• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Ima need a fool to fall down. TRUMP YOU FOOL, FALL DOWN! (Or why there really was a reason for the US Civil War)

Less than that, in my opinion. He was just in Tennessee, and was going on and on about how "they love Andrew Jackson in Tennessee". All he was doing was parroting some misinformation some confederate-flag waving knuckle-dragger said to him while he was there, much like he parrots faux-news on a regular basis.

Now to be fair, The Donald could have been told good information and then muddled it all by himself.

When has cheato ever repeated good information except to call it 'fake news' :p
 
Now to be fair, The Donald could have been told good information and then muddled it all by himself.


According to this article, all that good information came from the fountain of all good information in Trumpland:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/01/donald-trump-s-andrew-jackson-civil-war-answer-is-all-steve-bannon

If you’re wondering why Donald Trump enjoys chatting about Andrew Jackson so much, the answer to that question is Stephen Bannon, the chief strategist in the Trump White House.

As The Daily Beast reported in March, Bannon has, since the 2016 presidential campaign, actively pushed Trump to learn more about Jackson and to play up comparisons, however flawed, between Jackson’s populism and Trumpian nationalist-populist rhetoric and themes. In March, Trump even made a high-profile visit to Jackson’s Nashville tomb, where Trump solemnly saluted the deceased president.

Interesting.

Even more interesting is that cheato's babbling about Andrew Jackson now would indicate that cheato is back to kissing Bannon's ass.
 
You better get over to wikipedia and fix it Jimmy.

The United States presidential election of 1860 was the nineteenth quadrennial presidential election to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The election was held on Tuesday, November 6, 1860, and served as the immediate impetus for the outbreak of the American Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860
Oh, I get it, you mean that the southern reaction to the results of a fair and democratic election was what precipitated the Civil War.
Apparently an election in November immediately caused the start of the Civil War five months later in April.

Well, not immediately. First Lincoln gave this speech:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous....

...One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other....

....My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Clearly it was all his fault. Frikkin' warmonger! :mad:
 
Back
Top Bottom