Trump, Jackson and the Civil War...

[WTF]

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/0...act-check.html


Thoughts


.

[Guest050619-1]

nytimes....phhhttt!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

nytimes....phhhttt!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...raws-fire.html

Fox News reports, you decide!

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by WTF

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/0...act-check.html


Thoughts


.

Thoughts?

We understand now that Slavery was an evil institution because we now understand that all human beings are created equal. The idea of slavery is aborant to our way of thinking.

It is difficult to fathom that just 150 years ago this Country was willing to embark on a great slaughter because people could not grasp that concept.

True, the War was not all about Slavery, but as it drug on, it became the over riding factor in continuing it.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/0...act-check.html


Thoughts


.

The true reason for the Civil War was to end slavery. White men killed other white men to stop the enslavement of blacks.

Consider that before you reflexively hate the white man.

[WTF]

I hate ignorant MoFo's. Black , white ,asian, Indian, man , woman or even a crossdresser like LL. Hate'em all the same...



.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Thoughts?

We understand now that Slavery was an evil institution because we now understand that all human beings are created equal. The idea of slavery is aborant to our way of thinking.

It is difficult to fathom that just 150 years ago this Country was willing to embark on a great slaughter because people could not grasp that concept.

True, the War was not all about Slavery, but as it drug on, it became the over riding factor in continuing it. Not so, but that is a longer discussion.

The Civil War was not all about Slavery,
Wow, someone got this right. It was not about slavery at all. I know there are those who have not studied history: they are influenced by those who have pushed the propaganda about slavery.

If you look at that time in history, and only at that time - not in terms of where we are today - slavery was a concern of many. Truly, the institution of slavery had changed since 1776 when the nation was begun. e.g. Jefferson could not free his slaves, and introduced legislation in Virginia to allow for a Master to free his slaves, and not be required to forever keep the individual in slavery either by him or by a sale or gift to others. That was changed before the civil war.

The economic disparity between the North and the South was the main cause of the Civil War, especially the economic discrimination of the South by those in the North. e.g. it cost more to ship goods North by rail than goods South by rail. Thus the Northern merchants took advantage of the South and the South began to trade with England more than to the rest of the the US. The completion of the Erie Canal, completed in 1825, links the waters of Lake Erie in the west to the Hudson River in the East. From Lake Erie, ships carried goods to Chicago and then to the iron ore regions: returning with iron ore that drove the economic development of the North. At the same period of time the South had limited transportation options from West to East; thus, their ability to transport their crops to market were limited.

For all practical purposes, the country was already split before the Civil War because of the vast differences between the North and South that was much more than just slavery alone as a single cause.

As always, it was money - not slavery - that drove the emotions that lead to the Civil War. Some people, such as John Brown (to which there is a statue of him -that I have viewed- in Kansas City, Kansas) cared deeply about slavery: sadly, not even the slaves supported his efforts to free them; which he assumed would come when he attacked the US Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859 with the hope that his actions would lead to an armed slave revolt.

Gee, I love history.

JR

[WTF]

It wasn't about slavery unless you were a Slave!

JR....what you post is mainly true....all war are about resources if you dig deep enough.

[Munchmasterman]

Since you included trump,
I thought your point was once again trump's version of reality is at odds with the facts. Jackson died in 1845 so he didn't have many thoughts about the civil war. He had already backed maintaining the union during the nullification crisis.

Originally Posted by WTF

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/0...act-check.html


Thoughts


.

[Munchmasterman]

Why do you say that? Any examples of "fake" news? Incorrect reporting?

Originally Posted by Chateau Becot

nytimes....phhhttt!

[gnadfly]

Austin Reacharound Crew Unite!

[dilbert firestorm]

I'll chime on this as this is a what if scenario.

the excessively high tariffs was the fuse, and slavery was the fuel that lit the civil war.

Jackson dealt with one state (south carolina) threatening to secede. it wasn't too much trouble for him to threaten with the support of congress and come up with a compromise legislation on the tariffs. But what if the situation was like 1860 in 1832-1833 and you're dealing with not one, but 12 states (texas wasn't in the union at that time).

the dynamics would be very different with emotions running very high. Jackson would be hard pressed to keep the 13 states in the union. His only hope is to come up with a comprise that all parties would be satisfied with.

If not, I think the split would be inevitable. If he succeeded, he'd be delaying the inevitable.

[Munchmasterman]

Is that all you have to say?
Or is that all you think about? You keep going with your in depth bathroom research. Go with what you know.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Austin Reacharound Crew Unite!

[Munchmasterman]

Jackson had a strong sense of the union. Any conjuncture on "what ifs" will always remain just that. Part of the fuel also was the attempt to bring new territories in as slave territories. That contributed to the resolve of the northern states to fight.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'll chime on this as this is a what if scenario.

the excessively high tariffs was the fuse, and slavery was the fuel that lit the civil war.

Jackson dealt with one state (south carolina) threatening to secede. it wasn't too much trouble for him to threaten with the support of congress and come up with a compromise legislation on the tariffs. But what if the situation was like 1860 in 1832-1833 and you're dealing with not one, but 12 states (texas wasn't in the union at that time).

the dynamics would be very different with emotions running very high. Jackson would be hard pressed to keep the 13 states in the union. His only hope is to come up with a comprise that all parties would be satisfied with.

If not, I think the split would be inevitable. If he succeeded, he'd be delaying the inevitable.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I'll chime on this as this is a what if scenario.

the excessively high tariffs was the fuse, and slavery was the fuel that lit the civil war.

Jackson dealt with one state (south carolina) threatening to secede. it wasn't too much trouble for him to threaten with the support of congress and come up with a compromise legislation on the tariffs. But what if the situation was like 1860 in 1832-1833 and you're dealing with not one, but 12 states (texas wasn't in the union at that time).

the dynamics would be very different with emotions running very high. Jackson would be hard pressed to keep the 12 states in the union. His only hope is to come up with a compromise that all parties would be satisfied with.

If not, I think the split would be inevitable. If he succeeded, he'd be delaying the inevitable.

fixed some typos in red.

I forgot one most important issue, the western territories weren't a slavery issue in 1832-1833.