Trump: Civil War didn't need to happen, could have been "negotiated"

Originally published at: Civil War could have been "negotiated" - Boing Boing



Happy Excuse Me GIF




Please someone just ask him “what mistakes?” I’d do it but they will just jump on me when I ask “WTF are you talking about?” Then I’d really get in trouble when I add “you phuking moron”


So we’re back to daily exposure to every quarter-baked utterance repeated by this idiotic megalomaniac?

I don’t know if can take 10 more months of this. :weary:


I’m honestly surprised he even knows Lincoln was involved.


A brief and incomplete list of attempts to negotiate to prevent the American Civil War:

The 3/5ths Compromise
The Missouri Compromise
The Wilmot Proviso (which failed)
The Compromise of 1850
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854
The Crittendon Compromise (which thankfully failed since it would have formally enshrined slavery into the Constitution)

Trump thinks the Civil War is a conflict that just sprang into being in 1861, I guess, with no history behind it whatsoever. There were almost 100 years of negotiations and compromises over slavery, trying to prevent war, before the Civil War broke out. This nonsensical babble coming out of his mouth should be the basis for disqualification. Like, the Supreme Court should listen to this and go, “Ok, yeah, no he can’t be President again.”


When your head’s THAT far up you ass, you can see daylight. It’s really confusing.


From what I’ve read, Trump absolutely knows who Lincoln is, because he’s furious at him. Lincoln is considered America’s greatest president, and Trump thinks he should be considered America’s greatest president!


The papers a candidate has to file to be on the ballot in a state are legal documents, right? I wonder if the corpus of his verbal diarrhea could be used to make the case that he isn’t mentally competent to enter into a legal agreement like that (arguing that he’s not “of sound mind and body”) and so his filing should be disregarded. If it could, who would have standing to make that case?


Oh, man. I think the 14th Amendment has a better chance than that claim would. Presumably, any voter would have standing. That’s who has been suing under the 14th.

ETA: I’m second guessing myself. You’re making a contract law argument, and I don’t think this is covered under contracts at all. Oddly enough, people not competent to enter contracts have been held to be competent enough to do all kinds of other things, like consent (or refuse to consent) to medical treatment. Yeah, I don’t think that argument works at all.


How does he keep getting worse? It’s like some sort of awful super power.

Over It Ugh GIF by NBPA




Really, this thinking is really just more lost cause mythos.


Now optimized for delusional narcissism.


What other countries in the world had to have a war in order to abolish slavery? This one seems like a strange club with which to beat the guy.

1 Like

Facts always matter, and that the war was over slavery is a fact.

Trump and the far right keep pushing lies about Americans who supported the end of slavery, that they were not “real” Americans, that the war was about anything but slavery and white supremacy. The truth about the causes of the civil war matters, because some would like to hide that, or to flip the script about who was on the moral side of the war. Americans fought both to support slavery and to end it. I don’t think we should give the title of “American” to just the white supremacist enslavers… not even all southerners supported slavery, in fact. Unionism was not unknown in parts of the south.

Other countries have their own myths that they embrace. The British imperialist love to push the idea that slavery was ended and that everyone in the empire was suddenly free and happy, while slavery just carried on in other guises.

Nationalism pushes myths over historical truth because it serves the powers that be.


… for instance


Off the top of my head, Haiti. I’m sure there are others. What are you trying to say? That Trump is right? That Lincoln should have negotiated a gradual end to slavery? The southern states were staunchly opposed to such an idea. That Crittenden Compromise I mentioned was proposed in 1860, and it was a proposal by a Kentucky Senator to enshrine slavery into the Constitution, preventing future abolition attempts. There was one side of that conflict that was unwilling to end slavery, and it wasn’t Lincoln. I will bash Trump over the head with this because it’s so ahistorical that it borders on delusional fantasy.