342

Trump Says Civil War Could Have Been 'Negotiated' in Bizarre Iowa Speech (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

77 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Slowy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

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)?

[-] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024

342 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19103 readers

1791 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News