Trump Trolled Over Bizarre, Baffling Claim About Avoiding the Civil War

Yahoo News ^ | May 1, 2017 | Brian Flood

[detective]

Twitter went wild on Monday morning over President Trump’s comments in praise of slave owner Andrew Jackson, and his declaration that the seventh president of the United States would have prevented the Civil War. “Why was there the Civil War?” Trump even asked. Jackson died 16 years before the Civil War started. His term as president ended 24 years before the war kicked off.

[T. P. Pole]

Better snapshot that one - it does not fit the narrative and must be taken down. . .

[DarkSavant]

The Civil War had no good guys. The Union should have just let the confederacy be. They would have abolished slavery peacefully eventually, just like almost everywhere else in the world, and without .6 million dead.

[vooch]

every other country in the world ended slavery peacefully, even absolutist Russia. Of all world’s leaders, only Lincoln the tyrant found it necessary to wage a most destructive war.

The bad effects of Lincoln’s tyranny resonate today.

[Twinkie]

I’m a Tennessean, born & bred. My ancestors fought on the
Confederate side; great-great grandfather fought at Shiloh.
I grew up with my parents taking me to Shiloh, which was
close to the town where I was born.

My folks did not worship Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln did NOT
have to have that war; and he did a lot of illegal stuff
while “winning” that war. (My folks who fought the Civil
War did not own slaves; they did their own work.) I did
have some distant kinfolks who had slaves down in the
Georgia Indian Territory in the late 1700’a. One of the
boys married a Cherokee woman; his momma pitched a fit,
his daddy gave him his inheritance in gold. He & my
5th great-grandmother took a riverboat up the Tinase
River to Perryville, Tennessee. That’s partly how I ended
up in Tennessee. One of their kids was a lightskeeper on
the Tinase (Tennessee) River & carried the Smith &
Wesson revolver that I now own. - A lot of water under
the old bridge.

[rockrr]

Where would the incentive lie to eventual, peaceful emancipation when you’ve just violently broken your sacred vows to your nation and broken away in order to form a would-be nation conceived upon and dedicated to the preservation of slavery?

[rockrr]

Lincoln had the war thrust upon him.

[rockrr]

Lincoln was forced to fight because the tyrants waged a war against him.

[detective]

“every other country in the world ended slavery peacefully, even absolutist Russia. Of all world’s leaders, only Lincoln the tyrant found it necessary to wage a most destructive war.
The bad effects of Lincoln’s tyranny resonate today.”

The secession and the Civil War started before Lincoln was inaugurated. Most people in Washington, including Lincoln, wanted a compromise.

Jefferson Davis said in February 1861 that it was too late.

I sympathize with the southerners who fought to defend their states. Many fought bravely. Many died. Many were seriously wounded.

I have no sympathy whatsoever for Jefferson Davis and the other politicians who deliberately plunged this country into a bloody and costly Civil War which ended with over half a million dead and terrible destruction and suffering.

[rockrr]

Excellent post.

[DarkSavant]

broken your sacred vows to your nation

Loyalty to the United States is sacred? Nonsense. It's a secular state. It's funny you don't use the same rhetoric about George Washington. Why is that? The individual states had a right to secede whenever they wanted, for any reason.

Slavery ended peacefully almost everywhere else in the world. It would have ended peacefully in the South too, without half a million corpses and resentments that last to this day..

[rockrr]

Loyalty to the United States is sacred?

Only if your word means anything.

It's funny you don't use the same rhetoric about George Washington. Why is that?

We weren't talking about George Washington.

Slavery ended peacefully almost everywhere else in the world. It would have ended peacefully in the South too, without half a million corpses and resentments that last to this day..

Where would the incentive lie to eventual, peaceful emancipation when you’ve just violently broken your sacred vows to your nation and broken away in order to form a would-be nation conceived upon and dedicated to the preservation of slavery?

[Pikachu_Dad]

That’s right Chamberlain.

Custer’s cavalry cut Lee off at Appomattox.

And

“On the morning of April 9, 1865, Chamberlain learned of the desire by General Robert E. Lee to surrender the Army of Northern Virginia when a Confederate staff officer approached him under a flag of truce. “Sir,” he reported to Chamberlain, “I am from General Gordon. General Lee desires a cessation of hostilities until he can hear from General Grant as to the proposed surrender.”[11] The next day, Chamberlain was summoned to Union headquarters where Maj. Gen. Charles Griffin informed him that he had been selected to preside over the parade of the Confederate infantry as part of their formal surrender at Appomattox Court House on April 12.[12]”

[Pikachu_Dad]

No, that is far from true.

Many places still have open chattel slavery to this day. The wars in Afric continue.

But a number of counties did end the practice without civil war.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Well said - and not just the preservation of, but the expansion if slavery into new territories.

[DarkSavant]

We weren't talking about George Washington.

I know you won't answer. If you answered truthfully you would be shown to be a hypocrite.

Only if your word means anything. I only let my yes mean yes and my no mean no. There's no loyalty to a secular government. My only loyalty is to God.

Where would the incentive lie to eventual, peaceful emancipation The Union just had to not invade the South, simple, no?

In order to form a would-be nation conceived upon and dedicated to the preservation of slavery?

Neither side was the good guy, but at the end I would side with my people against a hostile aggressor.... who also owned slaves. Slavery would be ended soon enough, like everywhere else in the world. Federal hegemony would not. It exists to this day, and is the reason the Left has managed to usurp our rights so effectively to this very day. One need to think in generations, not months.

[LucyT]

Great History info.

Check out article and comments, esp # 1.

Thanks, Wildhighlander57.

[rockrr]

I know you won't answer. If you answered truthfully you would be shown to be a hypocrite.

Truthfully, you don't know shyt. What is it regarding Washington that I'm supposedly afraid to answer?

There's no loyalty to a secular government. My only loyalty is to God.

So you're like those antifa a-holes? Got it.

I don't know what sort of fantasy world you've concocted in your neo-confed brain pan but the confederacy would have been none of those things - for the few months it would have existed. Conceived in deceit and bedevilment, it wouldn't have been long before each state was committing the same treachery against each other that they committed against the United States. Without infrastructure the south would have literally eaten itself alive - that is if they avoided being consumed by Great Britain.

But they would have kept their precious slavery because apparently it was worth a deal with the devil.

[LeoWindhorse]

read the Old Testament , thou Pharisee

[enumerated]

Good post.

Slavery was pressed upon the southern colonies by the Crown many decades before the Union was formed. The largest slave owners were offered franchises under the charter system, and the use of slave labor vs non-slave labor was not for them to choose, but rather part of the charter agreement. In fact, holders of of colonial plantations, sea ports, logging operations and the like, were not true owners, and were often forced to take their payment in the form of new slaves that they did not want. There are numerous records of the colonies petitioning the Crown to end the vicious cycle of slave trade for which no one could see a happy outcome.

While there were still advocates of slavery in the southern states at the time of the civil war, very few southerners even owned slaves, much less were willing to give their lives in defense of the institution.

The northern abolitionists were not all morally superior - for many it was an economic position rather than a moral one - slavery devalued their labor and they did not want it extended westward.

There were other concerns that caused the southern states to resist abolition even though few owned slaves - the slave population had continued to grow long after slave trade ended - there were questions of what would happen under abolition. Many wanted to find a way to unravel it in a way that left them safe and financially whole. A common analogy was that of holding a poisonous snake - how do you let it go with out getting bitten? The northern colonies and various European countries had phased skavery out over say, 20 years or the life of the slave, but the South was given no such compromise.

Slavery was (is) an awful blight on our history but it is important to remember it far pre-dated the states and far pre-dated any of the 600k who died in the civil war.

I agree with those who say the war was completely avoidable and a huge failure in leadership. Lincoln was not a tyrant but neither can he be considered a great president.

For those who insist the South fought the Civil War to keep slavery, one question needs to be answered: During all but the last months of the Civil War, Lincoln had the following offer always on the table: withdraw articles of secession and you can keep slavery and end the war.

If the South were seceding and fighting to keep slavery, why would they not take that offer? Obviously, the decision to secede was due not to fear of losing slavery but rather due to the many abusive trade tariffs, price controls and other economic coercions perpetrated on them by the Northern States.

[chit*chat]

Exactly correct for those who take the time to learn the history and not just the click bait