Trump: 'Why was there the Civil War?' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=OvB;52172809]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.[/QUOTE] Even if he was alive he wouldn't have had any chance at becoming president because the Democrats had split into two parties and neither side could've won on its own. Plus one of his main claims to fame was being a "hero" in the War of 1812. If Americans wanted a war hero, they wouldn't need to go all the way back to 1812 to find one.

if there is another civil war I have a funny feeling this one will never be forgot holy shit hahaha

[QUOTE=AlexConnor;52173383]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.[/QUOTE] That, or they'd keep sharecropper families perpetually in debt, effectively tying them to the land. Kinda like mining towns with their company stores.

[QUOTE]"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," [/QUOTE] HE DIED TWO DECADES BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR YOU FUCK-FUCK [editline]1st May 2017[/editline] big heart [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears[/url]

Well, there's several reasons for the Civil War. The growing cultural divide between the North and South. The pre-existing economic differences between the North and South. The unwanted expansion of Northern industry into Southern lands. The pseudo-aristocracy of the Southern gentry. The animosity that Native Americans forced into the Oklahoma Indian territories felt towards the Federal government. The question of whether the Constitution allowed a state to legally secede. All of these things nicely packed into one big powder keg. And the match that set off the whole powder keg, the existence of slavery and the question of whether it should be allowed to expand into the western territories. [editline]1st May 2017[/editline] Frankly, if you can't understand the various socio-economic reasons for the bloodiest conflict in American history and one of the first truly modern wars to ever happen, on top of not knowing anything about your predecessors in office past those who served immediately before you, maybe you shouldn't be president.

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52173994]big heart [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears[/url][/QUOTE] [quote]Jackson viewed the demise of Indian tribal nations as inevitable, pointing to the advancement of settled life and demise of tribal nations in the American northeast. He called his northern critics hypocrites, given the North's history: Indian tribes had been driven to extinction; Indian hunting grounds had been replaced with family farms; and state law had replaced tribal law. If the Indians of the south were to survive and their culture maintained, they faced powerful historical forces that could only be postponed. He dismissed romantic portrayals of lost Indian culture as a sentimental longing for a simpler time in the past, stating: "...progress requires moving forward." [i]"Humanity has often wept over the fate of the aborigines of this country and philanthropy has long been busily employed in devising means to avert it, but its progress has never for a moment been arrested, and one by one have many powerful tribes disappeared from the earth. … But true philanthropy reconciles the mind to these vicissitudes as it does to the extinction of one generation to make room for another. ... Philanthropy could not wish to see this continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements which art can devise or industry execute, occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy people, and filled with all the blessings of liberty, civilization, and religion?"[/i] Jackson, according to historian H. W. Brands, sincerely believed his population transfer was a "wise and humane policy" that would save the Indians from "utter annihilation". Brands writes that given the "racist realities of the time, Jackson was almost certainly correct in contending that for the Cherokees to remain in Georgia risked their extinction". Jackson portrayed his paternalism and federal support as a generous act of mercy.[/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act[/url] Also: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyncoya_Jackson[/url] (His other son Theodore was an adopted Indian too, but we don't know much about him.)

[QUOTE=Govna;52174391][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act[/url] Also: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyncoya_Jackson[/url] (His other son Theodore was an adopted Indian too, but we don't know much about him.)[/QUOTE] I wonder if one day there'll be a bigger and more powerful country than the United States that'll make them progress and move forwards

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52174405]I wonder if one day there'll be a bigger and more powerful country than the United States that'll make them progress and move forwards[/QUOTE] Probably someday, since this has been the natural order of history (from the beginning of human civilization).

[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] A diplomatic solution would have retained slave states no matter what.

[QUOTE=phygon;52176264]A diplomatic solution would have retained slave states no matter what.[/QUOTE] no it wouldn't America isn't (and wasn't) held together by much. both the cultures, economies, and political systems of the north and south were diverging away from one another until the civil war. the USA would have split regardless

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52173994]HE DIED TWO DECADES BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR YOU FUCK-FUCK [editline]1st May 2017[/editline] big heart[/QUOTE] Let's be honest though: Trump probably doesn't know what the Trail of Tears is anyway.

Nobody really knows what caused the Civil War. How can we possibly have in-depth knowledge like that? I mean, it happened over 500 years ago now. Most of all I'm just sad I never got to meet General Washington, without his expert guidance the Normandy Landings would've failed for sure.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52176506]no it wouldn't America isn't (and wasn't) held together by much. both the cultures, economies, and political systems of the north and south were diverging away from one another until the civil war. the USA would have split regardless[/QUOTE] Yeah, and had states been allowed to leave the union in a way not contained within the constitution (there isn't any such mechanism) then the United States would have in short order dissolved. The options were to go to war to get them to not defect, or do diplomatically maybe do some sort of appeasement program to get them to not claim that they had left anymore.

[QUOTE=phygon;52179042]Yeah, and had states been allowed to leave the union in a way not contained within the constitution (there isn't any such mechanism) then the United States would have in short order dissolved. The options were to go to war to get them to not defect, or do diplomatically maybe do some sort of appeasement program to get them to not claim that they had left anymore.[/QUOTE] appeasement would have led to dissolution in the long run. as long as the slave states maintained slavery the country was going to inevitably split apart this is why a massive and very costly civil war that lasted 4 years happened in order to pull the broken country back together, and why the federal government has grown so much more powerful since then