In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Sean Hannity and Trump's asking
kimi
Member Posts: 44,719 ✭✭✭
Why about the War of Northern Aggression.
I'm disappointed that Hannity did not cover this issue last night. Do you think he will bring this subject up on his show tonight?
I'm disappointed that Hannity did not cover this issue last night. Do you think he will bring this subject up on his show tonight?
What's next?
Comments
You're shocked that a tv/radio host who is a fan of Trump gives him a softball interview? He knows if he gives Trump a real hard question interview that Trump will just take his ball and go home(like he did this weekend in an interview). This POTUS has the thinnest skin of any politician I've ever seen. I don't have cable tv so I didn't see it but did he even ask about this bs budget?
I think you missed the point of my post. When was the last time you witnessed a president asking "why" we had the War of Northern Aggression. I can answer that for you, I think...like "never." Here we have a New Yorker in Trump that has just shocked the world with such a question...when they all know it was to simply free the slaves. Trump is intelligent enough to not only know there were a lot of reasons as to why the war was fought, and he is quite obviously prepared to expose the tyrant Lincoln, albeit with gentle hands. I'm wondering if Sean Hannity is going to tackle such a risky subject by addressing this very same question.
I think the POTUS was seeking just this, a desire to learn.
Anyone who comes into the discussion from the point of view that it was all about "Slavery" is trying to end the debate, and is close minded about all other matters involving the War between the States.
To the victors go the spoils, and the victors also get to write the history. This aspect has caused most American history books to leave out anything but slavery as being the reason the war happened.
While no one can say slavery was a good thing, and it surely needed to end, it didn't become a matter worth fighting for by the average US soldier until the POTUS (Lincoln) passed the Emancipation Proclamation three years after the war had already been raging.
The average US Soldier now had a something they felt was worth fighting for (other just trying to keep the Union intact), and that was fighting for a man's freedom. Up to this point a lot of the conscripted US fighting men felt that the South should have been allowed to go their own way.
While, on the flip side the average Southern fighting man couldn't have cared less about slavery, didn't even own slaves, but they were not about to allow the US Government to tell them they couldn't do something.
When you peel this onion back you can't help but see where the Southern population was taken advantage of by their fat/rich political representation, and the rich business owners who had many financial holdings in the South. To them they needed slavery, so they framed desentshion to appear to the Southern Population that the North was trying to shove change down their throats for the North's benefit.
This concept still to this day rubs a Southerner the wrong way.
So was ending slavery the reason the war started?
No, but it was one of the main reasons, and it has over time rose to a higher rung on the historical ladder.
It's success immediately caused problems for the country. What to do with all the free slaves that now had nowhere to go, or no jobs to keep them prosperous? Most were not allowed to move North, and were kept down South where many Southerners who were angered by having this shoved upon them, held the freed black slave in contempt.
IMHO...[B)]
Trinity +++
I don't think Hannity will go there, but the question "Why?" invokes healthy debate about the topic if those who bother to comment actually do so with a sincere desire to learn from the answer they seek, and not clutter up the conversation with all the random crap that has been leached down through the ages as a factual historical account of all things about the War of Northern Aggression .
I think the POTUS was seeking just this, a desire to learn.
Anyone who comes into the discussion from the point of view that it was all about "Slavery" is trying to end the debate, and is close minded about all other matters involving the War between the States.
To the victors go the spoils, and the victors also get to write the history. This aspect has caused most American history books to leave out anything but slavery as being the reason the war happened.
While no one can say slavery was a good thing, and it surely needed to end, it didn't become a matter worth fighting for by the average US soldier until the POTUS (Lincoln) passed the Emancipation Proclamation three years after the war had already been raging.
The average US Soldier now had a something they felt was worth fighting for (other just trying to keep the Union intact), and that was fighting for a man's freedom. Up to this point a lot of the conscripted US fighting men felt that the South should have been allowed to go their own way.
While, on the flip side the average Southern fighting man couldn't have cared less about slavery, didn't even own slaves, but they were not about to allow the US Government to tell them they couldn't do something.
When you peel this onion back you can't help but see where the Southern population was taken advantage of by their fat/rich political representation, and the rich business owners who had many financial holdings in the South. To them they needed slavery, so they framed desentshion to appear to the Southern Population that the North was trying to shove change down their throats for the North's benefit.
This concept still to this day rubs a Southerner the wrong way.
So was ending slavery the reason the war started?
No, but it was one of the main reasons, and it has over time rose to a higher reign on the historical ladder.
It's success immediately caused problems for the country. What to do with all the free slaves that now had nowhere to go, or no jobs to keep them prosperous? Most were not allowed to move North, and were kept down South where many Southerners who were angered by having this shoved upon them, held the freed black slave in contempt.
IMHO...[B)]
Trinity +++
On the whole, a great post TS! Thanks.
Should Hannity find the gumption to tackle the subject in earnest, it might well be the single biggest opportunity he'll ever have to make people from all walks of life stand up and take notice about a subject that has been taboo in politics and the fake news media.