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.”
What?
In his inaugural address he literally said a president couldn’t outlaw slavery and he wasn’t even gonna try, and wouldn’t even if he thought he could.
Now people are acting like it was the whole reason he became president…
He thought it was a state issue, and there’s nothing the feds can do. Like with Joe Biden and abortion.
Then the South started a civil war to force the North to have slavery, like current Republican are trying to force abortion into being illegal all over.
The specifics matter, because it’s still the conservative playbook.
You should read his inaugural address
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address
You should read a lot of stuff…
But start with that.
Maybe take a break, pal, that tone is unnecessary.
I just did some quick homework, and it looks like my public education has failed me again. That Lincoln wasn’t going to abolish slavery isn’t a shock, but I was taught that the Republicans were abolitionists, when it looks like it’s actually the case that the Republicans wanted to moderate and contain slavery*. Which makes the South’s defcon 5 shit fit about it that much funnier.
*There are a lot of people online talking about how the party was abolitionist, but none that provide sources, so that point is going to take more homework than I’m willing to commit to confirm or deny.
The Republicans were an abolitionist party, but the moderates (like Lincoln) believed that containing it would cause it to die out, while the radicals advocated for it to be banned immediately and outright.
The moderates were clearly wrong. The radicals were right. I’m glad Lincoln changed his mind.
Were literally staring down a second civil war, and everyone is still believing the South’s propaganda from last time…
So it’s pretty important that people understand why it happened last time, and they’re gonna lie about it next time too.
It’s not a meaningless argument like is PlayStation better than Xbox.
It’s worth being upset when 99% of the country doesn’t understand why we had a civil war
And no matter my “tone” it’ll piss off conservatives because it’s pointing out they lied.
And it pisses off moderates because it points out how the only other option still wasn’t actively against slavery.
If the South hasn’t thrown a temper tantrum, it could have taken decades more for slavery to be outlawed, pushing back civil rights and everything.
“Just do nothing and hope for the best” rarely works out
Wdym playstation is better
Theres no tone there, you’re just insecure lol
Slow day at the troll farm?
What was the South’s argument for wanting the North to also have slavery?? I’m Canadian and not a history buff so idk much, but it seems a strange thing to try to enforce in other regions that don’t want it? I do see the parallel with the abortion access issue, so I can take a guess, but still, what logic did they they put forward for that argument (not just what they actually wanted but what they said their reasons were as well)?
There were laws that required non-slavery states to return any runaway slaves they found. Eventually, the non-slavery states said “fuck that” and just stopped doing it. I imagine it was similar to when Trump was fighting with so-called “sanctuary cities” about trying to get them to round up immigrants for deportation and they refused. Eventually, the slavery states petitioned the federal government to force the non-slavery states to enforce the runaway laws, and the feds refusal or inability to do so led to succession.
The biggest irony is that the racists still try to claim the Civil War wasn’t about slavery but states’ rights. In a way, it was, but not the way they imply…as they were trying to force other states to follow their state laws. Someone else mentioned that this was “still the Republican playbook,” and I believe this is what they were referencing, as today we see Republican states trying to enforce their state laws requiring forced pregnancy and birth laws in states that still allow women to seek reproductive healthcare.
deleted by creator