Althouse: Donald Trump is always saying "We have to do it/We have no choice," so why did he ask why the Civil War had to be fought?

May 3, 2017

Donald Trump is always saying "We have to do it/We have no choice," so why did he ask why the Civil War had to be fought?

And why did he throw out the idea that Andrew Jackson — if he'd been around a little later — could have found a way to avoid the Civil War?

Here's the idea that occurred to me, that I withheld to give you a chance to discuss it without my skewing your thought processes.

I'm not saying I definitely believe this was Trump's plan, only that it could have been and that the benefits serve his interests even if he merely bumbled into it.

Trump knows that the media will jump at opportunities to call him ignorant and/or racist. What he said about the Civil War seemed like another great opportunity. Historians — experts — were wheeled out to instruct us — imperiously, pedantically — that the Civil War had to be fought. There was no avoiding it. Nobody — not Andrew Jackson, not anybody — could have averted it.

Well, there you have it on the record now. Sometimes a war must be fought. It's not the failing of the President. Even the greatest Presidents are helpless against the coming onslaught of inevitable war.

What does Trump care about a 19th century war? He's not really trying to open up an intellectual discussion of whether there was anything that could have averted the Civil War, but he knows [OR: could have known] that historians are deeply dug in and will rouse themselves to make strong statements about the inevitability of war and the "plain nonsense" of the notion that "the right man with the right strength... can change the course of history."

Trump may never take us to war, but he wants his options. He wants to be able to say We have to do it, we have no choice and to assert that it's not his personal failure to avert war. It's plain nonsense to believe that a different man — a better man —would have avoided war. Look at all the historians who said exactly that — historians who thought they were schooling him and were, in fact, expanding his power. But they thought they were so smart, so educated, so up in a high place looking down on him. It only caused them to make their Trump-empowering statements more passionate and emphatic.

I don't know if he did that on purpose. But didn't that just happen?

239 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 239 of 239

Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: For me it's not that he's old. It's that he thinks anyone gives any Fs when he goes to sleep.

Can you imagine if everyone here was constantly announcing meta info re their temporal cognitive state?

Exactly.

It's like he's going, "NURSE! I'M GETTING READY TO GO BEDDY-BYE!"

"PLEASE COME TUCK ME IN AND HAND ME THE LITTLE CUP FULL OF PILLS!"

He's something else entirely. Even other senior commenters aren't as transparently ridiculous.; 5/3/17, 10:57 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Well, shit, I was just gonna announce that I'm going to sleep, but now that you've called us out on it..

The way you do it is different.

It's just.. Different.; 5/3/17, 10:58 PM
Sprezzatura said...: exile,

I'm probably overly sensitive re folks saying that they're going to sleep because when I've got stuff to do my days are like today. I'll be lucky to wrap up before 2 am, then go home, and then I'll essentially U-turn because I stupidly scheduled a 6 am (though 9 am for the counterparty) call in the morning.

Sleep jealousy.; 5/3/17, 11:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Assuming deliberate intent to bring up this conversation, there are 3 possible angles - room to argue for a war in the event one needs to happen, or setting up for a possible "war averted" outcome with some major antagonist down the road are the two most likely. The third, somewhat darker option, is to remind that Civil War broke out because political discourse between the two opposing sides broke down entirely, not dissimilar to what is going on with the modern left toward the non-left, particularly on college campi. In that scenario, Democrats and the left take on the role of the rebels who cause war and violence to become inevitable.

If he planned it, he's probably gotten the reaction he intended since it seems the left - and particularly the media - are unable to see beyond Trump's most recent move and can't anticipate his next move. As anyone who has played chess more than a few times can attest, seemingly gotcha moves can very quickly turn into game-enders due to failure to study the board and figure out what the opponent is actually trying to do.; 5/3/17, 11:36 PM
chickelit said...: Any number of events could trigger California into going through with secession: These events include a prolonged, enforced, and effective crackdown on sanctuary cities; a reversal of CA's open borders policy with Mexico, and a reversal of Roe v. Wade (even though CA physicians could still practice unfettered abortion).; 5/3/17, 11:45 PM
0_0 said...: Many people could have prevented the Civil War.
The 3/5 compromise could've been "no vote, no Representative" (for women, too).
Henry Clay tried and failed. Senator Henry Foote of Mississippi stated that if a Hanry Clay had been in Congress in 1860-61-

there would have been no Civil War.; 5/4/17, 12:13 AM
Valentine Smith said...: The Industrial Revolution made the Civil War inevitable. But you needed a bloody-minded Lincoln to give it the form it took. Will the Digital Revolution precipitate the next Civil War and what form will it take? A; 5/4/17, 4:02 AM
Jaq said...: If the French had stood by us instead of selling their UN vote to Saddam, (he promised them a 25% concession on oil fields to be developed) and Saddam had been convinced that George W. Bush meant it, he probably would have gotten on a helicopter with his billions and lived like Baby Doc instead of being found in a spider hole and hanged.

The whole war might have been avoided, but too many people were determined to undermine Bush's credibility for that to happen.

I wonder if we offered Kim a trillion dollars and a nice place to live if he would take it?; 5/4/17, 6:09 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: It is not a stretch to say that Wilson is the single person most responsible for WWII or that he is responsible for prolonging the human suffering of WWI by a year or more.

Strong words John Henry. Can you provide a little foundation? We were scarcely in World War I for a year. For World War II, there's a certain one-balled house painter who would probably like to stand up for himself if he hadn't blown his brains out in 1945, though actually I happen to give his counterparty to the east a goodish amount of credit.; 5/4/17, 6:13 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Blogger Valentine Smith said...
The Industrial Revolution made the Civil War inevitable. But you needed a bloody-minded Lincoln to give it the form it took. Will the Digital Revolution precipitate the next Civil War and what form will it take? A
5/4/17, 4:02 AM

And what does that mean? Who would have done it in what other form? Admittedly Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan may have been the way to go, is that all that you mean?; 5/4/17, 6:15 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: TTR,
"Republicans are anti-social mammonites "

Actually, I've always been more of a legs-and-butt man.; 5/4/17, 6:22 AM
lonetown said...: Trump was probably walking down the hall, looking at pictures and rumped together something in his mind.

What disturbs me are so called historians who think they have the one and only version of events. They are like scientists who think science is settled. Both incompetent.; 5/4/17, 6:29 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Why would Trump need the permission of rando historians if he wants to start a war?"

He wouldn't. Congress would have to declare war, and, if the war was not a defensive necessity against an attacking foe, we would need approval by the UN Security Council.; 5/4/17, 7:15 AM
Robert Cook said...: "The whole war might have been avoided, but too many people were determined to undermine Bush's credibility for that to happen."

All that was necessary was for Bush to have decided not to attack/invade Iraq. Simple: No US invasion, no war!; 5/4/17, 7:19 AM
Michael K said...: "For me it's not that he's old. It's that he thinks anyone gives any Fs when he goes to sleep."

I don't "go to sleep" when I give up on your childish rants, you creep. There are these things called books and there are lots of other blogs that don't have juvenile dementia.

I am a little surprised that Ann allows this behavior but it is her blog. If she wants to entertain obscene angry commenters who sound like Stephen Colbert drunk, it is her choice.

I still think he must work the early shift at McDonalds as he seems to show up late in the day.

Actually, I was tired last night as I got up at 3:30 to drive to work.

Maybe Ritmo should get a better job than burger flipping.; 5/4/17, 8:24 AM
Michael K said...: "All that was necessary was for Bush to have decided not to attack/invade Iraq. Simple: No US invasion, no war!"

Except for that strange thing that happened to the WTC, Robert,.; 5/4/17, 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Michael,
The attack on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq.

Your man Trump tore into Jeb Bush about the mistake of invading Iraq during one of the those debates, don't you recall?; 5/4/17, 8:44 AM
Brando said...: I don't think this means what you think this means, Ann. Even most liberals agree that "some" wars must be fought--they usually point to WWII (the last "good war" in their minds) as an example of that, as they often did during the Iraq War (at least among those liberals who opposed the Iraq War). So why would getting them to defend the Civil War as another "good war that had to be fought" get them flat footed in opposing any war Trump fights? Their point was never that we can never go to war, it's that some wars are bad ideas.

And frankly, I agree with them on that sometimes. We absolutely should not be getting more involved in Syria, or Afghanistan. The problem was how so many liberals seemed ok with it when Obama was getting more involved in these same wars, simply because they trusted the guy doing it.

Stick with your other theory--Trump didn't think much about what he said, and ran off at the mouth, and everyone's going nuts over it like they always do. But his actual statement wasn't all wrong (except maybe the "no one asked" part--that was just verbal seepage, not worth addressing). Even "good" wars should be examined to see if there may have been a better way. Because even if the Civil War destroyed secession and slavery, it was a steep price to pay. Why not ask whether we could have learned something about avoiding it?; 5/4/17, 9:03 AM
dreams said...: I don't know if that was the reason either but Trump unlike historians has spent his life in business competing with others which has honed his ability to anticipate his competition thereby making him a more foresighted person, I think.

As to historians, my opinion of them, including David McCullough has diminished after watching this Q&A with David McCullough by Brian Lamb.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?426887-1/qa-david-mccullough; 5/4/17, 9:16 AM
Paddy O said...: Taking advantage of historicism; 5/4/17, 9:18 AM
Michael K said...: Blogger Inga said...
Michael,
The attack on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq.

I have debated the Iraq invasion with educated people in other forums. The fact that the 9/11 attack happened meant we were at war.

You may have preferred that Al Gore spent years trying to deliver an arrest warrant for bin Laden but the facts are the facts.

"The Path to 9/11 " DVD is now available since Hillary lost and Disney appears to have given up hiding it. Why don't you watch it ?; 5/4/17, 9:53 AM
John henry said...: Blogger Bad Lieutenant said...

It is not a stretch to say that Wilson is the single person most responsible for WWII or that he is responsible for prolonging the human suffering of WWI by a year or more.

Strong words John Henry. Can you provide a little foundation?

Most historians agree that WWII was basically WWI part 2. Speaking strictly of the European portion, not Japan.

The argument that some historians make about Wilson is that by the time of US entry, both sides had beaten themselves silly. Had we not entered, the opposing sides would have negotiated a peace. Probably not as favorable to Britain and France and US bankers but some kind of peace.

Had this happened, WWII would have been unnecessary.

Because Wilson dragged us, kicking and screaming, into the war Germany was beaten and the horrible Versailles Treaty imposed on it. That would have made Hitler's rise unlikely, would have stifled many of the reasons for WWII.

I say kicking and screaming in both WWI and WWII because very few Americans supported US entry into either war. In November 1941, polls were 70-80% against our involvement. I don't know there were any polls in 1916 or so but sentiment was very high against our involvement. Wilson's main campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war"

Many Americans in 1916 were immigrants or at most had grandparents who had come from Europe. They had come to the US to avoid getting caught up in the kind of bullshit that European rulers and pols had been getting them killed in for centuries.

So, it's a hypothetical and I am not even sure how strong a hypothetical it is. But I can see the argument that if WWI had been allowed to run its course, without US involvement, WWII would not have happened.

Quick: How many people here know why we were involved in WWI? What dog did we have in that fight? What US interests were we fighting for?

John Henry; 5/4/17, 10:30 AM
John henry said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5/4/17, 10:36 AM
John henry said...: Speaking of WWI, last week I watched PBS' The American Experience on US involvement in WWI. 3 2 hour episodes.

It did not address the point I made above about our involvement causing WWI but it did cover a lot of ground. One of the most interesting parts, for me, was the propaganda war within the US and the anti-sedition act.

People were getting lynched (killed) not for opposing the war but for not actively supporting it. The Washington Post wrote approvingly about the lynching of an Olahoma farmer who would not buy war bonds. I knew a lot of this but there were some details I had not realized

Very interesting program. Available for free, though I don't know for how long, at www.pbs.org

John Henry; 5/4/17, 10:37 AM
Brando said...: "So, it's a hypothetical and I am not even sure how strong a hypothetical it is. But I can see the argument that if WWI had been allowed to run its course, without US involvement, WWII would not have happened."

I think it's a reasonable argument. Churchill might have said something to that effect. But it's also possible if Germans felt their country got the worst of the postwar deal (even if it had been less unfavorable than Versailles) it might have enabled Hitler as well.

In any event, we had no business in that war and Wilson deserves a lot more discredit than he gets for it. I think we lost more Americans there than we did in Vietnam, with nothing to gain for the U.S. or for our allies (except a brief reprieve until WWII).; 5/4/17, 10:47 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: What was so bad about the Versailles Treaty? They deserved it, plus it was less harsh than various treaties imposed upon the French by the Germans. Versailles didn't ruin the German economy.

Of course the mistake was in not marching to Berlin and hanging the Kaiser. But by then everyone was tired and wanted a nap. And to be fair, they got about twenty years of nap time out of the deal.; 5/4/17, 11:15 AM
Brando said...: "What was so bad about the Versailles Treaty? They deserved it, plus it was less harsh than various treaties imposed upon the French by the Germans. Versailles didn't ruin the German economy."

It was bad from the Germans' standpoint, just as Germany's peace after the Franco-Prussian War was bad for the French--and in both cases led to unfinished business. If you're going to impose a peace like that, you'd better commit to holding the vanquished country down. If you don't do that, don't be too surprised when they come at you again.

By the '30s the French were in the worst of all worlds--having imposed a treaty on Germany that pissed off the Germans (even those not inclined towards the Nazis) while losing the will to crack down when Germany reoccupied the Rhineland or added new territory or rebuilt its military in violation of the treaty.; 5/4/17, 11:31 AM
James K said...: I wonder if we offered Kim a trillion dollars and a nice place to live if he would take it?

No reason to take it, since he sees himself as both filthy rich and invincible given that he has the threat to drop a nuke.; 5/4/17, 11:41 AM
John henry said...: Re Versailles, we could have lots of discussion about it. One of the things we could discuss would be whether WWII: The Pacific would have happened had the Japanese not been denigrated and seriously disrespected as racially inferior at Versailles. By Wilson as well as others.

There is a great book called Paris:1919 (I think) and a multi-part documentary (on NetFlix I think) of the same name that covers it in depth. I recommend both.

As to Germany, regardless of the merits, it was seen in Germany as a giant slap in the German face. Hitler used it as a tool to beat more moderate politicians into the ground.

If anyone here has not watched Triumph of the Will, you should do so. It is one Helluva a movie. Available free on the net. YouTube, I think NetFlix.

Sure, TOTW is propaganda. Sure it is somewhat over the top. But it worked. Versaille, true or false, was a tool used to stir up German sentiment that led directly to Hitler and WWII.

John Henry; 5/4/17, 11:48 AM
Michael K said...: So, it's a hypothetical and I am not even sure how strong a hypothetical it is. But I can see the argument that if WWI had been allowed to run its course, without US involvement, WWII would not have happened.

Quick: How many people here know why we were involved in WWI? What dog did we have in that fight? What US interests were we fighting for?

Interesting speculation. I have thought about this many times. I told a friend of mine, a retired British army doctor, that we should have stayed out. He was shocked so I added that they should have, too.

They had more provocation, with the German High Seas Fleet (I hope everyone has read "Dreadnaught," the best explanation of the war I have seen.) and the atrocious treatment of Belgium.

I have been listening to the audio of "Dead Wake," the story of the Lusitania sinking. I had not realized that Wilson was dopey in love with his second wife, Edith Galt, who would run the country after his stroke in 1919. His great love was right at the time of the Lusitania sinking and the world crisis.

I consider the Kaiser the #1 war criminal and he should have been hung by the allies after the war.

Without his lack of judgement, there probably would have been no war.

Had the Germans used better judgement, we would probably not have gotten into it.

Yesterday, on my commute to Phoenix, I was listening to a new audio book, "D-Day Through German Eyes, very interesting book. It was written by a man whose grandfather had been a Wehrmacht magazine writer and who had interviewed troops manning the defenses in Normandy in early 1944. After the war, the grandfather had found many of the men he had interviewed, and who had survived the war, and interviewed them again.

The grandfather died and the grandson finished the book. In one interview, just as the Omaha Beach invasion is arriving, an older German soldier turns to the young man later interviewed and said, "How do you like Hitler's decision to declare war on the US, now ?" He added that the US might have stayed preoccupied with Japan except that Hitler declared war. As he said it, American troops were surrounding the "Resistance Point" they were defending.

Interesting comment in the heat of battle.; 5/4/17, 11:58 AM
Michael K said...: I read "Paris 1919" several years ago and it is good.

Somewhere, I have read some interesting information about the French ambassador to Russia and his role in the war.

France was not innocent. They were interested in revenge for 1870.; 5/4/17, 12:02 PM
Brando said...: "They had more provocation, with the German High Seas Fleet (I hope everyone has read "Dreadnaught," the best explanation of the war I have seen.) and the atrocious treatment of Belgium."

Part of the problem was that the Germans didn't think invading Belgium would be enough to commit the British to war. That, and the Germans figured the French would fall a lot quicker.

But if the British had less strong reasons for entering that war, America had no good reason at all. Arguably it protected foreign markets, but would we have really lacked trading partners if Germany had won and gotten another piece of France?; 5/4/17, 12:05 PM
Brando said...: "I consider the Kaiser the #1 war criminal and he should have been hung by the allies after the war."

He may have deserved it, but that would certainly have given Germans a strong grievance against the Allies and made him a martyr. Better that he exiled into disgrace knowing he blundered into ending his dynasty. Though by leaving he left the Weimar Republic the unenviable task of accepting a harsh treaty and trying to govern a country in turmoil.

"France was not innocent. They were interested in revenge for 1870."

Yep--in many ways I'd put the blame on them as much as on Germany. They wanted blood too.; 5/4/17, 12:08 PM
Robert Cook said...: "'All that was necessary was for Bush to have decided not to attack/invade Iraq. Simple: No US invasion, no war!'

"Except for that strange thing that happened to the WTC, Robert."

What is the connection between 9/11 and Iraq?

ZILCH!

The 9/11 attacks did not warrant starting any war anywhere, as they were not planned or mounted by any state entities, but by stateless terrorists. The proper response would have been long-term infiltration of Al Qaeda or people connected to them in order to arrest as many of the individuals involved as could be found. The course we chose--a course the neoconservatives had long wanted to choose for their own reasons--has had the inevitable outcome: utter and ongoing failure.; 5/4/17, 12:40 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I have debated the Iraq invasion with educated people in other forums. The fact that the 9/11 attack happened meant we were at war."

With whom? What state entity? Where do we invade? Do we just pick a country (or countries, as it turned out) at random?

If there was wrong-headed decision to attack Afghanistan--even though the people and government there had nothing to do with 9/11--because bin Laden and his crew happened to be physically located there at that time, (though swiftly escaping once our attack commenced), what rationale connected 9/11 to Iraq?

ZILCH!; 5/4/17, 12:48 PM
Michael K said...: America had no good reason at all. Arguably it protected foreign markets, but would we have really lacked trading partners if Germany had won and gotten another piece of France?

I agree. German atrocities in Belgium were pretty bad an stirred up a lot of sentiment.

Teddy Roosevelt was also beating war drums. Without his monumental ego we would never have had the fascist Wilson.

even though the people and government there had nothing to do with 9/11--because bin Laden and his crew happened to be physically located there at that time, (though swiftly escaping once our attack commenced), what rationale connected 9/11 to Iraq?

The Taliban supported him and his camps. That was something to do with it.

With Iraq, you have a point but you can go to the debate at Chicagoboyz and see the argument.

I'm not going to repeat it here, especially as I think you have a closed mind on those matters.; 5/4/17, 1:01 PM
gadfly said...: Trump may never take us to war, but he wants his options. He wants to be able to say We have to do it, we have no choice and to assert that it's not his personal failure to avert war.

Where did the idea come from self-loving Donald that he allows the thought of failure to cross his mind? To speculate that Trump means other than what he said is exactly why his so-called populism has taken over the minds of those citizens looking for change. And while it is not true that the sine qua non of a politician is the ability to lie or over-promise his voters, it is essential that he have some sense of personal reflection when he is acting in this fashion.

But the audience and the sound of his voice spewing a nonsensical stream of consciousness from the speakers that leads The Donald to his brash and insensitive actions. Talking down to anyone that he has disagreement with from afar, only to love this person after a face to face meeting and then back to hate when the sun sets is a sickness folks - not a demonstration of leadership.; 5/4/17, 2:37 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "The attack on the WTC had nothing to do with Iraq."

I have debated the Iraq invasion with educated people in other forums. The fact that the 9/11 attack happened meant we were at war.

You may have preferred that Al Gore spent years trying to deliver an arrest warrant for bin Laden but the facts are the facts.

How much kookier a response can you come up with. She's talking about a specific country. Did the fact that Archduke Ferdinand get assassinated mean that Tonga was at war? And what about the stake that Greenland held in the War of 1812. Maybe American Samoa couldn't afford to be spared in the Peloponnesian War.

You're a really deep thinker, Michael K.; 5/4/17, 5:12 PM
Robert Cook said...: "You may have preferred that Al Gore spent years trying to deliver an arrest warrant for bin Laden...."

This actually would have been the far better--and legal--choice.; 5/4/17, 10:08 PM