Andrew Jackson, the Civil War, and Trumpistory
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I know for a fact that if I were almost constantly being recorded I’d sound like an idiot now and then.
Ok, actually, I’d sound like an idiot MOST of the time.
That’s why I like writing: there’s time to edit. So as much as I miss Obama’s casual eloquence, I’m completely aware that misspelling “potato” or referring to your “brown baby” grandchildren might not equate to being the worst elected official ever.
So when a public official says something that makes my brain bubble in a particularly bad way, I try to step back and think, “ok… what were they trying to say?” And in some cases, I think what they were trying to say isn’t as bad as what actually came out of their mouths.
I’m starting to sound like an apologist. I’m not. Just keep reading.
So, a few days ago, Trump said some pretty dumb-sounding stuff about Andrew Jackson and the Civil War. In case you haven’t heard it or seen it, here’s a transcript:
TRUMP: They said my campaign is most like, my campaign and win was most like Andrew Jackson with his campaign. And I said, “When was Andrew Jackson?” It was 1828. That’s a long time ago. That’s Andrew Jackson. And he had a very, very mean and nasty campaign. Because they said this was the meanest and the nastiest. And unfortunately it continues.
ZITO: His wife died.
TRUMP: His wife died. They destroyed his wife and she died. And, you know, he was a swashbuckler. But when his wife died, you know, he visited her grave every day. I visited her grave actually, because I was in Tennessee.
ZITO: Oh, that’s right, you were in Tennessee.
TRUMP: And it was amazing. The people of Tennessee are amazing people. Well, they love Andrew Jackson. They love Andrew Jackson in Tennessee.
ZITO: Yeah, he’s a fascinating —
TRUMP: 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, and 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, you think about it, why?
ZITO: Yeah —
TRUMP: People don’t ask that question. But why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?
For the sake of brevity, I’ll put aside the absolutely terrifying grammar and style — or lack thereof — that most 6th graders could improve upon.
First of all, some people are saying that Trump inferred that Andrew Jackson lived during or right before the Civil War and I have to be honest — I don’t see that. He does clearly say “had Andrew Jackson been a little later…” I think he knows that Andrew Jackson “was” 1828[1] and the Civil War was… later.
But then he says that Andrew Jackson was “really angry…with regard to the Civil War” — that Jackson thought there was “no reason for [it.]” How do we make this jibe with the previous sentence about the Civil War being “later”?
I think (emphasis on “think”) Trump is trying to say that Jackson wanted to avoid conflict over the issue of slavery and, about that, Trump is correct. In fact, most Presidents and elected officials before the Civil War felt similarly about sectional conflict over slavery: by and large, the goal of most federal-level politicians until 1861 was to keep the country together and to avoid Civil War. That includes Abraham Lincoln (at first, at least).[2]
If you read about Jackson’s views on slavery, Trump’s comments make more sense (if you kind of squint and twist your head in a funny direction). As Historian Henry F. Graff explains on Jackson and slavery:
[Jackson] thought that by maintaining sectional calm, Providence would, in time, somehow eradicate the evil. Indeed, he generally perceived the growing slavery controversy as artificial and political, with both abolitionists and southern extremists seeking to divide the Union to serve their separate ends. The permanency of the Union and the American experiment in liberty went hand in hand; both were directly threatened by agitation over slavery.[3]
When Trump said that Jackson was “really angry…with regard to the Civil War” — that there was “no reason for [it]” — I think Trump was trying to express the above, much more eloquent and frankly much more complex idea about Jackson’s policies and views on slavery.
Do I think that Trump truly understands the complexity of Jackson’s beliefs about slavery? No. Not for a second. Heck, I’m not even sure I understand the complexity of Jackson’s beliefs about slavery.[4] But if you have a superficial understanding of Jacksonsian ideology (including but not limited to slavery), I can see how you might say that Jackson was pissed about people “bickering” about slavery (and make the weird mistake of substituting “Civil War” for “slavery”) and leave it at that.
As an historian, my role usually stops at the end of the last paragraph. Mine is a job of understanding — not judging. It’s not the historian’s place to say “Jackson was a morally corrupt slave-owning asshole.”[5] I put the puzzle pieces together. It’s up to you to decide whether or not you like the picture it makes.
But lucky for me, this is not a submission to a professional historical journal.
Because, folks, we’ve got a problem.
Trump thinks it’s cool that Jackson didn’t want anyone to argue about slavery. Trump talks about Jackson’s thoughts on slavery as if everyone was at each other’s throats and Jackson came in and was all kumbayah and wanted to everyone to be friends and not fight.
Yo, Trump! Jackson didn’t want anyone arguing about slavery — let alone a war over it — not because he was a long-haired peace-loving hippy who just wanted everyone to get along. DUDE OWNED SLAVES HIMSELF. A lot of them.
And this is where I step out of my historian shoes and go from putting pieces together to looking at the picture those pieces have made and I say: dude, that’s MESSED. UP.
Let me be clear:
Trump is essentially saying that he thinks Jackson was awesome for wanting to keep everyone from discussing slavery in order that Jackson and other Southerners could retain their political power and their racially hierarchical society.
So. That leaves us with two possibilities, vis a vis what Trump thinks he’s saying.
Worst case scenario:
Trump fully understands this and still thinks Jackson is great and loves being compared to Jackson.
I don’t think I need to explain why this is terribly problematic in the 21st century.
Best case scenario:
Trump doesn’t have a clue what he’s really saying.
This is entirely possible. We know for a fact that Trump often confuses a superficial understanding of a complex topic with being an expert on said topic:
· “I know more about the Middle East and ISIS than all the generals.”[6]
· “Who knew healthcare was so complex?!”[7]
· “I thought being President was going to be easier than selling real estate.”[8]
· …I could go on paraphrasing the President but you get the idea.
Look, we all gloss at times. But there’s a difference between knowing you’re glossing and thinking you’re an expert when you’re glossing. And if you’re Joe Guy and you like to pontificate on the value of drinking ionized water every now and then — whatever, dude. But if you’re POTMFUS — glossing is a bad thing. Glossing and thinking you’re the shit — well, that’s a TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE thing. Sad. (For all of us.)
Because when you’re President, what you say matters. It creates domestic and foreign policy. It changes markets. It makes enemies out of friends and friends out of enemies.
And it makes it sound like you think a slave owning, Native-American murdering, by all accounts JERK, is someone to emulate.
Most of us know that championing the “Founding Fathers” is a tricky thing. George Washington owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson — well, he did lots of things with his slaves. John Hancock was a pirate and a pretty insufferable self-aggrandizing capitalist in the worst sense of the word. But they did some good stuff too. I mean, that Declaration of Independence thing was a doozy, you know? So most of us know that people are complex — especially historical figures. Few are all good or all bad, the way we want them to be. And the same is true of Andrew Jackson. I’m sure he had some redeeming characteristics.
But to publicly state that, essentially, Andrew Jackson wanted to “keep the peace,” is either evidence that you are a racist who thinks no one should have fought to end slavery or its evidence that you are a complete fool.
Which one is it, Mr. President?
And THAT is the problem with Trump’s understanding of history, which I have come to call “Trumpistory.” His lack of an in-depth understanding — or even an acknowledgement that he isn’t an expert on a particular subject — leaves us with few good options regarding his intellectual beliefs and / or capability.
Citations
[1] For the curious, Andrew Jackson was born in 1767, died in 1845, and served as POTUS from 1829–1837. The Civil War began in 1861 and ended in 1865.
[2] And for many politicians, especially in the 1830s and 1840s, the way the keep the peace was to not talk about slavery. At all. Some cities had laws that forbid discussing slavery in public, because it tended to lead to public fights. Even the House of Representatives bought into this idea. Beginning in 1835 (no coincidence), the House had a rule that slavery or any House business that dealt with slavery would be tabled — that means not debated or discussed. The rule was finally revoked in 1844 (http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-House-of-Representatives-instituted-the-%E2%80%9Cgag-rule%E2%80%9D/)
[3] http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Washington-Johnson/Andrew-Jackson-Slavery.html
[4] And let’s not forget: these complexities included the fact that Jackson owned a whole bunch of slaves. A lot of them. So he literally had a vested interest in not getting rid of slavery right away.
[5] Besides, once we do our analysis, it’s pretty clear who the assholes are so we generally don’t need to go out of our way to point it out anyhow.
[6] Who says that?! Really???
[7] DUDE. EVERYONE. EVERYONE KNEW HEALTHCARE WAS SO COMPLEX.
[8] OMG. I can’t even.
