Trump: Civil War Could Have Been Avoided By Big Hearted Andrew Jackson

President Donald Trump made a rather curious statement on Monday about the Civil War that had people either confused or enraged.  In an interview with the Washington Examiner’s Salena Zico, Trump said that the Civil War was avoidable and could have been prevent if President Andrew Jackson had lived a bit longer.  He insisted “There’s no reason for this.”  Many people have noted that there were millions of reasons in the form of enslaved blacks and Jackson was hardly the man to call when the question of slavery was raised.

First and foremost, I agree with Trump that there are clear analogies between his victory and the election of Andrew Jackson.  Trump stated “My campaign and win was most like Andrew Jackson, with his campaign. And I said, when was Andrew Jackson? It was 1828. That’s a long time ago.”  I think that the comparison is a good one historically and politically.  Both were populist victories and both presidents credited their victories to the power of the common citizen.

Then, however, it get a bit more twisted.  In the interview, Trump discussed how a deal could have been struck to avoid the Civil War.  He stated in pertinent part:

“I mean, 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. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, ‘There’s no reason for this.’ People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, 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?”

Trump later tweeted that Jackson “would never have let it happen.”

It is hard to get past the first line:

“I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart.”

I have long been a critic of Jackson who I viewed as man with a lethal temper and shaky allegiance to the rule of law.  Jackson was so excessive in his application of martial law in New Orleans during the War of 1812 that he was reprimanded for his denial of basic rights, including denying press freedom.  The image of the big hearted Jackson is a bit hard to square with the man who was most responsible for the Trail of Tears where thousands died under the Indian Removal Act.  Jackson openly defied the ruling in  Worcester v. Georgia (1832) where the Court ruled that Georgia could not assert authority over the Cherokee as opposed to the federal government.  Jackson however was less concerned with the Indians than he was avoiding a conflict with the Georgia militia.  He refused calls from people like Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams to support the claims of the tribes.  Instead, he continued the removal of the Indians.

Of course there is also the obvious problem that Jackson was a slave owner himself and might not be particularly sympathetic to the cause of abolitionists.  He owned 150 human beings when he died in 1845.  He placed ads to recover runaway slaves.  One such ad, entitled “Stop the Runaway,” offered details of a “Mulatto Man Slave, about thirty years old, six feet and an inch high, stout made and active, talks sensible, stoops in his walk, and has a remarkable large foot, broad across the root of the toes — will pass for a free man.…”

It was equally curious to read Trump’s statement that “He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, ‘There’s no reason for this.'”

Once again, Jackson died in 1845 and the war started in 1861.  Trump may have been referring to Jackson stopping the secession of South Carolina in the 1830s.  However  that was part of the “Nullification Crisis” and the insistence of South Carolina that it could void federal tariffs.  A compromise was readily available over an individual state’s ability to void federal tariffs. That is nothing like what faced Abraham Lincoln in the 1860s.

This is not the first time that Trump appeared to fold history.  Speaking at an African-American history event, he said that 19th century abolitionist Frederick Douglass “is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.”

Trump concluded his remark on Jackson with  “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?”

 Worked out?  The only work around would have been a continuation of Missouri Compromises where slave and non-slave states were kept in rough balance to preserve slave state power in Congress.  That would leave the unfinished business of our national scourge of slavery.  It would leave millions in chains and no one could suggest that Jackson would ever be the “Great Emancipator.”  Most do not feel the need to ask “why” but rather why it took so long.

105 thoughts on “Trump: Civil War Could Have Been Avoided By Big Hearted Andrew Jackson”

  1. I would have trouble believing the sports scores out the Washington Examiner much less give them an interview.

  2. Donald Trump is a citizen, and he’s right to think that he doesn’t lose the protection of the first amendment just because he was elected president. Just as the members of CITIZENS UNITED didn’t lose it when they formed a corporation. But the trouble is he seems to forget he is the president when he gets in front of a microphone. He seems to think it’s “just talk” and will fade away. Sorry, but his enemies in politics and the press won’t let that happen. He’s not only letting his supporters down, but ALL Americans too when he thinks this won’t make his job harder. His ego is making it impossible for him to lead the country effectively. Are we close to Section 4 of the 25th amendment?

  3. Nobody could’ve predicted that a mentally unstable narcissist with no government experience would instantly be a failure running the most complex government office in the world.

    1. But, in keeping with the Andrew Jackson philosophy, it should take no particular talent to run the most complex government office in the world. Any fool can do it….

        1. We might as well keep,the goof until the end of his term as Pence might actually be effective in pushing through a far right agenda.

    2. Seems like we should have learned that lesson 8 years ago, right?

      1. Sixteen years ago we had a fool and his handlers run amok. The words were somewhat the same: lower taxes for the rich, bomb the cr*# out of countries who don’t respect us, and decrease the middle class. It took eight years of someone with a working brain to stabilize the country and guess what, another idiot. The question is not if the idiot we have for a President will damage the country, but how badly.

        1. “The buck stops here”- Sign on President Truman’s desk
          “The buck gets passed backward from 2009-2017.
          And the buck once again stops here ^2017-?^.”- Isaac.
          There may be a cultural difference involved here.
          The American dollar is known as “the buck”; the Canadian dollar is known as “the looney”.

          1. Canada got the young buck this time and we got an old looney bird.

            1. It was inevitable – we only had two old looney birds to choose from.

          2. tnash

            You just pulled a Trump. When presented with the obvious but hard to take truth, you pulled a distraction out of your rug. It must be contagious.

            1. Isaac-…
              – It’s not really a distraction to point out your ” currency manipulation”.
              In your view, “the buck” never even got to the Obama administration.
              Everything that went wrong on his watch was “Bush’s fault, Reagan’s fault”, etc.
              You getvan “A” for your consistency in passing the buck backward, when you find it expedient to do so.
              Now, you’re a convert to the buck stops here theme.

              1. tnash

                Firstly, for the past several decades I have been a naturalized American citizen. So, the Canadian dollar has nothing to do with me. It does hurt when money comes south but is a boon when I visit god’s country. Secondly, Obama was far from perfect. However, most of what he did not accomplish was due to the blind obstruction of the opposition. Unfortunately, the US has the last duopoly of the more advanced nations, two choices, both bought and paid for by the oligarchs, one more choice than a dictatorship. Thirdly, unless you are totally cloistered in the arguments of ‘your’ side, the recession was enhanced from a typical bust following boom to the impact we are still feeling due to Bush. Obama, in spite of what he did wrong, did stop the bleeding, righted the ship, and gave us some degree of self respect.

                In the end this country needs to pull its head out from where the sun don’t shine and commit the sacrilege of ‘amending’. It ain’t 1776 anymore and this ain’t Kansas. If the US is that great of a country with enough intelligence it should be able to do a little surgery where it is more than necessary without losing touch with its moral origin or the illusions at least. First move should be to restrict financial involvement in politics to a max of a grand a registered voter. This will help to introduce the concept of third and fourth parties. Second move is to apply social perspectives to social issues, universal health care financed in part through taxes on the stuff that is killing millions, the crap they eat, drink, and smoke. A pot tax would be a good thing. We all can afford to pay more for alcohol and gas. Next, we need to reduce the size of the military by at least 25% and redistribute the power into higher technological and more rapidly deployable units. There is no need to invade any country. There was no need to invade Iraq. Saddam could have been taken out the same way he got in. Next, the country needs to recognize that issues such as education and health care are woefully backward in the US due primarily to the fractured political system and redundancy. There is simply too much administration and not enough quality in the trenches. Teachers need to be better trained and paid more. Clinics with nurse practitioners need to replace much of the doctor/hospital conditions. In the several dozen of our peer nations who enjoy better health care and higher levels of education, they also reward teachers more and pay less over all. Before beginning this Americans must seriously consider the damage done to themselves adhering to this my way or the highway perspective. Americans must ask themselves why they don’t learn from more successful paradigms, not for wholesale change but for some long overdo fine tuning.

                1. issac – I have told you before to get an American Civics book and memorize it. The Constitution was ratified in 1789, not 1776. For someone who supposedly knows history, it must only be the history of CANADA.

                2. Isaac
                  ..
                  We’ve denated some of your proposals before, and I don’t have the time right now to revisit those debates, or debate your c.20? point program.

                  On one issue, I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq and removed Saddam.
                  You repeated your claim that the U.S. could have taken out Saddam without invading Iraq..
                  I think you once wrote that the U.S. “could easily” have removed Saddam by engineering a coup.
                  And I pointed out that those who plotted coups against Saddam tended to have very short life expencie.
                  Even if a coup/assasination could have been,pulled off, you’d still be looking at a post-Saddam Iraq likely plunging into chaos.
                  Maybe we could take out N.Korea’s Kim in a limited, targeted strike.
                  I doubt it, but the apparatus of the N.Korean Communist leadership is still there, even if Kim gets knocked off.

                  One other point….the U.S. haf about 3,000,000 active duty military personnel in the 1950s and 1960s.
                  On average, 3 million out of a population about 50% smaller thsn today.
                  And we are at about 1.2 million active duty military today.
                  The military has been downsized significantly; I don’t pretend to knoa the “proper amounf ” of diwnsizing, but I doubt if you do either.

                    1. “Expectancy

                      I’m,typing blind in a c. 1/8 inch wide reply box that makes it impossible to see the previous letter as it scrolls down

    3. Ding Ding! Pay the man, Shecky. In fact, many persons predicted this circus.

  4. Jackson also introduced the spoils system into the federal workforce. Jackson believed that the duties of federal employees did not require any special expertise or education, and therefore such jobs could (and should) be filled by loyal political hacks, rather than well-trained and well-experienced people.

    Trump has certainly shown that he agrees with this view.

      1. Yes, but the party that Jackson founded is not at all the Democratic party that exists today. For those who haven’t kept up on current events, the Republican and Democratic parties have switched philosophical places since the “Southern Strategy,” even though the names have been kept the same.

        So, have you really “Got it” ?

        1. All that spinning would make me dizzy. Don’t know how you libs do it without getting sick.

    1. The similarities between Trump and Jackson end with their populist election victories. Perhaps the biggest dissimilarity between them is that Jackson flipped his middle finger at the financial sector through his veto of the rechartering of the national bank. Trump would not do that because he’s not a populist president – he’s a plutocrat.

      Jackson was a populist through and through, but he was only a populist for the people he represented – white Christians.

        1. Mulling but he won’t….. Had to throw a bone out because his tax plan is so pro billionaire.

        2. Rest assure, Cohen and Mnuchin won’t be breaking up the big banks. Wall St.is not worried.

        3. Trump’s comments could give a push to efforts to revive the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial lending from investment banking. Reviving such a law would require an act by Congress. Maybe Trump could get democratic votes for this but let’s see if he puts forth some legislation. i am not optimistic.

        4. If he succeeds, I guess he will not be making $400,000 speeches to Wall St after he leaves the presidency…

          1. Don’t think the Trump clan will need to speak for money after they leave office.They are getting richer while in office.

            1. “In our era, it’s no secret that presidents leave office with the promise of quickly growing exponentially wealthier. But for the first family to gain such wealth while still in the White House would be a first. Yet the process that could make that possible already seems to be well underway. All this, as Donald Trump, his children, and his son-in-law continue to carve out an unprecedented role for themselves as America’s business-managers-in-chief, presiding not so much over the country as over their own expanding imperial domains.” zero hedge

      1. “Perhaps the biggest dissimilarity between them is that Jackson flipped his middle finger at the financial sector through his veto of the rechartering of the national bank.”

        Yes, it is the reason that I like Jackson. Anyone willing to go after the national or Federal reserve gets my vote.

  5. Don’t look now progressives but he has the country discussing pre-20th century history. Just wait til he mentions how the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. If he keeps this up the people might just learn something. They too can become POTUS.

    1. Considering that there were people in London trying to work out a diplomatic solution while a few agitators were creating violent interactions with the Redcoats, yes, the Revolutionary War could have been averted and we could have gone the way of Canada. Violence and revolutionary propaganda won out over diplomacy.

      1. Thank you bettykath. Why were they “agitated”? What influence did the unwritten policy of salutary neglect have on the colonials?

  6. Perhaps Trump, Kim Jong un, and Duterte can have a seeance with Andrew Jackson while dining at Miralago.

  7. My opinion: There was another way. Lincoln could have allowed the secession, ignored the attack on Fort Sumter, and repealed the Fugitive Slave Act. Slavery would have ended in the south by a slave revolt. Many slaves would have moved north, others would have used bloody means. The Confederacy would never have come together as a separate nation-state, they didn’t even come together as a nation to fight the Civil War with each state fighting on its own. Lee led the army of VA, not the army of the Confederacy. At some point, the individual southern states may have petitioned to rejoin the Union. But Lincoln was not on his own. The European banksters were concerned about the economic growth of the US into a power to be reckoned with funded both sides. Both courses of action, war or no war, would have hurt the country, but fewer lives would have been lost had their been no war. The country would have grown in all ways, but differently.

    1. bettykath:
      While I admire Lincoln’s courageous decision, yours is worth thinking about. Most Southerners were not slaveholders nor sympathetic thereto and a fledgling new country like the Confederacy would have had a difficult time handling a class of people in servitude who were more numerous than their masters even with the machinery of government. Poor Southeners had more in common with slaves than plantation owners and their alliance was likely once the existential threat posed by Lincoln was resolved. The truth is that slavery as an institution was in decline in the mid-9th Century and letting the institution runs its inevitable course of decay and dissolution may have saved 750,000 American lives. Virginia would likely had applied for reinstatement relatively quickly as would have many of the western confederate states. That could have left a hard core group from Mississippi to Florida and back up to North Carolina but they would have inevitably suffered from lack of markets for their agricultural goods and supplies of machinery and material. Very interesting thoughts. Kudos.

  8. It’s easy to judge harshly the decisions of the past since you didn’t have to make them or live with the consequences.

  9. Years from now, when the Trump is all over and gone, there will be another story called the Trail of Tears. This will be about the people who voluntarily left America for a better place. I know many who have fled to a variety of places. Boat people on the East Coast are going to the Islands. Texans are fleeing to Mexico. Europe won’t take us back.

  10. Turley: learn to spull. It was The Trail of Tears not “Trial”. A trail is like a long path of transport. The bad guy was like Hitler in the Holocaust. Buchenwald. How do you think that the Cherokee got to Oklahoma?

  11. Jackson faced the threat of South Carolina succession (same way actual Civil War started) over a tariff enacted by the previous POTUS by threatening military action against South Carolina. He believed in states rights, but he also believed in the Union. I don’t know if I agree, but Trump’s opinion is that if Jackson were the POTUS at the time of the Civil War, there would have been no Civil War. The MSM has spun this to say Trump doesn’t understand history and he is somehow supportive of slavery.

    By the way, Jackson’s well-know stand on slavery and Native Americans is always discussed, but very few mention that he was the founder of the Democrat Party.

  12. Trump has crossed the line on what is acceptable in many ways. Trump is not living in reality. In fact Trump has activated those of us who have a brain with IQ’s over 70. We will have a civil war. Trump is a selfish beast who belongs in jail.
    He’s the worst piece of garbage to have ever entered politics. He’s a phony who only cares about personal financial gain. Trump believes the Civil War was unnecessary.
    That should be enough for all citizens to realize that Trump wants to destroy the US.

    1. “He’s a phony who only cares about personal financial gain.”

      Obama fits this description, too.

      1. Totally the same thing. I’m glad Obama University is finally gone with a $25 million settlement for defrauding Americans, for instance.

        1. $400,000 speeches to Wall Street. He hoped to pocket some change after giving banksters a pass.

          1. hoped? Shouldn’t that be, he is starting to cash in ? Obama will level off at around 500 million. He’ll want at least double the Clinton’s stash what with real inflation which has apparently been classified as top secret.

            1. I was trying to make a joke about the hope and change campaign motto. He did hope to pocket some change, and now he is. 🙂

            2. “real inflation which has apparently been classified as top secret.”

              ??? Link? I am intrigued.

  13. If you want to read some INTELLIGENT comments about Andrew Jackson, read Jacksonland by Steve Inskeep. A very interesting read. It even discusses the Constitution of the Cherokee Nation in some detail. John Ross, who negotiated with the US Government on behalf of the Cherokees, was a very interesting person. He seems to have had lots more integrity than Jackson did.

  14. Trump attended N.Y. Military Academy as a teen, so he obviously had a different educational experience than Americans who attended liberal public high schools. His schooling would have focused on the civil war from a military and strategic perspective, not the typical liberal bent that it was necessary for Lincoln to pursue the most destructive war in American history, in order to stamp out the system of slavery that was increasingly economically unfeasible and dying out on its own.

    1. “Educational experience? This Bozo obviously didn’t do any of the work at this “Academy.” The Clown Donald couldn’t tell you the difference between “The Sunken Road” and “Road to Bali” or between “Little Round Top” and “The Four Tops.”

        1. The topic was the bozo’s schooling, which was claimed to be Civil War centered. Sunken Road was the center of the charnel house which was Antietam; Little Round Top was where the Yankees fought off a furious assault by Hood’s division on day 2 at Gettysburg.

  15. Andrew Jackson had spent a lot more time fighting Indians than the wimpy members of the Supreme Court, so there was no reason to listen to them. I live in the furthest West Confederate state in the United States, where the furthest West battle was fought, even though we were a territory at the time. We are still treated by the DoJ as though we fought for the Confederacy, even though the only Confederates were in Tucson (now a liberal bastion and home to the University of Arizona [spit]).

  16. Turley, I don’t understand why you pay any attention to the ravings of The Donald.

    1. Umm, because he is our president? Just spitballin’ here.

  17. Don’t start knocking the Old South. The problem was a lot more nuanced than many people believe. And sure it could have been prevented. Outright slavery was already coming to an end in many places. Do you really think without a Civil War, there would still be slavery today??? Or even into the 20th century???

    Plus, don’t get too upset about rich people wanting to defend their cheap labor. Isn’t that exactly why California is threatening to secede over the illegal immigration issue???

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Nailed it in one. How is cheap illegal labor different from slavery, other than the paperwork?

      1. Yeah I mean, other than the keloid scar level lashings, raping of women by the master and foremen, separating children from their parents and selling them down the river, and chopping limbs off or lynching anyone who tries to runaway, it’s pretty much the same thing. I mean if not for the pesky 13th amendment, surely we’d have to build a great magnificent wall to keep out all the people that would be dying to come here to be a part of it.

        Squeeky, if the South had won or President Andrew Jackson had been a 20 term president or whatever Trump is wishing, I’m pretty sure MLK and Malcolm X would have become modern day Moses and Aaron, leading slaves into Canada or something. Whatever bedtime stories abandon has been reading him from his “tales from the grand wizard collection” have obviously compromised whatever understanding of history he once possessed to that of a 7 year old.

      2. Technically speaking, slavery (which was NEVER free labor) paid better than being being a “cheap laborer.” A slave holder had a valuable commodity, and to protect his investment, had to provide a house for the slave. Because you don’t want something you just paid $1,200 for, sleeping on the ground and catching pneumonia. Plus, the slave has to be well fed, or he will be unable to work. And you have to provide clothing so the slave isn’t running around nekkid in front of the white ladies and causing them to swoon. Plus, the slave holder had to provide medical care. You sure didn’t want your prime Mandingo getting sick on you. Additionally, there was a form of “pension” or “old age benefits” available to old slaves, because some of the Southern states passed laws preventing slaveholders from “freeing” their slaves when they were all old and worked out. So the food and housing continued. Not to mention that many slaves were able to own their own property (banjos, Bibles, cookware, for egs.) tools, and work part time jobs for extra money.

        Now, compare and contrast that with your cheap labor in Modern Day California. On their wages, the cheap laborers are unable to pay for their own housing, food, and medical care. Sooo, the taxpayers chip in with food stamps, housing vouchers, and medicaid. In other words, the And Rich Californians just luvvvves it cheap labor to the point they are talking about rebellion and secession.

        And in even more “other words”, slavery in the Old South paid better than cheap labor in the North, a fact that was both true and obvious even back during the 1850’s and 1860’s. One of the reasons the South was economically behind the North was that it had to “pay” and take care of its cheap labor year around, whereas in the North, they were able to hire as needed, and fire as needed, usually on a seasonal basis.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. The slave owner did not feed his slaves nutritious food. His “investment” compounded because they had children, who were treated as property and ruthlessly separated from their mothers. The slave typically had a very poor diet, and lived in shacks with dirt floors, not “houses.” As for working part time, a slave’s life was different in the city than on a plantation, and they were not paid the same wages as a white man. You may be comparing their fate to sharecropping, which was a false promise of freedom coupled with an impossible debt. They could never get ahead, but were serfs a fraction above slaves under that system. And I won’t go into the horrendous abuse of slave women, or what it means if anyone was mulatto during that era.

          You are correct that illegal aliens are not paid minimum wage, and are treated as second class citizens, but I disagree with saying they are worse off than slaves.

          I’ve been to Rose Hall, and seen were they used to stuff the slaves in a dank underground cell before they were tied to a post and whipped. And I’ve seen remnants of slave ships, manacles, and other grim reminders of the globe’s dark history. It literally gives me a visceral, nauseated response to see such artifacts and understand the reality of what they mean.

          1. True, life could sometimes be very cruel for slaves, but somehow the ones in America managed to thrive, and reproduce like crazy. And it isn’t exactly like life in Africa, or in the slavery of Muslims at the time was a joy.

            But, you probably need to ask yourself, exactly how much labor was anyone going to get out of somebody it they beat them all the times with whips? Slavery was an economic fact of life, and I once again repeat that there are nuances which get overlooked in our tendency to look at the problem thru the lens of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. At the end of the Civil War, American Blacks were probably in the best shape of any large groups of blacks anywhere in the world. My SUSPICION would be that was true even before the end of the war.

            Plus, remember that the slaves who were brought to America, were mostly not “free” at the time. They were slaves to other African chieftains who sold them to white people and Muslims for various kinds of riches. Hmmm. Who would you rather be a slave to, among the following choices:

            1. An African chieftain of another tribe;
            2. An Arab slave trader, or Muslim master;
            3. White Christians in America.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

        2. Squeeky, out of curiousity can you lend me a copy of that book when you’re done with it? Really curious about the part when the cavalry rides off into the cross burning sunset, having driven off the black scourge.

          Not trying to downplay the plight of undocumented workers, however having to set aside rags and huts for a commodity that eats the inedible parts of the food they’re cooking for you (from chitlins to pigs feet) and picks 500 pounds of cotton a day or gets whipped for it (man or woman, boy or girl) by often sadistic and occasionally pedophilic foremen. I’ve been to several museums and seen the pictures so I don’t need anyone suggesting this was some great burden the mangnamonious masters had taken on and that we’ve been bamboozled by the media. The only ones fooled are you lot that think the south seceded over anything but slavery, and that flying the rebel battle flag (which wasn’t seen again until the civil rights movement protests) is about honoring your ancestors. If free labor wasn’t economically viable, why did Sharecropping continue in the Jim Crow South until the 1950’s?

          1. *second paragraph 1st sentence, should have ended with “is not comparable to paying free people to do work to support their families (however dangerous those jobs may be).”
            Getting harder to type on this cellphone as each paragraph is narrower than the last.

            1. I understand. I would be happy to lend you one of the books, but I can not find the exact passage I am looking for. I did find the series on Amazon, and it is the same as my father’s set. It is called, “The South in the Building of the Nation” and was put out in 1909. But dang it, I can’t find the passage I am looking for. I know I read it because one of my uncles copied some pages out of it for a paper he did.

              Anyway, here are several volumes of it for free, and you can search through them under “Negro” or “slave” for some interesting opinions from an earlier non-PC time.

              https://archive.org/details/southinbuildingo11soutiala

              This is volume 11, and there are about 5 or 6 more volumes at the site.

              Hope you enjoy it.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Squeeky, thank you for the links and descriptions in the generous tradition of your forebearers . Back on my PC so I can flip through it using the keyboards directional arrows as well. Page 415-416 starting with the section titled “The Fire-Eaters” notes that the economic issue surrounding escaped slaves could have been easily resolved with better enforcement of their border, but implies that the south (particularly the deep south, which wasn’t known for runaways) wanted to force a political issue by demanding a legislative act that would increase sectional tension. In “The conservative reaction” page 391 further emphasizes the South’s dependency on Slavery, and 393 discusses the value of slaves increasing in 1807 as a result of the ban on international trading.

                The pages you referenced speak on slave traders wanting to keep their catch in prime condition, but when 30% of your catch are dying in route and are your source of revenue that should be apparent. I know you’re pointing to page 200 which describes master’s typical affection for house negros but Page 205 notes some of the punishments for slaves. The sources cited for negroes not being worked to death regularly are the west indies and the northern most confederate state “Virginia”, which as noted above would have been known for runaways. Not sure what state you’re in but I can recommend some museums that may prove informative without watering down the brutality of slavery in description or imagery. As for direct quotes online in books you can read page 53 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=zxxHygjlaVgC&pg=PA53

                I don’t think most people today would be capable of picking 100 pounds of cotton a day from a thorny bush in the hot sun, let alone 500. While the book isn’t quite Birth of a Nation, it is a book written at the turn of the 20th century in the former Confederate Capital and undoubtedly written in a favorable fashion to the South. So of course if you selectively choose passages to emphasize it will paint a favorable picture of old dixie akin to The Littlest Rebel. Though there remains enough truth in there to undermine such arguments.

    2. I hope this is merely a troling attempt and not a bona fide attempt to defend slavery under the guise of state’s rights. Or are we dreaming of the “good ole days” manifested in the “[O]ld South?”

      This is to Fromm

    3. That is sadly true about illegal alien labor. I’ve said for years that we’re creating a 2nd class society, a serf class. Californians virtue signal with their votes on higher wages, higher benefits, more permits, more cost of doing business, but when it comes down to spending their own hard earned money, they hire illegal aliens who benefit from none of the above. They hire illegals to watch their kids, mow their lawns, top their trees passing it off as “landscaping”, and they hire the cheapest contractors who run illegal crews. Californians are only willing to spend other people’s money. And the illegal aliens get exposed to the most environmental hazards – toxic pesticides, for example, so they have poorer health.

      And on that Democrats and Establishment Republicans are united. The Democrats want the votes and the Establishment Republicans want the cheap under the table labor for businesses. Meanwhile, it’s destructive to the country and essentially creates a serf class in modern day America, for shame.

    4. Hmm. The Southern states said that they were seceding because they believed in slavery and white supremacy. They very thoughtfully wrote all down of their reasons at length in their declarations of independence just so that slow-witted racist conservatives wouldn’t be able to pretend hundreds of of years later that slavery and white supremacy weren’t the primary motivations for secession. The problem was not “nuanced” by any means.

      After the war put an end to slavery did the whites in the South reach out to their black brethren in friendship? Not really. They re-established slavery in all but name via the Black Codes and sharecropping and violently prevented the majority of black people from exercising any right of citizenship. This system reached its nadir in the early part of the 20th century and didn’t start to crack apart until the mid thirties and especially post WW2 when Blacks forced the issue.

      So yes, if Southern whites had had their way they would have certainly have had slavery well into the 20th century. They did their best to do just that. If you were at all familiar with black life in say 1915 Mississippi you wouldn’t have written something so asinine. Interesting that many conservative whites today would have been okay with letting slavery die out “peacefully”. No one ever seems to wonder if the enslaved black people were okay with that state of affairs. Apparently it’s because blacks don’t have any inalienable rights.

      1. Sooo, if the South seceded because of its belief in White Supremacy, then why did the North go to war with them??? Because the Northerners, and Abe Lincoln also believed in White Supremacy???

        Sooo, as Old Abe once said:

        I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

        Frankly, white people from the North would never have fought in large numbers for “equality” with Blacks.

        Nevertheless, the firing on Fort Sumter and President Abraham Lincoln’s call for volunteers evoked a sense of patriotism to the Union that was fanned by Irish newspapers and political and religious leaders. Patrick Donohue’s Boston Pilot, the ‘Irishman’s bible,’ enthusiastically supported the war to restore the Union. Archbishop John Joseph Hughes of New York, the ‘bishop and chief’ of the New York Irish whose influence was nationwide, also urged his flock to help suppress the rebellion. But early in the war he pointedly warned the Lincoln administration that if Irish-American soldiers had ‘to fight for the abolition of slavery, then, indeed, they will turn away in disgust from the discharge of what would otherwise be a patriotic duty.’

        http://www.historynet.com/americas-civil-war-why-the-irish-fought-for-the-union.htm

        Sooo, now you have a choice. Revise your opinion, or try to revise the facts.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

Comments are closed.