Trump AT HIS BEST...

[ok doser]

Which is part of the reason he seems like a strange choice to avoid the Civil War. It seems like his tactic to avoid it would have been to be ardently in favor of slavery...which is kinda averting your eyes from the greater problem.

if the institution of slavery as practiced in the south could have been reformed, couldn't an argument be made that it would have been a better path than the death, destruction and social upheaval that did occur?

 

[drbrumley]

Right. Got it.

Good...

So, are you ever going to get around to explaining how what Trump said wasn't completely moronic?

Why was it moronic?.....again, you have a different opinion (subjective at that as is his.) there is no proof you would accept.

But if you would like my opinion on it, I would say because Jackson wasn't universally hated by the south when he took office as Lincoln was.

 

[Ktoyou]

It could have been avoided...we are the only nation to fight a war to abolish slavery (so called)....why is that?

It was far more a war over tariffs and trade. The South wanted to trade with England and France without paying a federal tariff. They believed the federal government was only to keep out entanglements with foreign powers, not make domestic policy. This making of domestic policy did exist before the war, but it was not until the South attempted to leave the union, did the war begin.

Lincoln had said,, " I will preserve the union if all slaves are set free, or will preserve the union if no slaves are freed". Then, after the Battle at Gettysburg, it was considered a very good political strategy to make the war seem to be more focused of slavery and it was brilliant! It was not so much, the people from Illinois, and Michigan hated slavers, as it was seen to be more relevant to 'free soilers' who did not wish to see salve owners coming into Kansas and Nebraska, as well, slavery was never seen as a good institution by either side, but had, in the South, been such an economic institution for such a long time, they could not reckon any remedy. Abolitionists were a minority voice until recent times.

As it turned out, the war broke the South and made growth in America much more lucrative. Many of wealth in the North used the broken South as a means for business expansion. Until more recent times, (around the time of WWII, the evils of the 'peculiar institution' was seen as a side issue, if much at all.

If one does not examine history written before 1945, then one will not take note of this and believe the North was always more moral and concerned about the slavery issue. Most history books on the war and old South have been revised since this time.

 

[patrick jane]

It could have been avoided...we are the only nation to fight a war to abolish slavery (so called)....why is that?

There was an easier way that could have avoided the entire Civil War. If the US government had bought the slaves' freedom like EVERY European country did.

 

[patrick jane]

More Fake News from dano

 

[rexlunae]

Good...



Why was it moronic?.....again, you have a different opinion (subjective at that as is his.) there is no proof you would accept.

But if you would like my opinion on it, I would say because Jackson wasn't universally hated by the south when he took office as Lincoln was.

Well, sure. He was a slave owner. The South perceived Lincoln as an abolitionist. I don't think maintaining the status quo is a satisfactory alternative to what happened.

 

[drbrumley]

The South perceived Lincoln as an abolitionist.

Not quite, with statements such as this..

"we have abolitionists in Illinois; we shot one the other day."

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems President Banning is still around, writing his rally speeches and giving him really bad roll models and bad history. You know what I find most disturbing? He didn't say what he thought Jackson would have done to prevent the Civil War. He seems to think he could have averted it by the strength of his genocidal will. What that says about his governing style is worrying.

O.K., he's an ignorant troll for that comment about Jackson, in one sense. Jackson was dead;obviously Trump just made up the story as he is prone to do.

On the other hand, Jackson's strong, perhaps tyrannical leadership probably put off the Civil War. When Calhoun threated "nullification", Jackson supposedly said that if Calhoun tried it, he'd hang him from a lamppost in Charleston.

Perhaps he didn't actually say it, but people believed he did. More to the point, Calhoun believed it and seeing as Jackson had already (as a military commander during an incursion into what was then Spanish Florida) hung two people without so much as a trial, it's likely that the secessionists were sufficiently intimidated to stop the process.

 

[rexlunae]

O.K., he's an ignorant troll for that comment about Jackson, in one sense. Jackson was dead;obviously Trump just made up the story as he is prone to do.

Indeed. But the most troubling thing about it, to me, is what he seems to admire about Jackson.

On the other hand, Jackson's strong, perhaps tyrannical leadership probably put off the Civil War. When Calhoun threated "nullification", Jackson supposedly said that if Calhoun tried it, he'd hang him from a lamppost in Charleston.

Perhaps he didn't actually say it, but people believed he did. More to the point, Calhoun believed it and seeing as Jackson had already (as a military commander during an incursion into what was then Spanish Florida) hung two people without so much as a trial, it's likely that the secessionists were sufficiently intimidated to stop the process.

Perhaps a civil war, but not the Civil War. There were several rebellions and near-rebellions in this country's early history. But the thing that made the Civil War really notable, and really bloody, and a turning point in our history was that we had was a reckoning with slavery. That wouldn't have happened between Jackson and South Carolina, as neither side supported abolition, or was perceived to.

 

[rexlunae]

Not quite, with statements such as this..

They said that they did, your sentence fragment ripped from who-knows-where notwithstanding.

 

[rexlunae]

Why was it moronic?.....again, you have a different opinion (subjective at that as is his.) there is no proof you would accept.

Nothing subjective about it. There is a documented history here that doesn't rely on your opinion or mine. The South seceded to protect slavery.

But if you would like my opinion on it, I would say because Jackson wasn't universally hated by the south when he took office as Lincoln was.

He was a slave owner. There's no reason they'd rebel against him, at least for that reason, because he was one of them.

 

[rexlunae]

if the institution of slavery as practiced in the south could have been reformed, couldn't an argument be made that it would have been a better path than the death, destruction and social upheaval that did occur?

But it couldn't. It's that simple. The South didn't wait for abolitionists to do a thing. They seceded upon the election of Lincoln, who was at best a moderate against slavery. The South viewed slavery as fundamental to their way of life.

 

[Danoh]

good question with dozens of half-answers

the most persuasive to me is that it was still very profitable in the american south and the south was willing to fight to protect their financial interests

Yep.

 

[Danoh]

Which is part of the reason he seems like a strange choice to avoid the Civil War. It seems like his tactic to avoid it would have been to be ardently in favor of slavery...which is kinda averting your eyes from the greater problem.

He (Jackson) probably would have attempted to force on the North something like the "The Trail of Tears" he was able to get away with forcing on "the First Nations."

Because equality for all had never been what had actually been on the table, nor the cause of the Civil War - as both sides proved after said War - by both their massive participation against said "First Nations" in said "Trail."

 

[Danoh]

But it couldn't. It's that simple. The South didn't wait for abolitionists to do a thing. They seceded upon the election of Lincoln, who was at best a moderate against slavery. The South viewed slavery as fundamental to their way of life.

Yep - they viewed themselves as "Bible-based" and "Manifest Destiny" on said issue, and viewed the North as God Forsaking Liberals who had parted from the Scripture.

Lincoln's own "Manifest Destiny" nonsense had also had him noting in his writings that Blacks were an inferior being.

The whole affair - as to BOTH sides of each their fence - is aptly named a "WHITE Wash."

 

[rexlunae]

It was far more a war over tariffs and trade. The South wanted to trade with England and France without paying a federal tariff. They believed the federal government was only to keep out entanglements with foreign powers, not make domestic policy. This making of domestic policy did exist before the war, but it was not until the South attempted to leave the union, did the war begin.

Lincoln had said,, " I will preserve the union if all slaves are set free, or will preserve the union if no slaves are freed". Then, after the Battle at Gettysburg, it was considered a very good political strategy to make the war seem to be more focused of slavery and it was brilliant! It was not so much, the people from Illinois, and Michigan hated slavers, as it was seen to be more relevant to 'free soilers' who did not wish to see salve owners coming into Kansas and Nebraska, as well, slavery was never seen as a good institution by either side, but had, in the South, been such an economic institution for such a long time, they could not reckon any remedy. Abolitionists were a minority voice until recent times.

As it turned out, the war broke the South and made growth in America much more lucrative. Many of wealth in the North used the broken South as a means for business expansion. Until more recent times, (around the time of WWII, the evils of the 'peculiar institution' was seen as a side issue, if much at all.

If one does not examine history written before 1945, then one will not take note of this and believe the North was always more moral and concerned about the slavery issue. Most history books on the war and old South have been revised since this time.

That's simply not true. All four states that issued statements of causes cited slavery, as did the vice president of the confederacy. The notion that the causes were economic is a post-war rationalization.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

 

[Ktoyou]

That's simply not true. All four states that issued statements of causes cited slavery, as did the vice president of the confederacy. The notion that the causes were economic is a post-war rationalization.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

The 'Tariff of Abominations" happened before the war.
"The "Tariff of Abominations" was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. Enacted during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, it was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy. It set a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods."

So began an early struggle for power and dominance between the South and North. Look at history, the South had the upper hand when the American Nation was fist formed, almost all first presidents came out of the southern tradition and Virginia, other than the two Adams Mass. father and son, John.

It was as if the South ran this nation then, and there was never any real political issue with slavery until the Time of the Nullification Act. There were a few oddball abolitionists up in Boston, and a group in New England, but most of your typical small land owners settling the Mid-West and states north the Appalachian Mountains were disinterested in the slave issue. They just were not all bent out of shape about it, like people are today. Most cared more about their crops, not what was going on very far away, for that time.

Change started to happen when these same farmers began looking west and to homesteading new lands, when people from the South could take the lands and put to work a field of slaves, it seemed unfair. This was when more people got upset, but it was never over the condition of the slaves, it was the slaveholder's unfair advantage.

For you, it seems impossible to not think about the fate of the slaves because you were brought up to think slavery is one of the greatest of human evils, yet people of that time thought not attending church, or committing adultery, or theft was far worse than slavery, which was seen by many as odd and 'particular'.

 

[Ktoyou]

But it couldn't. It's that simple. The South didn't wait for abolitionists to do a thing. They seceded upon the election of Lincoln, who was at best a moderate against slavery. The South viewed slavery as fundamental to their way of life.

Yes, they did and this was their big mistake, they were very short-sighted! They had their minds made up if Lincoln won the Presidency they were going to leave the union.

Nullification failed, Jackson did not back it, Calhoun was, pretty much, out of politics and the writing was on the wall, slavery was a dead issue, but they fought about it anyway.

The South failed to see a little into the future, that slavery was economically issue, the wage system was actually cheaper, as Fitzhugh had pointed out. He made slavery into a wrecked indefensible moral issue. Had the war not taken place, all would have been as it eventually was, without the great loss to the South.

Any good southern thinker would know Stephens was a goofball and it was completely idiotic for the South to embrace such utter nonsense.

 

[drbrumley]

That's simply not true. All four states that issued statements of causes cited slavery, as did the vice president of the confederacy. The notion that the causes were economic is a post-war rationalization.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

:rotfl:

Since you brought it up to your own determent, Lincoln and his merry men of the roundtable agreed with Stephens. And you think that fact was lost on the South? Wow.

 

[rexlunae]

The 'Tariff of Abominations" happened before the war.
"The "Tariff of Abominations" was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. Enacted during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, it was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy. It set a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods."

That was 32 years before the beginning of the Civil War. It may have contributed to the North/South divide, but to suggest that it was the cause is ridiculous.

So began an early struggle for power and dominance between the South and North. Look at history, the South had the upper hand when the American Nation was fist formed, almost all first presidents came out of the southern tradition and Virginia, other than the two Adams Mass. father and son, John.

Slavery was the defining divide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostend_Manifesto

It's true that the South had the upper hand in the fights over the control of the federal government in the early days of the Republic. This is in part because slaves gave disproportionate representation to the South in both the Electoral College for Presidential elections, and representation in the House. Events like the Dredd Scott decision, that undermined the very concept of a "free state", helped propel the fledgling abolitionist Republicans, and Lincoln to office, leading the South to chose rebellion and ultimately defeat.

It was as if the South ran this nation then, and there was never any real political issue with slavery until the Time of the Nullification Act. There were a few oddball abolitionists up in Boston, and a group in New England, but most of your typical small land owners settling the Mid-West and states north the Appalachian Mountains were disinterested in the slave issue. They just were not all bent out of shape about it, like people are today. Most cared more about their crops, not what was going on very far away, for that time.

It was a growing movement. It was a few oddballs during the Revolution, but the rise of the Republicans is largely indicative of the rise of abolition in the North. It is true that for the North, at the beginning of the Civil War, maintaining the Union was the main cause, but for the South, slavery was always the motivation, and they were always clear about that from the beginning. And as the war progressed, it became increasingly important to the North to end slavery.

Change started to happen when these same farmers began looking west and to homesteading new lands, when people from the South could take the lands and put to work a field of slaves, it seemed unfair. This was when more people got upset, but it was never over the condition of the slaves, it was the slaveholder's unfair advantage.

That doesn't really track. If the territories had been slave-permitting, Northerners could have moved to them and owned slaves just as well as Southerners. For that matter, a Northerners could have pushed their own states to legalize slavery if they were as jealous of it as you suggest. No, the reason to resist the expansion of slavery can only be explained by its inherent horror.

For you, it seems impossible to not think about the fate of the slaves because you were brought up to think slavery is one of the greatest of human evils,

Lets be clear...it is.

... yet people of that time thought not attending church, or committing adultery, or theft was far worse than slavery, which was seen by many as odd and 'particular'.

That's their shame. However, you're overgeneralizing, and ignoring the genuine history.