Trump's odd remarks on the Civil War

[BmorePat87]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war

Bits of an interview with Trump were released to the media, and some of his remarks on the Civil War and Andrew Jackson are leaving people confused.

Quote:“Had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. And he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, [and] he said, ‘There’s no reason for this.’ People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it—why? People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

Andrew Jackson died 16 years prior to the Civil War, so few are sure when he commented on it as Trump said he did.

Apparently people also do not ask "Why did we have a Civil War?" and "Why couldn't we work it out?"

It's likely that had Andrew Jackson been elected in 1860, there would not have been a Civil War. He was a Southern slave owner and the South would not have feared an end to the institution of slavery as they did with the election of Lincoln. Or it might have been because of his "big heart". He was the kind hearted man who helped Native Americans find new homes...

[GMDino]

(05-01-2017, 01:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war

Bits of an interview with Trump were released to the media, and some of his remarks on the Civil War and Andrew Jackson are leaving people confused.


Andrew Jackson died 16 years prior to the Civil War, so few are sure when he commented on it as Trump said he did.

Apparently people also do not ask "Why did we have a Civil War?" and "Why couldn't we work it out?"

It's likely that had Andrew Jackson been elected in 1860, there would not have been a Civil War. He was a Southern slave owner and the South would not have feared an end to the institution of slavery as they did with the election of Lincoln. Or it might have been because of his "big heart". He was the kind hearted man who helped Native Americans find new homes...

Does this get filed under:

A) Trump was talking out his arse?

B) Trump thinks he knows everything?

C) Trump thinks he knows everything so he was talking out his arse?

[Dill]

(05-01-2017, 01:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/331349-trump-why-was-there-the-civil-war

Bits of an interview with Trump were released to the media, and some of his remarks on the Civil War and Andrew Jackson are leaving people confused.

Andrew Jackson died 16 years prior to the Civil War, so few are sure when he commented on it as Trump said he did.

Apparently people also do not ask "Why did we have a Civil War?" and "Why couldn't we work it out?"

It's likely that had Andrew Jackson been elected in 1860, there would not have been a Civil War. He was a Southern slave owner and the South would not have feared an end to the institution of slavery as they did with the election of Lincoln. Or it might have been because of his "big heart". He was the kind hearted man who helped Native Americans find new homes...

Well Bpat, that question has been bugging me lately. We have all these Bill O'Reilly books on Lincoln and American History, so why haven't professional historians ever taken up the question?  We have all these books on American politics by Ann Coulter and David Horowitz. Why none about the Ante-bellum institution of slavery, the Dredd Scott case, or the secession? You would think there would be tons of books regarding the Civil War and events leading up to it for every state in the Confederacy.  But have you ever seen a single tweet mention of them?  Why aren't these issues at least addressed in college courses.  You'd think up and coming black black politicians, like that Frederick Douglas guy, would be on this.  But I don't think he even has a Facebook account.

Trump may have a point about a Jackson presidency though. Why divide the country over slaves?

And yes, Jackson initiated important vetting procedures against the non-Americans on US territory. Security security security.

[Millhouse]

A tidbit on Andrew Jackson.

In the late 1700s up in Fort Pitt, there was a young guy sitting at a table in a tavern like place just minding his own business. Out of nowhere he was struck in the back of his head on purpose by a young brash Andrew Jackson who was willing to fight just to fight. Now the reason Jackson picked him was because his name was spreading through the frontier as one of the toughest guys out there. Well he picked the wrong guy even as Jackson was actually a good fighter.

After his head was struck, the young guy sitting their rose up instantly, all 6'5'' and roughly 240-250 lbs of chiseled muscle of him, and within a minute or so had Jackson down and was on the verge of killing him with his bare hands. Unlike Jackson, he didnt fight just for the fun of it. He fought for survival to defend himself. But luckily for Jackson, his opponent got pulled off him before serious damage or death would have occurred. The young guy's name was Simon Butler, which later he would be known as Simon Kenton, the greatest frontiersman east of the Mississippi if not our country's history.


Anyways thought some may enjoy that tiny little episode. In terms of Trump talking about this, he needs to not talk about history ever, as he obviously is clueless about it like the rest of America is lol.

[BengalHawk62]

Me Trump.

Me smart.

You not Trump.

You not smart. 

[Matt_Crimson]

Trump should really stop acting like he knows what he's talking about. I'd respect the guy more if he admitted he doesn't know all that much about early American History.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Given Jackson's temperament and disregard for political norms it's not surprising at all that Trump holds him in esteem.  This thread raises a point though.  For all the talk from the left about how unintelligent, and thus dangerous, Trump is, does anyone think George W. Bush is smarter than Trump? 

[hollodero]

(05-01-2017, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: does anyone think George W. Bush is smarter than Trump? 

I do.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

We all know what Trump was talking about and we all know this was taken out of context.

Trump was talking about Andrew Jackson, great, great great grandfather of Jesse Jackson the Civil Rights Leader...duh.

[*Nately120*]

(05-01-2017, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given Jackson's temperament and disregard for political norms it's not surprising at all that Trump holds him in esteem.  This thread raises a point though.  For all the talk from the left about how unintelligent, and thus dangerous, Trump is, does anyone think George W. Bush is smarter than Trump? 

It's hard to say.  Trump proves how every virtue a man has is secondary to accountability and/or the ability to hold yourself accountable.  Trump's IQ can be 200 but if he's determined to use that to spread self-congratulatory bs how good is it (well, for anyone but him)?

[BmorePat87]

(05-01-2017, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given Jackson's temperament and disregard for political norms it's not surprising at all that Trump holds him in esteem.  This thread raises a point though.  For all the talk from the left about how unintelligent, and thus dangerous, Trump is, does anyone think George W. Bush is smarter than Trump? 

Yea. From everything that I have read, W devoured books in his spare time. Trump does not read much. When asked what he is currently reading, he said "I love to read. Actually, I am looking at a book, I'm reading a book, I am trying to get started. Every time I do about half a page, I get a phone call that there's some emergency, this or that." Then he went on about cutting costs. He watches plenty of Fox and Friends though.

So, yea, I think W is a more intelligent person.

[GMDino]

(05-02-2017, 08:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Yea. From everything that I have read, W devoured books in his spare time. Trump does not read much. When asked what he is currently reading, he said "I love to read. Actually, I am looking at a book, I'm reading a book, I am trying to get started. Every time I do about half a page, I get a phone call that there's some emergency, this or that." Then he went on about cutting costs. He watches plenty of Fox and Friends though.

So, yea, I think W is a more intelligent person.

I always thought Bush was "dumb" in the sense that he wasn't able to get his ideas from his brain to his mouth and he was unprepared to be President at all.

Trump is a special kind of dumb.  The kind who insists he is right all the time even when he is not.

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

[Belsnickel]

(05-01-2017, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given Jackson's temperament and disregard for political norms it's not surprising at all that Trump holds him in esteem.  This thread raises a point though.  For all the talk from the left about how unintelligent, and thus dangerous, Trump is, does anyone think George W. Bush is smarter than Trump? 

I want to say that I don't think Trump is unintelligent, I think he is ignorant to how government works. I don't like Trump, I think he is a con-man and has no business in the role he is in, but you still have to have some intelligence to get there. I don't think he has a thirst for knowledge. I think he gets distracted easily and isn't willing to put in the effort to really learn the details he needs to know even at high levels. That isn't a lack of intelligence, it's just his personality.

Bush II had a personality problem, as well, and that was letting those around him really shape his policy for the first bit of his time in office. It wasn't until the last two years or so that we really saw him put his own ideology to work. At least based on my opinions of it. He didn't have the ignorance, though, that Trump displays and he saw value in learning.

Anyway, I don't think either has a lack of intelligence. It just boils down to values.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-02-2017, 08:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: I always thought Bush was "dumb" in the sense that he wasn't able to get his ideas from his brain to his mouth and he was unprepared to be President at all.

Trump is a special kind of dumb.  The kind who insists he is right all the time even when he is not.

Interesting take.  My opinion would be that Trump is more intelligent but not as smart.  I get the impression that W is less intelligent guy who realizes the limits of his intelligence.  Trump is a bit more intelligent but views himself as having no intellectual limits.  I will tell you that there is nothing "special" about that kind of dumb, I encounter it daily. 

(05-02-2017, 10:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I want to say that I don't think Trump is unintelligent, I think he is ignorant to how government works. I don't like Trump, I think he is a con-man and has no business in the role he is in, but you still have to have some intelligence to get there. I don't think he has a thirst for knowledge. I think he gets distracted easily and isn't willing to put in the effort to really learn the details he needs to know even at high levels. That isn't a lack of intelligence, it's just his personality.

Bush II had a personality problem, as well, and that was letting those around him really shape his policy for the first bit of his time in office. It wasn't until the last two years or so that we really saw him put his own ideology to work. At least based on my opinions of it. He didn't have the ignorance, though, that Trump displays and he saw value in learning.

Anyway, I don't think either has a lack of intelligence. It just boils down to values.

Also well stated.  I find it interesting how some people look on W with an odd form of nostalgia when, in many, if not most, ways his politics are at least as conservative as Trump's.  I think the only area in which Trump exceeds Bush is in immigration enforcement.  Bush is certainly a more "pro-life" person than Trump.  I suppose that Trump's extreme behavior has provoked extreme reactions.  It is interesting that Trump's opponents have, in many ways, succumbed to the exact same behavior that they claim to abhor in Trump.

[Benton]

Quote:And he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War,

Why was Jackson angry that he saw what was happening?

Shouldn't he have been happy? Like 'Holy crap, I'm dead, but I can still check up on all my kids.'

[Belsnickel]

(05-02-2017, 10:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Also well stated.  I find it interesting how some people look on W with an odd form of nostalgia when, in many, if not most, ways his politics are at least as conservative as Trump's.  I think the only area in which Trump exceeds Bush is in immigration enforcement.  Bush is certainly a more "pro-life" person than Trump.  I suppose that Trump's extreme behavior has provoked extreme reactions.  It is interesting that Trump's opponents have, in many ways, succumbed to the exact same behavior that they claim to abhor in Trump.

I have a hard time with looking at conservative values between those two. The reason is that, quite frankly, neither is very conservative. Sure, they have some of the ideological stances that we associate with the word, but overall when we look at their positions one would be hard pressed to call either one a conservative.

I think we are too often conflating Republican and conservative, the same for Democrat and liberal. These things are not the same. Both parties have very big tents as far as ideological stances, it's the nature of the two-party system we have. I think the issue is that while Bush II had some things that weren't conservative, they were still seen as very traditional Republican ideals. What I find interesting with Trump is that some of his positions are just anti-Republican as well (his trade issues, for example).

Regardless of all of that, it's hard to apply labels anyway. I posted a comic that made this statement, and every day I see it as more and more true. Almost no one really has a political ideology, we all just hold ad-hoc opinions that can change depending on what we see as most beneficial for us at the time.

[Bengalzona]

(05-01-2017, 05:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Given Jackson's temperament and disregard for political norms it's not surprising at all that Trump holds him in esteem.  This thread raises a point though.  For all the talk from the left about how unintelligent, and thus dangerous, Trump is, does anyone think George W. Bush is smarter than Trump? 

I could not say which is more intelligent.

But I can say this, Bush was much wiser.

[Millhouse]

What I dont get is why Trump thinks Jackson would have prevented the war from happening. Would he have abolished slavery & get the rest of the South's approval in doing so? I dont think so.

[Dill]

(05-01-2017, 05:13 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Trump should really stop acting like he knows what he's talking about. I'd respect the guy more if he admitted he doesn't know all that much about early American History.

He can't admit it if he doesn't know he doesn't know.

[GMDino]

(05-02-2017, 11:51 AM)Millhouse Wrote: What I dont get is why Trump thinks Jackson would have prevented the war from happening. Would he have abolished slavery & get the rest of the South's approval in doing so? I dont think so.

No, no.  He would have forced slavery on the North and get their approval.

Jackson was so tired of winning he died before he could solve the slavery problem.