Trump on Andrew Jackson and Civil War
Here’s how CBS News reports the latest outrage:
President Donald Trump appeared to misremember some history about President Andrew Jackson before implying that the Civil War may have been unnecessary.
“I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with journalist Salena Zito on SiriusXM’s “Main Street Meets the Beltway,” which was released Monday. “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.'”
Jackson died in 1845, which is 16 years before the Civil War began. Mr. Trump has often talked about the similarities between Jackson and himself, and keeps a portrait of the seventh president hanging in the Oval Office.
Mr. Trump then went on to suggest that the Civil War could have been avoided, and that had Jackson been in power he could have prevented it. “People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why?” Mr. Trump said.
“People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
So naturally, people on social media are OD’ing on smugness, pointing out that Trump apparently is cool with slavery. The irony here is that as they lecture Trump on not knowing basic history, they themselves are apparently ignorant of the fact that the US is just about the only country (plus Haiti?) where widespread violence was needed to end legal slavery.
However, there is a further oddity here, where other people are laughing that Trump apparently didn’t know Andrew Jackson died before the Civil War. On this point, I don’t get it. In the quotes I’ve seen, at first it seemed clear to me that Trump’s whole point is that IT’S TOO BAD ANDREW JACKSON DIDN’T LIVE TO PREVENT THE CIVIL WAR. And think the “he was really angry” line means, with the brewing hostilities between North and South that eventually (after Jackson died) led to the Civil War. That is certainly the charitable reading, and possibly the correct one to boot. (EDIT: The smug interpretation–that Trump meant it’s too bad Jackson wasn’t PRESIDENT during the Civil War, as he watched it unfold with horror–is also plausible, upon my re-reading. But initially I thought Trump meant, it’s too bad Jackson died.)
If anybody saw more of the interview, feel free to chime in.
He said, “[Jackson} was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War – he said ‘there’s no reason for this.’” It sounds like he’s speaking about Andrew Jackson as if he were alive when the events took place, just as he was speaking about Fredrick Douglass as if he were still alive a few months back. Even if you argue that that’s not what he meant, it’s still evident that he should be more careful with his wording, at the very least.
I think the media largely make themselves look stupid when they carry on like this. It was obvious Trump was putting forward a hypothetical alternative history.
I know there’s no point trying any subtlety in these interviews but you would think they can at least get their heads around the concept of, “Hey, suppose this happened?”
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/01/526388034/fact-check-could-andrew-jackson-have-stopped-the-civil-war-as-trump-said
NPR puts together a surprisingly well thought out article that takes the hypothetical sensibly, and mentions the South Carolina nullification crisis of 1832 (which could easily have ended in war) as well as the ongoing legacy of Jackson and how this laid the precedent for Lincoln’s use of force.
The issue of slavery vs abolition had been brewing for a long time. By the time of Jackson’s Presidency, it was already illegal to trade slaves on the international market (outlawed in the USA and most of Europe as well). You could not legally ship slaved in or out of the USA, nor could US citizens have any financial interests relating to slave shipments. I’m not sure what Jackson had to say about these events, but he must have at least been aware of which way things were going.
Racist virtue signallers are gonna virtue signal
I think “if he had been a little later” does probably mean as president, but doesn’t mean during the war or even as late as 1861. The build up to the war (of southern aggression) was long, and there were plenty of opportunities after say the Mexican war to change the course of history. Trump might be wrong in his speculation, but he is neither endorsing slavery nor displaying ignorance of basic history. And Jackson is known for dealing forcefully with a “states’ rights” issue during the nullification crisis; Trump is not hinting at capitulation to the slave power either.
The state’s rights issue:
“1. Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government;
“but that by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government;
“and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force:
“That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party:
“That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;
“but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress. …”
“… 9. … that it would be a dangerous delusion, were a confidence in the men of our choice, to silence our fears for the safety of our rights:
“that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go …”
“… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief, by the chains of the Constitution.“
I thought we settled this matter 3 years ago.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/03/judge-napolitano-takes-over-the-daily-show.html#comment-332352
Why does it even matter when Andrew Jackson died? If Trump’s point was that the Civil War could have been prevented if we had had Andrew Jackson in office at that time, then we’re already discussing an alternate history. If I said, “Andrew Jackson could have prevented the 2009 housing market crash,” would it be reasonable respond, “He’s dead you fool!”?
The use of the word “if” means we are discussing alternative history. So what?
Andrew, if you then said Jackson was very angry when he saw what was happening regarding the 2009 housing market crash we might reasonably think you had wandered from the path of reasonableness.
“if he had been a little later” clearly means if he had been a bit more dead.
Obviously not, but the next bit says “He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War – he said ‘there’s no reason for this.’””
What can this mean? If he died 16 years before the civil war it does not make much sense to say he was angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the civil war.
Who knows what he meant by this? It is either wrong or very badly phrased.
But then he says:
“People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
Trump seems to think that because something has just occurred to him, that nobody else was thinking about these things earlier. The causes of the civil war are among of the most discussed things in history. Loads of books have been written about it.?
Here are a few. https://www.questia.com/library/history/military-history/wars-battles-and-military-interventions/u-s-civil-war/u-s-civil-war-causes
We had the same with healthcare that “nobody knew” was complicated. Seriously, just about everybody knew it was complicated. It is slightly worrying that he seems to think the world is simply an extension of himself.
“Trump seems to think that because something has just occurred to him, that nobody else was thinking about these things earlier. The causes of the civil war are among of the most discussed things in history. Loads of books have been written about it.?”
Come on, man. He’s obviously saying that people always look at the Civil War as if it was inevitable. Saying people discuss the causes doesn’t dispute that. His statement is obviously true to anyone that grew up in America. In fact, saying the Civil War was unnecessary usually leads to accusations of being a pro-slavery racist.
Dan wrote: “Come on, man. He’s obviously saying that people always look at the Civil War as if it was inevitable.”
Yep. And all of the smug reactions on social media confirm that he is right. Tons of people saying, “Trump doesn’t know about slavery!” or “Trump thinks we should still have slavery,” etc. As I pointed out in my masterful tweet, the irony here is that these people are all ignorant of world history and how US was the only major country to abolish slavery via an awful war.
I probably disagree with Dan on 99% of stuff, especially about the civil war (of southern aggression). But his point is clearly correct. That is what Trump is saying, and the question “could the most deadly war in a country’s history have been averted” is a worthwhile question.
Dan
“He’s obviously saying that people always look at the Civil War as if it was inevitable.”
However, he is saying – quite literally- that people don’t ask the question why was there a civil war? He has said very similar before about healthcare. This is not a one-off, but repeated.
Craw
” the question “could the most deadly war in a country’s history have been averted” is a worthwhile question.”
Of course it is, which is why so many books have been written about it. It is so obviously a worthwhile question that I find it suspicious when somebody says that people don’t ask it.
Was Trump challenging this view then? Does Trump think it was avoidable?
Harold, you realize that asking what were the causes of the civil war and was the civil war unavoidable are two seperate questions, right? And I don’t know if it is discussed outside the US, but the question of unavoidability is rarely, if ever, discussed here. Like I said, if you even bring it up you are immediately called a racist because people in the US never even consider that slavery could’ve ended without a violent war. If you need proof of this then look at the reaction to Trump on this.
Trump seems to have rolled them into one:
““People don’t ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”
“And I don’t know if it is discussed outside the US, but the question of unavoidability is rarely, if ever, discussed here. ”
It is not much discussed here, but a quick google search suggests it is widely discussed in the USA. The Washington Post had a whole series of experts giving their opinion of the question “could the war have been prevented” back in 2010, part of the 150th anniversary.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/05/3-civil-war-historians-react-to-trumps.html
Harold looks foolish now.
‘None of the historians goes anywhere with the idea that the war could have been avoided. It’s the “wrong premise.” Nor do any of them give any regard to the idea that the right person could have done better, and Blight calls it “plain nonsense” to think that “the right man with the right strength… can change the course of history.” ‘
This strikes me as an incredibly odd statement. I mean, I understand where it’s coming from; this is a university Marxoid expressing very typical Hegelian teleological claptrap about “history” being some sort of independent force rather than merely a record of events. But isn’t it a bit of a logical morass?
Think about it. The assertion here is that it makes no sense to consider whether or not the war could have been avoided had other men been in power, or had those in power done other things. “History’ had determined that such a war would occur, and that’s just the way it is. My question, then, becomes: in what way does it make sense to claim that this is the “wrong premise?” Did not history dictate it as well? Can you have one and not the other?
Craw, that link does not in any way contradict anything I said.
My concern was about the fact that Trump said people don’t ask the question, when they so obviously do. I was not getting into whether he is right that it was avoidable as I do not know enough about that.
I mean, it is trivially obvious that it was avoidable in a logical sense. If people had behaved differently in particular ways there would not have been a war. I assume “avoidable” has a deeper meaning here, and I am not going into it.
I think the question is, was it avoidable given that the South wanted their slaves?
Constitutionally, there’s no question it was avoidable. States have every right to secede from the political union it entered into with each other state.
Southern slavery would then be the problem of separate sovereign nations. The remaining members of the United States would have no say.
Besides, I found this gem:
Lincoln Unmasked
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/10/thomas-woods/hitlers-favorite-president/
“The reader of Lincoln Unmasked is in for a great many mischievous pleasures. Consider: Harry Jaffa, the dean of what DiLorenzo calls the “Lincoln cultists,” has more than once compared the Southern cause to that of Nazi Germany. DiLorenzo embarrasses Jaffa in this book by pointing out passages in Hitler’s Mein Kampf in which the German leader expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization (which, as a dictator seeking absolute power, he naturally sought to overturn in Germany). Hitler even adopted Lincoln’s fanciful retelling of American history in which the states were creatures of the Union rather than vice versa.”
“They promised me $600 a month. But in Delhi [in transit], they tore up my contract and threw it away.”
No, we’d call that a breach of contract.
What we say is that boycotting (for egalitarian purposes) doesn’t help slaves; that, within their slavery, it is better that the profit motive be encouraged than discouraged because competition from other firms diminishes the profitability of slave labor, such that slave owners must give their slaves tools in order to compete, thus making their slavery that much less unbearable.
Keep the government from regulating the economy, and increasingly more people become richer than they were:
Dominick Armentano: The Case for Repealing Antitrust Laws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBT-fnJsfo0
When you combine breach of contract (which is apparently legal for these employers to do in Qatar) with not allowing the employee to leave to country or switch employers, that’s enslavement. In Qatar this is called the kafala system. The Qatari government actively arrests people as “absconded workers” (i.e. escaped slaves). So that’s legal slavery, and if libertarians, having been shown this example, are still saying that legal slavery has ended everywhere, then they must not consider the kafala system to be slavery, in which case, said libertarians are pro-slavery.
Since Bob Murphy is determined to delete anti-slavery activism from this blog, come chat with us on this pastebin here.
http://zerobin.i2p.xyz/?706a05824b53ae14#obm9eJcJ9AHiltuP61cnWpxv4sNa51tzQij4+r6XMmg=
Isn’t it funny how we had 8 years with a constitutional legal scholar as president, and he never once had people debating early American history like this?
He got a lot of people worried about the Constitution.