snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02 May 2017, 01:00 AM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 7,992
Default Trump wonders why the civil war happened, walks out of interview

The “fake news” media continues to entrap President Donald Trump by asking him questions during interviews, allowing him to answer, and then using his own words against him. And yet Trump, who seems incapable of talking to reporters without making a gaffe or sparking some new scandal, continues to deliver both. Such was the case over the weekend when he gave a double-header to the Washington Examiner’s Salena Zito and CBS’s John Dickerson in which he managed to fundamentally misunderstand U.S. history (to Zito), implicitly diminish the horror of slavery (to Zito), dodge questions about making unfounded accusations about President Barack Obama (to Dickerson), and abruptly walk away when he got frustrated (Dickerson again).

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/...ar-wiretapping
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02 May 2017, 01:27 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 6,599
Mouse

I'm kind of wondering what would have happened if one of the interviewers said, "It happened because you were elected." I'm hoping for a headsplosion like out of Scanners, but someone probably has to have a brain for it to explode. Dang it...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02 May 2017, 01:33 PM
katdixo katdixo is offline
 
Join Date: 12 November 2002
Location: Maryland suburb of Washington, DC
Posts: 415
Default

"With a different president, slavery might have continued in the United States well into the 19th century, long after most other Western countries had abandoned it."

Um, isn't 1865 already "well into the 19th century"? Hadn't most other Western countries already abandoned it? I guess they're saying a different president might have continued slavery even longer, but the way they've phrased it is weird.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02 May 2017, 04:32 PM
Psihala's Avatar
Psihala Psihala is offline
 
Join Date: 28 February 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 7,285
Default This Monologue Goes Out To You, Mr. President



Stephen Colbert seems to be having difficulty expressing how he really...

... Oh, to hell with it...

He skewers him over this.

~Psihala
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02 May 2017, 09:24 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,195
Default

OK, with regards to Andrew Jackson and the Civil War...

When Jackson came in to office, there actually was some talk of secession going around (primarily, as would happen again in 1860, in South Carolina). The issue was not so much slavery as tarrifs, and the way the industrializing north was beginning to economically dominate the Union. States were claiming the right to nullify federal laws within their borders if they felt those laws violated the constitution.

Many on the state's rights side believed Jackson would sympathize with their cause. And he did, to a degree, being suspicious of federal overreach in some areas; but he also made it very clear that he would not countenance either nullification or secession -- and Andrew Jackson was not someone whose bluff you wanted to call. (In 1860, many of the seceding states felt it was unlikely that the north would be willing to go to war over the matter; no one had any such doubts about what Jackson would be willing to do.) So, one can argue that Jackson's firm stance in this area prevented secession happening 30 years before it actually did, at a time when the nation was probably not strong enough to survive it.

As to whether Jackson or a similar leader might have been able to do anything to prevent the war that did occur -- who knows? Certainly, when states began to secede after Lincoln was elected but before he was inaugurated, James Buchanan did nothing to discourage them; he did not attempt to prevent them from seizing Union forts and arms on their territory, or to prevent Union officers from resigning to serve the Confederacy instead. Perhaps a stronger President at that time could have taken some action that resulted in fewer states seceding, or that would have shortened the conflict. Then again, maybe such a provocation would have made things worse, and results in border states such as Maryland or Missouri joining the Confederacy.

So, it's conceivable Trump was alluding to these kinds of considerations. But I tend to doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03 May 2017, 11:55 AM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 15,105
Icon84

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
. Then again, maybe such a provocation would have made things worse, and results in border states such as Maryland or Missouri joining the Confederacy.

.
True enough--Maryland was--dare I say it?--the Confederacy's trump card. So much so that Lincoln bent over backwards to keep it in the Union. Historically, this state's sentiment were divided; the Eastern Shore and South were generally pro-South while the North was pro-Union. Even our state song is a call for MD to join the Confederacy. You bet that the Navy Choir doesn't sing those verses on Preakness Day!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03 May 2017, 09:06 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,195
Default

Yeah, if Maryland had seceded, the Union would certainly have had to move the capital somewhere else in a hurry. As it was, having the capital right on the border warped the entire war strategy (particularly when Richmond was only 100 miles away...).
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03 May 2017, 09:32 PM
A Cat Named Easter's Avatar
A Cat Named Easter A Cat Named Easter is offline
 
Join Date: 19 August 2005
Location: Frederick, MD
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
Historically, this state's sentiment were divided; the Eastern Shore and South were generally pro-South while the North was pro-Union.
I live not far from a historical home that takes great pride in having hosted a ball for Confederate soldiers during the war. To say that support for either side was mixed is not an understatement.

My understanding is that the Battle of Monocacy, a minor but not insignificant conflict, only allowed the delay of Gen. Early's forces because agents of the B&O railroad reported their approach. Locals, who had to have known about the gathering Confederate forces, were keeping mum.

Last edited by A Cat Named Easter; 03 May 2017 at 09:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rep. Steve King wonders what ‘sub-groups’ besides whites made contributions to civil TallGeekyGirl Soapbox Derby 7 22 July 2016 08:39 AM
Trump 'walks back' abortion statement(s) DawnStorm Soapbox Derby 29 12 April 2016 12:24 AM
The wonders and worries of New Year's superstitions snopes Snopes Spotting 3 29 December 2009 02:10 PM
Video Glurge -7 Wonders AmISam Glurge Gallery 4 08 December 2007 12:17 PM
Reagan wonders if Olof Palme is a communist ganzfeld Questionable Quotes 3 14 May 2007 10:28 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.