The slaves? You mean those guys who immigrated here from Africa? If they’d have just stayed in Africa, guess what? No Civil War. And most of them are murderers and rapists; we should have built a wall and made Africa pay for it.
You don’t get much more strongman in American politics than Lincoln.
Cite for anything that supports your contention that the South would have been willing to work out a solution that ends slavery.
In your answer, discuss how the Confederate states immediately moved for succession after Lincoln’s election, before he’d even been inaugurated. Also, reference the February 1861 Peace Conference that was boycotted by half the slave states (who had already moved for succession because of slavery) and which fell apart because the committee could only agree to pass the Corwin Amendment, protecting slavery in its existing state.
Finally, discuss the fact that South Carolina shot first and how this is consistent with your assertion that the South would have been willing to compromise and end slavery.
Bonus points if you quote the various Confederate State constitutions and explain how all those references to protecting their “peculiar institution” were really pleas for negotiation.
Is it possible that Trump was thinking of – well, that; but also the opposite?
Like, assume for the sake of argument that what happened under Lincoln was pretty much inevitable: if the South goes to war over slavery, then a grey-clad Virginian is eventually going to surrender. I mean, granted, it may take four solid years; but, so long as the commander-in-chief is a man who won’t back down, then the Union will endure and the Confederacy will be crushed.
And so – the reasoning would go – if Jackson had been president, then he could and would have simply relayed that to the South: there’s no reason to fight, as you’ll be up against that Old Hickory resolve, which means I will wage bloody war until my side wins as it must; you will surrender then, unless you surrender now. And so you may as well work it out now, instead of losing a war and working it out then.
Imagine that belief is in Trump’s head, and everything falls into place: why was there a war? Because the South didn’t realize they were facing a threat-of-force that was no bluff whatsoever – which they would’ve realized, if they’d been facing Jackson.
And would Trump want that to be the story, if he thinks of himself that way?
He’s not good at that, either.
Sean Spicer sees that you are aiming for his job and he is going to spice you if you don’t back off. Only Spicy gets to bumble explanations for Trump’s legendary gaffs. #LetHimMisspeak
Stranger
[QUOTE=HeXen]
Granted Trump could have worded more clearly, it wasn’t an efficient interview and looks very edited from the start. Then again Trump has always been more of a business man than a social butterfly.
[/QUOTE]
from the book on how to be a successful businessman The Way to the Top by Donald Trump
maybe he should take his own advise.
mc
Ouch. Nice take-down.
Anything is possible with Trump, but his other quotes don’t support this interpretation. He said Jackson was a tough man, but he had a “big heart”. As if to imply that Jackson had too much empathy and compassion to ever raise a hand against those rascally rebels in the south.
That really did make me laugh out loud. Cite that Trump has ever, ever expressed any considered, in-depth analysis of, well, anything.
To be fair, of all of the presidents we’ve had, Jackson probably is the one who was most similar to Trump.
This is not complimentary to either man.
I can agree with that. I’d just quibble that I did cover that in the generic “No one knew it would be so difficult to…” in my post. 
Except unlike Trump, who simply improbably boasts about his ability to kill someone on Fifth Avenue, Jackson did actually kill someone, and in a duel where he took a bullet and kept going. If someone hit Donald Trump with a spitball he’d collapse and start crying like a kindergartner.
Stranger
Oh, no doubt that Jackson was much more badass than Trump (and probably the second-biggest badass we’ve had as president): The analogy isn’t perfect. But both were populists who ran and won as crude, unrefined outsiders against the establishment, both proved incompetent at actually dealing with the establishment once they’d won, and both are dangerously unpredictable.
I said before that Trump shows all the signs of pathological narcissism. So in Trump’s mind, if he hasn’t considered the issue of the causes of the Civil War before that means the subject has never been considered. To Trump, all events center around himself.
Now you know why he keeps the orange spray tan. He thinks he’s a sun. For him, it’s not about actually knowing or doing anything; it’s all about looking the part.
Holy shit, that’s classic. A sun. I never thought about that! I can hear it now: “I Am Apollo!!!” 
Ah, they aint got no reason to complain. Full employment out in the open air, not like today where they all live in inner cities and get shot going to the store. Everyone wins!
Or at least le Roi Soleil (“L’état, c’est moi” only adds to the resemblance).
HeXen, I’m aware of the Nullification Crisis, and it certainly occurred to me that Trump may have heard someone mention it and jumped to the conclusion that because war was prevented in 1833 – while making substantial concessions to the demands of the South on the issue of tariffs – that somehow war could have been prevented in 1861 without largely agreeing to the demands of the South on the issue of slavery. If that’s Trump’s position, I don’t think it’s a defensible one, and it didn’t seem worth it to devote space in my OP to an attempt to work backwards from the gibberish coming out of Trump’s mouth to whatever more coherent ideas may have entered his ears and passed through his blender of a brain.
Even President Comcacho would be better than Trump right now.