Oh, he meant the previous civil war.
And hes blaming the Feds for it.
The south wanted to force the North to treat escaped slaves as stolen property.
The North said they were people.
So the south tried to force the feds into helping them.
The feds told the south “state rights, the Fed can’t do that”.
So the South started a civil war against the federal government, in an attempt to get a more powerful federal government.
Which actually did work? The federal government went ahead and banned slavery outright during the war. Something Lincoln had spent years saying the federal government couldn’t do.
So by trumps logic:
When conservatives try to do something, we should just do the opposite because if they fight a civil war over it, that’s what’ll happen anyways
The feds told the south “state rights, the Fed can’t do that”.
It’s worse. The Feds told the South “Okay, we’ll make it law.” And that still wasn’t enough for the South.
Yeah I am sure there is no double meaning here…
So I wonder what degree of slavery we’d have ended up with? A little? Almost as much? 50% slavery?
What a fucking idiot.
Slavery is already legal in US if you arrest a person first. That is an exception of the 13th amendment,
I assume that is why US has the biggest prison population in the World and is 6th country in the World by per capita incarceration rate (first western country). If China and India would incarcerate it’s citizens as much as US, China would have 4 times and India 10 times it’s current prison population. And of course white people are about 8 times less likely to be incarcerated then black people.
“Land of the free”
Jesus, I thought that back guy was wearing a Confederate flag hat for a second…
I agree with your overall point.
My only quibble is China (and other heavily authoritarian countries that aren’t forthcoming with data). I don’t know that we can trust numbers coming out of China, given that many subjects are heavily censored. For instance, are the Uyghurs counted as in prison if they’re in focible “re-education” camps? Do people that simply disappear get counted in those figures?
I don’t know, but you can say that for any state. Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US, they are offbroad just so they can legally be tortured. It is all play with rules. Do 2 million civilans killed in US invasions in middle east count? Do Palestinians count to be imrpissioned by the US since Israel couln’t do it without their support, to trap them in those regions. Either way, even if not inside the country, US definitely is more agressive overall and kills and imprissions more people. It is just that in the western world, their media propaganda is a lot stronger than Chinas.
Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US
Even if you counted them, it would have a negligible effect on statistics. Last time I checked, there were less than 10 people being held there from the GWOT.
No one can really know how many people are illegally improsioned, directly or indirectly, through puppet governments, by US or by China. We can either messure by the numbers we have, or we can make up our own numbers. There is no reason to believe that China lies about it’s numbers any more then US, everybody uses some loopholes. US is funding many other governments, like Saudi Arabia and Israel to put people in prisons and kill people for them, all around the World. I don’t see the point of questioning China numbers and not US numbers.
I always wonder how did this exception end up there. From what I checked it’s not clear who proposed it. I just imagine that after fighting extremely bloody and devastating war over it they sat down to draft the amendments and someone went “Are we sure we want to ban all slavery?”. It’s crazy that they decided to keep it only giving courts authority over it.
People who write laws benefit from slavery and having lower economic classes. It was never their true intention to get rid of slavery, but only to calm the citizens that are rebeling against it. Overtime they figured smarter ways of slavery. Free slaves > but because of private property they now dont own anything still > they have to take any job under any working conditions > back to slaves again. If some escape this wage slavery, by not working or something, they make up a reason to arrest them, like vagrancy (illegal to be unemployed or homeless) or for not paying your debts or for some stupid reasons as drugs (planted by cops or not) or even dumber for resisting arrest even if there was nothing to be arrested for in the first place.
Cuba, wtf?
The funny thing is that Lincoln pretty much said they could keep their slaves for the sake of keeping the union together. He had made it clear he wanted to abolish slavery, but he wasn’t going to risk the nation over it. He basically opened with an offer to let the south have everything.
The South, however, believed that the day would come where the US would abolish slavery, and they needed to get out before that happened.
Given the South were handed everything they wanted in the default position, no amount of negotiation would have worked.
So what you’re saying is, Trump was Wrong? Holy shit someone needs to tell the Press! Word needs to get out that Trump was wrong about a thing! Nobody will believe it!
I suppose Trump was right… The south could have easily negotiated to get what they wanted. So while the free states could not have negotiated, the slave states absolutely could have. They were just pissy that too many new states were choosing to be free states and they were outnumbered and wanted a country where they weren’t outnumbered on slavery.
Although I hate to attribute anything Trump says to having any sort of “deeper” meaning, I do wonder if there’s a sort of implied threat here, he does tend to talk like a mob boss and tries not to explicitly get himself nailed for things, at least sometimes. Like he’s really saying, “we’re going to have another Civil War if I lose or if you keep coming after me in court, but it doesn’t have to be like that, we can negotiate…” which I feel like others in his camp have floated that idea previously. They assume the multiple felonies that Trump has been indicted for is all political theater meant to put pressure on him and that all he has to do is just leave the race and that will make all his problems go away. He’s trying to use his candidacy more as a bargaining chip, as a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, while his supporters are ready to tear down American democracy in the name of that orange POS.
That was the thought that occurred to me when I originally said no negotiation. My amendment to the position that it was entirely within the power of the insurrectionists to negotiate was after reconsidering the situation at the time, and amused by extrapolating it to Trump’s current position. Yes, negotiation is possible, so go ahead Trump and make concessions. Oh he didn’t mean a negotiation where he/insurrectionists would have to make any concessions? Well that wouldn’t have been a possibility for the 1860s, and I don’t think it would work now.
Fucking secessionists already attacked Ft. Sumter before abolishing slavery was even a big issue, they just were stupid drunk on power and thought they had a righteous cause. I have a gaming mouse that has been in use longer than the confederacy existed.
They got spooked by John Brown taking Harpers Ferry.
Maybe 3/5ths.
Go on… how would you have negotiated the South out of slavery?
Are you sure that’s what he would be negotiating for?
Probably the opposite, but I think he is honestly trying to suggest that the South could have been negotiated out of chattel slavery. He’s a moron, let’s not forget that.
And a racist, let’s not forget that.
deleted by creator
$500 says he doesn’t know what ‘know’ means.
This orange asshole is completely surrounded by White Nationalists, Neo Nazis, KKK Members, Confederate Apologists, etc. etc. They all sit around spewing this shite to each other and then he plays their greatest hits on stage to the Qult45 crowds.
Before the war, Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist. He wanted to stop new states from having slavery, and keep no slavery where it was. He was fine with letting the south keep their slaves for the sake of the Union.
The problem was the South did not want to limit their potential to grow slavery to new states, and decided to go to war over it.
Still doubt negotiation could have worked. Lincoln really did not want to go to war in the first place.
I judge people more by their deeds than their desires, especially their desires before the fact. Lincoln ended up doing the right thing. He also ended up successfully seeing the country through one of the most difficult times, if not the most difficult time, in its history. He is, to me, rightfully regarded as one of our greatest presidents regardless of his thoughts on slavery before the war.
I really want to know. We should get Lincoln and Davis impersonators and trick Trump into thinking he time traveled
Well, obviously only half of the slaves would have been freed.
The only negotiation option that is moral is “We will shoot you till your stop treating people as property.”
I think it’s a fair offering.
Lol they just redefined the terms of slavery. Slavery is alive and well in the USA.
I assume you mean in a “wage slave” kinda way?
Unfortunately not, when slavery was abolished in the US Constitution an exception was put in for:
“punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”
Which was common practice at the time, and a huge mistake in hindsight.
Some states have repealed that measure in their state constitution, but the work continues
Well, only metaphorically, right?
That’s pretty much what Lincoln tried to do with his inaugural speech after several states had seceded already. He tried to talk them down and promised that the North would not interfere with their life heavy-handedly but that insurrection was too serious for him to ignore. And then they stormed Fort Sumter and forced his hand. He didn’t even commit to the cause of abolishing slavery until the third year of the war.
I mean technically yes, the South could have negotiated a surrender any time they wanted.
I wish Lemmy had a way to high-five people.
Surprised he’s not calling it the “War of Northern Aggression” just to really try to suck off his base.
The north is racist too. He wouldn’t want to alienate them. After all Montana has the highest concentration of white supremacists per capita.
California apparently has the most hate groups by total amount.
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/578513-the-10-us-states-with-the-most-hate-groups/
I verified Montana with another website. If you want to know the full list of per capita. Just google it. But all that hate isn’t trapped in the south. Though, I admit that there is more than enough to go around down here.
Montana was not a state until well after the end of the civil war so it isn’t a northern or southern state.
Right. What I was saying is. Calling the civil war the “war of northern aggression” may make some of the racists that currently live in the northern states upset.
I meant northern as a literal geographic area. Like how Oregon is in the north. As opposed to some arbitrary line like the 31st parallel, or the mason Dixon line.
No, much like I said in my comment. Now, just like then. The racists are everywhere. They are in the north and the south. Trump welcomes racists from all over the US irregardless of geographical location.
They already call it that. I think he’ll need to up the game a bit.
Maybe the alternative war to make America England again?
I know They call it that but it’s a low he hadn’t discovered he could sink to yet.
At a campaign event in Iowa today, former President Donald Trump explained that the Civil War didn’t have to happen. “So many mistakes were made,” Trump said. “I think you could have negotiated that.”
“This is something that could’ve been negotiated,” he added. “…That was a tough one for our country…. Abraham Lincoln? If you negotiated it, you probably wouldn’t even know who Abraham Lincoln was… That would’ve been okay…. I know it very well… I know the whole process that they went though. They just couldn’t get along.”
They couldn’t get along,…because one side wanted to keep all their slaves.
Are those ellipses for skipped text or to represent pauses in his speech?
It’s how he speaks. I am a foreigner and when he first came at the head of the USA, the journalists didn’t know how to translate his speaches. Usually, the sentences have one meaning that you can translate into one sentence, thanks to the context. With him, it’s a couple of sentences with no link and the last sentences have absolutely no context. You just can’t translate this.
It’s never good to negotiate with fascists.
You hear that, Democrats?
They never hear that. It’s always about “bipartisanship.” And these are who we’re stuck voting for to stop the Republican agenda. Fucking hell.
The other thing I hear from status quo warriors is “We want things back to normal.”
No, we fucking don’t! Normal sucks donkey ass for a lot of people.
And they don’t want to put things back to normal anyway. They always want whatever the status quo is maintained.
“If normal was progressive and helpful, then we want whatever came before that” is the subtext. It’s moustache-twirlingly evil.
Maybe my vote could have been 2/3 of a white vote? And we could negotiate with women. Maybe they could just tell us who to vote for but not actually do any voting and we could then have a family vote?
I can’t wait to read this fascist waste of oxygen’s obituary.
I hope it’s not as revisionist as Kissinger’s was. Or take as long to happen.
Translation: I am going to negotiate a new civil war
This idiot also wanted to cure your COVID infected body with bleach injections and UV light
He’s propping himself up to be a victim of the next one.
Something tells me he wouldn’t survive Civil War 2, Election Boogaloo. And I’m not even talking from our side.
Technically, he is right in “The Civil War” being avoided BUT it would have just deferred conflict in the long run. There was no way the US would have continued with slavery. Absolutely zero chance due to an economic perspective.
The federal government would have 100% stroked a deal where select southern states could have kept slavery but the other states and especially the newest states would not be able have slavery. Not being able to negotiate this is what actually led to civil war. The confederates did not want to negotiate.
The North is industrial and made products to sell and export. The south used slavery for agriculture. If the slavery states would use that free labor to go industrial it would be a DISASTER for the slave free sates. Conflict would then arise to make sure the south no longer has that “economic advantage” over the north.
tldr: Any market with legal slavery will go “capitalism full bloom” and create a market where free Americans have no chance to compete.
What is ironic is that the civil war could have been avoided by the South just realizing they’re wrong, and letting slavery be banned. Instead they freaked out and attacked US military installations while declaring secession.
So he’s right, but not in a way any conservative would want to hear.
Negotiate? He’s suggesting things would’ve gone better if we’d agreed to mostly keep slavery but soften it a little in exchange for concessions? Well, that’s horrifying.
That precise negotiation is how we got the civil war, as well as a number of other completely busted, antidemocratic US institutions like the Senate. Making compromises with slavers.
It’s all so bad. The House should have thousands of members to give states proportional representation, but instead Alabama votes count for more than California votes. In turn, this makes the electrical college unbalanced too in the same way. There’s a huge bias towards rural voting power.
To be fair, California hasn’t built any new housing in 60 years.
California could have 60-70 million people. Instead we are just handing 30 million voters over to Republican states.
That, paradoxically, increases California’s proportional voting power. Popular vote doesn’t decide elections.
If California had 70million citizens, current district sizes are around 700k. So it would have about 100 districts. It would have about 1/5th of the total electoral college vote.
It’s honestly insane that New York and Cali have purposefully handed over political power to republicans since the 60s.
As I understand it, because every state still has to have at least 1 House member (and thus 1 electoral college vote). Without increasing the size of the House then all that can do is reduce the proportional power of each vote within California. The State itself becomes more powerful, sure, but the votes of citizens within California are worth less and less as the population grows. It’s a really bad system.
Each district is roughly 700k people. A few districts are bigger, a few are smaller.
California could completely dominate the US House of Representatives and the electoral college.
A state becomes more powerful by having more people.
California has much much more power than Wyoming, even tho each voter in Wyoming might have a tiny bit more power than each voter in Cali.
And then people act like “real America” is like a suburb in Ohio or rural parts of Louisiana.
There’s ~4 million people in Louisana. There’s ~8 million people in New York City alone. Cities are as or more “real” than the other parts.
Hard to know with Trump.
His usual way of “negotiating” is to demand what he wants is the limit, while demanding that the other party capitulate to whatever is best for Trump.
