.

True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.

It is to people that know history.

 

[dcbl]

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 in 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

 

[bodecea]

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????

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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..

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

 

[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..

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Except he already did.. His actions and rhetoric actually helped with the compromise of 1850 on top of stopping secession during his administration. Maybe you need to learn some history, homie.

 

[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

 

[dcbl]

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

 

[rightwinger]

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..

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Trump is right in that if Jackson was President, there would have been no reason for secession. A slaveholder would be in the White House

 

[dcbl]

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

absolutely slavery would have ended, as it did EVERYWHERE else in the "civilized world"

I disagree about how the "Jim Crow" stuff would have gone down - I think it is probable that the bitterness & animosity on race issues would not be as pronounced as what we are dealing with today

but we will never know...

 

[dcbl]

so, I will throw y'all a bone

I do not doubt that Trump did not come up with this, in fact I would even guess that this is new info for him

probably, he likes Jackson & has decided to learn more about his presidency recently

saw this opinion, agreed with it & decided to share it