Donald Trump Questions Why the Civil War Happened

[Breccia]

I don't know if you are joking or not, but the Clinton Foundation was under investigation for being a pay to play charity. There was also some other news about the Clinton's structuring the organization in a way that they use part of it as a personal piggy bank.

And not only was all of that investigated and nobody found anything, she also turned over her personal tax records and the Foundation's tax records for basically every year since birth.

And all through that time, the Foundation continued to get HIV/AIDS medication to sub-Saharan Africans, get Muslim women into school, and a variety of other things that did not benefit Clinton. Who took no money from the Foundation.

Oh, are you going to counter with "they flew on some planes?" First, that's been dealt with: doctors and medicine don't move themselves. Two, Mar-a-Lago.

[cubby]

Am I missing something here? I don't know why people here are upset.

Would you be concerned if the leader of Germany didn't know why WWI happened? Or is it super cool to not know your own country's history? And I'm talking about the basics - like who was President during the Civil War.

- - - Updated - - -

Judging by the last two pages, complaining about being insulted is his only real point.

Well, he lost the reason and logic debate awhile ago. All Trumpkins have at this point is obfuscation and deflection. Trump is such a fucking buffoon that there is nothing possible to defend.

[Tygor]

As someone who has really studied the Civil War, those that think the Civil War was about slavery are quite wrong. Sure, that's a thing, but it wasn't until well into the Civil War that slavery became a talking point (remember the whole Emancipation Proclamation?). It's always been about state's rights and was like 30-40 years coming when those states finally seceded. Even before the Civil War, the country was split in two in everything from Presidential elections to voting in Congress. With the electoral college, it just wasn't possible for the South to win a presidential elections, and the election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final straw. To be fair, the Democrats at the time where grasping for straws, and couldn't even find one candidate to run against Lincoln. Not that it would have mattered as the North always had enough electoral votes to win.

And then four years of fighting and slaughtering each other led to the North paying for the rebuild of the South (which is why some say it solved nothing), and the abolition of slavery. Not that it really ended then, but that's the official word. Minorities continued to work for the rich for a long while after. There are literal entire college courses that are fascinating that only talk about the lead up to the Civil War.

[Ghostpanther]

Oh no, we can still be friends. I find that most people on this forum bond on just about every subject - except politics.

On a "looking from the outside in" it is truly amazing how divisive this past election has made the United States politically. You're either an apologist for Trump, hand-waving away the most deplorable behavior seen from a head-of-state almost ever in modern times, or your eyes are open and you are literally fighting for the Resistance.

But in all other subjects people tend to continue to either agree with minor disputes or disagree with major caveats.

- - - Updated - - -

Well good. But to be clear, whenever Trump does something I think is bad or wrong, I will say so. As I did about the first health care bill put forth. And the notion the 1st Amendment should be amended or abolished was bullshit and he needs to deal with it because it is not going to change. But there are times you guys think what he is doing is bad, which I do not agree with. And also notice I do not call any democrat a titled name as a way to belittle them. But for myself personally, I am not offended by being called a Trumpkin. I actually laugh about it.

[Crissi]

As someone who has really studied the Civil War, those that think the Civil War was about slavery are quite wrong. Sure, that's a thing, but it wasn't until well into the Civil War that slavery became a talking point (remember the whole Emancipation Proclamation?). It's always been about state's rights and was like 30-40 years coming when those states finally seceded. Even before the Civil War, the country was split in two in everything from Presidential elections to voting in Congress. With the electoral college, it just wasn't possible for the South to win a presidential elections, and the election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final straw. To be fair, the Democrats at the time where grasping for straws, and couldn't even find one candidate to run against Lincoln. Not that it would have mattered as the North always had enough electoral votes to win.

And then four years of fighting and slaughtering each other led to the North paying for the rebuild of the South (which is why some say it solved nothing), and the abolition of slavery. Not that it really ended then, but that's the official word. Minorities continued to work for the rich for a long while after. There are literal entire college courses that are fascinating that only talk about the lead up to the Civil War.

About how well? Because if you really did, you'd understand slavery was a huge thing for the 1820 and 1850 compromises, Bloody Kansas, the John Brown raid, and then many of the state constitutions. States rights to own and expand slavery is still about slavery. Slavery was ingrained into the Southern economy, so even approaching it form an economics angle still has slavery as a primary motivator.

What the common man fought for is different form why the states seceded.

[Ghostpanther]

About how well? Because if you really did, you'd understand slavery was a huge thing for the 1820 and 1850 compromises, Bloody Kansas, the John Brown raid, and then many of the state constitutions. States rights to own and expand slavery is still about slavery. Slavery was ingrained into the Southern economy, so even approaching it form an economics angle still has slavery as a primary motivator.

What the common man fought for is different form why the states seceded.

Slavery absolutely had a big impact on why the US Civil War was fought. It was a direct threat to the Southern way of life and their economy. The South may have felt other factors were important also, such as State's rights. But it was all tied to the threat of abolishing slavery which drove them over the edge.

[KeirAdish]

About how well? Because if you really did, you'd understand slavery was a huge thing for the 1820 and 1850 compromises, Bloody Kansas, the John Brown raid, and then many of the state constitutions. States rights to own and expand slavery is still about slavery. Slavery was ingrained into the Southern economy, so even approaching it form an economics angle still has slavery as a primary motivator.

What the common man fought for is different form why the states seceded.

SHHH
The Right can't try to rewrite history if we actually know what happened, you can't share that information!
It ruins their rewrite of history!

Next thing you'll tell me is that Ben Carson was wrong, and slaves weren't semi happy about their enslavement!
That's just crazy talk!

[Tygor]

About how well? Because if you really did, you'd understand slavery was a huge thing for the 1820 and 1850 compromises, Bloody Kansas, the John Brown raid, and then many of the state constitutions. States rights to own and expand slavery is still about slavery. Slavery was ingrained into the Southern economy, so even approaching it form an economics angle still has slavery as a primary motivator.

What the common man fought for is different form why the states seceded.

Slavery was an incredibly huge thing leading up to the Civil War, and was definitely one of the reasons for the war. Honestly, the north and even Republican party (new at the time) couldn't even agree that anti-slavery should be in their platform. The inclusion of states being slavery/anti-slavery was more about the long game of how states could vote in the future. Hell, many in power in the North weren't really against slavery. I will argue anyone to my last breath who say the Civil War was about Slavery without mentioning everything else that was going on. But it's far easier to teach people that the Civil War is about slavery because it really was the accumulation of several things happening and the South finally getting sick of all the shit.

[Crissi]

Slavery absolutely had a big impact on why the US Civil War was fought. It was a direct threat to the Southern way of life and their economy. The South may have felt other factors were important also, such as State's rights. But it was all tied to the threat of abolishing slavery which drove them over the edge.

Which is why I get so annoyed by people that say "States rights". It completely ignores just how ingrained Slavery was to the way of life. Yeah, the common man owned few if any, but they essentially followed the leadership of the Plantation owners, to whom slaves meant everything. States rights to keep and expand their slavery insitutions in order to preserve southern way of life. *headdesk*

The WAR itself may not have been about slavery (from the northern perspective, initially), but the secession absolutely was (the threat the North posed to slavry as an institution).

- - - Updated - - -

Slavery was an incredibly huge thing leading up to the Civil War, and was definitely one of the reasons for the war. Honestly, the north and even Republican party (new at the time) couldn't even agree that anti-slavery should be in their platform. The inclusion of states being slavery/anti-slavery was more about the long game of how states could vote in the future. Hell, many in power in the North weren't really against slavery. I will argue anyone to my last breath who say the Civil War was about Slavery without mentioning everything else that was going on. But it's far easier to teach people that the Civil War is about slavery because it really was the accumulation of several things happening and the South finally getting sick of all the shit.

Sure, there was always a power struggle between North and South, but the South used slavery as their main tool. It was fundamentally a part of many of the compromises that sought to keep the union intact.

I wouldn't say the South getting sick of the shit. More like the South was sick of not being able to get the North to do what they wanted the North to do. They refused to even think of the free-loving legit government of Kansas as legit, instead prefering the false pro-slave government.

So while there are a lot of nitty gritty details to the war, I don't see "It was about slavery" as necessary wrong. Just broad, because ultimately many of the issues they separated over DID involve slavery. The only 2 that I can think of that dont are tarrifs and railroad lines.

[Breccia]

As someone who has really studied the Civil War, those that think the Civil War was about slavery are quite wrong. Sure, that's a thing, but it wasn't until well into the Civil War that slavery became a talking point (remember the whole Emancipation Proclamation?). It's always been about state's rights and was like 30-40 years coming when those states finally seceded. Even before the Civil War, the country was split in two in everything from Presidential elections to voting in Congress. With the electoral college, it just wasn't possible for the South to win a presidential elections, and the election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final straw. To be fair, the Democrats at the time where grasping for straws, and couldn't even find one candidate to run against Lincoln. Not that it would have mattered as the North always had enough electoral votes to win.

And then four years of fighting and slaughtering each other led to the North paying for the rebuild of the South (which is why some say it solved nothing), and the abolition of slavery. Not that it really ended then, but that's the official word. Minorities continued to work for the rich for a long while after. There are literal entire college courses that are fascinating that only talk about the lead up to the Civil War.

Well that is an interesting approach. Allow me to ask some follow-up questions:
1) Which state's rights, other than those directed at slavery, such as
-- the right to suppress free speech of abolitionists
-- the right to send slave hunters into other states
-- the rights to deny people the right to vote
were the Confederate States fighting and dying for? Perhaps you'll find “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” a good read. Hey, wasn't Jackson from South Carolina?
2) In which states' articles of secession, are "state's rights" mentioned, specifically? Here they are, for reference. Hint: Mississippi called something "the greatest material interest of the world". What was it? Be honest.
3) Did the South argue for, demand even, that the North was required to return their property, escaped slaves, back to Southern slavery states? And, if so, how was this "state's rights" when it was forcing other states to do what they wanted?

You say that there are courses taught on the matter. Well, this guy teaches them. He has a Harvard PhD, spent two years at the Smithsonian researching exactly this topic, and he directly refutes what you said, with the evidence to back it up. Oh, and he's a colleague of mine at SUNY, as it turns out.

So, I will take his highly qualified word on the subject over yours.

[Tygor]

'Getting sick of the shit' is another way to say sectionalism. By the time the states did in fact secede, the South viewed the North as enemies who wouldn't leave them alone (slavery was a BIG part of that, but is the thing they rallied against because it made the South wealthy). If you could imagine virtually every democrat or republican today living together in a geographic region believing the same things, that was the sectionalism in the 1850s.

[Breccia]

Are you just being uncharitable or do you really read what he said was, "Lol what caused the civil war? I don't know?"

Trump did ask "why could that one not have been worked out?". That strongly suggests he has zero idea how much the South really liked owning their slaves. I mean, people really drew some dividing lines on whether or not a human being could be considered property. This was not something that could be negotiated, or dealed. This was people in the South willing to kill and die for the ability to own slaves.

Oh, and he suggested this was a question nobody asked. Like, he was the first person to come up with this.

I don't think calling him provably ignorant of the topic is being "uncharitable". I think it's called evidence.

[s_bushido]

It's always been about state's rights and was like 30-40 years coming when those states finally seceded.

The states' rights to fucking own slaves. I'm so damned tired of people trying to minimize this.

[Khaza-R]

The states' rights to fucking own slaves. I'm so damned tired of people trying to minimize this.

True. However, I think this point is often misinterpreted. People assume that because the south largely seceded over slavery that the north entered the war under the pretense of human rights or abolitioning slavery. However this was not the platform of the majority in th union and nor were their intentions for ending slavery very altruistic like is taught in American schools

[s_bushido]

True. However, I think this point is often misinterpreted. People assume that because the south largely seceded over slavery that the north entered the war under the pretense of human rights or abolitioning slavery. However this was not the platform of the majority in th union and nor were their intentions for ending slavery very altruistic like is taught in American schools

I am under no illusion that the Union's interests were altruistic. But the "states' rights" euphemism always pisses me off, when talking about both historical and current events.

[Surfd]

there is no good enough /facepalm meme on internet for this. Forget about his history knowledge (I would expect nothing anyway).

But. the way he speaks. His speech... oh for fuck sake, my eyes and ears bleed. my 11 years old students have better English than this dumbfuck.

Really it is like a shitfest going around the world. It is like;
UK: I can anally anguish myself hard and nice
US: Hold my beer.
TR: Hold my kebab.

Next coming in France. Well at least whatever they choose, it won't as dumb as these.

You're Welcome.

[Gref]

@Surfd lol thank you sir

[Ripster42]

Which is why I get so annoyed by people that say "States rights". It completely ignores just how ingrained Slavery was to the way of life. Yeah, the common man owned few if any, but they essentially followed the leadership of the Plantation owners, to whom slaves meant everything. States rights to keep and expand their slavery insitutions in order to preserve southern way of life. *headdesk*

Depends what state, but 17-48% of households in the confederate states owned at least one slave as per 1860 census.

[Allybeboba]

I replied to you without a single insult. You chose to reply to two people you feel insulted you or at least used that language. What do you think you are actually telling people to do, if they want you to reply? Further more, what are even here to discuss? People's insults or anything to do with OP. Is someone forcing you to do this or is this a choice you are willfully making?

Test
Nothing anyone else isn't here else "to do", what are you here to do?
No, is someone forcing you to do this?

Have a wonderful day.

- - - Updated - - -

The really funny part is that you Trumpkins still thing telling the truth about someone is calling them a name. It's not surprising, considering the other enormous areas of logic and reasoning you've abandoned to support your God-King, just disappointing.

Wheee!! Stooping to more name calling.
As I have stated many times before, quote me where I directly supported Trump. Then you can call me one of his disciples. Until then, I am just one of the anti-anti PotUS crowd. Like it or not, that is simply the way it is my friend.

[Shadowferal]

Which is why I get so annoyed by people that say "States rights". It completely ignores just how ingrained Slavery was to the way of life. Yeah, the common man owned few if any, but they essentially followed the leadership of the Plantation owners, to whom slaves meant everything. States rights to keep and expand their slavery insitutions in order to preserve southern way of life. *headdesk* The WAR itself may not have been about slavery (from the northern perspective, initially), but the secession absolutely was (the threat the North posed to slavry as an institution). Sure, there was always a power struggle between North and South, but the South used slavery as their main tool. It was fundamentally a part of many of the compromises that sought to keep the union intact. I wouldn't say the South getting sick of the shit. More like the South was sick of not being able to get the North to do what they wanted the North to do. They refused to even think of the free-loving legit government of Kansas as legit, instead prefering the false pro-slave government. So while there are a lot of nitty gritty details to the war, I don't see "It was about slavery" as necessary wrong. Just broad, because ultimately many of the issues they separated over DID involve slavery. The only 2 that I can think of that dont are tarrifs and railroad lines.

Is there a "like" button here? There were plenty of issues, but in congress back then the issue of slavery was prevalent. "Frogs everywhere" if I remember right, a congressman comparing it to a plague that congress couldn't get away from.