Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: Was Trump right on Andrew Jackson?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only responded to one part.
    That's because it was a freaking wall of text and the only part that was relevant is what I responded to. In my post I talked about the fact that some areas of the south where there wasn't a lot of slave ownership seceded from the south and that the south had to institute a draft to have enough soldiers. Your wall of text actually proved my two main points!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by kona View Post
    Most in South were against slavery, it meant less work for them and they couldn't compete with the elite slaveowners, who were a fraction of the South. Every major battle you had non-slaveowner Southerners fighting against northern slaveowners. As well as free blacks fighting against northeners.

    The south was not driven to war by any means. Lincoln drove the war singlehandedly by himself. Tariffs, protectionism, central empire were the motives. Slavery was barely on the periphery and used merely to incite an insurrection in the south, which failed miserably because most of the South did not have slaves. Lincoln literally was the "you can have your slaves as long as you pay taxes and stay in the union" guy. Helps explain why there was so much slavery in the north, contrary to popular opinion. NC/TN/AK and others originally voted to stay in the union, then withdrew AFTER they saw Lincoln attack the sister states like a madman. But we're supposed to believe the cause was slavery. Just like 100 years from now Americans will be taught the Iraq war was to liberate the Iraqis.

    You told me to disabuse myself of the error that the war was over slavery. Tell me, does Ron, Lew, Dilorenzo, Spooner, Woods, Rothbard need to disabuse themselves of this error as well?
    If they claimed that the preserving slavery was not a major motivation for the Confederate states to secede (which I doubt all, if any, of them did), then yes, that was an error they should have disabused themselves of. And they could have done that by reading those states' official reasons for secession, as I suggested to you.

    Did you read those?

  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by The Rebel Poet View Post
    The southern states were not "driven to war"; they were driven to secession. The war of Northern aggression was Lincoln's war start to finish.

    Secession is not aggression.
    That is true. I don't dispute how you put it at all. They should have been allowed to secede. If northern abolitionists truly wanted to end slavery, they had recourse to other methods short of militarily subjugating under their rule what were then foreign nations.

    However, Lincoln spoke the truth in his Second Inaugural Address when he said, "While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."

    Both of those sides were wrong. And I do not diminish the charge that Lincoln paints himself and his cohorts in a rosier light here than they deserved, for allowing the union to dissolve without war would have been right, and a union that requires war to maintain is not a union worth maintaining.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Trump: "Tubman is fantastic" but replacing Andrew Jackson is political correctness
    By RandallFan in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-25-2016, 04:18 PM
  2. Ron Paul Andrew Jackson pic
    By cooker263 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-09-2012, 12:45 PM
  3. Wow Andrew Jackson Nails IT!
    By s35wf in forum History
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 09:02 AM
  4. How Andrew Jackson defeated the banks
    By WarDog in forum History
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-29-2008, 11:02 AM
  5. Andrew Jackson
    By josephadel_3 in forum History
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-01-2008, 11:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts