Trump's imaginary history

[Hutch Starskey]

Perhaps you are right, but don't you find it odd that this kind of stuff keeps happening? If Trump is this brilliant guy then why can't he just explain what he means when he speaks instead of making these generalized inaccurate statements that require interpretation and explanation by his supporters and surrogates.

If Trump had a history of displaying in depth knowledge about anything then it could be understandable that he be misinterpreted from time to time due to a vague statement, however, this confusion is becoming the norm... idiotic statements and the scramble to explain and justify by his base... Y'all are gonna need to take a spa day soon!

Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?

If he knew Jacksons history, that he was dead before the civil war, he would have phrased his statement differently. If he was talking about the issues that lead to the civil war he would have phrased his statement differently.

True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.

It is to people that know history.

Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.

 

[dcbl]

Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.

I concur, see, we can agree on some things!

Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.

100% incorrect, as Rightwinger (a left leaning member of this forum) & I have both demonstrated

ANY Democrat in office in 1860 would have prevented the war, as the Southern states would not likely have succeeded

 

[TNHarley]

Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?

If he knew Jacksons history, that he was dead before the civil war, he would have phrased his statement differently. If he was talking about the issues that lead to the civil war he would have phrased his statement differently.

True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.

It is to people that know history.

Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.

OMG OK hack boi. Ignore history if you want.
Good day!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
Probably what he was talking about..

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Except he already did.. His actions and rhetoric actually helped with the compromise of 1850 on top of stopping secession during his administration. Maybe you need to learn some history, homie.

No, dope.
Trump was clearly speaking of the civil war.
Not an earlier event.

 

[TNHarley]

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Except he already did.. His actions and rhetoric actually helped with the compromise of 1850 on top of stopping secession during his administration. Maybe you need to learn some history, homie.

No, dope.
Trump was clearly speaking of the civil war.
Not an earlier event.

Rights?
"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."
Lets ignore that too.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.

I concur, see, we can agree on some things!

Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.

100% incorrect, as Rightwinger (a left leaning member of this forum) & I have both demonstrated

ANY Democrat in office in 1860 would have prevented the war, as the Southern states would not likely have succeeded

That's not what Trump suggested.

 

[dcbl]

Trump was clearly speaking of the civil war.
Not an earlier event.

when Trump talked about how Jackson was angry about "what happened with the civil war" he was talking about an earlier event

Jackson DID express anger towards his Southern brethren over their secessionist views decades before the war

the seeds of discontent had been sown before Jackson was president & Jackson was furious about it

he even stated that the best government in the world was at risk because of it

 

[rightwinger]

Why is it his fault people dont know Jacksons history? Or that China once ruled Korea?

If he knew Jacksons history, that he was dead before the civil war, he would have phrased his statement differently. If he was talking about the issues that lead to the civil war he would have phrased his statement differently.

True, he doesn't have much luck with terminology. But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

But he apparently has a better grasp of history than a lot of people.

No, that is not apparent in any way. What is apparent is the President's inability to express a cogent thought.

It is to people that know history.

Even if I accepted your interpretation of Trump's words, it was not presented in a cogent way.
Jackson, by any stretch of the imagination, would not have prevented the war as Trump suggested.

In defense of Trump....technically, he is right
There would have been no secession if Jackson was in the White House. The south would have been thrilled and Jackson would have bullied through legislation to protect the rights of slaveholders

But is THAT what Trump is trying to say? We would have been better off if we had accommodated the slave holders?

 

[dcbl]

That's not what Trump suggested.

oh, but it is

again, this is not an unconventional theory

again, I believe that this is something Trump has come across recently & that he was (poorly) expressing that opinion

 

[TNHarley]

Even if trump was wrong(which he wasn't) it still isn't as bad as our POTUS thinking we have 57 states. I am sure that is somehow different, with some, though..
That was a big blunder. I am sure bush said something crazy as hell too.

 

[dcbl]

But is THAT what Trump is trying to say? We would have been better off if we had accommodated the slave holders?

see, I knew that if my friends on the left really looked at this that they could find something to be outraged about

good job!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Andrew Jackson stopped secession when he came into office. SC had talked about it for decades.
If im not mistaken, his efforts lead way to the compromise of 1850.
Probably what he was talking about..

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Trump is right in that if Jackson was President, there would have been no reason for secession. A slaveholder would be in the White House

You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement.
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

 

[dcbl]

Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

there are numerous accounts that suggest that Jackson's slaves were weeping & distraught when he died

I am not defending all of Jackson's policies & actions, but judging him by today's morality is not really fair either

 

[rightwinger]

If the south had not seceded, slavery would have gradually been eliminated over the next 20-30 years. Slaveholders would have received compensation for the loss of their "property" and new generations would be born free. It would have been a gradual evolution to Jim Crow

With the war, slaves were free in five years and had the right to vote in ten

absolutely slavery would have ended, as it did EVERYWHERE else in the "civilized world"

I disagree about how the "Jim Crow" stuff would have gone down - I think it is probable that the bitterness & animosity on race issues would not be as pronounced as what we are dealing with today

but we will never know...

The rest of the civilized world gave up slavery without bloodshed. After the Civil War, it still existed in the Caribbean and South America for about another 20 years

The Civil War was like ripping a bandaid off of slavery. It was quick and final but far from painless

If we had "peacefully" ended slavery, I think we would have ended up with a country like South Africa with a subclass of blacks who had limited rights

 

[rightwinger]

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Trump is right in that if Jackson was President, there would have been no reason for secession. A slaveholder would be in the White House

You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement.
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Of course not.
Trump was just being Trump giving a stream of consciousness about his hero Jackson that is in no way linked to reality

 

[Hutch Starskey]

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Except he already did.. His actions and rhetoric actually helped with the compromise of 1850 on top of stopping secession during his administration. Maybe you need to learn some history, homie.

No, dope.
Trump was clearly speaking of the civil war.
Not an earlier event.

Rights?
"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."
Lets ignore that too.

What does that even mean?
In what way(s) is Trump asserting that Jackson would have changed the equation? As President? Wouldn't that be true of just about anyone other than Lincoln?

 

[Camp]

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Trump is right in that if Jackson was President, there would have been no reason for secession. A slaveholder would be in the White House

You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement.
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

When Jackson stole the farms and homes of the Cherokee and looted their property he marched them away in what became known as the Trail of Tears. True, many died during that march, but the fact that he did not massacre and outright murder all of them in place proved he had a "heart".

 

[rightwinger]

You are mistaken. The South Carolina secession movement was a direct response to the 1828 Tariff of Abomination. The first talk of secession was from Virginia, in response to the Alien and Sedition act of 1798. Then there was the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, New England states threatening to secede. Jackson did stop the secession of South Carolina, by threat of force, and it cost him his Vice President.

talked about it for decades - before the civil war

Yes, South Carolina talked about it for decades prior to the Civil War, but not decades prior to Andrew Jackson's tenure. In fact, they talked a little about it right at the beginning of Jackson's first term,, Jackson bitch slapped them, and they pretty much kept their mouths shut about it till after Jackson left office.

There is no doubt that Jackson was a staunch proponent of slavery. He never would have taken any position that could have avoided the war as Trump suggested.

There is no amount of Trumpsplainin' that makes any sense of what he said.

Trump is right in that if Jackson was President, there would have been no reason for secession. A slaveholder would be in the White House

You're attributing a reasoning that was not represented in Trump's statement.
Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Jackson may have been a kind "master" but would still whip slaves who ran away. Make not mistake about it, he was a man of the south and of his times. He had strong views on the rights of "subhumans" such as Indians and Negroes and they are not politically correct today

 

[TNHarley]

If the south had not seceded, slavery would have gradually been eliminated over the next 20-30 years. Slaveholders would have received compensation for the loss of their "property" and new generations would be born free. It would have been a gradual evolution to Jim Crow

With the war, slaves were free in five years and had the right to vote in ten

absolutely slavery would have ended, as it did EVERYWHERE else in the "civilized world"

I disagree about how the "Jim Crow" stuff would have gone down - I think it is probable that the bitterness & animosity on race issues would not be as pronounced as what we are dealing with today

but we will never know...

The rest of the civilized world gave up slavery without bloodshed. After the Civil War, it still existed in the Caribbean and South America for about another 20 years

The Civil War was like ripping a bandaid off of slavery. It was quick and final but far from painless

If we had "peacefully" ended slavery, I think we would have ended up with a country like South Africa with a subclass of blacks who had limited rights

The barbury slave trade ended in a couple rounds of bloodshed.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump said he was tough but had a big heart. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

there are numerous accounts that suggest that Jackson's slaves were weeping & distraught when he died

I am not defending all of Jackson's policies & actions, but judging him by today's morality is not really fair either

North Koreans weeped at the death of Kim Jung Il
Doesn't make him a great man