Trump's odd remarks on the Civil War

[BmorePat87]

(05-02-2017, 12:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Is there any reason to believe that Trump was mulling over different outcomes of the Missouri Compromise, perhaps imagining how changes in political demographics between 1832 and 1861 might have allowed a southern candidate to win and reach a better compromise with both abolitionists and slavers?   Perhaps Congress could have increased the federal ratio from three fifths to four fifths in return for a cap on future slave states? Perhaps if Jackson were president in 1854 he could have managed the Kansas Nebraska Act in a more compromising fashion--maybe by cancelling the reservation treaties for that territory and giving that land to the slavers while keeping the remainder free?

Or is it more likely that Trump has heard some people compare him to Jackson. Now he is imagining and constructing a 19th century counterpart to himself with some bits of history he has heard. Jackson is "strong," but had a "big heart"; had he been president in '61 there would have been a "huge" compromise--the best deal in history.  

Most people don't even know that Lincoln was a Republican. The party needs to get the word out through super pacs and the like. Donald is doing something like that here--just raising the American people's consciousness and knowledge of history, in part by analogizing past presidencies to his. It's still about him.

(05-02-2017, 03:27 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: No, based on the relative level of being informed on topics seen so far.  

Likely true on your second point.

Apparently Bannon is the Jackson fan, so he's probably feeding a lot of it to Trump. Based on his work as a documentary film maker, his visions seem in line with what Trump is spewing out. 

The only other tweet Trump made about Jackson prior to Bannon being in his ear was once that referenced how Van Buren being elected after Jackson was the last time a Democrat was elected after a Democrat held office for two terms. Of course, that is intellectually dishonest because it would have us not look at the election of Truman in 1948 after 4 elections won by FDR by qualifying it as needing 2 terms.