Skip to main content

Andrew Jackson, Donald Trump, Civil War, Slavery

Andrew Jackson was a slave owner, but was strongly against South Carolina's secession in the 1830s.  It is not clear that had Jackson been president at the outbreak of the Civil War he would have "never let it happen", though.

One, the spectre of Southern Confederacy existed in 1860 and had not a generation earlier during the Nullification Crisis.  Many states would secede in 1861 -- in 1833, it was only South Carolina's threat, and it was about taxes, not slavery.

Two, Jackson was a committed slave owner, owning 150 humans at the time of his death (source).  Had he been alive to issue an opinion about the looming civil war in 1860, he might well have sided with the Confederacy and states claiming they had the right to build their economies on the backs of slaves.

Would he have supported the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederacy? We can't know for sure.  Given that he was adamantly for the preservation of the Union during his presidency, but that he also was a committed slave owner and democrat, there could be good reasons to speculate that he would, or that he would not have supported the Confederacy and secession.

This is a case for professional historians.  Speculation by real estate moguls really isn't very relevant to the discussion, even if said real estate mogul happens to currently be the chief executive of our Republic.


Popular posts from this blog

Raul Labrador, Health care coverage, Death

Congressman Raul Labrador said "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."

This statement is false given that if you have cancer it can kill you unless you get care.  Consider some other scenarios in which access to health care could prevent death:

Snake biteCrocodile biteEbola virusWolf attackGunshot woundBroken neckDehydrationShark attack

Without access to health care, people suffering from any of the above may die.  Clearly, then, people do die when they don't have access to health care.

Healthcare, Tom Price, Insurance, Cost, Ecomomics

Tom Price here claims the new American Health Care Act will "bring down costs" and "will allow for more individuals to be covered".  The Congressional Budget Office projects that the number of uninsured under the AHCA will increase from 31 million this year to 52 million by 2026.

If the number of insured people decreases, costs for insurance should increase -- that is, at least, according to the traditional economic axiom of supply and demand.  If there will be greater demand for healthcare as people age and the population grows, and less available supply of coverage through insurance, one would expect prices to increase.

How can the bill "bring costs down" if the number of uninsured goes up?

Trump, Blumenthal, Comey, Vietnam, ad hominen, tu quo que

President Trump implies that Senator Blumenthal's comments on James Comey are irrelevant because of Blumenthal's previous incorrect statements about his own military service.  But whether Blumenthal misspoke or even lied is completely irrelevant to the current situation with the former Director of the FBI.

Trump is using an ad hominem attack against Blumenthal, and Trump is not addressing Blumenthal's position on Comey.  Trump is also committing something akin to tu quoque (directing criticism back on to Blumenthal on grounds of inconsistency to avoid criticizing the content of Blumenthal's argument), except that Blumenthal isn't making any claims related to the military.

Watching Senator Richard Blumenthal speak of Comey is a joke. "Richie" devised one of the greatest military frauds in U.S. history. For.... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017
Trump here appears to be "not even wrong", and his line on Blumenthal is not even very …