[*Trigger Warning for those who know who you are*]
Given we discuss history fairly often round these parts, I figured it was time to address this topic if the Mods allow. @stonewall_jackson, @DukeSilverVol, @De La Riva Vol, @lawvol
I'll start by stating my position:
--The Civil War was the inevitable result of conflicting economic policies re: slavery, growing human rights, cultural differences and the question of how all of that would play out in newly founded territories and states.
--There's no person, living, dead, or otherwise, who could have prevented the Civil War, and it's beyond asinine to suggest otherwise. It ignores that many capable politicians and generals were all alive at that time, all understood the relevant issues, and still could not prevent the conflict.
--I'm happy there was a Civil War; slavery wouldn't have ended otherwise, and at the very least, the timeline for Civil Rights wouldn't have been the same.
--Trump should stop discussing Andrew Jackson if the only thing he understands is that Jackson was a populist who hated elites and saw himself as a common man. He seems to miss almost every single thing else about Jackson, and neither understands his political rise, nor the issues that Jackson fought for.
--Specifically, his suggestion that Andrew Jackson would have prevented the Civil War is just...a lot. Mainly (and politicians do this all the time) because he's trying to tie himself to Jackson and maybe somehow by extension suggest that he, since he's so good at making deals, could have done more than Lincoln and other politicians to prevent the Civil War.
----> To that end, Jackson certainly was a proponent of slavery, since he owned 150 himself and spoke out against abolitionists. So the only solution that Jackson would have offered would have been a compromise to keep slavery in place in some form or curtail the rights of blacks in some other way at best. That surely can't be palatable to the president or his party, or anyone for that matter now, so it's odd that he would bring it up.
--Trump is gonna mess around and screw up Andrew Jackson's legacy for Tennesseans. Yea, he did some bad stuff and would be considered a terrible person today, but we're not living in today. Still, that doesn't mean you trot out a dead historical figure you know very little about and spam his name on everything you do because you like the comparison. He's politicizing AJ, which is gonna mess up the historical understanding of Jackson. But who knows, maybe this is the way Jackson should be discussed. If it were me, I'd let him RIP.
All in all, he really needs to study up on the Civil War and Andrew Jackson before speaking about it. That or limit the AJ references to how both Trump and AJ are populists and leave out all the other stuff that's troubling about Jackson, since that can't be what you really wanna talk about now. Just sayin.
Given we discuss history fairly often round these parts, I figured it was time to address this topic if the Mods allow. @stonewall_jackson, @DukeSilverVol, @De La Riva Vol, @lawvol
I'll start by stating my position:
--The Civil War was the inevitable result of conflicting economic policies re: slavery, growing human rights, cultural differences and the question of how all of that would play out in newly founded territories and states.
--There's no person, living, dead, or otherwise, who could have prevented the Civil War, and it's beyond asinine to suggest otherwise. It ignores that many capable politicians and generals were all alive at that time, all understood the relevant issues, and still could not prevent the conflict.
--I'm happy there was a Civil War; slavery wouldn't have ended otherwise, and at the very least, the timeline for Civil Rights wouldn't have been the same.
--Trump should stop discussing Andrew Jackson if the only thing he understands is that Jackson was a populist who hated elites and saw himself as a common man. He seems to miss almost every single thing else about Jackson, and neither understands his political rise, nor the issues that Jackson fought for.
--Specifically, his suggestion that Andrew Jackson would have prevented the Civil War is just...a lot. Mainly (and politicians do this all the time) because he's trying to tie himself to Jackson and maybe somehow by extension suggest that he, since he's so good at making deals, could have done more than Lincoln and other politicians to prevent the Civil War.
----> To that end, Jackson certainly was a proponent of slavery, since he owned 150 himself and spoke out against abolitionists. So the only solution that Jackson would have offered would have been a compromise to keep slavery in place in some form or curtail the rights of blacks in some other way at best. That surely can't be palatable to the president or his party, or anyone for that matter now, so it's odd that he would bring it up.
--Trump is gonna mess around and screw up Andrew Jackson's legacy for Tennesseans. Yea, he did some bad stuff and would be considered a terrible person today, but we're not living in today. Still, that doesn't mean you trot out a dead historical figure you know very little about and spam his name on everything you do because you like the comparison. He's politicizing AJ, which is gonna mess up the historical understanding of Jackson. But who knows, maybe this is the way Jackson should be discussed. If it were me, I'd let him RIP.
All in all, he really needs to study up on the Civil War and Andrew Jackson before speaking about it. That or limit the AJ references to how both Trump and AJ are populists and leave out all the other stuff that's troubling about Jackson, since that can't be what you really wanna talk about now. Just sayin.
