That’s a long time ago
David Graham at the Atlantic on Trump’s history lesson:
“I said, ‘When was Andrew Jackson?’ It was 1828, that’s a long time ago, that was Andrew Jackson,” Trump said, a sign that the history to follow would be somewhat shaky. Reminiscing about a visit to Tennessee in March, Trump continued:
I mean had Andrew Jackson been a little later you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. He was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War, he said, “There’s no reason for this.” People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, if you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question, but why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?
I italicize “really” because that’s how he says it.
On an historical level, Trump’s remarks are full of problems. It is difficult to know what the president means when he says that Jackson “was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War.” Jackson died in 1845, 16 years before the war began, though the challenge to national unity posed by slavery was clear by then. It’s possible Trump is referring to the Nullification Crisis, a conflict between the federal government and the state of South Carolina.
No it isn’t. That would be a possible interpretation of what Trump said, in the abstract, but it’s not possible that it’s what Trump was referring to. Trump’s references to history are on the level of “very tough” and “big heart” and “Honest Abe.”
It is difficult to imagine that Jackson, as a Southern slaveholder and defender of slavery, would have been willing to stand against the South in the event of a civil war. But that’s ultimately beside the point: Even if he had, such a position would likely have stood little chance of preventing the war, which flowed from the Southern commitment to slavery.
Trump’s assertion that Jackson could have staved war off is a manifestation of Trump’s central, and perhaps only truly committed, political beliefs: a faith in the power of strength, and a faith in the power of dealmaking. It is why the president rushed to congratulate Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on a referendum empowering him and sapping democracy; it is why he is so fond of Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi; and it is why on Sunday he invited the vicious Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte to the White House.
What I’m saying. That’s his level of understanding. It’s the level of a fan of “reality” tv – it’s all about personalities. He thinks it’s all-important that he “likes” Xi; he thinks Obama “likes” him; he thinks it matters which heads of state he “likes” or doesn’t “like.” He can’t understand anything more complicated than that. He’s not a bright man.
It’s perfectly possible that Trump, despite attending good private schools in New York and then graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, is, like many Americans, ill-served by his education when it comes to the Civil War. Many Americans are still taught, incorrectly, that the war was essentially a conflict over state’s rights, with abolition as a byproduct of the war. This revisionist view flourished after the war, and though gradually being displaced, is common across the country. (Many erroneous beliefs about the war remain similarly common. In 2016, Coates and others criticized Hillary Clinton for her historically faulty gloss on Reconstruction, rooted in the revisionist “Dunning School” approach.)
I was taught Reconstruction that way. Fortunately I later read Eric Foner and David Oshinsky and learned better. Trump of course didn’t sit around reading history, he was too busy building a fraudulent real estate empire.
Recent presidents make great show of their reading of history. Bill Clinton went on the Today show in 2011 to recommend a set of dense historical tomes. George W. Bush released reading lists full of historical works during his presidency, and he told Jay Leno in 2013, “I did what I did and ultimately history will judge.” One book Bush read in the White House was Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals, a selection he shared with Barack Obama, who liked the book so much that he depicted his own cabinet, including former primary opponent Hillary Clinton, as a “team of rivals.”
Trump’s attempt to replicate this plays as caricature. Had the president read Goodwin’s book, it’s difficult to imagine he would have made the statement he did today. Trump has betrayed a weak grasp on American history, and in particular mid-19th century history, on several occasions. In February, he posted a fake Lincoln quote to Twitter. Marking Black History Month, Trump delivered a perplexing paean to a great abolitionist that suggested he believed the man was still alive: “Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice.” In March, speaking about the most famous Republican president in history, Trump said, “Most people don’t even know he was a Republican.”
That’s his solipsism yet again. He means he didn’t know until someone told him, so he assumes most people didn’t know. He underestimates us.
I find it astounding how many people were taught that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. That was front and center in my education, and I always assumed everyone was given that story. I never heard about it being about state’s rights until my doctoral program (which wasn’t in history) when one of my friends was talking about how wonderful it was for the slaves, how well they were treated, and oh, by the way, his grandfather owned slaves, so he knows.
Is it possible that Oklahoma schools aren’t as awful as everyone thinks? Or was it just the school system I went through, where the school assumes more than 80% of their graduates will go to college, and try to prep them appropriately? But…that town is so conservative, and grew extremely rapidly after Oklahoma City was desegregated – white flight of the wealthy filled our town with rich assholes who felt they had a right to kick out all the old homesteaders (like my family) who had built the town in the first place. Who knows? It is a weird place, so maybe getting the Civil War right is just one of their oddities.
I did get the standard view of Reconstruction, though.
Hell, in Tennessee (of all places) we were taught that it was a war to end slavery… it’s one reason why child me thought that the Republican party was Good Aligned. It wasn’t until I got to college that are started hearing the states rights revisionism.
I won’t be so rude as to ask WHEN you were taught “the Civil War was fought to end slavery”, I’ll just add that in WA, I was taught that as well, in the late ’70’s – early ’80’s. Seems to me a lot of revisionist history has happened since then.
Also, I just reviewed the articles behind the concept that “Clinton represented a racist version of Reconstruction”, and I didn’t really see that her comment represented the “Dunning School”. I was taught, perhaps more by our instructor than our history book, that Reconstruction failed due to BOTH exploitative profiteers as well as an angry racist backlash. The emphasis was on the angry racist backlash.
In elementary school I was taught the Civil War was fought to end slavery and that Reconstruction was bad because of “carpetbaggers.” This was West Virginia, mid 80’s to early 90’s. Then we moved to Pennsylvania, and it was in high school (mid to late 90’s) that we were taught that the Civil War was fought because of slavery AND states rights AND economics. But I was also taught that “greedy carpetbaggers plundered the south during Reconstruction” was largely a myth. So I don’t know if there was some revisionism going on there, or if they thought that older students should be taught a more “complex” version of history, or what.
Well, it was about states’ rights. The states’ “rights” to maintain the institution of slavery.
Andrew Jackson had a big heart. Andrew Jacksn. Andrew “Trail of Tears” Jackson had a big heart.
Fucking amazing.
They really have to stop cutting Trump slack. So much fail. My cup runneth over.
1) ” that’s a long time ago” actually pleasantly surprised that he did not finish this phrase with “in a galaxy far, far away.”
2)” It’s possible Trump is referring to the Nullification Crisis, a conflict between the federal government and the state of South Carolina.” HAHAHAHAHAHA! Ooooh, that’s a good one!
3)”It’s perfectly possible that Trump…is….. ill-served by his education when it comes to the Civil War.” I’m thinking that should be the other way around. Trump’s education is ill served by Trump. Whatever he was taught, little of it would have stuck. Even if his instructors were presenting a completely accurate interpretation of the Civil War and Reconstruction, Trump’s poor grasp of history (and disregard for facts in general) would guarantee that it would have been forgotten and replaced by a level of understanding that would make the worst network historical drama look like profound scholarship.
4)”Trump’s attempt to replicate this plays as caricature.” Wait. Could Trump even think of replicating this?
5)” Had the president read Goodwin’s book,(HAHAHAHA!…sorry, I can’t help it) it’s difficult to imagine he would have made the statement he did today.” Our days are now filled with Trump making statements that are difficult to imagine he would make, until he makes them. The bar of expectations is now set so low that it has left the mantle far behind and is moving swiftly to Earth’s molten iron core.)
60 “Trump has betrayed a weak grasp on American history, and in particular mid-19th century history, on several occasions.” Weak? That assumes a grasp at all. Trump has no grasp on FACTS or even REALITY. How would he have any mental space left for something that, for him, is so remote and esoteric as mid-19th century ANYTHING? This is a man who has little grasp of what he himself said last week and who can be converted, however briefly, to a new version of historical and diplomatic reality in the course of a ten minute conversation over dessert, with the dessert being considered of equal import and significance in his recollection of the occasion.
This is the norm. Person says stupid things? Person has been to school, any school? Blame the teachers. It’s always the teachers.
I am a teacher. I refuse to take credit for Trump’s ignorance. I also refuse to take credit for ignorance of my own students if that ignorance was instilled by someone else, who saw them more than the 45 50-minute hours of their life that I had a chance with them.
DON’T BLAME THE TEACHERS! Even Obama couldn’t resist – of course, there are good teachers, he said, as if that were not the norm. No, the proper statement is, of course, there are bad teachers – just like there are bad plumbers, bad doctors, bad lawyers…and bad presidents.
Trump had every opportunity in the world, and chose to remain ignorant and clueless. HE did it, not his teachers, not the education system, not the schools, which have graduated out many fine thinkers, including our previous president. How is it possible the same educational system could graduate a Barack Obama and a Donald Trump? To me, the only question is…how the hell did he manage to graduate in the first place? Who did his work for him?
Trump continues to express his surprise at how “hard” and how much effort and work his current job demands. Had he availed himself the opportunity to study just a tiny bit of history (or even the job description) of the presidency, he would not have been surprised. Like someone buying a lottery ticket hoping for wealth without effort, he simultaneously expects the powers of a dictator and the responsibilities of a figurehead. On top of all that he thinks he’s entitled to a big scoop of unearned respect and adulation. He keeps on telling us HE WON. Trump won that lottery and he is frustrated that he has been saddled with the hard work of an elected executive with much less real power than he still thinks he should have and not nearly as much “acclaim” that does not originate inside his tidy mind. How many presidential (or gubernatorial, or mayoral…) victory speeches have said words to the effect that while the campaign was hard fought, “the real work starts tomorrow!” Cliche but surely true.
Graham gives Trump too much benefit of nonexistent doubt and does his readers a disservice by reaching for and suggesting extremely unlikely connections and parallels that Trump could not possibly be making. Bending over backwards in an effort to be “fair” distorts the truth and gives him more respect and cover than he deserves. Trump is a willfully ignorant know-nothing who thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, is frighteningly easy to flatter and who mistakes common courtesy and civility with mutual agreement, mutual respect, and deep friendship.
There are invertebrates that exhibit more forethought and a higher capacity for learning and recall than the lump in the Oval Office.
Typo alert: “tidy mind” should read “tiny mind.”
That is all.
Carry on.
Is it possible that Trump’s man-crush might have a lot to do with his ‘Stonewall’ nickname? Maybe we could afford
….him the same honour and rename him Donald ‘No Wall’ Trump.