Trump: 'Why was there the Civil War?'

[r9etb]

We are forever trying to figure out what he really really meant.
Doubtful even he knows what the heck he is talking about.

There comes a point when an honest observer must realize that Trump's misstatements can no longer be explained away by appeals to "higher strategy." 

This ought to be one of those points.

[LateForLunch]

The Mafia would have eventually found someone to put on the grassy knoll. Ok, it might not have been Dallas, but there would have been more opportunities down the road. Would've saved his brother's life, though...

To be truthful I am not nearly as concerned about who was responsible for causing the last civil war as I am with who is attempting to cause the next one. Hint: his name is similar to a despotic dictator who was hanged by his countrymen for high crimes. May the other Hussein's fate be the same.

[INVAR]

Without slavery there would have been no Civil War -- there'd have been no motive for it.

Had the Cotton gin been invented at the time of our Founding and slavery dying out as an institution - The Northeastern Industrial states would have still ended up bidding the federal government to tax cotton harvests and the result would have been similar.  Lincoln simply would not have had slavery to use as a moral imperative to force the South back into the Union.

As always, it was over the Northeast demanding government tax those it wanted to keep down.

[INVAR]

Han shot first?

Han ALWAYS shot first to any respectable Star Wars Fan.

[Sanguine]

Exactly!

[catfish1957]

Exactly!

Reminds me that the new episode of Saul comes on tonight......   

My favorite show on at present.

[Emjay]

Jackson was not a great President..  Fact...


The reason why there was Civil War cause a bunch of morons who wanted to keep people as property started it.  End of story..

That is a way over-simplistic explanation.

[Emjay]

Reminds me that the new episode of Saul comes on tonight......   

My favorite show on at present.

Mine, too.  It started really slow but it's  great show.

[Emjay]

What was the date the Civil War began?


















What was the date Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation?








The war was NOT about slavery - Until Lincoln was losing support from the Northeast for continuing to force the Confederacy back into the Union.  THEN he made it about slavery to make it a MORAL issue rather than the issue of self-determination and taxation of property which is how the entire war got started.

My husband would have agreed with you.  He hated Lincoln.

[r9etb]

Had the Cotton gin been invented at the time of our Founding and slavery dying out as an institution - The Northeastern Industrial states would have still ended up bidding the federal government to tax cotton harvests and the result would have been similar.  Lincoln simply would not have had slavery to use as a moral imperative to force the South back into the Union.

As always, it was over the Northeast demanding government tax those it wanted to keep down.

 

The cotton gin was patented in 1794 -- 5 years after the Constitution, and while the Founders were all alive (and many of them were reaping the benefits of slavery).

There was plenty of time for your mythical "death of slavery" to occur in the intervening 67 years, but the historical facts are quite the opposite: demand for slaves grew as King Cotton asserted its hold on the Southern economy.

Lincoln had little or nothing to do with the sectional rivalries that led to the Civil War.  The sectional rivalry was fed by a Southern desire for the expansion of slavery into new territories -- and a northern desire to prevent it. 

Whatever the economic sins of the north, it was the South that seceded over slavery.  Don't take my word for it -- they said so themselves.

As the gentlemen of Mississippi so elequently stated,

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

[LateForLunch]

That is a way over-simplistic explanation.

I am inclined to agree with you. It's far easier to assign blame for which side drew first blood and initiated the steps that led to full-on war. That would be unquestionable the South, who attacked Fort Sumter without direct provocation in April of 1861, setting the ball rolling that would not stop until over 3/4 million U.S. soldiers from both sides lost their lives and as many more were grievously injured, suffered from severe disease, exposure or starvation.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think DJT knows exactly what he's doing by giving the leftists things like this to play with. It keeps them busy with things that he knows the general voting public does not care  at all about.

He got elected by throwing distractions to the left to occupy themselves and they apparently have still not figured out that he is to some degree playing dumb.

See, there is no more powerful position for someone than to be underestimated by one's opponents. He knows that perceiving him as a fool or an ignoramus will be irresistible to the leftist mass media. So he keeps feeding them things like this. That  makes more sense that assuming that someone with as much time and resources as DJT has at his disposal really doesn't know these things.

Ah ok, 12 dimensional chess again. Got it.

[INVAR]

The cotton gin was patented in 1794 -- 5 years after the Constitution, and while the Founders were all alive (and many of them were reaping the benefits of slavery).

There was plenty of time for your mythical "death of slavery" to occur in the intervening 67 years, but the historical facts are quite the opposite: demand for slaves grew as King Cotton asserted its hold on the Southern economy.

Lincoln had little or nothing to do with the sectional rivalries that led to the Civil War.  The sectional rivalry was fed by a Southern desire for the expansion of slavery into new territories -- and a northern desire to prevent it. 

Whatever the economic sins of the north, it was the South that seceded over slavery.  Don't take my word for it -- they said so themselves.

As the gentlemen of Mississippi so elequently stated,

This has been hashed to death here and elsewhere and we are never going to agree or see eye to eye on this.

I'll take Lincoln's own words over yours:

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." - Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," -  Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861

"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein." - Abraham Lincoln, war declaration April 15th, 1861

Taxation on slaves, Dredd-Scott and the intrusion of Federal power and oversight led to the decision of Southern states to cite the 10th Amendment and withdraw from the Union, and THAT - THAT RIGHT THERE is what directly led to war.    Lincoln raised an army for one purpose: to force the Southern states back into the Union and capitulate to demands from Washington.

Slavery was only made an issue of cause for the war to bolster Lincoln's sagging support for the war in the North.  Most of the locals in the South agreed with secession because it saw Washington as intruding upon their rights and saw the war as an issue of self-defense against tyranny of the state. 

Slavery was a sin we paid for in blood - but it was not the cause of the war.  Daring to defy the Feds and leaving the Union was the impetus for war.

[Free Vulcan]

For many reasons, of which slavery is but one.

[Cripplecreek]

Lincoln had little or nothing to do with the sectional rivalries that led to the Civil War.  The sectional rivalry was fed by a Southern desire for the expansion of slavery into new territories -- and a northern desire to prevent it. 

Whatever the economic sins of the north, it was the South that seceded over slavery.  Don't take my word for it -- they said so themselves.

Sometimes I think the animosity today is greater than it was in the days immediately following the end of the war.  General Lee explained that he surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as he did to Grant's army. General Custer personally paid to bring elderly southern gentlemen to Michigan for a reunion of men who fought in the battle of the River Raisin. Not the words and actions of men who sought to continue in anger. They were men who sought reconciliation.

There's a reason John Wilkes Booth didn't become a great southern hero. The American people both north and south were overwhelmingly done with the war and ready to move on and Booth threatened that newfound peace. He probably did more to bring about the worst aspects of reconstruction than any man.

[Sanguine]

Sometimes I think the animosity today is greater than it was in the days immediately following the end of the war.  General Lee explained that he surrendered as much to Lincoln's goodness as he did to Grant's army. General Custer personally paid to bring elderly southern gentlemen to Michigan for a reunion of men who fought in the battle of the River Raisin. Not the words and actions of men who sought to continue in anger. They were men who sought reconciliation.

There's a reason John Wilkes Booth didn't become a great southern hero. The American people both north and south were overwhelmingly done with the war and ready to move on and Booth threatened that newfound peace. He probably did more to bring about the worst aspects of reconstruction than any man.

However, Lincoln died and the reconstruction efforts made the South pay for many, many years and created bitterness that endures to this day.

[r9etb]

This has been hashed to death here and elsewhere and we are never going to agree or see eye to eye on this.

I'll take Lincoln's own words over yours:

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." - Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

That would be fine, except that the southern states began seceding over the issue of slavery, months before Lincoln ever took office.

Whatever Lincoln might have said after the war had already begun, is irrelevant to the chain of events that had started before Lincoln was even born.

[LateForLunch]

However, Lincoln died and the reconstruction efforts made the South pay for many, many years and created bitterness that endures to this day.

Not that the North had any choice but the victory of the Union and the freeing of the slaves created their own problems. Not the least of which was a massive migration of dispossessed former slaves to  northern cities where they were forced to live in black communities which were over-crowded, high in unemployment/crime/desperate poverty/disease, and in which competition was excruciatingly fierce for both jobs, a place to live and (of course) desirable women.

The South was not entirely barbaric. Sometimes slaves were freed in the south. The difference between freed southern slaves was that they invariably were not freed until they had some skill or profession which allowed them to make a living and contribute to their communities as workers. Many or most of the slaves freed by emancipation proclamation were unskilled, uneducated and who often carried a deep seated savagery in their hearts which expressed itself in sociopathic behavior both toward whites and toward their own brother and sister blacks.

[skeeter]

Sometimes I think the animosity today is greater than it was in the days immediately following the end of the war. 

Of course it is. One need no further than the controversy surrounding the confederate flag and southern memorials today that would've properly been considered idiocy a few short years ago.

[Emjay]

However, Lincoln died and the reconstruction efforts made the South pay for many, many years and created bitterness that endures to this day.

Yes.  If we sinned as a country during slavery days, we have paid in blood, sweat and tears and we're paying still today.

[Silver Pines]

Would also add that there were two sides of this coin as it applies to the south.  For the aristocracy, land holders,  and politicians , yes was about slavery.

OTOH for the other 90%+ it was about defending your homeland, standard of living, and livelihood against a foreign invader.

@catfish1957

To be fair, I'd have to admit that there would have been no aggression without the institution of slavery.  Looking at it objectively, it had to be ended, even though, like I said, the North owned a certain hypocrisy when it came to the issue. 

At that time, it had been less than a hundred years since our forefathers sacrificed to help birth the country in the first place.  I can't crow about it being torn apart.

I agree it was largely a rich man's war.  I've read that many poorer men didn't think it was their fight.

[Silver Pines]

However, Lincoln died and the reconstruction efforts made the South pay for many, many years and created bitterness that endures to this day.

@Sanguine

That's the truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

Jackson was not a great President..  Fact...


The reason why there was Civil War cause a bunch of morons who wanted to keep people as property started it.  End of story..

You mean the founders?  They are the ones that turned the 13 slave owning colonies into the United States.   

If you mean the Civil War,  it was because of money.   New York and Washington were sucking up a lot of that slave earned money and were none too happy when the Southern states were going to cut it off from them by going independent. 

Even worse is the possibility that the Southern states were going to set up competing shipping,  manufacturing and other assorted industries.   No,  the Robber Barons of New York and their Mercantilist President was not at all happy about that possibility. 

[TomSea]

South Carolina threatened to secede under Andrew Jackson; so, Jackson had to deal with a similar situation to secession which played a part in the Civil War.  Jackson threatened to invade SC. I thought everyone knew about the "Nullification crisis".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

The Nullification Crisis was a United States sectional political crisis in 1832–1837, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which involved a confrontation between South Carolina and the federal government. It ensued after South Carolina declared that the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the state.

The U.S. suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its European competition.[1] The controversial and highly protective Tariff of 1828 (known to its detractors as the "Tariff of Abominations") was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. The tariff was opposed in the South and parts of New England. By 1828, South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. Its opponents expected that the election of Jackson as President would result in the tariff being significantly reduced.[2] When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun, a native South Carolinian and the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.[3]

[TomSea]

However, Lincoln died and the reconstruction efforts made the South pay for many, many years and created bitterness that endures to this day.

Your talking about bitterness?

I'd be bitter if I were tied up to trees and hung.