Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump stirs debate in remarks on American Civil War
BBC ^ | 5/1/17

Posted on 05/01/2017 3:39:29 PM PDT by Timpanagos1

US President Donald Trump has stirred debate by asking why the American Civil War happened, and pondering whether it could have been "worked out".

In a radio interview, he suggested the conflict might have been avoided if President Andrew Jackson had still been in office.

The 1861-65 Civil War between the northern and southern states was principally caused by slavery.

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-234 next last
To: Sopater

Don’t confuse them the facts


121 posted on 05/01/2017 7:24:52 PM PDT by piroque ("In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Secession to secure the fruits of liberty is not politically analogous to secession in order to secure the power to enslave other human beings.

Well said, sir!

I think a picture of some American heroes is called for here:


122 posted on 05/01/2017 7:26:34 PM PDT by Eric Pode of Croydon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

“The 1861-65 Civil War between the northern and southern states was principally caused by slavery.”

It takes an uneducated person, usually through public schools, to think the people of the northern states demanded an end to slavery and were prepared to go to war to do it.


123 posted on 05/01/2017 7:34:03 PM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dustoff45

“Some states wanted to secede from the Union. Lincoln fought them over this right.”

Lincoln hadn’t been elected to office before the argument was raging.


124 posted on 05/01/2017 7:35:14 PM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade; central_va

Do you think the Civil War is over?

Not me.


125 posted on 05/01/2017 7:35:51 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: pass-the-biscuits-please

“All war is fought over wealth. Period.”

Gotta agree with that.


126 posted on 05/01/2017 7:36:12 PM PDT by CodeToad (If it weren't for physics and law enforcement, I'd be unstoppable!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

The war was fought over keeping the southern states in the union. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the seceding states. It was a military document coming late in the war; Lincoln hoped to both foment insurrection in the southern states and rally flagging support in the northern states.


127 posted on 05/01/2017 7:37:18 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rockrr
How could he have antagonized anyone? He hadn't even taken office yet when South Carolina seceded

We're not talking about South Carolina seceding, we're talking about what precipitated the Fort Sumter attack

Abraham Lincoln. So what? Do you agree with it?
128 posted on 05/01/2017 7:38:59 PM PDT by DarkSavant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant

Of course I agree with it. Lincoln was referring to man’s inherent right to revolution, not states seceding from the union.


129 posted on 05/01/2017 7:46:38 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

Arguing that the Civil War was not about slavery is rank sophistry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4


130 posted on 05/01/2017 7:51:19 PM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Psephomancers for Hillary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

Just as a matter of interest, slaves were a pillar of the Southern economy at the time, but I am pretty sure that as the field technology for harvesting cotton and other crops improved that the slaves would have found themselves obsolete and out of work in not to many years.
(field technology was advancing at a good clip during that time period)
The slave owners would have found themselves in a position of either feeding and housing them at a loss or just setting them free.
I had family on both sides of that war; those of us in what would become West (BY GOD) Virginia in 1861, were to poor (dirt farmers and miners) to own a slave.
Their Articles of Secession may have said SLAVERY, but you can bet your life it was about money, trade, big business, taxes, and tariffs.
California currently has a push on to secede from the Union, their excuse is immigration policy and guess what, MONEY.
I say lets let them try it, then those of us in the north state will have a good excuse to get rid of all the liberals.


131 posted on 05/01/2017 7:53:45 PM PDT by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: 5th MEB

Bookmarking the thread; (there was another earlier one with the Twitter quotes; had good info in the comments...)


132 posted on 05/01/2017 7:55:16 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
Uneducated lib heads exploding on Trump's comment/twitter feed....

President Andrew Jackson, who died 16 years before the Civil War started, saw it coming and was angry. Would never have let it happen!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 2, 2017


133 posted on 05/01/2017 7:56:07 PM PDT by Jane Long (Praise God, from whom ALL blessings flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 5th MEB

Here’s the link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3549191/posts?page=1#1


134 posted on 05/01/2017 7:56:28 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Midnitethecat
The original 13th amendment?

No, not the unadopted Titles of Nobility Amendment.

135 posted on 05/01/2017 7:58:13 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1
The 1861-65 Civil War between the northern and southern states was principally caused by slavery TAXES.
136 posted on 05/02/2017 2:23:25 AM PDT by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reily
Brilliantly stated. I've always thought that, but was never able to articulate it. Well done.

And now the statists of today use that mistake to keep us all under their thumb.

137 posted on 05/02/2017 3:09:02 AM PDT by Hardastarboard (Three most annoying words on the internet - "Watch the Video")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

And Trump is right - another thread laid the deal out and made it clear why the comment was an astute one.


138 posted on 05/02/2017 3:31:34 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

The United States never declared war because as far as they were concerned the states were in rebellion and the constitution already gave the president the authority to suppress insurrections and rebellions. The United States, and the rest of the world, never recognized the CSA as a legitimate government. So what Lincoln did was much like what Washington did to the whiskey rebellion, just on a much larger scale.


139 posted on 05/02/2017 3:41:40 AM PDT by OIFVeteran
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DarkSavant
How many people died in Fort Sumter? Was it worth it to have 600,000 dead to avenge... how many dead on Sumter?

If the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor and through some miracle nobody had been killed, would that mean the U.S. would not have entered World War II?

There was no strategic reason for the fort other than aggression.

Then why did the Confederacy attack?

140 posted on 05/02/2017 3:42:37 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-234 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson