Trump Says Civil War Could Have Been 'Negotiated' in Bizarre Iowa Speech
Trump Says Civil War Could Have Been 'Negotiated' in Bizarre Iowa Speech
Donald Trump held rallies in Newton and Clinton, Iowa on Saturday on the anniversary of Jan. 6 and nine days before the state's Republican caucus.
Donald Trump continued his push on Saturday to win the Republican presidential nomination with a pair of caucus rallies in Iowa, beginning at the DMACC Conference Center in Newton and then culminating in Clinton. His speeches come on the third anniversary of Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and a little more than a week before the Republican Iowa caucus commences on Jan. 15.
As for commemorating the solemn anniversary of Jan. 6, Trump lauded the insurrectionists, while labeling some immigrants as “terrorists” and prisoners and gang members. “And terrorists are coming in also. What they’re doing to our country is not — it’s it’s, when you talk about insurrection, what they’re doing? That’s the real deal. That the real deal — not patriotically and peacefully, peacefully and patriotically” he said, contrasting those who rioted as “peaceful” and “patriotic” against immigrants, who the four-time indicted former president continually paints as criminals.
…
“I’m so attracted to seeing it,” Trump said. “So many mistakes were made. See, there was something I think could have been negotiated to be honest with you. … I was reading something and I said, ‘This is something that could have been negotiated … that was a that was a tough one for our country… If you negotiated it, you probably wouldn’t even know who Abraham Lincoln was … but that would have been OK.”
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't understand why everyone acts like the civil war was fought to make slavery illegal.
Like, it's history, but it's not ancient history. We have all types of evidence about what was going on back then
Seriously, pre civil war Lincoln just wouldn't stop talking about how he'll never outlaw slavery.
Like in his inaugural address:
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 beheve 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:
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address
Dude was literally running around telling anyone that would listen that he can't outlaw slavery.
And now people want to act like that was his entire life mission and why he ran for president.
Eventually doing it halfway thru the civil war wasn't a decision made from ethics or morals, it was just an economic sanction, you know, that shit that would happen to pretty much anyone that lose a war back then...
The morality of it, was just a "bonus" it wasn't the goal.
I don’t understand why everyone acts like the civil war was fought to make slavery illegal.
They don't, because the Civil War was fought to keep slavery legal.
That is why the South seceded.
Every single declaration of secession of every confederate state mentions slavery if not at the very beginning than almost at the very beginning.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
I don't know why you think they seceded, but it was undeniably due to the desire to maintain chattel slavery based on their own words.
The issue is, you guys are listening only to the conservative version...
By that logic 1/6 was because Biden stole the election.
Fortunately that's still recent enough only one side believes that, but you all got me worried what people will say 200 years from now
No, I'm telling you what they literally wrote on the subject. I gave you a link to it. I suggest you read it.
You're saying what conservatives said was the reason for the civil war...
I'm pointing out conservatives always lie about that shit.
Believing them about the civil war is like believing the modern ones about 1/6.
Something I didn't think would ever happen, but after this thread...
Yeah. Idiots are going to keep falling for this. They're going to keep taking the words of literal insurecctionists over reality. And then for some reason get offended when it's pointed out that all they're doing is falling for centuries old propaganda.
Like, are you just too embarrassed to admit it now?
Or do you really still think the traitors who fucking started a civil war would never lie about why they did it to make it seem like they're the victims and had no choice?
What is your actual evidence that the confederate states lied about why they were seceding? Let's see it.
Well, I've linked Lincoln inaugural address a few times, because it shows the North or the Feds had no desire to ban slavery.... And that the big argument was return of escaped slaves...
But here it is again I guess:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/lincolns-first-inaugural-address
It literally covers all of this, you should just read it. I'm not going to just keep linking relevant bits paragraph by paragraph for you to ask what the next says.
But your resistance to reading is really helping me understand why you're not getting this.
I just never want to have an exchange like this again, so hopefully someone else can answer all the further questions you'll undoubtedly have.
I'm not putting anymore effort into you
Sorry, did the Union secede from the Confederacy?
Otherwise, why does Lincoln's inaugural address prove they were lying about why they seceded?
No, no you don't understand, you see.
You just have to read Lincoln's inaugural address and that covers everything. All the other sources you bring up are all lies and beholden to my weird interpretation of the above, you see. And then they all just started fighting when Abe was in the bathroom for a few minutes longer than usual and they got confused about his address, you see?
And now my kids' damn principal is telling me I can't fly my flag on my truck when I drop 'em off?!
The federal government had already created laws, or made SC rulings, not allowing the south to force other states into compliance with their slave laws, ones that made it illegal for slave owners to take their slaves into states where it was illegal and not have to comply to the law of that state regarding human rights, laws that stopped a lot of southern slavery expansionism westward. These were already laws when Lincoln got into office. These were the laws inciting the south into a blood rage. So, even if no one at the time was trying to make it illegal, federally, for states that already allowed it, the war was still started over slavery.
You can read this from both sides of the issue in the years leading up to the civil war.
Oh, hey, aren't you the person that challenged me to read more? Incidentally, I have some reading for you that might shed light on your opening line. It's called the Cornerstone Speech, and it was made by the first Vice President of the Confederacy at what was, functionally, their first state of the union address.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
But to make it easy for you, here's a juicy quote. It's a little long, but I made it that way to make it clear it's not out of context.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails.
So, maybe that's why some people think the war was about preserving slavery, because that's what the Confederacy said it was about with their own words.
Why listen to the South on what was happening instead of Lincoln and reality?
Do you think 1/6 was actually about stopping Biden from stealing the election because that's what conservatives keep saying?
They lied then, they lie now, why do you want people to believe them?
Because the Confederacy was already made by that point. They already had what they wanted: the institution of slavery constitutionally guaranteed forevermore. There's no point concealing their hand anymore, it's time to pop the champagne.
Because they started the damn war.
Oh wow...
Everyone that started a war was honest about why they started it to you?
So, you think Russia is honestly invading Ukraine to save the globe from Nazis?
Have you ever thought about how profitable bridge ownership would be? I've got one in Brooklyn I want to get off my hands....
If the reason is that fucking reprehensible yes.
The fuck does that even mean?
You think staring a civil war over "they're making us stop having slaves" is better than "they won't return escaped slaves back into slavery"?
Their lie is a bad thing, but it's still better than the actual truth.
What is hard to understand?
Like, if Jeffery Dahmer admitted to rape, would you think that means the serial killer stuff can't be true?
Lots of evil people admit to less evil actions so people stop talking about the worst.
This ain't even about history, it never stopped happening.
Point us to the quote where Lincoln says anything as to why the southern states seceded from the Union.
Or, heck, how about a single reference supporting your so called "reality"...
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it -- all sought to avert it. 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.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address.
Well, no, that is not an example of Lincoln stating what the South seceded.