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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-234 next last
To: Gunslingr3

The civil war was fought between the Union states (Northern states) of the United States and the states of the Confederacy (Southern States). There were many causes of the civil war, including differences between northern and southern states on the idea of slavery, as well as trade, tariffs, and states rights.


41 posted on 05/01/2017 4:13:01 PM PDT by rednek ("Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I believe the plan was was that the Mississippi-Ohio-Missouri River basin states would join the Confederacy because of trading ag products downriver.


42 posted on 05/01/2017 4:13:27 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: exit82; Timpanagos1

Knights of the Golden Circle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle


43 posted on 05/01/2017 4:13:56 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland US. There'd be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I disagree with your assessment. If the Confederate states had been left on their own through the first half of the 19th century, there would have been no compelling reason to secede and the U.S. probably would have looked a lot like Canada today -- a confederation of provinces where the national government is actually pretty small and a lot of power is vested in the provincial governments.

Interestingly, this model probably would have been much closer to what the Founders of the U.S. envisioned that the monstrosity we have now.

44 posted on 05/01/2017 4:13:56 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Interesting that you said that.

My view is that the two nations would have eventually reunited for common interests sometime in the 1890s, once farm mechanization came to the South, and slavery would not have been economically viable.

The South would have had the problem of how to assimilate the 4 million blacks into their society, with some moving into the nation of Northern States.

We can only speculate from our vantage point of 2017.

Too many good men died, like the Europeans experienced in the 20th century in two world wars.


45 posted on 05/01/2017 4:14:16 PM PDT by exit82 (The opposition has already been Trumped!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Oh now that’s funny. Maybe we should sentence ex-cons to agriculture work.


46 posted on 05/01/2017 4:14:47 PM PDT by Keyhopper (Indians had bad immigration laws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

Kinda like diet slavery or how about slavery lite.


47 posted on 05/01/2017 4:18:26 PM PDT by Keyhopper (Indians had bad immigration laws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: central_va

and created a nations of tax serfs ruled by DC.

no it didn’t; the 3% tax imposed on incomes over 800 per annum was repealed in 1871...the 16th Amendment, passed in 1909, and ratified in 1913, did create a nation of tax serfs...


48 posted on 05/01/2017 4:21:43 PM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"The war was caused by secession."

Correct. Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together, no matter what it took. If they'd told Union enlistees that they were fighting against slavery, they never would have signed up. They didn't give a crap about slavery when the war first started. It wasn't until Lincoln ran for re-election that slavery became a big issue. He needed the support of the abolitionists in the north for reelection. Many abolitionists in this country wanted slavery abolished, but they didn't believe blacks should have equal rights.

I have to laugh at some of these British papers. Britain had no problem helping the south since they needed the cotton for their mills. Confederate ships were built in the UK...ie., CSS Alabama, but you never hear about that from the press.

I love British history, but Britain is always ready to throw up, the fact that they abolished slavery earlier than the U.S. However, they fail to mention their colonization of countries, and how badly the people of those countries were treated, or how their civil rights were ignored. England has never had a Prime Minister of color in all these years, and that's saying a lot about a nation that likes to brag about their eliminating slavery ahead of everyone else.

49 posted on 05/01/2017 4:22:36 PM PDT by mass55th (Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway...John Wayne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rednek

Slavery was already dying and on its way out.


I’d agree with your comment if the date were 1780. Slavery was uneconomical and would likely die out simply because slaves could not produce enough money to justify their keep. But Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin and the fact that huge amounts of money could be made in cotton made slavery economically viable. British mills were consuming all of the cotton that could be produced.
This made the South think they had a bargaining chip in regards to Britain. They were wrong—Britain was actively anti-slavery.

Long-range thinkers could no doubt see the end of slavery in the future for the simple reason that cotton destroyed the soil (no rotation crop could come close to matching cotton’s return) and Texas was as far west as cotton was likely to be grown.


50 posted on 05/01/2017 4:25:54 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mass55th

It wasn’t until Lincoln ran for re-election that slavery became a big issue.

yes, including those various Southern states that specifically cited it as the principal cause of their secession decrees...


51 posted on 05/01/2017 4:27:32 PM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

All war is fought over wealth. Period.


52 posted on 05/01/2017 4:28:41 PM PDT by pass-the-biscuits-please
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

You’re spewing revisionist history. The secessionist politicians made it quite clear it was all about slavery when they voted to secede. Just read their speeches. It had been tearing the nation apart for decades before the war. When Lincoln was elected the slave owning Democrat elites who ran the south had a hysterical overreaction much like today’s Democrats had when Trump was elected. They succeeded before he was even sworn in.


53 posted on 05/01/2017 4:30:14 PM PDT by Hugin (Conservatism without Nationalism is a fraud.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rednek

Those states rights loving southern states went begging on their hands and knees to the Buchanan administration to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in the Northern states at the point of Army bayonets if necessary. The states rights issue is pure bunk. The only State Right the South was interested in was the right to own slaves and take them where ever they wanted to even into those new territories that did not legally recognize slavery.


54 posted on 05/01/2017 4:30:29 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

I agree. Slavery was used in New York to help get people to fight. The war - as always - was about money. The North (US) could not continue without the funds raised by the South through tariffs. It really was that simple.


55 posted on 05/01/2017 4:31:23 PM PDT by impactplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

You can debate the particulars, but in summation war was declared because groups of rich men were fighting with each other about possessions (money, wealth, etc).


56 posted on 05/01/2017 4:31:41 PM PDT by pass-the-biscuits-please
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

“principally caused by slavery.”

OMG. Typical demagoguery.

And don’t the Brits love to push it.


57 posted on 05/01/2017 4:31:45 PM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue./Federal-run medical care is as good as state-run DMVs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

I don’t want to argue, and my guess was that slavery was mentioned a lot but I wasn’t sure.

Thanks for clearing that up.


58 posted on 05/01/2017 4:34:05 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle ( The Great Wall of Trump ---- 100% sealing of the border. Coming soon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

War was NOT fought to principally free the slaves. It may have been fought to preserve slavery as a means of wealth. The cause was the god of mammon


59 posted on 05/01/2017 4:35:56 PM PDT by pass-the-biscuits-please
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Timpanagos1

If the conflict was over slavery, why didn’t Congress and Lincoln pass a law making it illegal?

Because it wasn’t over slavery and the north, including DC, had many slaves. The war of Northern Agression was fought because the Confederate States wanted out of the United States.


60 posted on 05/01/2017 4:42:47 PM PDT by Vic S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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