Trump stirs debate in remarks on American Civil War

BBC ^ | 5/1/17

[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.

[DarkSavant]

I thought conservatives believed in the original intent of the founders?

Which one? They all said contradictory things. Compare Jefferson with Hamilton

I think your on the wrong forum and need to go to stormfront or some other white power site. You are just given liberals ammunition for their claim that all conservatives are racist.

What are you talking about? In any case, that slur has lost it's impact. I don't care.

[central_va]

In the Top Hatted Bloody Goon’s second inaugural mumbling he admitted he refused to negotiate with Southern agents in 1861. It didn’t fit his war lust agenda.

[rockrr]

Not what I said. I would also debate it was theft.

What would you call taking things that do not belong to you?

[DoodleDawg]

Not what I said. I would also debate it was theft.

What would you call it then? And why were obligations magically done away with just by walking out? The debt was run up when the state was a part of the Union. Property was owned by the federal government or, if you want to look at it another way, by the states collectively. What magically transferred ownership, without compensation, to the states that were leaving?

Yes. If the North thought they wanted financial restitution from the South, they could have come to them with it. Instead, it was belligerence and war.

Ah, I see. And we're supposed to believe that the Confederacy was interested in paying after the fact when they weren't interested in paying before leaving?

Tell you what. Turn over your house to me, plus your car and all your furnishings. Sign them over to me and once you do that we'll discuss payment. I'll give you a fair price, I promise. Deal?

They didn't. The North stated plainly they had no intention of a peaceful succession.

Nonsense to both. The South did start the war by firing on Sumter. And prior to that the North had done nothing to indicate any hostile intent. Unless you can point it out to me.

[odawg]

Some communities in the South lost 30% of their men.

[DarkSavant]

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/ft-sumter-the-first-act-of-aggression/

South Carolinians were becoming more and more alarmed as the weeks went on, especially due to the fact that Lincoln had delivered in his First Inaugural Address what the seceded States regarded as a Declaration of War:

No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

There's plenty more in the link.

[rockrr]

What’s at the link is revisionist crap unworthy of serious review. At least now we know where you’re getting it...

[OIFVeteran]

There is no republican candidate who would have done much different than Lincoln. Do you really think Chase or Seward would have just let the south walk away? No one in the Republican Party at that time believed that secession due to a party you didn’t like winning the presidency was legal.

[DoodleDawg]

There's plenty more in the link.

So there is, and most amusing too. If I'm reading it correctly, the gist of the article seems to be that the Confederacy really didn't want to fire on Sumter but were actually tricked/fooled/hornswoggled into it by that evil Lincoln. A convenient excuse.

[Bull Snipe]

You don’t negotiate with an illegal government that no nation on earth recognizes as legitimate.

[Sopater]

The “revised” version of history, written by the victor, is that the war was about slavery.

Secession was about many things, including slavery, however, the war itself was about control. The union fought the confederacy for the same reason that Britain fought the 13 colonies... to prevent them from exercising their freedom to disassociate themselves with a government that they thought no longer represented them appropriately.

[Sopater]

Their declaration specifically states that the secession was about slavery

Secession, among other things, was about slavery. The war however, was about control. Davis knew that as well as anyone.

[Sopater]

Someone should have told the Southern leaders of the time. They thought it was about slavery.

You, like many others, are confusing secession with the war.

[DoodleDawg]

You, like many others, are confusing secession with the war.

Not really. The South seceded to protect their institution of slavery from expected opposition from the newly elected Republican president. I think we can all agree on that. When they later chose war to further that act of secession then how can you separate the reason for the war from the reason for secession?

[central_va]

You don’t negotiate with an illegal government that no nation on earth recognizes as legitimate.

No, you kill, maim, destroy cities and impoverish millions. /sarc

[rockrr]

But only after they start shooting at you.

[Bull Snipe]

That’s what happens to you when you start a war with someone.

[Sopater]

Saying that the south chose war to further their secession is like saying that the school kid chose war by refusing to give the bully his lunch money.

[rockrr]

The slavers were the bullies and aggressors in your analogy.

[DarkSavant]

The North had slave states also, and did not intend to end slavery. What’s your point?