[QUOTE]President Trump during an interview that airs Monday questioned why the country had a Civil War and suggested former President Andrew Jackson could have prevented it had he served later.
"I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart," Trump said during an interview with the Washington Examiner's Salena Zito.
"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'"
Jackson, the nation's seventh president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861.
The president further questioned why the country could not have solved the Civil War.
"People don't realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?" Trump said during the edition of "Main Street Meets the Beltway" scheduled to air on SiriusXM.
"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war[/URL]
[URL]http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-makes-puzzling-claim-about-andrew-1493649772-htmlstory.html[/URL]
[URL]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/05/01/note-president-trump-andrew-jackson-wasnt-alive-civil-war/101149060/[/URL]
Video Source:
[URL]http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/donald-trump-andrew-jackson-wiretapping/[/URL]
My god, his quotes in this read like an interview with a 1st grader on a day's history lesson.
He wasn't asking about the motives behind the war, he was wondering whether there could have been a diplomatic solution to prevent it, had Jackson been alive and in office later
[QUOTE=Perrine;52172708]He wasn't asking about the motives behind the war, he was wondering whether there could have been a diplomatic solution to prevent it[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'"
Jackson, the nation's seventh president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you missed this part. There's no way you can interpret this any other way than Andrew Jackson talking about the Civil War which began years after his death.
EDIT:My bad, I mistook his original quote:
[QUOTE]I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War.[/QUOTE]
I had interpreted this a bit differently. You have a valid point. This still seems quite contradictory to me, though I must say.
[QUOTE=Perrine;52172708]He wasn't asking about the motives behind the war, he was wondering whether there could have been a diplomatic solution to prevent it, had Jackson been alive and in office later[/QUOTE]
There really couldn't. Slavery made people a lot of money. Lincoln was brave to do what he did, knowing war was inevitable.
Kind of a misleading title. Despite his inaccuracy with Jackson, he does raise a point in saying "why could that one not have been worked out". It's not like he didn't know what the war was about, he (like many others) wonder why it had to come to war when there were plenty of chances to solve it diplomatically
[QUOTE]"I mean had Andrew Jackson [b]been a little bit later[/b] you wouldn't have had the Civil War.
"He was really angry [b]that he saw[/b] what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'"
[/QUOTE]
So does he know that he wasn't alive or not, what the fuck.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;52172714]Perhaps you missed this part. There's no way you can interpret this any other way than Andrew Jackson talking about the Civil War which began years after his death.[/QUOTE]
[quote]"I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn't have had the Civil War.[/quote]
either way, the thread title is misleading
[QUOTE=Perrine;52172731]either way, the thread title is misleading[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I misinterpreted that bit. You do have a point. His lack of understanding of history still astounds me.
I think it's fairly easy to answer why the issues couldn't be worked out: because the slave states would not have given up their slaves in any other way - from what I have read about the history of that period, anyway. They would have reached a "compromise" that would have still meant there was still slavery in the States.
The Civil War was tragic, but the Union was completely justified in their objectives and what they did.
Also, after reading Trump's statements about history, I'm fairly sure the historian inside of me is ready to hang himself.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52172716]Kind of a misleading title. Despite his inaccuracy with Jackson, he does raise a point in saying "why could that one not have been worked out". It's not like he didn't know what the war was about, he (like many others) wonder why it had to come to war when there were plenty of chances to solve it diplomatically[/QUOTE]
It didn't get solved diplomatically because southerners refused any and all diplomacy involving slave ownership. The Republican view was that the free market could eventually force slavery out of the picture with advancing technology creating free labor that plantation owners would prefer over slave labor. There's evidence that eventually slavery would have been ended naturally on it's own, albeit much more slowly than the Civil War. Some argue that the Civil War slowed down the acceptance of blacks into American culture, because Southerners felt that they were stripped of their property instead of coming to the realization that they were equal men on their own. Men are always more accepting of an idea if they believe it to be their own.
Quote from wikipedia because I can't be arsed to track down where I originally read this: [QUOTE]Also in the postwar years, individual slaveholders, particularly in the Upper South, manumitted slaves, sometimes in their wills. Many noted they had been moved by the revolutionary ideals of the equality of men. The number of free blacks as a proportion of the black population increased from less than one per cent to nearly ten per cent from 1790 to 1810 in the Upper South as a result of these actions.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52172716]Kind of a misleading title. Despite his inaccuracy with Jackson, he does raise a point in saying "why could that one not have been worked out". It's not like he didn't know what the war was about, he (like many others) wonder why it had to come to war when there were plenty of chances to solve it diplomatically[/QUOTE]
It's probably to do with how truly multifactorial the causes running up to the Civil War were.
While one of the main causes was the South's insistence on the continuation of slavery, taking Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech into account, going so far as to say that 'the great truth of our civilization (here referring to the Confederacy) is that the negro is not equal to the white man, and that slavery, or subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition', in addition many slave owners were militantly opposed to any change of this situation no matter how often it was proposed that slaves be gradually emancipated.
Another important thing to take into account was the culture shock. The Southern states were very, very conservative, to the point they mistrusted anything that could be construed as 'a newfangled idea'. One stark example was their reference to free labor as 'greasy mechanics and moonstruck theorists.' They were also opposed to the freehold/homestead laws because they considered that small farmers would be against the practice of slavery. People like James Calhoun appealed to the popular thinking that slavery was a great good because it civilized the negro man and made him a productive member of society.
The final straw was Abe Lincoln getting elected as President of the United States. That miffed a lot of southern politicians very badly, because they realized their say in national politics, as well as their positions, were rapidly eroded by the prevailing, and more popular, view that slavery needed to be abolished and African Americans had to be freed. Even the Democrat buttressing (at the time) of the pro-slavery faction was beginning to fail. That led to the publication of the dissolution of the Union in South Carolina, and soon 6 other states followed.
These are by no means a comprehensive list of reasons why the war began, but friction between both sides of the argument was simply so high that war was going to be inevitable. Honest Abe himself, said in his preliminary address one month before he declared the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862,
[quote=Abraham Lincoln]I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." … My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.... I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.[/quote]
As you can see, he wanted to preserve the union at all costs and bent a huge effort to doing so, but ultimately saw no other option but to declare war to preserve the unity of the country.
1) andrew jackson was quite dead by 1860
2) holy fuck he's an idiot
3) this is why sheltered .1%rs shouldn't be running the world.
there were a lot of reasons for the civil war but the underpinning was that the south had slavery and the north didn't and they reached a tipping point where they could no longer coexist.
The only diplomatic solution I could see would be to allow a compromise and let slavery continue, which would be unacceptable. The south would not likely give up slavery so quickly at this point in time.
[QUOTE=OvB;52172781]The only diplomatic solution I could see would be to allow a compromise and let slavery continue, which would be unacceptable. The south would not likely give up slavery so quickly at this point in time.[/QUOTE]
the reason why this failed in 1860 when it had worked up until then was the amount of states prepared to be created out of the western territory, if they were all slave states then the south would have become the majority, if they were all free states then the south would have been further isolated and missouri showed that the decision could not be left to the territory as both sides would turn it into a proxy war.
[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52172769]The Republican view was that the free market could eventually force slavery out of the picture with advancing technology creating free labor that plantation owners would prefer over slave labor. There's evidence that eventually slavery would have been ended naturally on it's own, albeit much more slowly than the Civil War.[/QUOTE]
actually nah, slavery was still as profitable as ever in the 1860s, the rate of return on a slave was often higher than that of industry and railroads.
it did produce other changes longer term within the southern economy (plantations became self sufficient, towns remained smaller, industry didn't really kick off, it had to import more manufactured goods and expertise from the north, etc), but for the slave owners they either benefited from this or were able to ignore them.
if the civil war and abolition campaign hadn't happened, the economics would have supported it until well into the 20th century (quite a few slaves started being put to work in factories and railroads as the industrial revolution began). i could see slavery being quite profitable in the United States until the 1940s or even later.
in fact, slavery was probably at its strongest and most profitable on the eve of the civil war
Fucking Christ he makes George W Bush look like a bloody Mensa member.
Also, we all know how those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it? Well, if he doesn't swot up and wise up, he might just make that quote ring true throughout the coming years.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52172778]this is why sheltered .1%'ers shouldn't be running the world.[/QUOTE]
We need more Aramis Stiltons in this world, and fewer Luca Abeles.
[QUOTE=Sableye;52172791]the reason why this failed in 1860 when it had worked up until then was the amount of states prepared to be created out of the western territory, if they were all slave states then the south would have become the majority, if they were all free states then the south would have been further isolated and missouri showed that the decision could not be left to the territory as both sides would turn it into a proxy war.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the point is neither side was willing to comprise further at this point. Though if Undead Jackson was president, I wonder what his stance would be, given he was more pro-slavery than Abe was.
Lincoln was willing to allow the abolition of slavery to be [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment]made illegal[/url] via constitutional amendment. Attempts were made, but were apparently insufficient. The south was pissed about new free states eroding the political power of slave states as a bloc. Lincoln didn't rush in with some grand plan to free all the slaves within his presidential term, he simply wanted to halt its expansion to the west. Diplomacy was tried, the south decided to secede anyways because a government headed by Lincoln was unpalatable, and war was the result.
Lol Andrew Jackson was a terrible president.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52172799]actually nah, slavery was still as profitable as ever in the 1860s, the rate of return on a slave was often higher than that of industry and railroads.
it did produce other changes longer term within the southern economy (plantations became self sufficient, towns remained smaller, industry didn't really kick off, it had to import more manufactured goods and expertise from the north, etc), but for the slave owners they either benefited from this or were able to ignore them.
if the civil war and abolition campaign hadn't happened, the economics would have supported it until well into the 20th century (quite a few slaves started being put to work in factories and railroads as the industrial revolution began). i could see slavery being quite profitable in the United States until the 1940s or even later.
in fact, slavery was probably at its strongest and most profitable on the eve of the civil war[/QUOTE]
Oh I wholeheartedly agree, and do not refute that slavery may have lasted another 100 years or more if left to disintegrate naturally. Maybe I should have put more emphasis on "much more slowly." I was merely stating the opinions of the time, not my own.
[QUOTE=Robman8908;52172705]My god, his quotes in this read like an interview with a 1st grader on a day's history lesson.[/QUOTE]
That's an insult to first graders. At least they aren't supposed to know any better.:v:
Also, this is spreading like wildfire on FB lol.
[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52172769]There's evidence that eventually slavery would have been ended naturally on it's own, albeit much more slowly than the Civil War.[/QUOTE]
You can't possibly be that naive. Because "many" slaveholders began to change their tune that meant slavery was on its way out? If something hadn't been done about it we would have seen slavery continue on for generations more. Racism didn't suddenly end, even after the Civil War, and something as profitable as free labor would not have ended without legal enforcement or an armed revolution.
[QUOTE=Propane Addict;52172827]Oh I wholeheartedly agree, and do not refute that slavery may have lasted another 100 years or more if left to disintegrate naturally. Maybe I should have put more emphasis on "much more slowly." I was merely stating the opinions of the time, not my own.[/QUOTE]
Okay, didn't see this reply, fair enough.
[QUOTE=Perrine;52172708]He wasn't asking about the motives behind the war, he was wondering whether there could have been a diplomatic solution to prevent it, had Jackson been alive and in office later[/QUOTE]
It's a ridiculous thing to ask. It's like asking if WWI could have been prevented if Archduke Franz Ferdinand wasn't assassinated. We don't know, we can't know, all we know is what happened; you can claim otherwise through reductionism but it would still be nothing more than a conjecture. As for the Civil War, we know why it happened, we know that all too well, so what is even the question here?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52172716]he (like many others) wonder why it had to come to war when there were plenty of chances to solve it diplomatically[/QUOTE]
Old rich fuck who loves denying basic truths and worsening peoples' lives for money wonders why other old rich fucks who loved denying basic truths and worsening peoples' lives for money wouldn't compromise.
It's like pottery.
This is one of the most hilariously stupid things I've ever heard. Andrew Jackson was one of the people that helped [i]lead[/i] to the Civil War. Not only that, he had no big heart, he was an angry old man who hated everyone (especially native Americans).
One of our worst presidents that's still somehow worshipped today like he actually did anything good.
[editline]1st May 2017[/editline]
The Civil War was bound to happen almost from the outset of our country. The dissonance between the slave states and the free states was because of hardcore partisanship in the parties at the time (much like what we have today, but even more extreme).
Does anyone even fucking remember Bleeding Kansas? Christ' sake. It was almost inevitable based on the way the constitution itself was written and how they had to argue for such a long time over something as basic as human rights.
[QUOTE=Perrine;52172708]He wasn't asking about the motives behind the war, he was wondering whether there could have been a diplomatic solution to prevent it, had Jackson been alive and in office later[/QUOTE]
This was my first thought, but after reading what he said, it doesn't make sense. Of course I'll allow for the "what does he mean when he says words"-argument, but seriously Trump needs to make his sentences grammatically sane. I'm pretty sure he's saying that Jackson would've prevented it, but that really shouldn't be "pretty sure" when he's the president of the US.
[quote]"He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, 'There's no reason for this.'"
Jackson, the nation's seventh president, died in 1845. The Civil War began in 1861.[/quote]
Agreed. And, as long as we're on the subject, why the hell didn't Benjamin Franklin stop 9/11?
Talkes with a person who was a civil war expert, Said the Civil war could have been avoided before the succession by starving out the demand for slavery, but after succesion it was inevitable.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52172799]actually nah, slavery was still as profitable as ever in the 1860s, the rate of return on a slave was often higher than that of industry and railroads.
it did produce other changes longer term within the southern economy (plantations became self sufficient, towns remained smaller, industry didn't really kick off, it had to import more manufactured goods and expertise from the north, etc), but for the slave owners they either benefited from this or were able to ignore them.
if the civil war and abolition campaign hadn't happened, the economics would have supported it until well into the 20th century (quite a few slaves started being put to work in factories and railroads as the industrial revolution began). [B]i could see slavery being quite profitable in the United States until the 1940s or even later.[/B]
in fact, slavery was probably at its strongest and most profitable on the eve of the civil war[/QUOTE]
The Civil War may have banned slavery in name but slavery in practice did not end until WW2, the institution of slavery was replaced by forced labor, hundreds of thousands of black men sentenced to hard labor for drummed up charges like vagrancy.
Industry in the southern states was run on this forced labor, contracts brought and sold, in most cases those sentenced were not even being released after their nominal time had ended and instead served a lifetime of what was functionally slavery.
Slavery in the US was only ended by FDR who was concerned that the US should be the "good guys" in the war against Germany and Japan.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
