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.
It is to people that know history.True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.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.Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?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!No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.
Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.
OMG OK hack boi. Ignore history if you want.It is to people that know history.True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.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.Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.
Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.
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.talked about it for decades - before the civil warAndrew 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.
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.
Rights?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.talked about it for decades - before the civil warYou 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.
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.
No, dope.
Trump was clearly speaking of the civil war.
Not an earlier event.
Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
I concur, see, we can agree on some things!
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.
100% incorrect, as Rightwinger (a left leaning member of this forum) & I have both demonstrated
ANY Democrat in office in 1860 would have prevented the war, as the Southern states would not likely have succeeded
Trump was clearly speaking of the civil war.
Not an earlier event.
It is to people that know history.True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.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.Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.
Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.
That's not what Trump suggested.
But is THAT what Trump is trying to say? We would have been better off if we had accommodated the slave holders?
talked about it for decades - before the civil warAndrew 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.
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
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
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...
talked about it for decades - before the civil warYou 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.
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
You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement.
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
Rights?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.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.
No, dope.
Trump was clearly speaking of the civil war.
Not an earlier event.
"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."
Lets ignore that too.
When Jackson stole the farms and homes of the Cherokee and looted their property he marched them away in what became known as the Trail of Tears. True, many died during that march, but the fact that he did not massacre and outright murder all of them in place proved he had a "heart".talked about it for decades - before the civil warYou 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.
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
You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement.
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
talked about it for decades - before the civil warYou 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.
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
You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement.
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
The barbury slave trade ended in a couple rounds of bloodshed.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...
The rest of the civilized world gave up slavery without bloodshed. After the Civil War, it still existed in the Caribbean and South America for about another 20 years
The Civil War was like ripping a bandaid off of slavery. It was quick and final but far from painless
If we had "peacefully" ended slavery, I think we would have ended up with a country like South Africa with a subclass of blacks who had limited rights
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.
there are numerous accounts that suggest that Jackson's slaves were weeping & distraught when he died
I am not defending all of Jackson's policies & actions, but judging him by today's morality is not really fair either
